Is this Quentin Meillassoux's argument?
- francis20520
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: June 11th, 2020, 9:17 am
Is this Quentin Meillassoux's argument?
This is what I gather his argument is.
Q:
How do we know absolute reality exists?
E.g How do we know tennis balls exists?
A:
a. It's wrong to ask whether stuff exist?
b. What is more paramount is that possibilities (Contingencies ?) exists
c. It's possible that tennis balls can get destroyed by fire etc. i.e. possibility
d. Since possibilities exist, the things that make up those possibilities (i.e tennis balls) have to exist.
e. So stuff (tennis balls) exist.
Is this his argument??
On face-value this looks circular reasoning because one cannot think of "possibilities" without thinking about the stuff that make up those possibilities. I.e You cannot think of tennis balls getting destroyed by fire without thinking about tennis balls. So it's circular reasoning which is wrong.
Is this what Quentin Meillassoux's argument or have I got it all wrong??
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023