"Subjectivity is truth." Discuss.

Hmmm, well now, seems I’ve gotten myself into quite the pickle. :brow:

Perhaps 180 Proof can rescue my dignity. — praxis

:clap: :fire:

our "dignity" is fine, praxis; Hanover, however, ain't looking so good (re: denialism) it seems to me. — 180 Proof

Strawman. Non-sequitur. :roll:

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning.
— Hanover

I can’t tell if you’re kidding. — praxis

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". — 180 Proof

What is the value of knowing that all bachelors are unmarried? — T Clark

That's an example of an analytic truth, not synthetic. The value is that it is definitional. It tells you what a bachelor is.

Geometrical truths are submitted by Kant to be synthetic a priori in that they tell you something substantive about the world without necessarily having to be experienced.

Quine disputes the analytic/synthetic distinction. You can look that up if interested.

This is a strange statement for me because I don’t consider intoxication or toxins “evil.” — praxis

You're going to have to go back and re-contextualize this whole alcohol discussion. I have no personal opposition to drinking alcohol and your pointing out there is no decontextualized meaning of the word "toxin" is obvious.

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning. I countered in two ways: (1) I have seen lives destroyed by alcohol, but not so much by faith, and (2) if you insist you have found the fountain of meaning in the bottle, then drink up.

That is to say, I don't think that faith and alcohol consumption are similar enough experiences for meaningful comparison, but if you insist they are, then have at it and enjoy your meaning on the rocks.

You say potato, I say comiconomenclaturist — Tom Storm

If the question is "Does alcohol give you cirrhosis?," the answer is yes no matter what you believe. If the question is "Does alcohol give your life meaning?," that depends. Me, no, but if you say otherwise for you, then yes for you.

Faith is as perilous a path as reason. It can devolve to a neurotic, narcissistic pursuit of glory (see Karen Horney's Neurosis and Human Growth). — ZzzoneiroCosm

That I agree with. I would place the evil on the actions, not the intent, so it's not the faith that is doing the harm, but the attempted imposition of one's values upon another.

And that really is what my objection has been here, which is the suggestion that another person's discovery of the meaning of life need be imposed on those who have rejected it. If someone has found the meaning of life deciphering analytic syllogisms, good for them. I don't know how they can claim their discovery superior to mine if mine subjectively works for me in terms of providing me meaning.

The similarity is in your dependence. You say yourself that it gives your life meaning. If that’s the case then you’re dependent on it. Without if you would feeling the sting of nihilism (analogous to delirium tremens). — praxis

The critical distinction between your analogizing faith to alcoholism is that alcohol is being used in the analogy as an intoxicant, making it definitionally a toxin and an evil. As I previously mentioned and what wasn't addressed was that you would need to show the devastating implications of faith as you see in alcoholism.

That is, my question was whether ruined lives are characteristics of Jews, Christians, and Muslims as we see in the alcoholic.

If, as you're implying here, you're using alcohol as a benign example of a way to bring about bliss without the negative implications, as if it might offer a euphoria that includes leaving the user with a state of long term meaning and contentment, then it would be analogous, but that's not what alcohol is. If it were, and it did not have its negative effects, I suppose I would be advocating its usage. I just don't think the meaning of life has ever been found at the bottom of a bottle, although many have looked there.

You need to explain why I should seek empirical and rational truth for its own sake.
— Hanover
No, I do not. — 180 Proof

Yet you do explain:

Since time "wastes" all things and us too, gaining some understanding for its own sake seems like a more enriching way of "wasting" this interval between the two oblivions rather than making believe 'shit made up just to flatter and console ourselves' in anxious denial of the existential mediocrity principle (i.e. boredom). " — 180 Proof

And I accept your reason for you. There's no basis here except that "it seems" an enriching way to live your life. This really isn't about you, so I'm not sure why you're telling me what you like to do. Why devolve into the subjectivity you previously criticized?

Philosophical hold nearly as profound a meaningfulness as spiritual pursuits. Dispelling a fatal confusion is a profoundly meaningful achievement - and borders on salvation. It is indeed at times far more spiritually transfiguring than - typically lukewarm - dreams of salvation. — ZzzoneiroCosm

If that's your belief, then the altar of philosophy is where you should kneel. Like I said, I'm not an evangelical. You do you.

My point is simply that if the quest is for meaning, then the quest for knowledge will only get you closer to meaning to the extent you equate meaning with knowledge. That's a personal preference. If knowing the ins and outs of our world leads you to have a subjectively meaningful life, then do that.

I do believe I view intellectual masturbation more pleasurable than most. That's why I'm here in this forum. Doing this right here is not the meaning of life though. Not mine at least. But if yours, wow, but ok.

Again, this topic ain't about you. :roll: — 180 Proof

Such is our point of contention. You deny the significance of the subjective commitment to faith and I hold it primary. The basis for my position is that it imbues my life with meaning. I can see no reason to substitute your objective (i.e. to live the examined life) for mine.

You need to explain why I should seek empirical and rational truth for its own sake. Why is that the universal good? I recognize the hedonistic value of intellectual pursuits, but if that's all there is, I quickly reach an existential problem centering around why am I wasting my time learning the intricacies of our randomly created world?

My only objection is that it's a two-way street. — god must be atheist

But that is my point as well.

I'm not proposing an either/or (ala Kierkergaard) and can as much enjoy the intellectual pursuits as Socrates and recognize the importance of science as Pierce, but that doesn't negate the possibility of faith as well.

But where do you arrive at the idea that the examined life (as translated by modern sensibilities) is a virtuous raison d'etre other than your subjective assessment? If my life suffers in all objective measure as the result of my rejection of faith, is such just my unfortunate fate even though there was a way to have avoided it? Why must I worship at your alter? Because it is the path to Truth? But we're right back in our circle - I must accept that the rational pursuit of truth is a valid reason to exist in order to be persuaded by rationality alone.

How aren't you similar to the evangelical at my door telling me to follow his path to truth so that I can experience true joy? Is it impossible to believe my beliefs do accomplish exactly as I say they do?

The point here is that the way of Athens is not the only way to a meaningful life. The way of Jerusalem works just as well. Either path is a choice

Moral freedom requires injustice. — unenlightened

Nice.

If I were trying "to assess your subjective state ... actually experiencing", I would agree with you, sir, but I have not claimed or implied any such thing. Your non sequitur is what's "non-sensical". Faith-based rationalizations (and delusions) abound. — 180 Proof

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". — 180 Proof

You have offered an opinion as to what "seems to you," which is how you think things must seem to me, namely that I derive the same sort of benefit an alcoholic receives from his drink. I'm telling you that I don't. It's different. My faith doesn't cause me to wreck my car, divorce my wife, lose my job, and destroy my liver. In fact, it causes me no internal strife. So how do you assess what my faith does to me from your vantage point at your keyboard?

Your final sentence ("Faith-based rationalizations (and delusions) abound") attempts to wedge in what you want desperately to argue, which is that my beliefs are factually wrong. I've, at best, argued from pragmatism. I'm not asserting what reality is, but just how best to live my life. "My" is in bold because I trust you when you say that what I say works for me doesn't work for you.

This is about Hanover being Hanover, accepting whatever abuse you wish to throw my way in terms of my believing in complete and utter bullshit. I do accept those criticisms smugly, to be sure, because I have lived it both ways, and I know personally what offers my life meaning and direction and what does not.

And the point of all of this is to offer elbow room in this crowded world of ideas for religion, which does have a role, and for which I think is the primary motivation behind your objections, although correct me if I'm wrong.

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". Like other forms of intoxication, religious faith exchanges sobriety for "comfort" (often to the point of delusion (e.g. Haglund)). — 180 Proof

I trust you in your statement that you would not find any value to holding to religious faith and that it would not enhance your life in any way. I find your assessment that I would have as meaningful of a life without faith as pretty non-sensical, as if you know better than me what I'm actually experiencing. That is, I'm not in a position to assess your subjective state and you're not in a position to assess mine. We're just left having to trust one another when we tell each other what affords our respective lives meaning.

As I've also said:

If, at the end of one's life, one has lived a life they found complete and meaningful, what difference does it make that the person might have lived a life filled with unprovable and even false beliefs? — Hanover

In order to make your analogy apt, that religion is akin to alcohol and other toxins, you will need to demonstrate that like the alcoholic whose life often ends in broken relationships, destroyed families, financial ruin, desperation, legal troubles, and general instability, so goes the person of faith.

Does that describe the typical life of the devout Jew, Muslim, or Christian?

And it's an odd twist here, with the atheist knocking at my door and handing me his literature so that I can see his Way. If you find atheism the way to a meaningful or productive life (or whatever your objective might be), then do that. Even if I had positive proof that God existed, if you have found happiness in your belief he didn't exist, why would I impose?

My point is that being comforted by some idea is not evidence that the idea is true, just as being offended by someone's claim does not mean that your claim is true or their claim is false. Our personal feelings have no bearing on what is true or false.

I'm not interested in Haglund's feelings. I'm interested in the truth. — Harry Hindu

It's obvious that our personal comfort in believing something has no bearing on the truth of it. To the extent one can choose to believe or not when there's a lack of evidence of something, that would be a nod towards pragmatism. That is, if I choose to believe in a fantastical claim that in no way interferes with my daily existence, but it does offer me comfort, then that would be a basis to believe in it, while admittedly not making the belief true. I choose to believe for the positive effects, not because of a delusion that I have arrived at empirical evidence or that my position is logically entailed.

Asserting that you know more than others while at the same time giving no evidence is a symptom of delusions of grandeur. — Harry Hindu

There might be some degree of cognitive dissonance in maintaining a belief in God that you should know is not valid, but I wouldn't describe that as having special access to the divine that would amount to a delusion of grandeur. The typical theist claims that knowledge of the divine is available to anyone who seeks it, so I don't agree with your psychological assessment.

My point here is simply that decisions of how one wishes to live one's life, including what foundational truths one wishes to adopt, need not be based upon upon empirical evidence or logical dictates, but it could just be a matter of personal preference. If, at the end of one's life, one has lived a life they found complete and meaningful, what difference does it make that the person might have lived a life filled with unprovable and even false beliefs?

I find the objection that one must accept atheism as true because it is true, even if it means a life a despair, to be ironically antithetical to the ideology of secular humanism. That is, if all there is to this great big universe in terms of meaning is what we humans give it, then why deprive it of sacred meaning if that will elevate the lives of humanity?

I'm submitting that we should hold to beliefs that make life meaningful as opposed to insisting we live with the cold reality of meaningless if meaningless is what there really is behind the curtain.

And before you say that atheism is what gives your life meaning, however that might be, please recall my prior comment, which is that simply because you've found the fountain of meaning in your atheism, that doesn't mean you need to proselytize it to others because it is likely some are not constructed as you are and they do find meaning in what you think to be delusions.

"Knowing" gods created the universe does nothing to comfort someone when you don't know the motives behind them creating the universe. — Harry Hindu

How can you speak for @Haglund? If you tell me that you are not comforted by knowing there was a motive for creating the universe when you cannot know what the motive was, I can only believe you. By the same token, I'm not sure how you can tell someone else they are not comforted when they've told you they are.

I guess your argument is that it does not logically follow that he be comforted, which only means he fails logically to explain why his belief is comforting, but it doesn't mean that he's not. The best you can argue is that he's found comfort where he should not have and his response would be that comfort is comfort regardless of whether logically it should be.

Whether the creator of morality is bound by morality is a philosophical question for example.
— Hanover

It is a question that philosophical analysis shows to be ill conceived and question begging. — Fooloso4

Generically I see it as a logical puzzle where an entity is defined as having an essential element that cannot ever vary and the paradoxical conclusions that arise from it. It need not be argued as a theological construct.

For example, what happens when Pinocchio says "my nose is now growing"?

One aspect of the debate on forum quality that might be addressed is the preponderance of low quality thread of a theological bent.

Here's a few titles, by way of example:
Was Judas a hero and most trusted disciple, or a traitor?
Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet?
An Argument Against Eternal Damnation
Was Jesus aware of being Yahweh?
Does Yahweh/Jesus live by the Golden Rule?
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?

These threads take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy. — Banno

Since it's been a good couple of years since you asked the question, I'll revisit it.

As to your examples, I don't agree they're all purely theological. Whether the creator of morality is bound by morality is a philosophical question for example.

If we take faith and reason to be stark distinctions in a Kierkeegardian way, I think you're faced with any attempt to understand the sacred in a logical way as being philosophical and not theological. That is, if we challenge the teachings of Jerusalem with the reasoning of Athens we're beyond the purely theological.

It just seems the inevitable result that if you ban entry to certain people, that if they illegally enter, they're not going to be able to go to law enforcement and complain about their treatment without fear of facing punishment for their illegal entry.

I would expect this problem to exist in any affluent nation that did not have open borders.

Next: why would they put up with these conditions? — frank

It beats other options I guess.

The Civil Rights Movement was driven in part by national security concerns in the context of the Cold War. There was international pressure on the US to clean up its act wrt segregation in the South (much of it from France). The US responded to this pressure because its fairly monstrous appearance (regarding lynching, for instance) was driving neutral areas of the world toward the USSR and China. — frank

The pressure for social change was largely internal. Honestly I'd expect external pressure (especially from the French)to result in stubborn backlash.

1.A monotheistic God is one distinct being
2.The Trinity is three distinct beings
3.God cannot be both one and three distinct beings
4.Therefore, the Trinity is contradictory — tryhard

This doesn't follow. What follows is that if the trinity is true, polytheism is true. This means that the trinity is inconsistent with monotheism, but not that it is self contradictory.

Polytheism isn't necessarily inconsistent with Christianity.
https://mormonchurch.com/668/are-mormons-polytheists

If we are going to evaluate children's books as philosophy, I put my money on "Goodnight Moon." — T Clark

That's on my reading list. I've started it a few times, but I haven't been able to get completely through it yet.

Go Dog Go is a book I highly recommend for its life study and discussion of basic philosophical truths. Consider the following quotes:

“The sun is up. The sun is yellow. The yellow sun is over the house. It is hot out here in the sun.”

Who among us haven't noticed these very same things yet never were able to put them in verse?

“The dogs are all going around, and around, and around.”

Ha! What a whimsical thought! Dogs spinning, turning, and doing such non-dog things! Who doesn't love this imagery?

“A dog party! A big dog party! Big dogs, little dogs, red dogs, blue dogs, yellow dogs, green dogs, black dogs, and white dogs are all at a dog party! ”

We're all thinking the same thing! Why wasn't I invited to this canine fiesta? Dogs of all stripes and colors partying at the most diverse of galas!

What about if we look at it through a moral, hedonically moral, lens? Shouldn't the world ought to have been in a way that's pleasing to us? Why are we stuck with reality, dissatisfying as it is? I suggest that we stop arguing and do something about it: Can't we make consciousness immaterial? — Agent Smith

If you concede there is a (1) a reality and (2) there is what you'd like reality to be, and you choose to live in #2 while recognizing you're not truly in reality, but you're just in some Disney Magical Kingdom that you like to visit in your mind, you can do that I suppose.

I'm not sure how you can sustain the self imposed delusion.

In any event, though, when you're talking to me, let's focus on talking about what's behind door # 1.

If the answers is yes, then consciousness is everywhere, because everything is able to react to anything. — Angelo Cannata

I might not fully understand your position then. Your OP suggested that it was stupid to believe that consciousness was reducible to neuro-biology, but here you've indicated that the hard problem of consciousness described by Chalmers (the p-zombie issue) poses a serious challenge to your position (which I take to be that consciousness is not so reducible).

