Well, which things have essences, according to Meillassoux? Apparently, just one: facticity itself.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Why would facticity have an essence but a cat wouldn’t?

Also, it seems like an equivocation is going on here; as the kinds of essences that abstracta have are not the same as the in concreto—viz., the essence of truth, propositions, true, false, facts, etc. is not really the same as the essence of a tree, a cat, etc.

1) From an ordinary point of view (the POV of ordinary life), Reality is not a single, gigantic, homogeneous block. It's a bunch of stuff, it's a plurality of entities. That's just how it seems.

Substance theory doesn’t deny that: it is claiming that each ‘entity’ has a substrate for its existence whereof its properties are bore by it. E.g., the apple has a bear existence which provides the compresence for its properties (like redness).

2) And that l

Again, substance is being used here in the sense of substrates; which doesn’t negate the possibility of a plurality of objects.

3) From

I am not familiar enough with what you are referring to by metaphysical conservatism, eliminativism, and permissivism to comment adequately on this one; but I suspect you are addressing a view which has no relevance to substance theory (in the sense of rebuking a position that holds that everything is one concrete entity).

I'm not sure that's correct, but I'll just ignore it, for now. Unless you want to make that point clearer, because I didn't understand what you said there.

So, I mean that we can describe the type of substrate a substance is to meaningfully discuss things. Idealists accept hat there is a mental substrate; physicalists accept a physical substrate; a substance dualist accepts both; a non-dualist adds a third; etc.

No, I am not. There are things that have a metaphysical substrate.

Ok, cool. So, then, under your view, is this “Absolute” of a different type of substrate than physical stuff?

Reality is what exists, and the Absolute, in the Hegelian sense, is the truth (it is the Ultimate Truth) about that (about Reality itself)

Ok, so are you just noting by “The Absolute” the totality of reality and negation? I know that much about Hegel haha….

No, I don't have a firm grasp of what it is. I don't think anyone does. I don't think Hegel did either, for that matter.

Then why do you believe in it?

You have to understand that this is what we're currently investigating here. What is factiality, anyways? Not how the dictionary defines it, not how Meillassoux defines it in After Finitude, but more concretely, what would it be, if it were a "real thing", so to speak? A "real thing" like something that exists in your ordinary life, for example.

How am I supposed to discuss it with you, if you can't give a basic description of what the word refers to?

You want me to step through the door, when I can't until you tell me the password.

Answer me this (in all honesty): how have you published multiple books on their works and yet cannot give me a simple explanation of what factiality is?

You have to be able to appreciate my frustration here. I haven't written anything on Transcendental Idealism nor Aristotelianism, and I can give you an in depth (an adequate) explanation of both views.

Let me try one more time: what is factiality? What would be mean for there to be non-facts about facts that aren't just non-objective dispositions?

Well, I'm trying to explain it to the best of my ability. I'm not the best philosopher in the world, you know.

That’s ok: most of us on here aren’t the best philosophers.

I accept a version of non-dualism (I accept several versions of non-dualism, actually), yet I disagree that there is some substance

I mean it in the Analytic Philosophy sense of a substrate which bears the properties of things.

yet I disagree that there is some substance (if by that, you mean something like an Aristotelian substance) which unites both the mental and the physical (because the mental, as far as I'm concerned is physical). If by "the mental" and "the physical" you are speaking non-scientifically, as a mere folk would, then yes, I'm saying "something like that", if you will

Ok, so you are a ‘materialist’; so there’s, so far, two types of substrates for you: the physical and the kind that bears the properties of this ‘Absolute’. Are you a bundle theorist? Otherwise, how does things which are of this non-physical (and non-mental) interact with or relate to the stuff which is bore by the physical substrate? The hard problem of interaction seems to plague this theory.

The absolute is not a object, it is not one more thing in the world like this stone on the floor or this table. And it is not a subject, it is not like you, and it is not like me. It is something else.

Ok, it isn’t physical. What is it? When you say ‘The Absolute’, I am thinking of just reality as it is in-itself. Why should be posit this thing as being real?

1) Realism
2) Materialim
3) Atheism
4) Scientism
5) Literalism

I think this detracts from the conversation: I think you should be able to briefly explain what the Absolute is, conceptually, if you have a firm grasp of what it is.

We (as in, Meillassoux's typical readers) honestly don't know.

**sigh**

Hmmm... so let's reconstruct your argument, a bit more formally

Nothing about your reconstruction was formal. Here’s a crude formal version:

P1: If A only pertains B, then everything about A pertains to B. [ (A ↔ B) → (A → B) ]
P2: Facticity only pertains to facts*. [ A ↔ B ]
C1: Therefore, everything about facticity pertains to facts. [ A → B ]

Is that right?

Arcane: why are you asking me? I provided an informal argument (or more like explanation) of why it was jibberish, you copied and pasted what I said into numbered bullet points, and then asked me if it is correct???

Does that mean anything to you?

No, because you aren’t actually engaging in the discussion. You are supposed to be the one who understands After Finitude: you are supposed to explain it to me. If you ask me about something I am familiar with, then I would be able to give a brief and basic explanation of the core concepts involved. You seem to keep failing at doing that with this book.

Let me just ask you: are you familiar with the book, or are you using this OP to familiarize yourself with it?

The Absolute, as I understand it, is what is ontologically greater than subject and objects

Are you conveying here that you accept a version of non-dualism? Viz., the idea that there is some substance which unites both the mental and physical and of which is neither?

I don’t know what else it could possibly mean to say that something exists as neither a subject nor an object. EDIT: unless by this you mean some transcendental mode (Kantian style).

"Transcends what?", you might ask?

Everything. Including itself

Well, with all due respect, Arcane, that’s patently incoherent. You are saying here that some third substance and being of that substance exists, and it exists in a manner where it is not identical to itself.

. It is why there is an External World, called Nature, in the first place.

How?

Absolute Spirit is the realization of this as a brute fact, as something that one simple "encounters"

Oh, are you an ontological idealist?

