Hi - sorry I've been so busy I hadn't gotten the chance to respond to anything.
You’re treating contradiction like a poetic possibility rather than a structural failure.
“What if contradiction led to life thriving?”
That’s not how contradiction works. If a system depends on logical contradiction, it collapses under its own definitions. You can't both affirm a frame and deny it at the same time - not without breaking the ability to evaluate any system at all.
Contradiction doesn’t lead to thriving. Resolution does.
Life thrives by resisting contradiction - by aligning structure with persistence. That’s why cancer dies and species adapt. That’s why value emerges within coherent frames, not from violating them.
When I say it’s axiomatic, I mean this:
You cannot make a value claim (good/bad, ought/ought not) without implicitly presupposing life’s ongoing presence and relevance.
Try:
“We should reduce suffering.” Who’s suffering? Life.
“We should protect the planet.” For what? Life.
“Life is bad.” Says who? A living being with the capacity to evaluate.
There is no “ought” without a system that endures - and only life endures by affirming itself.
You’re welcome to play devil’s advocate. But devil’s logic can’t escape the frame it curses from within.
Contradict yourself if you like. But do it honestly:
Say: I deny the very frame I require to make that denial.
Then watch how fast that system dies.
Amity found the paper but that's just the tip of the iceberg - there's a book on Amazon - a SubStack with over 50 essays, including a vast comparison with effectively all philosophy of value (called the evolution of value series - 16 essays) and a website with an in-house AI to answer any questions.
The Substack also has an article that specifically preempts some reactions - interestingly all the ones here are listed.
I won't list here as per site rules but they can be found.
My aim with this essay was to condense a much broader body of work into a short, standalone piece - citation-free, and accessible to absolutely anyone. I think I achieved that. Perhaps the audience here is more used to engaging with non-axiomatic content?
I have professors of philosophy and PhD holders following the work who initially reacted just like some of the comments here - but many have since come around and now advocate for the core argument.
To be honest, forums haven’t been the most fruitful outlets for this material. But I still appreciate the engagement.