ap19 said: Simply put, asking "why" to anything concerning the absolutism of existence is as meaningless as having 0 as a denominator in math. Logic is nothing more than one method of making sense of reality, and is inapplicable to explaining the system of existence for various reasons I won't explain here. Human thought cannot give a definitive answer to the question "why we exist." There is no logical answer to "why we exist." You can't ask "why we exist." You can phrase it anyway you want.
You make a convincing argument. I'd go about it, without the mathematics analogy, through a Nihilistic argument.
ap19 said: In my opinion, the question "why I exist" is not something that should be asked to others or answered by others (which is why I hate religion). Existence is not something humane, but human instinct tends to drive you to think that way. Just like I cannot identify whether something other than myself is conscious in the same way as I am, the possibility that anything, whether it's another human or something else abstract, exists in the same reality as I do is basically 0. You can't confide with others for an answer to your own reality. I don't understand why the greater half of philosophy by humans puts so much value on "the human race" as a perspective of existence. As many people have stated, everyone is free to deceive themselves with their own reason for life and purpose, but it will never be true (in the philosophical sense), and should never be enforced upon others.
This is what I think is extremely well worded. Personally, I do believe philosophy is a self-discovery thing. It's not really about an individual right, but that such a question requires one's belief, and not anyone else's answer.
ap19 said: Therefore, if you think that by taking hard philosophy courses and reading difficult texts about other people's lives, you're getting closer to some definitive answer, then allow me to tell you, you remain no different (again, in terms of philosophy) from where you started, no different from a baby who doesn't even know what philosophy means, or a tree that doesn't seem to express rational thought, or even a molecule of air, which all are as entitled to have a perspective of existence as any human.
Yes, but actually, hard philosophy courses are the fastest way you can communicate your own philosophy to others(if you wish to.) That's why people talk of Descartes. It's convenient of portraying his idea, and if you agree or disagree (and why so.)
I'd avoid a long debate of existence and purpose here, but anyway, I think existence is relevant enough to living, though one is clearly more abstract, though both are linked.
The problem with existence is that there is no scientific method, which is currently(and I think will be) the most trusted method, for it. Science can be different in every universe or reality, but the most usual way is to measure, observe, and see what happens from any perturbation introduced.(or not introduced, i.e. they existed, and you're just watching)
Unfortunately, this problem plagues cosmology and all talk of existence. One cannot comment on one's own existence in the most abstract, objective ways possible. Existence and reality is a question of one's own beliefs, and only belief can answer it.
Popularly, one way to classify belief is whether reality itself is what I would call subjective or objective[Just my names, I do not find that many names...] , and clearly, existence has relation to living. The way I interpret subjective reality is basically, making things as they are. A perturbation is an act of creation and causation of reality. So why you live/exist? Because your particles dictate so(through their interactions/random possible choices), and create/cause a new realm of reality per tick of any smallest physical time possible. (I would compare to 夏のあらし! and 涼宮ハルヒ. Reality is plainly created.) Objective reality's answer is such that, things are already as they are. You live, because your particles are arranged in such a way that somehow, you get a state of consciousness. Reality is not created: it pre-existed before you.
That's pretty much all the existential part I want to discuss. Personally, it's objective(MWI-ish) for me. I found the former too egoistical. Oh, and I am actively involved in reading this, because Quantum Theory, with the gift that is Schroedinger's Cat, connected Physics with Metaphysics irrevocably.
In all actuality, I have darted away from the question of "Why?" but I find the question of "Do I exist?" related. "Why?" would be highly subjective, and I think would greatly depend on your answer to "Do ...?" anyway.
Next, for living, it would get even more subjective. Living assumes a conscious mind, and practically all discussions I know of assume free will. (That is, a being is able to make choices, which are his own.)
Why would I want to wake up every single day? Well, watching enough ARIA the ___ convinces me that life is wonderful. I also have my hopes and dreams. I have my own passions. This motivation differs hugely from individual to individual. Generally speaking, there is usually someone or something(an idea, a dream, an ideal, etc...) that acts as a basis. They can be "Making the world a better place" or "Doing X" or "Acquire joy and share it with others." (I applied a full-positive filter, because there's enough negativity in the world.)
It could also simply because nothing strong enough is driving a person to death. Generally speaking, people have human instincts(or other things) that kick in. These have to be overridden before suicide can be possible.
As obvious and overemphasised as it is above, the answer is different for every person or sentient being.
EDIT:
ap19 said:
PS: For any pure philosopher unhindered by the cognitive filters of animal nature, death is infinitely more interesting than anything life has to offer.
Oh, do explain? I find the fact that certain particle arrangements is able to form a 'brain' which insofar as observed has been able to 'think' and, obviously, 'make choices.' Such an observation has also been taken as the basis of one's(particularly the conscience's) own existence by certain people in philosophy.
By extension, because 'death' is basically the end of this 'thinking,' it is interesting, yes. But death has always been mysterious, and while we are limited in our abilities to even talk of life, we are helpless in talking of death except in the most extreme abstractness. |