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
If 2 "brute facts" co-arose from nothing, each contingent upon and sustained by the other, would they be brute facts? — Roke
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?
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
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
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?
Tractatus 6.44It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists
Heidegger.Of all beings, only the human being called upon by the voice of Being experiences the wonder of wonder, that beings are
...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
]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
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.