Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you believe you’ll get rewarded or punished for certain thoughts than it makes perfect sense to have or not have certain thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don’t have to you said it yourself, you can blow around like a tumbleweed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you mean why are there thinky thoughts in my brainy noodle about morality and stuff at all instead of just blowing around like tumbleweeds I can't really answer that question.
Your inability to answer that question is exactly why I can’t get on board with whatever your ideology is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Until we use them as a measure of whether some human actions are "right or wrong" they are equal.
So why do you use them as a measure?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No, so what do you mean by this
Until we agree that we are using these events as a measure of human behavior they are equal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Heart attacks and being shot are both objectively harmful.
How do you prove that objective harm?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You don’t have to remember the only reason to point that out is if you don’t believe it’s subjective.#734
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Again this is a really important concept so if you still don't get it we can try again.
It’s not a matter of me not getting it, it’s a matter of you not being consistent and dodging the question, I’m not gonna stop asking until you answer so for the umpteenth time what did you mean by
I don't remember saying subjective harm or wellbeing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't remember saying subjective harm or wellbeing.
This is what I mean, is it so off base to take this as meaning these two things aren’t subjective? If so please explain what you meant by this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then why when I asked
For the THIRD time what is subjective right, subjective wrong, subjective well-being, and subjective harm.
You rejected it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You can make objective statements based on a subjectively chosen standard.
Is well-being and harm subjectively chosen standards? Yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't remember saying subjective harm or wellbeing.
about that subjective standard.
Now your just contradicting yourself because one minute your saying it’s objective and the next your saying it’s subjective, which one is it?
Murder is a legal distinction.
...Okay? Well I’m asking in regards to that distinction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Voldemort is ugly.
Voldemort is a character in a movie and considering that movies exist and you can watch him in that capacity he in fact does exist but in that sense alone.
I don't remember saying subjective harm or wellbeing. I remember saying in as much as we can determine harm and wellbeing.
Great, so if we can determine it then it’s objective. Would you agree that something such as I don’t know murder is objectively harmful?
if we can agree to a goal for human behavior and attitudes (known colloquially as morality) then we can say if the attitudes and behaviors are right or wrong in that context.
But what if we can’t then what? Because there’s many examples of disputes stemming from different specific goals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
We can observe (share through dialogue) opinions about right and wrong even if there is no right and wrong.
That makes no sense, you can’t put something into existence and acknowledge it doesn’t exist that’s fundamentally impossible.
I can say "right = wellbeing and wrong = harm"
For the THIRD time what is subjective right, subjective wrong, subjective well-being, and subjective harm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is called imagination.
...You KNOW your imagination.
It is whatever we imagine morality is in the absence of any observable objective morality.
I can’t imagine something if I don’t know what it is, for the SECOND time what is it?
the opinions themselves are still subjective.
Yes, but that observation isn’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is the human conception of morality.
You can’t conceive something that you don’t know, what is subjective morality?
We do observably have conceptions of morality.
Observable things aren’t subjective.
differ and therefore are subjective by definition.
Disagreement doesn’t equate to subjectivity, for example the shape of the earth is a topic many disagree on yet it’s still objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So what empirical data did you perceive to come to your understanding of subjective meaning (whatever that is)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If I accept that argument are you willing to defend your beliefs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your the one that’s so hellbent on arguing my beliefs, if you really feel like discussing an afterlife is irrelevant than just say the word and I’ll gladly turn the floor to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is true. ONLY through demonstration can you show that something is not what it seems thereby CHANGING what it seems to be to come in line with this new information.
Not if the demonstration is in death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
IF what it appears to be (what can be demonstrated) isn't what it actually is THEN I still have no reason to believe any differently until it is (demonstrated).
That makes no sense, because if we established that something isn’t what it seems then we can only do that through demonstration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I never said I was, I was just making a suggestion (you’ve made plenty of those) but fine by me I guess I’ll return the favor by picking and choosing what to respond to as well, with the expectation of my points being brought up again anyway.
because dead people don't appear to know anything, do anything or talk about anything.
I’m gonna change my soul argument to a question and that’s how do you know what it appears to be (to you) is what it actually is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I can’t help but notice you dodged a lot of my arguments, I’ve ignored it in previous posts but considering it can lead to a circle I’m wondering why and would like an answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What about them? They are the exception not the rule.
They’re not social and they’re humans so to make a statement claiming that they are is inherently false, and what makes your statement a rule?
So like the burglar it is sufficient but undemonstrated. I still think the child ate the cookies.
The only way you can know that is if the child eating the cookies is demonstrated otherwise the burglar theory is nothing less than a lie and there’s nothing sufficient about that.
You keep equating not knowing with not thinking. These are separate issues.
