Ignacio Escañuela Romana
I am often asked about the sense of life, of the world. It is usually related, in one way or another, to God. Then, inevitably, I bring up the philosopher’s part: defining God, defining meaning.
Actually, what I think is that, whatever the definitions, God is not necessarily a sense for man. They seem to me to be absolutely different issues. I think Aristotle also understood it this way, although much better than I do. Ontology and theology, the questions of being and first principle, are different.
Nor the other way around, i.e. the question of meaning is all too human. Where there are no human beings, there are no human values. This is not really mine, I read it in Lem and also in others I can’t remember now. Only a human world could have that human motivation. But the universe is not.
Of course, consciousness is paradoxical: a set of elementary particles, extremely complex organisationally, that generate it. In short, something that thinks of its something, as if it were an other, but knows that it is itself. And if it is difficult to understand consciousness, freedom is already … Kant recognised that he could neither affirm nor deny it and passed it on to the ideal world of the postulates of practice. Something that if it did not exist would have to be created. I have always thought that this solves nothing, to tell the truth.
I have not answered anything here, I have only asked a question.
Filosofía en este presente. Ignacio Escañuela Romana. Las ideas son personales. 