I meant the former.
Yes, of course. The hypothetical singularity, assuming we give it the credence of factually having existed, contained within it all that was to be, and therefore it and all that it contained was the what it was to be. If could not have been anything else, as is evidenced by the fact that it is what it is.
Having clarified now that you mean to say that there is no thing that can arise from nothingness (a principle with which I not only agree, but that I would take as axiomatic — after all, nothingness implies the lack of everything, including a means by which something may arise), you’ve made it easier to comment on your statement about neither essence preceding existence nor existence preceding essence — basically, I presume, that they emerge simultaneously. (Emerge from what, we can just leave open ended, since we both agree that they could not emerge from nothing.)
That view seems, to me, to be the sort of view a Creationist might take. God spake and poof, there was a star. But it would be unfair to hang that on you, as I’m quite confident that you are not a Creationist. And so, what you must be saying is that when a star emerges from a gaseous cloud, it simultaneously exists and becomes the what it was to be. The problem with that, though, seems a bit Wittgensteinian to me. There is a semantic problem with something becoming X if we deny any sort of history or precedent with respect to X. You cannot become something unless you have first been something else. Like gas, in this case.
Although I’m not an existentialist, I’m not discarding your viewpoint out of hand. But can you explain the apparent discrepancy as I see it? In other words, becoming a star (or a universe, or a pen, or a computer program) involves a process. There is no sudden emergence of anything I know of that did not first have to be what it was. Even virtual particles which come in and go out at miniscule intervals of time cannot be anything other than what they were to be, owing to mathematical necessity.
I disagree that there is a meaningful exclusion to make. Cognitive science may include elements of neuroscience, but it includes elements of philosophy as well. Look at Dennett - is he just a philosopher, or just a material scientist? What about Hofstadter? No, they are both - cognitive science covers both of these, as well as anthropolgy, computer science, genetics…and it is cognitive science that currently, IMO, has the most to offer on questions of personhood and identity.
I do agree, Mr.Dibble, that many scientists (in fact, I would say the best scientists) are also philosophers, but usually specializing in the philosophy of science (pioneered by Popper, Kune, et al) — which is what makes them such good scientists. You’ve listed two (atheists), and another is Pete Suber, who is both a philosopher and an amazing logician. His counterpart is Alvin Plantinga, a theist.
I like that you point out the congruity of philosophy and science. After all, science is a subset of philosophy, and those who are familiar with the latter seem usually to have a much better grasp of the former. So, I shouldn’t have drawn that dichotomy, and you were right to call me on it. Still, it is true that our physical “selves” are our brains. Or at the very least, we can say that evidence is rapidly emerging that that is the case.
I’m embarrassed to have misspelled Khun’s name above.
Heh, you did it again! 
I would rather say that our selves are products of our brains. With emergent phenomena, it’s harder to pin down a precise location for them. I’m loath to say that our personae reside entirely in our brains, given the enormous role of sensory input and the hormone system on them. I’m OK with saying that they reside entirely in our bodies, but I try and avoid cerebrocentricism if I can.
Jesus. KUHN.
Interesting. Your view certainly is deserving of respect, and I’m not sure that I disagree with you entirely. even from a purely physical perspective. The thing I like most about you, as a poster, is your ability to convey your perspective in a concise and coherent manner — a talent I sorely lack.
You flatter me.
The thing about that view is, it still leaves room for metaphysics of a sort, if you choose to go that route. Anything that is emergent, like human personality, is certainly not just a purely material object. I can see the attraction of abstraction, as it were, even if I do not subscribe to any higher order. Humanism is abstraction enough for me, and even that is a bit of an effort I have to constantly reinforce. Same-same for existentialism. It’s not an easy philosophy to follow properly, by any means.
This has been addressed somewhat, but I just wanted to add that – in the run-up to BG’s quote – Sartre himself uses pretty much the same jumping-on point to explain his existence-precedes-essence bit. Consider, he says, a book, or a paper-knife, or a table: something designed and manufactured for a definite purpose, such that its “essence” involves whatever qualities were required by the goal-oriented production concept.
Sartre goes on to say that, classically, many then go on to sum up man by thinking of God as an artisan likewise viewing things from a “techincal standpoint”: designing us for some purpose, according to some production concept that predates our manufacture. Sartre’s point, though, is that in the absence of God you’re not like a book or a knife (or a pen or a computer program): “the conception of man in the mind of God is comparable to that of the paper-knife in the mind of the artisan: God makes man according to a procedure and a conception, exactly as the artisan manufactures a paper-knife, following a definition and a formula … if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.”
No, I think we’re basically saying the same thing. I was asserting that while matter may be rearranged, it does not simply appear or disappear. The ‘essence’ of a thing is malleable. A black hole may absorb everything which crosses the threshold of its event horizon; that does not mean the matter no longer exists. I hope that clarifies.
I can appreciate Heidegger and Foucault, but they get a bit fanciful when it comes to ‘essence,’ and I prefer Sartre’s approach.
I would say that while that was once the case, they have long since switched places. Philosophy has changed along with science, but science no longer follows philosophy.
Double post; sorry.
I think this is a major problem in society and relates to a lot more things than philosophy.
I think most of what gets called philosophy is pseudo-intellectual bullshit designed to confuse most people. How did this global warming business get dragged on for 20 years. The same nonsense happened with the adverse health effects of tobacco. We can’t solve problems because people can’t sort out the bullshit.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25457/25457-h/25457-h.html
http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Van-Vogt/Null-A.html
psik
What is a field, in a Higgs/quantum/Kazula-Klein or whatever sense, if it has never not existed?
What is a mind, if it has only existed for a few million years (that we know of).
It’s Mind-First versus Matter-First. Dennett’s “Freedom Evolves” and “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” are excellent in this regard.
From Leviathan:
Bolding mine.
Didn’t Aristotle say:
snort OF COURSE NOT! It’s the Straight Dope SCIENCE Advisory Board, and SCIENCE threw Plato out 400 years ago.
I mean, REALLY. Philosophy is mental masturbation with no relevance to science or reality at all.
Before I respond, I’ll have to think about it. For like, forever…
However, it does seem like this perpetual ‘what it was to be’ precludes any beginning, which gives me pause.
So you admit that you speaking out of ignorance and prejudice.
Apparently you are ignorant of the history of science too. The scientific revolution was, in significant part, a result of the revival of Platonism (and also of other ancient philosophical traditions, especially atomism and skepticism) during the Renaissance.
What we now call science grew out of the intellectual tradition of philosophy. If philosophers had not spent centuries developing the techniques of logical thought and ration argumentation, science could never have come into existence, and in a very real sense (as others have pointed out upthread) science is still a branch of philosophy. I true, but it could not have taken off as it did
It is true that it is a branch that has been spectacularly successful over the past 300 or so years, and when it comes to answering questions about the structure and development of the physical and biological world, modern science has rendered older philosophical attempts to deal with such issues of merely historical interest, but that was only ever one small branch of philosophy. There are still plenty of issues, things people would very much like to understand better (such as ethical questions: questions about what one should actually do; or, come to that, questions about the nature of science itself, and the reasons for its success), that science does not touch.
But why am I bothering to try and answer you with facts and reasons? You have not bothered to engage with any of the points I made earlier, or, indeed, anything anyone else in the thread said about the topic (before it degenerated into a dull argument about existentialism). Clearly you are not here with an open mind. You are just here to vent your ignorant and arrogant prejudices:
Come back when you have some clue about what philosophy is (and, come to that, what science is).