Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think your views expressed here assume that our existence ends at death.
Although I am a Christian, I'm not thinking of a particularly Christian worldview at this point. Suppose the Hindu version of reincarnation is true. Then it's not that we ever cease to exist, it's that we exist in more or less states of happiness or peace.
If that's the case, then morality is about achieving a greater experience of happiness or peace.
I'm just pointing out that everything you've said here would not sound out of place in some sort of sinister cult
And your final words are once again the problem, as you be surely should understand.
From my point of view, I can turn every provocative word or phrase you've used and say the same thing about your thinking.
What's the point of having a discussion from that basis?
Why "Agnostic" vs. "Atheist"?
My Christian worldview would say that we continue to exist after we die.What would your Christian worldview say?
As they are far rom my "final words," I'm araid I don't quite understand
My Christian worldview would say that we continue to exist after we die.
And that after death, we will face a judge in some way. So the wisest thing to do is to follow the instructions of that judge while living.
From a philosophical view, it doesn't make those actions right or wrong, but it's definitely the wisest approach imo.
Yes, that's right. I see no evidence that my life will continue after death. That's a direct contradiction. All the available evidence leads to the conclusion that I will cease to exist at my death. And, no, I don't consider the bible as evidence for anything other than some people a long time ago wrote a book. The Bible overtly affirms the primacy of consciousness, therefore it invalidates itself as a source of truth. Truth is the recognition of reality for what it is and not what we'd like it to be, therefore it rests exclusively on the primacy of existence principle.I think your views expressed here assume that our existence ends at death.
Although I am a Christian, I'm not thinking of a particularly Christian worldview at this point. Suppose the Hindu version of reincarnation is true. Then it's not that we ever cease to exist, it's that we exist in more or less states of happiness or peace.
If that's the case, then morality is about achieving a greater experience of happiness or peace.
Valuable to whom? This is the question. If my life has value to me, I seek to sustain it, then it has value. Nothing else is needed. There could be value in giving one's life in very special circumstances such as fighting for one's freedom. Life would not be worth living as a slave. A value worth risking one's life for would be one that life would not be worth living without.Is there nothing we might seek or need to dispose of that would also be of value for living? Is there any value in giving up one's own life for something or someone else? What is of ultimate value, even intrinsic value, and who or what defines it? Is it simply up to the individual mind and appetites? We're all going to die [physically]. What will have made our life valuable and why? What will we have gained or kept that will be of continued value to us?
Thanks for answering honestly.Yes, that's right. I see no evidence that my life will continue after death. That's a direct contradiction. All the available evidence leads to the conclusion that I will cease to exist at my death. And, no, I don't consider the bible as evidence for anything other than some people a long time ago wrote a book. The Bible overtly affirms the primacy of consciousness, therefore it invalidates itself as a source of truth. Truth is the recognition of reality for what it is and not what we'd like it to be, therefore it rests exclusively on the primacy of existence principle.
I discard all arbitrary notions such as the supernatural, life after death, gods, fairies, gremlins, etc.
if I have one limited shot at life, I want to do the best I can to live the best life possible to me, not fantasize about some life I might have after death. This is precisely why I need a proper moral code to guide me because I wasn't born knowing what was good for me or bad. I'm not like the other animals that act automatically to further their life. I have to choose my actions wisely and think long range. If we have eternity to live and we can't die then we have no need for morality.
don't mean to offend anyone but I believe in answering questions honestly.
I said that life after death is a contradiction. Death means the end of life. Humans are an integration of matter and consciousness. This is a fact. There's no evidence that consciousness and the body can be separated. A certain person once said that a body without consciousness is a corpse and a consciousness without a body is a ghost. Both are symbols of death. Consciousness is also biological in nature and when we die biology ceases. Consciousness requires a means, i.e., sense organs and a brain and nervous system. Without sense organs, there's no contact with reality, there's nothing to think about, remember, or feel emotions about. A consciousness with no means of being conscious is a contradiction.Thanks for answering honestly.
Consciousness or some form of existence after the physical body stops working is not a contradiction imo.
You can look around you and see that other people die. But you don't know what happens to their consciousness after that.
More importantly, you don't know if they experience consciousness the same way that you do. So even if their consciousness ceases when they die, it doesn't necessarily follow that your consciousness will cease.
Valuable to whom? This is the question. If my life has value to me, I seek to sustain it, then it has value. Nothing else is needed.
There could be value in giving one's life in very special circumstances such as fighting for one's freedom. Life would not be worth living as a slave. A value worth risking one's life for would be one that life would not be worth living without.
What is of ultimate value is life itself. It is an end in itself. I don't seek life as a means to some other end. I seek it for its own sake, because it is good. All other values serve this one purpose.
Yes, that's right. I see no evidence that my life will continue after death. That's a direct contradiction. All the available evidence leads to the conclusion that I will cease to exist at my death. And, no, I don't consider the bible as evidence for anything other than some people a long time ago wrote a book. The Bible overtly affirms the primacy of consciousness, therefore it invalidates itself as a source of truth. Truth is the recognition of reality for what it is and not what we'd like it to be, therefore it rests exclusively on the primacy of existence principle.
I discard all arbitrary notions such as the supernatural, life after death, gods, fairies, gremlins, etc.
if I have one limited shot at life, I want to do the best I can to live the best life possible to me, not fantasize about some life I might have after death. This is precisely why I need a proper moral code to guide me because I wasn't born knowing what was good for me or bad. I'm not like the other animals that act automatically to further their life. I have to choose my actions wisely and think long range. If we have eternity to live and we can't die then we have no need for morality.
If there is no evidence that consciousness and the body can be separated, neither is there evidence that they cannot be.I said that life after death is a contradiction. Death means the end of life. Humans are an integration of matter and consciousness. This is a fact. There's no evidence that consciousness and the body can be separated. A certain person once said that a body without consciousness is a corpse and a consciousness without a body is a ghost. Both are symbols of death. Consciousness is also biological in nature and when we die biology ceases. Consciousness requires a means, i.e., sense organs and a brain and nervous system. Without sense organs, there's no contact with reality, there's nothing to think about, remember, or feel emotions about. A consciousness with no means of being conscious is a contradiction.
The two claims seem to be contradictory. It would seem that the ultimate value is not merely life itself but only lives lived in at least freedom. True?Life would not be worth living as a slave. ... What is of ultimate value is life itself.
To your point, my understanding is that materialists cannot yet explain consciousness itself. As in real estate, the three most important attributes for scientists are location, location and location. Brain mapping studies have not yet shown the location in the brain that evidences certain kinds of consciousness.If there is no evidence that consciousness and the body can be separated, neither is there evidence that they cannot be.
Interesting!To your point, my understanding is that materialists cannot yet explain consciousness itself. As in real estate, the three most important attributes for scientists are location, location and location. Brain mapping studies have not yet shown the location in the brain that evidences certain kinds of consciousness.
NO, no, no. I do not determine what is of value, nature does that. It's my responsibility to discover it. No, no, no. I am not the determining factor of value, nature is. No, no, no. I can not do to others whatever I want to, not and be in compliance with the standard of value, which is man's life and its requirements. No, I'm not the Happy Subjectivist because I reject the claim that underlies subjectivism, i.e., the primacy of consciousness. I reject it on the grounds that it isn't true. It doesn't correspond to reality.Yes, that is an important question. It sounds like you are fully self-oriented, so value by definition for you must be whatever you determine it to be. And since you are free to determine to accept a certain quality of life or another and to affect others however you choose, then again, you are the determining factor of value according only to you as to what is needed and what is not. In this case wouldn't it be more appropriate to refer to you as the happy subjectivist vs. objectivist.
I do this all the time. Its called rational trading. I give up my money for things that I want more than the money and the person I buy from gives up his goods because they are worth less to him than the money I am giving. I give up my time. I give up my food, my sleep, but never for something of lesser value as dictated by my needs as a living organism which are not a matter of opinion or personal preference.You said, "By value, I mean anything that we act to gain or keep for the purpose of living." My question was, "Is there nothing we might seek or need to dispose of that would also be of value for living? Have you ever found yourself disposing of something in order to gain something better? By "something," I am not speaking just materially.
Again, self-orientation. Would you give your life to protect the life of your wife or children(?) or??? What would be the greater value of your life, to save yourself or another?
Defined by myself by an objective method and standard. Do you understand how concepts are defined objectively?"Good" again as defined by yourself. What do you mean by "values"? Are you speaking only of materially valuable to your physical existence, or are you including such immaterial things as ethics in the word?
