[MD] The question WHY?

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hey Ham, 

Glad you have joined the discussion. As usual, you have focused in on 
the "essential" question: "Why is there?" 

Some contributors don't see much point in trying to answer Why 
questions. But, I agree with you that "Why is there?" is the most 
fundamental question of philosophy.  

Ham
> Why IS there, indeed?  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.

Platt
Yes. In one sense, a dualism. But, in another (broader) sense a unity
 -- experience -- which unites the questioner with the referrent to be
questioned, like a coin unites heads and tails. .

Ham
>  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.

Platt
I argue that what is essential is not "esse" but EXPERIENCE,  both for 
the proposition "something" and the source of "something" as well. 

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.

Platt
Substitute "experience" for "the Essence" in the last sentence. 

Ham
> Hence, the short answer to your question "Why?" is: Because Essence is 
> fundamental.
> Is any other explanation really necessary?

Platt
And again, change "Because Essence is fundamental" to "Because 
experience is fundamental.

According to Pirsig, "The MOQ says experience is reality. It doesn´t 
need a system of relations to be real." 

While I know you don't agree, at least you can see that another 
philosopher has addressed the fundamental question and has built a 
metaphysics around his answer. Between you two titans, I choose Pirsig 
for reasons I've given many times in our conversations before. 

But, I could be wrong. And I suspect others answering the fundamental 
question could be, too.

Warm regards and have a wonderful Thanksgiving. 

Platt