Something Instead of Nothing

[iambiguous]

The inevitability of our extinction means that no knowledge can ever be acquired after the event in question

Our extinction however is just another component of somethingness that we can speculate endlessly about but are not able to pin down definitively

The specifics might be unknown but they are actually irrelevant because death is simply a universal feature of Existence
Everything dies as the Second Law Of Thermodynamics has an absolutely one hundred per cent record in respect of this

That's like someone saying that their own extinction from the human race is reconfigured by God into immortality and salvation in Heaven. But the specifics of this God's existence is actually irrelevant.

As though an understanding of the Second Law Of Thermodynamics is intertwined in an understanding of existence itself intertwined in why there is something and not nothing. But the specifics that finally explain all of this are actually irrelevant.

Existence is a state of being rather than a physical thing as such so it cannot die but everything else does
So the future is not always a blank slate as some things will definitely happen regardless of anything else

In my view another exasperating assertion. You propound, posit, postulate that this is an essential truth about existence as though merely believing it is demonstration enough that it is true.

Then when you do bring it down to earth existentially it's, well, the same thing:

My own death for example is an absolute certainty - there is no way I will achieve immortality as this mind in this body
It is therefore not speculation to make a claim about a future event that will definitely happen but actually has yet to

As though you have investigated the deaths of others -- death itself -- and are now able to demonstrate to the world that there is no way that anyone will achieve immortality as their mind in their body.

You just know this.

You accuse me of being an objectivist but from my own perspective you are being even more so in refusing any truth statements at all about the future
And therefore can your objectivist mindset accept as inevitable that you are going to die - that the Sun is going to die - that the Universe is going to die

First of all, my understanding of objectivism here revolves solely around the assumption that my own argument is no less an existential contraption. I have no capacity to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think as I do here.

And that's my point. From my own subjective vantage point here and now, an objectivist is someone who argues that there are absolutely true things to be said about the future and that what he or she says about the future is an example of how and why this is true.

And that these truths are so even if one is not able to demonstrate how and why these predictions are in sync with an understanding of existence itself in sync with an understanding of how and why there is an existence rather than no existence at all.

You don't even have the capacity to demonstrate beyond all doubt that this very exchange is not wholly in sync with the laws of matter such that predictions about the future are in and of themselves embedded in the only possible future.

But even this does not explain why and how it is this something and not another something in something and not nothing at all.

Entropy is a feature of any system and when there is insufficient energy to do any more work then every thing within that system - including itself - dies

This is not a religious or philosophical truth but a scientific one and one that is therefore relatively easy to demonstrate :

After the Sun has reached a state of maximum entropy - another five billion years - life on Earth will become extinct from that point on
Even if some of our descendants actually manage to colonise another world that will be merely delaying the inevitable - no more no less

As though this particular understanding is, again, as far as you need go in order to "prove" that God is not factor here or that this particular something was necessary rather than nothing at all.

You just can't bring yourself to acknowledge the gap between what you think you know about all of this in your head here and now and all that can be known [must be known] in order to definitively resolve all of the "unknown unknowns" that even science still faces.

An example I noted above: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... story.html

Or this part:

"It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe."

My own mind which is a combination of subjectivist and objectivist - like all functioning minds including yours - sees death as just a point on the spectrum of Existence
Even after I die I will still exist in some form as something will always exist in some form or another - though by then it will not matter and it doesnt really matter now

Q.E.D?

[iambiguous]

"The Fundamental Question"
Arthur Witherall

I believe that there are only two conditions under which the question might conceivably fail to be awesome to one who considers it seriously. Firstly, if someone were to believe that the question is meaningless, then feelings of wonder or awe would be inappropriate. This is relatively straightforward, but some discussion of Wittgenstein's position is necessary, for he appears to believe that wondering at the existence of the world is some kind of nonsense, even though he gives expression to it.

Still, the point I always raise here is not what someone believes about a question of this sort but how and why they came to believe what they did. Only to the extent "I" here is understood to be an "existential contraption" can we move beyond the argument of whether one ought to believe either this or that.

Joe thinks it's a meaningless question. Jane thinks it's the most important question of all.

But neither are able to show the world why and how one or the other position must become the default for all future discussions.

Instead, it's basically an existential assumption rooted in all of the variables that came together to make them think what they do here and now.

At least until an argument is made [and then demonstrated to be true] that does in fact seem to pin down an answer all rational men and women are obligated to accept.

On the other hand, it would seem only natural for someone cognizant of their own existence to wonder what that does mean.

