The Mystery of Existence: Why Is There Anything At All? 1st Edition

For those familiar with the PBS series “Closer to Truth” … this is, more or less, the print version.If you are interested in what philosophers and scientists think about how the universe formed, this in an excellent sum of prevailing opinions.Mr. Kuhn would find something more to his point if he read my tome, which I would recommend … if I knew him personally. It has the numbers and details he is looking for.E. Beaubien (Author: “Ex Nihilo - The Logic of Existence”

For almost a hundred years, the questions of metaphysics have been left bleeding and whimpering, dying at the bottom of the academic ditch into which they were hastily discarded by logical positivism. Now it seems that rumours of their actual death were greatly exaggerated.The fundamental question of metaphysics “Why is there something instead of nothing?” has recently been resurrected and re-vitalized for twenty-first century philosophy. This is partly due to the fact that both of its majority traditions, the Analytic and the Continental, have withered away and are struggling to maintain their original sense of purpose. It is also due to the fact that this one daring question has a commanding position in the economy of meaningful inquiry, whether it is suppressed or not.It is now time to ask the question properly, to discover its hidden dimensions, and to feel the world-shattering shock of its impact. For this reason “The Mystery of Existence” is both timely and apposite. It is basically an anthology, interspersed with commentaries and summaries by John Leslie, of representative articles that approach the fundamental question in one way or another. Systematic, well executed and penetrating, it serves as an eye-opening introduction to its topic, and a good standard resource for research.There are holes, however, and reasons for mild dissatisfaction. If the aim of the book was to provide central examples of the most significant ways to address the question, it is basically successful. On the other hand, as with many anthologies, the selection of articles reflects a certain bias. In this case, papers by physicists, often dealing with multiverse theories, are given a great deal of space. While I do not deny that all of this is relevant and interesting, the book would have been better if it was longer, and included more entries with philosophical content.In my opinion, at least three additional authors should have been included, and not just mentioned in passing: Martin Heidegger, Quentin Smith and Quentin Meillassoux. They represent even more divergent themes, as each discusses the emotional as well as the cognitive aspects of the question. For Heidegger, it is “upon us” in moods of boredom, while for Smith our appreciative feelings range across global versions of joy, awe, marveling and wonder. Meillassoux defends the view that the answer to “Why does anything exist?” should be so constructed that it is utterly disappointing. How we feel about this question, and the ways in which it undermines rationality itself, are both significant in ways that the reluctant business of answering it rarely has the capacity to explain.The absence of these pieces, and possibly a few others, is not an important defect. It does not detract from the excellence of the book’s actual content, nor from the adept work of its authors.

Be careful. If your plan is to become a philosopher this book could be a career ender. But if the question '"Why is there anything" interests you this book will save you months of time trying to track down all the relevant voices, excerpts, the pertinent ideas up to now. The section summaries by Leslie and Kuhn are clear and well written. Much deeper and widespread than Holt's book, but Holt is the easier read and is perhaps the better place for the absolute beginner to begin. This is a wonderful follow up book.But the point of Kuhn's book is not to answer the question "Why?". The point is to make you dizzy as you should be. At the end you should be well grounded in how hopelessly ungrounded the entire program of Western philosophy has been up to now (Heidegger's point). You should have an appreciation of how deep and magisterial the question is so as to put all of your further philosophical pursuits into proper order.

Be advised, John Leslie is my fav philosopher, if one is to have a favorite philosopher at all, as opposed to a favorite football team. What I would have like to see is a continued word or three, concerning Leslie's works from Immortality Defended, and Infinite Minds, which are Leslie's books I already have. However, it would have made Mystery of Existence more informed. I also guess that it would've sold/sell more copies. People like existentialist answers and so do I.

It's ok. Jim Holt's book is a much better read even though this one may cover more breadth and depth. This is just a compilation of various essays.

It's philosophy, and did not include any scientific facts or observations , This way of thinking is not enough to form a true picture

I received the book earlier than expected and new like what was advertised. Good customer service, thank you.

Perfect.

Very difficult to understand... not very cohesive.

