Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

[Guisslapp]

Why must there be a "why?" That presupposes a VOLITION/CHOICE. There doesn't have to be a reason for existence to exist. The fact is - it DOES exist and is therefore a fundamental axiom. We perceive it, therefore we KNOW it exists.

The question of "why does existence exist?" automatically assumes an actor was present to make the decision. You have assumed a god into the equation, when this step is not necessary.

I am the one just recognizing that existence exists. No leap of faith necessary there. You are the one assuming there was an option for it not to exist. This assumption implicitly brings in an act of creation that would violate fundamental scientific principles (such as conservation of mass/energy).

[randerizer]

Why must there be a "why?" That presupposes a VOLITION/CHOICE. There doesn't have to be a reason for existence to exist. The fact is - it DOES exist and is therefore a fundamental axiom. We perceive it, therefore we KNOW it exists.

The question of "why does existence exist?" automatically assumes an actor was present to make the decision. You have assumed a god into the equation, when this step is not necessary.

I am the one just recognizing that existence exists. No leap of faith necessary there. You are the one assuming there was an option for it not to exist. This is an assumption implicitly brings in an act of creation that would violate fundamental scientific principles (such as conservation of law/energy).

Ironically, then, religion is an attempt to explain something that seems hard to accept (the existence of existence) by introducing a human concept (choice) into the picture.

Only, it only works if we deny fundamental aspects of reality (the axioms of existence and consciousness and the law of identity) to get there. If it's shown that choice requires consciousness and concept formation, which requires existence as a prerequesite, why would one ever consider a situation in which a conscious exists without existence itself and is able to make a choice between nonexistence and existence?

[randerizer]

so, when does Drumlogic usually get on here?

[Spinoza]

Why must there be a "why?" That presupposes a VOLITION/CHOICE. There doesn't have to be a reason for existence to exist. The fact is - it DOES exist and is therefore a fundamental axiom. We perceive it, therefore we KNOW it exists.

The question of "why does existence exist?" automatically assumes an actor was present to make the decision. You have assumed a god into the equation, when this step is not necessary.

I am the one just recognizing that existence exists. No leap of faith necessary there. You are the one assuming there was an option for it not to exist. This is an assumption implicitly brings in an act of creation that would violate fundamental scientific principles (such as conservation of law/energy).

Congratulations......
Decent "thread action" today...... Finally!
2 may not seem like much, but I suspect you'd agree it beats the hell out of zero for your purpose.

Anyway......
While I await the FULL FLAVOR of the beer you have been so painstakingly brewing...... I have at least two questions.

It will not surprise me if your answer to the 1st question gets you significant response on this particular board.

Your reply to my second question, however, will probably be more of a entre nous thing.

And BTW......
I invite candid replies from BOTH You and Randy.
I do read EVERYTHING Randy writes......
It's just that my hunt and peck BEER lack of computer skills...... Precludes me from even considering any serious BARBAROSSA.
I"ll simply assume You and Randy understand.

I'll employ a separate post for each question and try to keep it more than simple.

Cheers to both You and Randy.

[Guisslapp]

Yes, I am glad this thread is finally getting some traffic. I am hoping we don't run off everyone.

[Guisslapp]

What happened to Spinoza? I thought two questions were coming.

[johnnylightnin]

so, when does Drumlogic usually get on here?

I believe he'll be on tonight or tomorrow.

[Spinoza]

Do you believe in ANY God in ANY traditional sense......?
Do you or do you not currently participate in the practice of ANY "RECOGNIZED"RELIGION?
If so...... What religion/sect, and WHY?

IF NOT......
Do you currently and "objectively" refer to yourself as an atheist, an agnostic or "other"...... And why?

While I cannot help but draw what appear to be logical conclusions from the implied nuance of your collective missives to date......
I could not help but notice that you DID NOT initiate ANY DIRECT REPLY regarding any such inference on YOUR "knowledge thread".

And I was also unable to ignore the manner in which Randy so obviously TAP DANCED around this more than basic issue on the "knowledge thread"...... Despite THE FACT that "religion" SERIOUSLY REFLECTS more than the vast majority of human thought, both past and present.

