The conclusion Kenny is working towards is agnosticism. But with this piece, from the second page, he seems to be assuming the virtue of the middle path between credulity and scepticism - to be assuming agnosticism.

SO arguably the article is an exercise in question begging; he assumes his conclusion. But isn't it reasonable to seek this middle ground, rather than to believe without warrant? — Banno

I suppose I agree with the gist of it. But I find it much more attractive to follow where you believe the path leads while knowing and understanding your shortcomings. Your credulity and scepticism. Instead of throwing your hands in the air and saying, I don't know, in order to be completely out of the danger zone and taking the diplomatic route. I believe it's more meaningful and human to accept the risk that comes with faith. If you understand me.

Lets say for example that there is a guy named John who is swayed by one of aquinas' arguments. He knows that they aren't proof in any respect but acknowledges the problem it highlights and believes the premises to be plausible. But accepts the conclusion of God by taking a leap of faith. Because, after all, they aren't proofs. They are not giving you certainty. I wouldn't call John and his belief unreasonable if he understands and has reasoned about his leap here. I would find it beautiful.

But I'm a noob. So I fully accept that this probably is a clouded view of the way it works.

If religious stories are taken to be allegories that profess metaphorical truths then I think the difficulty disappears — Janus

Ultimately, theism is not a theory about some purported being that either exists or doesn't exist, and about which science might have something to say. It's a theory about the nature of reality itself, not about some purported super-engineer or director which might or might not exist. The fact that justification is cast in these pseudo-empirical terms is an indicator of a deep misconception about the nature of the question. — Wayfarer

While I agree that dogmatism and fundamentalism are wrongheaded, even off-putting to me personally. Both in believers and non-believers alike. It does seem like some warrant can be had for faith. Most people here do not have a high view of the classical proofs for God. My idea being is because they're called exactly that, proofs. But I'm quite sure that while they are contentious and far from proof, they can be plausible and elicit faith.

Talking about theism as poetry and allegory also seems wrong to me. Poetry without a doubt is a beautiful way to portray reality, but in the end it is nothing more than sugarcoating reality with romanticism. I feel like you take away the entire idea of theism by admitting that it has no grasp on reality in the end. How can one not posit justification about such ponderings of reality? Would you not want your view of reality to be grounded instead of it being a dreamy haze?

I agree with most of the sentiments about God here, especially yours, Wayfarer. But the way you guys speak about it gives me the impression of downplaying.

You are trying to argue for life when the reasons of so many have been shown to be fallacious. — Darkneos

Lets just shy away from the discussion side of things because we're not getting anywhere.

What are you hoping to get out of this discussion? Seeing as we've gone far from what people's reason to live for are.

Well, only Wayfarer has had a go. Disappointing, but not surprising. — Banno

I feel unqualified. Though I wished the people who are also more knowledgeable about this would join in. It'd be a learning experience and fun to read.

It is. You are arguing it’s only natural to do so so it’s appeal to nature. I’ve already said why it’s not logical to want to do it. Stop repeating the same debunked arguments. Desire and emotion are not reasons for doing something, they are simple feelings that come and go. We choose to assign meanings to such things when in reality they don’t mean anything. Take away what we attach to them and they are pure sensations, not reasons for doing anything. — Darkneos

I like music and it makes me happy. There is nothing illogical about liking music being a sufficient reason to play my piano. This would change if you add a twist. If you play the piano, someone dies. Yes, then it's arguable about it being a good reason, but a reason could be there none the less.

You haven't argued anything in your responses to me man. You literally just say "it's not an reason" and then "I've argued why."

We choose to assign meanings to such things when in reality they don’t mean anything. Take away what we attach to them and they are pure sensations, not reasons for doing anything. — Darkneos

That is literally what it means to live a human life. Subjective experience of objective facts. Hello?? Is this a secret method to assimilate us into the borg?