Pardon me, if you don’t know you shouldn’t act, that’s like going driving unsupervised without your license, if forbid you get into an accident you have no one to blame but yourself because you shouldn’t have been on the road in the first place.
In order for there to be consensus there must be agreement.
...Yes but that’s not what you said before, you equated no consensus to agreement.
Morality, moral standard, punishment, reward, meaning, soul and higher power off the top of my head.
Okay I’m not even gonna address morality because that wasn’t apart of my argument (despite how hard you try to make it) and I never defined punishment, reward, soul, and higher power because I thought we agreed on the MEANING of those terms we just disagreed on the existence of some of them but maybe I’m wrong, how do you define them?
IF we are the ones having the discussion THEN the only concencus that matters is the one between us.
Well there is NONE here.
If I am using a term that is ill defined please request clarification of it.
...Really? Do I need to start quoting instances when I requested exactly just that?
I did say I disagree with how you use the term.
Then that’s another conversation we can have, why do you believe nihilism is subjective?
I cannot adequately explain things to those who are unable to understand or unwilling to listen that is true.
Well if that’s how you feel then I don’t know why you even bother.
That the definition and value of a word can change is no impediment to language or understanding however.
I think the more important thing to note is whether or not it should change and when did I say there was an impediment to understanding?
I see this as an opportunity to offer your own definition. You missed that opportunity in the original post merely objecting to a definition rather than supplying one. I am giving you that opportunity again.
Unlike you I believe one of the purposes of semantics is so we don’t define things any way we want to, so I’ll go out on a limb here and say I agree with Google’s definition (which is free BTW so feel free to look it up if it interests you).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You asking dumb questions for the sake of it.
Not saying I agree or disagree with this but I was always told growing up that there was no such thing as stupid questions, nonetheless your
inability to answer doesn’t make it dumb the contrary is some could argue your inability to answer and your lack of comprehension is what makes YOU dumb in this specific sense.
"Why?" ....Because I'm not Tarik."How?"....Because I possess the necessary cognitive ability.
There may or may not be dumb questions but that was definitely a dumb answer because it wasn’t in the slightest responsive to what I said or asked, so quit clutching at straws now zed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That humans are a social organism.
...So what about antisocial humans?
A burglar is a sufficient answer since it would explain the cookies being gone.
Since you put it that way an afterlife is a sufficient answer because it would explain why we should or shouldn’t live a certain lifestyle because of the reward or punishment that awaits for us on the other side.
I do not have to know why I think in order to think why would I have to know why I care in order to care?
...To avoid ignorance? I’ve told you this before, not thinking before you act is the epitome of ignorance.
It does make dialogue difficult if there is no common standard (for example terms agreed upon at the beginning of the discussion regardless of any larger consensus)
“no common standard” and agreement aren’t synonymous (in fact they’re antonymous) so I don’t know why you linked the two.
like for example if the person one side of a discussion refuses to define their terms adequately while simultaneously rejecting many of theit interlocutors terms on the grounds that they dogmatically disagree with using the word any way but their own and especially if they offer no alternative terminology to refer to those concepts.
You literally just threw shade for no reason because that’s not in the slightest responsive, nonetheless what term haven’t I defined adequately? For the sake of this discussion I don’t have my own way of using the term and due to lack of consensus that’s why it should be avoided. Lastly I’ve said this before your concept is too vague with many holes in it for there to be any terminology for it.
We don't need a special word for something not existing.
I didn’t say we did, I was saying there’s nothing subjective in regards to nihilism.
Only through agreement with another individual.
But how can you agree if you can’t adequately explain it? Isn’t it all arbitrary in the end?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
A lot of religious people define consciousness as the soul.
Well I didn’t, so I don’t see the point of bringing that up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Because that is how I personally interpret nihilism, it's definition and it's application.
...Obviously but I’m asking you WHY?
There are many such words, where despite their specific definition, when it comes to their attribution, the decision making process is clearly, arbitrary and subjective.
Then how are you able to understand the meanings of words if it’s all arbitrary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It behooves us therefore to remove any undemonstrated sufficient proposition from consideration if there are any demonstratedsufficient propositions available.
So what’s the “demonstrated sufficient” proposition in this case?
An answer being sufficient doesn't make it true.
Then what makes it sufficient?
I have no idea how we would fund out in this lifetime why the soap bubble is round and the flipside of that is that in as much as we don't have a why there may be no why.
But that’s not equivalent to the why I was asking, because why you care shouldn’t be something to find out you should already know because the answer comes from within.
Is there any reason why we could not just between the two of us refer to the concept with any label we wanted?
Because it makes dialogue difficult to follow if there’s not a common standard met in terms of language.
You are more focused on the labels than we are.
But in this case I’m not, I was solely asking about the concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I mean if you are going to slap a label onto the concept of something not existing I don't really see how it is other than arbitrary.
