philosophical bedrock
philosophical bedrock
What is the most important question in philosophy? What question or problem is a prerequisite for solving all others?
-
Impenitent
- Posts: 4381
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: philosophical bedrock
bedrock? where's Fred's house?
-Imp
-Imp
Re: philosophical bedrock
Shouldn’t the person (you) who claimed to have “solved philosophy” be telling us what that question might be?
Nevertheless, I’ll offer one anyway.
It’s pretty standard and it comes in two parts, so here goes:
How is it possible that the essence of matter and the essence of life could have arisen out of pure and absolute nothingness?
On the other hand, if there did exist a primordial somethingness from which matter and life arose, then where did the something come from?
(Note: Any attempt to claim that all of those things simply always existed throughout all of past eternity, will immediately be viewed as either a non answer, or an “...I don’t know and I’m sorry I asked...”)
_______
Re: philosophical bedrock
There is no conclusion to the question-answer process. Conclusion/completion occurs when the thought process itself is transcended.
Ramana Maharshi taught Self-Enquiry, which was asking the question: "Who am I?" followed by thought free Awareness.
I have found that asking: "Where do thoughts come from?" followed by pure observation - watching the stillness from which thought arises - is a very powerful practice.
Re: philosophical bedrock
[quote=roydop post_id=474507 time=1601938100 user_id=10617]
[quote=Advocate post_id=474452 time=1601906531 user_id=15238]
What is the most important question in philosophy? What question or problem is a prerequisite for solving all others?
[/quote]
There is no conclusion to the question-answer process. Conclusion/completion occurs when the thought process itself is transcended.
Ramana Maharshi taught Self-Enquiry, which was asking the question: "Who am I?" followed by thought free Awareness.
I have found that asking: "Where do thoughts come from?" followed by pure observation - watching the stillness from which thought arises - is a very powerful practice.
[/quote]
So, would meta-metaphysics be the kind of thing you'd accept as a conclusion?
[quote=Advocate post_id=474452 time=1601906531 user_id=15238]
What is the most important question in philosophy? What question or problem is a prerequisite for solving all others?
[/quote]
There is no conclusion to the question-answer process. Conclusion/completion occurs when the thought process itself is transcended.
Ramana Maharshi taught Self-Enquiry, which was asking the question: "Who am I?" followed by thought free Awareness.
I have found that asking: "Where do thoughts come from?" followed by pure observation - watching the stillness from which thought arises - is a very powerful practice.
[/quote]
So, would meta-metaphysics be the kind of thing you'd accept as a conclusion?
Re: philosophical bedrock
[quote=seeds post_id=474504 time=1601936930 user_id=12576]
[quote=Advocate post_id=474452 time=1601906531 user_id=15238]
What is the most important question in philosophy? What question or problem is a prerequisite for solving all others?[/quote]
Shouldn’t the person (you) who claimed to have “solved philosophy” be telling us what that question might be?
Nevertheless, I’ll offer one anyway.
It’s pretty standard and it comes in two parts, so here goes:
How is it possible that the essence of matter and the essence of life could have arisen out of pure and absolute nothingness?
On the other hand, if there did exist a primordial somethingness from which matter and life arose, then where did the something come from?
[i]([b]Note:[/b] Any attempt to claim that all of those things simply always existed throughout all of past eternity, will immediately be viewed as either a non answer, or an “...I don’t know and I’m sorry I asked...”)[/i]
_______
[/quote]
I don't have an answer to what the most important question is. I'm looking for some notion of what other people think it is. The essence of anything is a semantic question - what work does the word do for us? There was never nothing. Nothing, like all words that reference the transcendence, is a stand-in for that which we cannot access in Actuality. There is no such thing as a beginning or an end in reality, only in patterns, which are limiting sets of attributes and boundary conditions. Something-ness never came from anywhere. That's a metaphysical gap story, just like god. Isness always was. Take it or leave it, but it answers philosophical questions in a way that's much more logical than any other way.
[quote=Advocate post_id=474452 time=1601906531 user_id=15238]
What is the most important question in philosophy? What question or problem is a prerequisite for solving all others?[/quote]
Shouldn’t the person (you) who claimed to have “solved philosophy” be telling us what that question might be?
Nevertheless, I’ll offer one anyway.
It’s pretty standard and it comes in two parts, so here goes:
How is it possible that the essence of matter and the essence of life could have arisen out of pure and absolute nothingness?
On the other hand, if there did exist a primordial somethingness from which matter and life arose, then where did the something come from?
[i]([b]Note:[/b] Any attempt to claim that all of those things simply always existed throughout all of past eternity, will immediately be viewed as either a non answer, or an “...I don’t know and I’m sorry I asked...”)[/i]
_______
[/quote]
I don't have an answer to what the most important question is. I'm looking for some notion of what other people think it is. The essence of anything is a semantic question - what work does the word do for us? There was never nothing. Nothing, like all words that reference the transcendence, is a stand-in for that which we cannot access in Actuality. There is no such thing as a beginning or an end in reality, only in patterns, which are limiting sets of attributes and boundary conditions. Something-ness never came from anywhere. That's a metaphysical gap story, just like god. Isness always was. Take it or leave it, but it answers philosophical questions in a way that's much more logical than any other way.
-
Veritas Aequitas
- Posts: 12712
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: philosophical bedrock
The most important question in philosophy is,
what is the next question?
The other pertinent question is;Betrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
How to optimize the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity within its interdependence with reality.
Re: philosophical bedrock
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=474544 time=1601966550 user_id=7896]
[quote=Advocate post_id=474452 time=1601906531 user_id=15238]
What is the most important question in philosophy? What question or problem is a prerequisite for solving all others?
[/quote]
The most important question in philosophy is,
[b]what is the next question?[/b]
[quote="Betrand Russell"]Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; [b]Philosophy is to be studied[/b], not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather f[b]or the sake of the questions themselves[/b]; [/quote]
The other pertinent question is;
How to optimize the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity within its interdependence with reality.
[/quote]
As a rule, Bertrand Russell doesn't know what he's talking about. There are answers, they can be found, and it can be proven. That anyone could in good faith say their subject cannot lead to answers is remarkably naive. If there are no answers then there are no meaningful questions. How is that not blindingly obvious to everyone!?
To optimize the well-being of the individual requires the individual having their priorities straight, at a minimum. Humanity is a question of meaning at scale, like politics basically, but without the layers of rhetoric.
[quote=Advocate post_id=474452 time=1601906531 user_id=15238]
What is the most important question in philosophy? What question or problem is a prerequisite for solving all others?
[/quote]
The most important question in philosophy is,
[b]what is the next question?[/b]
[quote="Betrand Russell"]Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; [b]Philosophy is to be studied[/b], not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather f[b]or the sake of the questions themselves[/b]; [/quote]
The other pertinent question is;
How to optimize the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity within its interdependence with reality.
[/quote]
As a rule, Bertrand Russell doesn't know what he's talking about. There are answers, they can be found, and it can be proven. That anyone could in good faith say their subject cannot lead to answers is remarkably naive. If there are no answers then there are no meaningful questions. How is that not blindingly obvious to everyone!?
To optimize the well-being of the individual requires the individual having their priorities straight, at a minimum. Humanity is a question of meaning at scale, like politics basically, but without the layers of rhetoric.
Re: philosophical bedrock
There are no essences excepting those essences that a man makes from how he lives his life.Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:25 amI don't have an answer to what the most important question is. I'm looking for some notion of what other people think it is. The essence of anything is a semantic question - what work does the word do for us? There was never nothing. Nothing, like all words that reference the transcendence, is a stand-in for that which we cannot access in Actuality. There is no such thing as a beginning or an end in reality, only in patterns, which are limiting sets of attributes and boundary conditions. Something-ness never came from anywhere. That's a metaphysical gap story, just like god. Isness always was. Take it or leave it, but it answers philosophical questions in a way that's much more logical than any other way.seeds wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:28 pmShouldn’t the person (you) who claimed to have “solved philosophy” be telling us what that question might be?
Nevertheless, I’ll offer one anyway.
It’s pretty standard and it comes in two parts, so here goes:
How is it possible that the essence of matter and the essence of life could have arisen out of pure and absolute nothingness?
On the other hand, if there did exist a primordial somethingness from which matter and life arose, then where did the something come from?
(Note: Any attempt to claim that all of those things simply always existed throughout all of past eternity, will immediately be viewed as either a non answer, or an “...I don’t know and I’m sorry I asked...”)
_______
Isness is a word for something is happening, except when isness is a word for both something is happening and nothing is happening. The latter is what is sometimes called Brahman.
Re: philosophical bedrock
I can agree with all this. For me the most important question in formal metaphysics is:Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:16 amAs a rule, Bertrand Russell doesn't know what he's talking about. There are answers, they can be found, and it can be proven. That anyone could in good faith say their subject cannot lead to answers is remarkably naive. If there are no answers then there are no meaningful questions. How is that not blindingly obvious to everyone!?
Why are all positive metaphysical position logically indefensible?
You should find it easy, as do I, but most philosophers have failed to answer it.
Re: philosophical bedrock
[quote=PeteJ post_id=474579 time=1601995495 user_id=11479]
[quote=Advocate post_id=474557 time=1601979381 user_id=15238]As a rule, Bertrand Russell doesn't know what he's talking about. There are answers, they can be found, and it can be proven. That anyone could in good faith say their subject cannot lead to answers is remarkably naive. If there are no answers then there are no meaningful questions. How is that not blindingly obvious to everyone!?[/quote]
I can agree with all this. For me the most important question in formal metaphysics is:
Why are all positive metaphysical position logically indefensible?
