In a world stripped of concepts, there is no existence as existence is itself a concept. Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for existence is the existence of concepts. Concepts however cannot exist without a conceiving entity. Therefore, existence requires consciousness.

The existence of a thing implies the existence of the concept of a thing. If the concept of a thing does not exist, we cannot refer to it in any way and thus its existence becomes a null concept. Thus, the concept of a thing and by consequence the thing, is a mere state of a hypothetical system that is responsible for consciousness or is conscious. I will refer to it as the conscious system.

(1) Constant change implies that there is a never-ending action, because if action would cease to exist, then change would be at some point impossible and therefore it will not be constant. Thus infinity is an inevitability.

(2) The concept of a thing is distinguished by the concepts of other things through the concept of not that thing. Thus, discreteness can exist, so that all experience does not merge into a single point, which allows dimensions to exist.

(3) The fact that a thing is defined by a set of conditions, reflects the state of the conscious system, which further determines the next state of the system but also forces it to never be in (experience) the same state twice, because that would put the system in a loop which contradicts buttonion's first proposition as it would cause a stable organization in the system (that is all that is) and therefore no more change.

Thus far I have asserted that all that exists is an infinite non repeatable experience.

So when we say that a thing exists, we are really saying that the experience of everything that can exist, has existed or will exist if it does not now. Which sucks.

Being attracted to something, anything is underpinned by a value judgment and invariably one likes what one thinks is better. Ergo, if you feel attracted to a particular race, it amounts to saying that that race is better and that's racism. You may prefer your own race over others and that's your run of the mill, garden variety racism but you may also like a race other than your own and that's auto-racism. — TheMadFool

[Much] of what contemporary epistemology, logic, and the philosophy of science count as induction infers neither from observation nor from particulars and does not lead to general laws or principles. [Induction] was understood to be what we now know as enumerative induction or universal inference; inference from particular instances:

Everyone has an Ego so when we say "nothing matters" that is a claim to objectivity and can only be emotionally held on to as a meaning in life. The fundamentals of karma work. Do evil and evil comes to you. Do good and you won't go to hell (maybe you'll just be annihilated). But justice and fairness are not the same thing. The universe allows itself to be just to us but our lives might not be fair in themselves, or in comparisons between us — Gregory

Why should one kill oneself at all? Why do one need "values" or "life goals" to live? Enjoy the joyride. Sure there are people that live shit lives, mental disorders or whatever. People that run into hopeless situations. Those people also probably dont think much about values and stuff, they know bloody well their pain and thats probably it. But for anyone not in a current hell, why suicide — Ansiktsburk

Why cannot it be true that the purpose of nature works THROUGH evolution?

Too much emphasis is placed on the randomness of evolution by ppl who only look at mutation in genes. Yes, that mutation is indeed random, but the mutations that are accepted...are they merely random? No, they must be adaptable; and then we come to the question of what is adaptability, and we must allow that it means something like, “what fits in to the scheme of the universe”.

It’s like if someone said, “pinball is a game of pure chance, for there is no way to know how the ball will return to the paddle, at what angle or speed. The player just pushes the button by reflex, and hopes it sends the ball into places where big scores can be racked up.” But there are, in fact, “pinball wizards”, who correspond to our evolutionary adaptability, able to choose the random things that fit into the scheme of the game. — Todd Martin

But we agree - creating goals and behaviours in life (like helping others) are what give you purpose. But everyone has different ways of achieving that. — GLEN willows

In my philosophy I only have one life, so I'd better get moving on it right now! :wink: — GLEN willows

They came together. — Ken Edwards

"However, I think the conscious activity is just like the tip of the iceberg, and there is a vast amount of non-conscious activity going on, which is supporting a tiny amount of conscious activity. We could represented it like a pyramid, the base being non-conscious, with the point at the top being conscious. Since it is activity we are talking about, represented as a thing (the pyramid), there is continuous back and forth throughout this proposed "thing". — Ken Edwards

Scientist applied motion detecters to lips and tongues and vocal chords and observed that when guys thought in words tongue movements, sometimes just tiny little twitches, were invariably recorded but never registered with non word thinking, admiring a sunset or something. — Ken Edwards

The purpose of life is precisely this thread,: to create, to explore, to share, to enjoy. — MondoR

The purpose of life is make good on the struggles of all previous generations, by using what is thereby gained to secure the future for all subsequent generations; to know what's true, and act morally with regard to what's true - to live, to know, to live! — counterpunch

And "what really matters" will be what counts for us (how we will account for ourselves), what we will take as our culture, our words, that we will be heard in, be bound to, answerable for (or flee from). — Antony Nickles

The fact is that harm (e.g. hunger, pain, bereavement, isolation, etc) always causes dysfunction, or worse, especially when it is ignored and not alleviated adequately somehow. This is objective because it obtains whether or not "everyone sees it as bad". — 180 Proof

And why isn't this an acceptable description of where we are in a moral moment? There are such things as actions: a slight, or betrayal, lies, recrimination; and also reactions: an excuse, qualification, etc. And if we look at what they tell us about moral action, we might see that there is the act, then there is the reckoning for it; that there is a responsibility after the consideration of ought and the founding of morals. Most times we know what to do and what to expect, but then there are times when we don't know exactly what to do; nonetheless we act (or fail to). The moral realm is where we stand for what we say (or not), act beyond what is good and right, or against it. But we are held to it, we are separated by it. Where our knowledge of morality ends, we begin; into our future, our self--can you live with the results? — Antony Nickles

Obviously as stated the conclusion doesn't follow. It needs the following premise added to it

1. Different people and groups have different moral beliefs
2. If different people and groups have different moral beliefs, then morality is individually or collectively subjective
3. Therefore, morality is collectively subjective — Bartricks

Regardless though, if you agree that:

1- People generally have the same moral compass.
2- There are and will continue to be punishments for immoral acts
3- You have no basis on which to say those should stop.

Then really your view is practically the same as meta ethical realism or relativism. You will continue to try to be moral and avoid being immoral to avoid punishment. And you will not have a basis to argue something like “Murderers should not be punished”. And you will probably also continue to feel like murderers and such “deserved it”.

Which is why I think meta ethical questions are usually a waste of time. — khaled

Bob and Alice decide it would be good to tie you down and do to you things that caused you some experience (what does not matter much). Are your experiences capricious and arbitrary?

Or another way. You see in the newspaper a photograph. What is it a photograph of? Is it a photograph? What is it?

The point is that meaning is provided at an appropriate level or closeness of engagement with the thing to which the meaning is given. Not so close or far away that meaning is lost. And that meaning is neither capricious nor arbitrary, rather instead it is meaning itself, and according to the precision of that application, absolute.

We usually do not question if good things befall us - maybe we should. But these matters are usually honed and stropped on bad things. So the question becomes what is the value of the capricious and arbitrary. If your objection to being hurt by Bob and Alice is mere arbitrary caprice. What claim can you make on them to get them to stop? — tim wood

The necessary moral conditions for communicative debate are not in place. Language is made up, therefore it's all bullshit! :vomit: — unenlightened

The only problem we end up with is what do we make of the person who has no conscience and can live with the consequences of anything: murder, rape or genocide. That is where things become a bit tricky with what I will call the subjective utilitarian approach. Do we say that there is no objective criteria and that there are no objective moral principles at all? This is where we begin to get into the rough waters and possible moral nihilism. Okay, most of us have consciences but, unfortunately, not everyone does. — Jack Cummins

"We" did make it up; that doesn't mean it is merely arbitrary and capricious opinion. It's is also true, especially in your case, that your mere opinion will not outweigh everybody else's. — Bitter Crank

If someone says they don't value improvement, and they feel no shame at all in the refusal to take part, there is no reddening of the cheeks as they refuse the relationship, then so be it. I'm not sure I would believe them. — bert1

Heaven help the person who jumps off that bridge, with certain death imminent, and who, in those five seconds of falling, realizes he hasn't thought things through as thoroughly as he first assumed he did before jumping.

Not playing the proverbial game is much harder than just offing yourself. If you think that by offing yourself, you'll exit the game, then you're still giving supremacy to others, still letting others dictate your life, and you're even devoting those last few seconds of your life to them. To people who don't care enough about you to be there for you. Now that's a shame. — baker