Read above play book. This is textbook. It's not genuine engagement — James Dean Conroy

Well, I am certainly genuine. And with respect, you can’t actually know what is going on in my mind. You are simply making inferences based on your reaction to our interactions. Is it simply the case that if people don’t agree with you, you need to dismiss them as not genuine? That’s what this looks like.

For the record, I have not argued that you are wrong. I have simply responded to what you have said, and what you say does not seem to follow to me. What you are doing is saying to me, "It’s impossible that you don’t follow this since I am clear and following sound rules of discourse. So you must be deliberately misrepresenting me or arguing in bad faith."

Tom, you're still following the playbook I described. How about we actually engage with the framework on it own terms? I've no interest in semantic word play - I've been clear what is meant by the terms used.

If you want to discuss the framework, I'm all ears.

Tom, you're still following the playbook I described — James Dean Conroy

All I’m trying to do is reset the discussion to a point where you’re not assuming I’m a dishonest interlocutor.

It’s late here now, so I’ll just ask you one thing:

I agreed with you that your first axiom is probably correct.

What’s the next step?

What’s the next step? — Tom Storm

Here's an example: The whole idea might be of some help to depressive or nihilistic, frustrated people, when they're not seeing any root or basis apriori. This is not an ethical or moral problem. I think it's an epistemological problem. We need to recognize that basis. The fact that it's axiomatic or tautological is actually the point: Sometimes we don't see the forest because of all those trees.

All I’m trying to do is reset the discussion to a point where you’re not assuming I’m a dishonest interlocutor. — Tom Storm

No, you're not. I could quote endlessly why you've embodied the exact tactics I've described.

I agreed with you that your first axiom is probably correct.

What’s the next step? — Tom Storm

The next step, frankly, is to recognise that once you do that (accept the first axiom) - they rest just follows logically. If you're ready - I can show you why.

Or, if you want to continue misrepresentation - lets carry on like, Banno has - it doesn't serve you well but I'll do it. The longer we resist the rules of the game - the more credibility gets lost.

The fact that it's axiomatic or tautological is actually the point: Sometimes we don't see the forest because of all those trees. — Quk

Bang on the money.

Here's an example: The whole idea might be of some help to depressive or nihilistic, frustrated people, when they're not seeing any root or basis apriori. This is not an ethical or moral problem. I think it's an epistemological problem. We need to recognize that basis. — Quk

Ok. I don't see the point. Which is why I have been looking at the word 'good' assuming this was a moral argument of some kind.

No, you're not. — James Dean Conroy

You are calling me dishonest.

Or, if you want to continue misrepresentation — James Dean Conroy

Goodness... if I am misrepresenting you that it is not intentional.

The next step, frankly, is to recognise that once you do that (accept the first axiom) - they rest just follows logically. If you're ready - I can show you why. — James Dean Conroy

What's the next step?

Why do you replace "is valued" in the quote with "ought to be valued"? — Quk

I didn't.

There's obviously no "ought" in that quote. — Quk

There is an implicit "ought" in "growth is what is valued" - If growth is valuable, then the subject ought choose to grow were possible.

...this tautology is actually the whole point... — Quk

I what to bring out some of the implications of "Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued". Is that what you consider a tautology? So the idea is that becasue life grows and builds, that growth is therefore of value?

It doesn't follow.

Look at these two examples:

"Because living things tend to grow, growth is what is (in fact) valued (by them)"

and

"Because growth is valuable, we (or agents) ought to choose to grow."

Can you see how these say quite different things? What I have attempted to do was to have James acknowledge and address this.

The first is factual, the second is evaluative. The first is about what happens, the second is about what ought happen.

There's more going on here, including the distinction between instrumental and intrinsic value. James may be using “value” in a psychological or evolutionary sense (e.g., "life tends toward growth"), but then concluding something in the normative sense (e.g., "growth is good or ought to be pursued"). That's what I was attempting to clarify.

Ok. I don't see the point. Which is why I have been looking at the word good assuming this was a moral argument of some kind. — Tom Storm

Yes, I'm saying you're dishonest - this is a clear demonstration of that.

The definitions have been very clear - this 'assumption' is hard to believe - very hard.

if I am misrepresenting you that it is not intnetional — Tom Storm

As is this. You've refused to engage in the game - I'm past the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt.

There's more going on here, including the distinction between instrumental and intrinsic value. James may be using “value” in a psychological or evolutionary sense (e.g., "life tends toward growth"), but then concluding something in the normative sense (e.g., "growth is good or ought to be pursued"). That's what I was attempting to clarify. — Banno

No you're not - you're playing a sophist game - and this is more of the same. The terms have been clear from the start and repeated many times.