You should find it easy, as do I, but most philosophers have failed to answer it.
[/quote]
If i understand your question right, they're not. All "things" are patterns with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern." is a positive statement which is necessary and sufficient to answer all metaphysical questions. But i'm not sure i read it the way you intended it.
Are you referencing this: https://theworldknot.wordpress.com/is-m ... difficult/?
"It is clearly not the case that it would be easy to understand the solution for metaphysics, whatever it is, otherwise most people would do so already..." Is itself indefensible because a) it is easy to understand, as demonstrated above, and b) an appeal to "most people", especially in a context of philosophy which most people never breach, is probably meaningless by default.
I haven't read the whole thing, but i think that cuts to the chase.
[quote=Advocate post_id=474557 time=1601979381 user_id=15238]As a rule, Bertrand Russell doesn't know what he's talking about. There are answers, they can be found, and it can be proven. That anyone could in good faith say their subject cannot lead to answers is remarkably naive. If there are no answers then there are no meaningful questions. How is that not blindingly obvious to everyone!?[/quote]
I can agree with all this. For me the most important question in formal metaphysics is:
Why are all positive metaphysical position logically indefensible?
You should find it easy, as do I, but most philosophers have failed to answer it.
[/quote]
If i understand your question right, they're not. All "things" are patterns with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern." is a positive statement which is necessary and sufficient to answer all metaphysical questions. But i'm not sure i read it the way you intended it.
Are you referencing this: https://theworldknot.wordpress.com/is-m ... difficult/?
"It is clearly not the case that it would be easy to understand the solution for metaphysics, whatever it is, otherwise most people would do so already..." Is itself indefensible because a) it is easy to understand, as demonstrated above, and b) an appeal to "most people", especially in a context of philosophy which most people never breach, is probably meaningless by default.
I haven't read the whole thing, but i think that cuts to the chase.
Re: philosophical bedrock
Here are two I like:
Why is there something rather than nothing? (Why does the infinite exist?)
I don't think this one is answerable, it's just how it is without cause or reason.
Why are we humans here?
I think this can be answered by an existential intelligence genius, when certain other psychological factors and life events are also present. My estimate is that only about 1-10 people will figure it out, before humanity will end.
Why is there something rather than nothing? (Why does the infinite exist?)
I don't think this one is answerable, it's just how it is without cause or reason.
Why are we humans here?
I think this can be answered by an existential intelligence genius, when certain other psychological factors and life events are also present. My estimate is that only about 1-10 people will figure it out, before humanity will end.
Re: philosophical bedrock
[quote=Atla post_id=474584 time=1602000718 user_id=15497]
Here are two I like:
Why is there something rather than nothing? (Why does the infinite exist?)
I don't think this one is answerable, it's just how it is without cause or reason.
Why are we humans here?
I think this can be answered by an existential intelligence genius, when certain other psychological factors and life events are also present. My estimate is that only about 1-10 people will figure it out, before humanity will end.
[/quote]
You've confused me here because it seems the answer you accept so easily ( and correctly ) for the first question is the same as the one you seem not to accept ( or think is non-obvious ) for the second question.
Why can mean many things. Usually it means an empirical answer - how. If you mean why in the sense of an intended outcome, there is none. We're pure accident. How is that hard to figure out? Without an intended outcome, there cannot be a why. Why is an intentional cause in that sense.
Here are two I like:
Why is there something rather than nothing? (Why does the infinite exist?)
I don't think this one is answerable, it's just how it is without cause or reason.
Why are we humans here?
I think this can be answered by an existential intelligence genius, when certain other psychological factors and life events are also present. My estimate is that only about 1-10 people will figure it out, before humanity will end.
[/quote]
You've confused me here because it seems the answer you accept so easily ( and correctly ) for the first question is the same as the one you seem not to accept ( or think is non-obvious ) for the second question.
Why can mean many things. Usually it means an empirical answer - how. If you mean why in the sense of an intended outcome, there is none. We're pure accident. How is that hard to figure out? Without an intended outcome, there cannot be a why. Why is an intentional cause in that sense.
Re: philosophical bedrock
'Pure accident' is an extremely, probably infinitely unlikely explanation. Because a much larger, probably infinitely larger world, void of humans, also exists by 'pure accident'. So that doesn't explain what's going on with us humans here, now. Has nothing to do with intended outcomes. I already explained this to you btw.Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:15 pm You've confused me here because it seems the answer you accept so easily ( and correctly ) for the first question is the same as the one you seem not to accept ( or think is non-obvious ) for the second question.
Why can mean many things. Usually it means an empirical answer - how. If you mean why in the sense of an intended outcome, there is none. We're pure accident. How is that hard to figure out? Without an intended outcome, there cannot be a why. Why is an intentional cause in that sense.