[MD] The question WHY?

[MarshaV]

John, John, John,


Copleston:  The very denial of an absolute intelligence in us could have no
meaning but for a tacit appeal to its presence. An implicit knowledge of God
in this sense is proved by the very attempt to deny it.' 

RMP:  This is casuistry.  If you deny knowing anything about rutabagas in
Russia, does the fact that you are denying it prove that you really do know
something about rutabagas in Russia?
      (Copleston)  


Marsha, Marsha, Marsha




-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 1:52 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The question WHY?

Ham,

Sorry for only responding to the parts of your posts that I prefer... but
them's the rules.


On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> Platt, Craig and All --
>
> I find it curious that the prolonged and controversial thread "An Inquiry
> into Usefulness" actually turns out to be a search for the answer to: "Why
> is there anything?"   It recalls Heidegger's question, "Why are there
> essents instead of nothing?" with which he begins his "Introduction to
> Metaphysics".
>

Platt and Craig each make valid points, but their dialectics are not geared
> to resolving the question.
>


Interesting observation.  How many dialectics have we witnessed that are
geared to resolving questions?  As opposed to trying to convert.




> To wit: On Nov. 11, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Platt wrote to Craig:



> [Platt]:
>
>> You seem to posit a reality beyond our recognition or understanding.
>>
>
> [Craig]:
>
> > Indeed I do.  Nothing is clearer than that this has always been the
case.
>
>
[Royce]:


Suppose we wish to deny absolutism, and stress our finite limitations, our
ignorance.  We assert that only our finite fragments of experience exist.
 But if that is a fact, then it must be experienced:  on an assumed
Berkeleyan analysis, whatever is, must be *for* a consciousness.  The
supposition that there is no experience beyond our finite experiences proves
contradictory; in it entirety experience must constitute one
self-determinend and consequently absolute and organized whole....  The very
effort to deny an absolute experience involves, then, the actual assertion
of such an absolute experience."

[John]:

Good point Josiah!  And the absolute that is chosen unconsciously in such
cases  of overt denial of an absolute, is the self - the subject of SOM.
 Too bad that unconscious metaphysics tend to be bad metaphysics.




> [Platt]:
>
>  If there's a reality beyond our recognition or understanding, how in the
>> world will you recognize or understand it?  The examples you imagine
>> are all recognizable and understandable.  As for understanding Quality,
>> nothing could be easier: some things are better than others.
>>
>
> [Craig]:
>
>  Why is there quality rather than none?
>
>
> [Platt]:
>
>> Pirsig answers ... " . . . a world from which value is subtracted
>> becomes unrecognizable." (Lila, 9)
>>
>
>
[Craig]:

>
>  This answers the question "How do we know there is quality/value".
>> It doesn't answer the question "Why is there?
>>
>
>
[Ham]:



> Why IS there, indeed?



[John]:

Because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Ham]:



> This is the most fundamental question of philosophy. But to answer it, we
> must take our cue from experience itself.  This presupposes both a
> questioner and a referent to be questioned: i.e., Existence.  Right at the
> start we confront a dualism.  But our question would be meaningness
without
> the predicate "is" [latin, 'esse'].  No matter how we interpret 'esse' --
as
> Source, Being, Existence, God, Mind, or Value, for example -- it alludes
to
> that which IS, which is why 'esse' is ESSENTIAL, not only for the
> proposition "something is" but for the source or cause of that essent, as
> well.
>
>
[John]:

So according to Ham,  in the beginning was the is.

[Ham]


> This 'esse' or Essence is Ultimate Reality, that is to say, 'IS-ness" in
> its absolute sense.  Because we are obliged to seek an answer in
experience,
> we don't find it.  What we find instead are "things" and "events" --
finite
> phenomena that are separated (negated) out of absolute Essence and which
we
> know only valuistically.  But the fact that we know ANYTHING is predicated
> on the Essence from which this "knowing" is derived.
>
> Hence, the short answer to your question "Why?" is: Because Essence is
> fundamental.
> Is any other explanation really necessary?
>
>
[John]


Well, I like "it seemed like a good idea at the time" because its
succincter, ironic-er, and easier for (no offense) normal people to
understand.

But sure,  I like your essay on esse, e'say.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/