zeroinfinity

Greetings.

This is a basically Kantian position; we can only know what our senses tell us but we can not know the true noumenon behind those senses. This, of course, precludes the existence of mind and reason itself and is why science is Kantian, and then subsequenly Popperian, and is why materialism doesn't acknowledge the existence of mind. Of course, to bring God into the picture, then we must define God :-) And that makes up a very large fraction of the dicussion from the Illuminati. If God can know everything, then why can't we? We can, of course, but "they" don't want you to think that.

Actually, while I'm all for why questions and believe science strives to answer them, in this case, it's not a rational question to ask why a thing exists, outside the context of our definitions. A thing (object) exists because it simply meets the criteria for 'exist'. Ambiguity creeps in because most people use 'exist' as a verb. It is not. Scientifically, exist is an adjective. Things do not pop "into" or "out of" an "existence" state. Space cannot convert to matter and vice versa (despite what theists or atheists claim). It's somewhat akin to asking 'why is the sky blue?'. Well, because we define it as such. But objectively speaking (ruling out perception and opinion), the sky is neither blue nor green nor red. The sky is simply a hypothesized object. A valid why question invokes key frames in a causal chain of hidden events. Why means the critical snapshots of our movie (theory). How is the gritty details in between, the full animated sequence. Yes I find "why" is a question many people dislike immensely. When I ask "why", I mean the details, not a spiritual significance. Although, that doesn't mean a spiritual significance can not be found afterwards, and to end up relating to the original answer of the question. Why does reality exist rather than not? That's a clear question. I do not accept "it just exists", "it exists because it is what is", or things to that effect, because those aren't real answers. There must be a logical rational reason for why reality exists rather than not, an incosetible rational a-priori justification, and yes, by the very nature of it that will also go to answering "why we" are here as well, in terms of how we came to be, and what the purpose might be. Purposelessness is simply an outcome of the current scientific metaparadigm, and that is fine because science has to be that way. But by no means does it means philosophy has to be subsevient to that position as well, because of course, science is a subset of philosophy...philosophy is not a branch of science that needs to obey the scientific boundary conditions, philosophy can go beyond into logical inevitibility.

The scientific metaparadigm is flawed and presents an incomplete handle to knowledge. You seem not to understand Kant. Books are available if anyone likes books.

Who's talking about redefining existence? How does that even make sense, and who is attempting that there? Not I. Irrelevant statement. What I am continually amazed about is how, in academia, science, philosophy, and otherwise "intellectual" circles, the hardest thing it is to do is to get someone to read a book. Why is it that in academia/intellectualism, it is where we find the highest percentage of people making fun of the concept of books and reading them? This is something that has amused me my entire academic career. I have found it is because most "intellectuals" are actually posers to actual rationalism. I have been providing the basic specs, and addressing the concerns, and answering some questions, so, your characterization is anti-reality. Do some reading; see what it is all about. Philosophers spend money on philosophy books...at least I always have. It is about 45 books that comprise a completely integrated philosophy and very original position on the entire human condition and nature of reality, based on the highest traditions of rationalism and philosophy. No one else in the history of man has put together such a comprehensive set of material as this. It is the most all-encompasing philisophical treatise that has ever been attempted, and it does it.

Well you are free to reject all the questions you wish. But that is obviously an arbitrary convenience, particularly for a philosopher. The problem to solve is the question "why does reality exist rather than not", then, "how/in what way does it exist", then, "why in that way and not another", etc. Eventually you can arrive at why "WE" exist but you have to establish the rational prerequisites first, in order to understand what "we" are. But the starting point is in solving why anything exists at all, rather than nothing; this is a perfectly obvious problem with a clear purpose in determining the answer, and is the most and even only valid question there is to start with, ever. It is basically the first question philosophy must answer. Science can't do it. Saying "reality exists because of the Big Bang" is of course the most stupid thing that stupid people and stupid scientists and stupid philosophers can ever say. If you haven't actually read those books and are claiming you understand them perectly, then it is you who are making baseless assertions and as such, your premises are not relevant.

Read it all and see what comes of it. Does ratioanlism exist...and is existence rational or not. Existence is obviously rational or else it wouldn't exist. Are there rational prerequisites to reality that are logically inevitible? There are. If there is no such thing as logical inevitibility, then EVERYTHING is a mind fuck, because then all of reality is abitrary, and unknowable ultimately in the Kantian sense. We are limited to sense-perception knowledge but can have no knowledge of the noumenon. But this is wrong and the Kantian position is untennable. Ultimate incontestible knowledge of reality is possible.

So you're saying that you're a philosopher who doesn't value their mind as much as the senses and feelings they get from what is outside their mind... Such a personality type is not generally capable of ratioanlism, and is in general not capable of reading those books from the OP. You describe a sensing-feeling materialist, whereas rationalism and those books are generally limited to intuitive-thinking rationalists.

It's only a flaw for those who wish the contents of their minds be more real/important than what's outside their mind. For all others it's its major advantage But as you see, basically one can redfine "truth" to mean something different than an accurate claim about reality. and redefine reality as yet another thing etc. and then create a new metaphysics where science is completely bollocks basically. But as mentoned before, nothing new there, platonic realm reasoning as usual. Before anybody actually presents some concrete evidence by producing something that couldn't be produced using the scientific method it's nothing more than mindgames. But you still have incomlete knowledge on what exactly it is you're trying to think about, and so the limited cogitation on Platonism is incorrect. It is not nearly so simple as you presume. Again, materialism is not valid...even science has been able to demonstrate that within its materialist metaparadigm. It is not about willy-nilly redefinitions of truth, but the only possivble rational truths which are left after everything else has been exhausted. It is not that difficult to get there once the principle of sufficient reason is understood, and then applied correctly.

Knowledge of reality is incomplete without knowing why reality is there in the first place. Why reality exists is not an invalid question, it is the only question. Science is about building models of reality, but the models are not reality itself. Reality itself is a-priori, and logical ratioanlism can discover the analytic prerequisites for the existence of reality.

The scientific method and its current metaparadigm is about finding models to simulate reality. It is fundamentally Kantian, in that true reality is a noumenon which can't actually be known. All we have is models. Of course we also have the Popperian aspect of the metaparadigm which says that the only valid scientific theories are ones which are theoretically falisfiable. This works just fine if the point of science is to create models of reality, which it is. This produces gadgets for sensing feeling personality types to find truth in. But it is not good in enough in an absolute rationalist sense if absolute, ufalsifiable knowledge is possible. Of course this is why science is ultimately Kantian and denies that absolute truth is knowable, and this is where the Popperian aspect comes in. Science can only be a-posteriori and contingent. Yes this produces benefits in being able to manipulate matter and energy, but such things are not absolute truth in a philisophical arena. Science can't say where its own laws of physics are, or why they exist, it just identifies that they're there - this is not knowing why they are there in the first place; it can't explain why reality exists in the first place; it can't say why the Big Bang occured. This isn't a matter of "not yet", it is a defined philisophical matter of never being able to do so, because science is a-posteriori and contingent. Only rationalism can determine the a-priori analytic prerequisites for reality, and thus logically explain why reality exists and what the final & a-priori truth of existence is. Rationalism is about identifying the sufficient reason for why something is one way and not another; for example, why is there something rather than nothing. Science can't address that empirically, it can only show that something is there, but, we already know that something is there. The rationalist goal is to identify the "sufficient reason", the logical inevitibility and absolute requirement, that something is there, and not otherwise. A-priori analytic knowledge, rather than a-posteriori contingent knowledge.

Thanks for sorting that out as it wasn't clear earlier. Of course, materialism is entirely idiotic. Lay-people might accept it because they're uninformed; for a philosopher to believe in material is entirely barbaric. Knocking on wood and claiming material is there is quite brutish, of course. Only rationalism can determine the a-priori analytic prerequisites for and of existence; materialism is always contingent and a-posteriori, such as the scientific method and the current scientific metaparadigm, and its "facts", hence is incomplete and can't actually explain the origin of reality at all. I prefer the rationalist approach, based on a-priori ontological inevitibility, combined with scientific idealism.

That person's arguments were wrong, and are nowhere near the level of discussion you will find in those books, if you read them. The scientific method has a fundamental internal flaw and it is the furthest thing from idealism and rationalism there is. The scientific metaparadigm is all about materialism, and nothing to do with mental idealism. Science in fact denies the existence of the mind, so to say that the scientific method is about idealist methaphysics is insane.

But of course that doesn't actually mean anything relevant here.

You cannot look at a horse from afar, and conclude how many teeth it has.