Secondly, if someone were to believe that no explanation is required for the existence of the world, then they might fail to have any feelings of significance about the "why" question. This position could be adopted if one believed that it was necessarily true that something exists.

This would seem to be no less an existential reaction to the question. Believing is one thing, probing the etiology of that belief seems of far more importance. Why do some believe an explanation is required while others do not? Because they read Wittgenstein?

All Ludwig nudged us in the direction of believing is that "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".

But what on earth does that mean? Relating to what in particular? If the human brain can pose the question [assuming human autonomy], then speaking of it will almost certainly follow.

[iambiguous]

"The Fundamental Question"
Arthur Witherall

It is arguable that if the fundamental question has no meaning, then it can invoke no feelings. Thus one way of denying that a feeling of awe is appropriate is to deny that the question of why the world exists makes sense. Senseless questions should provoke no response, beyond an expression of incomprehension. The intelligibility of the fundamental question has been denied by some philosophers.

Here we immediately get stuck in grappling to understand the relationship between the something that we believe does exist and how it managed to evolve into the something we call "I" able to ask these questions in the first place.

What then is the fundamental answer to this fundamental question: "How are human thoughts and human emotions intertwined in a brain able to ponder something instead of nothing at all?"

Is one better equipped than the other in providing answers? And then the part where "intuitively" they both seem to be intertwined in a truly problematic manner?

And [of course] the part where all of our answers are subsumed in the only possible answers we could ever possibly have given in a wholly determined universe.

Paul Edwards, for example, argues that there is a logical grammar to the word "why" which has been violated in this case, rendering the question meaningless. He claims that when we ask of anything x why it happened or why it is what it is, we presuppose that there are antecedent conditions other than x which can explain x. This is partly what is meant by using the word "why", and if there are no such conditions, then it loses its normal meaning. In the case of the question of why there is something rather than nothing, there can be no antecedent conditions of this kind, because they too must be included in the "something" which must be explained. Edwards thus concluded that the question has no cognitive meaning, since it violates the conditions under which a "why" question can make sense.

Bingo! The role of language itself here. Words and worlds. And [perhaps] the only word more problematic than "why" is "because".

Or maybe even "is" itself?

"Why" "because" "is". In regards to nothing at all?

The brain becomes fried here precisely because empirically nothing at all has ever been around whereby these words [and all the other ones] were used.

[iambiguous]

"The Fundamental Question"
Arthur Witherall

The value of Wittgenstein's position in the "Lecture on Ethics" is that it helps to illuminate the special status of the fundamental question of metaphysics. Although he does not discuss the why question itself, it is consistent with his view that the act of asking it may draw us into that feeling of wonder in the face of the absolute nature of existence, which he claims is significant in the way that ethical and religious truths are significant.

Clearly, in the evolution of matter into mind, there are biological imperatives built into our genetic self. And, among them, there appears to be a universal capacity to feel awe. Just as there appears to be nary a community among our species [historically and culturally] that did not concoct one or another narrative that revolved around and embodied both morality and religion.

Instead, it's the part revolving around memes, and the parts embedded existentially in individual experiences that come to encompass whatever particular awe some one particular individual might feel about "the fundamental question".

Approach it along these lines and, in my view, the debate regarding whether one ought to feel awe about something instead of nothing more or less disappears.

In other words, for all practical purposes, no one is obligated to think about it at all. Not when faced with all that goes into the clear obligation to subsist from day to day.

And any number of us have opted out of even that obligation --- they commit suicide.

Indeed, he admits to having an inclination to use the phrase "how extraordinary that anything should exist", which is close to asking the question itself. Just as the propositions of the Tractatus are nonsensical in themselves, but may be used as a ladder which brings us to an appreciation of the mystical, so the fundamental question may bring us to wonder at the existence of the world, even while it remains a kind of verbal nonsense.

Exactly. The question is there. And it is there because, unlike all other species of life on the planet, our minds are able to pose it. Coupled with the fact that feeling awe is part of the tool kit that nature provides us with merely in the fact of being born.

It only becomes a "philosophical question" to those who come [existentially] to ponder the question "metaphysically".

Wittgenstein himself grappled with the tangled complexities embedded in exploring the relationship between words and worlds. Of words in worlds.

Here we encounter things like logic and epistemology. But what are the limitations of both in groping to answer questions like this?

[surreptitious75]

You just cant bring yourself to acknowledge the gap between what you think you know about all of this in your head here and now and
all that can be known [ must be known ] in order to definitively resolve all of the unknown unknowns that even science still faces

I will be a long time dead before that ever happens - or to be more precise - if it ever happens . As for my apparent inability to acknowledge the gap nothing could be further from the truth . As in the grand scheme of things my own knowledge base amounts to absolutely nothing and while that is also true for everyone else I am still humble enough with regard to all that I do not or will never know . All I do is justify my own reasoning from within my own very restricted knowledge base as best as I can and learn from others who possess greater understanding than I do . I am therefore under no illusion whatsoever about my own limitations and neither should I be

[Karpel Tunnel]

I will be a long time dead before that ever happens - or to be more precise - if it ever happens . As for my apparent inability to acknowledge the gap nothing could be further from the truth . As in the grand scheme of things my own knowledge base amounts to absolutely nothing and while that is also true for everyone else I am still humble enough with regard to all that I do not or will never know . All I do is justify my own reasoning from within my own very restricted knowledge base as best as I can and learn from others who possess greater understanding than I do . I am therefore under no illusion whatsoever about my own limitations and neither should I be

IOW even if there are problems, which there are, there is no need to beat yourself up for not being God and thus creating another problem.

[iambiguous]

You just can't bring yourself to acknowledge the gap between what you think you know about all of this in your head here and now and
all that can be known [ must be known ] in order to definitively resolve all of the unknown unknowns that even science still faces

I will be a long time dead before that ever happens - or to be more precise - if it ever happens.

Yeah, me too. And this -- subconsciously? -- seems to trigger [in some] a psychological need to come as close as they possibly can to "settling things" "in their head" regarding gigantic questions like this.

But: to the extent this is applicable to you, is, of course, way, way, way beyond my capacity to examine. I merely suggest it is likely to be way, way, way beyond the capacity of even ourselves. There is just too big a gap between "I" and a comprehensive understanding of "all there is".

On the other hand, sure, maybe I've got the rest of it wrong too.

As for my apparent inability to acknowledge the gap nothing could be further from the truth . As in the grand scheme of things my own knowledge base amounts to absolutely nothing and while that is also true for everyone else I am still humble enough with regard to all that I do not or will never know . All I do is justify my own reasoning from within my own very restricted knowledge base as best as I can and learn from others who possess greater understanding than I do . I am therefore under no illusion whatsoever about my own limitations and neither should I be

Fair enough. All I am reacting to [subjectively] is the manner in which you seem -- seem to me -- to convey your points here with a degree of certainty that, down in my "hole" as a "fractured and fragmented" "me", I am not able to match.

And, okay, maybe in a way I do not fully grasp myself, my exasperation with this spills over more than is necessary in reacting to those who seem considerably less fractured and fragmented than I am.

[Meno_]

You just can't bring yourself to acknowledge the gap between what you think you know about all of this in your head here and now and
all that can be known [ must be known ] in order to definitively resolve all of the unknown unknowns that even science still faces

I will be a long time dead before that ever happens - or to be more precise - if it ever happens.

Yeah, me too. And this -- subconsciously? -- seems to trigger [in some] a psychological need to come as close as they possibly can to "settling things" "in their head" regarding gigantic questions like this.

But: to the extent this is applicable to you, is, of course, way, way, way beyond my capacity to examine. I merely suggest it is likely to be way, way, way beyond the capacity of even ourselves. There is just too big a gap between "I" and a comprehensive understanding of "all there is".

On the other hand, sure, maybe I've got the rest of it wrong too.

As for my apparent inability to acknowledge the gap nothing could be further from the truth . As in the grand scheme of things my own knowledge base amounts to absolutely nothing and while that is also true for everyone else I am still humble enough with regard to all that I do not or will never know . All I do is justify my own reasoning from within my own very restricted knowledge base as best as I can and learn from others who possess greater understanding than I do . I am therefore under no illusion whatsoever about my own limitations and neither should I be

Fair enough. All I am reacting to [subjectively] is the manner in which you seem -- seem to me -- to convey your points here with a degree of certainty that, down in my "hole" as a "fractured and fragmented" "me", I am not able to match.

And, okay, maybe in a way I do not fully grasp myself, my exasperation with this spills over more than is necessary in reacting to those who seem considerably less fractured and fragmented than I am.

---------------------------------------------------
"And, okay, maybe in a way I do not fully grasp myself, my exasperation with this spills over more than is necessary in reacting to those who seem considerably less fractured and fragmented than I am."

Appearances can be deceptive, often the apparently more fractured can put up a facade of being more together.
So, nihilistic conceptions are unverifyable from the point of view of appearance.

