tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post9048708356487457719..comments2024-03-28T05:13:13.921-04:00Comments on Books, Inq. — The Epilogue: Fighter meets boxer ...Frank Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18410473158808750903noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-10742594416755423402007-05-18T14:58:00.000-04:002007-05-18T14:58:00.000-04:00It seems like philosophy and belief are the big ru...It seems like philosophy and belief are the big rubber bladders we use on each other because there are not sticks handy.<BR/><BR/>Note that I had misspelled "on" in the previous sentence as "one". Even though I was caused to do it, I was caused to feel guilty about it and correct it anyway.Bill Peschelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257587479467531187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-59122087962289952172007-05-18T13:37:00.000-04:002007-05-18T13:37:00.000-04:00Just to add I'd agree that it'd be both absurd and...Just to add I'd agree that it'd be both absurd and insane to try and make causation a philosophy by which to make sense of & dictate how to live. In what sense could one do anything with this intellectual filter/idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-19379616612167747972007-05-18T12:00:00.000-04:002007-05-18T12:00:00.000-04:00What I hoped I've kind of done, is to show how usi...What I hoped I've kind of done, is to show how using causation's own reasoning, Reality falis to get out of the non-existent starting blocks. Nothing causes nothing. Once the ball of Reality is rolling, however, then we can perhaps accept causation as a viable hypothesis in the material realm but it would seem utterly arbitrary to claim this for the realm of consciousness. It's simply a random assertion with about as much validity as the inversion of cause & effect, being effect & cause. That is, the desired effect causing the preceding cause, which actually as a theory of evolution seems to make more sense than cause & effect. For example, the desire for profound states of consciousness whereby Nature comes to know herself, causes the means by which this is fulfilled. This though strikes me as relatively simple territory compared to the "free-thinking and free-willing" individual. The infinities of knowledge required to know what is actually going on in this realm would seem to defy all possibility of proof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-21230021435112146262007-05-18T08:58:00.000-04:002007-05-18T08:58:00.000-04:00So we accept as a premise is that nature is self-c...So we accept as a premise is that nature is self-caused. Which means that it just is, actually. If there is only causation, the inference still must be that one thing just follows another in a chain of causation. As I said, it's perfectly logical. But it excludes motivation - which is merely a misaaprehension of causation. If eveything is caused, there is no meaning to anything. Whatever happens, just happens. Try living that way. Try actually accepting that whatever you write in response to this is simply what you, given your chain of causation, cannot help but write.Frank Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410473158808750903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-63930404142914851692007-05-18T07:15:00.000-04:002007-05-18T07:15:00.000-04:00And along that chain, Frank, I've been compelled t...And along that chain, Frank, I've been compelled to make the general conclusion regarding the mysterious essence of Causation which is that Nature does indeed abhor a vacuum and the non-existence of something causes its own existence. And so Nature abhorring its own absence was the motive force for its own appearance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-54470104028001286232007-05-17T17:43:00.000-04:002007-05-17T17:43:00.000-04:00Actually, Andrew, I believe Thomas Aquinas would a...Actually, Andrew, I believe Thomas Aquinas would applaud your logic. Of course, it is only a fortuitous outcome of your chain of causation. So would his applause be.Frank Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410473158808750903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-54180799734478452772007-05-17T13:08:00.000-04:002007-05-17T13:08:00.000-04:00Though I lost the initial thought that struck me, ...Though I lost the initial thought that struck me, which is to accept causality as real. Therefore we have something being the logical effect of nothing. Time as the logical effect of the non-existence of time, etc. Or to put it alternatively, nothing being the cause, & something being the effect. Non-existence of time being the cause, & time being the effect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-65330215848765663072007-05-17T12:56:00.000-04:002007-05-17T12:56:00.000-04:00In this strictly linear view of reality, we have e...In this strictly linear view of reality, we have everything happening as a result of what preceded it. So if we go back to the beginning, as it were, we have something preceded by nothing. So we are in a state of absolute nothingness. Now using our famed rationality & the equally famed cause & effect, I deduce that absolutely nothing can result from absolute nothingness. And yet we do apparently exist in what could be described as a living contradiction to this implementation of causality. There seems to be missing link in this causal chain somewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com