To inject myself here, I'd say Kant IS alive in 1776.

my own conclusion that 'anitnatalism is futile' — 180 Proof

Hey mate - would you mind bumper-stickering your basic reasoning here? I am an anti-natalist and so am interested in objections - particularly as you're saying it's 'futile' rather than like illogical or incoherent or something 'defeating'.

I don't think Ligotti / Zapffe is suggesting it's not human. — schopenhauer1

The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human.

Really? I find that hard to parse from the material you've quoted.

The epoch had passed when the whole of their being was open to the world and nothing divided them from the rest of creation. — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

What?

that which should not be — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

A further, what?

The whole of their being was closed to the world, and they had been divided from the rest of creation. — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

Getting into 'wtf' territory...

what would have to be done — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

This sounds like the need you mentioned. I'm unsure why, then, I was asked to defend that position?

This would not revive among them the way things had once been done in older times; it would only be the best they could do. — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

This passage seems to be some kind of chimera of Theistic creation thinking and the fallacy of pretending the past was a golden age (ironically, given the 'ideal past' concept from the OP). Obviously, this passage is out of it's wider context so i'm not able to say more than how the passage itself strikes.

I'm not suggesting there is. I don't think there's any need to overcome anxiety about life and death. It's also part of human behaviour.

Of course, some people run to these things for comfort - But i would posit theism is a much, much, MUCH more ripe example that, according to some (even atheists) fulfills a 'human need'. My point is merely that these behaviours are human, and do not release or jettison humanity in the subject (imo).

Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox.

Huh. This seems to apply to a 'large middle' of humans while assuming positivism. Both seem aspects seem a bit shaky to me. I don't think its reasonable to dismiss Zen, true Stoicism, meditation etc.. as somehow arbitrary attempt to 'not be human'.
These things are human behaviours.

Great image!

:ok:

Any other NZers on here?

6. Looking at existence, it cannot be destroyed. It simply “is”. There is no “ought” or “should”.
7. Looking at what is, we can come to a conclusion of what “ought” to be. Existence is good. — Philosophim

Im not seeing a connection between (6.) and (7.). We can only conclude that it is from (6.).

8. This conclusion is a choice, not forced. Existence could very well one day “not be”. But since existence “is”, and we are composed of what “is”, we act with the will of existence “to be”. — Philosophim

However, the above is very helpful in terms of supporting why you've made that conclusion. However, i'm unsure how the underlined obtains other than as another choice, not logically necessary. I am an anti-natalist, and so 'being' to me, is not a good thing. The fact is exist is a metaphysical burden i have to mitigate. So, moving to your second set of premises, I reject them all on that basis... I can't get from your first set to your second set.

If the point is that once the choice is made, it all flows, sure. But that butters no bread for meeeee :)

:ok: Noted

But can we take the idea that existence is better — Philosophim

I don't see how we can do that..

You say year 2024 1990 ... but this is just some contingent contract of the human civilisations. It doesn't exist in the real world. It could be year 0 tomorrow if we all agreed. — Corvus

This is true, and a serious problem for discussions of time as currently being explored.

But this doesn't mean 'time doesn't exist'. It means are symbols for it are arbitrary. I'm not trying to say it does or doesn't exist - just that this doesn't go to that question i don't think.

It may be that it's actually the year 14,564,335,235 AT (all time).

Does that take away from the plentiful evidence that the categories do exist? Certainly not. — Bob Ross

(yes, there's some incredulity in this question) Are you seriously comparing 'ethical views' to the reality of categories of triangle?

There being no formula of what is exactly wrong or right in any given situation does not make the categories empty. — Bob Ross

(response to first quote, in light of the above quote:) because this lack of formula does essentially mean you cannot predict 'which' category an act falls into at all, rather than imprecisely. Your moral intuitions only can do so. They are your categories. This seems to suggest that vague ranges of moral culpability apply to acts - and that seems reasonable, but still not a realist position. My understanding is that realism entails that whether an act is good or bad can be established as a 'fact' in any given instance.

Are good looking people nicer than average looking people, or are good looking people less nice than average looking people? — Agree-to-Disagree

Interesting question. In my experience, 'good looking' people are less nice.. to me. But that's almost certainly a bias about my desires.

I would say though, traditionally ugly people seem on avg to me more truculent and quick to argue and then dismiss than are people who don't see themselves as somehow already at a disadvantage aesthetically.

You can't justifiably believe there is such a rock, and you can't justifiably believe there isn't. — Relativist

Yes. I am 'atheist' in relation to the rock. I do not commit one way or the other. Yet....

Your wife could be a alien, but there's no evidence of it- so you should believe she's not an alien. — Relativist

Prima facie, No. No i shouldn't. And prima facie, these above two quotes are contradictory. If i can be 'agnostic' to the rock, i can be agnostic to my wife's potential alienality. I have no evidence one way or the other. I cannot make any reasonable conclusion. I have no reasons.

However, I know my wife. I can observe and experiment to ascertain whether she has any inhuman properties in some way to deduce whether there's an alien element to her. I do not need to take either conclusion on faith without reason.

The rock - on the other hand - I cannot. I do not have a sufficient reason to reject OR accept the fact of the rock (until I turn over every rock on the Moon - which i shan't). I simply have absolutely no intuition as to whether it exists, despite it being logically possible. So i abstain. Not seeing an issue here, other than a bully-ish determination to force me into a position I do not hold and have no reason to support. At least, in this case, it could be established. As with Deism.

But consider unicorns. — Relativist

Similar to my delineation above, this is entirely different from the case of a Theistic God imo. A physical, observable object (Unicorn) which has never been observed (other than in the mind) can, as you rightly say, be relegated to 'non-existent'. It's reasonable to 'believe' it does not exist because the evidence WOULD be there if it did (which is the case with a Deistic God).
Something, the existence of which, could not be observed in that same way requires a different process to establish as 'extant' to my mind. This is why your 'deism' cannot be agnostic. It admits of a discoverable God (but this goes to the wording issue I re-traverse below).

If I can be agnostic as to economic theories, why can't I be agnostic as to the existence of an impersonal, non-interacting deity? — Relativist

"given the above". 'agnostic' is an useless term in any arena if all it means is *shrug*.

"Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God"

If you're a Deist, you are not able to use the term above. Point blank period. Argue the definition all you want, but to my mind you're just confusing yourself.

If you're going to label me a "deist", based solely on the fact that I think it's worth considering,... — Relativist

I am not. Sorry if that wasn't clear. My point is that is the only word that assists in labeling you at all, since you're precluded from using 'agnostic' as it relates to God. Your point about 'agnostic' being essentially a field-less word is a matter of misusing the word in other areas- and is an example of the problem i went over at the end of my post with a suggestion as to how to solve that issue. Huxley specifically coined the word to apply to mystical and mystico-religious issues. It has been hijacked in other areas as an imprecise analogy.
So this isn't an actual objection to my position - just a restating of the problem I had identified. I would prefer new words to discuss 'Deism' since the word 'Atheist' literally doesn't touch it - therefore, using Agnostic to refer to both deism and theism is really unhelpful.

My position is that worthwhile discussions depend on going much deeper than the meaning attached to labels. — Relativist

Agreed, in principle but I would point out that if we cannot understand what each other is saying given the words are not helpful, I can't actually see the discussion as worthwhile. This exchange may be an example. You are not making logical sentences about your belief manifest. Maybe peculiar to me, but I have no interest in going deep into people's views without a reasonable understanding of their language and knowing it is consistent with the meaning of the words they are using. It makes every exchange feel like a Twitter war. And that is absurd in the highest, as i'm sure you're aware.

It's a fact that these terms are not understood consistently by everyone. — Relativist

But it is a fact that these words have definite meanings, overwhelmingly subscribe by our institutional sources of meaning. That people misunderstand them is the entire thrust of my point. That is a serious obstacle to even beginning a meaningful discussion. I cannot discuss your 'agnostic deism' because those terms are contradictory. New Agey nonsense is the biggest peddler of this shit, if you ask me. 'quantum' being the worse offender.. And that said, if what you're suggesting is that we let everyone re-define words so they can use the ones they are aesthetically drawn to and bore us with their illogical, shitty reasonings for doing so, I simply get off your bus and run as far as i can. But, this also seems to be commensurate with your view on non-commitment to theism.

