Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Even a hypothetical psychopath can't live without other humans.
...So? Why do we have to live?
Created:
Posted in:
It is one you accept, I accept, everybody excepts
On the contrary, you accept subjective morality (whatever that is) and I accept objective morality so you and I are not the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Some individuals have "more" "caring/cooperation" instinct and some individuals have "less".
Or none at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I'll tell you something. You can't say it is right to have a goal without a goal you are referencing.
Well nihilists don’t believe in right or wrong so that shouldn’t be an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You’re conflating two separate narratives, remember when I said
True because it’s objectively proven that certain actions produce a certain result but that’s a separate narrative from saying it’s right to have a goal.
Just like how it’s a separate narrative from saying it’s right to create the game of chess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Right or wrong without a goal would appear to exist in exactly the same way that alien abductions happen. In people's imagination only.
I could say the same within a goal as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No sir, now that’s not how this works, don’t think your slick and can twist the narrative to suit you. Your claiming that right and wrong exists through goals and I’m saying prove it, that’s not the same as telling you to prove something doesn’t exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Nothing is right or wrong without a goal.
Prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well in that case maybe I misunderstood what you meant by this
You are essentially asking what goal does having a goal serve and the answer is literally every possible goal. Every goal us better served by holding it as a goal.
How am I asking this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Without a goal there is no right or wrong. Otherwise what are we even talking about?
Exactly.
You are essentially asking what goal does having a goal serve and the answer is literally every possible goal. Every goal us better served by holding it as a goal.
But it doesn’t end there because I can take it further by asking a question based on that answer, what goal does every possible goal serve?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well neither of us is a nihilist so it doesn't matter
On the contrary it doesn’t matter what either of us are considering we’re arguing for sake of the discussion.
If we are to say you did the right thing we must first know what you are trying to accomplish. The goal. True or false?
True because it’s objectively proven that certain actions produce a certain result but that’s a separate narrative from saying it’s right to have a goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well nihilists don’t believe in right or wrong so that shouldn’t be an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't understand why you are subjectively attaching so much importance to objectivity.
I’m not.
Objectivity means having no preferences and without some preference, some foundational goals there is no reason to think of things as right or wrong at all. They just are or are not.
You’re literally starting a circle at this point because that’s essentially what nihilism is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well of course it will be subjective.
Well in that case that’s why I won’t give any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you disagree that meaning requires context?
Even if I did context doesn’t necessarily warrant subjectivity, I can give examples if you like.
What is your best practical advice if there is no afterlife and no intrinsic meaning or point to it all?
You ask this because whatever answer I give your gonna deem it as subjective (so predictable but I see right through it nice try though) so the objective route is to not give any advice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
though I do hope you are starting to see that objectivity and meaning are contradictory
No they aren’t
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why does there have to be a what, why can’t it just be that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Still if it is just the state of some stuff being false then the sterile objective fact is still meaningless.
Well, essentially that’s what nihilism at its core really is so yeah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
IF you define nihilism as the state of theism being false
I guess you can include that in the definition but it’s not limited to just that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That wasn’t the quote I was referring to but since you brought it up let’s talk about it, I’m willing to admit that the latter end of my quote was subjective but the former isn’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If we look at it from the perspective of what does it mean to ME then it is by definition subjective.
But that’s not what I was doing when I went on my rant about consistency making sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Please explain how being dependent upon your personal beliefs isnot subjective.
Please explain how not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts isn’t objective? You have to BELIEVE what your considering and representing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your belief that it is your five year old eating your cookies is subjective.
But what if it actually is the five year old and not someone that looks like them, is the belief still subjective if it’s proven?
This is somewhat of a grey area for me because I guess you can make a case for both based on the definition of objective and/or subjective, because objective is defined as “(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.” Judging by that definition if one were to come to the conclusion that the five year old ate the cookies that’s not influenced by personal feelings or opinions rather it’s concrete evidence in the form of a recording.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We care because we are DNA.
That’s simply not true, not everybody cares.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF "SUBJECTIVE MEANING".
But the question as to why we care at all still remains.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So what about your cookie example, let’s say you have cameras in your house and you see the five year old eat the cookies, is that belief subjective despite the concrete evidence of a video?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have higher degrees of confidence in the existence of those things which are testable and demonstrable
Such as?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
“Some things” aren’t the narrative the narrative was the shape of the earth which YOU called observably demonstrable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Have you not been viewing my posts with that axiom in mind?
How am I supposed to do that when you go against it by calling things observably demonstrable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I’m sure you believe you’re certain of that statement, nonetheless that’s just not true and I’m not only talking broadly here, YOU specifically made definitive claims over the course of this discussion, so miss me with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How are you not honest and/or decisive by answering with a simple yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why can’t you refrain your answers to a simple yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The “if” is a caveat so in what cases are beliefs not dependent on the mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So your answer to this question
Well in that case is the belief that the earth is round subjective?
Is a yes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That the earth is a rough spheroid does not in and of itself mean anything.
It means judging by that example alone that not all beliefs are subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well in that case is the belief that the earth is round subjective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Because you can believe in something that exists independently of any human mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I feel like I know where you’re going with this but I’ll bite, yeah sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You really seem to have a lot of trouble separating subjective from objective and understanding their interconnectivity.
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
But didn’t you argue that if you agree to those rules with your opponent that whatever move you make that leads to winning is an objectively good move?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Think along the lines of your chess example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Did you read my side note in my previous post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Only if you change the framing.
On a side note when I mentioned consistency it was UNDER a belief, your question is in regards OVER the belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I disagree with the framing of that question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I’m talking about from the outside looking in (objective), whether or not I agree with someone’s ideology if I see that their actions are consistent under their belief (or lack thereof) then that makes sense because it’s consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Especially since you believing something does not have any effect on whether you are correct.
You don’t have to be, as long you believe you are then anything you do under that belief (true or false) makes sense.
Created: