Hi Wonderer1

Thanks for the input.

Yes, I'm aware of the ambiguity of many of the terms used, but this is by design.

It intends to:
Enhance portability across disciplines (e.g., from evolutionary biology to moral philosophy).
Create resonance by tapping into intuitive affirmations of life (e.g., "every child instinctively lives it").
Allow layered applicability (axiomatic foundation, affirmative drive, moral grounding).

I'm particularly attached to the use of 'Life' and 'Good' because of the portability offered once the initial axiom is accepted.

Less so with 'value'. I'll definitely consider your point, I do think that might be clearer.

Thanks!

This isn't a debate or an opinion piece, it's me explaining my axiomatic framework — James Dean Conroy

We’re not here to test out your axiomatic system. We’re here to debate philosophy. That’s why it’s called a philosophy forum.

There is no such thing as a life without purposes, however humble those purposes may be. All purposes are geared towards either sustaining life, or fulfilling desires, even if only, in extremis, one's own life and desires. — Janus

Emotional crises such as grief and depression involve the loss of a sense of purpose. In these states we are plunged into the fog of confusion and chaos. Purpose is bound up with the sense of agency, of being able to act coherently by making sense of events in a consistent way, and this is taken from us in such moods. We lose our compass for action. Even though we are still alive, life loses its salience, relevance and meaning. The specter of physical death pales in comparison to this psychical death of meaning.

No, you're on my thread - I set out the topic and asked for analysis - you're being a nuisance burdening me with your misrepresentations.

If you don't like it, don't bother. I'm not tending to babies who don't understand, repeating myself because they want to play semantic games and don't bother reading.

You're a burden unnecessarily. Stop being lazy, read the thread info and respect the rules of discourse.

I don't want you here. You're engaging other participants meaninglessly.

You're not adding anything. You're sucking the life out of this thread.

I'm going to ignore you.

Death is not a state or a force - it's the absence of life. To consider it 'perfection' is to mistake absence for presence. Life is the condition for meaning, value, and action. Without life, there is no framework to even discuss 'better' or 'worse.' This is not a matter of sentiment, but of ontological necessity - life is the prerequisite for all value and purpose. — James Dean Conroy

No worries. Thank you for your patience. I guess we can leave it there. I understand your reasoning but I'm not convinced.

Which part are you unsure of?

Seems odd.

Death is not a state or a force - it's the absence of life. To consider it 'perfection' is to mistake absence for presence. Life is the condition for meaning, value, and action. Without life, there is no framework to even discuss 'better' or 'worse.' This is not a matter of sentiment, but of ontological necessity - life is the prerequisite for all value and purpose.

It seems you can't differentiate these things: the moral implications you associate with the word 'Good' and how it's framed in the model - how can I help you pull these things apart?

Antinatalism is parasitic because it denies the very process that sustains meaning. If it rejects life, it undermines the foundation from which it could even argue.

And no, it is not wrong to preserve life - it’s the axiom of value. Killing another person directly undermines the most fundamental condition for meaning to exist: life itself.

To reiterate: This is not my opinion; it is axiomatic. Without life, there is no value. — James Dean Conroy

I'm not sure you and I are going to get anywhere with this one.

I understand the argument that life is the grounding of all value. But to this I say, so what? Life is the grounding of all experience, the condition of everything that is us. I don't see how this is ipso facto good. We are "trapped" by life until we die.

Why should we care if antinatalism undermines this foundation? I see nothing inherent in the grounding of meaning that elevates it. I can say screw life and it makes no difference.

You say antinatalism is parasitic because it denies the very process that sustains meaning. But why couldn't we say life is parasitic because it denies death?

You say antinatalism is parasitic because it denies the very process that sustains meaning. But why couldn't we say life is parasitic because it denies death? — Tom Storm

I think if your presuppositions are so diametrically opposed that you can't accept an axiom, then there is an issue. I'm not stating an opinion, you are.

If this prevents you from accepting truth, then I can't help you.

You become part of the signal.

Antinatalism: The Philosophy of Self-Terminating Noise

Antinatalism is not a worldview. It is the conscious rejection of all worldviews. It does not seek to build, heal, or elevate - it seeks only to negate. At its core lies a parasitic paradox: it clings to the fruits of life (consciousness, reason, communication, argument) while demanding that the very tree be burned to ash. It is not profound - it is a tantrum against existence. A metaphysical sulk.

When someone declares that life is not good, they are not offering a counter-axiom - they are refusing to play the game. They are speaking from the very medium they wish to destroy. Their own position is made possible only by the thing they condemn. This is not intellectual - it is cowardice dressed up as critique.

If life is not inherently good - if the very capacity to evaluate is not rooted in a life-process - then no statement, no ethics, no value can stand. Antinatalism is not an answer; it is philosophical euthanasia. And like all self-negating systems, it terminates itself. It has no future because it rejects having one. It is not signal - it is the echo of a system collapsing in on itself.

And so, the question must be asked to antinatalists: if death is preferable, why are they still here?

Emotional crises such as grief and depression involve the loss of a sense of purpose. In these states we are plunged into the fog of confusion and chaos. Purpose is bound up with the sense of agency, of being able to act coherently by making sense of events in a consistent way, and this is taken from us in such moods. We lose our compass for action. Even though we are still alive, life loses its salience, relevance and meaning. The specter of physical death pales in comparison to this psychical death of meaning. — Joshs

Grief is usually a temporary loss of compass due to losing something that figured as central to what had been felt to be the meaning of one's life. It doesn't usually causes people to wish to be dead. Nor does depression. As far as I am aware research shows that suicide is most often motivated by an impulse towards seeking attention, proving something or punishing someone. In any case it seems reasonable to think it is usually associated with an extraordinarily intense emotional reaction. Many people are depressed, at least at times, and many more are probably depressed most or even all of the time, and it would seem that only a small percentage of those end their lives.

I think you are being too black and white in your thinking in saying that "life loses all its salience, relevance and meaning". In any case how do you know that is the general case? have you asked all the depressed people in the world?

The specter of death is with all of us, the actuality of impending death not so much.

So, no, this isn’t a matter of opinion or hermeneutic complexity - without life, there is no value. The axiomatic nature means hermeneutic drift (of the axiom at least - not the contextually driven implications of acting on it - which are dynamic, think Foucault - you highlighted this) is impossible. It is an axiomatic foundation - undeniable by definition. — James Dean Conroy

I understand that (or at least think I do). It's precily the dynamic context, though, that makes the axiom meaningful. Otherwise it's just... floating free. This is why I called my reservations "mostly methodological". You reply seems to indicate you think I was talking about the content.

I'm looking for an application of the axiom; I can't see one.

You're absolutely right to focus on application - because the axiom alone doesn’t act. What makes Synthesis different from inert metaphysics is exactly what you’re pointing toward: the contextually-driven implications of acting on the axiom.

So here’s the application, in concrete terms:

Ethics becomes clear: Any action, ideology, or system that undermines life is self-refuting. That includes nihilism, antinatalism, and even parts of postmodernism. The axiom is the ultimate ethical compass: Does this help life flourish? If not, it's noise.

Politics: You can evaluate structures by how well they allow human life to organise, learn, and grow. From state policy to technology regulation, it gives you a non-arbitrary standard.

AI Alignment: You can’t build truly aligned systems without first knowing what value is grounded in. Life becomes the anchor-point for alignment - because no synthetic value system can surpass the thing that created value in the first place.

Philosophy itself: Instead of endlessly debating what is “good” or “true,” Synthesis collapses the regress by showing that truth is only meaningful within life’s frame. That makes the direction of truth teleological - truth moves with life.

So yes, the axiom by itself would just float in abstraction. But once you plug it into the system of feedback, context, power, language, embodiment (Foucault, Nietzsche, etc.) - what you get isn’t just an idea.

You get the operating system for reality.

https://www.academia.edu/128894269/

Two Randian threads in ten minutes. Colour me surprised! LOL.

Looks like I was going to reply last week lol.

I don't see how this is ipso facto good. — Tom Storm

(I agree, wholeheartedly!!! And that's my main gripe with any objective ethics, moreso THe Objectivist Ethics of Rand) REALLY?? I'd have taken you for one who needed to ground their ethic in something like this. Nice to know.

Ah, the Rand comparison. Common mistake. Synthesis isn’t about rational egoism or individual supremacy - it’s about life itself as the substrate of value. Rand begins with man qua man. I begin with life qua life. Very different trajectories.

And "ipso facto good"? That’s the point of the axiom: good doesn’t float free. It emerges from the structural necessity of life valuing itself - or it ceases to be. No metaphysical leap, just evolutionary continuity.