Just declaring "No i'm not" is condescending to me, Quk and the readers. This has been shameful, actually - and you're still at it.

Seems from your style that you are not looking for critique but for converts. — Banno

This is how the semantic sophistry game works. The pattern is classic:

I define terms precisely.

You ignore the definitions.

I restate calmly.

You gaslight my clarity with subjectivism (“I don’t read it that way”).

I clarify further.

You accuse me of rigidity or dogmatism.

This isn't real discourse. It's sophistry. — James Dean Conroy

Here's an example: The whole idea might be of some help to depressive or nihilistic, frustrated people, when they're not seeing any root or basis apriori. This is not an ethical or moral problem. I think it's an epistemological problem. We need to recognize that basis. The fact that it's axiomatic or tautological is actually the point: Sometimes we don't see the forest because of all those trees. — Quk

If I may, that life is valuable is something with which I will happily agree. But this does not follow from the fact that life grows.

Ok, well there's probably no point continuing.

As is this. You've refused to engage in the game - I'm past the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt. — James Dean Conroy

I don't understand what you mean by game.

1. Life is, therefore value exists. — James Dean Conroy

Yes, I can see how this makes sense.

2. Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued. — James Dean Conroy

I can't quite see how growth is valued. But I can see how this is similar to axiom one.

3. Life must affirm itself, or it perishes. — James Dean Conroy

I can see how this makes sense. If life doesn't affirm itself it may perish.

A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct or fail to reproduce. Therefore, belief in life’s worth isn’t merely cultural or emotional, it’s biologically and structurally enforced. This is not idealism; it’s existential natural selection.
Implication: To endure, life must be biased toward itself. “Life is Good” is not a descriptive claim about all events; it’s an ontological posture life must adopt to remain. — James Dean Conroy

So what does this ontology give us? I can’t see how this will help people who are wondering whether life is worth living. The fact that life chooses to live doesn’t mean it can’t also choose to die.

I live a fairly contented and privileged life. And yet, if I could press a button to no longer exist, and never have existed, I can’t say I wouldn’t press it. I don't have any overwhelming desire to exist and I am fortunate. The years of illness and old age await. Do I want to experience this?

The problem this addresses is moral relativism and existentialism (at least to some degree - there is no real panacea - as your final point highlights)

It grounds any prescriptions of moral frameworks in the same ontological base, without prescribing anything itself.

As Foucault pointed out - absolute moral prescriptions are inherently flawed - the context around people, places and differences - as well as shifting moral landscapes make this a fool's errand - this leads to things like nihilism and endless discussions about "good" and "bad"

Life is Good - lets all start there. This is the utility it offers.

If I may, that life is valuable is something with which I will happily agree. But this does not follow from the fact that life grows. — Banno

Something must grow from non-valuable to valuable, like non-grass to grass, like non-tree to tree.

Well, you could also say: Something must shrink from non-tree to tree, in which case it's the space around the tree which shrinks.

For me, it's irrelevant whether it's growing or shrinking. These are just relative aspects. Important is the process of change. Life changes. The change generates value.

Life is Good - lets all start there. This is the utility it offers. — James Dean Conroy

So I guess this is our point of difference. I had already argued about this earlier. I can't see the utility of this axiom.

Can we put this axiom into some scenarios, I want to see it at work?

"I am suicidal because I was sexually abused by my priest." Life is good.
"I have a terminal disease and wish to end things." Life is good.
"I am homeless and addicted to heroin, I hate my life." Life is good.

I've given you the utility clearly above.

It can't solve every issue and doesn't attempt to prescribe anything. It certainly doesn't have the power to stop all feelings of angst and suffering like the scenarios you describe - that's well out of scope - not just of this framework but any framework - as mentioned above - context matters (ask Foucault). It doesn't mean it has no utility.

I'm sorry, but I didn't follow that at all.

Cheers.

Can we put this axiom into some scenarios, I want to see it at work?

"I am suicidal because I was sexually abused by my priest." Life is good.
"I have a terminal disease and wish to end things." Life is good.
"I am homeless and addicted to heroin, I hate my life." Life is good. — Tom Storm

It probably won't help the victim of a brutal crime or disease. It might help a little when somebdy uses heroin because she or he is caught in a nihilistic tunnel view. I don't know. I don't think the idea will cause any harm anyway. Every attempt is a good attempt. There's the word again, hehe.

