Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Concrete Objects & Acausality
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 7:49:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have been doing a bit of reading on Metaphysical Nihilism, and I am going to have to go through Being & Time with a fine toothed comb as I am guessing that has a lot fo contribute to my pondering. This is relevant to my debate with Popculturepoopa (which is about to begin).
Essentially, there are two subpoints regarding "things that exist:
1. Whether things exist at all. I.e. They are "concrete objects"
2. Whether said object's existance is knowable
It seems to follow from point 2 that there are two general ways in which that can be done:
1. A priori
2. A posterori
There are problems with both of these routes.
1. A priori routes are necessarily divorced from what we can know synthetically. Thus there is no inherent connection between what is knowable from armchair thinking, and what is "out there" (dasein)
2. A posterori routes are limited in that:
i) They can only justify the existance of concrete objects with causal agency
ii) They inevitably make an epistemological logical "jump" from subjective experience to objective reality
Thus, it seems clear that in either case, being able to know the existance of anything in principle is inevitably on dubious ground. It seems the best we can do is to continue via. 2ii, and redefine ontology in subjective terms. E.g. The computer screen I am looking at is something which gives rise to certain sense experiences, in a generalised manner.
This runs into a serious problem though, because it is not readily aparent without some arbitary divide what the difference is between something that exists in reality, and something that exists joy within the mind. Because both give rise to well definable subjective concepts. You can group together a set of sense experiences for things you experience "in reality" and "in a dream" for example and have perfectly coherent concepts with no concrete difference between the two that allows you to justify "the real thing exists, the imaginative thing doesn't".