I can understand the concept of something being logically necessary, 1+1=2 because the naturel of 1 and of 2 demand it. If 1 and 2 somehow "ceased to exist," then so would 1+1=2. So, then is the existence of 1 and 2 a brute fact. I would see it as arising from the law of identity.
And from what does this arise, the difference between being and nonbeing?
But I don't understand what philosophers like Searle mean when say something "just is." The example I saw, "there is snow on Everest" isn't "just true," except in a shorthand way. There is snow on Everest because of the height or the mountain, the water in the air, the freezing point of water, the mechanics of temperature differential, etc.
Now, obviously this does have a religious angle for me, but I'm also interested in general.
And from what does this arise, the difference between being and nonbeing?
But I don't understand what philosophers like Searle mean when say something "just is." The example I saw, "there is snow on Everest" isn't "just true," except in a shorthand way. There is snow on Everest because of the height or the mountain, the water in the air, the freezing point of water, the mechanics of temperature differential, etc.
Now, obviously this does have a religious angle for me, but I'm also interested in general.
Comment