How can we explain the existence and development of life at all? — Jack Cummins
But, inasmuch as your existence is uniquely yours, why would you - or could you - allow anyone else to explain your existence for you? — tim wood
With Mr. observation about throwness fresh in our thoughts, I'll observe that while wondering is a mode of being, too much or inappropriate wondering is a sickness. Not to be confused with Heidegger's "inauthentic being," that being something different. But instead a sickness in the more common sense of the word.but I am left wondering beyond this — Jack Cummins
an infinite duration — Down The Rabbit Hole
too much or inappropriate wondering is a sickness — tim wood
I am standing back from it all, and do have some anger, because I am not finding any worthwhile answers about the nature of existence, and purpose, at all. — Jack Cummins
Thank you! You noticed and understood. Or at least partially. What would you call "too much or inappropriate wondering"? I have in mind that wondering that blocks living. You may prefer to all it pathological wondering - no objection here. — tim wood
For clarity's sake, there is a whole lot of useful and productive wondering to be done, but these all within a framework that a least anticipates the possibility of substantive and meaningful answers. That is, the whys that are asked are more-or-less well understood. Until and unless "existence" is understood even in preliminary or speculative terms - in service of seeking substantive and meaningful answers - such wonder pursued becomes a sickness. — tim wood
And basically you are saying, "Do not question the enterprise itself, only follow the patterns set out for you". At least, you are saying something dangerously close. — schopenhauer1
Since 'explaining presupposes existence', to "explain existence" makes no sense (i.e. begs the question). As for the "development of life", neo-darwinian evolution and species-specific developmental biology suffice. And insofar as your query comes down to contemplating 'the nature of existence', Jack, I speculate that nature refers to the unbounded immanence – substance / being – of necessary non-necessary, or contingent, facts (i.e. existents, events ... universes) – modes / beings – because, if for no other reasons, conceptual negations of these predicates (e.g. "bounded immanence" or "transcendence" or "necessary facts") introduce antinomies or entail contradictions. Any considerations other than that which comes-to-be ... continues-to-be ... cease-to-be ... contingently, or gratuitously (i.e. without reason – since, again, reasoning (explaining) presupposes ... to be) are, to my mind, merely imaginary (e.g. "god/s", "souls", "unicorns", ... "geometric points").How can we explain the existence and development of life at all? — Jack Cummins
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.