To unpack that: we are born with "why"-asking machinery in our brains, and that machinery, which normally has a pragmatic point (is useful in life) just naturally tends to keep asking "why?" At which point it bumps up against the question of existence as a whole - why existence as a whole? — gurugeorge
But consider: normally, asking why depends on relative juxtaposition of things. Why this? Because that, because some other thing. But there's no "other thing" against which existence as a whole can be juxtaposed. Unless you posit it. And that's "God." If God is defined as self-existent, unmoved Mover, etc., then the why-series comes to an intellectually satisfying end. — gurugeorge
I think you've put your finger on the problem here. We build our sandcastles between the tides. We can understand goals that pay off in 5 years or even 20 years (depending on our age). This future-orientedness is 'mature' and 'civilized.' But extend it a little too much and it threatens us with a vision of terrible futility.Everyone seeing this thread will be dead in 90 years or less. Some of us much less than that. I'll be lucky to get 30 more years, and would not relish getting any more than that. All I have made, thought, and built; all those I love, or know will be swept away and turned to dust.
What possible 'grand meaning' can such an ephemeral thing have? — charleton
We can answer local why-questions in terms of these relationships. But the system as a whole must remain a brute fact. There is no object outside of the system to put the system into a necessary relation with. — ff0
The protagonist of that story is its essential, central, primary component. ...because a possibility-story is a life-experience possibility-story only because it has a protagonist. — Michael Ossipoff
Alan Watts is a great introduction to philosophical questions for someone who never got his feet wet before. But after some time, it gets tiring - he says the same thing over and over in different ways, and that's that. He has great breadth, but little depth.Alan Watts — JustSomeGuy
It does occur to me that we exist largely as possibility.
question assumes there is a meaning for life. I do not understand why people assume something has a "meaning". — Pollywalls
I'm happy to find this thought discussed by someone else. Yes, it's when the 'why' targets existence as a whole that it reveals itself to be a lyrical why, a 'pseudo-question.' — ff0
But consider: normally, asking why depends on relative juxtaposition of things. Why this? Because that, because some other thing. But there's no "other thing" against which existence as a whole can be juxtaposed.
Nature (the way things are) is a system of postulated necessary relationships. We can answer local why-questions in terms of these relationships. But the system as a whole must remain a brute fact.
There is no object outside of the system to put the system into a necessary relation with.
But I don't see how a metaphysical God object brings the why-series to an end.
...So we don't escape brute fact.
But logically we still have existence as brute fact.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.