Both those points are false. Life is not worth it. Nor is it fun. It just is. There is no logic to doing something because it is fun. Why can’t people see that? Just because most people believe that doesn’t make it true or logical. — Darkneos

And simply asserting that doesn't make it so. Life may not be so enjoyable for you at the current moment. But I'm certainly enjoying it! Am I lying or broken?

People can't see it because it is not true. It makes no sense not to do what you like. In your view, I should just sit and wait for time to go by while I come home after a long day of school. Because apparently wanting to have fun doesn't count as a reason to play a game with my buddies. It doesn't compute to people who truly do get enjoyment out of the things they do. Perhaps you can't but that doesn't mean I can't either.
— Darkneos

I know I can’t expect to convince folks of this because they are too attached to life and can’t see clearly. — Darkneos

How convenient that the will to live is the obstacle to understanding you. I'm sorry to say then that indeed most of the population who enjoy life, no matter how good in philosophy they are, will simply not be as enlightened as you. Except for the ones who, sorry to bring this up despite to your request, are depressed.

Again just because many people say something doesn’t make it true. I have already shown every argument for living to not be logical and rooted in fallacy yet people want to believe otherwise. — Darkneos

And that, I suppose, is the rationalization that allows you to be confident in your position despite the numerous advances against it in this thread.

I’ve already explained why pleasure is not a reason to live. — Darkneos

If multiple people are telling you that you're in fact not explaining anything then you should probably look into it.

ppeal to nature argument. Just because something is natural doesn’t make it good to follow. And I have already explained why not. As I said if you take it further then there is no reason to do anything at all. — Darkneos

No it's not. It's an appeal to it feels good and there is no reason not to do it so it's perfectly logical to want to do it argument. And I said you didn't explain anything because I still don't see why there is no reason to do anything at all.

It’s not. It just shows that death is the only option left. Life requires to a reason to exist, at least for people. We are past the point of being unquestioning animals. Yet there is no ultimate reason for existence or living. Reproduction is what live does but that doesn’t mean it should. Therefore there is and never will be a reason for living (that isn’t rooted in appeals to emotion or nature, AKA fallacies) making death the only logical choice. — Darkneos

So a good reason would be an ultimate purpose? Is that the reason you want?

I'm not making appeals to nature but I am making appeals to emotion in the sense that an emotion could bring forth a reason to do something. But I suppose we keep going in circles anyhow.

The end note to your question is: People live life because it's worth it and it's simply fun. It's perfectly logical to me and seemingly to most people who are alive. You don't think it's a valid reason? Well, I'm afraid you're not going to convince very many people.

Im going to need a while to understand all of that stuff! :sweat:

Again it isn't but I'm tired of repeating myself. There is no reason for me to eat ice cream even if I like it, me liking it is not a reason to do it. Why is that so hard to grasp? There is no reason to pursue a feeling either by the same logic. — Darkneos

It is hard to grasp because it speaks against my personal experience. If I'm hungry, then I will eat. If I am in love with a person, then I will try my best to be with them. Reason being? Hunger and Love.

These are valid reasons to pursue my wants in my eyes. But according to you they aren't. And that's why I have asked you multiple times before, what would count as a valid reason?

If something feels good then it's only natural to want to pursue it just for the sake of it feeling good. Setting aside all arguments one can make about chasing feelings at the expense of others, etc.

I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I'm asking to help me understand what a valid reason looks like to you. I noticed you replied to this question in response to Pfhorrest though.

Nothing, because there is no reason to really do anything. However in doing nothing by extension of this you eventually reach a point where it doesn't matter anymore (death). Life needs a reason, death doesn't. Life only goes if you upkeep it, death will come one way or the other without your help. — Darkneos

So you deny that there can be a reason to do anything and then go on to say that life needs a reason to continue which by implication means that death is the only option. This seems fallacious at worst and requiring justification at best. Or did I misunderstand? If so, sorry.

Do you perhaps mean that in light of death nothing we do here matters because in the end death comes for us all and so we should just get it over and done with?

In moderation and if you can afford it I don't see why not.

Please do!

