value wrote: ↑March 14th, 2024, 4:44 pmAt 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.
Gertie wrote: ↑March 14th, 2024, 5:14 pmI 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).
Gertie wrote: ↑March 14th, 2024, 5:14 pmYou 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:
Sculptor1 wrote: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.
Gertie wrote: ↑March 14th, 2024, 5:14 pmBecause 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.
Gertie wrote: ↑March 14th, 2024, 5:14 pmI 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 3120 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.