But is nihilism one of total phenomenologically reduced epoch? Or, is it, balanced by the idea, (eidectic) of balancing? In Your case, I think it is of a balance, a gesture, whereby that is achieved.

[iambiguous]

"The Fundamental Question"
Arthur Witherall

One suggestion as to why the fundamental question evokes this feeling [of awe] is that it indicates that there is a fact-transcendent meaning to the existence of the world. Wittgenstein claims that he cannot imagine the world failing to exist, or that this is somehow beyond the representational powers of language. Yet he feels wonder nonetheless, because he can sense that there is something that lies beyond language.

This is always fascinating to contemplate. We are so used to having language at our disposal in communicating what we think and feel, it's sometimes scarcely possible to imagine that there may well be things beyond the reach of words altogether.

It just depends then on how close this frame of mind comes to God. If you are unable to go there, and you feel a tugging inside, an ineffable conviction that surely there must be some other explanation for the existence of something, awe is certainly one plausable reaction.

Another possible explanation is that the fundamental question asks about something which we can represent as a matter of fact, although we cannot see how to explain it. We can see the problem, but we cannot find an "explanation space" within which it could be solved.

And yet as much as we fall back on the assumption that the existence of something is a fact, our minds are also capable of imagining this fact imploding into all manner of surreal explanations. In other words, that even the fact of existence may well be just be illusion embedded in an "agent" that, in ways we do not or even cannot explain, transcends what we think of as something. That we are in someone's dream, or computer simulation, or in a reality embedded in a multiverse that includes realms and dimensions we have absolutely no understanding of at all.

Or something of this nature:

The question appears to cite a contingency, the existence of something, and ask for an explanation for it, but normal explanations are apparently ruled out...When this is comprehended, we begin to see the contingency of existence as an absolute brute fact, something we must simply accept without a normal explanatory procedure. This realization, this confrontation with an absolute contingency, may provoke a feeling of wonder or awe, for we are confronted with something immense and somehow "beyond" reason. It is appropriate to feel this way if we understand the question in this way. However, some philosophers have tried to explain the existence of the world by invoking a logical or metaphysical necessity. We must therefore ask whether, given this kind of response, a feeling of awe is rendered inappropriate, impossible or irrational.

Bottom line [always so far]: Who the fuck knows?!

The very word "contingency" can only be understood contingent upon all the factors that one can include in attempting to use it as but one more piece in the puzzle.

[barbarianhorde]

awe is certainly one plausable reaction.

Awe might even be the closest thing we have to grasp the reason for existences existence.

It exists because it is awesome. It wouldn't exist if it were anything less than utterly mindbendingly terrific.

[promethean75]

The reason for the existence of existence is the cosmic labor theory of value; each universe is a proletariat that produces a surplus of matter and energy... then the bourgeois forces of antimatter and entropy try to consume that surplus and destroy it.

https://youtu.be/flFyaguUqIo

[surreptitious75]

Non existence cannot persist since Nature will not allow it so by default there always has to be some type of existence
And so it exists not merely because it can but also because it has to - whether it is also awesome is entirely subjective
It may be beyond human comprehension in any absolute sense but this can be stated as a simple fact and nothing else

[iambiguous]

awe is certainly one plausible reaction.

Awe might even be the closest thing we have to grasp the reason for existences existence.

It exists because it is awesome. It wouldn't exist if it were anything less than utterly mindbendingly terrific.

This is the part however where a frame of mind is derived from an actual set of circumstances. Something [rather than nothing] is awesome as long as the life that you are living now from day to day is awash in meaning and purpose...resplendent with all manner of fulfillment and satisfaction.

Then you can set aside the time needed to contemplate somethingness more philosophically. And, then, on a level that transcends the mundane, you feel some "thing" in your head akin to a "spiritual" wonder that not only is there something that exists, but it is the something that you are living.

And it's all so terrific! So fucking awesome!!

But: then you tumble down or stumble down into a set of circumstances that takes all this away. Your life has now become a shithole. Not only has your own personal somethingness become a cesspool of misery, but you couldn't possibly care less to think about it all..."intellectually".

[iambiguous]

Non existence cannot persist since Nature will not allow it so by default there always has to be some type of existence
And so it exists not merely because it can but also because it has to - whether it is also awesome is entirely subjective
It may be beyond human comprehension in any absolute sense but this can be stated as a simple fact and nothing else

As usual, encompassed in a frame of mind that appears to suggest that, if others don't see how obvious this is, they need to be reeducated regarding the stating of a "simple fact".