It is a presence of some sort, but in the way that Derrida spoke about Heidegger's "metaphysics of presence". It is the phenomenon of oddness itself as a psychological phenomenon. And it is a great source of poetry (how could it not be?), at the same time it is a great source of philosophical perplexity (how could it not be?), and of scientific inquiry (could it not be?).

This may make sense to you because you are familiar with the ‘Absolute’; but I have no clue what you are trying to say here.

the principle that things could be other than they are — we can imagine reality as being fundamentally different even if we never know such a reality — part of a critique of correlationism.

Ok, so this sounds like “factiality” has nothing to do with facticity; since this definition tells us that the former is a principle about the modality of states of affairs (namely, that reality could be different).

This sounds like merely the negation of necessitarianism.

From now on, we will use the term 'factiality' to describe the speculative essence of facticity, viz., that the facticity of every thing cannot be thought as a fact

Just working with what I’ve got here—admitting full well I haven’t read the d*** book—this sounds completely incoherent with the other definition you gave; since this definition does link ‘factiality’ to facticity and the above merely notes that at least some parts of the world are properly contingent (i.e., anti-necessitarianism).

Let’s break it down a bit more though.

we will use the term 'factiality' to describe the speculative essence of facticity

What does this mean?!? What is a “speculative essence”?!?

viz., that the facticity of every thing cannot be thought as a fact

What?!? That’s just jibberish. Facticity is the noun for anything pertaining to facts; and so everything that pertains to facticity pertains to facts. Give me example where the facticity of a proposition cannot be thought of as a fact or non-fact.

Likewise, what theory of truth does this Meillassoux accept? How do they define facticity and fact?

Bob, specifically the Thread titled How to Write an OP.

The guidelines you linked is essentially what I am advocating here for.

You see, you are rude, objectively speaking

I am going to kill you with kindness :kiss: ; and, since you have mentioned this at least twice, I am disregarding your request for me to be less kind.

This part will be incorporated as well into the original OP once we approve the suggested changes throughout this discussion

Again, this is the wrong way to do it; but, alas, I remove my hat from the ring (since I have nothing more of use to say).

And by that point, you will have a full understanding of the concept of "factiality". And once you do, we can begin the "real talk", so to speak.

Let me know once you change, and I can take another look at the OP. Right now, I don’t know what “factiality” means, I haven’t read the appropriate works (to this OP), and have said everything noteworthy about the form and methodological approach (in this OP). I fear, there is nothing else I can contribute at this point; unless you want to explain to me what “factiality” means.

:up:

I want to know what "The Absolute" means to you, in whatever sense you mean it. You keep saying the ultimate truth is the Hegelian concept of the Absolute; and I have no clue what you mean by that.

What do you mean by "explaining"? Let's start with that if you don't mind.

I mean “explain” in the basic, common use of the term. If you can’t describe it, then that’s a huge issue which begs why you even believe it in the first place; and, no, I am not denying the idea of ineffability.

How do you understand the relationship between the individual and the community? I would say that if the community is taking care of the child, then some individual(s) is taking care of the child.

That’s fair, but those individuals would be sanctioned by the government—if not public servants themselves. My dilemma here is not about public servants nor people who volunteer (and thusly bind themselves) to raise orphans. The question is whether or not Aristotle can justify any sort of duty or obligation for a standard citizen—which is not actively in the course of their public duties which may relate—to take care of a child that is dropped off at their porch. Maybe, just maybe, there is a duty in the sense that a citizen must call the appropriate authorities and take care of the baby until they arrive; but most people would go beyond that say that even if there were no authorities coming that the person has a duty to take care of that child. What do you think? In terms of justice, can Aristotle rightly claim that it would unjust for the citizen, in the above example, to turn the other way? I see how it would potentially be inbeneficient and malevolent; but not unjust.

Here is Aristotle:

The problem I have with that quote, which I read as well in the Eudemian and Nichomachean Ethics, is that Aristotle is being too vague. All he is saying there is that a part of justice is giving people proportionate goods to their merits. Ok, I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. The question is: how does one determine merit and demerit in this kind of manner where everyone gets a proportionate amount?

Welfare is "merited" (on this conception) in light of need; and therefore to give everyone money when not everyone is in need is unjust and unfair.

That’s true, and I agree to an extent; but it gets finicky real quick. E.g., if Jimmy can support himself working 60 hours a week and Bob is not supporting himself at all, why would Bob have merit for the welfare but not Jimmy? On your elaboration here, it seems like Jimmy would have no merited grounds; but at the same time we would recognize that the sheer work he is putting in might make it fair to give him it as well.

Yes, I want to discuss Speculative Realism, but more specifically After Finitude, and more specifically the meaning of the term factiality, because that is what undercuts what I wrote in the OP.

So this is good: we are getting somewhere. A good OP, I would say, about this would say exactly this; viz., an investigation into “factiality” as understood in After Finitude. That, in itself, paves a clear beginning path the discussion.

For example, right now, your OP asks a question which doesn’t reference “factiality”: it just asks about “factual properties” as it relates to the identity of yourself. With the clarification above, my response that “factual properties” make no sense may be misguided since I have no clue how “factiality” is being understood and used in After Finitude.

Question of this Thread: What is factiality?

Good. “What is factiality?” would be a superb discussion board title for this OP.

Why you should care about the Question of this Thread:

So, although you could mention why it matters, I would say that, first and foremost, an elaboration on what you mean by “factiality” and what you want to know about it would be essential to the OP. When someone reads “What is factiality?”—as the title—they get an inkling into something about “factiality” but since is a coined term—I am presuming—by the author of After Finitude it is critical to elaborate (at least briefly) on what the term refers to. It could be as brief as “I would like to get everyone’s take on “factiality” as understood in <author’s-name>’s After Finitude’.

