[MD] Are There Bad Questions?: Rorty

[Ham Priday]

G'day, Steve --

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

Why?  Did you read my answers (at the end of my post)?

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

"Prime" -- in mathematics, "a positive integer that has no factor expect 
itself and one."  "Primary" -- "first in order of time and development". 
The "Primary Source" is just that.  There's no need to chase tails with 
infinite regression when the Source is Absolute.

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

It is worth my being informed.  Could you produce this quote for me, 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.

The source of logic is human reasoning (AKA "intellect" in these circles).
But of course logic reflects the essential order of the cosmos that we sense 
as Value.

Following is a repeat of my answers to your "bad" questions:

> 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".  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 for 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".

[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?

Essence is not an "existent", so, technically speaking, it transcends 
existence.
What exists are appearances of being divided and defined by nothingness.

[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?

How about calling it the uncreated Primary Source?

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

Since I have defined Essence as "uncreated", it's a "stupid" question.

> 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.

Amazing!!  Talk about putting the cart before the horse!  I guess Pirsig was 
right that human beings (or was it society?) "invented" the Creator.  I can 
only conclude that you've all been brainwashed to reject a primary source.

Happy anti-theism,
Ham