A question for everyone

[The happy Objectivist]

I think you might like the word tautology.

Yes, and all truths are fundamentally tautologies. E=MC squared is a tautology. 2+2=4 is a tautology. All truths reduce to a thing is some aspect of what it is or A is A.

 

[Leaf473]

Yes, and all truths are fundamentally tautologies. E=MC squared is a tautology. 2+2=4 is a tautology. All truths reduce to a thing is some aspect of what it is or A is A.

Do you think tautologies can be reduced?

 

[Leaf473]

A primary is a fact that is irreducible. It is not dependent on other facts. It is something known directly from perceiving reality and not the product of an inference. When I open my eyes the first thing I'm aware of is that things exist. This is a primary. In grasping that things exist I also grasp that I do and that I'm conscious. That's a primary. Morality is not a primary. It's a higher-level abstraction.

"When I open my eyes the first thing I'm aware of is that things exist."

Well, that's where we differ. I think I am aware that I perceive that things exist, but that perception could be wrong. I could be dreaming.

But whether I am dreaming or not, I can experience pleasure and pain. That is the base, imo.

I wake up in the morning and experience the pain of hunger. I go to the refrigerator. I take the action of preparing food because I have memories that these actions will reduce the pain of hunger (those memories may or may not be real, it doesn't matter).

So it is with my morality, a set of guiding principles for my behavior. As a Christian, I believe that there is a system of rewards after death. I live in such a way as to increase pleasure and reduce pain both in this life and the life to come.

If I were a non-religious person, the approach would be the same but without the life-after-death part.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, and all truths are fundamentally tautologies. E=MC squared is a tautology. 2+2=4 is a tautology. All truths reduce to a thing is some aspect of what it is or A is A.

It is not at all tautological to say "there is a rock in my front yard."

ETA: A tautology is something that is trivially true. Not all identities are tautologies. A heck of lot of work went into E = mc². Nothing trivial about it.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Do you think tautologies can be reduced?

Only to the axioms. No further.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

It is not at all tautological to say "there is a rock in my front yard."

ETA: A tautology is something that is trivially true. Not all identities are tautologies. A heck of lot of work went into E = mc². Nothing trivial about it.

If that's the case then existence exists is not a tautology either Saying that Energy=Mass is no different than saying exist=real. E=MC squared is the same thing as saying that energy is some aspect of what energy is, i.e. mass times the speed of light squared. And a trivial truth is still true and therefore any statement identifying this truth has meaning. Whether you think that meaning is trivial or not is irrelevant.

 

[durangodawood]

But that's not what I said. I said existence exists. I didn't say exist=exist. Look, If I say that a tree exists is that saying nothing? Exist=Exist is not a statement of the form all S is P. When I say that trees exist, I'm saying that all trees exist. That is the same thing as saying that all trees that exist are real. This distinguishes them from things that are not. Is it not important in your worldview to make a distinction between what's real and what isn't? Because that would explain a lot of our interactions on this forum.

Here's the whole sentence of yours I was referring back to, where you summarize your basic assertion in bold:

So it's wildly unreasonable to say that existence, all the things which exist, actually exist[?]

To which I answer, its neither reasonable nor unreasonable because its says nothing.

....Look, If I say that a tree exists is that saying nothing?....

Whats the alternative? If there is no conceivable alternative then you are indeed saying nothing.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

It is not at all tautological to say "there is a rock in my front yard."

ETA: A tautology is something that is trivially true. Not all identities are tautologies. A heck of lot of work went into E = mc². Nothing trivial about it.

And, Tinker Grey, all that heck of a lot of work began with the recognition that energy exists which means that energy is something as opposed to nothing. It may be trivially true but Einstein could not have done that work without first making this recognition. The trivially true statement that existence exists means that everything that exists, including energy and mass, exists, is something, is real. but apparently this means nothing.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Here's the whole sentence of yours I was referring back to, where you summarize your basic assertion in bold:

To which I answer, its neither reasonable nor unreasonable because its says nothing.


Whats the alternative? If there is no conceivable alternative then you are indeed saying nothing.

Does the statement that trees exist say nothing?

 

[Tinker Grey]

And, Tinker Grey, all that heck of a lot of work began with the recognition that energy exists which means that energy is something as opposed to nothing. It may be trivially true but Einstein could not have done that work without first making this recognition. The trivially true statement that existence exists means that everything that exists, including energy and mass, exists, is something, is real. but apparently this means nothing.

Two things:
1) Definition of TAUTOLOGY
2) "but apparently this means nothing" ← don't put words in people mouths.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Two things:

1. Definition of TAUTOLOGY"but apparently this means nothing" ← don't put words in people mouths.

I was referring to Durangodawood's statement.

Is it true that existence exists?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I was referring to Durangodawood's statement.

Is it true that existence exists?

Are there things that are real? Yes. The collection of things that are is called reality. Does existence exist? I'll side with Aristotle, Hume, Frege, Kant, and Russel: No.

