:chin:

Having spoken of philosophical mysteries on a previous thread, I think that the idea of mystery in philosophy is considered open to criticism. — Jack Cummins

The idea of "mystery" as it's being used isn't really found in philosophy. I remember hearing it every time I asked one too many questions in a religious setting. It's a tactic to baffle the inquiry. If you simply replace "mystery" with "we made this up and know it doesn't make sense", it works about the same.

When I lost my keys a few days ago — Jack Cummins

That was life giving you a small reality check. As with most of us who are creatures of habit and settled expectation, reality can be a considerable shock. As with many - most - things, it is best faced head on, except for those occasions when running away is best, and running away is possible.

I believe that immanence is important, because that was stressed in Gregory Bateson's, 'Ecology of Mind', even though he was an anthropologist, but has contributed to philosophy discourse.

But, I cannot accept that philosophy is able to overlook the developmental aspects of life and existence. That would be about stepping into the nature of the timeless aspects of existence, which may or not exist.

I am aware that certain ideas, especially the idea of the soul, are seen as problematic, but I don't think that enables the idea of existence to be written off. I think that I exist, and that you do too, but I am left wondering why, and whether there is any purpose behind our lives, beyond the meanings which we find for ourselves.

I don't follow how this follows from what I wrote.

If you simply replace "mystery" with "we made this up and know it doesn't make sense", it works about the same — Cheshire

:up:

I remember sitting outside on a bench at about 5am, waiting for the cafe to open when I had lost my keys. It was Sunday morning, and I don't know if I would have been able to contact my landlord. I felt so alone in the universe. The owner of the cafe appeared startled to have someone waiting outside at 8am. I had prayed about finding my keys and felt like I was blessed by the hands of some divine power when the owner handed me the keys to my bedsit. But, of course, that is only my personal perspective on providence, luck and destiny, but I do see it as being interconnected with the question of any underlying power beyond us, on an individual level, and as part of causation and design behind our lives

I think that the idea of we made it up does raise the question of how we make things up, because I am not presuming that we are mere liars. I am asking about any underlying source from which all of this begins to take place.

You trace the idea of causes back to a 'wall', but what lies behind the wall? I am speaking about origins, but also what lies behind mind and matter. I am question veneers, causation, what lies behind the paradox of mind and matter, and I am not really looking for a textbook or Wikipedia explanation. I believe that it is so much more complex, but I do believe that it is the subject matter of philosophy, even though I know that many detest the idea of mystery.

but I do see it as being interconnected with the question of any underlying power beyond us, — Jack Cummins

And I shall point out to you again the need to separate how you see it from how it is. Not to deny the possible utility of the former, but clearly it is not the latter: even the language says so!

How do we separate how we see it from 'how it is'? I am not sure that we are able to step outside of personal, or intersubjective reality, in order to see from a truly objective, or so-called correct viewpoint, beyond interpretation.

Stop wondering and just do it! Or keep wondering and stop asking how not to.

You ask me to 'stop wondering and just do it', but the question is what do we do other than wonder. I am about to go out to the shops, to buy some food, but I am not sure that wondering about the human condition is low on the scale of priorities. Even within relationships, the best moments can be about philosophical contemplation

@Jack Cummins

I believe hyper rationality with the argument from authority and little Britain says the computers says the answer is 4.

We see faces in the clouds and star-patterns in the night sky because our large brains are confabulating survival engines first and foremost. 'Making up shit' prevails because that's the path of least cognitive effort (i.e. fact-free, inconsistent & inexplicable "sound and fury"). Like Sisyphus rolling his philosopher's stone always (further?) uphill, too-few reflectively deconstruct the atavistic woo-woo of our woo-of-the-gaps biases, ... while blinkered mobs go on noisily wallowing in their "mysteries" and other fetishes.

The question is how much are we confabulating? Sometimes, even the most sophisticated philosophy arguments seem contrived. I am not trying to make a mockery of rationality. I do see it as being extremely important, but I just feel extremely aware of how uncertain we are, as Wittgenstein was, and how even our very existence is a bit of a puzzle.

