Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Ecurb]

To each his or her own. I'm more of a romantic. Romance involves adventure, which involves danger. Falling in love inevitablty leads to heartbreak (unless the lovers die at the exact same time). But the joy trumps the sorrow (in my opinion). Same with the romance of adventures --- like mountaineering. There will be plenty of time for calm and stability in the grave.

Such a philosophy is fine. Unless you think the rest of the world should pay for the doctor to tend your broken leg when you fall off the mountain...

Or outlaw public kissing when you think there's a faint chance one party has an infectious disease...

This is a non sequitur. Are you suggesting that nobody who supports National Health Care should ever engage in any dangerous activity? Are they to be morally banned from driving a car, playing sports, eating red meat, and drinking alcohol? Are overweight people obliged to vote against National Health Insurance on the grounds that they might be more likely to use it? The two issues are separate: should health care be a "right", and are dangerous activities morally acceptable.

It's actually an issue in the mountaineering community, and since expert climbers are often involved in rescues, they often object to the expense, danger and effort needed to rescue people that could probably extricate themselves from their self-created peril.

Also, Tiberius once banned kissing in Rome to combat a herpes epidemic.

You be romantic at your risk and let others be romantic at their risk, and we'll get along fine.

Is God romantic ? Risking all for the possibility of a loving relationship between creature and creator ? Or does what He is risking amount to other people's pain ?

That's the question I posed. If God is a romantic, He may very well believe that danger and suffering is essential to romance. You can't have adventure without risk. No romance novels contemplate a happy marriage; they navigate the stormy and uncertain waters of courtship, and the wise romance novleist concludes her story with the marriage or engagement. Once the risk is gone, the romance flickers (although the love may grow).

If God is a romantic, He may risk His own pain -- the well known suffering of unrequited love. If God loves all of us, it might cause Him agony when that love is unrequited.

[GE Morton]

How can that what 'created' (fundamentally underlays) Being be a Being?

Assuming that "being" was "created" begs the question.

I used the term 'created' merely to follow the line of reasoning of the OP ('It is logically impossible for God to have created people') and added ('fundamentally underlays').

Well, Astro didn't say it was logically impossible for God to create "being." She said it was impossible for him to create omnipotent people. Her statement is coherent; yours is not (mainly because "being," as you are using it, is undefined). The noun "being" is usually used to denote certain living entities, mainly those having some semblance of sentience. It is not itself an entity. Nor is it a property of entities. There is no "being" as such; there are only particular beings, and you need to specify to which one you are referring when you use the term.

However, if you're using the term to refer to existence per se, and asking, "Why does anything exist?," that question is unanswerable, and all attempts at answers are flapdoodle. You can sensible ask, "Why does X exist," for some particular X, but not, "Why does anything exist?" Moreover, you also have to assume that something has always existed, and that hence there is/was no "ultimate creator."

The origin or 'why' question of Being is applicable (it is the source of the whole OP) or do you intend to argue that humans shouldn't ask that question and that the idea of God (philosophical origin of existence) is an illusion because the 'why' question shouldn't be asked?

Exactly. It shouldn't be asked because it is unanswerable in principle. If, that is, you're looking for an answer that is logically sound, is testable and that has some explanatory power. Of course, there are endless vacuous answers one might conjure up in imagination.

[value]

Well, Astro didn't say it was logically impossible for God to create "being." She said it was impossible for him to create omnipotent people. Her statement is coherent; yours is not (mainly because "being," as you are using it, is undefined).

My argument is that if Being would be good as it was that there would be no reason for Being and a reason for Being - the why question of Being - is evidently applicable.

Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are ideas derived from a retro-perspective that imagines what is supposedly required for 'the world to have come about' and that calculates those derived ideas forward in time as if that which the ideas are derived from (the origin of Being) is bound by time and can find utilitarian applicability. That is a mistake in my opinion which would make the concepts irrelevant.

The noun "being" is usually used to denote certain living entities, mainly those having some semblance of sentience. It is not itself an entity. Nor is it a property of entities. There is no "being" as such; there are only particular beings, and you need to specify to which one you are referring when you use the term.

The concept Being as such describes the quality of existing from within a subjective perspective. The term Being essentially contains the why question within it and thereby automatically seeks meaningful relevance 'within' experience and that within is the origin of existence.

It explains that philosophy has dedicated to the concept Being which is named Ontology. Ontology comprises of a 'quest' into Being (a qualitative fulfilment of the 'seeking' that is contained within the term).

'In metaphysics, Ontology is the philosophical study of Being.

Many classical philosophical problems are problems in ontology: the question whether or not there is a god, or the problem of the existence of universals, etc..'

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/#Ont

Martin Heidegger concluded after a thorough examination of Western philosophy and thinking that one question was never asked: 'the question of Being'. With that notion he argues that Being contains a question within the term.

The origin or 'why' question of Being is applicable (it is the source of the whole OP) or do you intend to argue that humans shouldn't ask that question and that the idea of God (philosophical origin of existence) is an illusion because the 'why' question shouldn't be asked?

Exactly. It shouldn't be asked because it is unanswerable in principle. If, that is, you're looking for an answer that is logically sound, is testable and that has some explanatory power. Of course, there are endless vacuous answers one might conjure up in imagination.

In my opinion the potential of the 'why' question demands an explanation. Your argument that the question is fundamentally unanswerable is not substantiated or do you have a substantiation?

The belief that 'things' (that are of a repeatable nature) have always existed is a magical belief in my opinion. The same would apply to the supposed 'only alternative' that things have sprung into existence from nothing.

A user on this forum described it as following:

For any given initial existent, either it "spontaneously appeared" or it always existed. Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

My argument is the following:

At question would be how a philosophical 'option' (magically always existed or magically have sprung into existence) is possible in the first place. It is then seen that for any option to be possible an aspect is required that is not of a nature that allows a choice.

[Sy Borg]

3. God may be benevolent simply in that it doesn't wish harm to us, but it doesn't actually care.

If God (origin of existence) would run in front of Being as a puppeteer that would require God to be a Being himself which would be absurd. In order to 'care for' would imply that God would have a position in front of Being. A Being can serve God (i.e. 'purpose of life') and in such a way achieve what can be considered care for its existence: grace.

I wouldn't know, I was just listing the options. Personally, I see no reason to grant special priority to Iron Age Middle Eastern mythology over any other myths. It would be good if it was true, but I once felt that way about Santa and the Easter Bunny too, so what we wish to be true is no indication.

I think it more likely that we are on our own and we have to make of life what we can.

As for grace, what grace did the deity provide for a young African woman who has been displaced and raped, and now her rapist's child is dying of starvation in her arms as she sits under a tent consisting of a stick holding up an old rag under the blazing sun?

It's just the luck of the draw and the unfortunate hypothetical person above drew a short straw. By contrast, we forum members, sitting in our homes, well-fed and active online, enjoy great grace.

[value]

I wouldn't know, I was just listing the options. Personally, I see no reason to grant special priority to Iron Age Middle Eastern mythology over any other myths. It would be good if it was true, but I once felt that way about Santa and the Easter Bunny too, so what we wish to be true is no indication.

I think it more likely that we are on our own and we have to make of life what we can.

I do not believe that humans 'stand on their own' for no reason. Humans can serve the origin of existence qualitatively in my opinion and it is a duty (responsibility) to discover the best way which is done through philosophical contemplation - the search for 'good' from which value follows.

According to Aristotle philosophical contemplation is the highest human virtue. It would be the serving of the purpose of life: optimally fulfilling the quest for good.

As for grace, what grace did the deity provide for a young African woman who has been displaced and raped, and now her rapist's child is dying of starvation in her arms as she sits under a tent consisting of a stick holding up an old rag under the blazing sun?

It's just the luck of the draw and the unfortunate hypothetical person above drew a short straw. By contrast, we forum members, sitting in our homes, well-fed and active online, enjoy great grace.

The deity would not provide grace.

The indicated grace can be perceived to be of a divine nature. In a sense it could be considered 'care from God' although it is bound to one's own serving of the purpose of life (the origin of existence or God).

a: unmerited divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration or sanctification
b: a virtue coming from God
c: a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine assistance
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grace

In my opinion, the described African women could live a graceful life and it would even be possible for a patient dying of a terminal illness to die gracefully.

