Tom, you're still following the playbook I described — James Dean Conroy

All I’m trying to do is reset the discussion to a point where you’re not assuming I’m a dishonest interlocutor.

It’s late here now, so I’ll just ask you one thing:

I agreed with you that your first axiom is probably correct.

What’s the next step?

Read above play book. This is textbook. It's not genuine engagement — James Dean Conroy

Well, I am certainly genuine. And with respect, you can’t actually know what is going on in my mind. You are simply making inferences based on your reaction to our interactions. Is it simply the case that if people don’t agree with you, you need to dismiss them as not genuine? That’s what this looks like.

For the record, I have not argued that you are wrong. I have simply responded to what you have said, and what you say does not seem to follow to me. What you are doing is saying to me, "It’s impossible that you don’t follow this since I am clear and following sound rules of discourse. So you must be deliberately misrepresenting me or arguing in bad faith."

You're still not engaging in real discourse. — James Dean Conroy

I think we're talking past each other; this aligns with option 2 from my earlier comment. I'm genuinely sorry you feel like I'm playing a game. I'm not, and I'm sincerely trying to understand your argument. But when your ideas are questioned, when people struggle to follow the gist, you seem provoked and frustrated, as if you believe the questioning is done insincerely, with the intent to manipulate. All the best.

You’re both conflating distinct categories and ignoring the descriptive nature of what I’ve presented. That isn't addressing what I've said on its own terms. That’s not critique - it’s deflection. You're not playing the game as defined, and to be frank, it’s outrageous. — James Dean Conroy

You need to stop making the mistake (and this is a common one) of assuming that people (who hold different views) are wilfully misunderstanding or manipulating your ideas in the wrong direction. I am doing the best with what I have in front of me here.

Your more appropriate response is to try explaining it again or to admit one of three things: (1) that you are not explaining yourself clearly, (2) that people's perspectives can be so different that talking past each other becomes inevitable, (3) that you may be wrong.

So please jettison the "outrage." My tone and my reflections are completely sincere and simply reflect where your words have led me.

Synthesis does not derive an "ought" from an "is". It states that all value presupposes life - not morally, but structurally. This is not a moral claim; it's an ontological observation about the necessary condition for any value, perception, or evaluation to exist. Without life, there is no frame from which value-judgments can even arise. — James Dean Conroy

I guess most people are already aware of this, but I don't see its utility. Isn't life the fundamental precondition for having any perspective - good or ill?

Stick with here, I think he is onto something and I beleive he is sincerely trying to get to the nub of this matter.

DO you think that your theory contributes to discussions of what we should do next? OF what we should value? — Banno

Banno's quesion here seems apropos.

You say life is good. What exactly is good for? Where does it lead us? What is the role of your idea in how we determine what we ought to do?

As I understand it, the concept of the good is a perspecitive and only gains meaning within a framework where choice is possible. Without choice, there's no standpoint from which to evaluate alternatives, and thus no basis for calling anything ‘good.’

Even if life is predicated on a will for survival, this does not imply that survival itself is good, meaningful, or worth pursuing—it simply reflects a drive, not a reason.

I suppose if someone is psychologically unstable, it's never very difficult to find things in the outside world that seem to confirm their feelings and even amplify them. Politics and culture can become extensions of inner turmoil.

You've expressed some loose opinions, but I'd like to read an argument.

Some laws can be contested. The law intended as the "corpus" of majoritarian norms of legal behavior must be always valid. You are contesting some laws. — Ludovico Lalli

The law is a reflection of the values of a society: the whole reason there is a significant world-wide enterprise of law reform is because society often identifies that our laws are behind current moral thinking and inadequate and unjust. This can include laws on child labour, environmental protection, and the rights of minority groups, laws about drugs, family law, privacy law, health law and corporate legislation. So, the notion that law equals morality seems incoherent and the reverse of how things work. The law is an attempt to codify a culture's moral principles and dominant moral values - it comes after we decide what's right.

