So, you see no value in truth beyond its use as a means for happiness and survival?

If that's the case then philosophy too must simply be a means to survival. Yet, many here (I'm guessing) think that philosophy is a higher goal - the quest for knowledge for its own sake. — TheMadFool

Roughly speaking, yes. But I wouldn't stress survival. Survival itself is only itself a tool in the hand of the "the project." Suicide may also be a tool in the hand of the "the project." For instance, a terminal patient may go out on his own terms and a soldier may sacrifice his life for an ideal that it not about knowing things but rather about being a certain kind of person. Knowing is not the only or even central expression of virtue, in other words.

Happiness in the deep sense (as I see it) accompanies the continuation of this project. What is this project? It's your "higher goal." But philosophy (among other things) is the determination and modification of this higher goal. Whom shall I be? What is noble?

As I see it, the association of truth-seeking with nobility is contingent rather than necessary. Of course most philosophers understand the pursuit of knowledge as ennobling. "All men by nature desire to know." I'd never deny man's curiosity, but does this not hint at fixing the essence of nobility? What if all men by nature desire to be noble in a generalized sense? And philosophy is a practice for those who have determined this essence of nobility in terms of the pursuit of knowledge? But what if this pursuit of knowledge leads to an awareness of the contingency of fixing the essence this way?

In other words, I'm suggesting that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake can subvert itself or put itself in question. The first part of Nietzsche's BG&E is a famous example.

I find it more plausible that man is time or that man is the project. This project includes its own anguished or joyful specification. I am or was always already thrown into the process of figuring out or creating why. To pursue universal knowledge is one possibility among others.

...they are instead primarily concerned about how this theory effectively condemns them to absolute eternal annihilation. — Robert Lockhart

I'm tempted to say "of course." For me this "absolute eternal annihilation" is a fundamental issue. If one believes in real death, this belief radiates outward on to many other beliefs. Life is framed as a dream in its ephemerality. No talking head's feverish grand narrative transcends the vanity or ultimate/eventual emptiness of all things. We are thrown into brute fact, mortal, always already piecing together a fragile and temporary future from the absurd given. The talking head (evangelist or intellectual or...) can't die our deaths for us.

So there's a grand and terrible solitude in this perspective on existence. Many who do except real death still escape via identification with Progess (moral, intellectual, artistic). I do too, in my way. Language is a leap from the grave. I hide from my dying flesh in the iterability and ideality of concept, in the objectivity or materiality of the sign. That's presumably what these scientists do. They are so identified with the work that they are not troubled by what it means for this contingent selves. Those contingent selves are just vehicles which Science uses and throws away.

there is also surely the ubiquitous wish innate to humans not only that they be happy but be sustainably so, and additionaly that our situation should contain some inherent purpose beyond permitting mere ephemeral gratification — Robert Lockhart

Surely you're right here, too. Of course Science and Progress and Language involve "inherent purpose" but are ultimately ephemeral themselves. If I escape my personal death in terms of the progress of the species or of some community, the species itself and every community is also mortal. Only an immortal God can save us from our ephemerality. But I'm tempted to ask seekers after this immortality: what do you want to do with it? Give them eternal life on earth. Now what? Safe in their immortality, they are likely enough to enjoy the usual ephemeral pleasures more intensely. They can procrastinate indefinitely with respect to making something of themselves. Death drives culture. Death itself makes life vivid and important. Death is life's foil.

1. Is truth only as valuable to the extent it helps us achieve happiness?

2. If yes, why do we search so hard for the truth, given that some truths are painful?

3. If no, what is this other value of truth? — TheMadFool

Here are my tentative answers.

1. Yes, by definition. If we understand "happiness" to symbolize the goal, then it is valuable to the degree that it aids our movement toward this goal.

