About 180 Proof

About (b. 1963, NYC)

i. "Why is there anything at all?" Because
(A) 'absence of any possibility of anything at all' – nothing-ness – is impossible.
(B) the only ultimate why-answer that does not beg the question is There Is No Ultimate Why-Question.

ii. existence in its entirety is the ultimate, unbounded brute fact; therefore, every existent (facts events things persons) is necessarily contingent.

iii. the real (e.g. existence) encompasses reasoning (e.g. naturalism); therefore, reasoning cannot encompass (i.e. causally explain) the real.

*

we h. sapiens are embodied subjects; our minds are nonmind-dependent; disvaluing our species functional defects makes us dysfunctional, or harms us, (natural fact) and harm solicits help/care (moral fact) to which either we effectively respond or we do not (moral truth).

:death: :flower:
Location NW Absurdistan
Posts 12,116
Joined
Last Active
Site Role Member, Debater
Favourite philosophers Laozi ... Sunzi ... Epicurus-Lucretius ... Spinoza ... Zapffe-Camus ... I. Murdoch-P. Foot ... A. Murray ... C. Rosset ... D. Deutsch ... C. West ... T. Metzinger ...
Favourite quotations
A freethinker's faith:
Both you and I are unbelievers, the only difference being that I'm consistent. The same reason you don't believe in all other gods (except one) is the very same reason I don't believe in your god either. The point is I do not have superstitious or religious commitments. What I trust, or believe in, is public evidence and sound arguments. — ben ward, 1992

What is the nature of both reality and human well-being? — 180 Proof, 2008

How does one (categorically) predicate that which necessarily precedes, and thereby exceeds, all predicates? — 180 Proof

We cannot agree on 'what there is' because any determination – ontological commitment – reflects our interests/biases or some domain with which we're engaged. Thus, the history of incommensurable, divergent, metaphysics. — 180 Proof

[W]e are not "ultimate beings" and, with only proximate metacognition, our conceptions, like the apophatic theologians teach, are wholly inadequate for grasping that which necessarily is beyond our reach anyway. — 180 Proof


https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/798898
Home » 180 Proof