Skip to main content

A short exchange on the philosophy of Quentin Meillassoux


RB: Hello, I just finished reading After Finitude. I think its a very exciting book as it attempts to access and come into direct contact with the ”thing in itself”, escaping the Kantian prison. Meillassoux claims to achieve this by saying that contingency is the absolute principle behind everything, the very thing itself. My problem is that Meillassoux does not explain why contingency is the the thing itself. If this is so there must be some evidence or some logical argument to prove this. Why can the laws governing the universe change at any moment? Perhaps I missed something.

Me: His argument is that the so called laws are not enforced by anyone. If one says that there is some condition that keep those stable then he can ask the previous question on the new 'law enforcement agency'. This becomes an infinite regression which discards the existence of any such entity. So he resorts to the eternal danger faced by all laws of sudden collapse.

RB: Ok, so he discards that the universe is governed by reason and necessity due to the fallacy of infinite regression. I guess its just really hard to get used to and understand the idea that there is no reason why things exist at all, that the universe emerged “from nothing, for nothing” as Meillassoux writes. It goes against the very deep human desire for purpose and meaning. He are wired to detects reasons, patterns, causes, etc. I would say that Meillassouxs idea of radical contingency and unreason is impossible for us to truly understand. Perhaps there is a contradiction, is not the fact that there is no reason behind the universe a type of reason? If the universe was truly random then it would not be random, since 100% has a consistency about it. If the things in the universe are always random, they have a consistency about them, therefor there are not random. The law is governed by the law of contingency. For the universe to truly be continent it would need to octillate between chaos and order, continent and necessitate, and perhaps Meillassoux makes this argument. Our world of stability and laws is just a random oscillation between two chaoses.

Me: Yet he arrives this conclusion via reason. Therefore the reason has become a double edged sword in Meillassoux's philosophy. i.e.: An algorithmic approach is unavoidable to establish the metaphysical reality as he does. In other words the reasoning precedes the establishment of the futility of 'the ultimate reason'.

What is important to note in the process of establishing the metaphysical-reality in speculative realism is the use of reason as a tool. For an example one could not immediately see the meta-physical reality from the world itself. Therefore it is necessary follow few steps i.e.: Computations. What is the reasons/conditions for A? It is B and C. What are the reasons or conditions for B and C ? Recurrent nature of the problem is established by following two (or more) such steps. Once the recurrence is established it is argued that the 'reason search' has no terminating point. Now if there is no reason for anything at the first establishment of reasons or conditions for A as B and C is an invalid construct. Therefore the computation and establishing the recurrence become invalid constructs.

A small cartoon figure tries to figure the ultimate reason for existance and suddenly a an huge number of of reason blocks comes to him from a broken wall


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Free Will and its Enemy, Determinism

She could be one of the strongest proponents of scientific determinism. For me, while not subscribing to either "extremes" of "free will" and "hard determinism," but looking for a "middle" that is beneficial, this is still an interesting video. I do think that the computer algorithm analogy is flawed in this context. Computer programs can produce outputs that are at least theoretically predictable. They are fully deterministic in the above sense. Yet when we use some of these it is more useful to work with probabilities and consider them as black boxes that can be trained rather than worrying about the underlying physics. Nobody can predict human behavior with such accuracy as a computer program, so there is no pragmatic value for convincing one about the underlying equations. No one can use those equations for any behavioral change. So, from a practical point of view, problems of self and value are not in the domain of machines. They are human p...

Electronic (digital) NIC, biometric data collection and fundamental rights

The introduction of an electronic identity card for all Sri Lankan citizens have come back to the discussion table. It is not a new initiative but the so called "minister of digital stuff" of previous government as well had commented on the initiative.  It is unclear what pressing issue this initiative aims to solve as far as Sri Lanka is concerned. Furthermore, there are reports of a plan to introduce methods of identifying individuals using biometric data. It is also said that a powerful neighboring state will provide a grant or a loan for implementing this system. My own opinion is that Sri Lankans have no real need to have an eNIC not to mention the biometrics based identification. What we already have in our NIC and the security is sufficient for ordinary citizens to function in the current society. Of course recording biometric data of convicted criminals may be a different issue. One eNIC proponent had mentioned the need for implementing voting for Sri Lankans working ...