What possible answer to 'why things are' could there be that does not lead to infinite regress?

A necessary being.

But how would you demonstrate that a being is necessary in a way that would not also allow you to demonstrate that a 'universe of things' is necessay? And that being the case, you'd still end up with "because it just is".

I have come to the conclusion that the phenomenal is reality, and the purpose of philosophy/science is to explain why what appears is as it appears. So no hidden 'reality', rather the reality we experience is all there is, and the question is why it is the way it appears.

A universe of things is by definition unnecessary, inasmuch as "things" are finite, contingent, and causally dependent on each other and "a universe" is just the sum total of such things.

Phenomenalism is interesting, but I don't think there can be an answer to the question you pose, given the claim phenomenalism makes, as you define it. So I would say you fall into the nihilism camp.

For someone who is not even certain that the universe really exists outside your own head, you seem to know an awful lot about 'things'. They're finite, contingent and causally dependant. Where are you getting this from?

For someone who is not even certain that the universe really exists outside your own head, you seem to know an awful lot about 'things'. — Pseudonym

Strawman. I neither said nor suggested any such thing. In fact, if you read the OP, I said exactly the reverse of what you impute of me here.

but why they are. — Thorongil

They are expressions of the creativity of Mind. However, the Mind it's not relegated to the brain. It permeates throughout all life as waves, within, waves, within waves. One can considered matter as well as imagination as the play tools of the Mind so as to amuse itself. When our minds go unconscious, it rests and there is no time or space to play with. And then the impulse arises to awaken an create.

In other words, the more important question is not what objects are, but why they are. — Thorongil

Frankly, I don't understand this question. Could you flesh this out please? Thanks.

The more interesting and pressing question is whether the phantasmagoria of experience exhausts the category of the real. In other words, the more important question is not what objects are, but why they are. — Thorongil

The original quest of philosophy has been generally forgotten. Notice the etymological link between ‘quest’ and ‘question’; the original question of philosophy concerned the nature of reality, but reality as as lived, not as an arms-length, ‘scientific’ analysis.

I have a book called THe Shape of Ancient Thought by Thomas McEvilly, arti historian. It was published in the early 2000’s to not much notice in the academic world. McEvilly argues that there was considerably more traffic in ideas between the ancient Mediterranean and Indian cultures than is generally recognised. He documents the similarities of the philosophical preoccupations of the Greeks and Indians, with meticulous reference to many primary sources. What comes across very clearly are the parallels between Platonist. Vedantic and Buddhist accounts of philosophiical wisdom and enlightenment. Of course it is impossible to convey even the gist of the idea in a brief post, however I mention it because I think common to all of those sources, is the understanding of the illusory nature of experience of ordinary people. This is because the understanding of the ordinary person (the hoi polloi, the puttajana) is corrupted by clinging or avidya, so as to render them incapable of sound judgement concerning the nature of things. Conversely, arriving at the state which makes that judgement possible, is the very essence of wisdom, sapience or sagacity.

What happened in Western culture is that this philosophical perspective became subsumed by religion, then idenfitifed with religion, and largely abandoned because of its association with religion. This of course took place over millenia, it is not something that happened overnight. But what was lost as a consequence, was the perspective within which the illusory nature of lived existence could be understood - because there is nothing with which to compare it any more.

I think that is the context for the kind of question you’re asking.

Dude, that's a really good exposition you have going there. Thanks.

Speaking as the aspirational hoi polloi, it seems to me that this vale of tears, or whatever it is, can only be understood - personally - as something like an educational toy. In this sense, though materialism may be false as a matter of ultimate judgement, nevertheless it is the 'correct' way to play the game - as if it were real. but perhaps I am still on level one.

I'm tempted to say no, because I don't know what it would mean for you to understand it, not knowing you. I think it was fairly self-evident what I meant. In any case, the "why" question deals with the reason for there being objects of experience at all as opposed to the question of what they are ultimately composed of.

I'm busy planting a cabbage, I'll need to get back to this thread when I finish :D (like Voltaire)

What does it mean "why" objects are?