The following poem by Scott is interesting for an insight:

The Polished Grace of a Beaten Ghost
https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/viewt ... 8&t=258635

A saying (common wisdom) is 'grace follows gratitude'. Gratitude is a form of respect and in (a state of) respect one aligns ones-self with the origin and purpose of existence and that would be the source of 'devine' grace.

[value]

For the record: I am not religious and I wouldn't naturally use the word God. I am merely interested in a philosophical explanation of existence or the 'why' question of the cosmos.

[GE Morton]

This is a non sequitur. Are you suggesting that nobody who supports National Health Care should ever engage in any dangerous activity? Are they to be morally banned from driving a car, playing sports, eating red meat, and drinking alcohol? Are overweight people obliged to vote against National Health Insurance on the grounds that they might be more likely to use it? The two issues are separate: should health care be a "right", and are dangerous activities morally acceptable.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. If non-smokers, non-drivers, vegetarians, etc., are subsidizing the risk-takers, then they get to prohibit those risky activities. On the other hand, if you're paying your own health care bills you may engage in any risky activities you wish.

[GE Morton]

Well, Astro didn't say it was logically impossible for God to create "being." She said it was impossible for him to create omnipotent people. Her statement is coherent; yours is not (mainly because "being," as you are using it, is undefined).

My argument is that if Being would be good as it was that there would be no reason for Being and a reason for Being - the why question of Being - is evidently applicable.

I said that "being," as you're using it, is undefined. Is "good as it was" supposed to be a definition of "being"? I have no idea what you're claiming with that statement. You still seem not to understand the meaning of "good," either --- you're using that term (as with "being"), as though it is some sort of entity (substance? force?) which exists independently from the judgments of any agent (or in the case of "being," independently from any particular being). "Good" or "goodness" is not a thing or a property of things. It is a pseudo-property --- an invented property we apply to things to denote that we desire them or approve of them.

There is no "being as such." Nor is there any "good as such." Those notions are metaphysical nonsense, deriving from a misunderstanding of the meanings of those common terms. They denote nothing; it is silly Platonism. There are only discrete, particular beings, and particular "good" things, in the subjective judgments of sentient beings.

And, no, we can't --- fruitfully --- ask why something exists (rather than nothing). All proffered answers to that question lead to an infinite regress, and thus tell us nothing.

The concept Being as such describes the quality of existing from within a subjective perspective. The term Being essentially contains the why question within it and thereby automatically seeks meaningful relevance 'within' experience and that within is the origin of existence.

Insofar as I can make sense of that statement, you seem to be saying:

1. "Being as such" is the existence or reality of subjective experience.

2. That experience includes a drive, or compulsion, to ask why does (my experience) exist.

But then you get to:

3. The question (per #2) seeks "meaningful relevance" within experience. Then,

4. That "meaningful relevance" is the "origin of existence."

Though what counts as "meaningful relevance" is undefined and is too nebulous to support any conclusion, that it might serve as the "origin of existence" is just a glaring non sequitur.

It explains that philosophy has dedicated to the concept Being which is named Ontology. Ontology comprises of a 'quest' into Being (a qualitative fulfilment of the 'seeking' that is contained within the term).

Ontology is the philosophical inquiry into what exists, how existents should be categorized, and what are the most basic, elemental, categories of existents. Apart from the H-H-H sidetrack (Hegel, Heidegger, Husserl), it does not treat existence, or "being," as a either an entity, substance, or even a category. That is metaphysical sideshow ignored by most modern philosophers.

Exactly. It shouldn't be asked because it is unanswerable in principle. If, that is, you're looking for an answer that is logically sound, is testable and that has some explanatory power. Of course, there are endless vacuous answers one might conjure up in imagination.

In my opinion the potential of the 'why' question demands an explanation. Your argument that the question is fundamentally unanswerable is not substantiated or do you have a substantiation?

Yes, suggested above. To ask why anything exists is to ask for the cause of its existence. But then you have to ask for the cause of the cause, and for the cause of that cause, ad infinitum. Hence an infinite regress. "Why" questions only lead to productive answers when the cause identified is palpable, modifiable, controllable, i.e., when it allows you to manipulate the effect, to bring it about or prevent it. Asking for causes beyond our control, or which have no value for predicting future events, are idle questions. The answers will be speculative, unverifiable, and lacking any explanatory utility.

