Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Coconutcabbie t1_izcsiae wrote

The shared problem for all ontological arguments are their implicitly assumed premise.

Whether theistic or atheistic, the premise of all ideologies regarding the nature of existence, all share the assumption of a beginning. This shared assumption of a caused beginning ensures an endless regression and eternal opposition.

Attempting to rationalise the irrational can only strengthen disagreements; meaning the most irrational thing one can do, is to try find rationale in the irrational. Does it not make more sense to, build rationale out of the agreed irrationality?

I'm hyper-aware this may seem like a word-salad attempt at profundity, so I'll provide a direct example of what I mean.

Theists believe God started everything, but can never explain that which made God. We must suddenly cease further explanations.

Science provides theories of a beginning, then seeks to answer how, which seeks how, which seeks how, into infinity, which quietly admits also, there can be no satisfactory answer.

Both methods of thinking, result in irrationality from a place of seeking rationale.

If one starts from a place of irrationality this problem is avoided.

Because we assume it rational that all things have a beginning, the nature of being will never make sense.

Is it rational to assume things must begin? Is it rational to assume everything came from nothing?

How can nothing even exist unless it can be compared to something?

Instead of something coming from nothing, maybe nothing can only exist out of something.

Instead of things beginning only to end, maybe things can only end because the nature of being is to exist.

No beginning argument into infinity is required if something is the default position instead of nothing.

I hope I made sense. Much wiser folk may have already debunked or raised this concept. I hope I didn't break any posting etiquette. Merry Xmas.

2

NotThatImportant3 t1_izd7isd wrote

Potentially sounds Buddhist. There is no beginning because there is no static thing. We are progressive but impermanent processes, mindstreams simply conscious at this moment. From this perspective—which could be characterized as anti-ontological—the study of being is fruitless because there is only becoming not being (Deleuze vs Heidegger). Things are constantly and perpetually changing.

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant posits that pure reason cannot capture certain things because one cannot infinitely pontificate in a room and understand everything—some level of empirical observations through experiential interactions with the world and others is necessary for knowledge development. I can say “red is red” with pure reason, but I can’t say “Roses are truly red and not blue” without seeing a rose.

The part where we might disagree, though, is with this idea that there are irrational things. If you just mean there are things that transcend reason, I agree. But If you mean things lack order, or are chaos—i.e. God is dead, metaphysics are dead, therefore the world is chaos we just manufacture organization onto—I would disagree. I think I side more with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave over Nietzsche. Sure, we may only see shadows, but the shadows emanate from something objectively real—we just can’t objectively perceive it. Since the things casting shadows are real, I still find order in the world. Physics consistently works because good studies are replicable. I just think reason alone can only, when done well and rigorously, get very close to a correct rationale explanation of how the world operates. I think this last bit we can’t get perfect on is just the limits of human cognition.

1

Coconutcabbie t1_izdh3d0 wrote

I don't think we disagree, I think I failed in my explanation.

I would never be so bold as to claim, "God is dead." Or that metaphysics suffer death either.

I see the conception of irrational as something of a burden.

That which cannot fit reason, evades all our calculations in search for reason.

It is the very disregard of irrationality that clouds our basis for questioning.

If every line of questioning leads us to an impossible conclusion, perhaps we are poisoning our reason with faulty data.

To assume shadows must be cast by figures without clear evidence, apriori stands to reason.

Why? We must have prior understanding of light, shadow, figures etc.

I'm not questioning that which stands to reason; I'm suggesting that we are assuming reason from a fundamental factor never questioned.

Is the assumption of a start to all, backed by any evidence other than anecdotal—we started therefore the universe did—or the fact we subjectively have only known existence, proof existence is all that exists.

Unless we can end our existence to prove we can't exist, then return to existence and declare, "ah ha!" Is it not sound to assume existence is the norm?

The endless search to discover how or why the universe begun, is like shining light on the dark to prove the dark doesn't exist.

Nothing cannot exist unless something exists.

To assume the universe, or God started it all, is a failure to grasp the irrational truth of rationale.

I've only recently started reading Nietzsche. I have so much more to read. The more I seem to open my eyes to, the more I realise I am blind to.

This hypocrisy is abundant in everything. As I struggle through Nietzsche's beyond good and evil, he seems to highlight the truth in this phenomena.

