That's not what evolution is nor how it works. There are no strong or weak genes, there is only what works at the time.

You logically justify your depression like others logically justify their happiness, truthfully, neither of you are correct. It's just that you can't possibly account for the hormones and genetics which govern how you think and feel. Humans aren't just the sum of their choices, there's an underlying biological reality which affects how we think and interpret. I'm not afraid to die, I see death through the lens of the dead, no fear, no regrets, no anything. If one does choose to die, that's their choice but their thinking was likely a result of some underlying problems, that person was likely in need of help. I'm not going to treat it like a logical choice made by a clear-thinking person unless there are special circumstances. — Judaka

Happiness from what I can tell has no logical justification. People believe that just because something feels good they should keep doing it even though that is not really logical.

That fact that you don't treat someone seeking death as logical choice with clear thinking says more about you than them. I think some of the people who think about suicide are thinking clearly and see the big picture. But society is scared to accommodate them because we have this paranoia about death and encouraging people to live when they clearly don't wish to. We assume something is wrong just like with school shooters, because our brains can't think of any other reason. It doesn't fit the narrative. I thought this was a philosophy forum.

Exactly there is no logical reason to and yet I do failing to be able to off myself.

I'd still choose nonexistence.

It is near-universal that people want to live. I do not think people want to live due to "the good things", it's just normal, healthy psychology to want to live. People no more "choose" than they "choose" to be attracted to the gender they're attracted to. It's just one of those things that nature takes care of, we don't need to make a choice.

Even if I gave you all my reasons for wanting to live and you shot them all down, proving they were all poor - I'd still want to live, even if I decided I didn't want to live - I'd still want to live. Just like I can't decide who I'm attracted to.

I really don't think it's anything more than that. — Judaka

Normal and healthy psychology has changed with the seasons. Nature doesn't really take care of it, we do. Nature also causes death as well so your points are moot. You can't decide who you're attracted to but you can decide to live or not. You're proving there isn't a good reason to live. If you were to die you'd be done with this whole dance. People talk about the struggle as if it's noble but why? That just sounds like death anxiety trying to rationalize sticking around.

I know that but as I said, survival instincts are hard to overcome. So, unable to do it I do this.

You can overcome that instinct and let death take you, plenty have done it. The trouble with suicide though is that it’s not always successful and then you get placed on watch. You say you don’t control it but you do. You choose to listen to it. If you did nothing then death would just take you, you’d starve eventually. It’s hard to overcome but not impossible.

You actually don’t have more choices than the dead nor are you freer than the dead. The dead carry no burdens and in a sense are ultimately free. The burdens of choice are removed. You haven’t listed a justification for going on. You are not powerful nor entirely in control, that’s a lie you’re telling yourself. You may have options but that’s not a good thing it’s more of a burden. Again death is just the better option in the end because you don’t have to live ergo choices don’t really matter when you can forgo all of that.

Actually those exceptions aren’t that uncommon. There are many examples of parents who don’t do that. Of course they get reported and you can ask a social worker how that works out. But the “not have to” when raising kids isn’t really much of an exception as people think.

Then you have a reason for living right now, which is to lend insight, even though you can't really succeed at that as you're confused. — Kenosha Kid

Incorrect. Unable to take my own life (because survival instincts are very strong) this is the alternative. If I had the strength to I would not be here right now. This is not a reason for living.

No. Survival instinct is not logical to those who live it just is. Life propagates itself despite the absurdity. There is also no justification for living either. Asking the death if living is preferable is a non starter and not a counterpoint. The only emotional and practical justifications are for death. Because in death all concern, hope, etc is wiped away. Staying alive for others is moot when you no longer would have worry once you die.

Correction. I didn’t do/ perform my own conception and birth and infantile years - they happen to us not through anything we can consider our choice or consent. What you do when you have capacity to consider death or be able to self inflict it is then your choice... something you can actively do. (Though I wouldn’t recommend it personally). So it’s not as cut and dry as living is something we do actively it is also passively passed onto us when we are created by our parents. — Benj96

It’s not though. Living is something you do. If you did nothing you would eventually die. Hence living is what you do and death is something that happens. It is that cut and dry.

