“Through deconstruction, Derrida aims to erase the boundary between binary oppositions—and to do so in such a way that the hierarchy implied by the oppositions is thrown into question. Although its ultimate aim may be to criticize Western logic, deconstruction arose as a response to structuralism and formalism.”
Or a destructuristic deconstruction of Heidegger’s ‘das man’
Can this explanation descend to the level of Kantian critique of reason upon which a secondary critique of judgment be raised?
Not necessarily, but certainly entailing it’s ethnoeuropean interpretation.
And frankly, there is no way Jose or wrangle could assume so tangentially and unequivocally as Peter shows. by historical necessity;
to literally ground and bring down to reality the events that prove- in themselves- for others, that by virtue of that validation - no subsequent members should or could be excluded.( from even a primordial participation.
Sure the probability sinks near to nil, but a certain possibility? near to absolute that at least 1 or two minimally can support ( ground) the rest.
Hercules was not merely a myth, but if he was all that he was, way back when, one could imagine the simulation to be much manifelt6.
The island cities of the ancients may have an archaically compressed retro sustained image, but they could be imagined their constructions to become volumes of simulated post modern actuality, islands in the stream.
I’m sure it’s at least the case some of the times.
It’s in the mind, too, of anybody that understands it.
How they feel about it, well, I suppose that’s their own business.
Undoubtedly. As a philosopher, probably at least a valuable one.
God’s possibility is what I’m settling for here, out of earnest interest for the discussion. He went further, and shewed rather incontrovertability.
Ah, but that is not the excercice. The world, and everything in it, as the best of all possible worlds.
Earstwhile, some of the things often found most objectionable in big-city life have gone on amplified and sustained in isolated island existences, both ocean and land-bound.
Part of this is probably what created the atheist because no matter what, God would most probably be viewed as a callous unthinking creator. How could an omniscient, omnipotent God have done this to us? Our only resource then is to disbelief in a loving God or to eradicate a God totally. That then leads to what?
Over at the PN forum, Immanuel Can [a devout Christian] and I are discussing this very thing:
Well, let’s go back to this question:
How would an omniscient and omnipotent Christian God said to be loving, just and merciful explain this:
“…the endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events…making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages.”
You respond:
Prompting me to note…
Prompting you to note…
Prompting me to note…
Ah, a necessary adjunct of Original Sin. All the rest of us still being punished for something we didn’t even do ourselves. Use that to explain away these terrible conditions:
Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing?
Sean Carroll
Again, forget any answers that some might “think up” to explain it to themselves. The point is how they go about demonstrating to others that their own answer is in fact either the optimal answer or the only possible answer that there is.
All the while acknowledging the gap between what they think is true and all that would need to be known about the universe and/or existence itself in order to actually pin down the definitive answer.
Come on, it is both fascinating and fun to explore things of this sort. But who is kidding whom that their answer really is smack dab in the middle of the cosmogeny bullseye.
The brute facticity rejoinder.
In fact the more you think about it, the less implausible the God explanation seems to be. If you need a single source, an omniscient and omnipotent entity would seem to fit the bill. And that you obtain immortality and salvation along with it is all the more reason to join the flock.
This is often my point. That some provide answers to the questions “why something instead of nothing?”, “why this something and not something else?” “Did something come into existence out of nothing at all?” as though it is something that can be tackled given our everyday experiences. As though we can arrive at the same sort of “explanation” in regard to existence itself.
Right. Like this conclusion in and of itself is not but another component of the staggering mystery of existence itself. Like the “laws of physics” themselves can be grasped ontologically. And teleologically?
That’s the really Big Question, isn’t it? Not whether everything there is came into existence out of nothing at all…but whether “behind” everything there is, there is a meaning and a purpose. God stuff to most of us.
Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing?
Sean Carroll
More to the point, once you take a leap of faith to God, you can always fall back on that. You don’t have an answer but of course you are not expected to have one. Hense the leap of faith. Or, nearing the end of your life, a wager.
In other words, we are not in the realm of philosophy anymore but of relying on the ecclesiastics to explain it all theologically. There’s usually a Scripture here which again we take on faith is the word of God.
Then around and around they go.
No, the problem with that is we cannot possibly know as mere mortals that nothing exists necessarily. That’s the beauty of religion. Since neither science nor philosophy can explain the existence of existence itself, why not a God, the God, my God. Here the atheists are no less entangled in the sheer mind-boggling mystery of reality itself.
That’s just the way it is.
Sooner or later, both the physicists and the ecclesiastics will come around to this. It’s just that there is no equivalent among the theologians of the scientific method. The God folks are always more inclined to quote Scripture. Or to “think up” arguments like these: edge.org/conversation/rebec … nce-of-god
God [and thus reality itself] defined and then deduced into existence.
It’s a concept/an idea, but ideas aren’t concrete things until they become a reality… 'nothing’ cannot become a reality, and so will always be nothing because there is nothing for it to be able to materialise from.
I am saying that nothing is no-thing.
And that nothing comes from no-thing.
And if there is ever no-thing – then there is forever no-thing - because no-thing comes from no-thing.
No-thing cannot create itself – but it certainly would maintain itself – if left alone.
If no-thing could create any-thing – that would be some-thing - not no-thing.
I know that is true - but I don’t know why you think it is true.
You have to know why no-thing cannot come from some-things.
- words —