Then, I would suggest elaborating on what exactly about it you would like to discuss. I can’t offer help meaningfully on this part because I have no clue what “factiality” means in that book because I have no read it nor am I acquainted with it in any significant sense.

Do you see what I mean?

Fair enough. I was thinking that maybe you would agree that any cognitive system would be incapable of absolute knowledge because every cognitive system has an a priori structure to it; but, then again, it technically could be possible for those a priori modes to luck into matching 100% the forms and modes of reality as it were in itself. The odds of that though....

Well how nice of you, Bob

I do best not to assume people’s genders on here (: …. albeit not in the liberal sense.

It is Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit.

Again, which is what exactly? Can you explain it?

... so, "carry on", and that sort of talk?

We certainly can if you would like. With @Mww and I, we “carry on” because we’ve had extensive discussions about our worldviews. So it is easy for us to pass on by, commenting briefly, without leaving any confusion or need of elaboration. I am still as of yet not entirely sure what you believe, which is fine—it takes time.

Catch my drift, Bob?

No, I honestly am not: everything you just said is way too high-level and vague. An OP has to be concise, clear, and well-organized.

Let me try to help. It sounds like you want to discuss Speculative Realism. What specifically about it are you wanting to discuss? Korman’s mereological argument? Be specific (:

One’s a truth claim conditioned by logic a priori, the other’s a knowledge claim conditioned by experience a posteriori. What you want from me doesn’t relate to what was asked of you, that’s all.

Ah, I see what you are going for; but I don't think that's what Arcane is asking about. They seem to be asking how one can know what reality is as it were absolutely in-itself.

I am just asking if you would concur that knowledge of reality as it were in-itself would always be impossible under any cognitive system.

ol’ Bob and me, we go down this dialectical inconsistency road every once in awhile.

:heart:

Would the following part qualify as the agenda?

Not in any meaningful sense. An OP is supposed to ask something of the audience: what about your “Love Letter” has to do with us? Are you asking us to critique it as a work of literature? Are you asking about a specific aspect of “Speculative Materialism”? Do you see how this is an incredibly vague agenda.

And all that I am humbly saying, is that I lack the knowledge, as a professional philosopher, to accomplish the task that you are suggesting that I perform

You don’t need to be a professional philosopher to be able to clearly identify what problem you are trying to address. Using a discussion to learn is perfectly fine; but what I am saying is that your OP betrays itself with its opacity.

So, again, can we please focus our attention on Korman's argument about composition?

I already did, and you never addressed them. You keep skipping around and selectively responding. I will refer you back to my response on Korman: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/957671 .

I mean, that's a bit of a brutal assumption to make in the first place, Bob.

Every OP has an agenda, just like a meeting does, or else it is just a tangent.

I mean, you are somewhat of a rude person, but that tells me nothing about your actual thoughts and opinions.

Lol, you are the one that told me to chill out being so kind.

Yes, that is exactly what is going on. This discussion that we're all having here, ever since the Thread started, is an attempt to clarify what is unphilosophical about the OP, for the purpose of turning it into a legitimate philosophical question.

So this is what I would suggest focusing on, instead of exploring. Your point of departure is the real issue here.

Deal or no deal?

What I am suggesting to you (although you can do as you please) is to accept the challenge of refining the OP to remove the ambiguity in your own thinking. That will help you tremendously. The OP is littered with vague concepts. So here's what I challenge you to do: think about what actually the problem is that you are wanting to address, what solutions you are aware of, and what position you hold (if any). Convey that to me in clear terminology, and I can help sort through it. Right now, there's too much confusion for me to even know what to do.

What are you exploring? It isn't very clear what exactly is going on in the OP (to me). If I am being honest, it reads to me like you don't really know what you are exploring but you know you are exploring something.

Briefly re-reading it, you didn't even mention the PSR; which, as far as I can tell, is what you really want to talk about.

This is what a good OP looks like: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15131/the-breadth-of-the-moral-sphere/p1 .

Sure, but I don't even have a position to begin with, that's the problem that I've been alluding to.

A good OP doesn't require that you pick a side on a topic: agnosticism is fine too. A good OP in the case of suspending judgment is to be openly convey your agnosticism, elaborate in detail on the topic you want to discuss, elaborate on the various solutions you are aware of, and ask for the forum's input.

Re-reading the OP, I just find it confusing and lacking clarity on what is going on: what's the agenda? Perhaps I am just missing the point.

No Bob, please don't do that.

I already said this twice now: the subject belongs in philosophy. That doesn't mean that your OP is a valid philosophy OP formally. I am not saying it is some toto genere different topic.

I think if you wrote the OP in a manner that was sufficiently clear, well-organized, and had legitimate argumentation for the conclusion; then it would be a good philosophy OP.

See what I mean?

I don’t. Isn’t ultimate reality the same as absolute reality?

But all that aside, you’re right: I would never admit to, nor be convinced of, the idea, much less the possibility, of knowing ultimate truth about reality, or, knowing reality absolutely.

Still, as in all the other similar occasions….thanks for respecting my opinions.

:up:

An argument can be formally valid (what you call "logical") and still be unsound (in the sense that at least one of the premises is false).

I get what you are going for here; but that’s not what the terms traditionally mean. Unsoundness is when the logic is invalid. What you are talking about is internal and external coherence.

Hmmm... do I agree with this? No, I think not. That is not what reality is

Then your argument doesn’t make any sense: the PSR would only be universally applicable if reality were an infinite set of things.

Reality is the Absolute, in the Hegelian sense of the term.

Which means what, exactly?

for answering van Inwagen's Special Composition Question, aka SCQ:

You are getting lost in mereology, and I already addressed this with no response (on your end).

What I'm saying is that in the case of modality, you have the same structure, at least in principle:

Option 1) Never. If you choose this option, you're a modal nihilist.
Option 2) Sometimes. If you choose this option, you're a modal particularist.
Option 3) Always. If you choose this option, you're a modal universalist.

Modality is about possibility, necessity, and contingency: none of that made any sense.

do I have a "philosophical lead" here, so to speak? Or am I "way off"?

