Think of the four Aristotalian causes, together with all other possibilities of causation that have accumulated in our history (such as that of co-arising, etc.) and logically justify the causal principle by which the firstness came to be. It could be an uncaused given (another possibility of causation). Whatever you choose, how do you justify it was ontically so. — javra
It is hard to reply if you insist on being ridiculous. Anyone who ever came up with a powerful metaphysical view was reasoning from experience of the world. — apokrisis
Do you think it would be possible to have clever thoughts about existence if you are blind, deaf and dumb? — apokrisis
Intelligibility is what emerges. Therefore it would be incoherent to claim that what it emerges from is the intelligible as well. — apokrisis
So Peirce stood for a developmental metaphysics in which all things originate in a state of ultimate vagueness (or Firstness).
...
Peirce said vagueness is that to which the principle of non-contradiction fails to apply. — apokrisis
And of course - if you can get past the Scholastic misrepresentations - Aristotle was striving towards the same with his Hylomorphism. His "prime matter" was a logical attempt to vague-ify the basis of being. — apokrisis
An apeiron is an everythingness in being a pure potential without limitation. — apokrisis
Talk about qualia has the same formula. Why is green green? Why is the scent of a rose like the scent of a rose? The question form itself fails the counterfactuality test. There just is no comparison possible as green is always green. And it still would be as far as I'm concerned even if it were to switch to bleen. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_riddle_of_induction)
Aristotle made the same point. Talk of causality is always a question about a reason for a change. Without counterfactuality, the game doesn't even get off the ground. The question you are asking is not really a question if you the questioner fail to provide a reasonable counterfactual basis for it.
The burden is on Schop to show why he is asking a good question ... if he now again denies that the question was answered. — apokrisis
Is vagueness an uncaused presence of "lack of crispness"? — javra
The point is WHAT is experience? — schopenhauer1
But as a positive metaphysical achievement, we can say that we pushed the limits as far as was possible. — apokrisis
How did Life come from no-life? — Rich
And my argument - the one I say many ancient wisdoms share, even if in groping, informal fashion - is that the vague~crisp defines that epistemic limit best.
However if you can argue against that, go for it. — apokrisis
our answer of "vague~crisp" does not answer the question that you replied to … unless it is to explicitly say that the metaphysical beginning is unknowable. — javra
But anyway, the point about the vague~crisp is that it arises as the limit of our metaphysical inquiries into the question of "why existence?".
We can't answer the question in some monistic fashion - A caused B, and that's that. It is already accepted that existence itself is a brute fact because it is a totalising question bereft of counterfactuals (well, no one has imagined a good one so far). — apokrisis
No, the point is WHAT IS IT NOT? If you can't provide the suitable counterfactual, you ain't got nothing, buster. — apokrisis
You have a rather important dichotomy to existence: that of conflict v. harmony. Some of us emotive people can interpret the same as hate v. love. Some of other folks can interpret it as states of chaos v. states of order. It doesn’t much matter how the processes are interpreted here; nor at what levels of existence they're addressed; the two processes of becoming remain the same. — javra
Harmony can occur in the absence of all conflict. This is not a “crispness” that requires both dyads to be. In the latter form, the given of harmony / love / order can exist just fine in the complete absence its opposite – to not even address any relation in -between. — javra
But that's the point! It exists qua its own phenomena. There is no counterfactual as there is just feeling-like-something, the territory that you keep missing for the map. — schopenhauer1
It's like you have zero comprehension skills. Don't just claim counterfactuals are irrelevant to facticity. Demonstrate how that is an epistemically credible stance to be taking. — apokrisis
The fact that there is a feels-like-something along with the modelling. — schopenhauer1
If you are dead or in a coma, for example, there is no modelling relation. But when you are in a lived and active engagement with the world, what supports your claimed counter-factual here?
Not seeing it. (Hey, another counter-factual!) — apokrisis
How is that not a dualism? You cannot get out of it be referring back to the constituents and ignoring that its emerged ( — schopenhauer1
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.