Argument from truth

[Sapiens]

There's that should again, isn't it? The world should be different, you say. Based on what?

What if you turn it on its head and imagine that the universe is completely purposeless and that human life has no objective meaning. Earth is a tiny planet that will eventually be swallowed by the Sun and everything will be gone. Yet in this cold and empty universe, there are people full of love and meaning and compassion. I mean, how wonderful is that? There's no point or plan to any of this, but here we are, making art, making love, making friends. We're nothing but animals, but still we've gotten extreme poverty to a record low, there are fewer people dying in wars, we live longer and healthier than ever before. Yes, there is war and sickness. And there are millions of people who give their lives to stop wars, trying to make amends, feeding the hungry and healing the sick.

If your idea is that Earth should be heaven, no wonder you're disappointed. But if you take the opposite perspective, the one without a grand plan and a mysterious God, the world starts looking like a pretty amazing place. What could be better than creating meaning in a meaningless universe?

I think it's glorious. What a wonderful thing to pursue happiness for yourself and others in the face of eventual extintion!

The good you do creates ripples that will last as long as there are people. You won't care when you're gone, but future generations will. Just like we today care about and appreciate what people like Martin Luther King did, even if it doesn't matter to him anymore.

That's when you know you have good morals, though, when you do something because it's right and not to get a reward.

P=paragraph

P1. I don't think I used the word "should" in this post you quote. Maybe you're saying it's implicit? I said why we know the world is wicked. And honestly, if you don't know it, it's about time you do! If you think the world is perfect as it is, then we are deeply disagreeing.

P2. How wonderful is that? Well, it isn't. It's nothing really. It's literally *meaningless*, illusory. No offense, but are you seriously believing that?

Why is it good that humanity solves problems like war, illnesses, poverty? There is no objective purpose or value in human life! By your own admission! It literally doesn't matter at all!

I really wonder how you can convince yourself of this stuff. We are just deluded if we believe all these things hold any significance. Since we are nothing, objectively. Why shouldn't we kill everyone instead?

So is there or is there not objective value and purpose to human life? You can't have it both ways.

P3. I guess you have nothing against evil and suffering then. Don't ever pull that objection to theism on me then. Because I'll just ignore you.

What I was saying, is that we know the world ought to be better. If you don't, then I will believe one of two things concerning you: 1, you're a liar. 2, You're not living on the same planet as me. Christian theism offers that perfect world in the upcoming fulfillment of our Lord Jesus Christ's promises. Be ready for that day. Judgment's coming before that. Any deed violating the perfect law of God will be judged. I'm glad I was forgiven!

What would be better is finding meaning in a meaningful universe. I'm glad I did!

You think wars, illnesses, and all other manner of evil and suffering in this world is beautiful and amazing? Gee, what are you on? Give me some right away! I see both beauty and ugly, good and evil in this world. It has to be explained. It isn't just imaginary (except to you maybe). What you get is a bunch random atomic bondings who kid themselves into believing they are something and worth something. Yeah, pretty. Pretty dumb! Haha. That's what I'd say.

P4. It is vain yes.

P5 & P6. The point is that it's ultimately inconsequential. Those people are nothing anyways. Why should we care about them? We exist now, we should rather care about that, no? It won't have mattered in the end what we did.

Wait, you think there are right things to do without God and in this pessimistic worldview you hold? I'll have to include you in our future conversation on the moral argument with Morel Orel.

P6. I knew someone would get me on my lack of clarity. The point I am making here is inconsequentialism. I don't mean to say that we shouldn't do actions because they are right, just that consequentialism should be included in our ethical worldview. But admitting a set of actions is right is brutally violating everything else you affirmed. I would evaluate the consistency of that, if I were you.

(Pssst, a hint! Reject naturalism and nihilism!)

 

[holo]

"Should" is the way things should be. But I meant it in the sense "just do whatever you want, it doesn't matter anyways what you do, might as well want what you do."

Once you realize the constraints of reality and morality are illusory, nothing stops you from living and seeing life as whatever you please.

Our understanding of reality will always be incomplete, and it's useful to r realize that everything we experience is in a sense illusory. We never see reality as it truly is, it's always interpreted. That scary snake in the dark backyard may be only a garden hose. We can't freely choose how to see life, but we can investigate how we do it, and as a result our view may change. When we pause, we become freer to act rather than mindlessly react.