I'm not sure I understand the argument. You seem to be saying that some laws are immoral, and therefore morality is separate from the law. But there are laws against homosexuality, abortion, drug use; you name it. So how do we determine when a law reflects a sound moral position?

Expectations must be gauged on the basis of the objectivity of the Constitution. — Ludovico Lalli

Any constitution is a human made document that can and is altered over time as values change. Some constitutions omit human rights protections, for instance. How do we determine if the constitution represents the good? And how do we translate vague motherhood statements about equality into law?

Law and morality are the same thing. — Ludovico Lalli

So if capital punishment is law in one country and proscribed in another, is it moral? How do we adjudicate between differences in laws pertaining the same matter? Homosexuality? Or are you saying morality is arbitrary and it hitches a ride with legislation?

The Liberals are perhaps too wedded to a conservative agenda to adjust their place. — Banno

Yes. Although for me, the term conservative is fraught. Some of the Liberals, like the aforementioned Wilson, actually promote radical, disruptive ideas steeped in a kind of Rand-style libertarianism. This is antithetical to any genuine conservative tradition. I suppose the only conservative posturing from the Liberals these days is lip service to "Western values" with a nominal Christianity and strong anti-trans, and First Nations skeptic positions. I guess we can talk about social conservatism versus economic radicalism, but in the end the latter always seems to undermine the former.

So if the Greens moved to the Right of the ALP, supporting small business and tradies... :chin: — Banno

Say some more on this.

Was the election a step to the left or a step away from the right? — Banno

I suspect it was a step away from a particular from of right-wing demagoguery voters felt Dutton was too enamoured by. It's a point in time. Dutton was unlikely to appeal widely outside of a specific demographic, particularly those over 55. There's plenty of room for a more sophisticated, dare we say, centrist Liberal party in the future - if they can move beyond the libertarian, culture-war rhetoric. They need a new leader with some of the old Petro Georgiou-style values. Glad that smarmy libertarian prick Tim Wilson is gone.

It's been a long time since I read about Mishima, but I always thought of him as a man who faced deep psychological problems, which informed his work and his theatrical behaviors. He was unsure about the role of physical power, uncertain about his sexuality, and conflicted about his culture and the future. It's easy and perhaps unhelpful to romanticize such figures. Jack London, the American author, often struck me as wrestling with similar themes—his obsession with physical beauty, masculinity and power, his self-styled projection of the Nietzschean superman persona, his disillusionment with, and ruminations on, the failure of American culture to resist the corrupting forces of capitalism. London overdosed on morphine at 40. It was probably accidental, but we're not certain.

I think there is some truth in that, indeed I argue something very similar in the OP Mind-Created World. But the problem I have with it is the implicit presumption that reason is also something that can be understood in terms of visual perception. As many reviewers have noted, if the argument applies to reason and mathematical logic as well as visual perception, then how is Hoffman's book not also an illusory artefact of the selfish gene?

In fact, an interesting comparison can be made between Hoffman's argument, and arguments from (among others) Alvin Plantinga, Thomas Nagel, and C S Lewis. These philosophers all propose various forms of 'the argument from reason', which says that, were reason to be understandable purely in naturalistic terms, as an adaptation to the environment, then how could we have confidence in reason? Of course, that is a very deep question - rather too deep to be addressed in terms of cognitive science, I would have thought. — Wayfarer

Really good point and one that is missed - it seems to be a blindspot in Hoffman's work.

Later in the book, he talks a lot about mathematical models which purport to demonstrate the veracity of his central argument, which culminates in the idea that reality comprises solely conscious agents. Again, an idea I'm sympathetic to - think Liebnizian monads -but the meaning of that claim is left open. The maths seems to be aimed at creating the image (ironically) of scientific versimilitude, as if any theory is not justified by mathematical models will lack credibility. — Wayfarer

Hoff's implying that maths has some kind of transcendent quality that can demonstrate truth outside of our false reality. Like he's a mathematical Platonist by default.

What do you expect from them now on? — javi2541997

I don't expect much but hope to be surprised. At least it's a sincere kick in the pants to Trumpian culture-war posturing.

