Intro:
I'm going to make a case against both of these assumptions. :cool: — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree with the position that the nature of truth is not binary. For starters, to emphasize what I take the OP to in part state, many if not most of our day-to-day propositional truths are partial or else incomplete, though nevertheless true rather than false. A reply to “what did you see” for example can only be just such a partial or incomplete truth (one does not spend eons to propositionally express all that one sees at any given juncture, from one’s focal point to one’s peripheral vision, in the minutest detail). And so, as you say, many a statement can be more true or else less true—again, while yet remaining true rather than false. But I’m not clear if by “univocity” you mean simply “not equivocal” or else the “univocity of being”. Since no mention of God was given until some time after the OP was made, I’m here assuming it was the first.

Hence, we might take up the previously common supposition that truth has something essentially to do with the relationship between the intellect and reality. I would go a step further: "truth is primarily in the intellect and only secondarily (or fundementally) in things." Signs, statements in language, etc. can be true or false in virtue of what they mean, and meaning is likewise primarily in the mind, secondarily in things.

So, without having to make any commitments to any specific sort of correspondence or identity relationship between thought and being, we can simply leave it as "truth is the conformity or adequacy of thought to being." — Count Timothy von Icarus

You’ve mentioned it but I have not seen you focus on the topic of truth being equivalent to conformation. Which I so far find far more pertinent to the topic than the specification of “adequacy”.

I want to make an affirmation to see if it is possible to falsify via example: The univocal nature of truth (i.e., the state of being true) is that of conformity to some actuality—truth hence has this meaning in all cases—this either as a process of conforming to the actuality, which requires duality between that which conforms and that which is conformed to, or else as a state of being fully conformed to the actuality, which implies a nondualistic format of truth wherein there is only the law of identity (A=A) to specify the truth concerned.

To “conform to” is thereby always equivalent to “being true to” (hence, and vice versa). Example: conforming to a rule/norm/reality/fact/intent/ideal/etc. is being true to the same. Here conformity and hence truth will be unidirectional. By extension, then, “the arrow’s trajectory was true” specifies that the arrow’s trajectory conformed to the aim which was intended for it—and was thereby accurate or adequate in this sense alone. Else, making X conform to Y (say, painting a portrait with fidelity to the original) will be equivalent to making X be true to Y (e.g., the copy was true to the original).

“True” in the sense of loyalty, faithfulness, or trustworthiness is then conformity to interpersonal (intersubjective) actualities (actualities that come about via the interaction between subjects) to which all constituents are implicitly understood to willingly conform (be true to). This could encompass being true to a friendship, or else a romantic relationship one can be true to or else proverbially cheat on.

Then there are cases where the "conformity to that which is actual" is taken to be perfect and absolute, such that there here is no duality, i.e. such that the actuality becomes of itself fully equivalent to the truth specified. Here “true” can be either equivalent to “genuine” (e.g., the true statue was found) or else equivalent to “real” (e.g. the true crime which the book expounds upon is a crime that really happened). Here too can be found the meaning of Truth with a capital “T” being that which is ultimately and absolutely real—such that, in this sense, Truth and that which is ultimately reality are one and the same. And, for some, this can then translate into the understanding that God is Truth.

Then, when truth is understood as the process of conforming to that which is actual, this act of conformation can be more complete or else less complete. This while still being an alignment to what is actual (hence true) rather than a misalignment to what is actual (hence being false to the actuality concerned, hence a falsehood).

While it’s interesting to me to note that truth in other languages can hold a somewhat different set of denotations and connotations (e.g., the Ancient Greek “alethes” meaning un-concealment or un-forgotten—to my knowledge hence not easily specifying something like “the arrow’s aim was true”), I so far do think that the English notion of truth does hold the univocal general meaning just specified: conformity to the actual, and this either as a) the process of remaining aligned to that which is actual or b) the state of being absolutely conformant and hence identical to that which is actual (such that (b) can be found to be a perfected form of (a)).

While I acknowledge not being infallible in this belief (as in any other), I so far can't find any meaningful exception to it.

↪javra

One relevant book which is useful in thinking about wholeness is, 'The Wisdom of Imperfection', by Rob Reece. He links Bufdhism and its idea of enlightenment with Jung's idea of wholeness. Jung spoke of the emphasis on moral perfection within the Judaeo-Christian tradition( it would apply to Abrahamic religion in general). It led to the accumulation of a shadow, as a dark side of the repressed and suppressed aspects of human nature. This involves a tension between 'good' and 'evil', which needs to be balanced to combat the destructive aspects of human potential and power. He spoke of this in the form of nuclear warfare, but it applies to both individual psychology and humanity on group levels. — Jack Cummins

I think I can understand the argument you’re endorsing: one way to paraphrase my understanding is that one ought not strive to be perfect in the here and now if one is to cultivate virtue and moral means of accomplishing moral ends. If this is in keeping with what you’re seeking to express, then I’m in full agreement.

Yet I still find that following this general approach to applied ethics requires holding some future ideal reality in mind toward which one strives. Here’s what I take to be a worldly example of this:

In here taking for granted the premise that prostitution is immoral, there then are two general means of moving toward its obliteration.

The first, which I’ll label “puritan”, is to outlaw all prostitution with the most draconian laws possible in attempts to obliterated it in as soon a time as possible given the realities of the current world as is.

The second means, which I’ll tentatively label “non-puritan”, is to first acknowledge the myriad reasons for prostitution—to keep things simple, here only addressing willful prostitution (rather than unwilful sex slaves of one form or another): all these reasons generally pivoting on it being a means of gaining an income within a context where prostitution’s many risks and downsides (physical and mental) are to be deemed better than the alternatives of not prostituting oneself (from one’s own starvation to the starvation of one’s children or parents … to the more frivolous “its more financially profitable than any other means of making money"). Were society to be one where a) no people would pay money for sex with others, b) all genders would be rewarded with equal pay for equal work, c) people would be respected as fellow beings—and so forth—then no prostitution would occur, for no one would find reason to prostitute themselves. But society is not such currently. So, currently, some will always find prostitution preferable to its alternatives. The non-puritan who wants prostitution to not occur on grounds that it is an ethical wrong (as per the given premise), would then see it best to make prostitution legal and thereby regulate its commerce—this till the world changes into a humanitarian realm—placing prostitutes far away from kids, ensuring that prostitutes are and remain healthy (STD tests and so forth), that no prostitute gets raped by customers, and so forth. A potentially longer story made short, here the means are a gradual progression toward a world in which prostitution will no longer occur due to an eventual respect for all fellow human beings—this, by starting to respect prostitutes as fellow human beings (rather than deeming them as expendable and deplorable).