We all do whatever we want to do. But sometimes we have more than one desire at any given time. The strongest desire wins.

The fact that I think there's no such thing as objective morality doesn't mean I'm immoral. I couldn't stop thinking that things are right and wrong even if I wanted to. It's just that I believe there's no morality that sort of floats around out there, existing independently of the human mind.

 

[holo]

I honestly don't see how you and the others see that as beautiful and much less as awesome. And I've heard that before, from my stepmother whom I respect a lot. I find it deeply saddening. I would feel horrible to realise my existence has no point to it. I don't even know how you can make one up for yourself after that realisation.

I can see why it seems saddening. It used to bother me too until I let go of the idea there there HAS to be an objective purpose.

I can't make up a purpose, but just like with morality, I found that even without faith in a god, the sense of purpose is still there. There are lots of things that give my life meaning. The meaning will be there, people are just afraid it'll disappear if they can't point to a supernatural source for it.

I don't see why you say it's hidden. I know what my purpose is. I've even shared it in this thread. To love our neighbor as ourselves should be at least the one we deduce, and to love our creator should be the other. That some disagree on what it is and to say there is none are two very distinct things. Disagreement does not prove one party isn't right.

Of course, but I would assume that if there were some sort of objective purpose (like everybody being saved) it's mighty strange that it's not at all obvious to everybody what it is. Instead, we have all sorts of religions and philosophies.

I wonder why you find it tragic, after all you just said. There is no purpose to deviate from. Human life has no more value than that of a rock or a mosquito.

What I find tragic is if there IS some ultimate purpose, because in that case the fact is that almost all of us are missing it.

 

[holo]

Moreover, why couldn't we do that with reality as a whole? Is there really a right way to see things? My answer thus far has been no and it continues to be. If there is no "ought", then there is no truth. Just believe whatever you believe. No point in correcting anything or in seeking a better point of view. There really is none.

I don't know what the ultimate "right" way to see things is. I mean, is it more right to see the world in light of what we know about quantum physics, rather than the older theories?

But it appears self evident to me that there are wise and unwise, or helpful and unhelpful ways of seeing things. For instance, the more I realize that everybody is just as human as I am, the more positive my relation to, and impact on, the world seems to be. The better I understand myself and others, the more wisely I can react to things. Simple things like understanding that my kid didn't break something because he's a brat, but because someone upset him.

I'm not sure what you mean by if there's no ought there's no truth. The truth is what it is. We can know it in degrees. IME the constant nagging of should only gets in the way of dealing with what IS. I'm not saying I don't try to make things better, but the idea that things should be like this or that only frustrates me.

I'm not the best at articulating these ideas and I know they can sound crazy, so I hope you'll give the benefit of doubt and ask me to clarify what I mean so I don't come across as some immoral nihilist or something

 

[holo]

What if 1% only knows it. Is it less real? If not, you should look at which worldview makes the most sense. I personally have 2 criterion: 1. Grounded in reality as can be evidenced by research with all means available. 2. Internally consistent. If there is a correct way to view reality, then we should seek that way. To me seeking what is good and what is true are 2 fundamental purposes of life.

If only a few know it doesn't make it less true, but it makes it seem less likely that someone (God) intended for everybody to know about it.

I see you and I basically have the same purpose in life, knowing truth and seeking good. I'm no longer convinced of the Christian worldview, but the things I'm learning from (secular) Buddhism seem to be true, self evident even. It seems like Stoicism also teaches true and useful things, but I'm haven't studied it much yet.

That we cannot properly discern and attain the 2 is evidence we have a problem. A situation which Christianity addresses and for which it provides the solution. Sin and salvation. We are crazy and evil. (Essentially) haha

Well I don't believe in sin anymore, and I don't see sufficient reasons to believe in salvation as something metaphysical. But there is definitely freedom and peace to be had in this lifetime, which is the only time I know to be real.

 

[holo]

I don't think I used the word "should" in this post you quote. Maybe you're saying it's implicit? I said why we know the world is wicked. And honestly, if you don't know it, it's about time you do! If you think the world is perfect as it is, then we are deeply disagreeing.

Yes I meant it was implicit.
When you say that world isn't perfect, the question is what would be perfect. Do you mean like heaven? Will the world ever become prefect?

