3 ms·

At its end the essay says there will be a part II that will address the question of how much deeper these sorts of causal explanations could go. Is there a link

At its end the essay says there will be a part II that will address the question of how much deeper these sorts of causal explanations could go. Is there a link available for it? My own view is that such causal explanation has to stop somewhere, and we are left with, as Parfit mentions at a few points, sheer awe. I think this is an example of the larger principle that human understanding is finite. Another example would be Colin McGinn's argument the human mind is not the sort of intelligence that could understand why consciousness (in the hard problem meaning of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness)exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness).... I think that furthermore the finiteness of human intelligence is linked with many other types of finitude, such as our being mortal material bodies with material brains in a material world, and that philosophy is to a great extent the process of determining how finite things are in each area or aspect of reality, and how these various finitudes connect with each other in an overall pattern. I would add that I think that many if not most philosphical disagreements are based at least in part on differing views about these finitudes. So for instance Platonism holds that many apparent finitudes are in fact delusions, while Aristotle tends to affirm them as real.

westoncb 10y ago
I think there's something to what you're saying here, but there's a slight technical correction I'd make. Human concepts are not finite; they are definitely infinite. However, just because something is infinite doesn't mean it covers everything--e.g. the real numbers are fundamentally more encompassing than the integers. So, human concepts are infinite, but that doesn't mean they cover everything.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  Yes, that is a good point.
cristianpascu 10y ago
The problem raised by the article is one of necessesity and contingency. Why is there something? Why this? A necessary being and a contingent being demand very different questions. That's why the article then goes into probabilities, which are the mark of contingency. The ancient and medieval philosophy/theology insisted on the lack of contingent attributes of God, whereas the Universe has all the attributes of contingency. As Heidegger said (in a quote I read somewhere), necessity can not be explained. That's where our mind will stop explaining things. The difference between a theist and an atheist is in their willingness to accept contingency as being necessary, or, to say that the electron is necessary the way it is and there's no other possible way for it to be this way. It exists necessarily like this and that's it. Or some other material entity that caused it, but the chain ends quickly and stops there.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  I think I agree with what you are saying. In terms of the finitudes of human understanding, I would put it this way: the theist thinks things are as they are because that is what God wishes, but why God exists is a mystery. The materialist thinks things are as they are because of the laws of nature, but why the laws of nature are as they are is a mystery. Have I got that right? And then there is the third option of absolute mysticism , which a human mind merges with the Infinite, and all secrets are revealed to it. Let me add that I am focusing on the finitudes of human existence because my number one interest is political philosophy, and political philosophy is ultimately about how human beings can best handle those finitudes.

westoncb 10y ago

I think there's something to what you're saying here, but there's a slight technical correction I'd make. Human concepts are not finite; they are definitely infinite. However, just because something is infinite doesn't mean it covers everything--e.g. the real numbers are fundamentally more encompassing than the integers. So, human concepts are infinite, but that doesn't mean they cover everything.

woodandsteel 10y ago
Yes, that is a good point.

cristianpascu 10y ago

The problem raised by the article is one of necessesity and contingency. Why is there something? Why this? A necessary being and a contingent being demand very different questions. That's why the article then goes into probabilities, which are the mark of contingency. The ancient and medieval philosophy/theology insisted on the lack of contingent attributes of God, whereas the Universe has all the attributes of contingency. As Heidegger said (in a quote I read somewhere), necessity can not be explained. That's where our mind will stop explaining things. The difference between a theist and an atheist is in their willingness to accept contingency as being necessary, or, to say that the electron is necessary the way it is and there's no other possible way for it to be this way. It exists necessarily like this and that's it. Or some other material entity that caused it, but the chain ends quickly and stops there.

woodandsteel 10y ago
I think I agree with what you are saying. In terms of the finitudes of human understanding, I would put it this way: the theist thinks things are as they are because that is what God wishes, but why God exists is a mystery. The materialist thinks things are as they are because of the laws of nature, but why the laws of nature are as they are is a mystery. Have I got that right? And then there is the third option of absolute mysticism , which a human mind merges with the Infinite, and all secrets are revealed to it. Let me add that I am focusing on the finitudes of human existence because my number one interest is political philosophy, and political philosophy is ultimately about how human beings can best handle those finitudes.