An Ontological Argument for the Existence of this Blog? Huh!

Ah! Finally! My unconsciously long-awaited idea to find a way to disburse my philosophical reflections into the great big world outside has finally been floated in my head and materialized...

Or should I say concretised? And 'world'? Is the internet a world? Well, then, perhaps we cannot conceive of the internet as a world without the people linked up to it-- past, present and future. To call the internet a world per se would be such a misnomer! But then, imagine a world in which God rules from the outside. Can we call that a world per se without conceiving of God along with it, especially if we think of the internet as a world and each of us as God. But wouldn't the difference be that the former has animate inhabitants and the latter doesn't?

However, a broader point can be made that intrinsic to the idea of the world is what sustains the order within it (even if it is intrinsic to it)-- which includes its origins, its persistence through time and its future. One of the implications of this idea can be that we cannot talk of a world without the humans involved in it.

If this is so, then even though in my previous context, the distinction between the inner and world might be valid (because of an important value laden distinction between the private and the public), we cannot postulate an ontological discontinuity between the inner and the outer. And perhaps the problem of the external world and other minds arises because the idea of the world that I am talking about is not respected.

Then one might ask, "What about the world outside, the objective world that exists whether we are dead or alive?" To that I might reply that one might simply rephrase that as a theory dependent entity (and yes, an entity nevertheless) that needs to exists if 'the world' is to be made possible, for we cannot conceive of the world without that too. My previous argument also implies that when we conceive of the world, we cannot conceive of it as being a world with the possibility that we might not have existed, but as a necessary world which which it cannot be otherwise that we do not exist, because our existence is linked up with that of the world's.

But what about free will? And does that mean that the future cannot be otherwise? But that forgets the fact that the world essentially includes beings with free will, and if beings with free will act, then it is necessary that there are possibilities and that it cannot be otherwise. Moreover, this necessity is given in the the concept of the world and need not be part of the nature of things, but of how we interpret the word 'world', because if the concept is used without it presupposing what I have mentioned, then it would disintegrate, shatter to pieces in conceptual space. Which takes us to the idea that the world cannot be naked, and that it must of necessity, wear pants...

Moving on, the name for the blog was at first thought in terms of more conventional philosophical rants, but it seems that if pants are involved, then we can think of philosophy as giving us support and preparation for one wonders what, but those things nevertheless...yes, and its time I got my pants dirty...