And I have yet to see why the "reasons for living" that have been offered are "rooted in fallacies" and I am even more puzzled why hope is "illogical and privileged." And as I said, I believe its a mistake to think people purely operate on logic in life. Humans are emotional beings and thus it wouldnt surprise me that someones reason for life might be love or fun,... Who are you to say that this is an incorrect reason to want to live? What would a correct reason look like? — DoppyTheElv

Hope is illogical because it assumes things will work out without evidence and is privileged because it usually is adopted by those who can stand to lose. It's incorrect because it's not reason that moves them, just rationalization of the survival drive. Death seems more logical than living TBH. Humans can't live by emotion yet claim reason and greater purpose at the same time. Sounds like wanting your cake and eating it too. There is no "correct" reason to live. That said his claims are still wrong. Everything dies eventually and that is the case for I would wager 90% of people, maybe a bit more. They don't have a legacy, they will be forgotten. Look upon the nameless statistics of those who starved to death, died to some illness, or died in wars. There is no legacy or immortality there, just a tic mark.

Okay I'm sensing you're a bit of a brick wall. You have no ability to lend insight, and no ability to learn.

Here's a question, though: why do you keep going? I mean... this isn't worthwhile, it's dumb and pointless, but you keep doing it. Why? — Kenosha Kid

Merely showing how your reasoning doesn't follow. Me liking something therefor I should do it is not a statement that logically follows. It's simply a fact as it is. I'm trying to lend insight but people insist there is reason for living. As for why I keep going, so far there is no painless way to die. Well, not one that someone will help you with. Suicide is considered a "problem" by society.

Things like logic, reasons, absurdity, purpose... these are all human attitudes toward the world we find ourselves in. We have them as a result of living. To ask if there's a purpose to living is to ask if there's a step in a flight of stairs, purpose doesn't mean anything outside of the context of a living thing. — Isaac

Not exactly. I would argue that our ancestors didn't really have logic or reason as much as we do or even purpose. But those are not a result of living. It's not the same to ask if there is a step in a flight of stairs as there is to asking a purpose for living. One simply is and the other is a choice that we attempt to rationalize. So far there doesn't seem to be a good reason to choose life over death.

"good things" is not a reason because that only counts if you have to stay alive where as in death there is no good or bad things anymore and no concern over what will happen. In terms of net "good" it's the only choice for a living thing, to live seems absurd and illogical.

Absurd may as well be synonymous with pointless considering how many people live with purpose and in the belief they are correct in how to live. I would argue Monty Python is pointless because it’s absurd. Even Sisyphus rolling a boulder is pointless not to mention absurd. Most instances that can be called absurd are also pointless.

Also I don’t know, logic tries to do that with ethics when it comes to ought and ought not.

No, it is not absurdity. Logic applies to thought and language. But our relation to the world is one of sensation and emotion. One senses that shit smells, one has a feeling about the smell of liking or disliking, and logic tells one that if one dislikes the smell of shit one ought to build a flushing toilet. — unenlightened

Incorrect. Emotion tells you to do that not logic. It doesn’t apply to thought and language. Like and dislike are just states of affairs, any action that results from that is emotion. Avoidance and seeking are emotion, not logic. I like ice cream, however logic doesn’t say I should eat it. All it says is that I like ice cream.

If logic can’t derive premises then what is it good for? If it can’t determine if a premise is true then what is it good for? It derives conclusions from something it can’t prove, that sounds like absurdity to me.

This goes to show that you are locked into a worldview and assert that everyone behaves the way your, rather dark and close minded, worldview dictates. Countless of people here are giving their reasons for why they keep on living but you seem unable to accept that other people do find meaning in life even if there is no ultimate purpose or afterlife. You musn't simply charge them with wishful thinking.

