This is a question that I was hoping to ask Dr. Taylor during class because it seems to me (and I am by no means claim to be an expert) that the definitions that were given in class for metaphysical knowledge and scientific knowledge are more reflective of a Cartesian/Baconian (aka - modern) view of knowledge than a more traditional view of metaphysics and science. Descartes' goal was to have clear and distinct ideas that were indubitable; the type of knowledge that's provided in math. This is why Jacques Maritain accused him of angelism. He didn't accept/appreciate the proper role of the body in knowing reality. To know reality is the goal of metaphysics as I understand it, so the metaphysician can never do metaphysics in a disembodied way that does not depend on direct human experience. The way this relates to the question that I posted is that I am wondering if Dr .Taylor would agree that what is needed in order to properly do metaphysics or science is to have been formed in one's early life and throughout one's life by poetic knowledge. In order to speculate (do metaphysics) about what being is, it would be best if you have first been enchanted by particular beings. One reason why I think this question is important is if metaphysics is just about first principles and clear and distinct ideas then I'd agree that reading about is boring, but I am by no means bored when I read metaphysicians like Norris Clark, Etienne Gilson, or David Schindler. Their writings have helped me to see truth so that I can thereby love truth more fully. It's definitely an experience of both the head and the heart. I apologize for the long post; I'll do my best to be more brief in the future. I am also wondering if Dr. Taylor would prefer us to refer to him as Br. James now that he's a novice?