:up: My guy, Greens Adam Bandt won by a much more slender margin this time (2027 votes).

:up: I'm very pleased Hamer stiffed in Kooyong too. Her ditzy, born to rule TikToks were anathema.

I guess that's fair. Without life there is no perspective.

I have no real view on suffering. I am interested in road testing various arguments to understand them better. Jung strikes me as an idealist and a mystic and I am not convinced his system is correct, that’s all.

I studied Jung for a year through a Catholic lay analyst in the 1980’s. I guess there is a question about whether Jung should be taken seriously or not. I have little doubt that he was sincere and a friend of my family’s was very close to Jung. but I’m not sure I am convinced by his system.

I think the idea that misery is bad is universal, or almost universal. Do you really believe anyone thinks it is good to be miserable? I doubt there are any or at least many. It seems it is your assertion that misery could be considered good, that is out of step and is merely "your conception". — Janus

I’ve met some Catholics, particularly among the Missionaries of Charity, who seemed to believe that misery is a sign of special blessing from God. They wouldn’t say that suffering is good in itself, but they regarded it as a form of grace and they do venerate it. Possibly a sign that the miserable are active participants in the suffering of Jesus.

One can agree with the conclusion and yet not agree that the argument is valid. — Banno

That's an important distinction.

Whenever I've thought about objective morality (as a secularist), I've tended to hold that if you select a presupposition like human flourishing or Sam Harris's well-being, you're choosing that foundation from a range of possibilities - and that choice itself is not objective. However, once you've chosen a goal, you can work objectively toward achieving it, just as there are objective rules for playing chess, even if the game itself was a human invention based on "made up" conventions.

There cannot be values without life; therefore life is valuable.

Now perhaps most folk would agree that there cannot be values without life, and think life is valuable, and yet agree that the second does not follow from the first.

There is a gap between the "is" of "There cannot be values without life" and the "ought" of "Life is valuable. — Banno

Well this is kind of where I got to 18 days ago on the first thread dedicated to this idea.

3. The "Life = Good" Axiom

Life must see itself as good. Any system that undermines its own existence is naturally selected against. Therefore, within the frame of life, the assertion "Life = Good" is a tautological truth. It is not a moral statement; it is an ontological necessity.
Example:
Suicidal ideologies and belief systems ultimately self-terminate and are selected out. What remains, by necessity, are those perspectives and practices that favor survival and propagation. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam persist precisely because they endorse life-affirming principles, even if imperfectly.
— James Dean Conroy

Tom Storm - Aren't these is/ought fallacies?

Just because life tends to organize and propagate doesn’t mean that it should. Evolution describes tendencies, not values. Saying that because something happens in nature, it is therefore good, risks committing the naturalistic fallacy (a form of is-ought reasoning).

In addition, there remains the obvious question: why ought life continue? Perhaps what ought happen is that life ought be deleted, maybe in order to remove all suffering. Again, I am not advocating this, but pointing out the logical gap in the argument. — Banno

Yes, again, I think I made a similar point. I'm obviously not a lone voice.

Please don't take this as ganging up on you. I just struggle to see your argument as working properly, even though I think I understand what you're trying to do - grounding morality in a foundational presupposition. As I understand it, you believe that since life is the only basis for judging what is good, the continuation of life must itself be good — or something along those lines.

I'm always fascinated by arguments which work to ground morality in foundational principles.

I’d be surprised if you were upsetting any kind of status quo—there are several perspectives here that regularly jostle with each other, but no single dominant view that I can see. There seem to be thoughtful contributors from a range of approaches, from analytic philosophy to Neoplatonism. I enjoy reading people’s views and occasionally throwing in my own to see how they land. But it does seem that certainty or members who believe they've solved a great quandary are often met with skepticism. Which would make sense for a philosophy site. Disagreement is good, as long as it is managed without rancour and abuse.

