We’ve been looking at the basic question of metaphysics, “Why are there beings at all rather than nothing,” and have found some interesting points.  The question suggests beings have a “why,” and we seem to know what and how beings are and what and how we mean “Nothing” – as the question isn’t incoherent to us.  When we say beings have a “why” we are not talking about “causes” that are of the same kind as beings since such inquiry would go on indefinitely searching for ever more original causes.  The sciences inquire in such a way and so academic journals are forever able to publish new insights.  Rather, we mean beings have a ground, and so Leibniz say with his principle of sufficient reason “Nothing is without reason/a why/a ground.”  This does not mean beings have a cause without which they would fall out of existence as Leibniz is sometimes oddly interpreted to be saying.  Rather, for Leibniz “To Be” in whatever way or other involves having a why.

We saw this in relation to perception and so said a right-angle triangle is going to appear very differently to (i) a severely mentally disabled person who doesn’t encounter triangles “as” unique categories of shapes (as triangles) vs (ii) a child just learning her shapes vs (iii) a teenager in geometry class vs (iv) a geometry professor researching the history of the Pythagorean theorem.  Likewise, we said ethical phenomena are going to appear very differently to (i) a severely mentally disabled person who is not responsible for their actions vs (ii) a child learning the difference between being a good and bad friend vs (iii) an adult who is responsible in the usual way vs (iv) an ethics professor writing about the holocaust.  From this, we can glean that beings reveal themselves in proportion to the level of reason of the perceiver.  Moreover, beings in revealing themselves tend from a vague disclosure to a highly clear complete (perfectio) disclosure. A complete disclosure would be an entity (something that is in some way or other, rather than being nothing) in the eyes of an Infinite mind or God, so to speak.

The mistake people make when asking after beings is we view our relationship to them as an objective snapshot that anyone can take.  But this is not the full story.  The same child has a very different encounter with rocks before and after they study the characteristics and formation history of the basic types of rocks (igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary).  Similarly, clouds appear differently before and after a child learns the genesis and structure of the basic types of clouds (cumulus, stratus, cirrus, and nimbus).

The usual way of seeing reality as the sum of all facts reduces thinking to the lowest common denominator that anyone can master like a child genius in math, music, chess, etc.  While there is nothing wrong with this as a rule of thumb, applying it universally is absurd and dangerous.  We would not randomly poll 12 people on the street who have no expertise in cars about how to fix our car.  And yet, we hold a popularity contest among a group who have no expertise in political science to elect politicians.  Or, we randomly poll 12 jurors who have no expertise in the law to judge the guilt of defendants.