This is a superb survey of views from leading philosophers, scientists and theologians on what might be regarded as the 'ultimate question' - the origin of the cosmos and everything it contains. Those who have followed the cross-disciplinary debates on this topic over the past three decades, since the Vatican first endorsed the Big Bang theory as compatible with the traditional Christian doctrine of creation, and cosmologists first began to realise the potential significance of the apparent 'fine tuning' of nature's fundamental constants, will find this collection of writings fascinating, indeed difficult to put down despite its intellectually challenging content. It is one of the few books on the origins of the cosmos to bring together traditional metaphysical and contemporary scientific perspectives on this topic, and do so in a very readable, accessible and balanced way. (The only other example I can think of is Chris Isham's (ed.) "Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature", published in the 1990s. Jim Holt's more recent "Why does the world exist?" also presents an entertaining and very accessible treatment of the same topic.) Convinced atheists should enjoy the book, as well as those open to theistic or pantheistic arguments. It will also appeal to those who have followed Keith Ward's excellent series of books on the mystery of cosmic origins.The only quibble I had was with John Leslie's persistent tendency to mis-represent Spinoza's metaphysical system, something that has marred a couple of his previous books as well (including the recent "Immortality Defended"). He tries to enlist Spinoza in support of his own theory that value and goodness are what give rise to the universe. This is a perfectly respectable idealist position which goes back to Plato and neo-Platonism. But Spinoza was categorically not an idealist - in fact his 'Ethics' was, in part, an attempt to refute the mind-body dualism of Descartes on the grounds that it presupposes an (unexplained) interaction between two independent substances. Spinoza was a monist who believed that the cosmos is an entirely self-contained, all-inclusive unity in which mind and body are two attributes of a single, necessarily existing substance. He would have rejected any notion that an abstract value such as 'goodness' can give rise to a material universe through some intelligible causal process. He would have also rejected the suggestion that contingent things are simply ideas in a divine mind; thought and extension are clearly differentiated in Spinoza's system. His position instead was that God (or Nature) is the most powerful being that can possibly exist, and that, by definition, therefore, it is also the most valuable being that can possibly exist, since it is the sole source of all potential and actual goodness, as well as the source of much else that human beings do not, from their subjective perspectives, regard as good. This is not an idealist position and its treatment of the problem of Evil, in particular, is very different from that found in teleological explanations of the universe, including those prevalent in the monotheistic religions centred on the concept of a personal God.Readers should therefore be very wary of the construction Leslie places on Spinoza's system. Those interested in learning more about Spinoza's metaphysics would be better advised to explore the extensive literature on his philosophy, notably books by Stuart Hampshire or Roger Scruton.However, these caveats should not be allowed to detract from the qualities of this excellent book, which can be recommended without hesitation to anyone interested in the question of cosmic origins.

本書はレスリーとクーンが共同編集した資料集です。各章ごとに "editorial introduction" が置かれていますが、本文の殆どは他の著作から転載した文章なので、編者の見解が全篇に渡って展開されているわけではありません。このため、どの章で誰の著作が転載されているかを、目次で更に詳しく示してもらえたら、資料集として使い勝手が良くなったのではないでしょうか。いまのところ、この本はさほど利用しているわけでもないのに付箋だらけです。加えて、転載されている文章の中には、"[...]" として前後の議論を省略している事例が多々あり、抜粋した箇所が論旨を正確に理解するための脈絡を不当に切り落としていないかどうか、オリジナルの著作を持たない人には判断ができません。したがって、このような抜粋が適当だと判断できる人にとっては「さほど必要でもない全ての箇所を物理的に『本』として持ち歩かなくてもいい」という利点があると言えますが、そういう判断が付かない人――僕もそうですが――にとっては（その人が文章の意味合いを正確に理解したいと思えば思うほど）不安を感じる編集方法ではないでしょうか。

Therefore, this book exists.Indeed, five stars is not enough to do it credit. The editorial comments of Leslie and Kuhn are great. I particularly enjoyed Kuhn’s taxonomy of the nine levels of Nothing.It would be great if a second edition, suitably expanded, could come into existence.

A fully comprehensive review, and readable account, of attempts to explain existence.