About 180 Proof

About i'm an absurdist freethinking bluesman (b. 1963)

i. "Why is there anything at all?" Because
(A) 'absence of the possibility of anything at all' – nothing-ness – is impossible, to wit:
(B1) there is not any possible version of the actual world that is 'the negation of the actual world' (i.e. nothing-ness);
(B2) there is not any possible world in which it is true that 'a possible world is not a possible world' (i.e. nothing-ness);
(C) the only ultimate why-answer that does not beg the question is There Is No Ultimate Why-Answer.

ii. existence in its entirety is the ultimate, unbounded brute fact; therefore, all existents – facts events holes things mindbodies – are necessarily contingent.

iii. the real (e.g. existence) encompasses reasoning (e.g. naturalism); therefore, reasoning cannot encompass (i.e. causally explain) the real.

*

we h. sapiens are embodied subjects (i.e. mindbodies); our minds are more-than-minds (i.e. non-ideality)-dependent; neglecting our species functional defects makes us dysfunctional, or harms us (natural fact), and harm – disvalue – solicits help/care (moral fact) to which either we effectively respond or we do not (moral truth).

:death: :flower:
Location NW Absurdistan
Posts 15,413
Joined
Last Active
Site Role Member, Debater
Favourite philosophers ... Epicurus-Lucretius ... Seneca-Epictetus ... Sextus Empiricus ... Spinoza ... Zapffe-Camus ... W. Kaufmann ... I. Murdoch ... GEM Anscombe ... P. Foot ... A. Murray ... C. Rosset ... D. Deutsch ... V. Stenger ... N.N. Taleb ... S. Haack ... C. West ... D. Schweickart ... M. Nussbaum-A. Sen ... Meillassoux-Brassier ... C. Rovelli ... T. Metzinger ...
Favourite quotations
A freethinker's faith:
Both you and I are unbelievers, the only difference is I'm consistent. The reason you don't believe in all other gods (except one) is the very same reason I also don't believe in your god. The point is: I do not have superstitious or religious commitments. What I trust, or believe in, is impersonal reality (re: public evidence and sound arguments). — ben ward, 1992

What is the nature of both reality and human well-being? — 180 Proof, 2008

How does one (categorically) predicate that which necessarily precedes, and thereby exceeds, all predicates? — 180 Proof

We cannot agree on 'what there is' because any determination – ontological commitment – reflects our interests/biases or some domain with which we're engaged. Thus, the history of incommensurable, divergent, metaphysics. — 180 Proof

[W]e are not "ultimate beings" and, with only proximate metacognition, our conceptions, like the apophatic theologians teach, are wholly inadequate for grasping that which necessarily is beyond our reach anyway. — 180 Proof

In sum: ... a jazzist, disutilitarian, economic democrat and pandeist. — 180 Proof


https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/843433
Home » 180 Proof