It may also be motivated by the naive assumption we should only believe things that can be "proven". — Relativist

I do not think that is the case. It seems clearly a result of not believing anything on insufficient evidence, as a principle. Both sides have insufficient evidence for their respective positive claim. It takes courage to say "I don't know, and I'm going to move forward with gusto, in uncertainty, despite that..". Is there any reason to think your position, or mine, is a better take? Nope. They are opinions that don't matter other than as interpersonal curiosity. Why it's caused wars is something for psychologists to deal with..

I should be clear, all of the above and my previous comment are not arguments about 'facts of the matter'. There are facts in the argument (the etymology and definition of these words) but what i am doing is outlining a systematic use of the words that actually bloody helps instead of throwing up my hands and saying 'everything's wobbly and we need to spend our lives talking past one another because of it'. I simply don't think that's true, and am attempting to serve up a method for not falling into the illusion it is (on my account).

Our consciousness might be the most complex emergent property in nature, when only looking at it in comparison to others, but we're also just a last point in a gradient of intelligence among animals. — Christoffer

I think this is what maters. We are what McKenna called 'the moving wave-front of eternity'.
We're at the front of the line, and as such, we are somewhat obligated (i don't actually think this - im being poetic) to be astute about how we bring the universe forward in time. In that sense, the nature of our consciousness is a key to understanding what's going on there. If we are the top of that hierarchy, and that our consciousness has developed most recently compared to other, less complex kinds - it is special and we're well-supported in treating our consciousness as special.

Anyone else you'd append for someone to explore?
— AmadeusD
Chapter five here is worth a read. Thanks, Ludwig V. — Banno

Thanks mate. Ryle is about half-way down my hit list currently - Just jumped a few spots.

Looks like you are active here but relatively new — Mark Nyquist

Very active, and will continue to be. But yes, very new I've recently found out :P I am also, for 'context of me' starting my Philosophy BA as a conjoint with an LLB (bachelor of Law) that i'm part-way through this year.

I shall take note.

Right, right. Ok, cool thank you!

Humpty-Dumptys are running around having words mean "just what I choose them to mean," all in order to bolster a position for the sake of polemics. — Leontiskos

A-theism means A-theism.

No brain external information. — Mark Nyquist

What's the sitch when the information is in transit?

We can't have knowledge of very many things, because knowledge is strictly defined as belief that is justified, true, and the justification is adequate to eliminate Gettier problems. But we can (and should) strive for justified beliefs. — Relativist

As a pre-amble, i'm glad to see this. I see no obstacle in Gettier problems due to the justification criterion.

I believe a God of religion does not exist. Not just"absence of belief" - that's for wimps ( IMO- no one should make this noncommital claim). I also believe unicorns and fairies don't exist.

I believe it's possible that some sort of intentional entity exists, that may account for the existence of the universe, and/or for the nature of consciousness (ie an immaterial solution to the hard problem). If I actually believed in this, I'd call myself deist (but still.an a-theist). But I don't actually believe it, I just think it's worth considering. Hence, I call myself an "agnostic deist", but still a-theist, and my general position on knowledge in makes me virtually an agnostic (we can't know much of anything) in general. — Relativist

I find the italicised pretty odd. What's the problem with non-commitment to something you don't claim any knowledge of? I'm unsure whether there's a rock the exact size of the cabbage in my fridge on the Moon, so i abstain from any take. Absence of evidence and all that...

That said... here's my take on you, written as if fact to make it clear what my take actually is (I do not undertake to debate the take below, but it may be fun!):

My understanding of 'theism' is that it entails belief in a 'Creator' personal God. In that light, IFF you actively reject this (believe theistic God/s cannot exist) you're anti-theist. As for 'agnostic deist' that seems incoherent. Below..

My understanding of deism is that it removes the requirement of a personal or supernatural aspect of the 'supreme being' notion and instead asserts that 'the deity' is part of the natural, discoverable world. To my mind deism entails that we can discover this deity. Since we can have knowledge of it, agnosticism is precluded (as it is the position we cannot know whether a God or Gods exist). If the knowledge criteria doesn't go through for you, anywhere, then just take that word as 'the literal best guess'.