Again, emotion. All I can say about eating ice cream is that I like it, but that doesn't mean I do it. — Darkneos

It's perfectly logical to do what you like. It would be nonsensical to say: "I like eating ice cream but I don't because life is a chore." And that's all I'm getting from you. You can have reasons to pursue certain feelings you know.

So eating an icecream simply because eating an icecream brings forth happiness is not a good reason? I dont get that.

They can't see how that does not follow. — Darkneos

Maybe because it does and you havent shown any reason to the contrary.

But it seems like all of you here then think most if not all of phil of religion is terrible. Not only the bad examples here but in the field as a whole. I dont know if that is fair. Or am i making an unjust assumption?

bad theology — Banno

What is good theology? I believe that some posters here have a good grasp on natural theology but they dont make posts about it.

I guess I just want to defend the field of phil of religion as a whole because the vibe I get from this forum is: phil of religion, theism, ... is all pretty terrible and not worth anyones time. This feels wrong.

edit: This has me rereading my PoR discussion from half a year ago, so forgive me if I forgot anything. -- Apart from my natural inclination to defend PoR as a discipline I would like to say that I sometimes am afraid to post anything because I think people will deem my post terrible and not worthwhile. So while I can understand you guys getting sick of the same old stuff getting posted about by noobs like me, the backlash given can really scare a person away from wanting to engage in the forum. Or that might just be me.

I know that lots of you guys already have made up your mind on a lot of things. And people like me who aren't sure at all about major positions like materialism or what theory of mind they find plausible but aren't able to figure it out because you guys will deem some positions literally not worth spending any time on. It just seems so fruitless to engage because everyone already has their mind made up. At least that's what I've been feeling reading the forum recently. But it doesn't help that I'm hopelessly terrible at putting thoughts into words..

You may as well ask for a justification to eat ice cream, or any other pleasant thing. If you don’t like ice cream, then it makes sense to ask “Why should I eat this? What do I get out of it?” But if you do like ice cream, you just want to eat it, and you may be willing to go through some hardships to get it, but you don’t need any further justification for eating it: it’s an end in itself. — Pfhorrest

I wish I could come up with this, man.
:up:

Because it does not follow. Your chain of reasoning does not compute. You need to stop at "happiness feels good", that's all logic can tell you. None of that is logically justified. Just because something feels good doesn't mean you do it. Come on I already shut this part down. — Darkneos

No you haven't shut anything down at all. You simply assert it does not follow. I have given a reason why its logical to continue doing something that makes me happy iff its beneficial and harmless.

Youre expected to argue for positions you have over here. You cant simply assert something and get upset when someone disagrees with you. I am terrible at philosophy because I'm young and inexperienced. So I am not locked to any position. Show me why what I said does not logically follow. In what step did I miss something? Is it the part where I bring up harm? Should I also recognize the harm I do to others?

You cant come here expecting that people give you a fair philosophical treatment if youre not interested in doing it yourself.

Humans aren't driven by logic, they're driven by emotion and logic usually just accommodates how people feel. I don't think suicide is illogical, I think it's motivated by negative emotions which cloud judgement. — Judaka

:up: :fire:

Happiness from what I can tell has no logical justification. People believe that just because something feels good they should keep doing it even though that is not really logical. — Darkneos

How on earth is happiness illogical? Happiness feels good -> Going out walking with friends and messing around makes me happy. -> It doesn't harm me. -> Since happiness improves my overall well being and has beneficial effects there is no reason to not do what makes me happy as long as the good outweighs the bad. This is a deeply personal thing because different things make different people happy, and they're not all healthy. But I sincerely fail to see how the above form of happiness is not logically justified. How??

But society is scared to accommodate them because we have this paranoia about death and encouraging people to live when they clearly don't wish to. — Darkneos

That is because people operate from the basic axiom that life in general is a good thing. People are genuinely able to enjoy life because it's so basic to human experience to want to live. And when someone doesn't have that very basic feeling then we cannot help but to think something is wrong with them. Because it's the exact opposite of what people usually want. Saying that it is nothing but a chore and is entirely illogical is a super fringe view in both philosophy(that I know of) and not to mention in normal folks idea's.