There's a koan: everything is perfect and everything can get better. What that means, I think, is that everything is perfect in the sense that it couldn't have been any better. Since everything that exists now is the direct result of everything that has happened before, it couldn't have been "better" than it is. For today to have been different, yesterday would've had to have been something it wasn't. It's pointless to say the past should've been different, it doesn't get us anywhere useful. So it is perfect in the sense that it couldn't have been better. But we can still make tomorrow better than today. See what I mean?

Not sure I'm wording things in an intelligible manner, I slept like 1 hours last night. But again, that's perfect

How wonderful is that? Well, it isn't. It's nothing really. It's literally *meaningless*, illusory. No offense, but are you seriously believing that?

I don't believe there's some "ultimate" or "objective" meaning to or existence, no. That's just our grand egos trying to take up a lot of space in the universe. Nothing will matter when the universe collapses on itself, but lots of things matter to us, today, and I think that's a beautiful thing. Like finding a pretty flower in a mud puddle.

I really wonder how you can convince yourself of this stuff. We are just deluded if we believe all these things hold any significance. Since we are nothing, objectively. Why shouldn't we kill everyone instead?

I don't see why we should kill anyone. We are significant, just not objectively.

So is there or is there not objective value and purpose to human life? You can't have it both ways.

I don't think my children are objectively more valuable than somebody else's. But they're still the most valuable thing in the universe to me. And I think that's fine.

I guess you have nothing against evil and suffering then.

Of course I do. Human and animal life is valuable to me. I wish for happiness for everyone.

What I was saying, is that we know the world ought to be better.

I too would like to see the world different, or better if you will. But I don't know how I could say how the world OUGHT to be. I can imagine all kinds of scenarios, free beer for everyone and no hangovers, no inclination to be selfish, literally anything. But I think that in order to change reality, we must first have a grip on what reality IS.

What would be better is finding meaning in a meaningful universe. I'm glad I did!

I, too, am very glad you did. If it works for you, go for it. And I'm extremely thankful that I get to find meaning and peace and hope even though I think there's no God or purpose to our existence.

You think wars, illnesses, and all other manner of evil and suffering in this world is beautiful and amazing?

Not at all, I just see that even though our existence is pointless, the world isn't filled only with suffering.

Gee, what are you on?

Buddhism

point is that it's ultimately inconsequential. Those people are nothing anyways. Why should we care about them? We exist now, we should rather care about that, no? It won't have mattered in the end what we did.

Maybe not in the end, but it matters now, and, as they say, now is all we have.

Wait, you think there are right things to do without God and in this pessimistic worldview you hold? I'll have to include you in our future conversation on the moral argument with Morel Orel.

Please do! Yes, I have a sense of right and wrong.

 

[gaara4158]

Your attitude vis-à-vis truth is intriguing. Not crazy, but intriguing. I agree that counterproductive truths have no interest to be sought after. But do you simply ignore the facts you don't like? My perspective is to find whatever there really is "out there". To get the right view of the world and then live according to it.

To your second paragraph I would respond... Or that view about reality is mistaken. I wholeheartedly agree with your 3rd paragraph. Well said btw. I hadn't seen it like that but it's true. I had a friend that was a nihilist. He wasn't very happy... And still isn't. It makes me sad.

How do you know it's only an appearance? How do you discard its reality?

I think I can blow your mind even further. Consider this. How is it that we apprehend truth? It has to be tied to some kind of detectable consequence, as in “if and only if x is true, we will observe y. We observe y, therefore x is true.” Facts of absolutely no consequence simply couldn’t be found. There could be no if-then statements to test with observation. So it’s not a matter of ignoring facts, it’s a matter of not dwelling on things we could never know.

And as for your design question, I’m going by what we observe. We do observe the appearance of design, but we know that appearances aren’t enough to draw conclusions. The appearance of design can be accounted for by natural processes, no designer necessary, so we cannot infer the existence of a designer from the appearance of design.

Well this is a thread about truth. So it matters in the sense that it is grounded in your imagination and not in reality. Moreover, I don't even see how it is possible to make up a purpose after realizing there really isn't one. How do you personally do it? Before becoming a Christian, I went through a deep depression and honestly thought I had no objective purpose (that I knew of anyways). I was thinking about suicide. But there was still this sense within telling me I had real value and that life somehow is worth living. Quite weird actually. I was horribly unhappy. At any rate, there was a clash between what I thought I believed (naturalism/nihilism) and what I actually believed (purpose/hope). I think one has to live inconsistently to believe as you do.

