[MD] Are There Bad Questions?: Rorty

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Steve --



> Where is the essence of Being? Who is the meaning of life?
> When do our souls go after we die?

[Ham, previously]:
> There is no such thing as a "bad question", especially in metaphysics.
> But there are bad answers, and I think you gave your friend's question
> short shrift. Your answer that the universe is necessary "because we
> need to be able to do what we want" is not only egocentric, it's untrue.
> It is satisfying, but hardly "necessary" to do what we want.

[Steve]:
> Necessary to whom? I certainly couldn't do any of the things
> I want to do without a universe.

No, nor would you be here without a universe.  But your Catholic friend was 
asking for your answer as to "why does anything at all exist?" and you 
called it a "bad question".  I pointed out that Heidegger considered it the 
fundamental question of metaphysics.

> That makes sense to me since I think metaphysics is answers
> to bad questions or Platypus taxonomy as Pirsig put it.

The fact is that neither you nor Pirsig wants to confront metaphysics 
head-on.  Oh, you talk around it, and you call the MoQ a "metaphysics", but 
the Quality paradigm you debate does not account for a metaphysical source 
at all.  It doesn't even define Quality as the fundamental reality.  (How 
could a "measure of excellence" be fundamental, if the "measurer" did not 
exist?)  What comes into being and appears to have value is a creation that 
presupposes a Creator.  This is not merely a causal principle, it's a 
logical truth (platypus or not).

[Ham]:
> Your friend is right that an "uncaused source" is necessary
> for the universe to be.

[Steve]:
> Is it?  Necessary for who or for what?  If the universe is everything,
> how could the universe need something?  What does it need it for?
> Does the "uncaused source" need anything?

"Good" questions, all, and I will answer them as best I can, although I 
doubt you will accept my answers.

I presume you have heard of the dictum: 'Ex nihilo nihil fit'.  The latin 
phrase comes from the poet Lucretius, and it means that nothing may come 
from nothing.  It is often used in philosophy or theology in connection with 
the proposition that a Creator is necessary because the universe could not 
arise from nothing.  God or some other Primary Source is necessary for the 
creation of existence.  I like the name Essence, because it connotes both 
necessity and "primary nature" .

All things (i.e., existents) are universal, but because the universe is not 
ultimate reality, it isn't "everything".  For the sake of simplicity, I call 
Existence the differentiated mode of Essence.  Thus, the universe is not 
only diverse in nature, its constituents exhibit attributes that range in 
contrariety from small to large, dark to bright, rough to smooth, chaotic to 
orderly, good to bad, static to dynamic, and so on.  Of course these aspects 
of 'being' are only "appearances"; that is to say, products of cognitive 
experience.  We derive our experience of things from Value (or, more 
precisely, from value-sensibility which is the core of the individual self.)

Uncreated Essence--the "uncaused source"--has no needs because it is 
absolute "Is-ness' and lacks nothing.  The 15th Century logician Cusanus 
defined his First Principle as the "not-other", which is a perfect synonym 
for Essence.  All otherness is the illusion of difference caused by 
nothingness.  But it is only through existence as an individuated creature 
that man (the negate of Essence) becomes the agent of Value -- "the measure 
of all things".

Now you may reassemble this ontogeny as you like, and throw statements back 
at me in an effort to convince me that it's sheer fantasy, fraudulent, 
theistic, idealistic, or unenlightened.  I'm used to such criticism.  It 
won't hurt me, but it won't change my metaphysical view.  Or...we can expand 
on these concepts in a productive dialogue.

Adrie has just indicated that my ontology has no value for him, so your 
query is well-timed.

Sincerely,
Ham