Metaphysics does its job perfectly well but you have to realise there are different approaches to it, by one of which it is useless.

Are there philosophers who have defended metaphysics and in what fashion have they attempted to this?

There are many. I would be one.

Briefly, the situation is this. Metaphysics proves that all positive metaphysical theories do not work. They give rise to fatal contradictions. This would be the reason why so many philosophers follow Russell and Carnap and reject metaphysics as a source of knowledge. Meanwhile the Perennialists argue that all these theories are false, which explains their failure in logic, and it is to the eternal credit of metaphysics that it does not endorse any of them.

Thus we have a choice as metaphysicians. We can believe it is incomprehensible and useless, or we can believe it is a proof of the doctrine of Middle way Buddhism etc. and as such of immense value. The former belief is held by philosophers in Russell's tradition, who usually reject metaphysics as pointless. The second is held by philosophers in the tradition of Plotinus, Lao Tsu and Nagarjuna, who produce an extensive literature explaining the results of metaphysics and proving its value as an analytical discipline. It's your choice who to believe, but while there is comprehensible explanation that remains unfalsified the idea that metaphysics is incomprehensible or useless is redundant.

I feel this is not the place to post links to my more comprehensive explanations of this issue, but if you want them and can figure out a private communication method I'll do so.

EDIT: It has been asked that I say more about the relationship between metaphysics and Reality. This would require a long essay. I would rather leave it to the reader to do their own investigating. My longer answer would take the form of suggested reading and I would be forced to link to my own work. To do so publicly seems inappropriate.

The essential point is that the conclusion of metaphysics is the absurdity of extreme or positive metaphysical theories. As Bradley notes, it does not endorse a positive result. There is only one doctrine for which they would all be false, thus explaining their failure in logic, and this is the one I mention. This is very definitely not rocket-science but it's off the beaten path for academically-trained philosophers, as the comments here indicate.

Metaphysics does its job perfectly well but you have to realise there are different approaches to it, by one of which it is useless.

Are there philosophers who have defended metaphysics and in what fashion have they attempted to this?

There are many. I would be one.

Briefly, the situation is this. Metaphysics proves that all positive metaphysical theories do not work. They give rise to fatal contradictions. This would be the reason why so many philosophers follow Russell and Carnap and reject metaphysics as a source of knowledge. Meanwhile the Perennialists argue that all these theories are false, which explains their failure in logic, and it is to the eternal credit of metaphysics that it does not endorse any of them.

Thus we have a choice as metaphysicians. We can believe it is incomprehensible and useless, or we can believe it is a proof of the doctrine of Middle way Buddhism etc. and as such of immense value. The former belief is held by philosophers in Russell's tradition, who usually reject metaphysics as pointless. The second is held by philosophers in the tradition of Plotinus, Lao Tsu and Nagarjuna, who produce an extensive literature explaining the results of metaphysics and proving its value as an analytical discipline. It's your choice who to believe, but while there is comprehensible explanation that remains unfalsified the idea that metaphysics is incomprehensible or useless is redundant.

I feel this is not the place to post links to my more comprehensive explanations of this issue, but if you want them and can figure out a private communication method I'll do so.

EDIT: It has been asked that I say more about the relationship between metaphysics and Reality. This would require a long essay. I would rather leave it to the reader to do their own investigating. My longer answer would take the form of suggested reading and I would be forced to link to my own work. To do so publicly seems inappropriate.

The essential point is that the conclusion of metaphysics is the absurdity of extreme or positive metaphysical theories. As Bradley notes, it does not endorse a positive result. There is only one doctrine for which they would all be false, thus explaining their failure in logic, and this is the one I mention. This is very definitely not rocket-science but it's off the beaten path for academically-trained philosophers, as the comments here indicate.

EDIT 2: I've been pushed to provide a link to support this answer so have done so. The most comprehensive discussion of these issues is the dissertation at the bottom of the page, the bibliography for which provides a long list of sources. Although I've done it once or twice before it seems wrong to link to my own work and I post this only because I intend to drop out of SE in the near future.

https://philpeople.org/profiles/peter-g-jones

Metaphysics does its job perfectly well but you have to realise there are different approaches to it, by one of which it is useless.

Are there philosophers who have defended metaphysics and in what fashion have they attempted to this?

There are many. I would be one. The consequence is a lot of flack on SE.

Briefly, the situation is this. Metaphysics proves that all positive metaphysical theories do not work. They give rise to fatal contradictions. This would be the reason why so many philosophers follow Russell and Carnap and reject metaphysics as a source of knowledge. Meanwhile the Perennialists argue that all these theories are false, which explains their failure in logic, and it is to the eternal credit of metaphysics that it does not endorse any of them.

Thus we have a choice as metaphysicians. We can believe it is incomprehensible and useless, or we can believe it is a proof of the doctrine of Middle way Buddhism etc. and as such of immense value. The former belief is held by philosophers in Russell's tradition, who usually reject metaphysics as pointless. The second is held by philosophers in the tradition of Plotinus, Lao Tsu and Nagarjuna, who produce an extensive literature explaining the results of metaphysics and proving its value as an analytical discipline. It's your choice who to believe, but while there is comprehensible explanation that remains unfalsified the idea that metaphysics is incomprehensible or useless is redundant.

I feel this is not the place to post links to my more comprehensive explanations of this issue, but if you want them and can figure out a private communication method I'll do so.

Metaphysics does its job perfectly well but you have to realise there are different approaches to it, by one of which it is useless.

Are there philosophers who have defended metaphysics and in what fashion have they attempted to this?

There are many. I would be one.

Briefly, the situation is this. Metaphysics proves that all positive metaphysical theories do not work. They give rise to fatal contradictions. This would be the reason why so many philosophers follow Russell and Carnap and reject metaphysics as a source of knowledge. Meanwhile the Perennialists argue that all these theories are false, which explains their failure in logic, and it is to the eternal credit of metaphysics that it does not endorse any of them.

Thus we have a choice as metaphysicians. We can believe it is incomprehensible and useless, or we can believe it is a proof of the doctrine of Middle way Buddhism etc. and as such of immense value. The former belief is held by philosophers in Russell's tradition, who usually reject metaphysics as pointless. The second is held by philosophers in the tradition of Plotinus, Lao Tsu and Nagarjuna, who produce an extensive literature explaining the results of metaphysics and proving its value as an analytical discipline. It's your choice who to believe, but while there is comprehensible explanation that remains unfalsified the idea that metaphysics is incomprehensible or useless is redundant.

I feel this is not the place to post links to my more comprehensive explanations of this issue, but if you want them and can figure out a private communication method I'll do so.

EDIT: It has been asked that I say more about the relationship between metaphysics and Reality. This would require a long essay. I would rather leave it to the reader to do their own investigating. My longer answer would take the form of suggested reading and I would be forced to link to my own work. To do so publicly seems inappropriate.

The essential point is that the conclusion of metaphysics is the absurdity of extreme or positive metaphysical theories. As Bradley notes, it does not endorse a positive result. There is only one doctrine for which they would all be false, thus explaining their failure in logic, and this is the one I mention. This is very definitely not rocket-science but it's off the beaten path for academically-trained philosophers, as the comments here indicate.