Well, I like being agreed with ;)

That sounds about right to me. I will say that it's possible to change these sorts of beliefs, too, but yes -- to do so is like pulling yourself apart.

I think philosophy *can* help in this endeavor, but it doesn't necessarily lead to self-criticism of this sort. One has to have the right sorts of inclinations to be able to suspend and entertain other brute beliefs.

The issue is where do we go from here? Wherever we go, we ought to be sure of the basics, since even small inaccuracies/bias/prejudice in foundations, such as those built on historical prejudices (like God), or 'brute facts', may cause larger problems, until they are sorted out into their own domain. Given the amount of knowledge available to a huge population in the world, I suspect/hope we will be seeing some amazing new advances in all parts of the human endeavor. — Cavacava

There's a journal I read from time to time called 'anamnesis', which is of course a Platonist term, for 'unforgetting' or recalling things forgotten. I think, regrettably, a great deal of the real wisdom of the Western tradition has been forgotten, and until we 'remember what we have forgotten' we will continue to plunge headlong into unwisdom, aided and abetted by powerful technologies but without any sense of purpose. But that is completely unrelated to this particular thread, so I'll leave it there.

More to the point, Ed Feser has some cogent discussions of the topic of 'brute fact' on his blog.

It explains itself, it's self-explanatory, that's the principle of sufficient reason - for every fact F, there must be a sufficient reason why F is the case.. The first premise of the argument from contingency is that everything that exists has a reason for its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. Brute facts don't have sufficient reason for their existence, they just are.

The content of what you say here appears to be agreeing with what I said, but your tone suggests disagreement, so I'm not sure what to make of it.

How does the content agree with what you said? Brute facts have no reason, necessary beings are their own reason, there's no equivalence. One has sufficient reason the other has no reason.

A brute fact is something that exists without explanation. — Marchesk

That would be challenge. You doubt that? You deny it? I'd argue that's challenging the very idea.
Face it, either you agree or disagree, with challenge you get the same result, it's a fact, a brute one!

what is your picture of?

Cthulhu

If 2 "brute facts" co-arose from nothing, each contingent upon and sustained by the other, would they be brute facts?

Cthulhu — Noblosh

Yes, that. My metaphysics is Lovecraftian. Laws of nature are monstrous beings.

If 2 "brute facts" co-arose from nothing, each contingent upon and sustained by the other, would they be brute facts? — Roke

Would that be like the Son & Holy Spirit parts of the Christian Trinity that eternally depend on the Father or Son/Father relationship for existence?

I don't know what "arising from nothing" actually means, but it's an interesting thought.

I had something closer to an existential double entry accounting system in mind, but yeah the trinity might be a religious analog. I don't pretend to know any answers, but I suspect some causes and effects might come to exist simultaneously, as equilibrium.

So how do we decide between the two? Is it a matter of aesthetics? I'm repelled by radical contingency while you're appalled at some mysterious, non-empirical laws making things happen?

It is the problem of induction, an ontological problem which creates epistemological issues. We propose self evident 'truths', universals/absolutes upon which we base our systems of belief, our knowledge, on what we have proposed, which seems to be working for the most part, we tweak it, change it, reinterpret it as necessary. While we have no guarantees, we do have probabilities and possibilities.

What is needed is a different conception of reality, an expanded view of reality, deflationary or thick, one in which possibilities become categorized to encompass what is; such as deductive possibilities, historic possibilities, nomological possibilities, logical possibilities and so on.

Realism fails because what is given is only given to us though thought and idealism fails because we all die, and therefore thought itself must admit its own horizon, which means that idealism can't encompass factual reality either.

Sufficient reason is not coherently understood in terms of something being "its own reason", but in terms of its being caused by something else.

Something being its own sufficient reason is no less coherent than a brute fact, neither make very much sense and it would be biased to accept one and dismiss the other.

How about taking logical consistency as a "brute fact"? That means, something exists iff it is identical to itself and different from others. This "brute fact" then generates the whole reality.

Something cannot be its own sufficient reason simply because in that there is no possibility of any relationship whereby one thing is the cause of, or reason for, the other. For example, to say that heat is caused by the agitation of molecules is to offer an explanation for the occurrence of heat by way of sufficient reason; it is sufficient for heat to manifest if the molecules of any substance are agitated. To say that I went to the shop to buy tomatoes is to offer an explanation for why I went to the shop, again by way of sufficient reason, To say that the universe exists because of the Big Bang, or that species evolve by the interplay of random mutation and natural selection, are again explanations in terms of sufficient reason.