But that was prior to my pesty prodding for the OBVIOUS......
And the subsequent metamorphosis that both You and Randy now so proudly preen with pride and personal perseverance.

And just for the heck of it......
May I inquire if either You or Randy EVER PREVIOUSLY participated in, or adhered to the tenets of ANY religion/religious sect?

[randerizer]

Do you believe in ANY God in ANY traditional sense......?
Do you or do you not currently participate in the practice of ANY "RECOGNIZED"RELIGION?
If so...... What religion/sect, and WHY?

IF NOT......
Do you currently and "objectively" refer to yourself as an atheist, an agnostic or "other"...... And why?

While I cannot help but draw what appear to be logical conclusions from the implied nuance of your collective missives to date......
I could not help but notice that you DID NOT initiate ANY DIRECT REPLY regarding any such inference on YOUR "knowledge thread".

And I was also unable to ignore the manner in which Randy so obviously TAP DANCED around this more than basic issue on the "knowledge thread"...... Despite THE FACT that "religion" SERIOUSLY REFLECTS more than the vast majority of human thought, both past and present.

But that was prior to my pesty prodding for the OBVIOUS......
And the subsequent metamorphosis that both You and Randy now so proudly preen with pride and personal perseverance.

And just for the heck of it......
May I inquire if either You or Randy EVER PREVIOUSLY participated in, or adhered to the tenets of ANY religion/religious sect?

I tap-danced because I didn't think it was necessary to go into the subject at the moment, as I didn't want to lose people from the conversation by quickly (and without some fundamental bases) dismissing religion. I recognize that it's difficult to confront until one is ready, and if you try to attack religion too early, the rest of your thought just gets pushed aside. I don't think that the arguments posed in the "knowledge" thread were a direct confrontation with religion, so I chose not to force the issue when I didn't have to.

Further, this is the appropriate thread to discuss religion, because this is the level of thought that makes most people consider religion necessary. Discussing religion first as an epistemological or ethical construct seems to miss the mark.

As for myself, I was at one time Baptist, then non-denominational Christian, and now I don't consider myself anything but myself. Why? I just don't think the subject warrants me defining a term for myself.

[Spinoza]

Second simple question......

Does your "knowlege" of Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, and so forth, come from a personal reading/academic study of thier TOTAL EFFORTS IN THE FLESH......

Or primarily from a collective "objectivist" interpretation of their respective philosophical writings and meaning.

AND......
In addition to ANY philosopher referred to above......
What OTHER PHILOSOPHERS have you read/academicqally studied in serious detail along your respectives paths to categorical certainty?

No German or Polish beer mystery tonight......
As promised...... Only very easy questions.

[randerizer]

Second simple question......

Does your "knowlege" of Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, and so forth, come from a personal reading/academic study of thier TOTAL EFFORTS IN THE FLESH......

Or primarily from a collective "objectivist" interpretation of their respective philosophical writings and meaning.

AND......
In addition to ANY philosopher referred to above......
What OTHER PHILOSOPHERS have you read/academicqally studied in serious detail along your respectives paths to categorical certainty?

No German or Polish beer mystery tonight......
As promised...... Only very easy questions.

Among others, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Hobbes, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, William James, Russell, Heidegger, Sartre, Rawls, Foucault, Spanos.

That's not exhaustive, but it represents the a good deal of thought I have investigated. I cannot say that my understanding of ANY represents their ENTIRE body, but I don't think I've missed much in the way of significance.

[Guisslapp]

Do you believe in ANY God in ANY traditional sense......?
Do you or do you not currently participate in the practice of ANY "RECOGNIZED"RELIGION?
If so...... What religion/sect, and WHY?

IF NOT......
Do you currently and "objectively" refer to yourself as an atheist, an agnostic or "other"...... And why?

While I cannot help but draw what appear to be logical conclusions from the implied nuance of your collective missives to date......
I could not help but notice that you DID NOT initiate ANY DIRECT REPLY regarding any such inference on YOUR "knowledge thread".

And I was also unable to ignore the manner in which Randy so obviously TAP DANCED around this more than basic issue on the "knowledge thread"...... Despite THE FACT that "religion" SERIOUSLY REFLECTS more than the vast majority of human thought, both past and present.

