The question is whether "Purpose" can exist in any other form, other than a thought. — Ash Abadear

Yeah, but not if you define purpose as:

a thing which we commonly refer to as a thought or idea that desires or drives action. — Ash Abadear

But wouldn’t you agree that hammers have purposes? And they certainly aren’t capable of thought...

Not that I have any stake in this particular matter, but I had one of my threads deleted previously. I PM’d a mod, I think it was Baden, and he was able to explain why. Not sure if he was the one who deleted it or not, but that didn’t seem to be an issue.

So basically only an enlightened person can know objective moral facts because, through their being enlightened, they have eliminated their moral biases? Interesting, but I’m not seeing the connection to reason/doubt. Are you saying that this paradox only exists because we are ignorant, or unenlightened?

Perhaps you can shed some light on it. — TheMadFool

Not really, but to me reason is about conforming to ways of thinking that have previously proven to be useful or accurate. To illustrate, a chronic liar likely does so because lying has proven useful, and therefore makes sense (is reasonable) to continue the behavior. Lying obviously has little to do with seeking truth. Reason is associated with logic so often because of logic’s usefulness in finding truth, but we aren’t always interested in finding the truth. The point being that the desired outcome matters. If the means achieve the desired end, then the act would be considered reasonable. So, more to the OP, a skeptic may desire to maintain his skepticism, and therefore doubt reason, which would be considered reasonable, but “truth” may not be his aim.

I don't think there's anything that contradicts the principles of rationality in quantum entanglement but I get what you mean viz. that there are some observable facts about the world that defy reason, in effect giving us a good reason to doubt reason itself. However, notice that this is still a rational thing to do i.e. we're still using reason when we make this judgement. Also, although I'm not a physicist, this whole idea of quantum physics not conforming to rational principles like the law of non-contradiction is merely a misconception, an unfortunate effect of poor analogies. — TheMadFool

Could you define reason/rationality? Saying that it’s reasonable to doubt reason in certain circumstances is circular, especially so if you’re trying to make the point that the reasonable thing to do is trust reason.

I would say we cannot truly doubt everything because by living we don't doubt everything. — Ciceronianus the White

Also, in order to doubt literally everything, wouldn’t you need to be aware of everything? Also, isn’t “doubt” a thing? If so, then you would have to doubt it too, which would mean that you couldn’t be certain that your doubts are warranted or accurate.

FYI, there's more acceptance of doubt in religious communities than on atheist forums. — Hippyhead

The religious have more reason to doubt than the atheist. A text that is full of contradictions will necessarily lead to doubt. It’s something all religious followers go through before succumbing to faith. In fact, I would say that the existence of faith is evidence of the existence of doubt. The atheist may not have all the answers, but it isn’t necessary that he believe contradictory claims based on faith. The atheist may doubt due to an inability to resolve certain issues, whereas the religious person doubts due to having the wrong answers.

I sympathize with your position but, like it or not, reason has emerged as the final authority on matters of truth. Reason's a time-tested method and has the final say when our goal is to separate fact from fiction. Put differently, we have seem to be under the impression that there's no reason to doubt rationality/logic/reason. My question is, given your position, what does it mean to doubt reason itself? — TheMadFool

Reason is informed by nature, or more specifically, our observations of nature. Therefore, if we observe something in nature that defies reason, we must concede that our reason is mistaken. We cannot deny the existence of some phenomenon simply because it’s existence defies reason. Such is the case with quantum physics. Reason would lead you to believe that quantum entanglement is impossible, yet it exists. And to answer your question, that is what it means to doubt reason; questioning it when something is observed that defies it, or when reasoning leads to something contradictory or paradoxical.

In the last second of life
They're gonna show you how
How they run this show
Sure, run it into the ground
In the last second of life
They're gonna show you how
How they run this show
They run it into the ground

In the last second of life
They'll show you how
They run this show
Sure, run it into the ground
In the last second of life
They're gonna show you how

And the stars are projectors, yeah
Projectin' our lives down to this planet earth
And the stars are projectors, yeah
Projectin' our minds down to this planet earth
Everyone wants a double feature
They wanna be their own damn teacher, and how
All the stars are projectors, yeah
Projectin' our lives down to this planet earth

It's all about moderate climates
You gotta be cold and be hot for sure
And it's all about the moderate climates
You wanna be blessed and be cursed for sure

And the stars are projectors, yeah
Projectin' our lives down to this planet earth
And the stars are projectors, yeah
Projectin' our lives down to this planet earth
Everyone wants a double feature
They wanna be their own damn teacher, and how
All the stars are projectors, yeah
Projectin' our minds down to this planet earth

You’ve got the harder part
You’ve got the kinder heart, and it's true
I've got the easy part
I've got the harder heart, ain't that true?
Well, right wing, left wing, chicken wing
It's built on findin' the easier ways through
God is a woman and the woman is
An animal, that animal’s man, and that’s you

Was there a need for creation?
That was hidden in a math equation that asks this:
Where do circles begin?
Where do circles begin?