Thus, all that stuff accumulated in the gap between what he thinks he knows here and now and a complete and comprehensive understanding of all there is to be known about the existence of something rather than nothing at all, is not really that important to consider at all.

[Meno_]

It does suggests that, but as suggestions go, they are merely powered by self induced perspectivism. They conveniently omit the program as a simulated paradigmn of transcendentially established adhesive embededness.
(Per Your. and Polanyi's definition.)


Here is Polanyi's definition analyzed:


Embeddedness



In economics and economic sociology, embeddedness refers to the degree to which economic activity is constrained by non-economic institutions. The term was created by economic historian Karl Polanyi as part of his substantivist approach. Polanyi argued that in non-market societies there are no pure economic institutions to which formal economic models can be applied. In these cases economic activities such as "provisioning" are "embedded" in non-economic kinship, religious and political institutions. In market societies, in contrast, economic activities have been rationalized, and economic action is "disembedded" from society and able to follow its own distinctive logic, captured in economic modeling. Polanyi's ideas were widely adopted and discussed in anthropology in what has been called the formalist–substantivist debate.[1]Subsequently, the term "embeddedness" was further developed by economic sociologist Mark Granovetter, who argued that even in market societies, economic activity is not as disembedded from society as economic models would suggest.[2


Note: if doubt were to arise between e economic theory and ontological analysis of existence, let's not forget that substantial of 'subance' can refer to both, in light of the passed up economic theory of the 'ID' by Freud.

But, if that objection fails any remediation, then , iambig, take Your definition as the most reducible and paradigmnal.


However here is an ontological tie-in, as a down to earth relevance to Capital and dispossession.:





Abstract
This article offers a substantive understanding of the variegation of capitalism, in an attempt to move beyond the current impasse in the mainstream varieties-of-capitalism approach. Drawing on existing conceptualizations of capitalism-society relationships, as well as on Agamben’s reconceptualization of the Foucaldian notion of ‘dispositif’, the article identifies the ontological ‘dispositifs’ of embeddedness, dispossession and subsumption, associating them with ‘purely relational’, ‘sovereignty-based’ and ‘dualistic’ ontologies of capitalism, respectively. The article argues that these dispositifs are instrumental in capitalism’s process of subjectification, laying the foundations for a renewed belief in capitalism even under the most adverse conditions.





Copyright © 2019 by SAGE Publications

[surreptitious75]

Non existence cannot persist since Nature will not allow it so by default there always has to be some type of existence
And so it exists not merely because it can but also because it has to - whether it is also awesome is entirely subjective
It may be beyond human comprehension in any absolute sense but this can be stated as a simple fact and nothing else

As usual encompassed in a frame of mind that appears to suggest that if others dont see how obvious this is they need to be reeducated
[ regarding the stating of a simple fact ]

Thus all that stuff accumulated in the gap between what he thinks he knows here and now and a complete and comprehensive understanding of all
there is to be known about the existence of something rather than nothing at all is not really that important to consider at all

Only two days ago and in this very thread too did I genuinely acknowledge the limitation of my own knowledge and the humility that goes with such a revelation
But here you are once again implying that I possess some monopoly on wisdom and / or that which I do not know does not matter so makes no difference anyway

I make no claim to know more than anyone else and all I do is try to justify any statements that I do make THAT I HOLD TO BE TRUE as rigorously as possible
Thus me stating that how awesome the Universe is can be stated as a simple fact and nothing else is only true FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE AND NO ONE ELSES

SO WHAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THINKS IS FOR YOU OR THEM TO DECIDE UPON AS I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN MYSELF
As I have precisely zero interest in convincing anyone of anything so no one is under any compulsion to take anything I say as gospel

You seem entirely incapable of not applying straw man motivations to my reason for posting even after I have clearly demonstrated that they are totally false
Your own mind is so concerned with discovering the absolute truth that everytime I say something it disagrees with it assumes on my part some ulterior motive

So from now on could you restrict your comments to what I actually post and keep the pop psychology about why I post it to yourself if that is at all possible

I hope so as I have precisely zero desire to waste any more mental energy on having to remind you once again of everything that I have just said
So have a word with that mind of yours to make sure it remembers this time as it does seem to unfortunately have a rather unreliable memory

[barbarianhorde]

awe is certainly one plausible reaction.

Awe might even be the closest thing we have to grasp the reason for existences existence.

