might not have come into existence (and we seem to be able to imagine such a thing in many instances), then you exist only conditionally (in a Kantian sense) - that is, your existence is conditioned on a chain of events which could have come out differently. God, in my view, is that which exists *necessarily* - that is, without relying on the existence of any other conditions. I don't think I can say that of myself, or even of the universe as a whole.
I think I agree with you about "grasping for an impossible ideal" - it's not really possible to fully describe an ideal. But I think it may be possible for different people to describe different facets of the ideal, and thus to begin to come to a shared perception of the ideal.
Wow. Ontology, theology, Platonism, Empiricism, eternity, and chairhood, all in the space of a couple of hours.
Which brings me to the joke:
A philosophy professor came to the end of the semester, and gave his students the final exam. The students trooped into the room and sat down. When they were all seated, the professor handed out exam booklets of blank paper. He then took the chair behind his desk, lifted it onto the desk, and said to the class:
"Prove that this chair exists. You have sixty minutes."
The class immediately began scribbling down what appeared to be pages and pages of presumably complex and compelling arguments. All except for one student, who was tapping his pencil and staring at the desk. He remained that way for about ten minutes, while around him his classmates' essays got longer and longer. The professor then saw him suddenly begin to write. He wrote for about five seconds, then got up, handed his booklet ot the professor, and left. The professor was naturally curious about what proof of existence the student might have written in five seconds. He opened the book, and read the student's answer:
"What chair?" |