2. We can be described as the collision of many drives, instincts, desires. Let's say that I am hungry and see an opportunity to steal food. I fear the consequence of this theft and also the loss of self-love that would come with understanding myself as a thief. So I reason with myself. I can make excuses for this theft (decide that property itself is theft, for instance) or perhaps comfort my hunger by reflecting on the virtue indicated by my restraint. The rationalizing "ego" can be understood as the process of harmonizing these drives. Clearly we are future oriented beings. We endure suffering now by means of an admixture of anticipatory pleasure. I show up for work after a night of insomnia. My long term goal requires this discomfort. The relative strength of drives is revealed this way.

This sets the scene for my main point. We get narcissistic pleasure from possessing the truth and understanding ourselves as scientists or metaphysicians. So we make sacrifices. If I sacrifice my belief in personal immortality or cosmic justice to the pleasure I take in being logical, I only prove how serious and scientifically virtuous I must indeed be. Or maybe I accept that I am ugly by thinking how intelligent and realistic I must be to do so. Or it allows me to get the girls nevertheless by identifying the problem and adjusting for it (working out, better hair, achievement of charism via humor or political earnestness or success in the "real" world [money]).

3. See #2.

Great reading, at least for those sinners like myself who still enjoy the "high minded sentiments" of liberty.

The 'seeker types' (of which I regard myself as one) are not especially interested in scientific accounts of the Universe...What they might be seeking in philosophy is more along the lines of principles to live by. — Wayfarer

First, great post. Also, for background, I relate to this "seeker" type. Principles to live by. Yes.

But the underlying assumption of science is that the Universe simply is, it has no inherent meaning, direction or purpose. — Wayfarer

Is this uncontroversial? I think of it as a method. Ideally (as I understand it) it offers testable predictions. Maybe Popper oversimplifies, but I understand it as falsifiable prophecy. Expect this measurement at tis time and place. Also, doesn't thermodynamics deal with direction? The arrow of time? Aren't the postulated "laws" themselves inherent meaning? So is the problem perhaps the assumption that scientific meaning is the only important meaning? On quantifiable matters, science seems trustworthy. But not all objects of human interest are quantifiable. I think of the intelligibility (ordinary world, language) that we are thrown into. Science emerges from that and helps us deal with that --along with other cultural accumulations.

Evolutionary theory is one of the especially-contested subjects in this matter, perhaps because it ultimately does bear upon humankind's account of itself, and is strongly ideological for that reason. — Wayfarer

Very good point. For many this is a hot subject. On the other hand, the first-person richness that is already here and undeniable arguably deflates that issue, at least for some. If I discover that I am not in fact mortal, that's a game changer. If the world suddenly becomes utopia, that's a game changer. But if the world is going to stay the same and I'm going to stay the same, then our mysterious source doesn't matter much, if at all. Only subjective experience matters here. If "God" is a word I use for the order I find in things, for instance, why bother with the metaphysical assertions? Perhaps as art or piety. Perhaps for political reasons. I get that. Is metaphysics science, poetry, religion or something else? It's seems deeper than all three in some sense, at least in its ambition. That's how I fit it into the "seeker." It wants to get behind or under other forms of knowledge or questioning.

That death is inevitable, and unconquerable, eternal, and the ultimate reality is quitter talk. — Wosret

But what if this "quitter talk" is used within a larger strategy for success? Do individuals who frame themselves or even the species in these tragic terms necessarily quit or fail? What if these dark visions are the dissonance in the music or aggressions against ideologies understood as restraints?

I think that infinite regress pre-supposes increasing complexity. It may not be the case. In which case regress would not be infinite and we can close our loop. — MikeL

I definitely don't think it's absurd to close our loop. We can just hypothesize that the origin transcends human intelligence. I suppose my view is something like that. But for me this is not an explanation but rather a strategic retreat inspired by a questioning of the question. On the other hand, a final explanation doesn't make sense to me. So perhaps I'm a "theist" of brute fact. If I can understand God metaphysically (according to my current understanding of understanding), then I don't see why I couldn't ask after His nature. Why wouldn't the nature of God Himself also be contingent? In other words, why would God have exactly that nature?