Both the puritan and the non-puritan in the scenarios presented, however, will hold the very same future ideal in mind when attempting to put their respective means in practice: that of a future world devoid of prostitution. It not that the non-puritan seeks a balance between good and evil—they in fact seek the very same evil-devoid good which the puritan desires—but the non-puritan’s outlook and reasoning is not absolutist in terms of what is possible to accomplish in the here and now.

In the here and now, for the non-puritan there is balance between extremes, yes, whereas for the puritan it’s a worldview of absolute good and absolute bad. But both—as they’ve been herein so far addressed—will nevertheless seek the same perfected state of being: The non-puritan by following a balanced approach toward this future state of perfection (with the puritan likely to deem this approach perverse in so far as it accommodates what is bad). The puritan by imposing an absolutist view of what is good and what is bad upon all others (with the non-puritan likely to deem the puritan’s approach as unrealistic, shortsighted, and blatantly mistaken in believing that the puritan’s means can ever accomplish the given and otherwise shared goal).

While I’m sure this terse appraisal via the example of prostitution can be disparaged by many, it does provide an outlook on what I myself generally endorse: a non-absolutist, balanced approach toward moving toward a better future. Yet, again, this very notion of a “better future” which was just stipulated will itself be an ideal regarding future states of being—will steadfastly remain the goal which is pursued.

(Not trying to write a thesis on this one subject here, but yes, fyi, I myself deem prostitution to be an ethical wrong which can only be realistically done away with in time via what I’ve here termed non-puritanical means. Means which I thereby take to at least attempt to hold greater compassion toward prostitutes in general as fellow human beings, hence as fellow human beings with the same needs and rights as the rest of us. Our own imperfections very much included.)

While you bring up a cogent distinction, I’m not familiar with the term “creativity” being used in the first sense of simply “creating things”.

For example, if one follows a blueprint to at T so as to create an item, is one then being in any way creative? I get that one here creates the item in the sense of “bringing it into existence”, but there so far seems to me to be something quite off in expressing that this same act of creation was in any way creative.

How would one then distinguish the creativity of a poet, for example, in bringing a poem into existence from the ability of a non-sentient AI program to via its (fully deterministic) algorithms create linguistic expressions and thereby bring into existence what we would recognize as a poem? Same could be asked of images (AI now being a staple part of Photoshop, for example), sounds, and so forth. And this same train of reasoning can then be further pursued in terms of a non-AI robot in a factory being creative in creating, for example, a certain car part.

Or would one not find reason to so distinguish?

Thoughts?

There is nothing new under the sun; there are no ideas that nobody's ever had. You will never make anything completely different from everything that's been done been before. Creativity is more like being a kaleidoscope; reconfiguring what already exists in a new arrangement. — Vera Mont

Here’s a postulate I’d like to test out:

There can be no distal goal held by life—from bacteria to humans—which is utterly original and thereby never before held in any manner by any lifeform. Nothing new under the sun in this sense. Yet there can occur utterly original heuristical means of best obtaining a given goal, and, in this, creativity can and does occur—such that, for one example, novel ideas can be devised as just such means toward a pursued end. With one such fairly recent example of a novel idea being that termed “meme”.

This will then apply to all contexts in which creativity can unfold: artistic, technological, mathematical, scientific (esp. in relation to scientific hypotheses but also in relation to means of testing these), philosophical, etc.

Hence making creativity necessarily dependent on some intent and the intentioning to get there. And, hence, teleological. Purely accidental results are thereby not a product of creativity—though their newly found application or utility can be.

Unfortunately for your theories, the reality is the majority of unsuccessful suiciders regret their decision to attempt suicide. In fact among unsuccessful suiciders, greater than 90% will never die of suicide (23% will have another unsuccessful attempt, but a whopping 70% will never attempt it again). — LuckyR

I'm no stranger to being wrong, but I so far don't find a connection between what I've said and what you've said. Can you embellish?

It seems obvious you cannot carry on challenging conversations without becoming offended. — Janus

You have a way of psychoanalyzing - and it's often as erroneous as hell to boot. But that your are imputing motivations which are not there is, well, it can't be projecting.

I have no desire to hurt your feelings. — Janus

How nifty of you. Don't worry about my feelings though so much as about the substance of what is said. This without assuming such psycho-babbles as that I'm posturing in my answers because I'm unable to come up with a response. Or that my feelings have been hurt by you.

Just in case we run across each other again.

You are projecting—my question insinuated nothing, I was simply trying to get a clear answer from you. — Janus

:rofl:

A can of worms that, so I'll leave it be. — javra

Why? Because you cannot come up with a response? — Janus

And "I am projecting", this because you say so.

Gaslighters are as gaslighters do. (This statement doesn't insinuate anything. :chin: )

Yea, you gave me a good laugh.

I think it's best to stop. — Janus

If you say so.

My own perspective on ethics is that the integration of reason, emotion and the instinctive aspects of life are important. However, there may be so many juxtapositions In the search for balance. Imbalance and error may be important here in resets and human endeavours towards wholeness, as opposed to ideas and ideals of perfection. — Jack Cummins

I can very much respect this. As to "endeavors towards wholeness", I tend to find wholeness in this context and wholesomeness to be virtually indistinguishable. None of us are such or can obtain anything near this state of being in this lifetime. But does not the endeavoring toward this end of wholeness in itself speak of an ideal wherein wholeness awaits to become perfected?

Thanks for your reply — Jack Cummins

Glad to see you're in no way peeved by it. :grin: Cheers.

I wonder how compassion fits into the picture. That is because it involves a certain amount of distancing from moral absolutes and ethical ideas. — Jack Cummins

In which way do you find that compassion is a distancing from moral absolutes and ethical ideas?

To re-frame the issue into Western lingo, some in the west have upheld that love is the greatest good. Compassion is certainly inherent in, if not equivalent to, love - from self-love, to romantic love, to all other (some might say less selfish) forms of love.

In Western terminology, this can be stated as God/G-d is equivalent to absolute love which is equivalent to absolute good. So that wherever love occurs so does God/G-d in due measure. This train of thought is often enough expressed by mystics, such as the Sufi as one well enough known branch. But it is at the very least also echoed in JC's teachings as Christian doctrine: e.g. both "love thine neighbor" and "love thine enemy". There's also the Corinthians' "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

At any rate, I don't yet understand how compassion is to be construed as a distancing from the moral absolute of the Good.

Since a middle way assumes a middle path or placement between extremes which are otherwise accessible, when applied to ethics (i.e., the study of good and thereby right and bad/evil and thereby wrong), it leads toward a logical contradiction:

The ethical middle way shall be in-between being or acting in manners which are “most good” and “most bad/evil” - and shall furthermore value itself as the middle way as that which is “most good”. Thereby resulting in the following contradictory proposition: The greatest good in being or else acting is to avoid being or else acting in manners that are the greatest good. This such that in the same way and at the same time a) one ought not be or else do that which is the greatest good and thereby right and b) one ought to be or else do that which is the greatest good and thereby right.

(The terms “best” and “worst” would be better fit grammatically in the above, but they do not clearly specify ethical notions of good and bad/evil.)

Otherwise reasoned, if balance between good and bad/evil is of itself good, then an infinite regress into bad/evil will result in which that which is good can never be obtained. For one will always need to be in-between that which is good and that which is bad in order to be or do that which is good.

-----

I haven’t yet come across any Buddhist doctrine that recommends as favorable a middle way between that which is ethically good and that which is ethically bad. For example, in Buddhism's endorsement of compassion, I've yet to hear that "its best to not be very compassionate but instead to also be somewhat callous". If you have, however, can you provide links or references?

Janus, before you reply with question after question, try addressing those I asked of you.

Pointless according to who? Is not the idea that life is basically pointless not merely a subjective opinion? — Janus


If life sooner or later necessarily result in nothingness, what is its point in its occurrence to begin with? Its not an issue of opinion but of logic. Something with a point has a purpose. (Unless we play footloose with terms again). The point of life is ... ? — javra

And as to:

Why are you so ready to feel insulted. — Janus

Simply because your question directly insinuates that my reply was pompous charlatanry - thereby taking a serious jab at my character. And in this, I stand by my right to feel insulted. Only human, don't you know. There a difference between being thick-skinned and being thick.

Everything in the universe is natural. If there is anything in the universe that is non-physical, invisible, and unmeasurable in quantifiable ways, it is still natural. — Patterner

Very much agree.

So you think Buddhism gives life meaning? In virtue of what? — Janus

In virtue of Buddhism being a soteriological school of thought.

Pointless according to who? Is not the idea that life is basically pointless not merely a subjective opinion? — Janus

If life sooner or later necessarily result in nothingness, what is its point in its occurrence to begin with? Its not an issue of opinion but of logic. Something with a point has a purpose. (Unless we play footloose with terms again). The point of life is ... ?

And even if life were basically mind (whatever that could mean) rather than basically matter or energy, how would that fact alone give it more point? These are the same questions I already asked that you did not even attempt to answer. — Janus

1) I stated that non-physicalism does not entail nihilism. Not that it necessarily results in purpose. and 2) Try not to bullshit so much, please. You asked me no such questions. As is blatantly evidenced here:

I think you are talking about theism because even if the world were simply non-physical and/ or held in some universal mind, that does not on its own lend it an overarching meaning. You need to add a God that cares for us, has a purpose for us, and the promise of a better life to come and personal immortality to give that overarching universal meaning.

Also I don't agree that physicalism leads to nihilism. Ironically I think it is religion that leads to nihilism by positing one meaning for all and thus nihilating the creative possibility that people have to find their own meanings by which to direct their lives.

If nature consists of that which is visible and measurable in quantifiable ways, then is the mind and, more specifically, that which we address as I-ness which is aware of its own mind and its many aspects (thoughts, ideas, intentions, emotions, etc.) not natural? For the latter is neither visible nor measurable in quantifiable ways. Hence notions such as that of the transcendental ego. — javra


Energy itself is not measurable except by gauging its effects. If you accept the idea that consciousness is not anything over and above neural activity, then its effects are measurable. The transcendental ego is arguably merely an idea. Even if it were more than merely an idea we could have no way to tell. — Janus

A can of worms that, so I'll leave it be. — javra


Why? Because you cannot come up with a response? — Janus

No. Because it is a can of worms. Why do you respond this way? Other than to insult.

The notion of energy stems from Aristotle. Energy/work without purpose/telos as concept is thoroughly modern, utterly physicalist/materialist, and it need not be. But then to you energy would then be one of those transcendental issues that wouldn't be natural. And so forth.

My question was as to how we could possibly know that the transcendental ego is anything more than an idea. — Janus

You never posed a friggin question. You affirmed a truth, and this as though it were incontrovertible. As per the quote above.

As to how do I know that I as a transcendental ego am more that a mere idea: I am a subject of awareness that can hold awareness of, for example, ideas - farts as another example - thereby making my being as subject of awareness more than an idea.

I think you are talking about theism because even if the world were simply non-physical and/ or held in some universal mind, that does not on its own lend it an overarching meaning. You need to add a God that cares for us, has a purpose for us, and the promise of a better life to come and personal immortality to give that overarching universal meaning. — Janus

As with most versions of Buddhism for example, I strongly disagree.

Also I don't agree that physicalism leads to nihilism. Ironically I think it is religion that leads to nihilism by positing one meaning for all and thus nihilating the creative possibility that people have to find their own meanings by which to direct their lives. — Janus

Playing footloose with what the term "nihilism" signifies. For my part, I've already specified what I intended it to mean in this context. Basically, that of existential nihilism: the interpretation of life being inherently pointless.

Energy itself is not measurable except by gauging its effects. — Janus

A can of worms that, so I'll leave it be.

Even if it were more than merely an idea we could have no way to tell. — Janus

We can have no way of discerning the difference between a) the self/ego which knows (aka the transcendental ego) and b) the self/ego which is known by (a) (aka the empirical ego)? And this even in principle?

In virtue of what logic do you affirm this truth? And this contra to what Kant, James, and Husserl affirmed as a known.

When people for example say "I am tall (at least relative to ants or some such)" we know ourselves to be tall but also know that we as the consciousness/awareness or else mind which so knows cannot of itself hold the property of tallness. Whereas "my body is tall (therefore I am tall)" can be cogent, "my awareness/mind is tall (therefore I am tall)" can't. Or is this something we could have no way to know about as well.

Which is an idea I personally find quite lovely. — Tom Storm

OK, sure. For what it’s worth, personally, I too for my own reasons find the notion of nothingness after this life more appealing than any other (nice and interesting to be here, but enough with the metaphorical headaches after one entire lifetime of them has gone by). All the same, whether there is or isn’t something for us after our death to this world is not something derivable from—or even necessarily in tune with—our affinities, or else that which we emotively find most comforting. Rather irrational to assume that it is.

The issue I here responded to was of a difference that makes a difference between physicalism and non-physicalism. Nothing of your statements dispels the apparent reality that physicalism entails nihilism whereas non-physicalism does not. And to most people out there, this logical difference between the two is both sharp and substantial ... as well as bearing some weight on the issue of how one ought to best live one's life.

As to the natural vs. the supernatural/transcendental:

If nature consists of that which is visible and measurable in quantifiable ways, then is the mind and, more specifically, that which we address as I-ness which is aware of its own mind and its many aspects (thoughts, ideas, intentions, emotions, etc.) not natural? For the latter is neither visible nor measurable in quantifiable ways. Hence notions such as that of the transcendental ego.

As to the difference between physicalism and non-physicalism:

I so far find that far more important than any sense of the esthetic is materialism’s/physicalism’s seeming entailment of nihilism—in so far as this stance is that wherein no intrinsic meaning occurs in anything whatsoever.

While I don’t find non-physicalism to be univocal in what is upheld as an alternative to physicalism, physicalism does in all its variants entail nothingness in the sense of non-being upon mortal death, as well as before the commencement of life. Such that all life thereby culminates in this very nothingness. (Can there be any variant of physicalism that doesn’t directly necessitate this?)

How, then, can physicalism be understood to allow for the possibility of a meaningful cosmos, hence a meaningful existence, and, by extension, of a meaningful life (be it in general or in particular)?

And this for many is indeed a differentiation that makes for quite a substantial difference—one’s individual aesthetic appreciations aside.

OK, you win, I'm an idiot. — unenlightened

Never mind that I've done that before and it doesn't lead to meaning or value or anything you mention. — Darkneos

“I’m a staunch nihilist, because my impeccable reasoning /slash/ faith makes me so. Prove to me that there is any worthwhile meaning which can occur in a meaningless world! Agape as meaningful, btw, can only be irrational and thereby idiotic in the world I live in.” To which, anyone who opens their mouth can only be an idiot for not agreeing with nihilism. Come to think of it, this line of reasoning sort of has the same vibe that arguments for solipsism does - which in a way is the ultimate valuing of the existence of self.

So, being just such an idiot myself though maybe with a different flavor, anyone ever seen the movie Wristcutters: A Love Story?

Yes, yes, as a movie it’s about upholding societal norms via the partial plot of romantic love – only that it ain’t. No absolute wrong to killing oneself in the movie’s story. Besides, it nicely touches upon the “taboo existential topic” of suicide in sometimes poignant manners with a good deal of humor. Here’s a trailer to it:


But again, it hinges on death not being the end, which is contrary to nihilism, which, as all nihilists will attest to, is idiotic. Funny in a way how certain nihilists can entertain possibilities from solipsism to an infinite number of universes but not in any way the possibility of an existence after death.

The argument against suicide is that it is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. — LuckyR

Since this discussion hasn’t been so far closed …

I’ve never much understood why permanent solutions to temporary problems ought to be shunned. It’s only temporary problems that have solutions, not the permanent ones. And does one not want one’s solutions to problems to last and thereby be permanent? How then is this supposed to assuage those who are suicidal and have no doubts regarding there not being an afterlife?

But since no one can infallibly prove any metaphysical system of beliefs, physicalism/materialism very much included, there is then a quite viable existential possibility that mortal death is in no way the known of a permanent solution. Namely, that known solution which takes the form of an everlasting non-being. But is instead an open-ended unknown in which awareness persists.

One then not only has to deal with the inadvertent suffering self-murder causes in others within this world, impressionable strangers potentially included, but with the possibility of experiencing things such as regret for the deed well after the act of self-murder is committed. Thereby compounding an already bad case of one’s own experienced suffering in some form of hereafter.

In which case, self-murder then becomes only a temporary solution to a permanent problem of suffering - permanent in that this problem of suffering could survive one’s death to this world, one’s death in the next world, and so forth.

This being one possibility of a Sisyphean reality in its broadest sense.

That said, I endorse this in relation to the OP:

This discussion doesn’t belong here. You should talk to a therapist, not listen to a bunch of socially awkward, pseudo philosophers. You won’t find appropriate answers here and the consequences could be serious. — T Clark

:100:

I think javra is making a solid point. — Wayfarer

Somewhat belated, but thank you.

If life is bad and non-being is good, this as antinatalism advocates and disseminates, then there is no surprise that many out there will come to infer that the only logical conclusion to the unpleasantries of life is to commit suicide. Even though an antinatalist will not advocate for suicide per se, the message they send via their tenuous reasoning directly works toward this effect, most especially for those who believe death to equate to non-being. — javra


This to me is a load of bullshit. So yeah I don't follow the reasoning. — schopenhauer1

Since I've now got some spare time, I'll try again:

In the sense of what Shakespeare asked by the question "to be or not to be?", do you or do you not uphold that being (to be) is bad and non-being (not to be) is good?

If you do not uphold this underlined part, how would your held onto position not contradict all moral arguments if favor of antinatalism?

If you do uphold this underlined part, how then does this upheld position not rationality endorse the obtaining a state of non-being via any action one can accomplish toward this very end? And if corporeal death is taken to equate to eternal non-being, how would suicide not be just such an action?

WTF are you talking about? You are strolling into troll territory. You accuse my argument of emotional sentimentality. This is just a provoking sentimental provocation right there.

Why is it unethical absurdity to your sensibilities? — schopenhauer1

You might not “follow the logic” but ….

Suicide rates increased 37% between 2000-2018 in the US and is one of the leading causes of death.

If life is bad and non-being is good, this as antinatalism advocates and disseminates, then there is no surprise that many out there will come to infer that the only logical conclusion to the unpleasantries of life is to commit suicide. Even though an antinatalist will not advocate for suicide per se, the message they send via their tenuous reasoning directly works toward this effect, most especially for those who believe death to equate to non-being.

There’s more to it than this, but you already expressed that you don’t follow the logic to it, so why bother to further address it.

All the same, last I checked, disseminating views that end up encouraging others out there to ponder, if not commit, self-murder is unethical. Hence the absurdity of positing such views to be in life’s best interest and hence ethical. I figure one’s “existential self-awareness” ought to make this amply clear, but apparently not.

This is the classic theist trope about why atheists wouldn't just wantonly kill and murder and do bad things because of not believing in a god. It assumes that moral behavior is contingent on divine oversight, ignoring the fact that many atheists and secular philosophies advocate for ethical conduct based on various ethical frameworks or sensibilities such as rights, empathy, or even rational self-interest, rather than fear of punishment or promise of reward. — schopenhauer1

I don’t have the time to fully unpack this. But it is sheer emotion/sentimentality devoid of any rational exposition. As though atheists don’t operate by rewards and punishments. Or as the The Good is some godly oversight. But I’ll cut this short.

Strawmanning is not a great way to argue. — schopenhauer1

I agree, so why are you doing it?

Sorry, not following that logic. — schopenhauer1

As is readily apparent, this in rebuttals such as the following:

But anyways, not believing in an idea of "non-being" doesn't lead to the desire to see nuclear destruction. — schopenhauer1

Ok, then.

Frankly, I wouldn’t mind your believing that a possible state of non-being is better than being and should thereby be prescribed - but for your trying to convince all others of this suicidally unethical absurdity. Greatly comforting to your own state of being though their agreement would be.

Simply the Suffering of life, our separation from the kind of being that other animals have, and the fact that we can prevent suffering for future people. There isn't much more realization I am talking about here. — schopenhauer1

I find that suffering, much like understanding, comes in nonquantitative magnitudes - rather than in a binary of on/off. An animal will understand friend from foe, and an animal will suffer when its understanding is found to be erroneous. Humans have the capacity to understand far more than any other lifeform, yes, and this opportunity comes attached to the cost of potentially far greater magnitudes of suffering. One can affix to this the proposition of, “the more I know, the less I understand,” and like expressions.

Otherwise, I’m in general agreement with this quoted statement.

Where we so far greatly differ is in the resolution to the suffering addressed: everything from the stance that ignorance is thereby bliss to the stance that, since existential being is entwined with the capacity to suffer, the resolution is then the obtainment of (or the eternally perpetuating state of) non-being - this so as the fix the problem.

But I think I get it: short of an otherwise termed “mystical” account of reality that is not only rationally justified but rationally justified so as to disallow for any other justifiable alternative, those such as yourself will refuse to entertain the possibility of The Good / The One / Brahman / Nirvana as soteriological end in any serious way.

As for me, I’m doing my best to present what I hope to eventually be, fingers crossed, a roughly equivalent thesis to the one just described. But guess what: it ain’t easy – the time constraints and such of living one’s life here placed aside. And if it’s a fool’s errand, then I acknowledge being such a fool.

Nevertheless, I look at the alternative of “non-being as soteriological end else soteriological reality” - such that one deems all suffering to not be in this metaphysically possible state of non-being. And I become existentially appalled at the consequent results: if we all obtain this end of non-being upon our corporeal death, why not lie, cheat, and steal (or worse) as much as we can while living so as to maximize our profits till our inevitable non-being results? Due to other’s suffering? Just like us, the quicker they die, the quicker they too obtain their absolute salvation from any and all suffering. Besides, the more unempathetic we ourselves become, the less we ourselves suffer on account of what occurs to others. Yay. That these human behaviors are directly causing the Holocene extinction worldwide as we speak? All life benefits by its cessation to live via the resultant obtainment of non-being - this being its sole means of being free from suffering - and so the global destruction of life and its myriad species is in fact doing all life a big favor. Nuclear weapons detonated? Even better. And if we manage to obliterate all life in the cosmos - here assuming all life in the cosmos is located on our planet Earth - then we will obtain the very cessation of life ever being birthed to begin with. Never mind then evolving over time into forms of life with greater capacity for understanding and suffering than that currently held.

All this is a bit villainous. “Evil incarnate” some might express. With a good pinch of materialism, in the colloquial sense, thrown in for flavor.

It would not be philosophy then, but merely coping. — schopenhauer1

Philosophy (the love of wisdom) is about coping. Be it the "highest" form of coping or the "deepest" form of coping, it's coping with suffering all the same.

It is indeed, as Zapffe would explain, be an example of "distracting or ignoring" as a mechanism to deny the reality. — schopenhauer1

You certainly come across as believing yourself to be endowed with the "accurate appraisal" you've made mention of. To be precise: A distraction from, or an ignoring of, what reality? It certainly can't be the ultimate reality of The Good / The One / Brahman / Nirvana - for you take these notions to be a farce.

The reality of nothingness? But then what on earth is stopping one from obtaining this envision "reality" - nothing except one's own self.

The issues become a bit more challenging when addressing an obtainment of the The Good / The One / etc. ... which in certain circles do in fact sometimes get expressed in terms of "absolute love". All the "boo to love" in the world notwithstanding.

The man who joins the monks for a bit and returns. — schopenhauer1

Yea, as ascetic as I might have unwillingly become at certain points in my life, this is antithetical to me and my outlook. Experience is for experiencing, just as life is for living. Philosophy - with all its philosophical problems and analysis - is worthless outside of a means of theoretically appraising how one might best experience and live (this being something that I find applicable to even pessimists/nihilists such as yourself). The latter not being theory but praxis.

While I'm here, also in reference to what I previously quoted, namely, the duality between being and non-being:

My strong hunch is that there is equivocations galore in how the term "being" is applied by different philosophers of different cultures and at different times in history. From a Western philosophy vantage, being is not equivalent to existing - as you yourself are aware of. Some examples: The Good, The One, or else Eastern notions of Brahman and Nirvana (this without remainder). None of these exist but all are within their own frameworks taken to in fact be, this in manners that can be said to transcend existence and, thereby, existents - and, therefore, to hold being.

In which sense (from what framework) can there be a non-duality between being and non-being?

In Eastern frameworks, for example, the illusion/magic trick of Maya - wherein things occur and thereby are - is construed as separate from either the Brahman or Nirvana (without remainder) which as ultimate reality is. The first is possible to create and destroy, for example; the second is not. And, tmbk, only in complete absence of the first can one obtain the absolute pure nature of the second - as atman in Hinduism and as anatman in Buddhism. If this is so, then how can Brahman or Nirvana (without remainder) be considered to not be - this as would be implied by neither being nor not-being?

:up:

In contrast, Nishida, drawing on Zen, sees "absolute nothingness" not as mere absence but as the ground of reality itself, 'the nothing which is everything'. This nothingness is dynamic and relational, allowing for the dissolution of dualities such as self and other, being and non-being. — Wayfarer

Just happened upon this. In its English format, is this supposed to in fact be "absolute nothingness" or "absolute no thingness". The two are by no means equivalent.

↪javra
That's not germane here. You can see my opinion in other threads.

Not at all. It's based on sentiment. — Wayfarer

Yep. Scientism as a faith. — Banno

If you say so. Still, to make my former point a bit clearer, in the absence of an “is” which grounds our “oughts”, all systems of ethics can be decried as sentimental—this rather than rational. One could for example apply Hume’s guillotine even to virtue ethics: the difference between concrete instantiations of “what virtue is” (which, to be clear, can be as relative as anything else) versus “what virtue ought to be”, the latter so that one might for instance become more virtuous than one currently is. The first will not ground the second, except via sentiment—i.e., except via emotion rather than reason—not when there’s a complete absence of something like The Good being a globally existential “is” toward which one should aspire, in this case so as to gain greater virtue.

Why I brought this up: While the OP poster's arguments are full of gaps in what he has so far written, his general outlook appears to me to lean toward the virtuous, or else to aspire toward it. I want to cut @Seeker25 some slack, and am point out that the argument of Hume’s guillotine to too broad in that it applies to all ethical systems devoid of an ultimate objective Good that existentially is.

I don’t sponsor his arguments so far, but, to try to take his side, here is a trivial example of how evolution and ethics can converge:

Consider three possible types of ice-cream: a) ice-cream comprised of cyanide, b) ice-cream comprised of dirt, and c) ice-cream comprised of nutrients. Type (a), (b), and (c) otherwise all have the same delicious flavor to our tastebuds due to the latest innovations in chemistry. Save for death-yearning folk and their ilk, all will readily deem the consumption of (a) unethical—one would not be virtuous to give it to another so that they might trustingly eat of it, for example. As to those who knowingly choose to eat it, evolution selects against their being, leaving only non-cyanide consuming humans behind. Type (b) is not as bad, for it does not kill. But your and your friends’ indigestion upon eating it will in effect be a reduction of health, and hence of eudemonia (wellbeing). Whereas type (c) will not be unethical to consume whenever the cravings for a moderate amount of ice-cream emerge. All this by way of who we are due to the forces of natural selection which has shaped our current being.

There are certain human behaviors—say the gleeful perpetuation of genocides against the Other, gross misinformation that destroys all trust in what is real, the launching of nuclear weapons in today’s world, etc.—which in many ways parallel ice-cream type (a): they lead to the destruction of life. Other human behaviors, like the addiction to substances, will parallel ice-cream type (b): they will not kill but will reduce general wellbeing. And certain human behaviors can be likened to ice-cream type (c): they will improve wellbeing when acted out in their own proper contexts. Behaviors (a) will be unethical, behaviors (b) will be less than ethical, and behaviors (c) will in its proper contexts be ethical. And all this will be bound to the evolved forms of life that we are and to the very evolutionary constraints that has led to our current being as humans. Yes, there’s competition in nature, and the competition piques our interest generally, but there is far more cooperation in nature which is usually taken for granted in full: for starters, every multicellular organism is a cooperation between individual living beings we call somatic cells. (Place an individual somatic cell in a pastry dish with sufficient required stimulation and nutrients and it will live out its life just fine—I’ve at least been told this is the case for neurons.)

Ok, I thoroughly grant that to claim all this as some sort of definitive grounding for what ethics is and what ought to be would be fully sentimental, rather than rational. But behind this sentiment there is yet some inkling of convergence between evolution and ethics: the destruction of our species from within or else from without we deem not good and hence unethical (well, most sane people do), and there is little denying that natural selection has selected for this in us humans over eons. But natural selection is not an omnipotent god that determines all aspects of what we do. And if our species does become destroyed, natural selection will continue doing what it has always done: select for life that best conforms to its ever-changing contextual realities, which sapience tends to excel at (at least when its head isn’t buried in a donkey’s behind).

And evolution doesn’t operate on bodily physiology alone; it works on the behaviors of life galore.

Again, this isn’t an argument I will defend tooth and bone, but I do want to cut @Seeker25 some slack here. And preliminarily chopping down his arguments by evoking Hume’s guillotine and thereby decrying it as sentimental is overkill—in that Hume’s guillotine equally applies to all appraisals of ethics which do not incorporate an objective Good that is and that is to be aspired toward.

You entirely missed the point. Sure, science tells us how things are. It does not tell us how they ought be.

Even if "Science explains how things are and how events have unfolded over the past 4.6 billion years; these are facts" we cannot conclude from that alone how things ought to be. — Banno

Since your invoking Hume’s guillotine—short of the “is” of The Good, as per platonic or neoplatonic notions—what then might be rationally used to establish what one ought do or what ought be?

Grunts of “yay” and “boo”? But these too are things that are, rather than rational appraisals of what ought to be—and so this too succumbs to the same problem.

I'm not here intending to argue for The Good, just point out what I so far take to be obvious.

I am increasingly convinced that everything aligned with the trends of evolution is good, everything that opposes it is bad, and everything else is indifferent. It is precisely in this "indifferent" space that people must exercise their freedom.

What do you think? — Seeker25

Since I don’t know if you’re knowledgeable of this, it might be of interest to check out an overview of the Gaia Hypothesis, maybe especially when it comes to criticisms of it. There’s no conclusive evidence that it’s a farce but, Cartesian-ly skeptic as most are when it comes to things that don't suit our fancy – and I here include everyone from typical physicalists to typical monotheists - there is also no current conclusive evidence for this hypothesis that would convince the so called “skeptics”.

I’m also not familiar with your general philosophical background on metaphysics, but the general outlook you’ve outlined – this along with the Gaia hypothesis – can easily be found in keeping with notions such as that of an Anima Mundi. One in which a pre-Abrahamic notion of Logos pervades all that is – be it living or nonliving.

If this is so far not off-putting for you, then you might also be interested in C.S. Peirce’s notion of Agapism which can parallel Teilhard’s notion of cosmic evolution in general – both of which can be in general keeping to the former two concepts linked to.

Of one possible concern, all these views can easily be ridiculed as being in some ways teleological – which, as a metaphysical outlook, is grossly unpopular nowadays. (Then again, as the bumper sticker saying goes, Popularity is (or at least can be) a Socially Transmitted Disease.)

I don’t have much to comment on in terms of being pro- or contra- your generalized thesis in the terms you’ve presented. But if you happen to not be familiar with the concepts just specified, the links provided might be of benefit as a relatively easy to read springboard toward further thoughts and ideas.

As to entertaining the notion of "Nature being good” (its evolutionary process included), one here risks being labeled a Nature-worshiper if one did – a deplorable thing to be from the vantage of both physicalists and monotheists alike. Then, to maybe counterbalance this train of thought, there’s a partial lyric one can quote from a song by a former band called Nirvana: “Nature is a whore”. In overview of how I make sense of this quote, it will sustain and support (and in this manner take the side of) those filled with vice just as much as it will those filled with virtue … but this only up to a point, as per an ever increasing global warming that holds the potential to more or less wipe the slate clean of what we, maybe a bit too anthropocentrically, term “sapience”.

Whatever one presumes it to be - good, bad, or just plain ugly in its shear impartiality - I’m certain that Nature, and its evolution via natural selection in general, will persist in being long after we’re all dead and gone to this world. Just as it did long before we appeared.

The blind leading the blind, the blind judging the blind?

You don't see just how authoritarian you are. — baker

Hopefully I'm taking this well out of context, but it did hit a nerve. So I'm addressing this not to you in particular but as a general reply in respect to the overall thread:

That global warming is a hoax is steadily strengthening as our socially constructed truth. "Drill baby drill" being the general motto, with its great economic appeal.

Authoritarians will label those who value truth to be authoritarian. Tyrants will label those who value justice to be tyrannical. Evil/vice will label good/virtue as evil. Nothing new historically in any of this. Endless power games and mind fu*ks, to not mention worse. And our socially constructed truths rule the day in the short term.

But Nature, the bitch that she is, doesn’t give a shit about our socially constructed truths. Nor about our shortsighted will to conquer as much as we can for our egos’ benefit – everything from others' consent to Nature itself irrespective of means.

Nature is the ultimate authority. Call it authoritarian, tyrannical, evil. This will not change what Nature is and what it does. And our not being true to it - our not corresponding/conforming to its reality – might will just bite every last one of us in the ass rather painfully. Oh, and this irrespective of how one might want to philosophically justify the reality of Nature.

No doubt many will take this to be just one more idealistic and authoritarian opining in a world of relative realities wherein might makes right. Yes, and lemmings never do end up drowning themselves in mass droves on account of their shortsightedness. Not if we socially construct the truth that they don’t.

We have never been and never will existentially be in a post-truth world. And individual societies are aspects of it – "post truth" as individual societies might become – which makes the whole issue of people no longer valuing truth alarming; this, at least, to some. But there’s nothing new in those who value the benefits of dishonesty and corruption greatly tending to champion the dishonest and corrupt - this while disavowing those who don't so value.

Akin to asking, if you do not know how a word is spelled, then how might a dictionary be of any help?

I'll leave you to it. — Banno


Some other time maybe. — javra

I don't so far find justification for this claim. But groovy all the same. Then, please enlighten me as to what we all know "mind" to be in the ordinary sense. — javra


We know what we mean when we say such things as "I changed my mind", "I made up my mind", "I don't mind", " I did that task mindfully", "mind your step" and so on...there are countless examples. They suggest that what we understand as mind is really minding, a verb not a noun, an activity not an object. Of course this is not to say that reification of that activity does not often set in.

