Physics and chemistry are sciences that explain observations. That is not the "thing-itself". — schopenhauer1

That does not follow; if "thing-itself" can refer to the thing-itself, so can "water" and so can "H2O". H2O may be theory laden, but it can still be used to refer to the thing-itself.

Life is a vast sandbox rgp with an infinite 'world map'
Your whole life is spent gaining experience points, completing challenges and trying to get as close to 100% completion, realising 100% is impossible because of certainly in-game one off choices and therefore must decide what the closet to 100% completion is to you this time you play. There are Easter eggs, bonus levels that both affect the outcome of the game and those that don't, and ultimately at the end of the game you die, and all this points are lost.
Maybe you respawn in a way that some level of attainment is important, maybe its a one time around map, but either it doesn't matter, cos the new game isn't based on any of your 'save points', a new character would play the same game a new way from an infinite amount of start points, story arcs etc...
This means life it pointless, yet this pointlessness is the point, the aim of the game is only to play the game, you decide right and wrong, sometimes a group can agree on these ideas and thus create groups and scoieites and civilisations, but it all boils down to each person in that group choosing that similar path for their game.
I am not referencing some kind of destiny here, just the acceptance that sometimes one can create a isolated 'fate' where one keystone choice will inevitably lead to an outcome unless certain other choices are made.
(I am also not talking literally, as in I am not referring to this dea that we live in a (or somebody's?) simulation, that is a different idea, my sandbox rpg is metaphorical.)

I also realised that I never really answered the original post...
If I am right, then you already live, and that is the reason, to 'play' your 'character arc' until it is concluded, and also trying to 'complete' the 'game'.

Im not talking about how how names refer to their referents in the world but rather the specific statement that math and science are the world. That is not a metaphysical position. It is using an epistemological statement for a metaphysical position. Further, my actual point is that even that metaphysical position doesnt tell us much about the himan experience itself other than claiming perhaps a statement about the constituents that make up people and the world

You state “ However, a physicalist metaphysical position entails no assessment or evaluation for how humans can respond to the world”. Which again, is incorrect, we are chemical beings we we interact with our environment. Which is by definition means we interact physical/metaphysical.Because we’re human doesn’t make us any better than physical beings.

Im not talking about how how names refer to their referents in the world but rather the specific statement that math and science are the world. — schopenhauer1

I realize you're scratching a metaphysical itch, but I'm scratching a semantic itch, and I posit that you have to cross my playground before you reach yours. For example, what does it mean to say that math and science are the world?

That is not a metaphysical position. — schopenhauer1

I agree, but I think we have a bigger issue. You present that chemistry not being a metaphysical position is a problem with the claim that we're just chemistry. But I think chemistry not being a metaphysical position is a problem with your objection to the claim that we're just chemistry. Water is H2O; two parts of something we call hydrogen and one part something we call oxygen. Hydrogen has one proton in it, oxygen eight. Protons are made up of two up quarks and one down quark bound by gluons. And a quark is, maybe, a primitive classical unit. Or maybe, a portion of the universal wavefunction. Or maybe, a mode of vibration of strings. Or maybe, a particular equivalence class of features of the simulation we're in. Or maybe some combination of these things, or maybe none of them. All of these things have possibly distinct metaphysical implications.

But I submit it doesn't matter. Whatever quarks are, that the stuff coming out of my faucets is H2O is just a model saying such things as that I can run a DC current through it, and get two parts of something I call hydrogen and one part of something I call oxygen. So who really cares what the metaphysics is? That's irrelevant. What's relevant is simply whether that model is apt.

Further, my actual point is that even that metaphysical position doesnt tell us much about the himan experience itself other than claiming perhaps a statement about the constituents that make up people and the world — schopenhauer1

But with respect to the claim that we're chemistry, it's irrelevant what the metaphysics are. It's quite simply the wrong conversation to be had. What's relevant is simply whether the physics is apt to cover it.

ETA: Just to remain close to the topic I'll toss my view in. Life is quite simply an opportunity. Beyond that I don't think there's much to say; what it's an opportunity for is open ended, and whether that's a sufficient reason is open ended (and as some have said, it's not even necessary to have a "reason" to live to live). I would only hope that people find something to do with that opportunity and enjoy it if they can.