I for one believe that "being" is the most precious thing I have. To paraphrase the bible: What is a man without his soul? What am I if I cannot even be?? I wouldnt be able to laugh, cry. I wouldn't be able to participate in the drama that is called life. Even when I am going through terrible things, which I have, I can console myself with the fact that it will not kill me. And better times are coming. — DoppyTheElv

You clearly didn’t read the part where I said that stuff dies too. My mother doesn’t remember the dreams of her grandparents and my grandmother with dementia doesn’t remember her family’s either. As I said everything ends and you can’t seem to accept that. Your ego dies to because eventually people will forget. Think of all the people who have lived and only a handful are written of in books while the rest are lost to time. Even the current ones will only last as long as we do or as long as we remember them. But everything dies, nothing lives on. We are not immortal. The only ignorant one is you who can’t see the reasons so far aren’t good ones for living and are rooted in fallacies. I mean you have hope which is by itself illogical and privileged. Open your eyes.

One lives either because they have to (logical), or they want to (emotional). Most people live for a mix of these things with overlap between necessity and desire on multiple levels. But you could simply remove both need and desire and say “I live because it is happening to me. i exist because I exist. I have no control ultimately” - a predeterministic view — Benj96

There is no have to for living. You don’t “have to” do anything. I would consider living illogical to a point because you will eventually die and after a certain peak your body breaks down till the point where you wish you were dead in old age. Survival instinct is not logical, there is no logic to going on living. You don’t live because it is happening to you rather it is something you do. If you stopped you would die. We’re it something that just happened to you there wouldn’t be a need to do anything to maintain it. Death happens, living not so much.



Enjoyment is never intellectual, that is rationalization. The reality is that we don’t choose why we like something or how. We make up reasons but in the end it just is. You can say you like a song because of the rhythm but then the follow up is why do you like the rhythm? You just do, you don’t control it. Rationalize it all you want but there is no intellect behind enjoyment. It’s the same with food. If you think you can impact what you enjoy you are delusional. As I said, we don’t choose what we enjoy or dislike it just happens. We have no conscious control over it.

This is illogical. It doesn't follow from the nature of logic that the object of a decision needs to be logical. If you enjoy something and you're at liberty to do it, it is perfectly logical to do it. You seem to have difficulty differentiating between objects and reasoning about them. Both the above points concern the same error.

Irrespective, ceasing to do something you enjoy for no reason is illogical. — Kenosha Kid

It actually does have to be logical otherwise the reasoning becomes absurd. If you enjoy something and are at liberty to so so it does not logically follow to do it. That is again still emotion. Why should your emotions matter? I mean people like ice cream and are at liberty to do so but they choose to ignore it in favor of diets. Still not saying that is logical but it blows a hole in your reasoning. Liking something isn’t a reason to do it because that is rooted in emotion. Then again I guess at the foundation of all reasoning is emotion, so I guess there is no reason to do anything. If you go back enough logic breaks down.

But ceasing to do something you enjoy for no reason is not illogical. That is just your personal opinion and just because you can’t understand it doesn’t make it illogical.

Enjoyment is never intellectual since we don't choose what we like or don't like. Some even say that it is not you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kX62n6yNXA&t=1s

The decision to stop is logical as is to stay, the enjoyment is not. Actually if you are basing the decision on emotions then I guess nothing about it is logical. I mean why do you enjoy it? There is no reason, no logic.

IMO sages that were too much of a coward to choose death. As I mentioned before, I don't have to do those things and in death there would be no need. Next.

Someone who does not want to understand other visions will never understand. My participation in this discussion is finished. — Gus Lamarch

More like you have serious death anxiety and can't accept that oblivion is the ultimate fate of everyone eventually. I have heard other versions but they don't address the issue just skirt around it. Like so many others you cower before the void.

My response is why I choose to go on. It would no more occur to me to end my own life than it would to walk out half an hour before the end of a film I'm enjoying. It's just an illogical thing to do when you're enjoying it. — Kenosha Kid

Is it? If I am enjoying a film where is the logic in staying? That's not logic that is emotion. I don't have to see the movie until it ends. I've quit many series I liked and had no regrets. I was enjoying my life one day when I came to the realization that I don't have to be here. Suddenly things lost their enjoyment. As I mentioned such arguments only hold water if you have to be here.

I wish to go on for what is perhaps a very Logical and statistical basis leaving meaning nd purpose and sentiment aside. I wish to live my life because it is a rare occurrence. In the 14 billion years of the universes existence it had not yet seen a “me” occur. Even life is relatively short lived in the total existence of the universe- a blink in the eye. — Benj96

Doesn't sound like a good reason to be honest. The "rarity of something" is not grounds for staying.

