Vibr8gKiwi

Why does something have to be infinite to have meaning? Is this moment and everyone in it not the tiniest bit important?

This thread is simply unbelievable and incredibly sad. That someone would suggest self-delusion is the way to go simply because of their own fear of death and self-loathing of their finite nature. Essentially I'm seeing an argument that you can imagine your own reality if you don't like how things really are. Isn't this some sort of textbook mental illness?

I'm sorry your parents raised you to believe you were immortal and set your expectations for "meaning" (and everything else) too high. But you're a finite being, you're going to die and everyone you know is going to die--deal with it. Inventing alternative realities and wishing they were real doesn't make them reality. You just spend a lot of energy convincing and reconvincing yourself of a delusion. Wouldn't it be better to accept what you are and be happy in reality?

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]</p>

Tercel

Are you going to answer my questions to you?

Tercel

And I have never understood how anyone could not-understand it.

I said that pretending to yourself that there was no problem with your beliefs when there really is, is self deception.
Assuming the truth of an unprovable proposition is not self deception. Try proving the world exists and that we're not in a Matrix-like world for example! You can't prove it, yet you still live your life based on the assumption that the world really exists. Is that self deception? Why should then living your life based on the assumption that god exists be self deception?

Yet I have an answer which solves the existential crises completely, and allows me to be consistent in the application of my beliefs.

Perhaps, I don't know. I certainly find it a useful thing to remind myself of whenever I feel my belief is running low.

Tercel

And what is wrong with imagining your own reality exactly? After all, you do exactly the same thing.

Perhaps you'd like to take up my "Matrix Challenge" and prove that the world actually exists and isn't an illusion of your own mind, or an extremely good Virtual Reality system?
Go on: Not only would you prove me wrong, but your name would go down as one of the greatest philosophers ever! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

But of course you can't prove it. Not only can you not prove it, you can't even present the tiniest bit of evidence whatsoever for your hypothesis. Yet you still find it convenient to believe the world actually exists in its own right and isn't an illusion. Who's imagining their own reality now?

I doubt you'd find "being normal" in the list of textbook mental illness...



I do - by believing it's not true.
I simply don't see how anyone could really and truly sensibly live out the logical consequences of such a view. The person I think who has come closest to ever suceeding was Nietzsche. He went mad, and frankly I'm not suprised.
The void of nothingness, absurdity and meaninglessness is not something that goes away just by "dealing with it".

Agreed. However it is clearly greatly advantagous to believe they are true. Similar to how you find it greatly advantagous to believe the world truly exists...

I might say the same of you.

Happy is good. But being happy and being consistent in your beliefs is better! I get both. You get only the "happy" at the price of being inconsistent in the application of your beliefs, and even so you get potentially less happiness than me since you don't have the oft-useful crutch of religion.

Typhon

Tercel,

I heartily disagree with you, on many points.

On Moral Standards

First, let me introduce some basic statement and expectation pairs.

Statement #1: All general moral standards are the product of human behavior, which is determined by our evolution as a social species.

Expectation #1: If this was true, we would expect to see a general thread of shared moral standards in the form of behavior not only in the human species, but in other, social animals. We should be able to trace this behavior to both evolutionary processes as well as survival characteristics. We do.

Statement #2: Local or specific moral standards arise from the general, as modified by the diversity of individuals and specific cultures, which contain not only naturally occurring variation, but portions which are specific to local problems, environments, and concerns.

Expectation #2: If this was true, we would expect to see local diversity and change to moral standards over time in and from locality (or culture) to locality. We expect to see different cultures establish different solutions, to similar social problems, with variable degrees of success. We do.

Statement #3: Absolute moral standards that are universally and always correct for everyone, which are created and/or determined by an outside, non-species source, and are ideally applicable everywhere, in all localities and all times, do not exist.

Expectation #3: If this was true, we would not see a single, unified, ideal code of human behavior, which was always followed, universally, extant in the world. We do not.

On Existential Crisis

Next, let me address the topic of a naturalist world view, in which morality and ultimately meaning, is entirely derived from a naturalist world, producing by necessity, an existential crisis.

I do not hold that this is true, or at least, not necessary, and is a product of a flawed or biased understanding of the issue of existence and nonexistence.

The natural world exists and is not diminished in either beauty, complexity, value, or function, by a lack of supernatural purpose. Life exists as far as we can tell, because it does just that, exists. If it did not exist, we would be here to even have this conversation.