But I submit it doesn't matter. Whatever quarks are, that the stuff coming out of my faucets is H2O is just a model saying such things as that I can run a DC current through it, and get two parts of something I call hydrogen and one part of something I call oxygen. So who really cares what the metaphysics is? That's irrelevant. What's relevant is simply whether that model is apt. — InPitzotl

I don't know, that's a pragmatic claim, which itself is a metaphysical claim. What works, is what is the case. Okay, if you say so I guess? But it looks like you are making an epistemological claim, which I would agree would help a species built on surviving on empirical patterns. That matters though, only if you feel life itself matters, and that seems to be the question at hand.

But with respect to the claim that we're chemistry, it's irrelevant what the metaphysics are. It's quite simply the wrong conversation to be had. What's relevant is simply whether the physics is apt to cover it. — InPitzotl

But that isn't the actual question at hand which is nothing to do with the physics, but what we should do as humans in the world.

ETA: Just to remain close to the topic I'll toss my view in. Life is quite simply an opportunity. Beyond that I don't think there's much to say; what it's an opportunity for is open ended, and whether that's a sufficient reason is open ended (and as some have said, it's not even necessary to have a "reason" to live to live). I would only hope that people find something to do with that opportunity and enjoy it if they can. — InPitzotl

I mean we do live until we don't, but this isn't much of a statement. So dear sir, why should humans keep living, keep continuing, keep procreating? This itself has nothing to do with whether we can harness DC energy or not.

From my research, most philosophers, most notably Socrates, conclude that death is not inherently bad, but also that life is worth living; These two premises are contradictory in my opinion. — JacobPhilosophy

Why can't both be good?

Once one is dead, one is indifferent to such event, and indifferent to the life from which was lived — JacobPhilosophy

How do you know this?

You guys are so wordy! — Becky

Ha, ha! Guys=Wordy. True that! :-)

I have thought of something similar.
Funny thing is, and this is purely from my own experience of the topic.

When I wanted to kill myself, I could not find a reason to live.
when I was not able to pull through and do it, and had to accept that death was not a option, I then found reason to live. I realised that it is a selfish act to do suicide, it is not fair if you have a family, parents, siblings, that you are an uncle, if you have friends etc.
because what you put them through by doing suicide is a selfish act.
But I did not see it in that way before after the state in which I wanted to not live.

I was thinking of a selfish reason to kill myself but found reason why not kill myself which happened to be a non-selfish reason.

So for what you ask and what I conclude from my experience, I see it as, there is no one single, one true answer to you're question.

This quote from the play Hamlet,“To be, or not to be? That is the question—Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And, by opposing, end them?” The idea of whether is it better to live or to die.

And to answer the hamlet quote in which the question is, is it better to or not.
It is better to die because you will not suffer.
but it is better to live because then you will not be dead.

/(In advance, I am sorry for bad grammatical writing. and also I am brand new on the site, and firstly did not want to comment, I just wanted to read through topics and answers, but since this was something I have had a real life experience on. I took the liberty to share my view. Even that it is inconclusive :D)

That matters though, only if you feel life itself matters, and that seems to be the question at hand. — schopenhauer1

So dear sir, why should humans keep living, keep continuing, keep procreating? This itself has nothing to do with whether we can harness DC energy or not. — schopenhauer1

You're still walking through my playground. What does it mean to say humans should keep living, keep continuing, and keep procreating for reason X? What does it mean for life to matter? How does metaphysics help you answer that?

I offered that life is an opportunity; open ended. If you have something you care about, you can devote your life to it, and that's a reason to live. What is your objection? And how does metaphysics help support your objection?

You're still walking through my playground. What does it mean to say humans should keep living, keep continuing, and keep procreating for reason X? What does it mean for life to matter? How does metaphysics help you answer that? — InPitzotl

Metaphysics might not, though someone like Schopenhauer has some interesting answers using a metaphysical starting point.

I offered that life is an opportunity; open ended. If you have something you care about, you can devote your life to it, and that's a reason to live. What is your objection? And how does metaphysics help support your objection? — InPitzotl

You can see it sort of in my first response.

You can see it sort of in my first response. — schopenhauer1

I see this in your first response; I'll label them:

(A) That matters though, only if you feel life itself matters, and that seems to be the question at hand. — schopenhauer1

(B) but what we should do as humans in the world. — schopenhauer1

(C) why should humans keep living, keep continuing, keep procreating? — schopenhauer1

(A) is a value-judgment; I offer that it has no meaning for a reason to continue living unless it has meaning to the subject under consideration. What is your objection?
(B) is just a generic prescriptive question; (C) is a bit more particular. So considering (C), I offer again that life is just an opportunity, open ended. You should keep on living if there's something about life that you value. Same thing about continuing, and procreating. Both, however, may be challenged and weighed against reasons against the same. So I ask again, what is your objection?

Actually, I meant the first response to this whole thread, sorry if I wasn't as specific, so it was before that post.

(A) is a value-judgment; I offer that it has no meaning for a reason to continue living unless it has meaning to the subject under consideration. What is your objection? — InPitzotl

I don't have one. I was just saying that the fact that we can harness DC electricity isn't a reason for humans to live by itself.

(B) is just a generic prescriptive question; — InPitzotl

Correct. Something that the statement "the world is made up of chemistry" doesn't really get at, which was my point of the statement.

(C), I offer again that life is just an opportunity, open ended. You should keep on living if there's something about life that you value. So I ask again, what is your objection? — InPitzotl

I guess my main evaluation is in regards to suffering. This is not a utopia. Is the world worth bringing more people into if it isn't a utopia? I concluded that it is not. A mediocre world (one that is at least not a utopia) is not worth bringing more people into in the first place. However, I can see not committing suicide once born because of the fear of pain and the unknown, and being attached to projects already in place once born. However, I do take Schopenhauer's (and Buddhist for that matter) ideas seriously that there is a basic lack in the humane experience. This I call inherent or "necessary" suffering (it doesn't go away, it's always there in the background). On top of this, it is self-evident that there is also myriads of ways to contingently suffer. Contingent suffering is suffering that is circumstantial to each person's circumstance (not necessary) but nonetheless still pervasive in almost all human lives (e.g. physical pain, mental anguish, frustrations, disappointments, tedium, etc.). I also see the idea of the absurd (often discussed in existential literature). That to me, is the repetitious nature of living that one sees if one reflects too long (the world turns, we basically have to do the same things over and over). To get a better understanding, see my first response.

My basic objection to Becky was her (his?) objection to my response by saying "the world is chemistry and physics" and therefore X evaluation of the world.

I don't have one. I was just saying that the fact that we can harness DC electricity isn't a reason for humans to live by itself. — schopenhauer1

Something that the statement "the world is made up of chemistry" doesn't really get at, — schopenhauer1

My basic objection to Becky was her (his?) objection to my response by saying "the world is chemistry and physics" and therefore X evaluation of the world. — schopenhauer1

Okay, I think we're talking past each other then, because I was just saying addressing the metaphysics is the wrong conversation. I see @Becky's quoted claim as off myself (as far as the description goes, because energy isn't a type of thing, but rather a metric for a property; that's always a property of something physical, and we "aren't" and can't "become" energy), unless possibly it's a metaphor I don't quite get.

.

Okay, I think we're talking past each other then, because I was just saying addressing the metaphysics is the wrong conversation. I see Becky's quoted claim as off myself (as far as the description goes, because energy isn't a type of thing, but rather a metric for a property; that's always a property of something physical, and we "aren't" and can't "become" energy), unless it's possibly a metaphor I don't quite get. — InPitzotl

Yeah, I'm just trying to say that whatever she was trying to say, it didn't seem to be fleshed out as to how the world being "chemistry and physics" means something evaluative about the human experience.

I was also noting that "chemistry and physics" is an epistemological methodology, and not a metaphysical claim in itself, unless explained as such. Does Becky mean scientific naturalism? Does Becky mean physicalism? Could he/she be committing "scientisism"? It's hard to tell just from the statements. It was more a prompt to explain the position more fully. It could go in many directions, but I see Becky didn't really address the issues much further.

I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. One of these premeses has to be false — JacobPhilosophy

This is a non-sequitur. A life may be worth living at some point, but turn sour later on. Furthermore, a life can be worth living without its end being a bad thing. Indeed someone whose life is well-lived seems to me to be someone who is not overly-concerned with keeping it around. They do not fear death but neither see any reason to bring it about.

Life is of so little importance that to ponder suicide is somewhat absurd. You spend so much energy to bring about the end of something that will end on its own anyway. Certainly it is understandable if you are experiencing a great deal of pain, but otherwise what's the big hurry?

