Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:48:44 EST
Subject: Re: Why is there anything at all



In a message dated 12/2/01 9:32:15 PM, kenn-AT-beef.sparks.nv.us writes:

<< It is the ultimate of all ultimates, the most
spectacular thought event that language can produce, nothing compares with
it, everything is subordinate to it. >>

why is there anything at all?  i started with this a long time ago and did my 
honors work branching out from it.  the first question was is logic/causation 
a thing?  why is there such an operating system in this universe?  is it 
"logically" necessary in all possible universes?  or is it simply a trapping 
of this one?  i guess the function of this manouver was to establish that 
facticity was prior to logic in the sense we usually say something is 
logically prior...only this would make the existence of logic  "factually" 
prior, not logically prior.  

if so, then the primacy of fact is established.  and the word "why" in the 
sense of why did this happen, or why did you do this is an illicit and 
powerful request for some (plug in the blank) theory or fact or calculation 
which satifies and quiets down the "why" question.  

the only thing which doesn't pacify the "why" question is something like 
"there is no reason, i just decided to do it"  (sort of reverse linguistic 
analysis?)

the proponents of the why question (determinists, scientists) reject out of 
hand such an answer because it does not fit the basic logic grid in its 
content or form.  the power of "why" is that they think it can be 
legitimately asked in an endless regression to some black pinpoint or 
explosiion (of what, pray tell?).  what's the why beyond that, hawking?

but why won't allow an answer like "it just is."  and factual primacy should 
permit just that as one of the alternative answers to why...if the question 
of why are there things rather than nothing (or why is there anything at all) 
is shown to be silly in the sense that there either are or aren't things.  
thank goodness there are some.

but there is thus created room for a non-logical truth like the central core 
of the cogito, or the freedom of the will...or even deities?

is this total blather?  i explained it once to a committe in 80 pages and 
they liked it enough for high honors.   they didn't like heidigger, either.

by the way, do you all remember "three days of the condor?"  the robert 
redford master spy flick of the 70s?  do you remember that heidegger was the 
name of one  of the assasinated cia people?

also that "the return of max dugan," a fascinating film, had jason robards 
jr. assuming the alias of heidegger and other philosophers?

ok...enough.


bob


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---