So, I would say you're an anti-theist, and a deist. I would have inserted, over 'deist' a term specific to holding out on belief in a deistic God rather than theistic - if one exists. I also note this might be your 'wimp' moment :nerd: Is there a deistic God or not, Relativist? hehe.

But here's an issue - If agnosticism is meant to be a position on Theism, we're in a pickle using agnostic anyway, regardless of what Deism entails. If it's not, we're using shitty words given Atheism only relates to theism but apparently agnosticism can cover deism too. Here, a word which separates the two theories, AND the two positions would be great.

If atheism and agnosticism deal with the same thing, but only agnosticism can relate to deism we can't be having a worthwhile discussion about htem, using these words only.

Maybe that is the actual issue here.

Word 1: Deism, Yes. I have evidence
Word 2: Deism, No. Have evidence against
Word 3: Deism, Maybe and I believe I can know.
Word 4: Deism, cannot know

Theism: Theism, yes, I have evidence.
Atheism: Theism, Maybe, but im not convinced.
Anti-theist: Theism, No. I have evidence against.
Agnostic: Theism, cannot know


Edit: Sorry, I entirely missed this:

and why should I start using that particular label? — Relativist

Mainly, because 'agnostic deist' makes absolutely no sense given the above (perhaps peculiar to my amalgamated position on all these things taken together). So, to begin you need a new term.

You are anti-theistic, and you are abstaining from belief, but are open to, deistic God/s. The words I've used fit perfectly your position, given we essentially preclude not being able to know of a deistic God so can't use agnostic.

Suppose you come up with a set of definitions that meet your hopes, and then you encounter someone like me who says he's an atheist. Are you going to argue my use of the label, or are you going to enquire as to what I really mean? — Relativist

You can do both.

Whenever I encounter someone who is (to my mind) misusing these words, i ascertain their position and then ascribe what appears to me an actual accurate enumeration of it.

I am an theist, because i refrain from belief in a God, and believe we could know, if God/s existed, of their existence in some way. Not because i 'identify' as one.

The alternative to both is found most explicitly in that grandmother of philosophy, Mary Midgley — Banno

There's my weeks delve.

Anyone else you'd append for someone to explore?

We both were members of the predecessor forum to this one, and possibly the one before that. But you’re right, none of us know each other personally, it is purely a medium for the exchange of ideas. — Wayfarer

Oh, interesting. As a new addition i had no idea there were prior iterations. Neat! What a great little community.

Saying that a long post is a reason for "no insight", makes absolutely no sense. — Christoffer

I believe these were intended as two separate attributes.

It is long. And it provides no insight. Could be wrong, but that seems the case to me.

I have generally found that there is almost no correlation between a person's appearance and who they are. But it is true that people who scowl and frown a lot may well be unpleasant or preoccupied... — Tom Storm

Yes, I would say its fairly safe that when people are clearly affectatious in their presentation can be judged on it :P

It is about repeatedly (though not always) confirmed personal experience. — Lionino

is this a 'constant conjunction' thing? My experience has been the inverse..

Ahh ok, lol all good. Thank you

someone whom I've respected for decades — creativesoul

Sorry, as this is entirely off-topic, but what... Do you know each other IRL, or have been following each other across the internet since the Nineties? (genuinely curious - seems anomalous here)

agnostic means unknowing. — Lionino

I am having trouble with the plum disregard for what these words actually mean. Obviously, you're not hte culprit.

But a-theism has a meaning. A-gnostic has a meaning. Hallucinogen and Philosophism seem to be entirely ignoring those meanings to insert reverse definitions - for what reason, I cannot tell.

The foundation for a proper, moral use of language should be much more substantial than merely a consideration of what might "hurt another person's feelings." — baker

I agree. Words are not morals. I guess the issue here, though, is that substantial scholarly work indicates that the use of words (particularly protracted, claustrophic (i.e inescapable (parents, for instance))) can cause physical harm to the stasis of the brain via repeated reactions to the words changing hte wiring in the brain to fire off irrational responses despite best efforts on the subject's part. If so, "hurt feelings" may have a physical and substantially material component.