To say a being exists because it exists is no explanation at all; it is to say that the existence of that being is a brute fact, and it doesn't matter per se whether we think the existence of the being is necessary or contingent. It is like saying that heat occurs because heat occurs or I went to the shop because I went to the shop.

That doesn't tell you why the thing exists, but rather how anything exists.

Something cannot be its own sufficient reason simply because in that there is no possibility of any relationship whereby one thing is the cause of, or reason for, the other. — John

You're confusing reason and cause, they're not the same.

You are confusing efficient causation, which has no inherent connections with reasons for actions, with other conceptions such as formal or final causation, which do necessarily involve reasons for actions.

Also, if I say that heat is produced because of the agitation of molecules, then it is perfectly coherent to say that the agitation of the molecules is the reason for the manifestation of heat, even though there is no imputation of intentionality; which would certainly be involved if action of agitating the molecules had been done for some specific reason/s. In other words molecular agitation can be the reason for heat, even though the heat is not necessarily produced with any purpose in mind, and certainly the agitation itself cannot be coherently thought to have any reasons for wanting to produce heat.

You are confusing efficient causation, which has no inherent connections with reasons for actions, with other conceptions such as formal or final causation, which do necessarily involve reasons for actions. — John

Now you're just playing semantics and muddying the waters with irrelevant concepts. In this context reason simply means explanation. That could include causation but it is not limited to it. A broadly logically necessary being is a being that contains the reason for its existence within itself and exists in all possible worlds if its existence is possible. Brute facts are not self-explanatory and could have been otherwise.

You seem to be operating under the erroneous opinion that I have said that all brute facts are necessary beings. I haven't said that, so you are arguing against a paper tiger.

You seem to be operating under the erroneous opinion that I have said that all brute facts are necessary beings. I haven't said that, so you are arguing against a paper tiger. — John

I'm not really sure what you're arguing? I'm just pointing out that metaphysically necessary existence and brute existence are mutually exclusive, that broadly logically necessary beings by definition cannot be brute facts.

Why not? If 'brute fact' is defined as 'existing without explanation' then it seems that necessary beings are brute facts.

Whatever, I've tried to explain and you seem to just want to argue nonsense. Maybe you can get away with it on this board but people who know what they're talking about aren't going to take you seriously.

That doesn't tell you why the thing exists, but rather how anything exists. — John

I think it also tells me why the thing exists: the thing exists because it is identical to itself and different from other things.

So how do we decide between the two? Is it a matter of aesthetics? I'm repelled by radical contingency while you're appalled at some mysterious, non-empirical laws making things happen?

It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists

Tractatus 6.44

Of all beings, only the human being called upon by the voice of Being experiences the wonder of wonder, that beings are

Heidegger.

...the principle of non-contradiction itself is without reason, and consequently it can only be the norm for what is thinkable by us, rather that for what is possible in the absolute sense

Quotes from Meillassoux's After Finitude.

A brute fact is something that exists without explanation. — Marchesk

Doesn't that make a brute fact just a true statement that is not subject to doubt?

Stop playing with yourself man; it'll make you go blind...or...perhaps it... already has.
Was it really necessary, or is it a brute fact?
>:O

]One can state that constant conjunction of events is brute. It just so happens to be the case then when A & B then C. But nothing makes that be the case tomorrow. Then again, nothing keeps it from being the case a billion years from now. Humean causation it is.

But then someone else can't accept that events are conjoined for no reason, and that conjunction might not hold at any time in the future. So they propose that there are laws of nature necessitating the conjunction. And those are brute.

So how do we decide between the two? Is it a matter of aesthetics? I'm repelled by radical contingency while you're appalled at some mysterious, non-empirical laws making things happen? — Marchesk

I would point out "laws of nature" are functioning no differently to the "god of gaps." Like when anyone takes an observation of the world then says: "Ahhh, but that doesn't make sense of itself. It must really be God behind the curtain, a miracle of their will."

We accept Humean causation or we fall into retroactive accounts of "what must be" that doesn't take into account evidence and observation-- instead of understanding states interact to cause, we reject them in favour of the miracle working God that is the laws of nature.

You're also mistaken about Humean causation too. There is not "no reason" any given event occur. The presence of particular states which case other is present defines Humean causation. Why did the sun rise? Because states, causes and effects, were such that a rising sun came to be. That's "why" some alternative outcome hasn't occurred.