Why is there something rather than nothing?
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
3017: What is 'is'? That's the quiz. It's the Wiz.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Can you tell me why you're asking what an existent is after I gave you a definition?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 6:44 pm3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 5:46 pm
So, since I just said that "Anything of any sort that there is" is one definition of "existent," I have to wonder why you're asking again. Do you not understand "Anything of any sort that there is"? Is something unsatisfactory about that as a definition to you?
Okay, let me if this follows. Now you're back to a propositional statement or judgment the anything of any sort is considered an existent. If that's correct, then what is an existent? For example is an existent a Kantian thing-in-itself?
Thank you for the question. I think you might agree it may be an intriguing one. Or at least I hope so.
In trying to parse the nature of a so-called 'existent,' one could ask or explore whether there's any agreement on what we know about the standard definition first:
Existent- 1. having reality or existence.
If that is what you had in mind, or if you're comfortable with that simple or known definition, it certainly follows that one should question what this reality consists of... meaning, the thing-in-itself that you speak of is a some-thing, but do we know what that something really is (your 'existent')?
For example, you used the analogy of describing a cat. We don't know how to make a cat, as they emerged and evolved as such. In other words, they are in the form that they are as a thing-in-itself, independent of our ability to make one from scratch. And since we don't know how to make a cat (like we do making a car, or baking a cake, or building a building, etc.etc.) how do we truly know, understand and appreciate its reality; its existence (an existent) ?
Alternatively, certainly we don't know what it's like to be a cat, that's a given. And we can make robots with artificial intelligence, but we can't make your cat.
― Albert Einstein
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
So first, while I wouldn't disagree with "having reality or existence," exactly, I think that definition is problematic in a philosophical context, because "reality" (and "real") is a philosophically-loaded term with all sorts of disputatious connotations, depending on the exact context, and "existence" is basically defining a term with the same term.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 7:25 pmCan you tell me why you're asking what an existent is after I gave you a definition?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 6:44 pm3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 5:46 pm
So, since I just said that "Anything of any sort that there is" is one definition of "existent," I have to wonder why you're asking again. Do you not understand "Anything of any sort that there is"? Is something unsatisfactory about that as a definition to you?
Okay, let me if this follows. Now you're back to a propositional statement or judgment the anything of any sort is considered an existent. If that's correct, then what is an existent? For example is an existent a Kantian thing-in-itself?
Thank you for the question. I think you might agree it may be an intriguing one. Or at least I hope so.
In trying to parse the nature of a so-called 'existent,' one could ask or explore whether there's any agreement on what we know about the standard definition first:
Existent- 1. having reality or existence.
If that is what you had in mind, or if you're comfortable with that simple or known definition, it certainly follows that one should question what this reality consists of... meaning, the thing-in-itself that you speak of is a some-thing, but do we know what that something really is (your 'existent')?
For example, you used the analogy of describing a cat. We don't know how to make a cat, as they emerged and evolved as such. In other words, they are in the form that they are as a thing-in-itself, independent of our ability to make one from scratch. And since we don't know how to make a cat (like we do making a car, or baking a cake, or building a building, etc.etc.) how do we truly know, understand and appreciate its reality; its existence (an existent) ?
Alternatively, certainly we don't know what it's like to be a cat, that's a given. And we can make robots with artificial intelligence, but we can't make your cat.
Note that nowhere was I saying anything about epistemology, about how we know anything, about whether we know what something is "really like," etc. I was simply giving synonyms/synonymous phrases for "existent."
Can you say what you feel was the problem with the synonymous terms I presented?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
The 'problem' or philosophical problem was you didn't qualify existent. Your analogy you gave was:Terrapin Station wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 7:43 pmSo first, while I wouldn't disagree with "having reality or existence," exactly, I think that definition is problematic in a philosophical context, because "reality" (and "real") is a philosophically-loaded term with all sorts of disputatious connotations, depending on the exact context, and "existence" is basically defining a term with the same term.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 7:25 pmCan you tell me why you're asking what an existent is after I gave you a definition?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 6:44 pm3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 5:46 pm
So, since I just said that "Anything of any sort that there is" is one definition of "existent," I have to wonder why you're asking again. Do you not understand "Anything of any sort that there is"? Is something unsatisfactory about that as a definition to you?