Your main problem, from what I've quoted from you above, isn't that you think the reductionists are wrong, but simply that they have a logically supportable position that happens to lead to an unpalatable conclusion. I'd just say it's not a valid objection for you to reject a position simply because it leads to an unhappy, yet perhaps true, result.

What if she is SEXY? — god must be atheist

What if she was like Oholibah of Ezekiel:

" 18 When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her naked body, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. 19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled."

As phrased, I take the OP as somewhat of a strawman because it asserts that the predominant view of consciousness studies is an extreme reductionism, where the language of science can fully explain and describe consciousness. That seems to be the position you are passionately arguing against.

The first step in this debate would be in locating the person who holds that view and then they can more fully explain why they are not stupid.

My assumption is that many will take a more tempered view and accept that scientific explanations don't fully describe consciousness, although I doubt many will attribute that limitation to the non-physicality of consciousness.

It also looks like (and you can explain if I've gotten this wrong), you've taken an extreme reductionist stance of you own here, arguing that neuro-biology plays no legitimate role in describing consciousness, but that the entire field is beyond science. If that is your argument, then it suffers from more serious problems than the argument you object to, which is that neuro-biology fully describes conscious states.

I suspect if we should hash this out, the answer will lie somewhere in the middle, where people are willing to grant some scientific limitation to the understanding of consciousness, with fairly bright lines being drawn between those who will accept or object to those limitations being caused by substance like differences in the brain versus the consciousness.

No, it's based on the assumption of common human motivation — T Clark

Then why the variation cross-culturally?

You're making a claim that ethical knowledge is a priori,
— Hanover

No, I'm not.


As I've said, at it's most basic, morality is based on empathy. A sense of commonality with other people. I think a lot of that is built in. Hardwired. How much? I don't know. — T Clark

How are you distinguishing a priori from "hardwired"?

Some cultures have purity rules, dietary rules, sexual prohibitions, caste systems, gender rules, body modification rules, ritualistic demands, etc etc. These ethical rules often violate progressive liberal views on what empathy demands.

I'm not disagreeing that my modern sensibilities don't prioritize empathy as an ethical criterion, but if I'm going to proclaim that the true way to determine morality for all cultures in an absolute sense, I'm not going to be able to declare that it arises from the natural human condition because it doesn't seem to when I look at the human condition across cultures.

morality is, as I claim, a reflection of human nature, there is a sense in which it is objective. It's how we're built by evolution, genetics, and development as supported by socialization and learning. — T Clark

This is based upon a false assumption of the universality of ethical norms. It is simply not the case that all cultures hold to the same moral rules, which would presumably be the case if morality was the result of genetic evolution (as opposed to social evolution).

You're making a claim that ethical knowledge is a priori, which, if true, would alleviate the need that we teach our children rights from wrong.

So, in other words, belief in a higher power makes no difference to whether one is moral or not. — Fooloso4

Whether your beliefs comport with reality doesn’t affect your moral worth. I'm aware that's a religious belief held by some though.

Why do you think many secular humanists are concerned about human rights and work hard to help others and improve human life? Do you think it's the remnants of theism? — Tom Storm

I think they do good because they are good people. I'm not terribly concerned with motives. If they're feeding the hungry, the hungry are getting fed.

I do think they're sincere in their motivations, meaning they may feel that it's the lack of there being a God that makes them even more moral in that they feel motivated entirely internally and needn't rely upon higher nonsensical powers. That is, I don't think they have deep seated unshakable theistic thoughts. I think they're true blue atheists.

As a theist, though, I do think their goodness does in fact come from a higher source, even if they deny it. Their beliefs (like mine) don't create reality. One of us is wrong regarding this whole theism thing, but I don't contend that theists are better people because they are theists. The idea that faith alone makes you a better person isn't something I subscribe to.

