Okay, but this is still just another “general description”.
Now, clearly, when it comes to any discussion or debate revolving around something instead of nothing, no one seems able to get any more specific other than by acknowledging right from the start that what they think they know about it is certainly a long, long, long way from all that can be known.
It basically becomes an exchange of wild ass conjectures. More or less thought through. But never able to be thought through enough. Then some people become fascinated by it, while others could not care less. The part I attribute to dasein.
Science is the best way to study observable phenomena and no other discipline has the brutality of the scientific method to compare
A method so brutal that where possible it tests anything to absolute destruction as that is the only way to investigate that what exists
But brutality here only goes so far. No scientist seems able to explain something rather than nothing such that this explanation is viewed by others as brutal. What can that possibly even mean?
Everyone who is an adult and [i]compis mentis[/i] is ultimately responsible for all they think /say / do where they had the free will to do so
But that doesn’t make the gap between what they think/say/do and a definitive explanation for why they thought/said/did it go away. There is something instead of nothing here and now. Only we have no comprehensive methodology [scientific, philosophical or otherwise] for explaining that — depending on how far out on the metapysical limb one is prepared to go.
And, of course, depending on whether even those excursions are only what they ever could have been given a wholly determined universe.
The Golden and Silver Rules are an excellent foundation for both individual and collective morality
The Golden is found in all major belief systems and can be adopted by those with no belief system
Yes, but even that can be construed as more or less problematic: philosophynow.org/issues/74/The … en_Anymore
As with most things, it depends on the actual context…understood from a particular point of view.
No one has a monopoly on wisdom and humility is a much better educator than arrogance will ever be
The older I become the less I think I know and while that may not be entirely true I do know very little
Tell that to the moral and the political and the metaphysical objectivists.
Pragmatism is the only true philosophy because by default it is the only one that works all of the time
And everyone is to a greater or lesser degree a pragmatist even if they are not actually aware of this
Okay, but then it comes down to the extent to which, as a pragmatist, one is either more or less down in the hole that I am in dealing with “I” as either more or less fractured and fragmented. All presuming some measure of autonomy and completely leaving aside the question of something rather than nothing at all.
And it works only until your own rendition of behaving pragmatically collides head long into another’s very, very different rendition. The part where, for me, the hole comes into play.
Nothing matters in the grand scheme of things but while we are here we just do the best that we can
Religion was invented by human beings to overcome fear of death but any such fear is truly irrational
Unless of course your own understanding of the grand scheme of things here and now is no where near what it actually is.