But that was prior to my pesty prodding for the OBVIOUS......
And the subsequent metamorphosis that both You and Randy now so proudly preen with pride and personal perseverance.

And just for the heck of it......
May I inquire if either You or Randy EVER PREVIOUSLY participated in, or adhered to the tenets of ANY religion/religious sect?

I try not to speculate on the arbitrary too often, but I have yet to encounter any good reason to believe in a god. The ideas of god that I have been introduced to in my short lifetime pose serious philosophical problems to me. So, No, I do not believe in any traditional god. I do not currently practice any recognized religion. I have "participated" in Southern Baptist, Reformed Baptist, and Presbyterian (PCA) churches. Considering my previous beliefs, I would have to acknowledge that I must not have ever been "saved."

Like Randy, I did not want to put the obvious conclusion of the metaphysics inquiry out too early (particularly when we were discussing epistemology) because it is pretty polarizing. I know this all too well from living most of my life in the Bible belt.

I have never referred to myself as an agnostic, but have referred to myself as an atheist before. But I think the definition is kind of silly - it is kind of like acknowledging that you are "cancer-free" or "HIV-free." It is hard to define yourself in terms of what you are not. Religion is not a significant concern of mine, so I would say my other ideals are a more useful way of explaining who I am.

[Guisslapp]

Second simple question......

Does your "knowlege" of Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, and so forth, come from a personal reading/academic study of thier TOTAL EFFORTS IN THE FLESH......

Or primarily from a collective "objectivist" interpretation of their respective philosophical writings and meaning.

AND......
In addition to ANY philosopher referred to above......
What OTHER PHILOSOPHERS have you read/academicqally studied in serious detail along your respectives paths to categorical certainty?

No German or Polish beer mystery tonight......
As promised...... Only very easy questions.

From the flesh - although not their entire body of work. I would say that Rand does not always fairly characterize their works, but cites them more to define what objectivism is not.

[Spinoza]

I tap-danced because I didn't think it was necessary to go into the subject at the moment, as I didn't want to lose people from the conversation by quickly (and without some fundamental bases) dismissing religion. I recognize that it's difficult to confront until one is ready, and if you try to attack religion too early, the rest of your thought just gets pushed aside. I don't think that the arguments posed in the "knowledge" thread were a direct confrontation with religion, so I chose not to force the issue when I didn't have to.

Further, this is the appropriate thread to discuss religion, because this is the level of thought that makes most people consider religion necessary. Discussing religion first as an epistemological or ethical construct seems to miss the mark.

As for myself, I was at one time Baptist, then non-denominational Christian, and now I don't consider myself anything but myself. Why? I just don't think the subject warrants me defining a term for myself.

PURE POPPYCOCK......
And an instance where one can not even be excused for attempting to FOOL HIMSELF before authoring wordy efforts to FOOL OTHERS.

If you MUST pretend you are philosophically constipated...... Try shitting in someone else's pot. I make every effort to keep my crap hole tidy and clean.

You tap danced previously because you were a philosophical coward.
There's no theological mystery on this board/society.
You have continued to try to buck-and-wing it here tonight because you remain a sorry christian-type with neither calm nor conviction.

If ever YOU accidently manage to stumble in either direction...... You may stick a feather up your hypocritic arse and call it RANDY ONLY!

All that aside......
Would you now care to answer query #2?

[Guisslapp]

Among others, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Hobbes, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, William James, Russell, Heidegger, Sartre, Rawls, Foucault, Spanos.

That's not exhaustive, but it represents the a good deal of thought I have investigated. I cannot say that my understanding of ANY represents their ENTIRE body, but I don't think I've missed much in the way of significance.

I have read something from many of the one's that Randy has listed (not all), but would add:

Derrida
Berkeley
Spinoza

The things I have read that are most relevant to the current thread (aside from Rand and Peikoff) are :
Aquinas's Proofs of the Existence of God (2 of them at least)
Benedict Spinoza's everything is god/pantheism perspective (it was in some anthology)
William James's block universe theory (same anthology)
Kant's skeptical view of metaphysics (same anthology)
Various postmodernist ideas including Heidegger's Being and Time (well, most of it - half of it didn't make much sense)