I'm not as good as the rest here in turning thoughts to coherent texts like my fellow posters here, they have a finesse with words. So you'll have to excuse me for that. But it feels like I'm missing what you're actually arguing for.

I suppose I can agree that hope usually is an emotional desire for something that isn't usually thought out very much. But it can be. I can hope that my grandmother gives me 50 euros next time I visit her based on my past experiences with her. She always gives me a gift but I can't be sure. So it's both emotional and rational, they're not mutually exclusive.

I don't share your opinion that death is more logical that life. I don't really know what you're expecting people to tell you. People want to continue to live because life is just so damn fun. As I keep repeating over again, being is much nicer than not being. Yes an argument can be made about life becoming so agonizing that you would desire it to end because life is only suffering. But the truth is that for many people life isn't only non stop suffering.

I haven't been keeping up with the whole thread but I'm honestly just puzzled about what you're trying to find out. Why do people keep living? They don't share the same worldview. It's that simple. They don't agree with you that life is a chore and that the small good things are what make it bearable. And I get it, sometimes things don't go your way and shit gets really hard but I never think "Oh well, I might just save myself the trouble and off myself because I'm going to die anyway." Perhaps you're expecting reasons like "I want to see my child grow up happily." or "I want to make it to the big leagues." Or is that also not a good reason? What are you actually looking for?

Sorry if I'm not getting it. But my main answer to "why don't we just end it now" is "It's just not worth it."
I seem to have a deep aversion to this type of thinking because if this were the case and every person thought "I'm not going to do any work, avoid all hardships and step out soon" then all of the beauty that the human race has created would never have existed. Our culture, language, music,... All that awesome stuff would just cease to be. And I find it to be extremely disturbing to even suggest that. But I admit that is more of an emotional response.

You clearly didn’t read the part where I said that stuff dies too. My mother doesn’t remember the dreams of her grandparents and my grandmother with dementia doesn’t remember her family’s either. As I said everything ends and you can’t seem to accept that. Your ego dies to because eventually people will forget. Think of all the people who have lived and only a handful are written of in books while the rest are lost to time. Even the current ones will only last as long as we do or as long as we remember them. But everything dies, nothing lives on. We are not immortal. The only ignorant one is you who can’t see the reasons so far aren’t good ones for living and are rooted in fallacies. I mean you have hope which is by itself illogical and privileged. Open your eyes. — Darkneos

I have said nothing about my personal beliefs so once again you have shown that you assume the worldviews of others without actually asking anything.

As for the ego stuff. I don't know much about it but I do feel as though you barely took the time to discuss this with the person who did advance this view. For further reading I would recommend Parfits work on personal identity and Mark Johnston's secular afterlife which seems to be quite close to what Gus is arguing.

And I have yet to see why the "reasons for living" that have been offered are "rooted in fallacies" and I am even more puzzled why hope is "illogical and privileged." And as I said, I believe its a mistake to think people purely operate on logic in life. Humans are emotional beings and thus it wouldnt surprise me that someones reason for life might be love or fun,... Who are you to say that this is an incorrect reason to want to live? What would a correct reason look like?

More like you have serious death anxiety and can't accept that oblivion is the ultimate fate of everyone eventually. I have heard other versions but they don't address the issue just skirt around it. Like so many others you cower before the void. — Darkneos

Until you notice that he has literally said you, the person alive, will perish. But your ego, your hopes and dreams and all the other jazz will live on in others, for example.

This goes to show that you are locked into a worldview and assert that everyone behaves the way your, rather dark and close minded, worldview dictates. Countless of people here are giving their reasons for why they keep on living but you seem unable to accept that other people do find meaning in life even if there is no ultimate purpose or afterlife. You musn't simply charge them with wishful thinking.

I for one believe that "being" is the most precious thing I have. To paraphrase the bible: What is a man without his soul? What am I if I cannot even be?? I wouldnt be able to laugh, cry. I wouldn't be able to participate in the drama that is called life. Even when I am going through terrible things, which I have, I can console myself with the fact that it will not kill me. And better times are coming.

