[MD] Chance

[Ham Priday]

Hi David --


[Ham, to Ron]:
> Once you are able to answer that, Heidegger's question "Why is there 
> something rather than nothing?" should be
> child's play.

David --
> By the way Leibniz first asked this I believe, certainly before Heidegger.

I'm not surprised, as it is certainly central to philosophical thought.  I 
associate this question with Heidegger because it made a profound impression 
on me when I first started reading philosophy and picked up his 
"Introduction to Metaphysics (1959).  I particularly liked the simplicity of 
his phrasing (although his elaboration is far from simple).

I thought it might be of interest to quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of 
Philosophy on this question:

"Since metaphysics is the study of what exists, one might expect 
metaphysicians to have little to say about the limit case in which nothing 
exists.  But ever since Parmenides in the fifth century B.C., there has been 
rich commentary on whether an empty world is possible, whether there are 
vacuums, and about the nature of privations and negation.

"This survey starts with nothingness at a global scale and then explores 
local pockets of nothingness.  Let's begin with a question that Martin 
Heidegger famously characterized as the most fundamental issue of 
philosophy.

"In Les Misérables, Victor Hugo contrasts universal negation with universal 
affirmation:

"'All roads are blocked to a philosophy which reduces everything to the word 
'no.' To 'no' there is only one answer and that is 'yes.'  Nihilism has no 
substance.  There is no such thing as nothingness, and zero does not exist. 
Everything is something.  Nothing is nothing.  Man lives more by affirmation 
than by bread. (1862, pt. 2, bk. 7, ch. 6).

"As far as simplicity, there is a tie between the nihilistic rule 'Always 
answer no!' and the inflationary rule 'Always answer yes!'.  Neither rule 
makes for serious metaphysics."

Thanks and regards,
Ham