Why do we exist?

Is it equally necessary (logically that is) for all that exists to eventually end? Or is that an empirical problem while the other is one that is purely logical and, as such, reveals the tautological nature of logical understanding? By the way, two plus two equals four tautologically; it is just another way of saying four.

Well, there are two possibilities:

Either things need to be created to exist
Or things dont need to be created to exist.

If we consider that things dont need to be created to exist... wouldnt the universe be taken by ultimate chaos, by an infinite number and variety of things coming into being?

That would be essentially the same as the universe not existing in the first place.

Do you agree with that?

You know? Don't you mean, you have convinced yourself? I doubt that you "know". If you know then you can substantiate it with something but so far you have not so your claim is baseless.

No. I mean that I know. Its you who thinks that I have convinced myself =)

I have a lot of other "paths" that lead me to the conclusion of that never-ending life is not only real, but inevitable and inescapable, but they are all difficult and confusing to put into words.

You seem to be tied down to the idea of that I fear death, and thus fool myself into believing in afterlife. However, there is also the other side of the coin. Non-existance isnt a bad thing and in fact I believe many people kill themselves to reach non-existance, to end all suffering. But they cant, unless their suffering lies only in their humanity and not in their minds. Because no matter how many times and in how many lifes they kill themselves they will always live. I think that eternal existance is just as terrifying as eternal non-existance.

Mean A2K wont let me edit my earlier posts for some reason =)

"all that exists must be created"

Isnt that one of the fundaments of logic? That is, in order for something to exist it must have an origin? To me saying that things dont need to have an origin to exist is like saying that two plus two equals five.

manored wrote:

Well, there are two possibilities:

Either things need to be created to exist
Or things dont need to be created to exist.

Na, I can see a few more possibilities than these two. But I'll stick with these two for now because next you'll miss something pretty important anyways.

manored wrote:

If we consider that things dont need to be created to exist... wouldnt the universe be taken by ultimate chaos, by an infinite number and variety of things coming into being?

No not necessarily. How can you even determine this? For all we know the universe in it's current form is just a byproduct, that we are existing within a mire moment of what the universe will eventually be as a result of what ever happened. Since time is irrelevant the scope of what is happening gets turned towards us instead, which in my opinion is a really bad way to look at the universe because the two time scales are incredibly lopsided. We assume that the universe is meant to be in it's current state, but who is to say that it is? This is a very poor assumption to make and if you are basing premises off of it then by that very fact alone, it is flawed.

manored wrote:

No. I mean that I know. Its you who thinks that I have convinced myself =)

I still see no basis for your claim.

manored wrote:

I have a lot of other "paths" that lead me to the conclusion of that never-ending life is not only real, but inevitable and inescapable, but they are all difficult and confusing to put into words.

You seem to be tied down to the idea of that I fear death, and thus fool myself into believing in afterlife. However, there is also the other side of the coin. Non-existance isnt a bad thing and in fact I believe many people kill themselves to reach non-existance, to end all suffering. But they cant, unless their suffering lies only in their humanity and not in their minds. Because no matter how many times and in how many lifes they kill themselves they will always live. I think that eternal existance is just as terrifying as eternal non-existance.

Well how about we switch gears a little here. If something about a person could continue to exist, how does that thing obtain energy to continue? Because everything in this universe requires energy to function. You can't have something that functions without some kind of energy intake. So how exactly does your consciousness or what ever you want to call it, gain energy to continue? If you don't know then what do you know about it? The only thing you seem to "know" if anything is that it does, but that says absolutely nothing. "It just does..."

Here is another aspect. Which is the forerunner? The brain, or the consciousness? If the consciousness can exist without a brain then shouldn't it by default be unaffected by the brain? Yet when there is brain damage why is it the consciousness is effected? Seems a little silly that the consciousness would be so restricted by the brain while someone is alive but as soon as they die the consciousness is some how released and restored?

So for example a person born blind at birth, has never experienced colors yet when they die, their consciousness will all of a sudden regain the ability of sight? Why is the consciousness so restricted then? It would seem that the body is a huge hindrance then for the consciousness if that is the case. However; I am not pointing this out because your claim has some validity to it, but instead it points out that consciousness is dependent upon the brain and is at the mercy of the brain. When the brain dies, so will the consciousness. If I am wrong, then existence will be a hell by definition.

To live on and on with endless lives is probably the worse case that could possibly be. My simple dislike of that is not why I reject it. I reject it because it has no basis in reality. Nothing supports the claim that the consciousness continues or that some part of you will continue on into another life after this one ends. Show me something and perhaps I will have to reevaluate my position.

Is it equally necessary (logically that is) for all that exists to eventually end? Or is that an empirical problem while the other is one that is purely logical and, as such, reveals the tautological nature of logical understanding? By the way, two plus two equals four tautologically; it is just another way of saying four.

Arguments about "existence of things", including self are rendered vacuous when a relational definition of "existence" is adopted. On this view, god-ness, two-ness, order, and chaos only have meaning with respect to their functionality with respect human aspirations to predict and control (aka "rationality"). Heideggarians are unlikely to accept such a relational position because for them Dasein (self) is a transcendent a priori reference point.

So are we against predicting and controlling, aka "rationality"?

So are we against predicting and controlling, aka "rationality"?

Perhaps I view existence as non-relational and as well not a property, what then? Things do not exist in relation to me. That seems very solipsistic, or something else that reeks of absurdity.

Quote:

So are we against predicting and controlling, aka "rationality"?

Some argue we are limited by it. (Fritjof Capra)

Quote:

Perhaps I view existence as non-relational and as well not a property, what then? Things do not exist in relation to me. That seems very solipsistic, or something else that reeks of absurdity.

The view is that relations are necessarily two-way. "Me" and "things" co-exist. Neither has ontological independence.

fresco wrote:

Quote:

So are we against predicting and controlling, aka "rationality"?

Some argue we are limited by it. (Fritjof Capra)

Quote:

Perhaps I view existence as non-relational and as well not a property, what then? Things do not exist in relation to me. That seems very solipsistic, or something else that reeks of absurdity.

The view is that relations are necessarily two-way. "Me" and "things" co-exist. Neither has ontological independence.

Is there a problem with ontological independence? If so, what pecisely is it?

I wonder: is existence a relation? Perhaps in the sense that I could not exist without my parents copulating, or that the existence of oxygen is required for combustion. But, I think, you are getting into sufficient and necessary conditions. Necessarily, I would not be me if I came from different parents. So my parents, "things", are necessarily existent if "I" were to arrive on the scene.

But then again I could be wrong.

Is there a problem with ontological independence? If so, what pecisely is it?

Quote:

Is there a problem with ontological independence? If so, what pecisely is it?

The problem is that what we call our "physiology" (hard wiring) coupled with our social programming (software) selectively interact with what we call "the universe". Kant pointed out our inability to perceive "the world" directly and even suggested that our concept of "causality" was a perceptual a priori ...or "hard wired" in modern parlance.Now none of this might have mattered had there not been "scientific evidence" that "things" are never quite what they seem in lay terms. Concepts like "matter", "time" and "place", which we might assume to firmly underpin "things", turn out (roughly) to be results of the mode of observation. And as the last reply suggested "mind" (and "self" perhaps) are aspects of the observation/interaction process rather than ontologically definable entities.