To follow up “Strange Fruit.”



Freedom, ignorance, jealousy, belligerence
Anger, self-control, tolerance, to and fro
Wisdom, ecstasy, addiction, dependency
Discipline, counter act, pray for peace, then attack
Dominance, contradict, upper class derelict
Downgrade, downsize, upstate, uprise

Now tell me, where my niggas at?
Now tell me, where my niggas at?
Now tell me, where my niggas at?
Now tell me, where my niggas at?

Downtown, on the block, at the club
Steaming hot, dancing, talking shit, telling lies
Like a pimp, meanwhile, underpaid
Read like, second grade
Uncle Sam, sign you up
Benefits, and a gun

Now tell me, where my niggas at?
Now tell me, where my niggas at?
Now tell me, where my niggas at?
Now tell me, where my niggas at?

African people, African people, African people, African people
Shotgun, shotgun, shotgun, shotgun

Rise up, over-stand
Stand your ground
Own your land
Serve all, love all, never sleep
Never fall, meditate
Eat right, pray first
Then fight, but for truth, not for fame
Not for glory, or the game

Now tell me, where my niggas at?
Now tell me, where my niggas at?
Now tell me, where my niggas at?
Now tell me, where my niggas at?

African people (Nigga, jungle bunny), African people (Coon, porch monkey), African people, African people
Shotgun, shotgun, shotgun, shotgun

Liberia, Iraq
Dark brown, light black
South Africa, Mozambique
Mud hut, concrete, AIDS ridden
Heart disease, strange fruit, Southern trees
Sierre Leone, diamond mines
Cameroon, pipe lines
Port-au-Prince, Salvadore
Civil right, Civil War
Zimbabwe, trenchtown
Money makin', Queens bound
BX, Shaolin
Uptown, Brooklyn, upstate, Newburgh, unseen, unheard

Now tell me, where my niggas at?
Now tell me, where my niggas at?
Now tell me, where my niggas at?
Now tell me, where my niggas at?

African people, African people, African people, African people
Shotgun
Shotgun, (African people)
Shotgun, (African people)
African people

Interpreted as being about sensation vs. perception, the “thing-in-itself.”



Been bangin' my head against the window
Just trying to see the world outside
Some people say it doesn't matter
Some people take you for a ride

I am covered in blood and broken glass
It seems the window likes to fight

Some people say the world's on fire
Some people say the world's on ice
Some people say the world's on ice
Sweet all alone in alienation

Brick windows

I am sticking my face right through the glass
Just trying to see if the world's alive

Some people will say the window's broken
Some people will say it's all right
Some people will say it's all right
Keep bangin' my head against the wall (wall...)

Just trying to keep the past alive
Some people who make the windows shatter
Some people who make it airtight
Some people who make it airtight

Sweet all alone in alienation
Sweet all alone in alienation
Brick windows
Brick windows

My main concern here is this: is reason infallible? Will logic and rationality guarantee a safe passage to truth? — TheMadFool

I’ll answer “no.” Reason and logic came to be as a result of our experience of the world. We infer causation due to our observation of how objects interact with each other and the world, for example. What I’m getting at is that reason or rationality depend on the intelligibility of the world. The issue is that there may be features of the world that are not intelligible; that is they cannot be known by us. They may remain hidden from our perception forever. That is at least a possibility. Also, there are times when we discover things that seem irrational (quantum physics for example), and often find certain questions unanswerable due to the inherent irrationality involved in the question. Questions about the creation of the universe would be an example of the latter, as creating something from nothing seems irrational, as does some sort of infinite regress of creators, as does the existence of some deity. But at times, regardless of how irrational the answer may seem, it may be true nonetheless. We have to accept nature as it is. Trying to force nature to conform to reason will not lead to truth.

Saul Williams-Fck the Beliefs

@Nils Loc@Sir2u :up:

@schopenhauer1 I think what you’re trying to get at is the relationship of consciousness and experience. The “you” you’re referring to is essentially this, a particular consciousness experiencing a particular environment with particular DNA. If I’m right, then I agree with you. But it depends on what you mean by being a different being. If you’re asking whether or not a being could be born of different parents, in different circumstances, location, time, etc. with different DNA than you, yet retain your consciousness, the answer is no. Your consciousness (and therefore your identity) is entirely dependent on your DNA and your environment. However, if you mean could I, literally, with the exact same DNA and consciousness have been born in a different time and under different circumstances, then the answer is yes, theoretically.

Agree completely. LaVey was interested in combining his interpretation of Nietzsche’s philosophy with Aleister Crowley’s mysticism/philosophy.

@fishfry@Harry Hindu

:100:

a) I believe that the vitriolic juxtaposition and the divisive polarization would also continue under a Hillary Clinton presidency. This isn't just about Trump, even if he makes things worse. If you think how little the Hillary scandals were, the missing emails or Benghazi, how about then a scandal like Jeffrey Epstein, a sex ring organizer with ties to the ex-president husband of the sitting president getting killed in prison when on suicide watch? Just one example. — ssu

Agreed to a certain extent. My only point to consider is whether or not Hillary would have “fanned the flames” the way Trump has, which surely contributes to the divisiveness. But sure, the right would have probably continued hating Hillary and chanting “lock her up” had she been elected.

b) How do you think the relations would have gone with Hillary Clinton and the republican governors? You think that would have been a great team effort everybody? — ssu

Not very well.

From my understanding, one is unable to fear death while feeling peace. — Josh Lee

Maybe not, but I don’t know if gearing death is the only alternative to embracing it. It’s possible to be indifferent. Honestly, that’s probably how I would describe my feelings regarding it specifically. What I mean is I do have anxieties about knowing I’m about to die, and the pain involved in dying, and about possibly not having the opportunity to express my feelings to those I love, or share positive experiences with them, or achieve things I would like to achieve. But simply being dead doesn’t really make me feel anything, it’s the process of dying that’s fearful or concerning.

Because really, under a Hillary Clinton administration, would things have been so much better? — ssu

The answer to this really depends on how easily influenced the general population is, which itself somewhat depends on how charismatic the president is. I don’t have an answer to that question, but I’d imagine that if you took the time to pour over all the data you would find an uptick in certain areas since Trump took office. Racist behaviors would likely be one example. It is also obvious that Trump is viewed/portrayed as a racist by much of the population. Therefore, you could at least assume a correlation between the two. Having a president that is largely viewed as racist at least has some affect on racist behavior. However, even this doesn’t show that people’s beliefs on race were actually changed by Trump being in office. It could be that those who were already racist felt more comfortable in exhibiting racist behavior.

So, I’m not naive enough to believe that having a president that embraces conspiracy theories over science, makes his name by mocking all things “liberal” (which includes health and safety concerns), and generally endorses typical macho male behaviors (i.e. risk taking by not wearing masks) has no affect on the population. But at the same time I’m not sure of what Clinton’s response to the virus would have been, or how she would have been viewed/portrayed by those who oppose her. Answering how different things would have been requires knowledge of how different they would have been, as well as countless other variables that need to be factored in to account for something as complex as human behavior/beliefs. So I can’t answer this question with any certainty whatsoever, and at the same time you cannot assume that things would have been more or less similar had Clinton been elected instead.

I think “embracing death” is fuzzy as to what that actually means. Accepting it as opposed to resisting it or being in denial of it? Finding comfort in it? But regardless, I think the human psyche is set up in such a way that peace or other positive states will be experienced regardless of personal perspectives, beliefs, etc. It isn’t like only those who embrace death experience peace. I don’t know your personal background, but I’d venture to say that as a child you didn’t embrace death, yet experienced peace, at least at times.

It’s worse than that where I live. I’d estimate it to be about 50/50..on a good day. There have been several occasions where I was the only person in the store wearing a mask, including employees. This isn’t even mentioning the many people I’ve seen wearing masks inappropriately with their nose remaining uncovered. Granted, these are small stores with maybe 15 people in them, but still. Making mask wearing “mandatory,” as it is in my state, is ineffective without some type of enforcement.

What is interesting is that 'hell' or 'the underworld' (Hades, etc.) have often been associated with the physical world. One can even see parallels with Buddhism here, as attachment to the physical will prevent one from attaining (degrees of) enlightenment. — Tzeentch

Also in Christianity, where things “of the flesh” or “of the world” are regarded as negative or sinful, and matters of the soul considered positive, and worth pursuing even at the expense of physical pain or hardship. Maybe a bit off topic, but these parallels make me wonder if the concepts of heaven and hell are meant to be an allegorical representation and a projection of these values?

@TheMadFool

I think every person becoming “enlightened” would essentially be heaven on Earth. Also, if you’re interested, this conclusion is somewhat similar to Eckhart Tolle’s book “A New Earth.” Although I’m not exactly endorsing the book. It reads as too “self-help” oriented for my taste, which also makes me skeptical of the author’s intent. But anyway, a fully enlightened world would probably solve all pain that is caused by others. Of course there’s nothing you can do about natural disasters, accidents, aging, etc., but an enlightened person would likely handle these events without suffering as much as someone unenlightened.

Gotcha. So you could be ethical, but also amoral in your distinction.

the point is merely that morality involves caring about how my actions affect others. — Janus

Not necessarily. It doesn’t have to. It can be primarily concerned with how my actions affect me. If the broad goal of ethics is to live the good life, then assessing how one’s actions affect oneself is perfectly reasonable.

Additionally, it could also be argued that those moralities that give precedence to the affect our actions have on others only do so out of a desire for others to consider us, a fear of retaliation, so that it will benefit us, or some other sort of selfish/egotistical desire.

The basic thing is that you have to care. — Janus

Yes, you have to care, but only about what you consider “good.” You can choose to care about yourself more than others if you believe doing so is good, or that it will enable you to live the best life possible.

But should we have a preference at all? If our galaxy was all that existed, should we feel more significant than we do now?

Thanks for the replies, but to clarify I guess I was interested in the feeling of insignificance. Often it seems that when people realize how much bigger space is than us, and how much could be out there, they feel insignificant. Then you get statements like “we’re just tiny beings inhabiting a rock...etc.” followed up by statements that our lives don’t matter, or that our lives are insignificant. To me, this implies that in our search for meaning we consider size to be meaningful; that size somehow gives meaning to an object or life form.

Maybe hypothetically, but it’s realistically impossible to know. It’s not like someone behaves a certain way, then obtains a high IQ, and begins behaving differently. I suppose you could look at cases of traumatic brain injury to show that going from a higher IQ to a lower IQ alters one’s behavior, but that seems rather unfair.

Community standards aren’t objective. Otherwise they would be universally applied.

The result of being cursed is the occurrence of a negative experience. Philosophy doesn’t necessarily lead to something negative.

Because we value wellbeing — Bert Newton

Not exclusively, or absolutely. Why pick out this one value out many others?

We ought to find the best ways to be. — Bert Newton

Why?

Again, my point is the idea of forcing pain on someone else for one's own benefit of alleviating pain is not a good one. — schopenhauer1

I’m not arguing with this, I’m interested to see what you think about harming X in order to reduce Y’s harm. Or, Harming X in order to prevent future harm for X.

Slightly changing your above quote illustrates my point:

The idea of forcing pain on someone else (by convincing them, or somehow preventing them from procreating) for one’s own (or someone else’s) benefit (the unborn child’s) of alleviating (or preventing) pain is not a good one.

Do you agree with that statement? Why, or why not?

Apart from this, I’m claiming that attempting in any way to alter someone else’s behavior for your benefit is treating them as a means to an end. Promoting antinatalism does this, and thereby violates your claim that it is wrong to treat people in such a way. Therefore, promoting antinatalism is immoral. As a hint, the out here is to concede that the statement “it is wrong to treat people as a means to an end” is not absolute; it’s relative.

Nah I don't think this follows. Just because someone is doing something bad does not mean I have any moral duty to get involved to stop them. I didn't ask to be here, and I hate cleaning up messes other people make. I have enough to worry about in my own life, so I mind my own business and let others do their thing. — darthbarracuda

Allowing bad acts to occur when you could have prevented it is morally judged as what in your opinion? Good, bad, or neutral? It seems to me that the point of morality is to either create “good” or reduce “bad,” or both whenever reasonably possible. It is good to do good actions, and bad to do bad ones. At the very least it is good to prevent bad actions from occurring. Since that act is good, and it is good to do good things, you should do it whenever reasonably possible.

But surely I am justified in trying to convince people that doing something is wrong, if I believe it is wrong? — darthbarracuda

Sure, but you have to admit that doing so is attempting to use them as a means to your end. You’re trying to get them to change their behavior so that it suits you and what you think is right or good.

Not having a child involves the certainty that the person will not suffer, and the uncertainty that...? — darthbarracuda

Not having a child involves the certainty that some will suffer as a result. The uncertainty is the amount of good the unborn person would have brought into the world. To be clear, I’m treating this as if it were a universal principle that could not be violated. If you personally don’t want children, that’s fine. I’m not going to convince you that you should. The issue is if you try to convince others they should not. Even worse would be acting in such a way that people were forced to not procreate, or punished for doing so. Which I don’t think anyone here has advocated for, but it seems a logical conclusion to me. If procreating is bad, then one should prevent it whenever possible. Just like if murder is bad, one should prevent it whenever possible.

Fine. But the unborn child’s “protection” from harm is also predicated on the harm of others. As a third party, you must at least allow the harm of others (those who desire children, grandchildren, siblings, etc.) to continue, and perhaps at times directly cause their harm so that the unborn child is protected at all costs. The point being that Antinatalism’s conclusion isn’t a “win-win” situation. New harm will be introduced in the world regardless. The only difference is who is experiencing it, and possibly the extent/severity of it.

And again, unnecessary suffering (for someone else). — schopenhauer1

What types of suffering are necessary?

Was it necessary for her to not get harmed further or are you causing the very harm in the first place because you enjoy it? — schopenhauer1

Explain what you mean by necessary. It was necessary to stop her in order to prevent her from being injured, and the harm I caused is less than what would have occurred. I suppose you could say that I enjoyed keeping her safe, but relieved would be a better term.

No it isn't. Straw man. This actually has only surface similarities at best. The trolley problem is picking between two bad alternatives to other people. This is about creating all instances of future suffering for someone else to alleviate one instance of suffering of oneself. — schopenhauer1

In my example, you are a third party whose action affects the suffering of other people. You can either treat the couple (which will enable them to give birth and reduce their suffering), or you can refuse to treat them and prevent the suffering of the unborn child.

Again, it's to alter their behavior to prevent other people's suffering. Just like the person who likes to blow up stuff in residential neighbhorhods who gets joy from it, should alter their behavior... — schopenhauer1

So in this case it’s ok to treat them as a means to your end?

If someone else is born already and was blatently going to get harmed, and you were trying to prevent this, thus causing slight harm... vaccines, pushing someone out of a moving train, educating one's offspring, not neglecting them, that sort of thing. — schopenhauer1

So necessary suffering is suffering that is caused in order to prevent or reduce greater suffering?

Don't understand this argument — schopenhauer1

The argument is that some suffering leads to pleasure, happiness, etc. Suffering can be a means to an end that is regarded as positive. So why focus on eliminating all suffering, and not just suffering that has strictly negative outcomes? You argue that it is best to not procreate because it prevents all suffering (not just unnecessary suffering) for the unborn person. So in this case, you judge allowing suffering of any kind to be impermissible. Yet in other cases, you seem to judge certain types of suffering (those you deem as necessary) as permissible.

That implied, the small harm to oneself to prevent others harm.. affecting others.. — schopenhauer1

This is where you’re misunderstanding me. Let’s say someone will continue to suffer if they do not receive a shot. The issue is if your position is that you should always prevent suffering if possible, you cannot give the person the shot, as it will cause suffering. You are intentionally harming another person, perhaps even against their will.

Again, other people's suffering is not a means to your end.. If someone likes blowing up stuff in residential neighborhoods but is prevented from doing so, and cries about it, tough shit. — schopenhauer1

This is inconsistent. You aren’t considering the bomber’s suffering, and are intentionally causing him to suffer to further your end of preventing the suffering of others. His suffering is a means to your end. What is the difference in causing his suffering and telling him to deal with it, and causing suffering by procreating and telling the child to deal with it? I would also add that it is very likely that at some point in the child’s life he will prevent the suffering of another human being. To what extent, however, is unknown.

You can’t experience pleasure if you’re dead. Suicide reduces suffering, but can’t increase pleasure.

If we continue to procreate, unethical behavior will continue. The inverse is not true and establishes its persuasive ability. — darthbarracuda

You’re right. I was looking at it from the wrong angle.

Presumably because the potential sufferings of an unborn person can and often does exceed (in great proportion) the potential sufferings of those who do not procreate (because they do not procreate). — darthbarracuda

Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I don’t like strict negative utilitarianism. I’m not so quick to discard pleasure as a factor. So for me, there’s more to consider than just potential suffering. The person being born will experience both (suffering and pleasure), and will cause both to occur in others. There are extreme examples of people who have largely caused others to suffer (Hitler), and those that have largely caused others pleasure or comfort (Mother Teresa). Exactly where the person falls on this scale is too difficult to predict, as is the amount of suffering/pleasure the person will endure throughout their life. The point being that everyone is connected. One unhappy couple can cause more people to be unhappy, etc., etc. At least in principle. So it’s too difficult to know, and I’d rather not base my decisions on such an uncertainty. Especially when the cost is so great.