I sympathize with this perspective a lot, and I remember a time when I felt similarly hopeless soon after my deconversion. What’s helped me is to keep in mind how we got here, given naturalism is true. We are sentient creatures resulting from billions of years of evolution - trial and error by countless generations of random mutation has produced every natural aspect of your being. The process itself is blind, but the billions of years it took to eventually produce you amounts to a kind of wisdom that surpasses any epiphany you could have in your lifetime. Your natural inclinations and drives — including your thirst for purpose — served your ancestors in an important way in the past. Important functions are tied to our reward systems - neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin - which ultimately are responsible for every positive feeling you experience.

This has all been a very long-winded way of saying that nature has imbued you with chemical pathways to complete fulfillment, and generally living a productive and socially connected life is the most efficient way to trigger those chemicals due to the way they contribute to our long term survival and well-being.

To put it in a less technical/scientistic way, your psyche doesn’t exist in a vacuum. You prefer certain things over others. Many of those preferences are universal to humans. Pursuing and exploring those things is inherently satisfying, whether it’s been determined by a grand arbiter or a blind process. So there’s no need to assume there’s a grand arbiter to all of this before you allow yourself to enjoy things.

It's so counterintuitive to say life is objectively purposeless and that we have no objective value that right there we should reject any worldview embracing this.

If we recognize there is objective purpose, we only need to figure it out then.

Why? Why would objectivity make our purpose any more satisfying?

 

[zippy2006]

I think I can blow your mind even further. Consider this. How is it that we apprehend truth? It has to be tied to some kind of detectable consequence, as in “if and only if x is true, we will observe y. We observe y, therefore x is true.” Facts of absolutely no consequence simply couldn’t be found. There could be no if-then statements to test with observation. So it’s not a matter of ignoring facts, it’s a matter of not dwelling on things we could never know.

It is clear that we could never know a truth that is not detectable or observable, but it is hard to know just what you mean by "consequence." Earlier in the thread that term seemed to refer to practical consequence, such as relevance for humankind.

"Facts of absolutely no consequence simply couldn't be found."

We can understand "consequence" in such a way that the statement becomes analytically true, but as we approach that option the statement becomes banal, and it also becomes something that doesn't really describe Pragmatism.

 

[zippy2006]

It's fun right? I could keep posting random kinds of jokes to pick apart. Here's my favorite Demetri Martin bit:

How come, when you're making love, it's okay to say, "Yes!" or "Yeah!" or "Uh-huh!" but it's not okay to say, "Yep"? No deception there. Just pointing out something that everyone knows, but never thinks about.

Lol, I like that one too.

Well, I think that pointing out that jokes use deception for good is sufficient for us to reanalyze deception and figure out what the missing link is that makes deception evil when it's evil. Is there a reason to think some amount of time is really the important factor in that?

I tend to think that time is an important component here, but I also keep thinking about pranks since it is hard to make time an issue in a non-prank joke. That's probably part of the issue. What's the difference between a prank and a joke, apart from the duration of the deception? Of course jokes tend to be non-personal and there are "no stakes" as you said, but deception itself is personal and thus brings a certain amount of stake. A deceptive joke is a mini-prank in the sense that you deceive and then reveal.

I think surprise is sufficient to explain the humor of a joke. Like the dark jokes, there's nothing clever about them. You're lulled into a false sense of security that you aren't going to hear something shocking, then you do. I don't think humor requires one sort of thing to have at it's essence.

Well dark jokes and shock value do rely very heavily on surprise, but I consider them a very low form of humor (if they count at all). One problem with that kind of humor is that it degenerates very quickly and escalates as tolerance is built up. It's more like a drug or fix than good 'ole humor.

I do think there is an essence of humor, and I think my theory also accounts for dark humor. Dark humor also creates that paradoxical discrepancy in reality, it's just that the paradox cleaves so deeply that a great deal of volatility arises between the possibility of it being found funny or offensive. The risk certainly arises of the imaginative paradox being taken too far.