But this also seems to apply to metaphysical and physical theories. Is (ultimate) contingency necessary? Is necessity necessarily local or only between entities? I ask these questions from my current understanding of my own understanding (to understand is to find or postulate necessary if probabilistic relationships). If there is radically different kind of experience in God, then the whole issue leaves metaphysics behind. I'd like to say that I'm open to that. It's scary, of course. I'm used to being alone down here at this point. Death is the devil I know in the sense that I'm used to the idea of my mortality.

The problem is that the pattern of life has no reason to cling to the pattern of the environmental landscape in order to survive. It should randomly drift out of life, just as it drifted in. According to the theory of life, in the 3 billions plus years since life began, this hasn't occurred even once. Why shouldn't life have evolved and de-evolved at least several times by now? — MikeL

Interesting question. I'm no expert, but my conjecture/understanding is that most mutations are "bad" and do cause that particular organism's pattern to drift away. Or rather "bad" is nothing but this pattern's "unsuccessful" relationship with its environment. Other mutations are compatible, and that allows for increased complexity. No doubt this is counterintuitive. To be frank, I take it on trust, just as I take lots of specialized knowledge on trust. But, indeed, it's no small assertion to say that human beings emerged from muck over billions of years. It's hardly absurd to question such a narrative.

As far as the process not starting again, that is an interesting point. I vaguely recall scientists working with primordial soup to see if they could manage non-biogenesis. A layman might think or hope that this could be done. This would be more impressive than cold fusion. I'm assuming it hasn't been done. Surely it would cause a commotion.

The solution is that something is a brute fact since non-existence is impossible. — Agustino

But what if something is a brute fact simply because of the way we reason as humans? Also, why is non-existence impossible? Respectfully, does "non-existence is impossible" have a sufficiently unambiguous meaning in the first place?

As we, and all life forms, are evolving we are learning and also trying out new things. When I learn to dance or a new Tai Chi form, or singing, or playing piano, I am actually experiment and training my whole body, all of my cellular intelligence, to do new things. This is the process of evolution. It is neither chaotic nor determined. It is exactly as we are experiencing it, a process of creative evolution. — Rich

This seems like a very accurate description of our most immediate experience as human beings. Whatever else is going on, creative evolution is here now.

How did the designing intelligence arise? and was it intelligently designed? — praxis

Nice point. This is where I'm coming from. How is a creator an explanation? How is a creator not just one more part of the creation, ultimately? As soon as we add this creator object to our notion of all that exists? It seems that any answer to the question has to be a disappointing answer. It makes me question the question. On the other hand, answer candidates obviously have emotional relevance. So that suggests that what is going on is debate over grand narratives, a clash of visions about man's place and purpose (if any) in the universe.

This OP suggests that if we buy into the premise that life arose out of nothing, we must also accept that because there was no intent, life should also drift out of existence just as easily. — MikeL

What if many random patterns were somehow generated and some of them happened to be self-reproducing? If the patterns are subject to wear and tear, then eventually would we not have only those that are self-reproducing? For me the strangest or most mysterious aspect is the very beginning. My current thesis is that we cannot escape brute fact at some point, whether we call this brute fact "God" or something more metaphysical as opposed to theological. To be clear, I think this is brute fact for us, as a function of human cognition.

Thanks for the kind welcome! This is a great thread. I read it all and just had to jump in.

How could something always have existed? But on the other hand how could nothing have existed? If nothing existed, how did something come from nothing? Surely it relies on concepts humans are not currently capable of understanding.
— CasKev

Hi.

What if this involves the limits of human reason? What is it to understand something? Is it to have a feeling of satisfied curiosity? Is it the ability to do something new? What if some explanation made us feel good but didn't allow us to predict something new or change things somehow? (I just joined this forum because I didn't see anyone mention that kind of idea.)