The experience of existence and the explanation of existence

The way I see it, unless man investigates existence, he is not ever going to arrive at the most complete picture of reality.

And what is the most complete picture of reality?

First, what is reality?

Reality is what we experience which can hurt us, even kill us, i.e. takes life away from us, or enable us to continue in life until our body cannot anymore survive, and we die i.e. no longer live.

An example of what we experience that can hurt and even kill us is water, you can get drowned in water; but we need water in order to stay alive.

Another word for reality is existence, so that I say that:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

At this point some smart talkers will already tell me that I am into circular talking, so that I am not communicating anything at all.

What about those of you who are not smart talkers, what are your comments on my saying that:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence"?

Greetings, parents, and congratulations to Kenyon's graduating class of 2005. There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"
This is Water - Alumni Bulletin - Kenyon College

Sadly, David Foster Wallace committed suicide. It was caused by depression, which is a physical brain illness.

What about the explanation of experience? And the the experience of explanation?

zyzygy said:

What about the explanation of experience? And the the experience of explanation?

Click to expand...

Because, Man never investigates existence does he; the investigation of what we can actually observe about our existence has never happened in the whole of human history, so glad we settled that one.

So what does Philosophy tell us about the nature of reality? not much really since, it always boils down to, 'if we don't know everything then we know nothing about the true nature of reality', and then Metaphysics pastes gods onto the end of it; job done. In this respect, Philosophy essentially only exists to tell us what we don't know and why we don't know it, it never adds to anything because it always ends up contemplating ignorance. Even the Philosophical arguments that try to argue something into existence are not positive contributions but, word games to turn ignorance into something tangible that always fails because the something never becomes tangible.

The useful aspect of philosophy is to 'ground' what we do learn about the reality that we experience; for example, the recognition of the tentative nature of science is a useful application of Philosophy. Personally, I'm good with the fact that some ancient people went out and hunted the deer rather than endlessly contemplating if it actually exists first.

Sanluis said:

The way I see it, unless man investigates existence, he is not ever going to arrive at the most complete picture of reality.

And what is the most complete picture of reality?

First, what is reality?

Reality is what we experience which can hurt us, even kill us, i.e. takes life away from us, or enable us to continue in life until our body cannot anymore survive, and we die i.e. no longer live.

An example of what we experience that can hurt and even kill us is water, you can get drowned in water; but we need water in order to stay alive.

Another word for reality is existence, so that I say that:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

At this point some smart talkers will already tell me that I am into circular talking, so that I am not communicating anything at all.

What about those of you who are not smart talkers, what are your comments on my saying that:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence"?

Click to expand...

Here is an experiment:

I ask you anyone reading this post, do you concur with me on the following statement from me:

"The way I see it, unless man investigates existence, he is not ever going to arrive at the most complete picture of reality."

Answer yes or no, i.e.:

Either: Yes, I concur with you that, "The way I (you) see it, unless man investigates existence, he is not ever going to arrive at the most complete picture of reality."

Or: No, I don't concur with you that, "The way I (you) see it, unless man investigates existence, he is not ever going to arrive at the most complete picture of reality."

The purpose of the experiment is to see whether anyone at all here will take the request from me to answer my question to you, namely:

I ask you anyone reading this post, do you concur with me on the following statement from me:

"The way I see it, unless man investigates existence, he is not ever going to arrive at the most complete picture of reality."

Answer yes or no, i.e.:

Either: Yes, I concur with you that, "The way I (you) see it, unless man investigates existence, he is not ever going to arrive at the most complete picture of reality."

Or: No, I don't concur with you that, "The way I (you) see it, unless man investigates existence, he is not ever going to arrive at the most complete picture of reality."

Click to expand...

Dear colleagues here, I don't see anyone to date keen to reply to my request:

I ask you anyone reading this post, do you concur with me on the following statement from me:

"The way I see it, unless man investigates existence, he is not ever going to arrive at the most complete picture of reality."

Answer yes or no, i.e.:

Either: Yes, I concur with you that, "The way I (you) see it, unless man investigates existence, he is not ever going to arrive at the most complete picture of reality."

Or: No, I don't concur with you that, "The way I (you) see it, unless man investigates existence, he is not ever going to arrive at the most complete picture of reality."

Click to expand...

So, tell me what from your part are you keen to share with me what thoughts you have: in regard to what you know to be reality and how you come to know it?

This thread is on the experience of existence and the explanation of existence.

And I say that existence is reality, and an example of reality is the nose on our face, so touch your nose and you know an example of reality, namely, the nose existing on your face.

Now, think and let us share together our respective explanation for the existence of the nose on our face.

But first what is an explanation at all?

Sanluis said:

...
But first what is an explanation at all?

Click to expand...

Good question.

something exists

is necessarily, and absolutely, true