Fooloso4 wrote: ↑
January 29th, 2019, 6:33 pm
My opinion is that subjectivity requires consciousness and consciousness is an emergent property of some entities in the universe, and so, there was a time, a “temporal slice” when there was not a subjective perspective. It was out of this universe without a subjective perspective that a subject perspective emerged. They are not interdependent, the latter is dependent on the former.
My opinion is that the subject is original, and the essence of the universe is the subject's consciousness of the world it lives in. This view presupposes a final cause, a cosmic teleology. Matter is the functional basis of consciousness, but it must be seen as an instrument rather than an ontological basis for the subject's existence. Ontologically, the subject is the primus motor
of everything, and its being does not need an explanation. It is a causa sui
, and its necessity can be seen immediately through a simple intuition.
...no subjects no problem. Who would it be a problem for?
For us, to think about that possibility. The universe without subjects does not belong to the group of possible worlds. Remember that we have only one universe, and this can be seen as the definition of 'universe'.
...it is you assumption that a world without subjects means nothingness.
Nothingness for the subject means nothingness. Nonexistence. What else can nothingness mean? The world is a totality of subjective perspectives, a totality of subject-object relationships, or to go a step deeper, a totality of subject-subject relationships. The universe is a community of subjects.
Arjen wrote: ↑
January 29th, 2019, 5:55 pm
Isn't that solipsism again?
Removing the subjects and then ending up with nothing?
Here we are in front of a paradox: death means nothingness, and still we know that the world goes on. A task for philosophers.