[MD] Are There Bad Questions?: Rorty

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Ham,



>
> [Ham, previously]
>> There is no such thing as a "bad question", especially in metaphysics.

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

I offered some questions in metaphysics above. What do you think of
them? I think they are bad questions.


Ham:
>> 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.
>


Ham:
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.

> 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.

Steve:
Positing a Source should make anyone wondering about a source also
wonder about the source of the Source.

Ham:
[The MOQ] doesn't even define Quality as the fundamental reality.  (How
> could a "measure of excellence" be fundamental, if the "measurer" did not
> exist?)

Steve:
Pirsig does define Quality as the fundamental reality for what it is worth.

Ham:
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).

Steve:
The problem is that you are also talking about the source of logic, so
it seems to me that logic must not be presupposed in your exploration
of the "problem" which ought to put you at a loss to talk about such
things at all.



> [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?
>

Ham:
> "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" .


Steve:
"Nothing can come from nothing" is something I don't think you should
take for granted. How do you know?


Ham:
> All things (i.e., existents) are universal, but because the universe is not
> ultimate reality, it isn't "everything".

Steve:
If something doesn't exist, never existed, and never could exist,even
as a hypothetical I'm really not very interested. Does Essence exist?
If so it is part of what I mean by the universe--all that exists.


Ham:
For the sake of simplicity, I call
> Existence the differentiated mode of Essence.

Steve:
How about calling it The Thing That Makes The Things For Which There
Is No Known Maker?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM


Ham:
>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.

Steve:
Who created the Uncreated Essence? Or is that a bad question?


Ham:
>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.


Steve:
The way I see it, existence precedes essence, so the above just sounds
like gibberish. Now that you have posited the existence of The Thing
That Makes The Things For Which There Is No Known Maker And Itself
Needs No Maker, you never need to say "I don't know" ever again! Good
for you.

Best,
Steve