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