I really didn't want to make folks laugh at her or make her feel uncomfortable. I tried my little heart out to convince her to let it go. I just want to make people laugh when I tell a joke. She didn't enjoy that at all, and I'm sure that being embarrassed about being so publicly affected only magnified the disgust she felt about the joke itself. I have a lot of jokes that most decent folk don't want to hear, the sort of jokes that are on subjects most decent folk would find inappropriate. What I've found is that people can be desensitized really easily. Just make your jokes ramp up on the offensiveness scale gradually, and people who were scarred by things as children can learn to laugh at those things too.

Yes, but I don't believe desensitization is an argument for humor or legitimacy. People can also have a warped sense of humor. Dark humor does bring with it desensitization and a kind of coarseness, which leads to the escalation, tolerance, and one-upmanship that I noted above.

When you really think about offensiveness and humor, you realize how ridiculous it is to be offended by anything. Most people are offended by something and that something is entirely subjective. Even the degree that people feel the offense is subjective. A black guy hearing the N-word might be mildly irritated, whereas an elderly white woman hearing "Damn" in a movie theatre might faint. Nothing is objectively offensive, so whatever offends one person isn't any more special than the thing that offends the next person. I think my "nothing offends me" outlook actually makes me more sensitive to the emotions of others than folks who think that there are things you would be correct to be offended about because that means some folks are incorrect to be offended at their things. No one is right, they're all being irrational, and everyone should be polite enough to cater to those irrational feelings to a large extent.

Oh, I disagree, but I'm sure you would admit that some things are offensive. If a man rapes your daughter you would be offended. ...or perhaps we're talking only about words, and not actions? But an intrinsic part of an evil action is an evil intent, and an insult could be a manifestation of evil intent that could legitimately offend. ...or perhaps we're only talking about words that are intended as jokes? The problem with that is that jokes are intellectually and propositionally contentful. (Rightly understanding the essence of humor aids one in seeing this IMO) Jokes often entail contradictions, paradoxes, absurdities, equivocation, etc. Yet what is the difference between a contradiction that is funny, one that is neutral & simply false, and one that is offensive? If the contradiction undermines an important truth it would rightly offend. This happens more often with moral truths. Basically if someone highly values a truth they do not want to see it questioned or contradicted.

Here's an example. You get engaged to Barb. Your brother hates Barb. He makes a joke that compares your relationship to a human-pet relationship. The whole family laughs, except you. Or you laugh less., etc.

 

[gaara4158]

It is clear that we could never know a truth that is not detectable or observable, but it is hard to know just what you mean by "consequence." Earlier in the thread that term seemed to refer to practical consequence, such as relevance for humankind.

"Facts of absolutely no consequence simply couldn't be found."

We can understand "consequence" in such a way that the statement becomes analytically true, but as we approach that option the statement becomes banal, and it also becomes something that doesn't really describe Pragmatism.

Earlier in the thread I was contrasting myself to Sapiens’ nihilistic, anti-theistic adversaries who would presumably call my existentialist leanings “wishful.” Maybe I should have used the word “existentialist” rather than “pragmatist” since I was describing my personal attitude toward truth rather than how I define and apprehend it. I draw heavily from both in my worldview and I might have just gotten the two mixed up.

 

[Sapiens]

The “intended purpose” for our minds to align with would be the reality by which our biological life system is produced and preserved. It wouldn’t be a literal, anthropomorphic designer causing it to be that way, but rather natural evolutionary processes eventually producing a species with the ability to figure out what’s going on and use that to aid in survival. It would be more bizarre on naturalism to find ourselves in the matrix-like delusion you suggest than it would on theism; at least on theism we’d have an obvious suspect explaining why our experience is totally disconnected from reality.



Naturalism doesn’t require you to drop all notions of morality, truth, and meaning. It just requires you to view and justify them in ways different from the ways they’re often justified on theism. It’s been my endeavor in this thread to explain how truth and meaning are perfectly serviceable concepts on a naturalistic worldview when evaluated in terms of their utility, and the same goes for morality. Reality doesn’t owe you meaning or comfort, but that doesn’t mean you can’t have them.

