“The Fundamental Question”
Arthur Witherall
No, in my view, one can only argue that…
1] “In my own opinion
2] here and now
3] certain individuals are predisposed existentially to find that something rather than nothing is appropriate and desirable”
And that’s crucial because then we avoid altogether the discussion of whether one is obligated to feel this way as a rational human being.
Unless of course someone actually can demonstrate that this is in fact the case.
After all, if your life is awash in all manner of pain and suffering, the last thing you might feel about something – about anything – is how appropriate and desirable it is.
And yet it is no less human psychology that is shaped and molded by a particular aggregation of genes and memes. And “why” what pertaining to what particular set of circumstances?
Right, until it actually comes time to communicate with others what this “something” is. When that unfolds and the answers don’t coincide there is a tendency [among objectivists in particular] to be convinced that their own answer comes closest to the optimal explanation.
All the more reason [for some] to avoid providing any answer at all.
Again, from my frame of mind, individuals react to the question based on the variables in their lives that predispose them to consider it as more or less important.
Only then do those it does intrigue come around to pondering whether “philosophically” it is worth pursuing more substantively.
But:
How on earth can anyone actually demonstrate that the question itself is a “piece of nonsense”? That sort of thinking would seem to be more nonsensical to me.
It’s a question that our brains are in fact able to ask. And assuming some measure of autonomy, who is to say what is nonsense in attempting to answer it.