Why does that matter? Wouldn’t you rather come up with a good argument for why your position is true?

is philosophy unscientific, in the sense that the OP is unphilosophical?

Philosophy is outside the purview of science; and so it is “unscientific” only in that sense.

Your OP is unphilosophical, as I said before, in the sense that, although it addresses a philosophy subject, it does not provide sufficient clarity and argumentation for it to be considered formally philosophical (by my lights).

If it is not philosophy, and if it is not science, what is it? Honest question.

Like I said before, it is philosophy in the sense that the subject matter which you wish to discuss is a part of philosophy.

Karl Popper said that every scientific investigation starts with a question, and that question is to be answered by the hypothesis to be put to the test.

This isn’t science: there are no tests; there are no proofs in philosophy. What we do in philosophy, is determine the plausibility and probability of theses being true based off of weighing the evidence.

So, if I am saying that

I did not follow this part at all; and I am not sure how it related to anything we were talking about before. Can you re-word it?

I don't know where I'm going with this

Yeah, I think you derailed a bit here. I have no clue what you are trying to say here.

And this is why you jumped into this thread in the first place:

you don't like it.

I am not here because I don’t like what you are doing: I recognize that it needs help being thought out—in sharpening the concepts involved and the methodology—and so I do my best to try to help you.

But who says that you have to like a certain style, or a certain way, of doing philosophy? Unless you think that my OP is non-philosophical.

Is it? Honest opinion, please.

It is unphilosophical in the sense that the concepts and arguments are not well drawn out; but the topic (about the PSR) is an area of philosophy.

You did not provide a response to my response in your response; nor have you provided any reasons for why we should believe that reality is a web of infinitely inter-connected things which would require the a sufficient reason for why they are the way they are.

Thanks for the summary.

How can one know the ultimate truth about reality?

I am assuming by “ultimate truth” that you are referring to absolute truth. Prima facie, as @Mww would tell you, the only way to know reality absolutely is if one’s cognition were capable of representing with 1:1 accuracy; but this is never actually possible, because every cognition has a priori modes for cognizing and of which are always independent of the data received of reality—hence a priori.

However, it is worth mentioning that there is such a thing as more or less accurate cognitions; but just that absolute knowledge of reality is never possible with any cognition.

The best we can get is the “Peircian” pragmatist’s idea that “Truth is the end of inquiry”.

One can know the ultimate truth about reality by studying Hegel, because the ultimate truth about reality, is his concept of the Absolute Spirit.

That is an answer that can be traditionally offered; but I am in no way qualified to critique Hegel. He sucks at writing, and, unfortunately, I am incapable of penetrating into what the dude meant.

“Give me example of two things which the PSR applies whereof one has the PSR more weakly associated with it.” – Bob Ross

I'm not sure that I can do that. The whole point of the OP is that this is "uncharted territory", so to speak.

That’s a big problem, though; because you are arguing that the PSR applies in degrees. If you can’t give any example of it or the reasons why you believe it, then why do you believe that it does apply in degrees?

I have been clear with my position: something either has a sufficient reason for its existence or it does not. This is binary: it would make no sense to say that this thing right here has 8% of a sufficient reason for its existence and this other thing has 45%.

My argument is structurally similar to Korman's

I am not familiar with Korman to speak adequately on it; but it sound equally implausible to me. I have no clue how AV5 (of their argument) is implied from composition being incapable of being a sorites series. I agree it isn’t like a sorites series; and yet nothing about that implies that there can’t be one thing over here which is absolutely simple (in composition) and another thing over there which is composed of an infinite amount of smaller things.

Does it have to do with the cross-interaction between those types of things? I could see it getting weird thinking about an object composed of an infinite of things as it causally interacts with a thing that is absolutely simple; but I don’t see how that lends support to your claim.

A.F.V. against what you might call "restricted reason"

I have no problem admitting that the map is NOT the territory; and that reality cannot be reduced to thought. This does not mean that we cannot meaningfully talk about the composition of objects, nor the reasons for why a thing exists.

If reality is an infinite of collections (or something like that), then everything would be applicable to the PSR; but you haven’t demonstrated that this is the case. The fact that the application of the PSR is not like a sorites series, does not entail that it applies to everything.

For example, imagine a particle that pops in and out of existence in nanoseconds: it would be plausible that it might not have a reason for why it existed at all.

is logically valid (but not necessarily sound)

How can be unsound if it is logical?

1) If the A.F.V. against restricted composition is logically valid (but not necessarily sound), then the A.F.V. against restricted reason is logically valid (but not necessarily sound).
2) If so, then (AV1) is True: If some things have a sufficient reason and others do not, then it is possible for there to be a sorites series for the universality of the PSR.
So, (AV1) is True: If some things have a sufficient reason and others do not, then it is possible for there to be a sorites series for the universality of the PSR.

This doesn’t make any sense. I would envision that you could make an argument from composition though, like:

P1: If an object is divisible, then it must have a sufficient reason for its existence. [ Divisible<Object<x>> → SR<Object<x>> ]
P2: All objects are infinitely divisible. [ ∀x (Object<x> → Divisible<Object<x>>) ]
C1: Therefore, every object must have a sufficient reason for its existence. [ ∀x (Object<x> → SR<Object<x>>) ]

I’ll already tell you the problem with this though: it makes no mention of how the infinitely composed object relates to other infinitely composed objects. If there is no reason for why they relate to each other than that would be an area where the PSR still wouldn’t apply (even if this argument above holds).

I wasn't able to track the conversation between you two in the thread: can you provide a summary?

Mate, I say this with no ill intent: it genuinely doesn't make sense (to my mind) for you worry so much about etiquette, to the point of saying "no offense" when you give your honest opinion about something, especially considering the fact that you jumped into this Thread without even saying "hello". Like, relax mate, you're not offending me by stating your opinion on something.