But if you ever want to ground your ethics in something more coherent than sarcasm, the link’s still open.
https://www.academia.edu/128894269/

(I agree, wholeheartedly!!! And that's my main gripe with any objective ethics, moreso — AmadeusD

What do you make of the argument that because life is the basis of all value it is therefore good? I understand the impulse but I’m unconvinced.

it’s about life itself as the substrate of value. Rand begins with man qua man. I begin with life qua life. Very different trajectories — James Dean Conroy

fwiw, this is how Randians comport themselves. hence the very apt comparison.

And "ipso facto good"? That’s the point of the axiom: good doesn’t float free. It emerges from the structural necessity of life valuing itself - or it ceases to be. — James Dean Conroy

According to you. I reject it. Brute value exists.

What do you make of the argument that because life is the basis of all value it is therefore good? — Tom Storm

I think its quaint, but very much misguided. I have a friend in the Philosophy Club I meet with who is a strict Randian and shoehorns Rand into literally everything. His take on Ethics boils down to exactly this, based on the Objectivist Ethics. It's never been convincing, even reading the parts of Rand he felt were relevant.

Let’s be precise: Rand starts with the individual rational man as the root of value. I start with life itself, which includes everything from bacteria to consciousness.

That’s not shoehorning Rand, it’s rejecting her foundation and building from something deeper.

Rand says: "Man is the measure."

Synthesis says: "Life is the precondition for any measure at all."

It’s not quaint, it’s ontological: Without life, there is no perspective, no experience, no concept of value. Value only emerges within living systems, so life is necessarily the substrate of value.

You say "brute value exists."
Where? Show me value outside of a living context, any kind of value, even abstract, that doesn't depend on life to perceive, define, or pursue it.

This isn’t ideology. It’s structural reality.

But if you want to keep dismissing it as Randian cosplay, go ahead. Just don’t pretend that critique actually engaged what I said.

Link to the full framework’s here if you're open: https://www.academia.edu/128894269/

I'd appreciate it if you engaged the actual material instead dismissing because of your presuppositions.

In the spirit of discourse.

Rand starts with the individual rational man as the root of value. — James Dean Conroy

This is not I, nor any Randian i interact with's take on this.
I have no idea why you're being difficult, dismissive and otherwise abraisive, but you seem to be impervious to other people's takes. If you're not a Randian, why do you care? Just reject Rand and be done with it. I am telling you in no uncertain terms you are using hte same rationalization. It happens, man. No beef.

That’s not shoehorning Rand, — James Dean Conroy

I wasn't talking about you. Perhaps this explains much...

It’s not quaint — James Dean Conroy

My view is it's quaint. You haven't convinced me otherwise.

Value only emerges within living systems, so life is necessarily the substrate of value. — James Dean Conroy

Non sequitur. Living systems often retain nothing like value, so something further must be at issue. Simple.

Where? — James Dean Conroy

All of your values. You aren't addressing what I've said in the next line, so I've ignored it.

Just don’t pretend that critique actually engaged what I said. — James Dean Conroy

It did. You're welcome to pretend otherwise.

I'd appreciate it if you engaged the actual material instead dismissing because of your presuppositions. — James Dean Conroy

I read your OP. I've followed references. These are my takes. If you don't like them, say so. You wont get far by charging anyone who doesn't agree with you with not engaging the material. That said, this isn't particularly interesting to me so I'm not even that keen to engage with you on it. Still, I did.

Ok, lets be clear - "no beef".

Your reply isn't genuine discourse, it's pure unadulterated sophistry.

“You’re using the same rationalization. It happens, man.”
> Vague assertion. No argument. No explanation. It’s vibes-based dismissal masquerading as insight.

“Reject Rand and be done with it.”
> I already did. You're responding to a strawman, not the actual framework.

“My view is it’s quaint. You haven’t convinced me otherwise.”
> That’s not a rebuttal. That’s emotional positioning: “I’ve decided you’re wrong, now prove me wrong.” Classic reversal of the burden of proof. You understand this framework is axiomatic, right?

“I wasn’t talking about you. Perhaps this explains much…”
> Side comment, condescending, and still doesn’t change the fact that you mischaracterised my position and then argued against that mischaracterisation.

“Living systems often retain nothing like value.”
> Unsubstantiated claim. What does that even mean? If you don’t, how are you making claims about value at all?

“All of your values. You aren't addressing what I've said in the next line, so I've ignored it.”
> Translation: “You didn’t respond exactly how I wanted, so I’m dismissing you wholesale.”

“It did. You're welcome to pretend otherwise.”
> Pure gaslighting. No explanation of how you engaged the argument - just flat assertion and dismissal.

“I read your OP. Followed references. These are my takes. If you don’t like them, say so.”
. Saying “these are my takes” isn’t an argument. If you truly read the framework, You’d know it's not Randian. Your claim of engagement doesn't match the content of your responses.

I'm open to discussion, but this isn't genuine discourse

At this point, it’s clear you’re not engaging with the ideas, you’re defending your position. That’s fine - but don’t confuse critique with dismissal, or performant sophistry with philosophy. The door was open to genuine discourse. You walked past it.

Anyone else reading, understand - this framework is AXIOMATIC. The first premise is the key. If you want to try to dismiss the ideas, lets start with the first axiom - not just state that you "disagree".

It's an Axiom. The burden of proof lies with you to disprove it if you want to disagree with the rest - which builds on it logically.

This framework isn't an opinion - its descriptive. Hope that's clear.

it's pure unadulterated sophistry. — James Dean Conroy

You're welcome to think so. I have already addressed this (among your issues).

It’s vibes-based dismissal masquerading as insight. — James Dean Conroy

Err nope. BUt again, you're free to think so.

I already did. — James Dean Conroy

You've not. You're still running arguments that are in her wheelhouse, while saying its not Randian. Bizarre.

That’s not a rebuttal. — James Dean Conroy

You didn't say anything to be rebutted. It's a quaint notion. Change my mind?

condescending — James Dean Conroy

No. But this, also, explains a lot. It's not all about you. You seem a little... over-alert.

you mischaracterised my position — James Dean Conroy

I didn't. It seems you cannot see your own position too clearly. Not uncommon.

What does that even mean? — James Dean Conroy

Your first statement is a nonsense in the face of this being hte follow up. Do you want an answer, or nah? Seems like nah.

“You didn’t respond exactly how I wanted, so I’m dismissing you wholesale.” — James Dean Conroy

Ironic. Particularly as I responded to part, and dismissed part (so, not 'wholesale'). I'm not one for pussyfooting: you come across as incapable of a discussion.

Pure gaslighting. — James Dean Conroy

Haha. Okay mate.

isn’t an argument. — James Dean Conroy

It is when your argument is somehow a different one (i.e "you didn't read X"). Its typical. Not interesting.

Your claim of engagement doesn't match the content of your responses. — James Dean Conroy

It does. Your responses match the content of your responses to others, though. I am sorry if you are bothered (it certainly seems so) that I note a distinct, and obvious Randian flavour. It's not my circus. If you reject Rand, you'll need to confront that basic tenet: Life/survival is the fundamental motivator for any value. That is explicitly Randian.

not just state that you "disagree". — James Dean Conroy

If it's an axiom, this is the only available retort. You believe its fundamental. I don't. We don't have a discussion. THis is a genuinely bizarre response.

A true masterclass in deflection, projection, and smug hand-waving. You're not interested in understanding - you're just trying to win social points with a shrug and a smirk. You can tell by the tone: condescension disguised as "cool detachment." Classic sophist defence mechanism when cornered.“You believe it’s fundamental. I don’t. We don’t have a discussion.”

Exactly. That’s the whole point.

An axiom isn’t something you “agree” with emotionally - it’s a structural claim. You either engage it and test it on its terms, or you’re not doing philosophy. You’re just vibing.

You’re welcome to keep vibing. But for anyone else reading:

The claim “Life = Good” isn’t a moral opinion. It’s a descriptive statement: without life, value doesn’t exist. That’s not Rand. That’s biology, evolution, ontology.

If you disagree - show how value exists without life. That’s the discussion. Not this.

Clearly you're not here for discourse.

I might write a blog post: "a case study in defending axiomatic systems against shallow counterplay"

Ok. Your misunderstandings are noted, and I shall go about my business. Good luck to you.

Your refusal to deal with the axiomatic nature of the claims are also noted.

Au revoir.

Hey great post.
I appreciate your patience and attention to the argument here.
I mostly agree with the OP, but I have a few thoughts.

Life is the only frame from which value can be assessed. It is the necessary condition for all experience, meaning, and judgment. Without life, there is no perception, no action, and no evaluation. — James Dean Conroy

If life is the source of all value, it's also presumably the source of everything else.

