How are speculations of this sort ever not ambiguous? In my view, until the gap between what we speculate about these relationships in a “world of words” and the actual material reality of “all there is” is encompassed in a TOE that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace, it’s all just basically an exchanges of WAGs.
There’s our day to day lives and there’s the ontological understanding of existence itself. And in closing the gap between them there is this:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
Then we get to a more definitive reaction to “Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human”
What “on earth” does that mean? Let alone in linking the relevance of the “human condition” down here to “all there is” up there.
And only then would it seem can we come to an understanding as to whether or not there is a teleological component embedded in “all there is”.
“But to what extent are the concepts of any one individual relating to the existence of existence itself within the reach of actually demonstrating that they are in fact true?”
This points to the conception of “fact”. Existence is more simple. It is where stuff happens, i.e., everything. “Fact” excludes. The extension of the powerful region to the human being is the being of existence.
What facts? In what context? Understood in what particular way? As that relates to the argument in the OP.
This sort of speculation is true or false only to the extent that everyone agrees on the definition and meaning given to words put in any one particular order. The words don’t lead us to anything other than more words. Then around and around we go. The “truths” here are basically tautological.
Just like these words:
“The conclusions of reason don’t cause the things they infer. All books are made by humans, this is a book, therefore it is made by a human, doesn’t cause the book to be made by a human. So, one can say, reasons or judgments are a special kind of cause, cause as inference. They cause the inference machine to work. And yet, this all is founded in the conception of causality which is presupposed as meaningful in the ground of the inquiry.
It’s one thing to grapple with causality in noting the relationship between the existence of a book and those who brought it into existence. But what if the discussion shifts to an assertion that the book ought to be banned? Now, in a wholly determined world the is/ought world is really just another manifestation of the either/or world. There is only the illusion that, autonomously, freely, we are deciding if it is right or wrong to ban the book. The book was always either going to be banned or not banned when whatever brought into existence the laws of matter themselves set them up as they immutably are.
Same with this exchange:
Okay, how close does this assessment bring us to grasping once and for all if this very exchange that we are having is only as it ever could have been?
How “special” are reasons and judgments [yours, mine, theirs] if mind is just more matter interacting mechanically with other mindful matter per the immutable laws of matter?”
Isn’t this question derivative on the conception of causality? I.e., it asks: Is causality necessary?
Necessary means here, not free. what does free mean. Possibly: at the disposal of the human.
What does any of this mean if you were never able to not include it in this exchange?
Same with these words:
It’s not clear if ethical means “by choice”, rather than by “proof”. If there are provable facts, ethics has nothing to do with this. And yet, “fact” means the voluntary act of showing that a thing is repeatable in a test. Or, does it also mean, that plus choosing to believe that human psychology is sufficient grounding to establish facts as apodictic? The human being is like a pair of sunglasses, one would say, the darkness of all things is fact. However, through us all things for us. Ergo, the modern problem of a theory of reason and fundamental ontology.
Back again to everyone argeeing that this assessment must be true because the definition and the meaning that you give to the words that encompass it are understood to be the starting point for any discussion of these relationships.
Or so it certainly seems to me. It is a wholly scholastic assessment that goes nowhere near human interactions from day to day. Let alone interactions that come into conflict out in the is/ought world.
“On the contrary, technical philosophy is of fundamental importance if we wish to make more exact distinctions between what either can or cannot be concluded rationally. Or regarding the extent to which we are either able or not able to demonstrate what we claim to know is true is in fact true.”
I don’t know. Why would one accept the results of mere human reason giving? Or is “rationality” supposed to have some spivvy mystical meaning, other than: giving reasons? On the other hand, human beings don’t need reasons, they can be fun and not reason, which is also part of reality as such. Ergo, the doctrine of rationality = best is stupid.
Until this “general description” is related to a particular context in which an attempt is made to distinguish between that which we seem able to establish as true objectively for all of us and that which is thought to be true by any one individual who may or may not be able to demonstrate its objectivity, we are stuck exchanging intellectual contraptions by and large.
“the either/or and the is/ought world of human interactions.”
In my experience, this is not true. I witnessed you willy-nilly set aside such a determination of a precision without care. Confirming your lackadaisical higgledy piggledy oddity of predilection within the bright day of the visibility of all beings seen in their huge bulk and ugliness.
Note to others:
What am I to make of this? What do you make of it? How is it relevant to the OP? And how in your view is it related to my own reaction to the OP?