I just do it to be kind and considerate: for our discussion, it is duly noted that we do not need to do that. I will refrain (:

Happy New Year.

You too!

Just intuition. What is your reason for calling it "pure"?

Common sense is just whatever one has been sociologically conditioned to believe is obvious; whereas intuition—in the philosophical sense—is an intellectual seeming. What is intuitive—in this sense—may NOT BE obvious (e.g., “1 + 1 = 2” is not obvious to a tribal member); and what is obvious may not be intuitive (e.g., a society where all cats are considered to always green).

An intuition is a seeming based on purely intellectual grasping of the evidence; whereas common sense is based off of what society or an individual has been conditioned to believe. This is why intuitions—in the philosophical sense—are defined usually something like “An intuition is a seeming a reasonably rational person would have if they grasped the entirety of the evidence”. Therefore, “1 + 1 = 2” may not be obvious (and thusly not common sensically true) to the tribal man, but if one were to convey the concepts behind it to that man in a way that they understand; then they would intuit that it is true.

A pure intuition is any intuition which has no basis in any conveyable evidence; and an impure intuition is one which is based off of, at least some, conveyable evidence.

The grandaddy of examples for pure intuitions is ‘beingness’. There is nothing one can convey to another person that allows for an understanding of what it means ‘to be’ nor anything they can convey themselves to themselves; but yet any reasonably rational person who grasps readily their own experience knows what ‘to exist’ means. It is pure exactly because one just grasps it as a result of something deeply ingrained into their existence. “to be” is so undefinable exactly because it is a pure intuition.

An example of an impure intuition is ‘cars can’t fly’. Only by conveying what a car and flying is, and how it relates to the physics or common understanding involved, which can be done, can one intuit that “yeah, cars can’t fly”. It is based off of conveyable evidence because there concepts involved are complex (as opposed to absolutely simple).

Think of AVI in the following way.

I see what you are saying, but I disagree. Being does not come in degrees, just as much as the PSR doesn’t. I am a monist about being: there’s too many problems with it to me.

If the PSR has degrees to it, then I would need to know exactly how that works to re-assess your view. Give me example of two things which the PSR applies whereof one has the PSR more weakly associated with it.

This is good: you are making me think about this more.

The problem then as now is that your conception is not Aristotelian, so I am wondering what it is. Is it Christian? Marxist? Rawlsian?

I would like to think it is Aristotelian; but let’s find out.

I think I agree that Justice—like you—is about distribution and commutation. So let’s size this up to what I’ve said before.

It is unjust not to help someone on the other side of the world.

I agree, this isn’t true; because justice would be relative to the community, and the nation would be the highest community. EDIT: An interesting question is, though, why would we note hope to unite all people under one law in order to bring about this sort of justice (which would apply)? It seems like a loophole to your critique here.

It is unjust when the rich do not help the poor.

This isn’t true as well if we are talking about how citizens should treat each other and not what goods the government should be providing. More on that later.

It is unjust for the community not to fulfill members' needs when it can.

I would say “it is unjust for the community not to fulfill members’ needs when it can sustainably”; and it would be unjust in the sense of distributive justice—not commutative justice.

Think about it: if there’s a starving orphan child, then it is a part of the community’s job to take care of that child—at least until it can grow up to be an adult for themselves; and if the community could no longer afford (through perhaps taxation or whatever resource streams they have) to take care of orphans, then there is no injustice—in any sense—if they starved to death (because other families have duties to their own children—not random children—and no citizen is obliged—morally or legally—to take care of some random child (even if it is a good thing to do).

Here’s the interesting part: distributive justice seems to require the community to take care of that child—if the resources are available in a sustainable and reasonable sense: do you agree?

This gets interesting though, as most people would disagree with this, prima facie, because most people would say one has a duty to keep an orphan baby, which was dropped off anonymously at their house, as long as required until the authorities arrive or despite any authority ever being on their way.

Sure, so for example, the community has a duty to properly distribute the revenue it receives via taxation, and the individual is owed a proper distribution. But he is not owed water qua water,

Agreed; but how do we decipher what distributive justice entails? I started re-reading Aristotle to try and get some clues. It seems like the community’s distribution of goods based off of trying to promote the human good (e.g., institutionalized marriage [in the sense of giving tax breaks and incentives], foster care system, CPD, etc.); so why wouldn’t it be obligated to give a base income, e.g., for each citizen if that were feasible (given the abundance of resources)?

It seems like why you and I wouldn’t go for universal base income, is because it, in fact, doesn’t work and is not sustainable; but what if it were? In principle, would that be distributatively just?

The rest of what you said I agree with; so I do not feel the need to comment on those.

EDIT: I forgot to mention another thing: although it is not unjust to choose to not help a person who is not of your nation; I do still find it potentially lacking in beneficence, which could result in it being immoral albeit not unjust. Of course, this is relative to whether the given case is making them inbeneficent or not; but assuming it is, then we would have a reason to say they shouldn't be doing that.

You don't paint a painting perfectly from the get-go, unless you're extremely confident in your skills and in your understanding of the subject matter that you're painting.

Do you agree or disagree with me, up until that point?

That’s fine, but I think it is still worth noting that the problem being addressed in the OP is due to the ambiguity in what it describes…remove that ambiguity and there’s no issue anymore. This is not the case with standard philosophical disagreement: when two philosophers converse, they are conversing about who has it correct—providing two different theses if you will—which each is perfectly clear in their own right.

That’s not to say you are doing anything wrong by asking people’s opinions; but the OP ideally should be clearer IMHO (no offense).

on this topic is that some folks will tell you that we're appealing to the stone, and that's a fallac

Nothing I have said is a blunt assertion; so it is not an appeal to the stone fallacy.

If someone who takes solipsism seriously were to ask me "How do you know that you're not a disembodied brain in a vat that is hallucinating?", I would simply reply in the manner of Moore: here's a hand, mate.

That is appealing to the stone, so to speak, and is a bad argument. I think Moore was right to posit that there are purely intuitional primitive concepts; but the proposition “My hand exists” is not even a concept….

The reason solipsism holds no water is because it egregiously unparsimonious: my repetitive experience of my hand, as confirmed by everyone else, is evidence that my hand actually exists; and my experience of the world whereof I am in a transcendent reality is evidence that there is such a reality. All hard skepticism is deeply rooted in conflating the possibility of something with its probability.

So, I take it that you and I believe in good common sense, yes? I know I do. How about you?

Pure intuition, yes; “common sense”, absolutely not.

(AV1) If some things have a sufficient reason and others do not, then it is possible for there to be a sorites series for the universality of the PSR.

I don’t see how this follows. A thing which has a sufficient reason for its existence and one which doesn’t isn’t analogous to concepts which refer to gradations (e.g., short vs. tall, shades of colors, etc.): it is analogous to non-gradations like ‘being a circle’ vs. ‘not being a circle’, and so it is not subjected to the problem of the heap.

(AV5) So, either everything has a sufficient reason, or nothing does.

Even if I grant AV1, it does not follow from the possibility of something that it is required; which is exactly what you implied in your argument. You seem to be trying to argue that if the PSR is like a sorites series, then it must either apply to everything or nothing; but your first premise only demonstrates the possibility of it being a sorites series. A person could just say “well, it is possible; but I don’t think it is a sorites series”. Viz,:

(AV2) Any such sorites series must contain either an exact cut-off or borderline cases of sufficient reason.
(AV3) There cannot be exact cut-offs in such sorites series.
(AV4) There cannot be borderline cases of sufficient reason.

This assumes that the PSR’s application is like a sorites series, which AV1 doesn’t even purport.

(AV2) Any such sorites series must contain either an exact cut-off or borderline cases of sufficient reason.

If it were a sorites series, then this would be true; but, like I said, either a fact is brute or non-brute: there’s no degrees to it.

(AV3) There cannot be exact cut-offs in such sorites series.
(AV4) There cannot be borderline cases of sufficient reason.

Again, these are both correct: the problem is that you provided no reasons for us to believe that the PSR’s application is a sorites series. AV1 doesn’t even claim that it is: it just admits of its possibility.

I would suggest writing your argument out into proper syllogisms just to ensure the logic is sound.

MacIntyre's point of departure is that the two conceptions are incompatible, no? Even if there is some common ground between them?

Yes, and I agree.

I would follow Aristotle, Cicero, or Aquinas. As quoted above:
But of justice as a part of virtue, and of that which is just in the corresponding sense, one kind is that which has to do with the distribution of honour, wealth, and the other things that are divided among the members of the body politic (for in these circumstances it is possible for one man’s share to be unfair or fair as compared with another’s); and another kind is that which has to give redress in private transactions.

I don’t have a problem with this view, but I am surprised you don’t. This definition is also not found in the Webster dictionary, which you used as a critique of mine.

Also, Aristotle’s description, like mine, has an interdependency on the community and the individual such that there is a need for “redress in private transactions” and “the distribution of honor, wealth, etc.” which was my point before:

Here's what I am thinking. Justice is about, fundamentally, respecting other members of the community (or social structure in which one is a member, such as a family for example) such that each member is getting what they rightly deserve and not getting what they do not deserve.

The confusion lies in the idea that distributive justice functions in the same way that commutative justice does. Distributive justice has to do with an impartial and fair distribution of things among the community ("honour, wealth, etc."). The only legitimate claim is therefore something like, "I did not get a fair share in relation to the rest of the community." Absolute claims are excluded, such as, "I did not get healthcare, and you have a duty to provide me with healthcare."

Well, that’s what I am getting at; and you referenced it here as a type of justice; so I am a bit confused: that seems to agree with me.

I'm not sure. Consider your drought example. Does the community owe the members water or not?

Yes, in terms of what you would call “commutative justice”, I see your point: they either must have a positive right to water or not…

However, in terms of what you would call “distributive justice”, it seems like if the community, e.g., has an abundance of water then they shouldn’t hoard it for the ruling elite—that would be unjust.

Moreover, this “distributive justice” seems connected still to what one is ‘owed’. Viz., it is only unjust for the community to hoard the abundance of water because they have duties, as the community, which include properly distributing resources—so that is owed to the individual in a sense.

So compare a negative right

That’s fair: negative rights a lot easier to uphold than positive ones; but I think we both agree we have positive rights. Take the water example: if you were denied any water simply because the government didn’t want to give it to you (perhaps they want to use that water for a water slide party for the ruling elites) even though you are doing your duly fair share of work in society—which we could think of it in terms of you having the money to pay for the water bill—then that is unjust because you have a positive right to the water.

I think the trouble comes in, as you rightly pointed out, when we think of positive rights just like negative ones. E.g., when we think of our right life like our right to have water when it isn’t being distributed fairly. This ends up conflating the right which can never be breached with a straw man version of the “water right” such that one thinks that the government is required to give them water simpliciter. That’s not what we are saying here.

What grounds the facts about, or of, my existence?

What you are.

For example, why was I born in 1985? "Because your parents had sex the year before, mate. Are you stupid or what?" Ok, so that fact (that I was born in 1985) is metaphysically grounded by another fact?

The fact and the explanation for why what factually happened happened are separate things.

The proposition “You were born in 1985” is true IFF you were born in 1985. That you were born in 1985, is what ontologically grounds the truth the statement “You were born in 1985”. The truth of the claim “You were born in 1985” is not relative to the facts which explain why it is the case. Either you were born then or you weren’t. Why you were born in 1985 is a separate question; and your parents having sex will, in part, be the explanation.

Aristotle would say that my parents are my efficient cause. But efficient causes are contingent. And yet the fact that I was born in 1985 can't be changed.

That’s because it is in the past: that has no bearing on the fact that your parents were the physical cause of your creation—nor that that fact is contingent on other facts (like them falling in love, etc.).

So it's not contingent, it's necessary.

What you are saying here, is that if a fact about the past cannot be changed then it isn’t a contingent fact: that doesn’t make sense.

It is true that “I stubbed my toe yesterday” and that that only happened because I was busy walking with my head glued to my phone and that I cannot change that it is true that “I stubbed my tow yesterday”, and yet your conclusion is false that me stubbing my toe was necessary—I could have not stubbed my toe if I wasn’t glued to my phone.

The more important issue, is that you are confusing necessary existence with brute existence. Some things could be necessarily the way they are but yet have an explanation for why they are the case; thereby being necessary but not brute.

E.g., if you deny the possibility that I could have done otherwise by not being glued to my phone, then it is necessarily the case, ceteris paribus, that I stubbed my toe (yesterday); but yet that is not a brute fact, because the sufficient explanation of why I stubbed my toe is still there: I was glued to my phone.

This is the opacity in your OP that I was alluding to earlier.

This, this right here, is the deal breaker as far as I'm concerned

Well, I wasn’t commenting on which version, if any, of the PSR one should accept: I was noting that in the OP you referenced a plethora of facts which are not brute as if they are. This leaves me a bit confused, because you are now defending some (presumably strong) version of the PSR when in the OP you said many things are just brute facts (such as where you were born or your race). Perhaps that was just an outline of this “Speculative Materialism” that you don’t quite agree with but want to discuss.

Meillassoux says exactly what you just said there: that The Principle of Sufficient Reason is, at the very least, not universally applicable.

No, that is not what I was saying. I was saying two things with regard to brute facts:

1. The kinds of facts you spoke of (such as biological facts) are not brute facts, although you referenced them as such; and

2. Brute facts cannot be contingent.

Whether or not brute facts exist is a separate question, which I will go ahead and address since you brought it to our attention.

But how could it not be? That just makes no sense to me

If the PSR is not universally applicable, then there is at least one thing which has no reason for it being the way it is; and if the PSR is universally applicable, then every thing has a reason for the way it is.

It is important to understand, that this is tantamount to saying that a strong version of the PSR results in all entities, and there properties, being contingent (upon other entities and there properties); and a weak version allows for at least some entities which are necessary.

To answer your question, someone that believes in a weak version of the PSR and believes that there are brute facts fundamentally (ontologically) will say that something about the way reality is that is fundamental to it just is that way with no further explanation. This could be God; it could be some set of natural laws; some set of Platonic Forms; etc.

Let’s take God for example: if classical theism is correct, then God exists necessarily and has, therefore, always existed without any reason for why God exists. If there was a reason for God’s existence, then that would mean that something else is more fundamental than God—which undermines the whole idea that God is God in the first place. So if God exists, then God must be a necessary being; and so God’s existence is a brute fact.

Personally, I find essential equal credence in the idea that there are an infinite regress of ‘things’ just as much as there are fundamental, necessary ‘things’. I think reason makes us search for a reason for why everything is the way it is; and I have no clue why we should believe that it really is the case that everything is ‘causal’. What reasons do we have to believe that no where in the universe, or beyond the universe, there is something which exists without being caused by anything in any manner? We don’t; just as much as we don’t have any good reasons to believe they do exist.

I believe in the PSR. How could I not? I mean, if the PSR is false (let's suppose, if only for the sake of argument, that it is) does that mean that a squid can suddenly pop up into existence in my living room?

I think most people would agree that the Nature in which we live has shown herself to abide by the PSR, but more fundamentally we aren’t so sure. It’s not that a squid will pop into existence all of the sudden; but more about if there are any fundamental aspects to reality which just always have been. However, technically, what reasons do we have to believe that at the quantum level things don’t just pop into existence and back out for no reason at all?

I mean, if there is no reason for anything, then how could we rule out such insane-sounding possibilities?

One can reject that the PSR applies universally without accepting that the PSR doesn’t apply at all.

This OP seems littered with opaque concepts. Dare I say, I think you will find answers for yourself if you disambiguate your questions.

Why is my existence as a person (and as an "Aristotelian substance") characterized by the factual properties that I have, instead of other factual properties?
…
By the way, how would you even define the term “factual properties”?

If you want to be able to work through your thoughts here, then you will need to come up with a definition of what a “factual property” is itself. To me, it makes no sense (and no offense meant): a ‘factual property’ implies the possibility of a ‘non-factual property’. A non-factual property would just be any property, to wit, which a thing doesn’t have (viz., it is non-factually the case that a cat has laser beaming eyes); which would entail that a ‘factual property’ collapses into the normal meaning of a ‘property’ simpliciter….

If you are just asking why one is defined into terms of the properties they have instead of what they don’t, then it would be because, by my lights, a property that isn’t attributed to a thing cannot possibly be a part of its nature. E.g., that’s like saying a cat can be defined in terms of having laser beaming eyes while equally admitting that a cat does not need to have laser beaming eyes.

The other point worth mentioning, is that the essence, nature, and Telos of a thing are separate concepts; and depending on which one you mean by “characterized by”, the answer differs. E.g., I am characterized by having extreme introvertness, but this is not a part of my essence nor my Telos but is a part of my nature.

This is my "Love Letter" to Speculative Materialism, especially as developed by Quentin Meillassoux (particularly in his first book, After Finitude

I haven’t read that book, so if I am just completely missing the point of the OP then just ignore me (: .

The origin of the preceding question is the following one: It just feels odd (to my mind) to have no good reason, other than brute facts, to explain why I have the factual properties that I have had since birth, especially since I didn’t choose to be born

A brute fact is any statement about reality which agrees appropriately with reality (with respect to what it references) and itself has no sufficient reason for why it is the case. The fact that you were born, is not a brute fact: you were born because, e.g., your parents wanted a child, they had sex, etc. There’s is a sufficient reason (or are sufficient reasons) for why you were born, so it is not a brute fact.