It exists because it is awesome. It wouldn't exist if it were anything less than utterly mindbendingly terrific.

This is the part however where a frame of mind is derived from an actual set of circumstances. Something [rather than nothing] is awesome as long as the life that you are living now from day to day is awash in meaning and purpose...resplendent with all manner of fulfillment and satisfaction.

Then you can set aside the time needed to contemplate somethingness more philosophically. And, then, on a level that transcends the mundane, you feel some "thing" in your head akin to a "spiritual" wonder that not only is there something that exists, but it is the something that you are living.

And it's all so terrific! So fucking awesome!!

But: then you tumble down or stumble down into a set of circumstances that takes all this away. Your life has now become a shithole. Not only has your own personal somethingness become a cesspool of misery, but you couldn't possibly care less to think about it all..."intellectually".

Hmm, no thats no how it went with me. I actually was close to dying of regret and misery when I came to the conclusion of awesomeness. How? Beats me but it goes to show, its a pretty strong truth.

The reason for the existence of existence is the cosmic labor theory of value; each universe is a proletariat that produces a surplus of matter and energy... then the bourgeois forces of antimatter and entropy try to consume that surplus and destroy it.

https://youtu.be/flFyaguUqIo

Well (haha funny) I agree with it in broad strokes. The universe builds itself up bottom-up by the combined forces of individual worker-particles (valuers, givers, value-givers (see what I did there!!)) and then decadence (entropy) becomes a factor especially in closed (bourgeoise) environments.

[iambiguous]

Non existence cannot persist since Nature will not allow it so by default there always has to be some type of existence
And so it exists not merely because it can but also because it has to - whether it is also awesome is entirely subjective
It may be beyond human comprehension in any absolute sense but this can be stated as a simple fact and nothing else

As usual, encompassed in a frame of mind that appears to suggest that, if others don't see how obvious this is, they need to be reeducated regarding the stating of a "simple fact".

Thus, all that stuff accumulated in the gap between what he thinks he knows here and now and a complete and comprehensive understanding of all there is to be known about the existence of something rather than nothing at all, is not really that important to consider at all.

Only two days ago and in this very thread too did I genuinely acknowledge the limitation of my own knowledge and the humility that goes with such a revelation
But here you are once again implying that I possess some monopoly on wisdom and / or that which I do not know does not matter so makes no difference anyway

Okay, you acknowledged that. But how then isn't it reasonable on my part to suggest that the manner in which you conveyed your point above is not expressed as though you were asserting it to be an example of a "simple fact"?

I'll leave it to others to either agree or not to agree with my own reaction.

I make no claim to know more than anyone else and all I do is try to justify any statements that I do make THAT I HOLD TO BE TRUE as rigorously as possible
Thus me stating that how awesome the Universe is can be stated as a simple fact and nothing else is only true FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE AND NO ONE ELSES

All I can point out here is that is not how I reacted [subjectively] to the point you made. That frame of mind did not come through at all for me.

You seem entirely incapable of not applying straw man motivations to my reason for posting even after I have clearly demonstrated that they are totally false
Your own mind is so concerned with discovering the absolute truth that everytime I say something it disagrees with it assumes on my part some ulterior motive

I have no idea what this is meant to convey regarding my reaction above. And my frame of mind here at ILP revolves almost entirely around attempts on my part to feel less "fractured and fragmented" in confronting human interactions out in the is/ought world. That and connecting the dots between this and the really, really big questions that revolve around things like something/nothing, existence qua existence and the quandaries embedded in the determinism/free-will debate.

So from now on could you restrict your comments to what I actually post and keep the pop psychology about why I post it to yourself if that is at all possible

No can do. From my frame of mind what we think philosophically is profoundly interwined in the manner in which I construe human psychology here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Which is ever and always related to my reaction to that which I construe to be objectivist thinking.

Sure, I may be completely off base here in reacting to you. After all, the gap between how you see me "in your head" and how I see you "in my head" is always going to be problematic to say the least.

But I can only honestly react as I do in fact react "in the moment" to any particular post. If that doesn't sit well with others, they can steer clear of me here. Or, as with Karpel Tunnel, we can just agree to avoid responding to each other's posts.

[Meno_]

Non existence cannot persist since Nature will not allow it so by default there always has to be some type of existence
And so it exists not merely because it can but also because it has to - whether it is also awesome is entirely subjective
It may be beyond human comprehension in any absolute sense but this can be stated as a simple fact and nothing else

As usual, encompassed in a frame of mind that appears to suggest that, if others don't see how obvious this is, they need to be reeducated regarding the stating of a "simple fact".

