blog46 opening words

April, 2014

... or a question. Here is mine:

What exists?
Or, perhaps better,
What, if anything, should we say about everything.
How should we talk about existence?

The second question makes less assumption about what if anything exists, whatever that may turn out to mean. (Things may be said to "exist" in a number of differing ways.) It also invites us to consider how the things that are exist.

But I will take it first of all in its most direct sense: What is? What is real? What exists and how does it exist?

The opening question leads quickly to a number of other questions:

If we are asking how we should talk about reality, we will need to consider: What is talking? If we speak of talking we will have to talk about the main tool(s) of talking: language. What is language? And this will lead to yet another: What are these humans who talk? How should we talk about humans?

And how should we best use language to talk with humans?

There is also a tangential question that we have not considered: WHY should we describe existence? How will that help us?

There might be multiple answers this this (as there might be for all of these} questions. Like how should we photograph the world? Should we photograph it up close, or far away? Well-lit or dim? In direct or in peripheral vision?

This kind of question ("What is reality?" pops up in the context of philosophy, where it is all too common. But the question seems to make sense to almost any thoughtful adult.

Metaphor of understanding that we just see it.
(1) We see, hear, small, That describing it is something like a picture. And the categories are in place.

There is no one way of writing a philosophy book. A discussion of this would be another philosophy book.

Among the main foundational paradoxes of this book is that nearly every word we use in this book, the general abstract words of philosophy, are suspect.

I want to adopt a naïve sincere persona here in my talking and thinking. Not that there is such a thing.

Perhpas I cannot convince you that we cannot yet speak about existence. If I have to convince you about these needs, I don't think you have been paying attention.

We need a different way to adjudicate conceptual differences. We need a new way of being ignorant, a new way of not knowing.

At the very least we need (some) new concepts. (They need not be mine.)

Do not assume that the question "What exists?" is a question of facts.

[ back ]