Pardon me, I meant to ask in regards to the concept not the label.
Looks like we both qualified our statement with maybe.
That wasn’t the statement I was referring to, I was referring to
Why not? Think about that. Seriously why believe in some things that can't be demonstrated or disproved and not others?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Because you can't demonstrate one so you can't propose one as a cause solution for anything?
I didn’t I prefaced my comment with MAYBE that’s the difference. I respect the circumstances of this discussion that’s why I’m not arguing definitively in regards to my beliefs, but YOU are so it’s only fair if I ask how you know which you haven’t given me an adequate answer to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And nihilism sounds like an arbitrarily applied subjective label
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
for the purposes of this conversation.
I love how you want to make this clear now, but you didn’t keep that same energy several posts ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don’t remember ever agreeing to that, the former or the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I was referring to their soul not there body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
because dead people don't appear to know anything, do anything or talk about anything.
Maybe it’s because their souls left their body.
The point of what?
This discussion if you’ve established we’re both ignorant on the subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I know that it hasn't been demonstrated and I know that it doesn't do us much good for the purposes of this conversation if it can be demonstrated after we are dead.
How do you know?
Well it is.
Then what’s the point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
When did I say that ignorance is a reason to give up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok... so what?
If you’re admitting to ignorance then that puts the conversation at a halt, I rest my case.
Why not? Think about that. Seriously why believe in some things that can't be demonstrated or disproved and not others?
The only way you can possibly know it can’t be demonstrated is by knowing what happens when you die, which you don’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
IF none of us is a nihilist BUT nihilism is "correct" THEN .. what? What exactly are we to conclude from this?
You’ve asked this already.
Ok IF there is some greater meaning but we don't have any way to assess it or even determine it exists THEN ???
You’ve asked this already.
IF there is no sense in caring and IF humans still care about (some) things THEN ???
Humans are ignorant, I’ve said this already.
If you believe in every proposition that cannot be disproved
Why are you saying this? I DON’T believe in every proposition that cannot be disproved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
THEN it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from there not being any.
That assumes we’re the end all be all in terms of knowledge and there’s another side I argued that you’re not addressing and that’s nihilism.
ANY GIVEN POSSIBLE ANSWERS are not necessarily CORRECT ANSWERS.
It is IF it’s in the form of a greater meaning.
All the answers we do have come from rigorous application of the scientific method and science does not address WHY only HOW.
In that case if there’s no why then there’s no sense in caring.
we have defacto agreed that there isn't any objective meaning.
No, just because I don’t argue in favor of something that doesn’t mean I’m not in favor of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok. How?
I don’t know, but I never claimed to know that was never my argument, nihilism was also a part of the if proposition but the conversation stopped dead after I mentioned ignorance.
Why would there need to be some greater meaning?
Because it would be an answer as to why we care.
I would be delighted if you actually said something concrete.
...I did, how many times do you want me to repost my argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
HAHAHAHAHAHA .. oh. You're serious. Ok how does one go about being objectively moral without a well defined standard?
Maybe there is a standard we just need to figure out what it is.
You have disqualified what people find meaningful from being "real" meamong in a stunning display of the no true scotsman fallacy.
It’s only no true Scotsman if you proved meaning and I denied it but you haven’t proven a thing.
What do you think that equation proves and what specifically are the consequences?
I didn’t create that equation you did, and the consequences is in YOUR equation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I thought morality=punishment/reward=meaning?
That’s the consequence and how it’s proven not what it is intrinsically.
IF objective morality exists (and by extension punishment/reward and meaning) THEN
We ought to try to be objectively moral.
This ENTIRE conversation has been about whether meaning is contingent on objective morality or not.
Excuse me but I can’t help but notice you put emphasis on meaning as if it’s subjective so it can’t be completely foreign to assume you’re arguing that it’s contingent on subjective meaning otherwise you wouldn’t feel the need to clarify.
IF none of us are nihilists BUT nihilism is correct THEN ???
We’re all ignorant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, so why does one table ("subjective morality") demand rejection because of a lack of demonstration,And simultaneously the other table ("objective morality") demand acceptance because of a lack of demonstration?
Look I’m not making any absolute arguments here in terms of demonstration so if it’s indeed true that neither of those concepts could be demonstrated than nihilism is correct by default, and that’s been my argument for quite awhile now.
The term "subjective meaning" is simply a DESCRIPTION of the DEMONSTRABLE FACT.
But demonstrable facts aren’t subjective.
It is apparently SUBJECTIVE because each person VALUES other individuals near them differently than any person VALUES other individuals near them.
But why do we value as a whole is the question you’re not answering.
I am genuinely and sincerely impressed with your tenacity.
I don’t know your intentions but regardless I’ll take that as the utmost compliment.
Created: