/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>7522

Depends on what you mean by the question.

I take parmenides on this point; that nothingness doesn't exist. "Why" is invalid, it presupposes that a reason/purpose comes before existence.

>>7525

But the very possibility that reason/purpose could come before existence negates that position. Therefore it seems he/you would have to go further as to argue that the existence of reason/purpose exists prior to something. Such as that reason/purpose is somehow not nothing.

>>7528

>Therefore it seems he/you would have to go further as to argue that the existence of reason/purpose exists prior to something

is impossible*

Fuck it, making sure I'm clear.

>>7525

But the very possibility that reason/purpose could come before existence negates that position. Therefore it seems he/you would have to go further as to argue that the existence of reason/purpose existing prior to something, is impossible, such as that reason/purpose is somehow not nothing.

>>7530

Nothing comes before existence. If something did it would be considered non-existence, which is nothing at all. Which is no different than no coming at all.

>>7530

>But the very possibility that reason/purpose could come before existence negates that position

Please explain why you consider that a possibility.

>>7531

What is your reasoning for reason and purpose being something?

>>7532

>Please explain why you consider that a possibility.

Everything is epistemically merely possible until proven to be either more than merely possible or not possible at all, e.g. 1+1=3 is epistemically possible until e.g. its self-evidence proves it's not. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on whoever claims something is true, false, metaphysically possible, or impossible. The epistemically agnostic position is necessarily "It's possible."

>>7533

Well you're second respond to the other guys makes clear what the problem is here.

The question you should ask yourself is "what determines what is "possible". What is it's standard. The fact that I can't imagine a possibility doesn't mean it is possible. Hence why it's imagination. To say that everything is possible to claim that nothing can no definite nature. Which is to say no nature at all. But things are themselves (Law of identity), A=A. That's a metaphysical principle.

Furthermore, "possible" is positive claim. It's claims that something has the potentiality of being actualized; being real. But on what basis? To put it simply "possible how". Ignorance is not a warrant for possibility. It be arbitrary to grant the existence of the possible of something on those grounds.

>>7534

What you describe is called metaphysical possibility. Educate yourself on its difference from epistemic possibility. Before you object that you've not heard of this and therefore this doesn't exist, both forms are in common use. Search your feelings; you know it to be true.

Further, epistemic possibility is the neutral agnostic position, and is therefore true until proven either way, i.e. to be actually true, or false. Therefore, reason and purpose are indeed possibly not-something until you support your "positive claim" of otherwise.

>>7535

What good is an epistemology if it does not reflect what is metaphysical. It be a false epistemology; unreal.

>>7535

I started by asking why you considered it possible, but it seems to me we've found a more important question to ask. What does it mean for a thing to be possible?

>>7537

>>7536

It occurs to me that whether it's possible is irrelevant and a red herring. For sake of your autism, I concede. I'm wrong. I retract my claim that it's possible. Now it's your turn, to support your claim that it's impossible. Good luck.

>>7538

I already did, by expressing how the very nature of something coming before existence is nothing at all (non-existence). Nothingness isn't causal efficient, there's nothings it could cause. Anything outside of existence has no chance of existing. More less be a cause.

> For sake of your autism,

lol

>>7538

Well, can you provide an example of a purpose without associating it with some object? That seems to be the first stage of the issue.

>>7539

>>7540

If the question's invalid because it presupposes reason and purpose, then you imply with your support of this contention that it's impossible reason or purpose are nothing.

If you don't support this contention that the question's invalid because it presupposes reason and purpose, perhaps it's because they hold the burden of proving that it's impossible reason or purpose are nothing.

lol either way it's implicit.>>7540

>>7541

1. Things that are outside of existence don't existence.

2. A reason for existence would have to come prior to existence.

3. Since existence doesn't existence yet, being prior to existence is outside the realm of existence.

4. Ergo, a reason for existence wouldn't existence.

Do you get it now?

>>7542

>doesn't existence yet

exist *

>>7541

I don't know why you're throwing about invalid and burden of proof and so on. Please just answer the questions, but if you insist on not doing so, I can put forward a bit more.

If you can't think of a purpose without thinking of a thing that purpose is about or for or some other type of relation, then it seems impossible to imagine purpose exists independently of the things is associates with, whatever that association is. So if it can't exist independently of a thing, it seems that if something does have a reason or purpose it must exist alongside the thing. Of course, if it cannot exist independently of the thing, and it exists alongside the thing, it cannot exist prior to the thing.

>>7543

>>7542

>>7544

Invalidity, contrary to your apparent belief, doesn't imply a truth value, i.e. it doesn't imply that it is false that a better question is asked. If I concede that reason and purpose are somehow not nothing merely because you claim they are something, then this merely causes the question to be more explicitly "why is there something physical, rather than nothing?" in its immunity to your pedantry. Indeed, the contention doesn't adhere to the linguistic Principle of Charity, and is therefore nothing more than pedantry masquerading as an answer.

I haven't actually read anything either of you have said since the reply before last; how am I doing?

>>7545

>2417 years since the death of Socrates

>still living the unexamined life

>>7546

Here I was sitting, unsatisfied with my non-affirmative negation, thinking "Who am I to object to that great thinker pythagorusiminides?" or whatever the fuck that faggot's name was, and then it hit me: Pfuckimitis presupposed the question "why," asked right now, implies the question or its implications would have to exist before something. We can ask any number of questions about the beginning of something and they wouldn't therefore magically exist before something by their mere utterance. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" therefore remains a perfectly valid -- and unanswered -- question.

>>7547

I am sorry for you anon. Perhaps one day you will come to be a philosopher.

>>7545

>"why is there something physical, rather than nothing

You do realize you're still same question. You just transitioned the question to a specific characteristic of existence. It's no different that asking "why is there something blue, rather than nothing?". My answer would still be the same. In total, you're asking "why does existence exist?"

>>7549

You're still asking the*