I'll start here: What aspect of what we are aware of will not be an aspect of our own minds? — javra


Everything in the so-called external world is not an aspect of our own minds. Of course our perception of those things is a form of minding, but it does not follow that the things are forms of minding. It seems impossible to make sense of the idea that they could be. If the tree I see and the tree you see are forms of our respective mindings then how is that we obviously see the same tree? That we see the same tree suggests that the tree is mind-independent. — Janus

None of which provides a justifiably true belief of what demarcates mind from non-mind. This so as to address the question asked. For example, that mind is a process rather than a thing says nothing about this demarcation between mind and non-mind within any viable process theory. But I don't want to start playing devils advocate, irrespective of how much you or some others might, maybe, want me to. Repetition of unjustified affirmations such as that "we all know what 'mind' is in the ordinary sense" does not make the affirmation true - knowledge last I checked not being equivalent to a gut feeling - notwithstanding the emotive pleading that might hew the affirmations. As to these questions:

If the tree I see and the tree you see are forms of our respective mindings then how is that we obviously see the same tree? That we see the same tree suggests that the tree is mind-independent. — Janus

By what means do you conclude that trees and insentient, as in not able to perceive things such as gravity and light in their own non-animal based ways? One would then uphold the reality of insentient life-forms, which would be a novelty for me. Otherwise, if they are deemed in some way sentient, then via what reasoning are they then concluded to necessarily be devoid of any form of mind? Not endowed with anything like our human mind clearly, but devoid of any type of mind whatsoever? Plant cognition is not an unjustified position.

As to how a tree, and ant, and human can all sense, act, and react in relation to the same rock, for example, this greatly parallels what I was entertaining in "The Mind-Created World" thread - which you hint at dispelling in preference of physicalism.

At any rate, yours still remains an unjustified claim that "we all know what a mind is in ordinary senses of the term". This would then entail that we all know - rather than having gut feelings regarding - what of what we are aware of is not an aspect of our own individual mind. Needless to add, no one would then need to deny the position of solipsism (only one self or mind exists) for we all would then have knowledge - justified true belief - that solipsism is false.

But since I, again, don't want to play devil's advocate, I'll do my best to leave you to it in turn.

The problem is that we all know what we mean by 'mind' in the ordinary context. — Janus

I don't so far find justification for this claim. But groovy all the same. Then, please enlighten me as to what we all know "mind" to be in the ordinary sense.

I'll start here: What aspect of what we are aware of will not be an aspect of our own minds?

I'll leave you to it. — Banno

Some other time maybe.

↪javra
I don't see as we need the mysticism. — Banno

Unlike this very statement, what I said was neither gibberish nor poetry – instead being a rational proposition.

Rather, delineating “mind-independence” with a lack of delineation for what “mind” is will be vague or else fuzzy reasoning. Mystical reasoning, if one’s so prefers to term such.

… then again, if minds are beetles in a box, then by what justification will the very notion of “mind-independence” not likewise be?

So as to not overly focus on Chistian beliefs, I should maybe add that the non-physicalist understanding of numbers as I’ve just outlined it pervades popular culture at large: from the notion that (non-physical) being is one (as in the statement, "we are all one," or the dictum of "e pluribus unum") to the notion that in a romantic relationship the two can become one. With all such beliefs being disparate from the stance that 1+1 can only equal 2 in all cases.

But none of this is to deny that in physical reality 1+1 can only equal 2 - and, by extension, that 2+2 thereby equals (and can only equal) 4 when it comes to physical entities.

There is more to truth than consistency, there is also the matter of correspondence with reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for that, and I by this am not in any way disagreeing with your reply.

In the part I've just quoted: I find consistency and correspondence/conformity to reality to be deeply entwined. This in so far as reality, whatever it might in fact be, can only be devoid of logical contradictions (for emphasis, where an ontological logical contradiction is a state of affairs wherein both X and not-X both ontically occur simultaneously and in the exact same respect). For example, if reality is in part tychistic then truths will conform to this partly tychistic reality in consistent ways - thereby making some variant of indeterminism true and the strictly hard determinism which is currently fashionable among many false.

It's a whopper of a metaphysical claim that realty is devoid of logical contradictions - although I so far find that everyone at least implicitly lives by this conviction. But, in granting this explicitly, then for any belief to be true, in its then needing to conform to reality to so be, the belief will then necessarily be devoid of logical contradictions in its justifications (which, after all, are justifications for the belief being conformant to reality, or else that which is real). So if a) reality is consistent (devoid of logical contradictions) and b) truth is conformity to reality then c) any belief which is inconsistent will not be true.

As to the truth of numbers, their relations, and what they represent:

If physicalism, maths can only represent physical entities and their possible physical relations (otherwise it wouldn't be physicalism). If non-physicalism, then the numbers made use by maths could in certain situations represent incorporeal entities, such as individual souls or psyches. In the here very broad umbrella of the latter, one could then obtain the proposition that "one incorporeal psyche added to another incorporeal psyche added to another incorporeal psyche can via assimilation converge into one possibly grander incorporeal psyche" - thereby holding the potential of producing the 1+1+1=1 proposition, which will contradict the 2+2=4 proposition IFF the numbers of both equations are taken to represent the same corporeal and hence physical objects. Otherwise, within at least some non-physicalist worldviews, the question which is so easily ridiculed from physical vantages can emerge: how many individual incorporeal beings, such as angels, can fit onto the tip of a pin? With the answer being indeterminable due to the very incorporeal nature of individual beings addressed - creating a deep equivocation of sorts.

The basic general point to all this tmk being in general agreement with your post

I disagree with you, but I acknowledge that no logical argument can prove you wrong. — Relativist

I understand. Although don't we here then embark into areas of faith, rather then those of belief which can be justified.

It also seems to me that our difference on this point is vanishing small- as small as the possibility that "2+2=4" is false. — Relativist

Yes, I can agree, hence why I consider my belief that 2+2=4 to be categorical - despite it yet being, technically when philosophically appraised, fallible rather than infallible.