To be clear - I’m not accusing you of bad faith. But I do think it’s worth being self-aware about how ideas are filtered and who gets to set the tone. — James Dean Conroy

Good—no worries.

I'm here because I've never really prioritized philosophy. I find the forum experience interesting, and I enjoy asking people who’ve done more reading and thinking than I have what their perspective is. Even if they agree with me, that doesn’t mean I think we’re both right, it just suggests I’m not entirely off base. I find 's approach clear, and he’s more knowledgeable than I am.

But yes, there’s always the risk that here many of us gravitate toward those who share our dispositions, presuppositions and values. Just like life in general.

Tom Storm, with respect - it seems you're just agreeing because the framing confirms your prior stance. There’s no fresh argument here, just a "yes, that’s how I see it too." That’s not engagement; that’s confirmation bias. A very clear example of it. — James Dean Conroy

You're partly right. I was wondering if my take was right or not, so I asked for his view. It does correspond to some of my thoughts, so there's that. I’m not sure that qualifies as confirmation bias—if it does, then all agreement would count as such, which seems unlikely.

What did you make of Assange’s endorsement of Albo?

Yes. Although you're technically not fined for not voting, you are fined for not ticking your name off the list and taking the ballot sheets. You can actually just walk to the ballot box and drop the paperwork in untouched.

Edit - just repeated what you wrote.

24 hours to go folks. Are you nervous — javi2541997

No, I forgot until you mentioned it. I voted on Monday.

Obama said that if he could take one thing form Australia it would be compulsory voting. Australia consistently has turnout rates above 90%, while U.S. elections often see low participation (65%), especially the midterms (53%). Obama believed that requiring everyone to vote would lead to a government that better reflects the will of the people. I think this is largely true, but not watertight.

No doubt libertarians and Right wingers will disagree ("Governments shouldn't force anyone to do anything!"), but I agree with legal drinking ages, seatbelts, environmental laws too, so I'm in favour of it. There are about 15 countries who enforce compulsory voting and about 20 who nominally have it.

My understanding of hte way virtue ethics work is that its a non-religious moral system that allows someone to say "The type of person i ought to be is *insert religious ideal*" and so work toward that, under the guise of non-religious development. — AmadeusD

Isn't it also said that there's an elitist element to it? Only certain people with the right reading and education and sensibilities are able to understand and achieve virtue in this way?

Well these people sound nice. I wonder why it is that when I spoke of "atheists generally" your mind went straight to Dawkins and Hitchens and not to these guys. — goremand

D&H as polemicists have had the most traction on the internet. I guess they are entertaining polemicists, if you like that kind of thing. The New Atheism was a publishing gimmick for a while, and it seems to me that people quickly lost interest. Where I live, neither atheism nor theism interests most people. They seem to be default atheists, with no particular arguments against gods, just a lack of interest. I guess this is our secular age in action.

When I was a young atheist I read mainly pamphlets and listened to secular talks and read Robert Ingersoll.

A far cry from the timeless, genderless, emotionless, unfathomable "being" all the serious thinkers seem to end up with. — goremand

The problem with this esoteric (and sometimes apophatic) version of God is that it's so hard to get people interested in it. Why would they care? Theistic personalism seems to have more vitality.

You again tempt me in to threads I really should just avoid. — Banno

You always bring precision to the cause.

as if it were self-evident... at least, that seems to be what he means by it being a "structural observation" - that it is somehow inconceivable that it were false. I'm not seeing it. — Banno

Ok, good. I guess that's where I sit.

There's a pretty clear violation of is/ought here, it seems to me. Values are what we want, and facts are how things are, and since nothing in how things are tells us how we want them to be, there is a logical gap to be crossed. — Banno

Well there you go.

Does that help? — Banno

Indeed. Thanks. I think this is similar to what I said at the start of an earlier thread on this.

To reiterate:
Synthesis is axiomatic: not a claim to be believed, but a structure to be tested.

I hope thats clear, that we all understand what axioms are, and how to interpret and interrogate them. — James Dean Conroy

@Banno can you help me understand this appeal to axiomatic or foundational truth? This is an axiom held within a system developed by JDC. But is there any reason to accept it from a broader philosophical perspective?

