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.Physics and chemistry are sciences that explain observations. That is not the "thing-itself". — 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?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 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.That is not a metaphysical position. — 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.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 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
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
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
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
Once one is dead, one is indifferent to such event, and indifferent to the life from which was lived — JacobPhilosophy
That matters though, only if you feel life itself matters, and that seems to be the question at hand. — 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?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? — InPitzotl
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
I see this in your first response; I'll label them:You can see it sort of in my first response. — schopenhauer1
(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
(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?(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? — InPitzotl
(B) is just a generic prescriptive question; — InPitzotl
(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 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
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.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 it's possibly a metaphor I don't quite get. — InPitzotl
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
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
Suicide is, however, always the first question (Camus).Suicide is never the right answer. — christian2017
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.Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. — JacobPhilosophy
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.↪180 Proof
It seems you suffer from depression. Sorry to hear that. I wish you the best. — christian2017
My reason is simple. I want to see what happens tomorrow.Can one provide a reason to live? — JacobPhilosophy
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.