Thus, all that stuff accumulated in the gap between what he thinks he knows here and now and a complete and comprehensive understanding of all there is to be known about the existence of something rather than nothing at all, is not really that important to consider at all.

Only two days ago and in this very thread too did I genuinely acknowledge the limitation of my own knowledge and the humility that goes with such a revelation
But here you are once again implying that I possess some monopoly on wisdom and / or that which I do not know does not matter so makes no difference anyway

Okay, you acknowledged that. But how then isn't it reasonable on my part to suggest that the manner in which you conveyed your point above is not expressed as though you were asserting it to be an example of a "simple fact"?

I'll leave it to others to either agree or not to agree with my own reaction.

I make no claim to know more than anyone else and all I do is try to justify any statements that I do make THAT I HOLD TO BE TRUE as rigorously as possible
Thus me stating that how awesome the Universe is can be stated as a simple fact and nothing else is only true FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE AND NO ONE ELSES

All I can point out here is that is not how I reacted [subjectively] to the point you made. That frame of mind did not come through at all for me.

You seem entirely incapable of not applying straw man motivations to my reason for posting even after I have clearly demonstrated that they are totally false
Your own mind is so concerned with discovering the absolute truth that everytime I say something it disagrees with it assumes on my part some ulterior motive

I have no idea what this is meant to convey regarding my reaction above. And my frame of mind here at ILP revolves almost entirely around attempts on my part to feel less "fractured and fragmented" in confronting human interactions out in the is/ought world. That and connecting the dots between this and the really, really big questions that revolve around things like something/nothing, existence qua existence and the quandaries embedded in the determinism/free-will debate.

So from now on could you restrict your comments to what I actually post and keep the pop psychology about why I post it to yourself if that is at all possible

No can do. From my frame of mind what we think philosophically is profoundly interwined in the manner in which I construe human psychology here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Which is ever and always related to my reaction to that which I construe to be objectivist thinking.

Sure, I may be completely off base here in reacting to you. After all, the gap between how you see me "in your head" and how I see you "in my head" is always going to be problematic to say the least.

But I can only honestly react as I do in fact react "in the moment" to any particular post. If that doesn't sit well with others, they can steer clear of me here. Or, as with Karpel Tunnel, we can just agree to avoid responding to each other's posts.

Iambigious,

Please refer to my above comments as to why a social psychological relevance may be more appropriate, or, down to earth. I suggested a philosophical psychology, a longer time ago, and was seconded by a past member Hume"s Choice, but it never caught on here.

[iambiguous]

"The Fundamental Question"
Arthur Witherall

It is arguable that necessary truths require no explanation. It is also arguable that it is inappropriate to feel awe at that which requires no explanation. Therefore, if it were believed that the existence of something instead of nothing was a necessary truth, it could be argued that a feeling of awe in response to the fundamental question is misplaced or irrational. Alternatively, even if it were not a necessary truth, but nevertheless something "natural", then awe might be considered inappropriate.

In other words, name something believed to be a "necessary truth", or something that is believed to be "natural", and then criticise anyone who is foolish enough to feel awed by it?

People come to conclusions like this as though conclusions like this can be come to merely in the act of naming those things that they believe are or are not necessary truths or natural.

Why feel awe regarding the extraordinary facts that astrophysicists have compiled with respect to the universe itself. Billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars going back a "singularity" that commensed the Big Bang out of nothing at all?

Why feel awe in the face of the extraordinary technology all around us? Technology that, if those thousands of years ago were able to experience it, they would be simply dumbfounded.

From my frame of mind, the explanation here is dasein. That seems as "natural" a truth as any to me.

We may have an intuition, even before considering the position in detail, that the claim that "something exists" is necessarily true is misguided, if not certainly false. This is especially true if we already feel that the fundamental question is awesome or unfathomable, but even if we are not so impressed, it looks like a mistaken claim. Modern philosophers normally argue that the notion of necessity derives its significance from the notion of analyticity. That is, a necessary truth is one that is immediately true in virtue of its meaning or can be shown to be so using logic plus the appropriate definitions. But the existence of the something instead of nothing is not usually thought to be an analytical or a logical truth.

Yes, the definitional logic that is so vital to those who hammer a reality together out of a world of words. Then what is believed "in their head" becomes all that they need by way of an explanation able to be construed as a necessary truth. Even with respect to things -- something out of nothing -- they cannot possibly be privy to.

