About 180 Proof

About (b. 1963, NYC)

i. "Why is there anything at all?" Because
(A) 'absence of the possibility of anything at all' – nothing-ness – is impossible, to wit:
(B1) there is not any possible version of the actual world that is 'the negation of the actual world' (i.e. nothing-ness);
(B2) there is not any possible world in which it is true that 'a possible world is not a possible world' (i.e. nothing-ness);
(C) the only ultimate why-answer that does not beg the question is There Is No Ultimate Why-Answer.

ii. existence in its entirety is the ultimate, unbounded brute fact; therefore, all existents – facts events things persons – are 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; neglecting our species functional defects makes us dysfunctional, or harms us (natural fact), and harm – disvalue – solicits help/care (moral fact) to which either we effectively respond or we do not (moral truth).

:death: :flower:
Location NW Absurdistan
Posts 13,225
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 is I'm consistent. The reason you don't believe in all other gods (except one) is the very same reason I also don't believe in your god. The point is: I do not have superstitious or religious commitments. What I trust, or believe in, is impersonal reality (re: 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/843433
Home » 180 Proof