Assumption in what must be true, distracts us from real truth.

Truth hides between desire and illusion.

The little I've read of Nietzsche so far, I definitely feel less anxious in life.

1

NotThatImportant3 t1_izeemh6 wrote

I’m glad reading Nietzsche has helped you feel less anxious. I feel you - Nietzsche’s comments on suffering are great in my opinion. The general concept of learning from suffering, embracing it, is a powerful one for me. His concept of ressentiment—how resenting and fighting against certain things actually can make them stronger in our own minds by binding us to them—very powerful and mentally useful as well. As you can see, I take issue with his rejection of any metaphysical organizing principles, though.

I also think, among many philosophers, Nietzsche is a great writer, especially compared to, say, Heidegger. However, be careful with trying to rationalize inconsistencies in Nietzsche’s writing. I once heard someone (I think it may have been Bertrand Russell in a recorded lecture) describe Nietzsche as a literary philosopher, in that he writes more like a storyteller than a classic, dry, pure deductive logic philosopher. This does make his work significantly more palatable, and it allows him to write more stream of thought type work (which I enjoy), but it also left him free to talk in ways that appear to contradict his own propositions. I would recommend enjoying his work, taking what you like and leaving the rest.

For example, I make the Buddhism reference because I find Buddhism helps me with suffering in many the same ways Nietzsche does. But I find the Buddhist concept of the Dharma very helpful - it helps me see compassion as inherently valuable, even if we don’t get direct material rewards for being compassionate. And I think Nietzsche would view the Dharma as too much like a “God” system to accept it.

May you feel peace, may you feel love, may you be free of suffering, my friend

1

slickwombat t1_izfh3jl wrote

You seem to mean cosmological arguments rather than ontological arguments. Of cosmological arguments, you seem to specifically have in mind the Kalam, as other varieties don't rely on the assumption of a "caused beginning".

But anyway, Kant talks a great deal about the idea of reason as inevitably seeking the unconditioned as the conclusion of a regress of explanations and problems arising therefrom. I'm not comfortable enough with Kant's nuances and subtleties to attempt any more thorough explanation from that, but here's an overview from smarter people.

1

Coconutcabbie t1_izgxm4t wrote

I'm currently reading, "the psychology of totalitarianism", the author suggests that much social anxiety is created from our inability to be confident in what we try to express with each 9ther.

Words are an expression of what we think, but if we each assume different meanings from words without knowing, how can we be sure of anything?

I understand the cosmological argument to mean, how the universe begun.

The ontological argument is about the nature of being.

I am guilty of confusing the 2, but can they be separated?

Can anything exist if it has no witness?

Is there a cosmological argument without an ontological one first?

It stands to reason, all things must exist if only to oppose non existence.

All truth resonates out of hypocrisy.

1

ridgecoyote t1_izkhjwo wrote

You’re in line there with my philosophical choices, as well as my intellectual heroes, Royce, James and Peirce. Fictional ontology is a cornerstone of Pragmatism. But just because they are all postulative in nature does not mean we despair. They are all not all equal, some are better than others.

The problem comes in when you absolutize your ontology, like religion does and science has done.

1

Coconutcabbie t1_izm9yee wrote

Science and religion are at they're worst when they become dogmatic in the truth. They become weaponized for control, be it, Anthony Fauci claiming to be the science, or believing your faith demands you kill.

But both are utilities for good, if they persistently lead you to wonder.

Without religion, science may not have been discovered ( as in the method to question it all).

Without science, religion would purely be dogmatic, rather than expanded to find wonder in more.

I agree that an ideology fettered in absolutism is a problem—except free-speech—but my point isn't about what is right or wrong individually.

It's about why all arguments disagree fundamentally, yet all struggle with the same fault.

They all assume there was a beginning.

We all assume a beginning must have happened, but I'm trying to suggest that must be an assumption overlooked and obviously wrong.

To assume everything came to be with a start point, means agreement can never be found.

But if existence always is, there is no need to disagree on how everything begun.

For all things to come from nothing, something must exist: as nothing has no meaning unless it has something to be without.

Existence can't have a beginning to explain how it came to be. Existence just has to be, as it can't be any other way.

1