I find it unfortunate we still don't understand each other. :/

P1. Surely, you must know what I meant. On naturalism, you cannot know if what we perceive and conceive is the actual reality we're living in. Not if you take evolution as your means of origins for human life. It is a blind, unguided process. I mean, just that doesn't square with the fact it created thinking beings but that aside, it only made you to survive and function as gene reproducing machines. Our thoughts are objectively neither true nor false but meaningless. Of course, there is still subjective meaning. But it would be just that. There would be *no way to know* we actually experience reality for what it truly is. A mindless universe isn't meant to be known. I don't see what's so controversial here. These are the natural implications of your views. Check out Plantinga's presentation. It's short, concise, and clear. Even if you disagree with him, it'll have you think more about your own views.

P2. Surely, you knew I meant "objectively speaking".

According to your pragmatism, you should believe in God.

It seems you buy the correspondance view, but only when it suits you. You are effectively denying the objective part. When time comes for purpose, meaning, value and indeed morality (which depends on purpose) then it's free for all? It's a free buffet of all you can eat?

In my view, if there is none, then we should believe there is none. And then see where that leads us. I think suicide would be a worthy consideration. But if we recognize the intrinsic worth of life, as I most fundamentally do, then we will see it cannot be the case that there is no value, purpose, and etc.

It seems we have come to the end of our discussion, having each laid our case and evaluated the other's. We begin to repeat ourselves. Don't hesitate to rephrase your thinking or add new arguments though, but my impression is that we each shared what we wanted to. Maybe more will be said in the discussion on morality I intend to start eventually.

 

[Sapiens]

Sure.

Whew!

 

[Sapiens]

I don't want to sound rude, but I have to say this is kind of selfish, isn't it? Life isn't meaningful unless you're getting rewarded for making other folks' lives better? Isn't making the lives of others better supposed to be its own reward?

Don't think I'm being judgy. I'm super-selfish. My life is all about making me happy, it only happens to be the case that making some other folks happy makes me happy too... sometimes.

Haha yes! Very selfish indeed!

I don't see why others should be more important than me.

I think it's a healthy and morally good thing to be happy of making others happy though.

But if we all die, then no personal identity is ever retained. Combined with the absence of objective purpose and value provided by God, it is very arguable that one should care at all about others, or anything at all in fact. Don't you agree?

 

[Sapiens]

I wonder if you feel the same way about your role in society. Would you rather have a job assigned to you from birth, or have the freedom to seek out employment that suits your lifestyle? Would you rather have your major in college chosen for you, or have the freedom to elect a major that suits your interests? Would you rather have a religion imposed upon you from birth, or have the freedom to decide which one, if any, resonates with you?

What is it about freedom when it comes to meaning and purpose that discourages you so?

Well, we are thus free. A better analogy to real life would be an official job and whatever else is assigned to you, but you can ignore it and seek another.

I don't care about freedom right now. I care about the truth.

 

[Sapiens]

Our understanding of reality will always be incomplete, and it's useful to r realize that everything we experience is in a sense illusory. We never see reality as it truly is, it's always interpreted. That scary snake in the dark backyard may be only a garden hose. We can't freely choose how to see life, but we can investigate how we do it, and as a result our view may change. When we pause, we become freer to act rather than mindlessly react.

We all do whatever we want to do. But sometimes we have more than one desire at any given time. The strongest desire wins.

The fact that I think there's no such thing as objective morality doesn't mean I'm immoral. I couldn't stop thinking that things are right and wrong even if I wanted to. It's just that I believe there's no morality that sort of floats around out there, existing independently of the human mind.

Well, my point all along has been that reality is interpreted indeed. And I think it was meant to be, as I have argued. Whatever more it might be than what we perceive and know of it is irrelevant to us. God knows.

I don't do everything I want to do! I've always wanted to have super powers like the x-men or superheroes. Alas, reality wouldn't allow. I wish I could fly or teleport myself or read minds. That'd be cool. But I can't...

I also would have had a lot of sex in a lot of inappropriate ways, and done other carnal things, but I know better. I'm not an animal. Or at least I knew there would be real repercussions, which I took to not be only imagining.

What is this morality you are following and why do you follow it? No, you can't be immoral, there is no standard to deviate from.

 

[Silmarien]

I wonder if you feel the same way about your role in society. Would you rather have a job assigned to you from birth, or have the freedom to seek out employment that suits your lifestyle? Would you rather have your major in college chosen for you, or have the freedom to elect a major that suits your interests? Would you rather have a religion imposed upon you from birth, or have the freedom to decide which one, if any, resonates with you?