The belief that 'things' (that are of a repeatable nature) have always existed is a magical belief in my opinion. The same would apply to the supposed 'only alternative' that things have sprung into existence from nothing.

No particular thing has (likely) always existed. Any X was caused by something Y, which was caused by something else Z, etc. There is nothing incoherent or "magical" about an infinitely long causal chain, one that has no "first cause." Indeed, it is the only alternative to "something coming from nothing."

A user on this forum described it as following:

For any given initial existent, either it "spontaneously appeared" or it always existed. Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

My argument is the following:

At question would be how a philosophical 'option' (magically always existed or magically have sprung into existence) is possible in the first place. It is then seen that for any option to be possible an aspect is required that is not of a nature that allows a choice.

Well, though what you mean by an "aspect" (of what?) is unclear, what you're saying there seems to be another non sequitur. Are you saying we cannot choose between those options? Why not? (TP had it right, BTW).

[Ecurb]

This is a non sequitur. Are you suggesting that nobody who supports National Health Care should ever engage in any dangerous activity? Are they to be morally banned from driving a car, playing sports, eating red meat, and drinking alcohol? Are overweight people obliged to vote against National Health Insurance on the grounds that they might be more likely to use it? The two issues are separate: should health care be a "right", and are dangerous activities morally acceptable.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. If non-smokers, non-drivers, vegetarians, etc., are subsidizing the risk-takers, then they get to prohibit those risky activities. On the other hand, if you're paying your own health care bills you may engage in any risky activities you wish.

Wrong on two counts. First, if health care is supported by taxes, he who pays the piper can vote, but he doesn't get to call the tune. Second, smokers and others who engage in unhealthy practices probably cost the system less than those darned health nuts who live to be 100. If you want to cut costs, you should encourage risky behavior, and eliminate some of those social security payments, Medicare bills, and nursing home expenditures that inevitably occur from age 80-100,

[GE Morton]

He who pays the piper calls the tune. If non-smokers, non-drivers, vegetarians, etc., are subsidizing the risk-takers, then they get to prohibit those risky activities. On the other hand, if you're paying your own health care bills you may engage in any risky activities you wish.

Wrong on two counts. First, if health care is supported by taxes, he who pays the piper can vote, but he doesn't get to call the tune.

We've covered this. There is no "social contract." If the payer does not get to call the tune then the taxes levied upon him are unjust.

Second, smokers and others who engage in unhealthy practices probably cost the system less than those darned health nuts who live to be 100. If you want to cut costs, you should encourage risky behavior, and eliminate some of those social security payments, Medicare bills, and nursing home expenditures that inevitably occur from age 80-100,

Heh. An interesting conjecture. Your point might be valid. Would like to see some stats on that.

[Ecurb]

We've covered this. There is no "social contract." If the payer does not get to call the tune then the taxes levied upon him are unjust.


Heh. An interesting conjecture. Your point might be valid. Would like to see some stats on that.

I'm aware of your position, GE. I disagree.

My conjecture seems logical, and I'll bet it's correct.. (This is not a CLAIM that it's right that I am obliged to support, by the way, but an offer to bet.) I'm planning on climbing Kilimanjaro this summer. In the unlikely event that I die, I will doubtless save the U.S. coffers considerable money in Medicare and Social Security payments over the next 15+ years (even if medicare payments in my treatment this year increase).

[Good_Egg]

I'm planning on climbing Kilimanjaro this summer. In the unlikely event that I die, I will doubtless save the U.S. coffers considerable money in Medicare and Social Security payments over the next 15+ years (even if medicare payments in my treatment this year increase).

If you die in a fall, yes it will save Medicare money in the long term. If you break your leg, a simple fracture is simple enough to fix - small short-term cost. But if you hit your head and damage your brain and require continuing care for the rest of your natural life ?

The point remains. Romance and adventure is great, and good luck with the climb. But something rings hollow if it's other people's resources you're risking in your adventure.

Joining a medical insurance scheme (state-run or private) is a way of pooling risk with other people. Nothing wrong with that if you're upfront with them and they with you about the level of risk in your life and theirs.