I concure. Moral decisions cannot be decided in an algorithmic fashion - they are far too complex. Just as no rule can accomodate the definition of "game", and of "morality", no rules could cover the all possible situations we migth call "moral". — Banno

I understand that "morality" is defined based upon the context or game upon which it used in, thus making the term inherently ambiguous outside the game upon which it is played. But what goes for "morality" goes for all terms, so I question why that would be a special case.

When you say that "game" cannot be defined, I assume that means that the definition of "game" is dependent upon the game that "game" is used in?

Why is "morality" and "game" within that special case of language games that they should be singled out? Aren't all terms on equal footing in this regard?

Not necessarily faith, but a goal (although, arguably, this can involve faith). By pursuing a goal, nihilism and amoralism are not options anymore. Because by pursuing a goal, a person's actions are directed toward that goal, meaning that the wandering, confusion, inconsistency etc. associated with nihilism and amoralism are eliminated or at least minimized. — baker

The cure for all existential doubt and for all the distress that might befall the philosophically oriented is to not be philosophical, but to be superficial. That is, ignorance is bliss. So, if you wish to cure your wandering and confusion by refusing to look behind the fact that the goal you're pursuing actually has no meaning, I guess you could temporarily deceive yourself into thinking you had real purpose and that would get you through the day.

The sexiest male will couple with the sexiest females. The sexiest females will couple with the sexiest males. (Promiscuity assumed, as per your theory.) There is a stratum which is least sexy, both genders. What are they going to do? Live a celibate lifestyle? No, life is better with bad sex than with no sex. So the unsexiest members of the small populations still made babies. — god must be atheist

You can't conclude unsexy people have bad sex, but only that they have ugly sex. I mean it's enough you've called them ugly, but don't deny them the mad skills they might have. I'd think there'd be a negative correlation between skills and looks just because the hotter you are, the less hard you must try.

By relying on others to clarify moral questions, we're only assuming that someone else might know better than we do, or, at most, that someone else knows better than we do. — baker

Obviously only you are responsible for you own decision, but relying upon others to assist in figuring out moral questions only means your conscientious.

But I still don't know which character was Barney, after which the show had been named. — god must be atheist

Those were characters from the Barney show. Barney is a big purple dinosaur and he loves you.

Certainly not an uncommon assertion. Would you class secular humanism as foundational? — Tom Storm

These are the affirmations of the secular humanist: https://secularhumanism.org/what-is-secular-humanism/affirmations-of-humanism/

I don't think these beliefs are foundational, but I think the foundation from which they flow is that humans are of some special status worthy of considering all of these matters and treating humans differently from all other things in the universe. We don't bother with secular rock-ism, secular porcupine-sim, or secular notebook-ism, but we focus only on those issues that affect humans and, for some reason, elevate them above all else and arrive at a moral system filled with all sorts of affirmations of how they ought be treated. We call this secular humanism.

To claim the secular humanist's beliefs about humans are foundational is to claim something special about humans, but they deny humans have any. If humans have no degree of magic in their constitution, then we'd need to treat human beings like the pool balls that they are.

So, either (1) admit that humans are special and worthy of special treatment and make that your foundation, or (2) deny that and stop with trying to create special rules for these ordinary physical entities. If you choose (1), you're not a secular humanist as they define themselves and you've not avoided any of the problems levied against the theist. If you choose (2), you're not a secular humanist, but some sort of nihilist, which is exactly what the theist expected to be the result.

The theist asserts human's special treatment arises from their being created in God's image and possessing part of a divine essence (soul). If a secular humanist were to accept #1 (and they don't according to what I've read), I might concede their views were foundational, but I'd also think they might be theistic.

I would add to your list that your kid be raised to be respectful of those fearful, weak, and simple minded and who don't achieve to an impossible standard, but to look at each person's heart for who they are.

So, to the extent one evaluates their child based upon your criteria, they will have failed to have the respect I just described, but they would have instead been a person too quick to declare their own child a failure.

Am I saying your kid is to get the same love, respect, and pride from you regardless of whether they satisfy your competitve criteria? Yes, yes I am.

actually don't know who Barney is / was as a celebrity. — god must be atheist