In time, it is possible and likely, that our species will become extinct. We have ample evidence from the fossil record that life is a relatively recent phenomena, at least locally, and that many other species have pre-dated us, a high number of which who are no longer extant.

Life may exist elsewhere, or not. Probability would suggest it does, but this does not mean that it does, absolutely. Life may continue to exist after the extinction of the human species, or not, dependent upon conditions here on Earth and elsewhere in the universe.

Conditions are almost certain to eventually make all life as we know it, unsupportable both locally, and in the universe as a whole. These conditions, which are expected, but not assured, are liable to occur at some point, far, far, far down the timestream compared to our current place, relative to the start of the universe, and relative to our local awareness of life.

At one point in that timestream, life did not exist, we as a species did not exist. So we neither have always existed, nor will we likely always exist. Again, none of this, by definition or necessity, diminishes the fact that here and now, we do exist, that life exists, and that life, being life, seeks to exist for that, and that sole purpose.

Personally, I take great comfort in this aspect of life and being. On a philosophical level, let me poise the question whether or not the fact that you will never experience the same exact sunset (by natural means, unrecorded), diminishes the beauty of that sunset, and by necessity, need detract from your enjoyment of that phenomena.

I am neither dismayed nor disillusioned by the observable and natural fact that at some point in the history of the universe, I did not exist, and that at some point, in the foreseeable future, I will cease to exist. If anything, this makes my incredibly brief moment of existence in the overall timestream, all the more precious and enjoyable. I neither need immortality, nor I think, truly desire it.

To use an example: The rule of much of Britain by the Saxons was not an event of infinite duration. The Saxons did not always previously rule Britain, and they did not rule Britain forever afterwards. This does not make the study of their the time on the island either meaningless or void of pleasure. It certainly didn't make it meaningless for the Saxons.

The same I hold is true for life and its (almost) certain conceivable terminus. It matters little to me that it is not in the name of some higher purpose or that it is mortal. I still find it valuable to me, and worth living. I find this to be true, even though I know in part, this is because if I, and in a larger sense, life, had not evolved this survival instinct and enjoyment thereof of simply being, I, and life, would not be here today. I am, I suppose true to the only purpose I might be said to have at base, as a dutiful representative of life. As I possess awareness greater than that of many other types of life, I have greater selective control over my own experience of life, including the ability to end it, if for example, I had no interest in further living. However, I am both reasonably happy with life and comfortable with life's only apparent purpose, which is to exist and perhaps in the case of reproductive life, spread. In the interest of both enjoying my life and balancing my personal comfort with life's relentless drive, I intend to have some offspring, live as long and comfortably as I can, and invest sufficient resources to see that my immediate descendents, hopefully survive and have enjoyable, reproductive lives, if they so desire.

Your belief is immaterial here. By all objective standards, this is what appears to be true. It is natural for human beings, especially ones who have not the means or the ability to think carefully or enjoy honestly a finite existence, to seek refuge in non-rational and even self-delusionary thinking. Life fears and is hard wired to avoid its terminus, and so in a species as capable of abstract thought as ourselves, some individuals are more comforted (and as studies do show, can even suffer less stress, and hence increase their chances of survival) by believing in an irrational lie (that they will live forever, that death is meaningful, rather than simply inevitable, and that the ego continues after death). Evolutionary theory and the structure of your own brain does show that religion and gods are part of our naturalistic world, but only in the sense that they are the clear creation of human thought and need, not the reverse. Religion and the gods are not solely linked to our fear of death and desire for immortality, but this one of several, strong physiological factors that give rise to this kind of thinking.

Here, you are demonstratively wrong. I have being living quite happily and sensibly with the full knowledge of those exact logical consequences now for over fifteen years. I see no reason why I am going to be driven mad by this, now or ever.

I also disagree that life is without meaning. It is locally meaningful to me. I enjoy my physical comforts, the company of my fellow species, the beauty and natural diversity of the world and life around me, the process of my mind, the physical reality of my body, and even the pursuit of intellectual philosophies and goals. That life and the universe are apparently devoid of human meaning on an infinite, grand scale, doesn't make me feel empty or pointless at all. If anything, it is comforting and beautiful, just as are the random collection of colorful leaves that carpet my yard each year in autumn. They are burned or mulched, and their carbon and other elements are re-released into the biosphere. One day the sun will recycle earth, and the black hole in the center of the galaxy may in turn consume the sun. What does that matter to me? As existence is only preferable to non-existence as far as I'm concerned, because I exist, nonexistence may be just as preferable a state for the universe when existence is over.