So no, I don't view life as a chore that is best skipped forward in order to simply get to the end. Why would I want to get to the end if there was nothing there for me? Its just nonsensical in my eyes.

Edit: I also believe its a mistake to wish to view life through a purely logical lens. We are humans, not robots. We work rationally and also emotionally. So perhaps wanting to keep living is a purely emotional response but so what? It doesnt make it any less valid.

I get to be.

I don't see how you not being able to lift a rock is logically impossible.

Exactly where I'm planning to go to college! Beautiful place.

Aha a fellow Belgian!

Perhaps I am greedy for wanting more lives and bodies. — Jack Cummins

I believe it is folly to say that wanting more life is greedy. It's the most fundamental thing we have, it's only natural to have the desire to keep it. What are we worth if we cannot even be?

The entire movement of just stopping the worry about death and dying to simply accept it for the sake of intellectual strength is just silly to me.

What about eternal return? — Merkwurdichliebe

I had the idea that Nietzsche had invented eternal return to make a point about life, not as actual argument. I remember a paper from a while back that argues something of the sorts though.
Here: https://philpapers.org/rec/HUEEIE Though I believe I have seen a good rebuttal here on the forum and on the web in the form of: The argument requires the past and future to be infinite which is very debatable and even if they were, the same configurations might not reappear even in an infinite.

But can nothing even be? Consciousness can become something less complex perhaps.
But becoming nothing seems to ring my intuition alarm.

Both biological and psychological suffer from duplication problems though!

I just mean that there is a diversity of opinion when it comes to exotic imaginary scenarios involving personal identity. Our intuitions don't seem to deliver a uniform verdict. Some have strong (and divergent) opinions, others are uncertain. — SophistiCat

Yes, I agree. In philosophy there's a whole lot of diversity as a whole.

Well, your thought experiment shows only that if you assume dualism at the outset, then dualism is what you will conclude. Same with identity thought experiments: they need not pose problems for physicalism unless you have already assumed that they do. — SophistiCat

I'll have to disagree with this though. Working with the given options I have found that the biological and psychological views both suffer greatly (In my opinion) from duplication problems. So I haven't necessarily arrived at dualism. But they both do certainly miss something. That's all really.

Sure it's incomplete. So is dualism. And panpsychism.

Physicalists hold out hoping that science will in the end give an answer.

Where can I read up on the idea that they are controversial? Do you mean controversial in that it's a bad thought experiment? Or controversial in the sense of they are being discussed? I heard a lot of good stuff about Parfit's book that deals with these kinds of things. Sure there isn't an empiric conclusion since these techs are not within within our reach. But I don't see how they are unable to highlight problems with current ways of thinking. It would be silly indeed to say that there are end all be all answers to problems in philosophy.

Edit:I understand now what you mean, took me a while. I took it to be an insignificant detail sorry.
They aren't arguments no, that's a mistake I made with my wording. However I do believe, as I said above, that they can sway a person when it comes to their own idea of personal identity.

Solar is trying to make an argument out of it. That's their business.

I think you're talking past me because it's hard for me to follow, sorry.

The broken teleporter is a nice redux of the ship Theseus paradox which concerns continuity of identity. It is essentially a language problem as far as I can see. In everyday scenarios, we don't need to worry about discontinuities of form alongside continuities of physical constitution or vice versa: my physical constitution gradually changes but I remain me albeit with a time-dependent physical constitution. — Kenosha Kid

I don't know if it is merely a language problem. We don't have the technology of course, but it still outlines a problem hypothetically, doesn't it? If we are nothing more than our physical body or its arrangement then there is no soul and thus if one were to make 2 of me then I should be both. But since that is impossible there has to be something else a pointer or whatever else extra you can get? It's not merely about continuity alone. It's about what constitutes the self in its entirety. So this problem is close to but not the same as the ship of Theseus.