But you're not being honest with them if one day you go off and do something incredibly dangerous, that's outside the implicitly-expected level of financial risk, and then expect them to pick up the tab if it all goes wrong.

You're right that the financial risk to them and the risk of pain to you are different - surviving may be way more expensive than dying. But the original point remains.

Seems to me morally legitimate to not want to pool risks with a motorbike-riding smoker who does parachute jumps on weekends (substitute whatever high-risk behaviour you want).

[GE Morton]

Seems to me morally legitimate to not want to pool risks with a motorbike-riding smoker who does parachute jumps on weekends (substitute whatever high-risk behaviour you want).

That is why the premiums for private insurance, which customers freely buy, are adjusted for the risk each individual presents. E.g., a driver with several recent traffic tickets will pay more than one with none. A homeowner using a wood stove will pay more than one with electric heat.

But many now think they have "rights" to other people's money and services.

[Ecurb]

I'm planning on climbing Kilimanjaro this summer. In the unlikely event that I die, I will doubtless save the U.S. coffers considerable money in Medicare and Social Security payments over the next 15+ years (even if medicare payments in my treatment this year increase).

If you die in a fall, yes it will save Medicare money in the long term. If you break your leg, a simple fracture is simple enough to fix - small short-term cost. But if you hit your head and damage your brain and require continuing care for the rest of your natural life ?

The point remains. Romance and adventure is great, and good luck with the climb. But something rings hollow if it's other people's resources you're risking in your adventure.

Joining a medical insurance scheme (state-run or private) is a way of pooling risk with other people. Nothing wrong with that if you're upfront with them and they with you about the level of risk in your life and theirs.

But you're not being honest with them if one day you go off and do something incredibly dangerous, that's outside the implicitly-expected level of financial risk, and then expect them to pick up the tab if it all goes wrong.

You're right that the financial risk to them and the risk of pain to you are different - surviving may be way more expensive than dying. But the original point remains.

Seems to me morally legitimate to not want to pool risks with a motorbike-riding smoker who does parachute jumps on weekends (substitute whatever high-risk behaviour you want).

Everyone takes risks. Climbing mountains is probably more risky (for me, if not for world class climbers) in terms of the financial liability of others because it will improve my conditioning, and enable me to live a longer and healthier life, which, in the long term, will cost the tax payers more money in Medicare benefits and Social Security. National Health Insurance and private insurance are similar in this way. Those at more risk of expensive treatment drive up the cost for everyone else. But we (and the insurers) don't know who they are or what the behaviors are. Mountaineering may be risky, but so is sitting on the couch watching football and drinking beer. So is commuting to work in a car -- or perhaps riding a bicycle is riskier.

Your attempts to claim that it is unethical to perform risky activities when others must pay for any damage is simply silly. Nobody can properly assess the risk levels of every activity. As I pointed out, it's likely that smoking or obesity actuall saves medical expenses. It's reasonable of you to object to National Health Insurance (although I disagree emphatically), but unreasonable (and a red herring) to object to "risky" activities when you don't know the actual risk, and when everyone insured under either a mandatory or voluntary policy is counting on others to help pay for medical care. Per my supposition that longevity INCREASES medical expenditures, perhaps you should deplore those who don't smoke, exercise regularly, and maintain a healthy wieght. That would be equally (if not more) reasonable.

[GE Morton]

Everyone takes risks. Climbing mountains is probably more risky (for me, if not for world class climbers) in terms of the financial liability of others because it will improve my conditioning, and enable me to live a longer and healthier life, which, in the long term, will cost the tax payers more money in Medicare benefits and Social Security. National Health Insurance and private insurance are similar in this way. Those at more risk of expensive treatment drive up the cost for everyone else. But we (and the insurers) don't know who they are or what the behaviors are.

That is patently false. Private insurers are very good at assessing the risks each prospective customer presents. For health insurance, for example, the applicant's occupation, age, various lifestyle factors, and medical history were taken into account when calculating premiums, or deciding whether the applicant was insurable at all. Or they were, before government began demanding those factors be ignored. Insurers insure all kinds of risks, and they have armies of actuaries computing the risks of each. The fact that they remain in business is evidence that they do a pretty good job of it (health insurance in the present government-dictated and subsidized regime excepted).