"dealing with it" is not an issue for me, understanding it and accepting it in my experience, is what leads to true happiness and objectivity about the world. Likewise, I need not invent or invest in any shielding lies about the nature of things.

In this frame of mind, I need pass no judgment on which state is "better," existence or nonexistence. I have good reason to expect that I have and will experience both, and happily accept this as both a prerequisite and the inevitable outcome of my current status of existing.

.T.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Vibr8gKiwi

Originally posted by Tercel:
Ummm, I'm not very interested in going very far down this road. It's clear that the reality I "imagine" is literally sensible--that is it is supported by what I sense (and what other people also sense and that we sense similar things). The reality that you imagine starts in the reality that I experience and then literally imagines on top of that. Your reality is a factor more "imagined" than mine (even if we could agree mine were imagined). These are not even remotely similar assumptions we hold, yet you try to portray them as they are.

This is actually a trivial challenge as long as I simply have to get YOU to agree I have provided enough evidence that the world actually exists and isn't an illusion.

To fulfill such a challenge I will simply hit you repeatedly with a 2x4 until you've agree I have provided enough evidence. It shouldn't take very long.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most people I know (except for the religious ones) see things similar to me and have no problems with it. I think you could be projecting your own troubles dealing with death onto others. To someone that has no problem having a finite life (afterall, practically everything I know is finite), your arguments and dreams of immortality sound ridiculous.

I don't think it's Nietzsche that's the mad one here...

I don't know what you're talking about. I just live my life and see things as they appear. I don't have to imagine things are different than they appear (as you apparently do). Remember, you are the one imagining at least a factor more than me (if I'm imagining at all, and it sure doesn't feel like it--this 2x4 feels pretty real...).

As an aside I frankly don't think you believe all this. I think it's just a wordy ploy to try to get some kind of support to your imaginary belief system in an online discussion. I have no doubt that you know this world is real in a practical sense--you would duck my 2x4. And when you do duck, you prove your position is merely "online discussion fluff" that is not worth the bother.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]</p>

Technos

No arguments with anything I typed eh Tercel? I guess it's all good if the day doesn't end in conflict.

Vorkosigan

Are you going to answer my questions to you?

I already did. I told you they were wrong. Now quit dodging the question, and trundle out your "objective morality."

Vorkosigan

Jobar

Gentlemen, gentlemen! "Argumentum ad 2X4" is a well known fallacy!

Although of course, it is often met with another fallacious argument- "argumentum ad .44Magnum"... so let us avoid that progression, hmm?

Tercel

You are assuming that other people actually exist. Why? (They could be figments of your imagination, they could be computer generated virtual reality etc)

Why are you justified in believing your senses? How can you prove their accuracy? (Without a circular appeal to your senses to do so please)

Sorry, but empirical philosophy simply has a gaping hole in the bottom of its boat: It simply assumes that we are somehow "justified" in trusting our senses without having the ability to provide any justification as to why it is justified in making that assumption and not others.

Sheesh, people here claim that Christian Presuppositionalism (ie assuming the Bible to be the Word of God and Christianity to be true) is bad (and I would agree with them), yet they make there own equally unjustified presuppositions with their absurd empiricist philosophy!

Obviously if I'm so blatently wrong you'll be able to show why.
Go ahead: Show why you think assuming the accuracy of your senses is justified, I'm all ears.

I can justify believing in my senses. But since my proof also justifies believing in a deity and you seem to be taking issue to my "imagining things" here, I assume you're not willing to accept my solution!

Nope. I could beat you repeatedly too, but it wouldn't prove anything. I said "prove" it, not beat me up!

Okay, so sometimes I do play devil's advocate and argue things I don't strictly believe. However, since I have yet to receive a sensible response to this line of argument and it seems like a reasonable argument to me, I am very inclined to believe it.

[quot]I have no doubt that you know this world is real in a practical sense--you would duck my 2x4.[/quote]I believe this world is real in a practical sense--I would duck your 2x4. -It's only prudent.
Yet it's my policy of prudence that is exactly the one you are taking issue with. (Since you don't seem to think prudence is sufficient to warrent assumptions of existents)

Another poster who's ducking the challenge. Why does no one seem to think an analysis of their most basic beliefs is "worth the bother". Surely any open-minded and intellectually honest person would want to make sure that their most basic beliefs were as coherent, logic and sensible as possible? That's why I find the topic interesting!