What is it about freedom when it comes to meaning and purpose that discourages you so?

Quick question: weren't you a determinist? This is sounding positively Sartrean now, which is violently incompatible with determinism! Unless you've really moved into the existentialist camp now?

Because if determinism is true, then jobs are effectively assigned at birth, the freedom to seek out employment suiting one's lifestyle is illusory, your major in college is chosen for you by deterministic factors outside of your control, and so forth and so on. There's no freedom over meaning and purpose if there is no freedom.

 

[Moral Orel]

Haha yes! Very selfish indeed!

I don't see why others should be more important than me.

Fair enough, but I don't think that lines up with the purpose for humanity set out by the Bible.

I think it's a healthy and morally good thing to be happy of making others happy though.

That's great, me too. I'm sure for different reasons though.

But if we all die, then no personal identity is ever retained. Combined with the absence of objective purpose and value provided by God, it is very arguable that one should care at all about others, or anything at all in fact. Don't you agree?

I don't agree that purpose becomes objective simply because that's what God wants.

I'll use an analogy another Christian explained to me once. Let's say you make a knife. The purpose of that knife is to cut things, so if it cuts things it is a good knife. If it is dull and fails to cut things then it is a bad knife. Sounds reasonable so far, right? If we're fulfilling our purpose then we're good, if we aren't fulling our purpose we're bad.

If peoples' purpose is to be kind, and they're cruel instead, then they're bad. That means God is bad at making people. But God is perfect, so he can't make shoddy products that don't do exactly what they're supposed to do.

I'd say instead, that if there is a God, that our purpose is to choose whatever we want, and God wants us to choose to do nice things. If our purpose was to be nice, then He wouldn't have failed to make people that are nice.

 

[Moral Orel]

I tend to think that time is an important component here, but I also keep thinking about pranks since it is hard to make time an issue in a non-prank joke. That's probably part of the issue. What's the difference between a prank and a joke, apart from the duration of the deception? Of course jokes tend to be non-personal and there are "no stakes" as you said, but deception itself is personal and thus brings a certain amount of stake. A deceptive joke is a mini-prank in the sense that you deceive and then reveal.

Pranks cause stress, that's stakes. Jokes might make you feel foolish if you don't get them right away. You'd be amazed how many people don't get that baby seal joke. The stakes in hearing a joke, the being tricked part, is the part we like.

Well dark jokes and shock value do rely very heavily on surprise, but I consider them a very low form of humor (if they count at all). One problem with that kind of humor is that it degenerates very quickly and escalates as tolerance is built up. It's more like a drug or fix than good 'ole humor.

I do think there is an essence of humor, and I think my theory also accounts for dark humor. Dark humor also creates that paradoxical discrepancy in reality, it's just that the paradox cleaves so deeply that a great deal of volatility arises between the possibility of it being found funny or offensive. The risk certainly arises of the imaginative paradox being taken too far.

I agree that they're the lowest form of humor. They can escalate too. When someone wants to hear my really dark stuff, I make them work their way up. I can desensitize so that things become less offensive. I disagree with the drug analogy though. My mildly dark jokes are just as funny to me as my super dark jokes, and my dad jokes, like the muffin joke, are just as funny as all that too.

Oh, I disagree, but I'm sure you would admit that some things are offensive. If a man rapes your daughter you would be offended. ...or perhaps we're talking only about words, and not actions? But an intrinsic part of an evil action is an evil intent, and an insult could be a manifestation of evil intent that could legitimately offend. ...or perhaps we're only talking about words that are intended as jokes? The problem with that is that jokes are intellectually and propositionally contentful. (Rightly understanding the essence of humor aids one in seeing this IMO) Jokes often entail contradictions, paradoxes, absurdities, equivocation, etc. Yet what is the difference between a contradiction that is funny, one that is neutral & simply false, and one that is offensive? If the contradiction undermines an important truth it would rightly offend. This happens more often with moral truths. Basically if someone highly values a truth they do not want to see it questioned or contradicted.

Here's an example. You get engaged to Barb. Your brother hates Barb. He makes a joke that compares your relationship to a human-pet relationship. The whole family laughs, except you. Or you laugh less., etc.