The question that arises is why would you want to when you don’t have to keep living. All that sounds like a chore to make life bearable and when you die you won’t remember anything at all. So why not skip to the end and not concern yourself with doing things you like? That argument only works if you have to stay alive in which case you should do stuff you like. But if you don’t then I see no reason to do so.

Your Ego can die, there are meds for that and not to mention dozens or religions that do it too. Also you will perish. Your legacy won’t live on, you’ll be quickly forgotten in about 100 years. Nothing that is you will live on.

Also for the record I found Neitzsche to be an idiot who could not cope with issue of death. All that you listed aren’t reasons to live but rather are consequences of living. That said neitzsche couldn’t deal with nihilism and ended up with a cop out just like the rest of the existential philosophers. None of them could take nihilism head on and just danced around it.

But this isn’t about nihilism.

Counterpoint to that is why put it off then?

"The purpose of existence, is the craving for the craving" — Gus Lamarch

As much as I want to buy that from what I gather it's not simple at all like that. If that were the case then Buddhist monks or enlightened ones would commit suicide. Yet despite Buddhism knowing life is suffering and craving they claim that isn't why they stick around.

BUt as I mentioned in the above I have no way to know any of that. IF they feel the same things that I do. All I know is my own experience, everything else is a guess. So even in said relationships it isn't that different from being alone since you are more or less playing either pretend or guessing. You assess them based on deeds, words, etc, but in the end we just end up with what we THINK is going on between us and this alleged other person.

So I guess if you really break it down we were always alone and things like friendship, togetherness, etc, are more or less a lie we tell ourselves.

how can I know that though? I have no way to confirm any of what you are saying, that others feel what I feel or even feel to begin with.

I just find it odd that they try to get around justification.

I don't think so. There is still a justification required to believe in empirical evidence and that of the senses. You never really get around justification because otherwise you would never do anything. What justifies the belief in sensation after all? Science can't proceed without justifcationism, I mean that is essentially the function of evidence, it justifies our claims and beliefs.

If you want to rule out justification then you rule out everything else with it. There would be no reason to claim anything or use anything for support because you could never justify it's use.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. By default everything and its negation might be right and might be wrong; then knowledge comes from determining which things are definitely wrong, and thus narrowing the range of things that might still be right. — Pfhorrest

But how do you do that without justification? The point about the trilemma is that everything is ultimately based on three unsatisfying assumptions. Usually to determine what is wrong we have to justify it, we can't just say someone is wrong. But if all justifications fall back to those three points then one could argue there is no right or wrong because everything has arbitrary beginnings.

That doesn’t sound very reassuring

yeah you clearly don’t get it which is fine but don’t assume it’s unclear when everyone else understands.

That being said I still repeat how do we move on to knowledge. I mean axioms sound like a pretty terrible way to go. “This is true because we say it is”? If we are to go the route of falsification then we are really screwed because an external world or other minds can’t be falsified or proven so the how can we verify anything at all? Ethics would be an issue too as that is more or less just personal opinion and not really facts.

I just feel like the trilemma shows how useless philosophy ends up being and why the pyrrhonists preached what they did

There's no need, the guy is saying the world is not real or does not exist, that's already grounds for the looney bin.

Or the more likely reason is you are defending a nutter, which seems popular in philosophy.

Philosophizing can be said to be the act of taking a few axioms, a few things that one is sure of, and then think about what implications follow or could follow from them. This way, one can discover new axioms, ie. those that one previously was not aware of. — baker

This sort of sounds like the death of philosophy to me. I mean if philosophy is the love of wisdom and the pursuit of truth but everything rests on unproveable axioms then what is the point of philosophizing?

Which again still doesn't address my point. You keep saying that questioning stuff is what philosophy does. Yet what is the point of doing that when things ultimately rest on axioms? Stop dodging the question? Every time someone says questioning is important I look at a duck and am reminded it's not.

