tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1860307875990258501.post1790204117463356190..comments2024-02-12T09:12:21.978-06:00Comments on Non-Kantradiction: Understanding the Question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", Part I: LeibnizErik Christiansonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15747258914239065813noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1860307875990258501.post-82323350300468938822012-12-27T13:28:23.180-06:002012-12-27T13:28:23.180-06:00Thank you for the recommendation, but I am not con...Thank you for the recommendation, but I am not considering the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" to be Cosmological.Erik Christiansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15747258914239065813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1860307875990258501.post-50620699858520880702012-12-26T22:17:40.634-06:002012-12-26T22:17:40.634-06:00For the answer, read “The Origin of the Universe –...For the answer, read “The Origin of the Universe – Case Closed”. It explains everything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1860307875990258501.post-35939879800181303062012-12-21T11:30:06.029-06:002012-12-21T11:30:06.029-06:001) I think that the continued use of 'Good'...1) I think that the continued use of 'Good' is a nod to the tradition of talking about the Good as the highest. It only keeps a moral significance because it relates to how we should try to come to a better understanding of how we fit to the world, and so apparently thinking bare existence is not enough for Leibniz to get across this ethical sentiment.<br /><br />2) My basic approach to getting a handle on the question (why something rather than nothing?) is not very far from your attitude here. <br /><br />It is clear that there is something, but does this mean that when we try to think about the whence of this something (generally) we must also think it as the nature of a something. It seems that we have a tendency to do so, but this seems much more to do with our constitution (in terms of how we are situated to approach such a question).<br /><br />My interest, then, is to find the right approach to the question - which already seems to require that it is not asking about a 'real ground' as a something, but rather just asking about it as a problem of how we think.Erik Christiansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15747258914239065813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1860307875990258501.post-44296264035925254612012-12-21T11:20:13.592-06:002012-12-21T11:20:13.592-06:00I have a couple of problems with the talk Leibniz ...I have a couple of problems with the talk Leibniz uses (or perhaps with this interpretation).<br /><br />First, if "good" means "actually existent", then why not eliminate it from the discussion as irrelevant. We're asking "Why does this stuff actually exist rather than not?"<br /><br />Answering with "God creates the best (most good) possible world" translates to "God creates the most actually existing world," which certainly doesn't come close to answering the question.<br /><br />Second, I don't think that any answer can be given to the question at all. Any answer would be a something and not a nothing. Even the structure of consciousness is a something.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com