From the link: Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

There is a long and distinguished line of philosophers, including David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottlob Frege, and Bertrand Russell, who followed Aristotle in denying that existence is a separate property of individuals, even as they rejected other aspects of Aristotle’s views. Hume argued (in A Treatise of Human Nature 1.2.6) that there is no impression of existence distinct from the impression of an object, which is ultimately on Hume’s view a bundle of qualities. As all of our contentful ideas derive from impressions, Hume concluded that existence is not a separate property of an object. Kant’s criticism of the ontological arguments for the existence of God rested on a rejection of the claim that existence is a property of an object.​

Emphasis added.

Naturally, there are other distinguished philosophers that would disagree. But the above position makes sense to me.

 

[durangodawood]

Does the statement that trees exist say nothing?

I can imagine some alternatives in which trees are projections of our imagination. Or that we live in a simulation in which trees are immaterial but just appear solid.

So its something to say they are out there apart from us. Its not saying much tho. It simply restates our normally rock solid intuition that material objects dont go away when we arent looking at them. Its just as well left unsaid.

But its really nothing to say that "existence exists", or "things that exist exist".

 

[Leaf473]

Only to the axioms. No further.

In your mind, is anything axiomatic other than existence and identity?

############
Edit: And, assuming identity is axiomatic, would you include the attributes of a thing as part of the identity of that thing?

 

[honestal]

Maybe you should concentrate on what we are talking about in general rather than introducing individual hypotheticals which do nothing to advance the conversation. There will always be a 'Little Johnny' story which will counter any position one takes. Pick any position at all on any subject you like and I will give you an example which refutes it. Will that mean that I have countered your position? Of course not.

Exceptions are exactly what it says on the box. Exceptions to the rule.

The reason I brought up both of those examples was simply to try to make the point there is such a thing as truth--regardless of what we may believe or feel. (Wasn't the point about gravity equally off the subject, yet interestingly, you only found fault with the little Johnny point, not the gravity point.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

If that's the case then existence exists is not a tautology either Saying that Energy=Mass is no different than saying exist=real. E=MC squared is the same thing as saying that energy is some aspect of what energy is, i.e. mass times the speed of light squared. And a trivial truth is still true and therefore any statement identifying this truth has meaning. Whether you think that meaning is trivial or not is irrelevant.

It is *not* a triviality like a tautology. Mass-energy equivalence changed the way we (physics) think about conservation realizing only afterward that mass and energy conservation were *not* separate things.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hmmmm...this certainly is food for thought. What's the relationship/difference between reasoned behavior, conditioned behavior, intuitive behavior, and instinctive behavior.

Not sure, I'll have to ponder it for a while.

Behavior has a usable formula B=MAP

An "Action" is the result of Motivation and Ability. These are triggered by a Prompt.
Both M and A are variable but must be sufficient to cross the "Action" threshold.

What you covered included "conditioned" behavior, or practiced behavior.
The more practice, the easier or increased "Ability". "Instinctive" and "intuitive" behavior might also be from practice.

But "reasoned" behavior is likely Motivation.

The Prompt is what triggers the potential behavior.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm defining morality as a set of principles to guide one's actions in the pursuit of a good life. Why do we need such a concept in the first place?

With the two of us in one room, survival is the why.
It it better for just one or two of us to remain alive?

Some say one. Some say two.

 

[Pommer]

Absurd means wildly unreasonable. So it's wildly unreasonable to say that existence, all the things which exist, actually exist. This is unreasonable? It's not comprehensible to you that you exist and that you are not a ham sandwich or a yoga mat but a man. You seem to be spinning off into absurdity Why can't you just acknowledge that man exists and he has an identity? This is self-evident and it seems so silly to argue over it. You can comprehend abstractions like realm, strictly, rediculous, and loaded but you can't comprehend that existence exists?

Read more Camus.
Absurdism, philosophically speaking, assumes that there is no “reason” that cognitive man exists, merely recognizing that we do. All else flows from that.

From the OP:
“I'd like to ask everyone what facts of reality give rise to the need for morality.”

“Morality” here is carrying some positive baggage that it doesn’t necessarily contain within itself.

There have been times in Christianity when “the moral” thing to do was to put heretics to death.
(I’m not using this as an indictment of the faith, just illustrating a point.)

There are moralities that guide subsets of humanity too, that are repulsive to the rest of us, the concept of omertà, “mob morality” where the traitor (rat) faces death for suddenly spilling the beans to state actors.

“Morality” then, is the underlying principles that enable people to justify a given action.
One’s personal morality can be adopted, (Biblical, Koranic morality), or one can fashion a morality as one goes about one’s life, even after-the-fact, to assuage one’s own conscience and give a peace from anxiety.

 

[GDL]

“Morality” then, is the underlying principles that enable people to justify a given action

When one begins with examples of erroneous interpretations of what morality is, it's quite easy to arrive at this conclusion.

Morality and ethics are the absolute standards that specify what thoughts and behaviors are righteous and just.

Human interpretations of them may be correct or erroneous and are more often and widely the latter. And, as you say, people can develop their own morality and ethics, but these too can be correct or erroneous when compared correctly to the absolute standards of morality.