But this only pertains to a life that already exists. If we are instead talking about life in the sense of the entirely of one's journey between birth and death, then the question is not so much is life worth living (aka is life worth finishing) but rather: is life worth starting. These are two very different questions.

A life can be worth finishing, even if it was not worth starting.

Chemistry and physics are. You tweak that basic reality by calling it different things. naturalism, physicalism, scientisism are all semantics. Math doesn’t lie, people twist it. E= mc2. I can’t wait. Why be afraid?

:smirk:

:up:

I know that this may sound pretentious or unnecessarily "edgy" but I am genuinely trying to enquire about a difficult and unfalsifiable subsection of metaphysics: death and the value of life. From my research, most philosophers, most notably Socrates, conclude that death is not inherently bad, but also that life is worth living; These two premises are contradictory in my opinion. If something (life) is worth keeping, then surely the removal of said thing is inherently negative, no? In conclusion, I do not believe that anyone can provide a reason for me not to end my life tomorrow (hypothetically, I'm not suicidal by any means), other than "because you may aswell live". In my personal opinion the length of one's life is not a factor when determining whether the ending of it was negative or not. Once one is dead, one is indifferent to such event, and indifferent to the life from which was lived, therefore length and memory are invalid to the state of non-existence, as death and not having been born are an identical state in my opinion.

I am incredibly curious as to how much more intelligent people answer the question provided by the title of the thread. I'm new to this forum so I hope that this is to standard and isn't removed.

This was originally a Question but I have changed the category to debate, because I do not believe that I am able to mark a comment as having answered the question, as it is incredibly subjective.

I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. One of these premeses has to be false, either life is not worth living (and therefore there is no reason not to end it) or death is inherently bad (and therefore should be feared). This presents an interesting dilemma as neither outcome is particularly desirable in my opinion: either fear death or kill yourself. — JacobPhilosophy

#Shark_Fighter_Nation is the political party i belong too.

This includes skydiving, shark fighting, fighting a rattle snake with a pair of garden shears, moving to Chicago, moving to Iran, fighting a bobcat, fighting a bear, fighting an aligator

Suicide is never in any circumstance or after any set of bad choices the right answer. Suicide is never the right answer.

Suicide is never the right answer. — christian2017

Suicide is, however, always the first question (Camus).

:death: :flower:

It seems you suffer from depression. Sorry to hear that. I wish you the best.

The question, "can you provide a reason to live?" suggests a condition that's the exact opposite of the actual state of affairs, one in which, ceteris paribus, most people don't wish to die. I say this because to not want to die points to having a reason to live. Perhaps this line of reasoning is flawed because people may actually lack reasons to live but find death or nonexistence painful, something with the same net effect of not wanting to die.

So, supposing there are no positive reasons to want to live, at least there's the negative one of death being just too painful to experience.

It's not that Jane married John instead of Jones because she loves John but because she hates Jones. :chin:

Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. — JacobPhilosophy

It can worth living at a certain age or time, and worth ending at another, either because one is past one's prime and doesn't enjoy it anymore, or because the circumstances have changed.

↪180 Proof

It seems you suffer from depression. Sorry to hear that. I wish you the best. — christian2017

So, for you, is "seeming" believing? Whatever. I "suffer" from cheerful pessimism (i.e. prepared for things to get worse and usually quite amused that they haven't yet) instead.

:death: :flower:

Can one provide a reason to live? — JacobPhilosophy

My reason is simple. I want to see what happens tomorrow.

seems & believing are both on the same spectrum. Believing and gambling are essentially the same thing.

self doubt = success but we should try to avoid self doubt as much as possible. Success isn't all that important. We should always forgive ourselves and Suicide is never the answer.

This is the best response in the thread.

I am 67 and I am perfectly amenable to the prospect of death. God or No God, at least I'll determine the Truth or I won't know anything. But I am not in a hurry to throw away the thing that is of greatest value for all living things. Time. You may not believe it now but you will change and change again and with those changes will come a new and different set of values. Perspectives that will delight and revile you and delight you again. When you get out in the World you will learn more about the Truth in the World than you ever dreamed of in college. You have a sack full of diamonds in your possession right now. They may be uncut now but they will shine sooner that you think. . But do you really want to throw all that value away without enjoying any of it?

Live Long and Prosper.