Okay, let me if this follows. Now you're back to a propositional statement or judgment the anything of any sort is considered an existent. If that's correct, then what is an existent? For example is an existent a Kantian thing-in-itself?
Thank you for the question. I think you might agree it may be an intriguing one. Or at least I hope so.
In trying to parse the nature of a so-called 'existent,' one could ask or explore whether there's any agreement on what we know about the standard definition first:
Existent- 1. having reality or existence.
If that is what you had in mind, or if you're comfortable with that simple or known definition, it certainly follows that one should question what this reality consists of... meaning, the thing-in-itself that you speak of is a some-thing, but do we know what that something really is (your 'existent')?
For example, you used the analogy of describing a cat. We don't know how to make a cat, as they emerged and evolved as such. In other words, they are in the form that they are as a thing-in-itself, independent of our ability to make one from scratch. And since we don't know how to make a cat (like we do making a car, or baking a cake, or building a building, etc.etc.) how do we truly know, understand and appreciate its reality; its existence (an existent) ?
Alternatively, certainly we don't know what it's like to be a cat, that's a given. And we can make robots with artificial intelligence, but we can't make your cat.
Note that nowhere was I saying anything about epistemology, about how we know anything, about whether we know what something is "really like," etc. I was simply giving synonyms/synonymous phrases for "existent."
Can you say what you feel was the problem with the synonymous terms I presented?
"It would be like if someone asked, "What's a 'cat'?"
And someone else answered, "a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short snout, and retractable claws. It is widely kept as a pet or for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed."
And then the first guy responded with, "What's a 'cat'?"
You'd have to wonder why the first guy is asking the same exact question again, as that's a very strange thing to do in context. It would probably be more helpful if he'd explain why he's asking again rather than just asking again as if the second guy hadn't typed a definition of the term."
So, philosophically, how should we come to understand a cats existence?
― Albert Einstein
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
One way to ask the question about the reality of its (the cat) existence, or a thing's existence, is to examine its origins. We can explain a cat's existence from evolutionary biology; genetic changes, adaptations and other biological phenomena. Or even somewhat pragmatically, we can learn about the origins of a cat through the simple observation of mating behavior. But that is simply a cat making another cat. And the former, is a discipline of science.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 7:45 pm Or is it that you were wanting to ask those sorts of epistemological questions ("How do we know . . . " etc.) for some reason?
So if we were to make or build a cat like we would a robot it would remain an artificial thing; not a real thing. And in that instance, it would not be a real cat. But an "existent" as you said, is defined as "having reality or existence".
How should we come to know or understand this existent thing (that "is") called a cat?
― Albert Einstein
- Consul
- Posts: 6039
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
—Ludwig Feuerbach (Principles of the Philosophy of the Future, §25, 1843)
The "is" in this statement is synonymous with "exists", so to say that something exists is to say that there is more to it than its being an object of thought. What doesn't exist is nothing but an object of thought, and what exists isn't nothing but an object of thought.
- Consul
- Posts: 6039
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
I mean the first "is" in it.
- Consul
- Posts: 6039
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
To say that something is/exists is to say that there is more to it than the thought of it.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Hello Consul !
That reminds me of the question: what does it mean for something to exist (?).
If all life forms have one essential purpose (survival) , then the next question (s) could be; what's causing the need for such survival? For example, while emergent instinct may cause lower life forms to survive and exist, it wouldn't cause a human being to survive and exist. Instead, as self-aware volitional beings, one's will to survive (live or die) would take primacy over such emergent instinct. Meaning the will itself is an existent thing that causes subjective phenomena (human beings) to survive.
If that subjective 'existent' is not an object of thought or desire that one can kick, smell or see, yet exists, should one still consider it an existent? Even emergence itself (the DNA causing birds to naturally swarm), is a thing that exists, yet is not an object of thought. Or is it? And if it is, what is thought?
― Albert Einstein
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
"Qualify" refers to "How we should come to understand" in your usage?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 8:01 pm The 'problem' or philosophical problem was you didn't qualify existent . . .
So, philosophically, how should we come to understand a cats existence?
And if you're simply asking me "What's an 'existent'," why would I think that you're asking a question such as "How should we come to understand 'existent'"? No one would assume that asking what a term refers to is asking the latter question. You'd need to be explicit about that from the start.
I'm not entirely sure that I understand the question "How should we come to understand" something.
First off, on my view, there are no true and no objective normatives ("shoulds," "oughts" and the like). So if I'm telling someone how they "should" do something, I'm merely giving my personal opinion, supposing I have one about the matter at hand.
I suppose in this case, my opinion would be "You should come to understand 'existent'" by being made aware of synonymous words/phrases, some of which hopefully you already understand." Someone can't bootstrap ALL words and phrases for you; but if for some reason you weren't familiar with any words or phrases, or you wanted to pretend that you weren't (which is unfortunately what some people think passes for philosophy), we'd have to define terms ostensively for you to start. We couldn't start with more abstract stuff, and the ostensive work would have to occur in person, not on a message board. Of course, my guess would be that you're already pretending not to be familiar with the term "existent," because that's a pretty basic word to understand for having philosophical discussions, but I'm willing to engage in some degree of "playing stupid," as long as that's not going to be the whole shtick a la the philosophy board denizen known as Skepdick, say.
BUT, I suppose that that's not really what you're asking. In which case I need clarification regarding just what "How we should come to understand x" amounts to for you, otherwise I can't answer it, because I don't know what you have in mind.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
First, I want to point out that "the reality of x's existence" has nothing to do with what I'd been talking about. And it's not at all something anyone needs to bother with in order to understand the term "existent."3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 9:34 pm One way to ask the question about the reality of its (the cat) existence, or a thing's existence
So that would imply that you're not actually wondering what the term "existent" refers to but you're wondering what?
By the way, I don't even know what the hell "The question about the reality of x's existence" is supposed to be saying, really. What is "The 'reality' of x's existence," and what's supposed to be the question about that? The rest of your post was mostly about scientific accounts of how something developed, etc. Does that have something to do with what you're trying to get at?
If so, what in the world would that have to do with me pointing out that we can't posit something being caused by something without positing a something in the first place (to do the causing), so any answer that amounts to anything like that wouldn't be telling us why there's something instead of nothing, because we're starting with something, and that's what we're supposed to be wondering about.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Purposes only exist insofar as a particular individual invents/ascribes one. No individual has to do this, and different individuals can invent/ascribe different purposes, obviously.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 12:18 am If all life forms have one essential purpose (survival)
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Existence cannot be understood without also understanding what an existent is. Are you comfortable that existents have been defined in this thread?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 20th, 2021, 8:01 pm So, philosophically, how should we come to understand a cats existence?
- Consul
- Posts: 6039
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
First of all, the meaning of words such as "existence" is one thing, and the meaning of existence (or life) is another.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 12:18 amThat reminds me of the question: what does it mean for something to exist (?).
If all life forms have one essential purpose (survival) , then the next question (s) could be; what's causing the need for such survival? For example, while emergent instinct may cause lower life forms to survive and exist, it wouldn't cause a human being to survive and exist. Instead, as self-aware volitional beings, one's will to survive (live or die) would take primacy over such emergent instinct. Meaning the will itself is an existent thing that causes subjective phenomena (human beings) to survive.
If that subjective 'existent' is not an object of thought or desire that one can kick, smell or see, yet exists, should one still consider it an existent? Even emergence itself (the DNA causing birds to naturally swarm), is a thing that exists, yet is not an object of thought. Or is it? And if it is, what is thought?
All nonexistent things are mere objects of thought (or imagination) aka intentional objects, but not all existent things are objects of thought (or imagination). Of course, as soon as you call something existent, it is an object of thought; but this is not to say that it depends for its existence on being an object of thought, that there is no difference between being/existing and being thought (to be/exist).
In my understanding, thought is inner speech.
We do think and talk about emergence, don't we? So this relation is an object of thought.
Note that objects of thought needn't belong to the ontological category <object> (or <substance>), since e.g. properties, relations, events, and facts are possible objects of thought too.
2023/2024 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