No, materialists deny the axiom of consciousness. I hold it as one of my founding principles. Wrong again.Of course, you don't. Your view is materialism to the core and is not unique.
Do your own homework. It's not my problem that you are ignorant of such basic issues as primacy. You want to tell me that I'm a materialist and a subjectivist, which is a contradiction in terms by the way, and you don't even understand what these terms mean. Not if you don't understand the issue of primacy. Because it is the base of objectivism vs. subjectivism. Of course you've just affirmed the primacy of existence when you said that "truth may rest on the primacy of existence, but not existence as you know or believe it to be. Of course existence, everything that exists, exists independent of my knowledge or beliefs about it.Please explain what you mean by "affirms the primacy of consciousness." Apart from explanation, your logic escapes me. Truth is truth and does not depend on human recognition. That would include you. Otherwise, there would be no truth apart from what you recognize & understand. Truth may rest on the primacy of existence, but not existence as you know or believe it to be.
No inquisitiveness? What it's all for is my life and my happiness. That's my primary focus as it should be yours, but it's not my only focus. Again, I am not a materialist. Not in any way. Consciousness, reasoning, logic, thoughts, these things are not made of matter and I recognize this so please don't tell me what I believe.You are consistent. Again, self-oriented. And now self-limiting. No sense of anything beyond physical existence even though the non-material part of you, your thoughts, reasonings, use of logic, etc., must be clear to you. No inquisitiveness whatsoever as to what this is all about, what else there might be, how a short time drawing breath only becomes nothing thereafter and how that brief experience makes any sense or was of value to you or anyone else?
One proper to a rational being. A full, thriving, flourishing, potential reaching life. Happiness.What, if I may ask, does the best possible life for you look like?
What offends me is when people tell me I'm a materialist and a subjectivist as if I don't know what I am and what ideas I hold.You closed out your post to Leaf473 by saying you don't mean to offend anybody. I'm putting the same sentiment back to you right here before I proceed.
GDL, why are you making this about me. The thread is about the metaphysical facts which give rise to the need for the concept "morality". Morality is not a primary. It rests on more fundamental knowledge. That's what this thread is about. Not whether or not I'd give my life up or what I think is a proper moral code. I've simply tried to introduce you to a powerful method of thinking that you might not be aware of, one that has helped me greatly in life and one that I think others could benefit from. If you don't consider it of value, that's fine. I'm doing this because I think it will help others, no other reason. If I were what you want to think I am, a selfish person who doesn't care about anybody but myself then why would I do this. I am selfish, but not in the way you mean.Honestly, I'm a bit astounded at what you think morality is for. But after reading all of the self-oriented things you've written I should not be astounded. Are you saying that morality and ethics are just for you so you can have the best life for yourself? This may make sense, but you'd have to explain it, so I'm not left to project into it.
Also, what is a "proper moral code" - who devises it? Where does it come from? What makes it proper? You use words like "good" and "proper," but what makes them such? What is "wisdom" for you?
I don't know how old you are but at some point, you may come to understand why there are sayings about how quickly this life goes by. Long term seems to be a matter of some decades to you, since it seems to be all about you. What am I missing or misunderstanding here?
What you think is so diametrically opposed to what I think, that I share with many, many others. We need morality precisely because there is an eternity. Honestly, I can't see why you need it at all. At least tell me that you need it because your life is better when you act morally towards other people. And, if you do tell me that, then please explain why you think that is?
Not at all. By life I mean the life proper to a rational being. A rational being needs freedom in order to operate. A slave is not free. He can not act on his judgment for his own sake if he's held captive.The two claims seem to be contradictory. It would seem that the ultimate value is not merely life itself but only lives lived in at least freedom. True?
There are degrees of slavery. One can be a slave to the will of another or even to their own passions. Using reason, morality attempts to identify and regulate those passions which are disordered and do not lead us to a life well lived.
I agree that freedom is a qualifier for the life worth living. However, some whose passion for security moves them to attempt to escape from their innate freedom. A moral code that made more than life itself as the only good to be pursued could benefit them.
Beyond freedom, are there not other innate goods that we desire that lead us to the good life, a life well lived? We also have an innate (natural) desire for truth and justice. For the Christian, seeking Goodness in itself is the basis for all morality.
Hear hear -- because I have yet to meet a deity who's been consistent regarding such instruction...they all seem pretty flighty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?