I wouldn't use the word "Offended" for anything other than words, no. If a man raped my imaginary daughter, I'd be angry, sure, but I don't think that drudges up the same sort of emotions as you get when, say, a black guy hears the N-Word. I don't bother distinguishing between telling jokes and saying "offensive" things though. It's just words. If someone insults me, either I know that they're wrong about what they think of me, or I know they're right. So what if they're wrong and so what if they point out something that I'm aware of?

Now, if someone says something about my wife, it can be different. But it depends on how my wife feels about what was said. I'm not going to be offended if someone insults my relationship with her, if it's clever I'll probably laugh, but I'll be P-O'ed if someone upsets my wife. Words don't cause me harm, but I recognize that they cause other people harm, so I can be angry if someone hurts my wife without the insult itself actually hurting me.

Since I'm such a fan of dark humor, I don't find any truths too important to undermine in the context of a joke. I won't laugh at a car crash on the side of the road with bodies strewn about, but I will tell Princess Diana jokes, as an example of what a monster I am.

 

[gaara4158]

Quick question: weren't you a determinist? This is sounding positively Sartrean now, which is violently incompatible with determinism! Unless you've really moved into the existentialist camp now?

Because if determinism is true, then jobs are effectively assigned at birth, the freedom to seek out employment suiting one's lifestyle is illusory, your major in college is chosen for you by deterministic factors outside of your control, and so forth and so on. There's no freedom over meaning and purpose if there is no freedom.

Yeah, I’m not really a hard determinist anymore and I’m swaying more and more to the existentialist camp, thanks in part to you actually. Of course, it may be that I simply have no choice

So, I take it you’re not a compatibilist?

 

[gaara4158]

Well, we are thus free. A better analogy to real life would be an official job and whatever else is assigned to you, but you can ignore it and seek another.

I don't care about freedom right now. I care about the truth.

Do you? Because you seem to be rejecting a plausible truth on account of its implications for objective purpose.

I find it unfortunate we still don't understand each other. :/

P1. Surely, you must know what I meant. On naturalism, you cannot know if what we perceive and conceive is the actual reality we're living in. Not if you take evolution as your means of origins for human life. It is a blind, unguided process. I mean, just that doesn't square with the fact it created thinking beings but that aside, it only made you to survive and function as gene reproducing machines. Our thoughts are objectively neither true nor false but meaningless. Of course, there is still subjective meaning. But it would be just that. There would be *no way to know* we actually experience reality for what it truly is. A mindless universe isn't meant to be known. I don't see what's so controversial here. These are the natural implications of your views. Check out Plantinga's presentation. It's short, concise, and clear. Even if you disagree with him, it'll have you think more about your own views.

P2. Surely, you knew I meant "objectively speaking".

According to your pragmatism, you should believe in God.

It seems you buy the correspondance view, but only when it suits you. You are effectively denying the objective part. When time comes for purpose, meaning, value and indeed morality (which depends on purpose) then it's free for all? It's a free buffet of all you can eat?

In my view, if there is none, then we should believe there is none. And then see where that leads us. I think suicide would be a worthy consideration. But if we recognize the intrinsic worth of life, as I most fundamentally do, then we will see it cannot be the case that there is no value, purpose, and etc.

It seems we have come to the end of our discussion, having each laid our case and evaluated the other's. We begin to repeat ourselves. Don't hesitate to rephrase your thinking or add new arguments though, but my impression is that we each shared what we wanted to. Maybe more will be said in the discussion on morality I intend to start eventually.

Pragmatism is how I find truth. Existentialism is how I find meaning. Neither one points to to God. Moreover, any “objective” meaning that exists would be discovered by a pragmatic process, and in the absence thereof we are left to our own devices when it comes to meaning. Why must nihilism be the only option?

As for P1, I’m well familiar with Plantinga’s presentation. I think I dealt with it pretty thoroughly a few pages back, but in response I’ve only seen you repeat his assertions dogmatically.

We can leave it at this if you like. It seems your main issue is a profound discomfort with a meaning, purpose, value system, and epistemology that isn’t somehow ordained by an objective authority. That’s understandable, but if you’re really interested in truth you should be open to the possibility that all of this is subjective. If you’re not ok with that... I don’t know what else to tell you. Things are going to get very dark anytime you make an argument like this because some people have already come to terms with this prospect.