You seem to think that biological facts, historical facts, etc. are brute facts when none of them are (although it is possible, technically, for one to be). The color of your skin, e.g., is not a brute fact: you have that color pigmentation because of the biological makeup you have—which provides the sufficient reasons for why you have it. There’s nothing brute about it.

all of the aforementioned brute facts are contingent

A brute fact cannot be contingent: that’s baked into the concept. If a fact is contingent, then it is contingent upon other reasons (and presumably other facts); and so it must have a sufficient explanation for why it is true—thusly it is not a brute truth.

A brute fact would, perhaps, be God’s existence; or the Universe’s existence; or a set of Platonic Forms; or a set of natural laws; etc.

If I am allowing myself some leniency in my interpretation of your OP, then I would say, and correct me if I am wrong, you are fundamentally questioning why your identity is shaped by the historical and biological context in and of which you live and are. The answer, to me, is simple: you cannot escape what you are. Nosce te ipsum is the beginning of wisdom for a reason...

Are you pulling them out of thin air? Or is there some thinker or tradition that you are getting these from?

I got those from After Virtue by MacIntyre:

For A aspires to ground the notion of justice in some account of what and how a given person is entitled to in virtue of what he has acquired and earned; B aspires to ground the notion of justice in some account of the equality of the claims of each person in respect of basic needs and of the means to meet such needs. Confronted by a given piece of property or resource, A will be apt to claim that it is justly his because he owns it – he acquired it legitimately, he earned it; B will be apt to claim that it justly ought to be someone else’s, because they need it much more, and if they do not have it, their basic needs will not be met. But our pluralist culture possesses no method of weighing, no rational criterion for deciding between claims based on legitimate entitlement against claims based on need. Thus these two types of claim are indeed, as I suggested, incommensurable, and the metaphor of ‘weighing’ moral claims is not just inappropriate but misleading...

– (After Virtue, Ch. 17 “Justice as Virtue: Changing Conceptions”, p. 246)

I find it plausible that justice requires a balance between A and B types of justice because they are the two extremes in a community: the one, to wit, the proper assessment of individual merit and the other, to wit, the proper assessment of natures (of members). One focuses only on the individual in terms of agency, and the other solely on the needs of each member.

I don't see much merit in either of these conceptions

How would you define justice, then?

I would have the same concern about this. Where is it coming from? If we look at <a dictionary> I don't really see your conception. Or if we do, it is only there in a vague way.

Well, dictionaries are notoriously inadequate for formal discussions. Nothing about the definitions in the Webster dictionary for justice suffice in telling us what exactly justice is getting at.

We need a better starting point for a definition.

My definition of justice is the study and practice of properly treating other persons; my initial description of justice is what you quoted:

Here's what I am thinking. Justice is about, fundamentally, respecting other members of the community (or social structure in which one is a member, such as a family for example) such that each member is getting what they rightly deserve and not getting what they do not deserve.

I am describing justice fundamentally in terms of the relation between community and individual exactly because the Aristotelian conception of justice arises only exactly due to us being social organisms. Justice can’t be, i.e., if Aristotle is right that justice is a virtue only because we must facilitate it to fulfill the social aspect(s) of our nature, fundamentally about merely respecting individuals (such as is the case in libertarian notions of justice) because it makes no reference to the community or over-arching structure which one’s goods are interdependent upon.

This conception of justice finds no basis anywhere in the Merriam Webster definitions above.

Why doesn’t it fit? Here’s one definition from your link:

the quality of being just, impartial, or fair

"If you can do X then you are required to do so in justice." That is a very strange claim to my ears.

Justice has an element to it that is relative to the resources and circumstances of the community. E.g., it is unjust to arbitrarily or unduly prevent someone from driving on roads, but depending on the conditions of the roads what is considered unduly here may change; it is currently unjust to force people, where I live, to not use as much water in their homes, but if there is a drought then it may no longer be unjust; food rationing is unjust right now, but not necessarily if we start running low; etc.

Do you deny any circumstantial aspects to justice?

Sure, but commissions tend to be more unjust than omissions, and this is why justice was classically concerned primarily with "negative rights."

I guess, to a certain extent. However, there are multiple levels to laws (e.g., local, state, federal, etc.) and policies that come into play which are circumstantial to some extent. We have this negative right to, e.g., make this policy for our private business; but might not have it in, e.g., in martial law.

Didn't Gandhi and King endure the violence of the British and the southern cops / mobs respectively?

Yes, in the most violent of displays of peace—viz., in the most radical and extreme methods of peaceful protest ever concocted. I was merely pointing out that even the rare occurrences where peace has the same swift and monumental effect of aristocratic elites, it still has that aristocratic shadow….it is perfectly plausible that if Ghandhi were not so radically peaceful—but rather peaceful in a more moderate and reasonable sense—then his whole project wouldn’t have made a single dent in human history. It was the “uno-reverse card” of showing people how barbaric someone could be in the face of absolute kindness that had a bone-chilling affect.

What about the Dutch, one might ask.

I don’t remember much about Dutch history, but I would guess that they haven’t done anything monumental towards the course of history. We are not talking about countries that merely survived but, rather, plummeted humanity into a new age or significantly expedited the development process. I am not sure if the Dutch count here…

American Indian tribes are fairly often suggested as peaceful and unwarlike

I’ve heard otherwise—e.g., cannibals—but even if this is true it is obvious that they are weak and only exist still because sympathy and tolerance of all human life has been thoroughly cultivated into humanity’s conscience. In fact, if they are examples of the product of anti-aristocratic values, then it only serves my point….

Humans can display a great deal of solidarity, cooperation, loyalty and trust when either a sufficiently dangerous threat or an irresistible opportunity presents itself

Yes, and they have tended, throughout history, to come together at the expense of a weak out-group...no?

We have entered an unprecedented age, where we now find aristocratic values itself disgusting; and it has had its strengths and weaknesses.

I think this is why so many people do not like Israel and Russia for their conquests: it is very aristocratic.