Life must see itself as good. Any system that undermines its own existence is naturally selected against. Therefore, within the frame of life, the assertion "Life = Good" is a tautological truth. It is not a moral statement; it is an ontological necessity. — James Dean Conroy

If life is necessarily the only source of value, it's also necessarily the only source of nihilism, antinatalism, and any other "system that undermines its own existence." You say that these systems will self-terminate, but their mere existence seems to pose a contradiction. If it's descriptively true that all life supports itslef, how can we explain the emergence (or existence) of antinatalism at all?

"Life must see itself as good," but sometimes produces suicide and terrorism and depression and nihilism.

Again, I appreciate the post and would love to share some other thoughts if you respond.

Hi Intro

Really thoughtful reply - thank you for engaging with the framework honestly.

You’ve nailed a core tension that Synthesis doesn’t ignore, it depends on it.

Yes: nihilism, antinatalism, even suicide, these do emerge from life. But that doesn’t contradict the axiom. In fact, it confirms it.

Because life doesn’t just produce harmony, it produces contradiction, resistance, and adaptation. These death-aligned ideologies are not "evidence against" life’s goodness, they’re part of its testing mechanism. In evolutionary terms: entropy enters the system, and life either adapts or perishes.

"Life must see itself as good" doesn’t mean every organism always affirms life. It means that over time, systems that deny life cannot persist. They self-select out. That’s the ontological truth.

A suicide ends the self. Antinatalism ends the line. Nihilism decays into impotence. These are not failures of the axiom, they are its proof. Life runs the experiment - and ends what undermines it.

So yes, life births its own contradictions. But the ones that endure are those that re-align with life. It's part of the dialectic it utilises - both winners and losers - it hedges its bets - always (think grasshoppers turning into locusts and eating each other - or parasitism) - everything is explored.

That’s the deeper movement: not perfection, but refinement. I explore this idea more in an evolutionary systems model I worked on called "The Hedge". We can explore that more if you like.

Would love to hear your further thoughts.

Just a separate point.

For anyone else thinking this is a Randian philosophy then attempting to undermine it purely based on that misconception, here is the list of citations:

Aquinas, T. (2006). Summa Theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.).
Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1265–1274)
Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work
published ca. 350 BCE)
Augustine. (2003). Confessions (H. Chadwick, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work
published 397–400 CE)
Benatar, D. (2006). Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. Oxford
University Press.
Camus, A. (1955). The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays (J. O’Brien, Trans.). Alfred A. Knopf.
Campbell, J. (1949). The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Pantheon Books.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Fertility rates in Israel.
Confucius. (1979). The Analects (D. C. Lau, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published
ca. 479 BCE)
Conroy, J. D. (2025). Synthesis – Life is Good: The Axiom of Life. Amazon.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the
Generation of Culture. Oxford University Press.
Crowley, A. (1976). The Book of the Law. Weiser Books. (Original work published 1904)
Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray.
Dery, M. (1994). Black to the Future: Interviews with Samuel R. Delany, Greg Tate, and Tricia
Rose. In Flame Wars: The Discourse of Cyberculture (pp. 179–222). Duke University Press.
Fanon, F. (1963). The Wretched of the Earth (C. Farrington, Trans.). Grove Press.
Jung, C. G. (1964). Man and His Symbols. Doubleday.
Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge University
Press. (Original work published 1781)
Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Viking.
Mandelbrot, B. B. (1982). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W. H. Freeman.
Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1 (B. Fowkes, Trans.).
Penguin Books. (Original work published 1867)
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
Nietzsche, F. (1968). Thus Spoke Zarathustra (R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.). Penguin Books.
(Original work published 1883–1885)
Plato. (2008). Republic (B. Jowett, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published ca.
380 BCE)
Rand, A. (1957). Atlas Shrugged. Random House.
Spinoza, B. (1996). Ethics (E. Curley, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1677)
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine.
MIT Press.

I do cite Rand, to dismiss the claims.

So would appreciate the intellectual effort in actually read the works before engaging

:up: :wink:

For anyone else thinking this is a Randian philosophy then attempting to undermine it purely based on that misconception — James Dean Conroy

I didn't do that. A reading of what I've actually said would betray this. So, do not attempt to be dishonest about me in threads I can read. :) You are extremely good at not reading clearly, and then saying someone else did it.

I thought you were going?

Your ego couldn't resist...

Did you see the citation list?

Followed them, did you?

I am telling you in no uncertain terms you are using hte same rationalization. — AmadeusD

You don't even understand what an axiom is or how to conduct rational discourse.

Why did you even bother?

I'm not here to stroke my ego. I have business here. Not ego stroking or smug provocation

That's not true of everyone here, is it?