That philosophical idea is not just an argument against nihilism. That was just an example.

That philosophical idea is also just that: A philosophical idea. Understanding a context causes joy, the joy of understanding. If you're laywer you don't need to understand the Pythagorean theorem. Nevertheless, in the moment you understand it, you enjoy the understanding. Must philosophy always solve massive problems all at once? Small steps bring joy as well.

I don't think the idea will cause any harm anyway. Every attempt is a good attempt. There's the word again, hehe. — Quk

I don't see any harm. I just don't see any significant use yet.

Must philosophy always solve massive problems all at once? — Quk

I haven't found philosophy particularly useful, so I'm not expecting much.

That philosophical idea is not just an argument against nihilism. — Quk

I can't see it as an argument against nihilism. But it might depend on which version of nihilism you have in mind - it's a broad category. If you're the kind of nihilist who believe life isn't worth living, this principle is unlikely to help. I've worked with many suicidal people and nihilism is ususally about experience, not abstract arguments.

Do you appreciate the grounding utility?

Thats really the aim - and what Nietzsche was explicitly looking for.

If you're the kind of nihilist who believe life isn't worth living, this principle is unlikely to help — Tom Storm

It's a dim view of the world - I agree - the ontological aspect of this is the possible reprieve - although not guaranteed or 100% universal - admittedly

I've not heard of a grounding utility, but I am familiar with foundationalism, presuppositions, and grounding. I understand Nietzsche to reject all such attempts and to be resolutely anti-foundationalist.

I've not heard of a grounding utility, but I have heard of foundationalism, presuppositions, and grounding. — Tom Storm

I'm referring to this:

It grounds any prescriptions of moral frameworks in the same ontological base, without prescribing anything itself. — James Dean Conroy

Do you see the utility in that? Thats really the aim of the framework - and what Nietzsche was explicitly looking for.

I'm afraid I don't understand how this can be used.

As I understand him, Nietzsche is an anti-foundationalist in that he rejects the idea of absolute, universal truths or fixed foundations for knowledge, morality, or meaning. Instead, he emphasizes interpretation and perspectivism—the contingency of all values and beliefs. I tend to agree with this.

Bedtime. Bye.

Nietzsche was anti-foundational in the metaphysical sense. But what he longed for was a grounding that wasn’t illusion - something beneath the old truths, not above them.

That’s what I’m aiming at. "Life = Good" isn’t dogma - it’s an ontological necessity. All value, all perspective, all interpretation only exist because life persists to hold them. Even perspectivism needs a perspective - and that perspective is alive.

As Nietzsche said: “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.”
The 'why' isn’t abstract - it’s structural. Life is the why. Everything else is downstream.

You can see how that would be useful, right?

Sleep well.

As Foucault pointed out - absolute moral prescriptions are inherently flawed - the context around people, places and differences - as well as shifting moral landscapes make this a fool's errand - this leads to things like nihilism and endless discussions about "good" and " — James Dean Conroy

If you’re going to be invoking Foucault here I should point out here that he rejects the Humean distinction between the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’. Following Nietzsche, he asserts that there are no strictly non-prescriptive statements. One can find adherents of this thinking among such current philosophers as Joseph Rouse: “ I reject any sharp distinction between descriptive and prescriptive or factual and normative matters.”

↪Tom Storm Nietzsche was anti-foundational in the metaphysical sense. But what he longed for was a grounding that wasn’t illusion - something beneath the old truths, not above them.

That’s what I’m aiming at. "Life = Good" isn’t dogma - it’s an ontological necessity. All value, all perspective, all interpretation only exist because life persists to hold them. Even perspectivism needs a perspective - and that perspective is alive — James Dean Conroy

The ground for Nietzsche was the Will to Power, a way of thinking description and prescription, fact and value, the empirical and the ethical together. Life is not a fact preceding and grounding value, it is the essence of becoming and valuing. And rather than privileging the good over the bad, order over chaos, Nietzsche finds affirmation in both.

Exactly. You’ve just named what Nietzsche was looking for - a ground not above life, but beneath it. Life = Good isn’t a moral claim; it’s the ontological precondition for any value to arise at all. It’s the structural floor he intuited but never formalised - the condition of all valuing, including the Will to Power.

And your Foucault point reinforces this too. If, as Foucault and Rouse argue, the is/ought distinction collapses, then the attempt to refute Life = Good on those grounds (as Tom and Banno try) is obsolete.

You’ve helped crystallise the case. Appreciated.