[iambiguous]

[Iambigious,

Please refer to my above comments as to why a social psychological relevance may be more appropriate, or, down to earth. I suggested a philosophical psychology, a longer time ago, and was seconded by a past member Hume"s Choice, but it never caught on here.

I'm sorry, but, as I explained to you on another thread, I am unable to refer to you regarding many of your reactions to the things I post. Why? Because I rarely have a clue as to what it is that you are attempting to say. I make my point. Then your point seems [to me] to be an exercise in irony. As though you were actually just mocking the ponderous "intellectual contraptions" of the "serious philosophers" here.

But that's just me. If in fact you are not being ironic and are attempting to make what you construe to be an important point about my own point regarding something and nothing, I'm afraid you will have to choose different words.

Note to others:

How would you translate his point above as it relates to the points that I am making in regard to the post that he is reacting to -- my exchange with surreptitious75 ?

[surreptitious75]

How would you translate his point above as it relates to the points that I am making in regard to the post that he is reacting to

Below his username he gives his location as Mysterium Tremendum which translates as : awe inspiring mystery
Whether his posting style is a consequence of this one cannot say but it is definitely mysterious if nothing else

I think what he could mean is that sometimes ones world view can be determined more by how one sees it rather than actually studying how it really is
But his prose is so inscrutable that I truly have no idea how accurate this interpretation is and any elaboration may prove to be just as incomprehensible

[surreptitious75]

Mysterium Tremendum also invokes Dionysus and Nietzsche so a couple more clues there to help you along the way

[Meno_]

How would you translate his point above as it relates to the points that I am making in regard to the post that he is reacting to

Below his username he gives his location as Mysterium Tremendum which translates as : awe inspiring mystery
Whether his posting style is a consequence of this one cannot say but it is definitely mysterious if nothing else

I think what he could mean is that sometimes ones world view can be determined more by how one sees it rather than actually studying how it really is
But his prose is so inscrutable that I truly have no idea how accurate this interpretation is and any elaboration may prove to be just as incomprehensible

I may need to clarify. The idea, of psychology(individual) is more prone to be prepossessed, by multiple subsets, that define an individual, simply possessing more social roles-hats, resulting a shift from individual to social psychology.

The variability between different levels of philosophically nominal individual psychology -perspectivism, will layer out more parallel, or contabilate structural differences, to come up with new forms , in some cases, to try to coincide with generally long held suppositions.

Social psychology offers such medium, wherein such differences, can be brought down to earth.

Individuals persist in perspectivism, the mind 75 correctly signals toward

Social psychology is closer to philosophy the psychology and then philosophy is from psychology. The gap is narrowed, and a more realistic paradigm can be constructed, which in turn would be more akin to bring it down to less conceptual levels , I. e bring it down to earth.

Social psychology applies less depth , and more normative inter-cultural derivatives, and it is, what has developed into 'group' therapy.
Individual analysis, on the other hand has less functional philosophical utility, functionally more devoid of application.

For that reason, language analysis tends to shift methodology into 'sense' and sensible goals.
Therefore, on the supposition that more common sense has more resemblance to social constructions of reality, it may loose some such function with philosophical constructs which have less group function.
Nihilism, being a product of phenomenal reduction, works the opposite way, and hence the elementary conntraindicated method works against it's underlying structural process.

In fact the work against each other. Less structural complexity in social psychology tends to mediate between individual and social levels.

[iambiguous]

Nihilism, being a product of phenomenal reduction, works the opposite way, and hence the elementary conntraindicated method works against it's underlying structural process.

Again, this is only my own personal reaction -- the embodiment of dasein -- but explanations of this sort are just intellectual gibberish to me.

Let's try this:

Provide me with a particular example in which you are interacting with someone and the conversation shifts from what you are doing to an understanding of how this something might be understood given that nothing at all may once have been a factor.

My own understanding of nihilism here -- an existential contraption -- presumes that in a No God world, the meaning we ascribe to what we are doing -- discussing the Trump presidency, say -- may involve actual consequences in our lives, but these consequences seem unable to be linked to any essential meaning or purpose in what is presumed to be an essentially meaningless universe.

This then goes back to the presumption that whatever existential meaning I impart here will always tumble down into the gap between what I think I know about the Trump presidency and all there is to be known about it going back to an understanding of existence itself. Which would necessarily include the extent to which nothing at all may or may not be applicable.

And, of course, the presumption of some measure of autonomy/free will on my part.

Now, how might your own assessment of nihilism above be understood in this more substantive/descriptive sense?