How can the existence of existence itself be defined?! Only when it is determined definitively why something – why anything – exist at all [going all the way back to how and why that is the case] can it be pinned down with a definition.
Consider:
Definition: a statement of the exact meaning of a word
How on earth can we encompass the exact meaning of existence when existence itself is clearly embedded in this:
There are known knowns about existence. These are things we know that we know about it. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know about it. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know about it.
It’s not exactly the same as providing a definition for a bachelor, right?
In order for you to control whether you prefer pepsi to coke there would have to exist a you independent of you who could orchestrate all the matter that forms you in conformance to how you want to exist. If there is no you controlling how you are made, then you are a slave to whatever process is making you and you’ll have no control over whether you prefer pepsi or coke or like them equally.
Now this is the sort of mental masturbation that is embedded in intellectual contraptions to me. There is in fact an actual flesh and blood me. And over the course of my life [for whatever reasons existentially] I acquired a taste for both Coke and Pepsi. More specifically Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi. To the extent I had any control over this is rooted in the actual existential variables that predisposed my choice here. Or in a wholly determined universe in which I was never really free to not choose [autonomously] either one, neither one or both.
Everything is a contraption. We cannot think in terms of anything other than contraptions. So pointing out that everything is a contraption doesn’t change anything or convey any information.
Depends on how broadly you want to define “contraption”.
There are nature’s contraptions embedded in the laws of physics. There are human contraptions [like watches or cigarette lighters] derived from the laws of nature.
And thoughts are contraptions originating in the brain. But: What thoughts can be demonstrated to reflect that which is deemed to be an objective reality and what thoughts are subsumed instead in subjective/subjunctive contraptions. The kind that pop up all the time in the is/ought world of value judgments and conflicting goods.
Defining and describing an apple is one thing. Reacting to the fact that John Doe poisoned an apple that Don Trump ate, killing him, another thing altogether.
Truth referenced to body parts is relational. Truth referenced to absolute morality is fictional.
Really? Okay, demonstrate this. Demonstrate that there is absolutely no possibility that an absolute morality exist in regard to an issue like abortion.
All some need do is to cite one or another God and Scripture here. Others embrace one or another rendition of Humanism and insist that, using Reason, we can derive – deduce – the whole truth here. The deontologists for example. Or the political ideologues. Or those who insist that their own understanding of nature provides them with a list of natural behaviors.
Over and again I point out that the “whole of everything” embedded in all of the “unknown unknowns” we are not yet privy to seems to be a given for all of us. Still, in a particular context relating to particular human interactions what on earth does, “you cannot verify your foundation of empiricism with empiricism” mean?
It means you cannot use X to prove X is true. You cannot use logic to prove logic is true. You cannot use observation to prove what you’re seeing is true.
Okay, but again: In what particular context relating to what particular conflicting behaviors?
The gut feeling is generated by the same fundamental forces that make everything else go. That doesn’t take away from consciousness as much as it adds to everything else.
But who is able to connect the dots between these “fundamental forces” and any particular things that they think, feel, say or do?
There are no dots. The dots are abstractions.
The dots are a figure of speech. But the gap between what you describe as “fundamental forces” and the choices that you make from day to day don’t go away unless you can connect them. And we don’t even appear to have connected enough of them [yet] in order to determine if consciousness itself is not but another of nature’s dominoes.
Connecting dots is a red herring and waste of time. It doesn’t matter how the dots are connected, the fact remains that they are connected. Why get burdened down rehearsing how forces cause consciousness when we already know there cannot be discontinuities?
Then we understand the dots and connecting them in different ways. There are factors/variables that we can explore and probe relating to the choices that we make from moment to moment. And there is how you connect them to that which you construe to be “fundamental forces”. You seem to be insisting here that the fact that they are connected need be as far as we go. You see no need to bring this down to earth and note how this particular intellectual contraption is related existentially to the things that you do. That way [in my opinion] you can stay up in the clouds encompassed in your “general descriptions” of these relationships.
Where is the empirical proof that empirical proof is relevant?
Well, if by empirical evidence we mean “the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation” science seems to make use of it re the laws of nature. Engineers and the inventors of technology [like computers] seem to find it especially reliable.
What do you consider observation? Is 2+2=4 observed or deduced? What’s the difference? Do you see what I mean? Do you observe what I mean? Do you deduce what I mean?
I don’t construe this as addressing the point I made. The either/or world is bursting at the seams with empirical relationships that science and inventors and engineers are able to reconfigure into buildings and airplanes and spaceships and smart phones. Both induction and deduction are utilized in accomplishing these transformations.
So then you’re saying that you know there is [no] way of knowing which returns us to my other question which is why are you seeking what cannot be found?
Why? Because I have no way of knowing for certain that it cannot be found. I only think that “here and now”. Thus all I can do is to come into places like this and seek out the narratives of others.
But your presupposition is that the answer cannot be found. You’ve appealed to it plenty before: why have so many before not found the answer? What questions will be asked in the future? Everyone here thinks he’s found the answer. Yada yada. You’re convinced no one can know.
That’s your assumption about my “presupposition”. My own conjectures here revolve around two general assumptions:
1] the gap between what any of us think we know about these relationships here and now and all there is to be known about the existence of existence itself
2] the implications embedded in a wholly determined universe regarding anything we might think or feel or say or do
Come on, the gap here between my experiences, relationships, and access to information/knowledge and all there is to know about all there is to know is the equivalent of a teeny, tiny drop of water in the ocean. There is a staggering amount of experiences and ideas that I have had no contact with at all. The same with all the rest of us.
And even as I type these words, who knows how many folks are out there with points of view that I have never even really considered. Points of view far, far more sophisticated than mine. Again all I can do is to come into places like this and maybe, just maybe, I’ll bump into one.
I can only assume that I am missing your point here. The distinction seems rather clear to me. A dead baby or an apple plucked out of a barrel. Which is more likely to generate discussion and debate among philosophers or ethicists?
Yes but why is a baby objectively more important than an apple? Why does the universe care more about babies than apples? An apple is a baby apple tree. A baby human is just another among the billions of other baby animals. Because the baby human will grow up to be arrogant, it should be given more respect?
I agree. In an essentially meaningless No God world the baby and the apple are interchangeable. Instead, what we need is a particular context construed from a particular point of view involving both an apple and a baby.
If you were minutes away from starving to death and had to choose between access to an apple tree or saving a baby’s life, which would you choose? It could only be one or the other. Is there a way to determine philosophically how one ought to choose – is morally obligated to choose here?
From my frame of mind this is rooted in dasein [“I” configured existentially], conflicting goods [the baby lives and I die] and political economy [the reaction of those in power able to reward or punish you for what you choose].