Forgive my close mindedness but I'll resort to summarizing the 3 main positions as response to the problem.

1) Biological view = You are the matter, meat of the brain and not it's internal machining. When the machine deconstructs you, you die and a clone is created. One who thinks he is you but isn't. You die.

2) Psychological view = You are the constituents, internal processing of the brain. Emotions, dreams, hopes and ideas. Basically that which the brain does. When the machine recreates a machine that reforms these ideas aka the psychological bundle, You 'reawaken' as it were. As if nothing happened. You survive.

3) Further fact = Both of these miss something. Usually argued to by multiple duplication problems and argues that there is something more. A soul or whatever else. Basically: We don't know.

I'm guessing this is what Solar is trying to get to in his argument. And this is what I'm somewhat familiar with. If I understand you correctly, you mean to say that the clones being identical biologically has nothing to do with them being the original. So you would align yourself with the psychological view?

The linguistic issue is that, based on our experience with language, we have one word to describe two things that we can easily differentiate. One simply has to choose more careful language if this becomes a real problem. For what it's worth, the "identical parts" idea of identity seems like a non-starter, since when I say "I", I am referring to a continuous thing that does not have static components. The "original you" or the "original Theseus" does not have any relevance in that case. — Kenosha Kid

It seems like the teletransporter is forcing one to think what makes the I. If components are non starters and continuity is, then the real question is continuity of what?

@Kenosha Kid and @SophistiCat
I think the original argument can be put easier with clones.
The good old teletransporter problem would have sufficed to make the point that Solar is trying to make.

If you step into a teletransporter which scans your entire being down to the lowest level possible and recreates it at a distant place. Would that being recreated there be you? Would it seem as if you step in and step out on the moon?

Now imagine that it breaks and that you are not broken down in the beginning but still creates you on the moon. Now there is 2 of you. Which one of you 2 is the original you and why? Surely if this is possible then a person cannot merely be its biology. Because then you and you 2 on the moon would share a mind but different bodies. There has to be a pointer, as Solar calls it. That indicates which one of them is you. He calls this the soul.

Thats veeery roughly how the problem goes. Sorry if it's written quite haphazardly (it is) I'm allowing my hobby to interfere with my online lessons ;p

That's idealism.

Sure, reincarnation could be a nice tool to convey a point which Solar might want to make. Specifically a point about personal identity. So you're kind of just red herring it.

If I were the exact meat of my brain I'd be dead.
If I'd be the function that the brain does, which if the computer takes my brain over but still performs the same functions then I'd be okay.

Usually survival here is dependent on continuity and since it's changed gradually I should be fine.

I suppose one could say that every brainstate is me? So as you say, as I forget my name, there will be a brain state that correlates with it.

I am not opposed to dualism though, just trying to poke and understand.

How about the brain? The parts in there do not change every 7 years like the body.

Yet it seems to me that psychology and dogs are physical phenomena — Manuel

I for one, do not share this intuition.

By saying "mental", I'm following Galen Strawson here, we merely want to say that within physical reality, which encompasses all reality, we are focusing on the mental aspects of the physical, instead of the chemical aspects. This emphatically is not "eliminitavism", or anything like that, the physical is not physics, it's everything. — Manuel

Dualists and panpsychists would not accept this assertion given the hard problem.


The argument usually being made, if I understand it, Is that in order to fully explain consciousness in physical terms you ought to be able to do it entirely with the physical actions of the brain. In other words, physical laws and chemistry. At least if I have understood it.

Physicalists nowadays either hope that sometime in the future there will be such an explanation due to the advance of science or they deny that there is a problem at all. However, people who do not have that trust in physicalism have reason enough to bet on panpsychism or dualism if they so please.

You'd need to explain why there needs to be something else besides the physical. So I don't see any inconsistency here. — Manuel

Well they would refer to the hard, easy problems. I might even risk my skin and say that hard emergence of consciousness from matter is evenly absurd and magical as the interaction problem dualism faces. And since you say here that you do not deny that there is mental, a la Dennet, I cannot see how you go around it.