Speaking as the aspirational hoi polloi, it seems to me that this vale of tears, or whatever it is, can only be understood - personally - as something like an educational toy. In this sense, though materialism may be false as a matter of ultimate judgement, nevertheless it is the 'correct' way to play the game - as if it were real. but perhaps I am still on level one. — unenlightened

Level one is good, that's where the real play is at >:O

I don't think nihilism is the end result of having no reason why objects are. I find existential philosophers arguments to be compelling -- even in a nihilistic universe, an absurd world, we still can find meaning in life. Even if some objective purpose is not knowable, we still can live a life of joy. Even if it were knowable, and there was a purpose, but we were to find it reprehensible we can live well.

The Daoists pretty much disregarded Hindu illusionism thought, as did Buddha who limited his thoughts to how to live a life (The Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path) - which were adopted by Daoists.

There are no Illusions in the sense we are being tricked. It is exactly as it is being perceived, but there is always more that can and will be perceived as we evolve and learn to be more perceptive.

The trouble with illusions, is that it leads to some sort of master-student relationships where the masters role is to (for money) show the student the path past the illusions. Some sort of "enlightenment" (a desire that Buddha would caution against). In other words, it is a marketing gimmick to sell services and create careers.

The Daoism is more independently minded the and as a result, traditional Daoism is very much an independent philosophical journey of observation.

Speaking as the aspirational hoi polloi, it seems to me that this vale of tears, or whatever it is, can only be understood - personally - as something like an educational toy. — unenlightened

(Y)

A universe of things is by definition unnecessary, inasmuch as "things" are finite, contingent, and causally dependent on each other and "a universe" is just the sum total of such things. — Thorongil

The existence of any particular thing may be contingent; but this is not the same as to say that the existence of anything at all is contingent.

I don't think nihilism is the end result of having no reason why objects are. I find existential philosophers arguments to be compelling -- even in a nihilistic universe, an absurd world, we still can find meaning in life. Even if some objective purpose is not knowable, we still can live a life of joy. Even if it were knowable, and there was a purpose, but we were to find it reprehensible we can live well. — Moliere

I agree :)

The existence of any particular thing may be contingent; but this is not the same as to say that the existence of anything at all is contingent. — Janus

Can you specify anything which isn't contingent? Or some category of things which aren't?

I find existential philosophers arguments to be compelling -- even in a nihilistic universe, an absurd world, we still can find meaning in life — Moliere

Do you think existentialist classics, like Nausea, are persuasive? I can't find anything persuasive about them. I kind of admire Sartre for his honesty and for being utterly true to himself, but I can't help but feel he was, so to speak, pretty tone deaf when it comes to questions of meaning. 'Hell is other people'?

I think you're missing the point. I was pointing out that saying that any particular thing is contingent is not the same as saying that the fact that there is something rather than nothing is contingent.

'Hell is other people'? — Wayfarer

When people live their lives as if they only see themselves from the points of view of others, and the expectations and demands they imagine, or maybe even know, that others are having of, or making upon them; then hell is indeed other people. You need to have an ear for the nuance here.

I think it was fairly self-evident what I meant. In any case, the "why" question deals with the reason for there being objects of experience at all as opposed to the question of what they are ultimately composed of. — Thorongil

I don't think nihilism is the end result of having no reason why objects are. I find existential philosophers arguments to be compelling -- even in a nihilistic universe, an absurd world, we still can find meaning in life. — Moliere

Thorongil,

Not necessarily fairly self-evident. Not until I've read Moliere's statement above did I get the direction of where your question was going (intentional or not).
Theology (or ecclesiastical doctrines, for that matter) had tackled the why question long before metaphysics and scientific investigations had widely solidified the question of 'what exists'.

but why they are. — Thorongil

Why is up to us. We get to do what we like with things.

The quest for meaning comes down to our decisions.

Okay. Now you've provided a comment, not an objection or a request for explanation.

Why is up to us. — Banno

I don't think so.

we still can find meaning in life — Moliere

"Find" doesn't make sense in the world you posit. Meaning must rather be created. But the meaning we can create isn't proportional to, and doesn't fit, what the desires of the heart demand.

The existence of any particular thing may be contingent; but this is not the same as to say that the existence of anything at all is contingent. — Janus

Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

What does it mean "why" objects are? — Agustino

"... the "why" question deals with the reason for there being objects of experience at all as opposed to the question of what they are ultimately composed of."