To what degree I personally subscribe to this, im unsure but just putting that out there. Where I live it's swung from "harden up" to "You are a bad person if you say anything to offends anyone ever, in any context, for any reason and if you defend yourself that's evidence you are the bad person you've been accused of being"

so my feathers ruffle at the initial conception.

righteous :wink:

I could say exactly the same thing back. You're just asserting you are correct because you believe you are correct. When I disagreed with reasons, you just got upset. If enjoy conversations with people who have different ideas than you, act like it. You can disagree with respect and not get upset at the other poster. Well, unless they start insulting you first, then have at it.

Forgiven, just don't do it again. — Philosophim

Ah you seem to just be here for a conflict now.

This is inaccurate. Your arguments are based on inaccuracies. I pointed these out and you did not address them. I literally do not care how you go about processing that. It is not up to me.
I have disagreed with respect. And in fact If you had read my comment fully, you’d see. this was explicitly stated to avoid a bogus retort like this. Sigh. I have addressed your arguments. Not you. The fact that to my mind you are outright, inarguably wrong, is something YOU need to process with respect.

However, I take this particular comment to be an attempt to shift the argument to a personal one and I’m not taking that bait.

Words have meaning. Etymologies matter. Simply saying “I’m going to make up and use my own definitions” doesn’t fly. So perhaps this is best left alone if that’s the MO.

All of this was proven wrong in the OP. What's your reason for thinking atheists do not assert God does not exist? And what do you call someone who does, other than "atheist"? — Hallucinogen

No. No it wasn’t.

These are th positions. And the actual atheists of the world know this. You can’t te them what their view is. And the citation has been provided more than once.

They are anti-theists.

Just bloody look at the words lol.

A-theism literally means not theism. It doesn’t contain anything close to a positive claim. It is a rejection of an u justified belief and nothing more.

Anti-theism. That there is NOT deities.

I understand people see things differently but his is like claiming the sun is dark. It is by definition, not.

And here I thought we had a nice parting of the ways. You're simply asserting, "I'm wrong" then calling me a troll. Control yourself and bow out of a conversation between myself and the another poster please. — Philosophim

No. I adequately showed you position to be entirely incorrect viz a viz the definition and use of the two terms and if you looked at the etymologies that would have been obvious from the get go. I provided you the citation for the definition of atheism and yet you continue to espouse an entirely incorrect one in that light.

As Tom nicely points out, anyone can have any view they want about thing. But we do have “wrong” views and claims. In this case I do not think your position is justified and I don’t see any need for a new words

At the very least, if you accepted the definitions that are actually used for those terms, the ambiguity would disappear and the words would already (and they do!) serve the purpose your trying to reinvent the wheel for. Imo

Anyone is free to claim whatever they want. Knowing is another matter to me. — mentos987

:ok:

Also to note I enjoy the discussions no matter how obvious the positions appear to me. I am in no way seeing you in some kind of lower stead @Philosophim - I just cannot understand how it’s possible to claim what you’re claiming in light of the facts. No significant emotion involved

. If you claim to not know it, then argue that there are no green men on the moon, you believe it. — Philosophim

Err nope. Arguing against the likelihood of something does not require knowledge that it “isn’t”. Your misinterpretations are starting to seem trollish

oh my. This is unfortunate.

You are wrong in your definitions and I see no reason to entertain arguments based on them :) take care mate

Odd how riled up you are over this. I'm an atheist. I know God doesn't exist. Its not that hard. You seem to be confusing that knowledge means you have the burden of proof. You do not need a burden of proof to know things don't exist. Its up to those who want to prove that something exists to have the burden of proof. I think this is more of an issue of "What is knowledge" than anything else. — Philosophim

No it isnt. You’re wrong and I’m trying to explain it as simply as possible - but you’re literally ignoring the fact that your definitions are wrong.

Abstaining from belief requires no knowledge. I do not believe anything that I have no knowledge of. God fits there.
Sorry if that’s not how you feel. It is bizarre to me that you’re digging your heels in over something demonstrably incorrect.

:ok: