Response to greglam's "Why something rather than nothing?"

Just some thoughts about the How and Why; in response to greglam's video "Why something rather than nothing?"

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• pipes
• tobacco
• philosophy

[matthias2986]

or "nothing exists because a being makes it exist"

you kind of reach a both require each other to exist.

nothing can exist because a being nothing is a concept of consciousness.

BUT that being or consciousness itself should not be able to exist in the first place.

humans are great because we get to think about things. but how can we tell we are different then any other living thing? our sense of individuality i see - but also feel no different just because i am aware and others things are not

[matthias2986]

i got the passage you read the first time you read it,

you could reword it as such:

"nothing (nothing itself) should not be able to exist. nothing can only exist if there is a something."

[matthias2986]

if the universe was void of life of any kind, would it still exist? you might say well sure it would, but the fact that no living thing was able to expirince it, that fact alone may void the existence of the anything at all. i think life came first, then everything else, meaning this universe and anything outside of it. life was first, life at this stage could be more considered to be a thought or thoughts and the thoughts like never ending dreams make up the "stuff" and nothing is concrete

[citrusponge]

I see Descartes, Nietzsche, and Marx. Who is the other caricature in the beginning?

[SmokeRingsPipeDreams]

It seems to me the question "why" cannot be answered without a knowledge of "who". If there is no "who", then there cannot be a "why". But if we use science to find out how, it might lead us to find out if there is a "who", and then lastly we could then know why. But to presuppose a who is premature in my way of thinking, putting the cart before the horse so to speak.

[MrPipeAdmirer]

I enjoy your contemplations and thought provoking commentary. It occurs to me that the full comprehension and understanding of some words that are antonyms can be best defined not by the object word itself but by having some context for its opposing word. Nothing is so elusive and nebulous that we have no context for what it really means or represents, but everyone can agree about the quantifiable and tangible existence of the concept known as "something".

[FreyofKtau]

Hi Frerrik,

as greglam says in the example with the "fist bang" you just get to a point where you have to explain how something start to exist without a source.

But this seems to be unlogical because things do not start to be without a source.

The life base on the law of source ond action... so the question cannot be answered.

Nice vids from both of you.

Greets

Manuel

PS: a man is just a pawn in a chess game ... thats the answer to why ... ;-)

[joffrethegiant]

Very pithy tobacco review!

I'm not sure the complexity of the "how" can explain the lack of of "why", although certainly just as our hermeneutic impacts our epistemology, the reverse is true as well.

Great stuff, thanks!

[ahmedsadik1983]

the why and how,, endless struggle. some really nice point of views Ferricks and great presentation

thanks for taking the time to make this response

cheers

ahmad

[TheMysteryPipe]

Another great topic my friend!!! Certainly something to ponder.