I mentioned in last month’s post here that our familiar term “world” is a rounded-off version of the Old English weorold, “man-old,” the time or age of human beings. That bit of etymology conceals more than one important insight. As I noted last month, it reminds us that this thing we call “the world” isn’t something wholly outside ourselves, something we experience in a detached and objective way. It’s something we create moment by moment in our minds, by piecing together the jumble of unconnected glimpses our senses give us — John Michael Greer

I will reiterate my last point about if they are arguing the world is not real then who are they talking to or trying to convince.

That still sounds foolish to me. Judging by his books it sounds more like the guy doesn't have a grasp on the subjects he talks about. Even his book is rife with logical fallacies.

I still restate my question. IF everything is ultimately based on a set of axioms that we cannot prove and have to take it on faith then what exactly is the point of performing philosophy? How can we call anything a pursuit of truth?

Also Gabriel doesn't seem all there as a philosopher according to reviews of his books:

"It is a title that catches the eye but sadly the contents do not live up to the expectations that the title arouses. Most non-philosophical readers will assume that 'The world' means planet Earth or maybe just the whole of humanity. They are unlikely to be aware that Gabriel is using 'The world' to mean not just the entire physical universe but rather everything that exists – whether physical or not. In this sense, unicorns living on the far side of the moon (the author's own example) are part of 'The world' insofar as he has imagined them and therefore they exist – at least in his imagination. So the other part of the title is also being used in a way that is at best 'unusual' – since we don't normally accept that unicorns inhabit the far side of the moon – at least not without considerable qualification.

So once we assume that 'The world' means 'everything that exists – in all senses of exist' – then we are ready for Gabriel's not terribly exciting claim that this concept does not – because it cannot – exist. This is not to say that nothing exists – which would be quite a remarkable claim – though philosophers in the past have claimed it (but then philosophers in the past have claimed all sorts of things – as some do in the present!). The concept 'everything that exists' is paradoxical and it is its paradoxical nature which entails that it cannot exist. It is self-contradictory. Gabriel divides everything up into 'object domains'. It is easier – and just as accurate - to think of these as sets – the set of all unicorns, the set of all teaspoons, etc. Now clearly there can be some sets which are found entirely or partially inside other sets – 'unicorns' inside 'mythical creatures' and 'teaspoons' partially inside 'silver utensils' (since some teaspoons are made of steel or plastic). But then let's imagine the set of all sets – the set in which all sets are to be found – the granddaddy set. Then we get the big question – 'Is the set of all sets a member of itself?' Usually known as 'Russell's Paradox' this question is paradoxical for the following reasons. Clearly if it is not a member of itself then the set of all sets is deficient – it lacks one of its members – namely itself. But if it is a member of itself then it seems to exist in two places at once – inside itself and also itself. And even sets can't be in two places at once. Or as Gabriel expresses it, “The world is not found in the world” [P.74]. So the concept of 'the set of all sets' is incoherent – and in this sense, and only this sense, the world does not exist. But even in Gabriel's strained notion of 'The world' it doesn't follow that just because it doesn't exist that therefore, “One cannot think about the world” [P.79]. To which one can only respond, “Oh yes I can!”. Non-existence or even downright self-contradiction does not prevent me from thinking about it. I could spend the whole afternoon thinking about square circles if I chose."


https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0745687571/ref=acr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

So then why bother? What is the point of questioning everything if you eventually have to settle on axioms? I mean even solipsism has to take it's base points on faith.

REminds me a bit about berkely and idealism: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-documents.ri-prod/9781138690394/idealism_objections.docx#:~:text=Idealism%20leads%20to%20solipsism,exists%20is%20my%20own%20experience.

But in Berkeley's case it leads to solipsism as idealism often does.

He seems like that "I have to make my degree matter somehow" philosopher. All his stuff when I questioned him was gated behind payment and he wouldn't clarify anything. As I mentioned before he is shooting himself in the foot.

He tries to say that ethics doesn't need an external reality in order to be applied, at which point I couldn't take him seriously anymore.

Science in the broad sense. In physics it's still iffy as to what is real, I don't regard the social science definition much since they can't really agree on anything. I guess I mean repeatable and predictable which is why I don't count dreams or hallucinations as real because they aren't.

And people wonder why no one takes philosophy seriously. I think sometimes philosophers invent problems to either have a job or feel like they haven't wasted their lives.

I've read people's responses on here but I still stand by my points. If you want to argue that the world is not real or that there is no external reality then you are essentially shooting yourself in the foot. No one would listen to you because according to you they aren't real and you're just talking to yourself here.

AS for the discussion of "real" I say what science says about it speaks far more than anything philosophy brings to the table. I think when discussing reality or the world philosophy is useless as my lived experience remains unchanged regardless of the argument for the world or lack of it.

Well just art in general.

Thoughts?

But I'm still iffy on the notion they are getting at. I mean even without the concept of a bird it's not like they don't exist.

So what is he a corpse? I mean, if he's not speaking using his mind using thoughts or ideas formed using said mind .. yet tries to refer to a concept of "ultimate truth" processed, formed, or otherwise understood by again said mind, that is somehow and for some reason NOT dependent on (his or her) mind .. all there is would be the body. Long story short, just don't do drugs, kids. — Outlander

I think what is meant is that the borders and distinctions we make between "things" are what we make of them. Sort of like what the guy in the long quote is saying about in a world without concepts.

Sorry I had a reply that addresses these properties that was part of the previous quote I had listed up above:

In a world stripped of concepts, there is no existence as existence is itself a concept. Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for existence is the existence of concepts. Concepts however cannot exist without a conceiving entity. Therefore, existence requires consciousness.

The existence of a thing implies the existence of the concept of a thing. If the concept of a thing does not exist, we cannot refer to it in any way and thus its existence becomes a null concept. Thus, the concept of a thing and by consequence the thing, is a mere state of a hypothetical system that is responsible for consciousness or is conscious. I will refer to it as the conscious system.

(1) Constant change implies that there is a never-ending action, because if action would cease to exist, then change would be at some point impossible and therefore it will not be constant. Thus infinity is an inevitability.

(2) The concept of a thing is distinguished by the concepts of other things through the concept of not that thing. Thus, discreteness can exist, so that all experience does not merge into a single point, which allows dimensions to exist.

(3) The fact that a thing is defined by a set of conditions, reflects the state of the conscious system, which further determines the next state of the system but also forces it to never be in (experience) the same state twice, because that would put the system in a loop which contradicts buttonion's first proposition as it would cause a stable organization in the system (that is all that is) and therefore no more change.

Thus far I have asserted that all that exists is an infinite non repeatable experience.

So when we say that a thing exists, we are really saying that the experience of everything that can exist, has existed or will exist if it does not now. Which sucks.

Our constant habit is to become attached to those people and things that we find attractive, averted to those we find unattractive, and indifferent toward those we find neither attractive nor unattractive. We perpetuate this habit because we have another mental habit which spontaneously apprehends the conventional distinctions between objects as existing seperate from mind. Ultimate truth tells us that nothing exists independent of mind. We lack equanimity, and therefore have the ongoing potential to suffer.

The first two pages make remarks about existence in general though.

In a world stripped of concepts, there is no existence as existence is itself a concept. Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for existence is the existence of concepts. Concepts however cannot exist without a conceiving entity. Therefore, existence requires consciousness.

The existence of a thing implies the existence of the concept of a thing. If the concept of a thing does not exist, we cannot refer to it in any way and thus its existence becomes a null concept. Thus, the concept of a thing and by consequence the thing, is a mere state of a hypothetical system that is responsible for consciousness or is conscious. I will refer to it as the conscious system.

I don't put much stock in Zen philosophy. It sounds like it's based on an ignorance of neuroscience.

I disagree. The artist believes that what they create and what they see aren't identical but in a sense they are. They believe themselves to be creating when they are just duplicating various things they have known before. They aren't really making anything, just pushing paint around.

I think there are two parts to creativity: how one looks at, perceives or understands reality, and how one expresses, interprets or renders it. As humans, I think we all have the capacity to be creatively original in how we perceive reality in our own minds, but few of us can render this genuine originality in a way that others would perceive as comprehensible, relatable or accurate. — Possibility

We don't. There is no original way to see reality, it's all variations on a theme. There is ZERO creativity present in either the perception or the expression of it either. It's just duplication.

For the last time, what is the point of all this?