And I would hope that what is worth saving from the religions is aimed at that (and that indeed there is). — Wayfarer

That's fair.

:up: Well... I'm not sure we have access to truth. Philosophy begins with folk conceptions of the world, which explains why debates like realism versus idealism persist. These foundational perspectives continue to shape metaphysical inquiry, even as our methods, frameworks, and language become more sophisticated. The Trump phenomenon partly shows what happens when folk religion is weaponized to support bigotries, so it's still a live issue. Is it philosophy? Not entirely, but not entirely unrelated either.

But again this predicated on the expectation that existence ought to be a state of perfection, or a state of being where there is no suffering, predation, death or loss. What is the basis of that expectation? — Wayfarer

My conversations with theists who argue this time and again. All these sorts of arguments exist solely as a riposte to to common arguments put out by theists. Of course, not all theists hold to this but what percentage of Christians and Muslims do you think are out there with sophisticated accounts?

In my experince there is always a way for theists to get God 'off the hook.' If you are passionate about your beliefs you will find a work around. Remember the exculpatory interpretations the Communists used to provide for Stalin? Everyone likes their rationalisations - even the atheists.

As it happens theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart has cited suffering as the argument that gives him the most amount of doubt and his understanding of God (disliked by some Christians as being too progressive or Left and therefore mistaken) is highly sophisticated.

When someone proffers the design argument and appeals to the perfection of nature one can always argue that this perfection is dubious at best since nature is full of horrors and fuck ups and if God were a car manufacture, he would likely be prosecuted and shut down.

Having this reasonable confidence in Bob is trust—no? You trust him. Right? — Bob Ross

In so far as the evidence affords. But there’s a limit.

However, to say that some claims are “extraordinary” (which is straight out of Hitchens’ playbook btw) that cannot be, even in principle, verified other than through a belief devoid of trust—well, I don’t know what that kind of claim would look like. — Bob Ross

It’s 1980’s Carl Sagan, I think. New Atheism is just packaging the free thought arguments of earlier times.

If someone says they have a puppy at home I would have no reason to doubt this. But it could be untrue. However is someone says they have a dragon at home I’m going to need robust evidence. That’s all I am saying. For the most part, the more extraordinary the claim the more important the quality of that evidence is.

Firstly, if they have it on valid faith, in principle, then it would be warranted to believe it; and you are implying it would be irrational for them to. — Bob Ross

Valid faith? Are you saying faith is uneven? How does one determine which faith claim is valid and which one is not?

I would say this is agnosticism (viz., the suspension of judgment about a proposition); whereas atheism, traditionally, is the belief there are no gods.
— Bob Ross

False. We've been through this, but the etymology doesn't quite allow for this.

"A-gnostic" means "no knowledge". It is the position that we cannot know whether or not God exists. Atheist is literally A-theism. "no theism". That's literally it. In any case, i set out months ago why your use of the word is unhelpful. Not your fault - lots of people think that. But it is the reason these silly debates occur. — AmadeusD

Yes. I don’t believe in gods. Doesn’t mean I know there are no gods. Most atheists today distinguish between a belief claim and a knowledge claim. Some are more certain about particular gods such as Zuess or Yahweh.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from; as I used to also be in a similar mindset. After all, this is what the new atheism movement has produced throughout our culture (and, to fair, it is a response to poor argumentation and reasoning which common theism has offered). The layman theist tends to emphasize ‘faith’ as juxtaposed to ‘belief’ or ‘knowledge’ and brings it up mostly when they are referring to what is really ‘a high degree of faith of which this belief is based on’; and, naturally, the layman atheist latches onto this disposition and becomes the counter-disposition, equally flawed and vague, that ‘faith’ is a useless concept which only refers to blind belief that only makes sense within the context of religion. — Bob Ross

Nicely written. I don't really have a problem with this. When I have debated God with others it is usually fundamentalists so my approach is perfectly adequate for those purposes. Those arguments are just about creating larger conversations through the smash and grab of polemics. Of course it's not philosophy and it doesn't need to be. The sophisticated religious people I know (who are generally Catholic clergy) would never use faith as a justification and they are often suspicious of Christians who reference faith. For reasons you have described.

I've been an atheist since the 1970's. In relation to the New Atheists - I haven't read their works. I have little interest in Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens. Was Dennett one too? Actually I read God is not Great - Hitch was a polemicist. And we need that. But I'm not really a customer. My atheism was informed by various freethinkers prior to 1990 and by reading Christians like Bishop Shelby Spong, Richard Rohr and David Bently Hart and others. For me atheism isn't a positive claim that god doesn't exist. It is simply that I am not convinced. To me belief in God is similar to a sexual attraction - you can't help who you are drawn to. The arguments in my experince generally come post hoc.

Most of the time when I hear a layman theist and atheist debate, I think they both are getting at something that is correct but the ideas are malformed and malnourished; and each’s consciousness is developed parasitically on the other: their view is worked out through a response to the other’s view. — Bob Ross

Another nicely expressed and accurate assessment.

I would bet you would trust Bob, given his serious track record of honesty; and this belief that the liquid will harm instead of help would be an act of pure faith. Is this pure faith irrational? I don’t think so; because the evidence to support having that pure faith, in this case, adds up. — Bob Ross

I have to confess I am not good with thought experiments. I would say here that faith isn't a great word for what's happening - I would say that I have a reasonable confidence in Bob's judgments because he has empirically demonstrated himself as reliable over many years. A more poetic expression for this could be "faith in" but I don't see the need to use it myself and it lacks precision.

However if Bob said to me, 'wash your hands in this water and you will be cured of any cancer because the water has been impregnated with a new anti-cancer vaccine', I would not accept his word because the claim requires much more than trust. It is an extraordinary claim. I might even avoid touching the water because it might well have something in it that is not safe. An unusual claim like this would come with warning bells.

To be honest, this discussion of faith has me thinking that my use is mostly ok and when I am talking with someone who says they have it on faith that homosexuals are corrupt, I can safely tell them that they are using faith as a justification for bigotry and for a lack of evidence. This is not the same as saying all examples of faith are inadequate, nor is it an attempt to say religious people are deluded.

But using all of the same terms from the flip side, the problem of evil says our experience of God changes with or without suffering. — Fire Ologist

I am saying that this comment from you:

But the real irony is, without God, for some reason, this same life is now seen as the triumph of nature, with life finding a way despite calamity after insufferable calamity. If we take God out of the equation, we see those beings that bear suffering and overcome pain as heroic and good. Suffering almost becomes justified by all of the lives that follow it. Suffering adds to the good of living once it is overcome. — Fire Ologist

Seems mistaken.

As an atheist who doesn't beleive that there are gods, reality does not become a triumph of nature just because there's no 'magic sky wizard' or ground of being, call the thing whatever you want.

We have to assume an all-good God who was all-powerful would use that power to eliminate all of our suffering. That’s not a necessary, logical assumption. — Fire Ologist

Not all atheists accept this argument.

Suffering aside, I think it is certainly worth remarking upon that predation and cruelty are built into the engine of survival for most creatures, but this is not a disproof of god. The problem of suffering does not lead you automatically anywhere, whether you are a theist or an atheist.

Without God or anything behind it, pain is just another experience, justifiable and justified as any experience might be justified. It is what it is; that’s how evolution works. Pleasure draws things toward each other, pain repels things apart; the living grow and take over, the dying diminish and are consumed. Suffering is no longer something to be eliminated or something that can even be imagined as eliminated. Pain is now a badge of honor to those for whom that which does not destroy us makes us stronger. — Fire Ologist

I don't recognise this way of thinking. It reads like bad Nietzsche to me. No doubt atheists hold diverse views on suffering. Trying to avoid it is my path. Suffering holds no intrinsic meaning.

Interesting excerpt, thanks.