The question may be why does one thing happen rather than anything else. — Jack Cummins

(Plus the Why of Existence)

In our specific and particular path of History there are no what-ifs of it could have been otherwise, since the happening are already a fate accomplished, but this "particular path" hints at a larger scheme…

Existence has to be, given no alternative/opposite of nonexistence/Nothing. The Eternal Basis that then has to be can't just give rise only to our particular path because what has no Beginning, as Eternal, could not have been designed beforehand or outside of itself and thus cannot be something particular such as only the history of our universe; so, the Eternal Basis must then give rise to everything—every possible path. There can't be any special time, place, or arrangement.

In those other paths that go further to become similar to ours lies your 'otherwise'.

So what? However much we confabulate, Jack, we do so because we are, as you say, "extremely aware of how uncertain we are" (re: atavistic woo-of-the-gaps biases) – and uncertainty presupposes the contingent nature of existence which I've mentioned previously.

Atheism can just be a way to shift from eternal , changeless verities to an attitude that is more fluid, creative and adaptive to change. In that way it wards off nihilism by embracing new values and meanings. In fact it can thrive on approaching a world that is overflowing with constantly changing value, rather than relying on one static truth. — Joshs

That's a nice way of putting it and has generally been my take. Some theists consider atheism/nihilism to be a black hole of dread and an invitation to the diabolical. I guess they don't trust people to establish new values and new ways of seeing without a supervisory deity or cosmic consciousness.

No.

I don't think we can explain existence at all. There are facts that lead up to our existence, but they could've turned out in a different manner and we would not be here.

From my experience and meditation i have come to realize that daily life echoes the "beginning" all throughout existence in some way shape of form.
and so the "why" to life is somewhere in daily life you just have to find it.

@MAYAEL

Finally,a person speaks from personal experience and good instincts. :up: Thank you!

Meaning is from within. Sometimes it becomes rocky due to trauma but meditation really helps to see clearly and give you answers from your soul.

:up:

Atheism can just be a way to shift from eternal , changeless verities to an attitude that is more fluid, creative and adaptive to change. In that way it wards off nihilism by embracing new values and meanings. In fact it can thrive on approaching a world that is overflowing with constantly changing value, rather than relying on one static truth. — Joshs

This is fine except that theism is not at all necessarily "one static truth".

I do believe that it does lead to the question of why anything exists at all, — Jack Cummins

Before anything can exist at all, information has to be integrated. So in this universe things exist as self organizing things that integrate information. All things posses a modicum of this facility, the more complex the thing is, the more developed is its information integrating ability.

This is fine except that theism is not at all necessarily "one static truth". — Janus

The most liberal forms of theism I know , post-Kierkegaaedian religion after religion , heretical Christianity etc, reduce dating to a desire for the good, which is certainty a far cry from fundamentalism , but I would argue there is still a static , unchanging element here , and that is the ‘good’ as something that remains what it is as a desire, a trajectory.

Before anything can exist at all, information has to be integrated. So in this universe things exist as self organizing things that integrate information. All things posses a modicum of this facility, the more complex the thing is, the more developed is its information integrating ability. — Pop

At first glance this would appear to defy entropy.

Just curious. How would you start your investigation of existence? What is it (or what are those things) that you would study/analyze in order to improve your understanding of existence?

I think that introspection is becoming a lost aspect of philosophy. Of course, the empirical investigation, including the scientific aspects of existence are important. But, I do believe that we should not ignore our own minds as part of the source for knowledge and reflection.

At first glance this would appear to defy entropy. — Cheshire

What defies entropy is the progressive self organization of the universe. This seems to be possible because far more space is created in the universe then entropy ( due to expansion ), such that the universe becomes progressively more ordered , rather then disordered.

The evolution of information in the universe - from its beginnings - creating structure from energy, and then that structure snowballing into more complex structure as material things, due to the integration of initially energetic information, is a great way to understand what consciousness is, and how it arises.

** To put it another way: the rate of space creation in the universe is greater then the rate of entropy creation, so as a percentage of the total space, entropy is decreasing. This permits "order", where order is created by self organization, which relies on information integration. https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/information/entropy-expansion.gif

Stare at the sun (or solar eclipse) and go blind seeing – intro-specting – what you want to see. In other words, the eye cannot even see itself when it looks "inward" at itself. The mind reflects on thoughts ideas concepts images feelings (re: philosophy) ... not on "the mind itself" (which is merely a cognitive illusion of reified activity).