This post is in response to Necessary and Contingent Truths.
This is an expression that I use quite often even though I consider myself an atheist. But I think that it directly relates to the question posed by deadondres.
“What’s your take? Does the metaphysical necessarily exist, beyond the contingent and existential?”
For me, I think the answer is that it would be a lot nicer if there was a “motion behind all motions,” as it may be possible to tease out knowledge of the motions through experience, curiosity, trial and error, and sheer determination. However the definitiveness of it’s “existence” is so incredibly hard to define that “my take” on it is irrelevant to how I handle myself in the here and now.
It makes complete sense that people find comfort in the idea that there is a God who is watching everything (in the real world) and keeping tabs, because the task “[cannot] be perfectly known by a creature.”
For me I don’t think a conscience watching everything (in the name of right and wrong) is comforting; I take comfort in the consistency of the world. The fact, that at least to some fairly accurate approximation the bodies of the universe seem to obey an “outline” of rules (science).
However, in the end, the actual existence or non-existence of a metaphysical “fabric” that threads all of existence together isn’t that important.
Our existence takes place in the contingent and existential so from a practical point of view this is domain of life we should concentrate on improving.
One’s take on the existence of the metaphysical is separate from their ability and willingness to improve the condition of the present contingent and existential.
I think you are right. Although it is fun to speculate about whether anything exists beyond our physical world, or if there ia a metaphysical property or force or law which gives rise to “that which exists” (infinity, God, etc.) it is ultimately a bit pointless to speculate.
I think in a way the whole debate between contingent/necessary is more reflective of the WAY we think – dualistically. It is equally possible to simultaneously embrace all of these ideas.
Pingback: The Metaphysical Dilema « Active Philosophy