Right. So we disagree on what makes "useful" obtain, so to speak.

First, do you believe that it can be true or false that something is useful? — Terrapin Station

We probably don't disagree, we both know what practicality is when we see it.

Whether or not something is useful is dependant upon the use of the thing to the person or people judging what its use is. Now seeing as our lives are just an absurd blip in a something we know nothing of, we can not say what use our lives have other than to say that they have use in and of themselves to us who live the life... which is sort of self-justifying incorrectly. Sort of like saying "I exist therefor I exist", or more to the point: "My life has value, because I said and think it does". This is equivalent to us just sniffing our own arseholes and saying that it smells lovely. Is it a delusion that we think our arseholes (our lives) don't stink (have value)? What you end up with therefore, is people saying that the reason for their existence is to smell their own butts (live their life for the sake of self-perceived value). What is wrong with that? Well what is wrong with someone who believes in unicorn just because it is a self-perceived and self-validated truth. Just because YOU believe it doesn't make it any more justified, in fact it makes it LESS justified. What forms the basis of good decisions? Integrating observable phenomena with logical thinking and correlating that with repeatability in the world and in others. From what I can see, saying your life has use only to you is not integrating observable phenomena from the world or correlating it with repeatability. It is just saying "I fucking win because I say so, so shutup".

treat others how they want to be treated. Simple. — darthbarracuda

What about if they lie about it? Women tend to do that a lot. "whats wrong?" -> "nothing"

The rule is taken with a grain of salt, it assumes everyone doesn't want to be hurt in anyway and deserves basic human rights.

I have criticized it's syntax before but realized it's just a matter of conveying a simple message, because lets face it if you want to be hurt and don't want your rights then you're not really human but something a bit distorted and IMO deserve to be cast out of the gene pool.

??? You'd have to explain better why in your view fate would have anything to do with whether you can be right or wrong in an opinion of whether something is useful to you at a particular time. — Terrapin Station

I already did, you missed it because you think that what is true at one period is true is true exclusively of that period even despite later evidence that negates it. "I build a new farm shed and spend hours thinking that the materials are useful. Once finished I realize I am bankrupt and someone set fire to the shed. More than that, I found out that it was DESTINY that that was going to happen."

You can have a different opinion at a later time. That doesn't mean that your earlier opinion was wrong. — Terrapin Station

tis if it's fate. and tis if it wasn't... as time is a sequence, your efforts are measured in terms of what you receive because of them. If you receive nothing, your efforts were in vein.

How can the default (existing) be more futile than not existing? — m-theory

Non-existence can't have value placed on to it, as it is not a thing. It just is.

I thought not existing would be the default.

Me? But I don't find everything a 13-year-old does funny. — Terrapin Station

Yes because you have become jaded with age. That is the downside to certain forms of maturity... I bet a 13 yr old laughs A HELL of a lot more than you do.

I already gave examples of when some things are not as futile as other things.

Everything is not equally futile. — m-theory

Yes but if you follow all those examples to the end of their purposes (i.e. but what is the purpose of? and what is the purpose of that etc on and on) then you end up with futility (aka we don't know why we are here etc.)

Can you be wrong about feeling that something is useful? — Terrapin Station

Yes, I build a new farm shed and spend hours thinking that the materials are useful. Once finished I realize I am bankrupt and someone set fire to the shed. More than that, I found out that it was DESTINY that that was going to happen.

Finding everything a 13-year-old does funny is called being an uptight, mammering, pox-marked haggard who can't see the value in being playful and whimsical and child-like? If you say so. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and those sort of characters usually only respond with only "if you say so" because deep down you know that you have lost that ability to be playful. You are just a stuffy old man who grumbles and gripes and has no imagination... isn't that so? response: "if you say so" *rolleyes*

Are you saying it is equally likely that should not exist? — m-theory

I am not sure. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, nevertheless where is it to be found that life isn't futile? so...

Do you find anything useful? If so, you don't think that everything is futile. — Terrapin Station

Usefulness could be part of the self-formed delusion I was talking about:

"As long as you acknowledge that you are content with the futility of everything, then it is fine. if you however have fooled yourself into thinking your life has worth or value in some way (butt doesn't stink) then that is a problem and that seems to be what most people are doing, at least unconsciously as a survival instinct incorporated in to rationality as the pursuit of happiness."

Having a sense of humor isn't the same thing as finding everything a 13-year-old does funny. — Terrapin Station

No, you're right. It's called being a uptight mammering, pox-marked haggard who can't see the value in being playful and whimsical and child-like.

I bet you hate your kids when they try to play with you. Your responses are probably "Don't be so foolish child! you need to read your books and act like a gentlemen, shame on your child!" all the while tooting your lipps and frowning your eyebrows. and they respond "but daaad, i wanna be silly".. then you respond "shut up and be mature, why can't this family be normal?"

I did exactly that, I gave an example to measure futility, we can compare the futility of different goals to get an objective measure of the objective futility saturation.

Again it becomes very obvious that everything is not futile in equal measures. — m-theory

Ok so I turn on the tape to get water because i need it for survival = not futile.

But why survive?

it seems any practical examples you give to measure futility you end up with "why even exist?"

What I intended for you to ask yourself is how futile is it for you to pursue the goal of trying to prove everything is futile?
How important is it for you to realize that goal?
Are there other goals that you have that are equally or more important that are less futile that you can pursue? — m-theory

If I don't know whether things are futile or not, how can I start pursuing other goals? If everything is futile then no goal is worth pursuing. I will just sit down and either be content or depressed until my time runs out on earth.

I'd probably be more likely to buy a bridge from you at this point than to believe that denial. — Terrapin Station

Just cause you don't have a sense of humour, you nihilist.

Why should I care subjectively?
And what does mean if it is an objective fact that I don't care that everything is futile because I am content? — m-theory

As long as you acknowledge that you are content with the futility of everything, then it is fine. if you however have fooled yourself into thinking your life has worth or value in some way (butt doesn't stink) then that is a problem and that seems to be what most people are doing, at least unconsciously as a survival instinct incorporated in to rationality as the pursuit of happiness.

Lets say that everything wasn't futile though, would that make their own value systems that they cooked up any more/less valid?

On a further note, there are ways to measure objectivity right? Atom smashers, chemistry experiments, psychological case studies on behaviourism... so why can't we measure futility in the universe? because it seems to be a man-made concept that is derived from THE INABILITY TO PERCEIVE a purpose to the universe or their existence... so if they can't perceive, it does it exist? I don't think so... much in the same way that if you don't see a tree it doesn't exist. Sort of like atheism but for universal purpose, lol. We give life to things by our perception of them. So that is an argument in favor for futility as being objective in some sense, how about in opposition?

And maybe you're 13? — Terrapin Station

No, if you read the thread it actually all adds up to a very pertinent point displaying the knottedness of where the conversation is at this point.

Yes. I failed to see that you were saying that that was unclear to you.

I'm saying from my perspective, and in my view this is necessarily from individuals' perspectives.

I did things useful. I feel there are points to various things. — Terrapin Station

Sorry, I'm a pink fairy and my butt stinks but I can't tell that it does therefore I live life for the smell of my own bumhole.

Isn't "if everything is futile, discussing how futile everything is... is futile" a tautology?

If you say "all men are liars" why should I believe you? — Bitter Crank

But we don't know for certain that it IS futile yet, so why deny even talking about when it is only a possibility of it being so.

That would be like not flipping a coin to save your life when one side of the coin means certain death. "No coin toss for me please, it has death on one side" even though your are going to die if you don't flip it.

Again relative to what?
Am I to imagine some cosmic being that judges the value of all of human life?
Do I take a consensus of the living and ask them to decide if humanity is worthy pursuit? — m-theory

So when someone says to me "everything is futile really isn't it?" I am meant to say "futile to whom?" because no one can speak for anyone else.

Seems valid but when you think of it, we haven't actually proved that it all is actually NOT futile. All we have said is that saying it is all futile is not a valid claim because worth is determined subjectively by each individual. And to say one person's valuation of existent things are worthless in totality wouldn't be justified.

So we are all just sniffing our butts thinking "this smells lovely" and no one can prove otherwise. Because the moment someone tries to tell you that your butt stinks then you get a hoard of replies saying

"stinky relative to what?"

"Am I to imagine some cosmic being that judges the stinkiness of my butt?"

"Do I take a consensus of the living and ask them to decide if my butt stinks?"

I think you get my point...

To the question of? (Whether God exists?)

I'm giving the definition of "futile." What is "God exists" (or "God") the definition of? — Terrapin Station

You said

"You'd answer yes if you don't find anything useful and you don't believe that anything has a point.

You'd answer no otherwise.

So "No.""

When you say "so no" are you saying from your perspective or absolutely, that is completely unclear... did you fail to see that?

The pink fairy needs to attend to this point. If everything is futile, then discussing futility is... futile. — Bitter Crank

Yes but how do you prove that?

Stare at the ceiling and ruminate upon those critical lifetime decisions and ask yourself what might have been had you only done otherwise. Finally drift off into a timid slumber of regret and awake to an overcast day of lethargy. Lather, rinse, repeat. — Hanover

The foundations for a meaningful existence right there!

That is not my issue though, just because some people find no teleological purpose that justifies their own existence, this does not mean that it is futile for me to form and realize my own goals for my own existence.

I don't feel any obligation to justify my own existence, or human existence, or the entirety of all existence.
At least not to anyone but myself.

Just because I don't justify these things to you does not mean I lead a futile life, for it is not for you to judge my life's futility or fruitfulness for me.

Perhaps your's is a fate of futility, but I am content that mine is not. — m-theory

So if I said to you that I don't need to prove to you that I am a pink fairy that looks like a unicorn, what does that give me in assurity that your belief isn't incorrect.

Likewise, if you think your life is not futile because you form and realize your own goals does that make them not futile in an objective sense? All you have is a self-assured belief that your goals give your life value and therefore are not futile.

This isn't about justifying an individual life to others... It is about finding out whether ALL of human life is completely pointless.

If an individual says "my life has value", how are we to know that is true? Just because it is true to him? I am talking about collective value, not the subjective valuation of ones own existence.

I think it's helpful to recognize that whether you think life is "futile" or not, any response to the question is fundamentally a belief. Whether you come to a conclusion through a series of propositions, or through an experience, an emotional response, or whatever it is, we never apprehend a full knowledge of whether life has purpose. We momentarily forget the exact propositions, the experience fades, the emotions go back and forth, etc. Belief is the gap between the idea and our consciousness. I think it's good to recognize this in the climate of thought we live in, at least in the West. — Noble Dust

Good point, but I wasn't looking for a belief on whether life has value or not. I was after a philosophical response that may deny the validity of even asking that question in the first place, much like what m-theory said "futile in reference to what".

Philosophy can give us a logical answer that can escape the need for belief. IE Pascals wager: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/826/decisions-we-have-to-make/p1

Was this a serious proposal ("Everything is futile.") or more along the lines of sarcasm ("Life is like a sewer; what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.")?

The author of Ecclesiastes thought everything was pretty much futile, and he was being quite serious, as far as I can tell. — Bitter Crank

Yes and I don't think I can refute ecclesiastes in the smallest, but this was a passing comment made in seriousness that led from sarcasm.

Say you put effort in to life and got something out of it, is not what you get out of it futile still? IE all our pleasures etc? How do you define what futility is here as m-theory was saying, what is the actual reference point?

Futile relative to what?

Suppose I decide to pursue one of two goals.
To spin gold from straw
Or
To get a glass of water from the tap

Obviously one of these goals is less futile than the other. — m-theory

So then futility is just about purposes and uses of things like turning on the tap = hydration = useful for survival.

I guess if someone says "is everything futile?" they are talking about the whole of human life in the universe and whether it amounts to anything? So you ask relative to what? Relative to the situation where human life is meaningful or valuable in a purposive sense.

So if I paraphrase to help you understand what you should of implicitly understood already. Is human life like trying to spin gold from straw? or is it like trying to get a glass of water from a tap?

You'd answer yes if you don't find anything useful and you don't believe that anything has a point.

You'd answer no otherwise.

So "No." — Terrapin Station

That is like saying:

"You'd answer yes if you think God exists

You'd answer no otherwise.

So "No, god doesn't exist.""

0thru9 has it there, try going to bed 2 hours earlier, take some valerian or melatonin and listen to something very monotonous like a lecture on chemistry of feynman's physics classes or even very calm music.

Well, even someone saying 'Is everything futile?' has its own self-refuting consequence, when it causes you to bring it to the debating table, doesn't it? — mcdoodle

Not if everything actually is futile, because then it would be futile to ask "is it all futile?"

The Zombies (1965) are a bit more convincing. Their picked their name prior to the zombie apocalypse obsession. — Bitter Crank

awesomesong!

This thing of beauty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_jwv2QMtAo — Noble Dust

Amen, I would of thought there would be more classical heads on here as philosophy usually is paired with the interests of the intelligent/aristocratic. Can't fucking stand rock, that shit should of died in the 80s.

This is proven scientifically to be the most relaxing song in the world (statistically) and has been found to reduce up to 65% of peoples anxiety in neurological scans:

"Red" is not an EM wave with wavelength 620-740 nm. That is what red is caused by, but the experience of red is something different. Again under a dualist schema. Red is not a property of an object, but rather a property that an object causes us to experience. — darthbarracuda

Yes indeed thanks for the correction and that should therefor mean that "redness" is mind dependant and makes no sense for anyone to start talking about properties and universals outside of the experiences in the mind.

That is not how it works. Infinite possibilities do not entail that anything and everything is a real possibility. There are infinitely many possible triangles, but none of them have four or more sides. — aletheist

But it is a real possibility. Btw what is the difference between something being possible and it being a possibility?

If you are going to make that statement you better have evidence that aliens don't own pineapple guns and plan to invade earth within 3.5 seconds. Or any other process for that matter by which I may turn in to a pineapple. It is not physically impossible for the molecules in my body to rearrange in to a pineapple somehow, there will be a loss of certain molecular bonds and an excess of atoms of course but it is still possible.

All universal theorists are arguing for is the existence of an entity that somehow exists in multiple places at the same time. The red of that firetruck is similar to the red of that fire hydrant in virtue of the fact that both objects instantiate the universal "red-ness".

It can be helpful to think of properties as ways objects are. Universal theorists think that these "ways" are repeatable entities. Those with the same property are literally instantiating the same universal. — darthbarracuda

I would of thought that when we discovered that red is a certain wavelength of the EM spectrum that is exuded by the type of material light is reflected from it would've meant that we did away with thinking "redness" is something instantiated universally by objects, that it is a thing in itself rather than just a physical occurrence. ??

Why are we able to be confident that you will not turn into a pineapple in 3.5 minutes? Because that is not a real possibility, any more than a triangle turning into a rectangle while remaining within the infinite continuum of real triangles. — aletheist

If you want to speak of INFINITE possibilities then that is a real possibility. Perhaps in 3.5 minutes an alien species comes down to earth with pineapple guns that turns everyone in to pineapples, such a circumstance must be included in all possibilities if we are speaking of INFINITE possibilities. Or where you using a misplaced hyperbole?

Ok so all he said was that the thought of a triangle is different from the mental image of a triangle and that triangles are non-physical and don't exist in the mind either.

So then, where do they exist? If they are not a product of physical states, nor the mind then what? This sounds like another unjustified metaphysical claim yet it goes back to plato ffs what am i missing here?

They are all real because they possess certain characteristic properties — aletheist

How can they be real if they are still just latent/dormant potential states? That is like saying the infinite potential of states of me in 5 minutes have certain characteristic properties. We could only ever say that I "may" have characteristic properties and we might not ever know what they are, incase out of the infinite amount of possibilities, I end up turning in to a pineapple in 3.5 minutes.

there is an infinite continuum of potential triangles, with different combinations of angles and side lengths. — aletheist

Where does this infinitum continuum of potential exist? I thought universals weren't dependent on spacetime in anyway. Don't potential states of affairs need to depend on spacetime in order for them to be "potential"?