Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Gertie]

The nature of the problem is neatly put, we're apparently faced with two illogical options. This suggests to me logic can't resolve a question like Why is there something rather than nothing. But we've no reason to expect logic to answer questions about the origin of the universe if human logic is a way we understand the nature of the universe as we experience it once it exists. If logic is a concept which helps us makes sense of our experiential model of the universe as it is now, we can't assume it works beyond that. And as we can't observe reality from outside the universe, we have nothing left to go on except speculation imo. So to say ''It can then be seen that...'' wouldn't follow. Rather we should just say we don't know, but this or that might make sense of this to us.

The argument of the topic is that philosophy IS able to transcend the subjective/objective dichotomy, and thus that the argument "It is then seen that..." can be rendered valid in light of philosophical argumentation.

The question whether philosophical reason can be considered equal to logic, is a separate question, that appears to have been addressed by Robert Pirsig on this forum in topic Logic is it's own fallacy..

"Not everything can and should be defined, some things lie outside of our scope; which is what this feed is about. We cannot grasp all things with the logic and other tools which we presently hold. "

You write: "If logic is a concept which helps us makes sense of our experiential model of the universe as it is now, we can't assume it works beyond that."

While you may be right, at question would be whether philosophical reason can be considered equal to logic, and bound by logic's limitations.

Is Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will or Pirsig's Quality logic? Pirsig himself argued that Quality cannot be defined, and thus cannot be grasped by logic, but in the same time he dedicated his life to making a case for its philosophical plausibility.

You said this -

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.

That would be what transcending the subjective/objective dichotomy is about, in my opinion.

I don't see how that leaves us with a reliable way to know how/if the universe began, for the reasons I stated.

You assume, of a situation presumably 'outside' time, space, observation and logic that you can reason to a conclusion such as '' 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.''

I just don't see how you can assume anything about 'choice', whatever that might mean in such a context. And I don't see how that relates to subjective/objective dichotomy re your further conclusion here -

''That would be what transcending the subjective/objective dichotomy is about, in my opinion.''

Because Choice isn't what defines objective from subjective to me, and No Choice doesn't 'transcend' subjective and objective.

I just can't make sense of your position. To me, we simply can't make reliable pronouncements about anything outside this universe, which our adaptive 'knowing toolkit' (observation and extrapolated reasoning and logic rooted in our experiential observations) is suited to work with. If we have to throw out time, space, observation and logic, what is philosophy reliably left to work with?

[value]

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.

That would be what transcending the subjective/objective dichotomy is about, in my opinion.

I don't see how that leaves us with a reliable way to know how/if the universe began, for the reasons I stated.

When it concerns the question of reliability, you may be right. But the evident motivation of philosophers in history to pursue their business none-the-less proves something fundamental, in my opinion.

My own conclusive argument is "it is philosophy all the way down" (a universe that is fundamentally questionable, as an analogy for Turtle Philosophy, of which I quickly would like to include on this forum that AI's knowledge could not link it to the turtle "Morla, The Ancient One" in NeverEnding Story, as if that idea was never discussed on the internet before).

You assume, of a situation presumably 'outside' time, space, observation and logic that you can reason to a conclusion such as '' 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.''

I just don't see how you can assume anything about 'choice', whatever that might mean in such a context. And I don't see how that relates to subjective/objective dichotomy re your further conclusion here -

''That would be what transcending the subjective/objective dichotomy is about, in my opinion.''

The context is a choice between two philosophical options, as if they were 'the only options' to explain [existence of] the Universe.

The argument denotes the philosophical obligation to explain the potential of a choice in the first place (still in the context of the two philosophical options) and that that fact by itself - the philosophical obligation - is evidence (results in 'it is then seen [philosophically]') of an aspect that is more fundamental than those two options, and more fundamental than any philosophical choice for that matter.

Personally, I would prefer to focus this question around the philosophical obligation to explain the concept (potential of) 'begin'. The two philosophical options of Terrapin Station resolve around that concept, which is evident from a similar perspective by another user on this forum:

There are 4 possible states of the universe.

1) A universe with no beginning and no end. (eternal)
2) A universe with no beginning but with and end
3) A universe with a beginning and no end.
4) A universe with a beginning and an end.

The states in his argument are equal to Terrapin Station's two options, however, Sculptor1 takes the concept beginning in consideration from the perspective of it either being applicable to the origin and/or future independently, resulting in 4 options as opposed to just 2 options. However, he still assumes the concept begin (the root of existence) to be magically there or not there, just like Terrapin Station.

My argument is to denote the philosophical obligation to explain the potential of the concept 'begin' in the first place, and that it provides evidence of the fundamental nature of reality.

Because Choice isn't what defines objective from subjective to me, and No Choice doesn't 'transcend' subjective and objective.

The difference lays in choice from the perspective of a 'having done' as opposed to philosophy's ability to perform a role as servant for an aspect that underlays reality and existence fundamentally, of which by philosophy itself a case can be made for plausibility.

I just can't make sense of your position. To me, we simply can't make reliable pronouncements about anything outside this universe, which our adaptive 'knowing toolkit' (observation and extrapolated reasoning and logic rooted in our experiential observations) is suited to work with. If we have to throw out time, space, observation and logic, what is philosophy reliably left to work with?

Objective is anything that can be verified by empirical means while subjective relates to inner feelings and experience relative to, or manifested within, the world.

Where does that leave philosophy's endeavour to question the fundamental nature of existence itself? When one reaches beyond the boundary imposed by objectivity, while the endeavour is still very much aligned with the pursuit of truth as opposed to inner feelings or experience, where does that leave philosophy's business?

The following image is an illustration derived of an originally 18th century woodcut depicting philosopher Giordano Bruno's dreams beyond the universe.

Philosopher Giordano Bruno exploring beyond the Universe
structure-universe.png (247.86 KiB) Viewed 3122 times

Imagining the universe
Is the scientific model itself critically flawed? Should we conclude that imagination and creativity escape the corset of cause and effect, creating new worlds that we are then able to inhabit? Or is imagination merely the combination of prior experiences, forming nothing essentially original? Is more at stake here than the character of creativity and instead do we need to reframe the very nature of reality and our role in it?
https://iai.tv/video/imagining-the-universe

Take for example the following reasoning by philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas (University of Paris).

"in renouncing intentionality as a guiding thread toward the eidos [formal structure] of the psyche … our analysis will follow sensibility in its pre-natural signification to the maternal, where, in proximity [to what is not itself], signification signifies before it gets bent into perseverance in being in the midst of a Nature. (OBBE: 68, emph. added) "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/

This philosophical reasoning explores the foundation or origin of the cosmos, and seeks it in the context of signification (which, in my opinion, is valuing that precedes the possibility of value).

Lévinas concluded: "The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness." (Levinas in film Absent God 1:06:22)

When philosophically exploring the concept meaning per se, for example manifested as the concept Quality of Robert Pirsig or Goodness in the example above, one can philosophically progress beyond the subjective/objective dichotomy.

Another example: ☯ Tao Te Ching by Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu):

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

Why write anything when what is written cannot be written? Why philosophise when "the wise is silent"?

French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion asked the philosophical question "What is there, then, that is there, that "overflows"?". Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein called for silence and argued "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." and German philosopher Martin Heidegger called it the "Nothing".

What is the meaning of an insight into the origin and purpose of existence itself, when the insight that language attempts to unlock, cannot be "said"?

This would be an example of philosophically transcending the subjective/objective dichotomy.

Philosophers like William James, the father of pacifism, wrote a complex work for anti-war philosophy, not for a fact of science or history of human nature, or a motive that can be 'said', but because of a potential to do so that reached beyond existence, and that provided them with the conviction of correctness and plausibility in a grounding without context. To 'serve' good as it were.

Philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas wrote in his work on peace: "The first "vision" of eschatology reveals the very possibility of eschatology, that is, the breach of the totality, the possibility of a signification without context."

That "first vision" as described by Lévinas is likely the core purpose of philosophers like William James to write their life's work on anti-war philosophy. It isn't logical, but they are highly motivated and devoted for their philosophical case.

Signification without context is how Lévinas described it. The possibility of such an idea made plausible using philosophical reason doesn't allow contention other than on the ground of philosophical reason itself, which only progresses the same interest. It therefore concerns the transcending of the subjective/objective dichotomy.

[Good_Egg]

We have when arriving into this world only the knowledge of our species

I rather think we arrive with no knowledge at all.

We see this in literature. In Hans Anderson's tales, the ugly duckling does not initially know they are a swan. In the Jungle Book, Mowgli, raised by wolves, has to be told that he is a man-cub.

What we are born with is a capacity to learn. Including by imitation.

Have you ever seen a bird, hatched from an egg placed under a sitting hen, behaving as a chicken instead of exhibiting the normal behaviour of its own species ?

[Sculptor1]

[

There are 4 possible states of the universe.

1) A universe with no beginning and no end. (eternal)
2) A universe with no beginning but with and end
3) A universe with a beginning and no end.
4) A universe with a beginning and an end.

The states in his argument are equal to Terrapin Station's two options, however, Sculptor1 takes the concept beginning in consideration from the perspective of it either being applicable to the origin and/or future independently, resulting in 4 options as opposed to just 2 options. However, he still assumes the concept begin (the root of existence) to be magically there or not there, just like Terrapin Station.

What you are saying is ridiculous. Either the universe began or it did not. Neither case is magical.
If the universe neither began or did not begin, then tell me what other state of affairs pertains here?
If you are going to criticise then do so with something to offer.

[Lagayscienza]

Even if a universe had a beginning but had no end, wouldn't' it, because it has no end, still end up being eternal? It will go on forever, eternally, infinitely, right? It would just be an infinity with a beginning. It's infinity wouldn't be as big as an infinity without a beginning or an end, but wouldn't it still be infinite and eternal? And a universe without a beginning, which began infinitely in the past, but which has an end, would also be eternal and infinite, but in the opposite direction, wouldn't it? So only 4) would be finite, no? A universe with no end, a universe with no beginning, and universe with no beginning and no end, would all be infinite. It's just that 1), the universe without a beginning or an end, would be a bigger infinity than the 2) or 3). So only 4) would be finite. My understanding is that infinities are not all equal but they are, nonetheless, all infinite.

But I'm not a professional mathematician, so I may be wrong.

[value]

My argument is that one is philosophically obligated to explain the concept 'begin per se' instead of assuming that a begin of the Universe can have just two states, being there or not there (which is a magical assumption in my opinion, both failing to address 'the potential of the concept begin in the first place').

And when one would philosophically examine the concept 'begin per se', one would transcend the subjective/objective dichotomy, because one would investigate a nature that fundamentally underlays existence.

[Good_Egg]

The dichotomy between "had a beginning" and "has always existed" seems valid, if one first assumes that time stretches linearly back to infinity. Which is a naive uniformitarian assumption.

In my limited understanding of the mathematics of Einstein, space-time is bounded. There was no " before the Big Bang".

Zeno's paradox reversed...

[popeye1945]

We have when arriving into this world only the knowledge of our species

I rather think we arrive with no knowledge at all.

We see this in literature. In Hans Anderson's tales, the ugly duckling does not initially know they are a swan. In the Jungle Book, Mowgli, raised by wolves, has to be told that he is a man-cub.

What we are born with is a capacity to learn. Including by imitation.

Have you ever seen a bird, hatched from an egg placed under a sitting hen, behaving as a chicken instead of exhibiting the normal behaviour of its own species ?

By knowledge of our species, I mean the inherited characteristics potentials, and orientation of the phenotype to be a particular species fitted to a particular niche in the environment. Life differs in its forms not in its essence.

[Gertie]

My argument is that one is philosophically obligated to explain the concept 'begin per se' instead of assuming that a begin of the Universe can have just two states, being there or not there (which is a magical assumption in my opinion, both failing to address 'the potential of the concept begin in the first place').

And when one would philosophically examine the concept 'begin per se', one would transcend the subjective/objective dichotomy, because one would investigate a nature that fundamentally underlays existence.

Hi Value. Can you say clearly and concisely what ''fundamentally underlays existence'' means to you in ontological terms?

And how you could reliably go about investigating ''a nature that fundamentally underlays existence''?

[value]

What it 'means': the perception of existence as non assumary. The endeavour that it entails is the meaning that it entails and it is important to consider that that endeavour doesn't stand on itself, despite that it doesn't find a ground in existence.

Your demand for reliability should be reflected on Emmanuel Lévinas his proposition of the idea of the possibility of signification without context.

Lévinas wrote in his major work Totality and Infinity: "The first "vision" of eschatology (hereby distinguished from the revealed opinions of positive religions) reveals the very possibility of eschatology, that is, the breach of the totality, the possibility of a signification without context."

- Plato's concept of the Good emphasizes the ultimate form of reality and the source of all other forms. It represents the highest truth and the foundation of existence.
- Nietzsche's metaphysical concept of the Will to Power posits that power is the driving force in the universe, underlying all phenomena and actions. It signifies a fundamental principle that governs existence and human behavior.
- Leibniz his Dominance as fundamental force of the universe.
- Schopenhauer's metaphysical concept of the Will suggests that an inner force drives all life and existence.
- Jean-Luc Marion proposes that Love, rather than power or being, is the fundamental force of the universe. This idea contrasts with Nietzsche's Will to Power, emphasizing love as a central and transformative element in understanding existence.
- The founder of this forum provided a similar idea as Jean-Luc Marion in his philosophy book In It Together.

Can those idea's potentially be 'reliable'? If so, the world would be given and that renders the ideas invalid, in my opinion, because what can be given must have the nature existence beforehand.

[value]

What it 'means': the perception of existence as non assumary. The endeavour that it entails is the meaning that it entails and it is important to consider that that endeavour doesn't stand on itself, despite that it doesn't find a ground in existence.

The following podcast by Partially Examined Life address this idea in detail. Also the notion that the meaning involves 'the endeavour' is posed by Levinas.

Episode 146: Emmanuel Levinas on Overcoming Solitude
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2016/ ... 1-levinas/

"Existing without existence... Then he gives us the account of, we can think of what there is, we can think of the imaginary destruction of everything, the atmospheric density, the force field that is left over afterwards.

And he calls that an ... of pure existing. He warns us, this is not an indeterminate ground, that's already a something. It is the work of existing."

"There is something that preceded us..." <<--- a philosophical notion by which one transcends the subjective/objective dichotomy.

The podcast is a follow up from podcast 145:

Episode 145: Emmanuel Levinas: Why Be Ethical?
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2016/ ... 1-levinas/

Philosopher Seth Paskin, one of the hosts of the podcast, studied Martin Heidegger in Freiburg, Germany, and later dedicated to Levinas.

The podcast can provide a better explanation of the meaning of the philosophical notion (or more specifically, in my case, the proposition that one is obligated to explain) ''fundamentally underlays existence''.

My focus lays at (the philosophical obligation to explain) the concept 'begin', which in my view, is the root of a subjective perspective and thus the root of the manifestation of consciousness. That philosophical obligation proves in my opinion, that consciousness cannot be 'produced' by the brain and must have an origin that lays outside the scope of a subjective perspective.

[Scarleffdman]

The dichotomy between subject and object does not exist; their fusion embodies subjective reality—the unity of necessity.

[Me_Be]

Nothing can be objectified; and be known to be one's conscious sentient experience. Objectivity is never one's direct conscious sentient experience.
Same goes for subjectivity. A subject is never one's conscious sentient experience without making it that an object that knows and experiences nothing.

Nothing knows itself. Nothing is.

[Pattern-chaser]

The dichotomy between subject and object does not exist; their fusion embodies subjective reality—the unity of necessity.

That's as wise a saying as anything else posted in this topic. Well said!

Welcome, Scarleffdman, to our dance!

[value]

The dichotomy between subject and object does not exist; their fusion embodies subjective reality—the unity of necessity.

In order to 'fuse' anything, shouldn't there exist something to fuse?