Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well nihilists don’t believe in right or wrong so that shouldn’t be an issue.
Well neither of us is a nihilist so it doesn't matter what nihilist's believe so please answer the question. 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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You’re literally starting a circle at this point because that’s essentially what nihilism is.
In order for something to be right or wrong you have to first say right or wrong in what way correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well of course it will be subjective.Well in that case that’s why I won’t give any.
I don't understand why you are subjectively attaching so much importance to objectivity.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
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.
Well of course it will be subjective. Any advice is by necessity subjective to some goal (whether explicit or implicit in the advice) I don't see why that would make any difference whatever actually.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Do you disagree that meaning requires context?
Also you haven't answered the larger issue in favor of chasing down this small semantic quibble.
What is your best practical advice if there is no afterlife and no intrinsic meaning or point to it all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't think you understand what I'm asking here. Let's say for the sake of argument that there are no god(s) no afterlife and objective meaning (though I do hope you are starting to see that objectivity and meaning are contradictory) what then is your best practical advice?
In light of the fact that you can't demonstrate any it might not hurt to examine how you might deal with a meaningless reality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I mean this in the nicest possible way.
So the hell what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well you are welcome to provide your preferred definition. Still if it is just the state of some stuff being false then the sterile objective fact is still meaningless.
Until we look at it subjectively and ask "what does that mean to me?" It has no impact.
IF theism is false THEN theism is false
IF there is no meaning THEN there is no meaning
IF there is no afterlife THEN there is no afterlife
Not only are these concepts not directly related (belief in an afterlife does not necessitate an accompanying belief in god(s)) but true or false they do not in and of themselves mean anything or suggest any goals or course of action because all those things are subjective. You can't get them from objective facts alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
IF theism is false THEN nihilism is true
IF you define nihilism as the state of theism being false THEN you have a definitional tautology not an observation.
IF theism is false THEN theism is false.
I can agree with that. If theism is false then it IS false.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe that if theism is false nihilism is true and since nihilism is depressing and confusing to me that’s why I’m not a nihilist.
This is subjective. It is subject to your feelings and biases and comes from a place of what does this mean to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How else would you like me to explain?
Let's say someone says to you it is cold outside you should put on a coat. Now that is a pretty normal sentence and you would be forgiven for thinking it was an objective observation.
It is not.
It is subject to several assumptions and biases including but not limited to the assumed meaning of cold (uncomfortable or dangerous to humans) the assumed goal (maintaining body temperature) and even a secondary assumed goal of going outside. All these assumptions are BAKED IN.
Let's look at the same information objectively.
Fact the temperature outside is lower than that required to freeze water.
Ok so what? What does that mean for us right? Well that is just it. If we look at it from the perspective of what does it mean to ME then it is by definition subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
IF you consider facts without the context of your feelings and opinions THEN they are essentially meaningless (merely cold sterile facts)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
We care because we are DNA.That’s simply not true, not everybody cares.
You are getting hung up on how versus why again. DNA is the mechanism, the how. Why is an interesting thing to speculate about but why implies a goal and there may not be a specific goal. There may not even be a why.
Why do we care? As far as I can tell for no larger reason than that it is the shape of the hole we have been poured into.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The FACT is objective the BELIEF is subjective.
The fact is just cold sterile information. The belief has attached meaning which is subject(ive) to the belief and the person who holds it.
The cookies are gone (fact)
My five year old has chocolate on his face (fact)
My five year old ate my cookies (subjectively inferred belief based on the facts)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
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?
Well let's say that isn't part of the original hypothetical but let's examine it anyway. That there is a video showing a short human who resembles your five year old eating cookies is an objective fact. Your belief that it is your five year old eating your cookies is subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The shape of the earth can be observed. If our observations are real then the earth is a rough spheroid.
No objective meaning can be observed. No alien abductions can be observed, no big foot can be observed, no souls can be observed.
(As far as I know if you want to be pedantic) so even if our observations are real we have no logically reason to believe in any of them.
I have higher degrees of confidence in the existence of those things which are testable and demonstrable because anything that is not testable and demonstrable isn't even justifiable to believe in as part of an illusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
observably demonstrable
observably demonstrable in as much as anything is. In a much as the universe is real. Some things are not observably demonstrable even if the universe is real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I did make my basic axiom clear did I not? Have you not been viewing my posts with that axiom in mind? Must I say the earth is a rough spheroid so long as the universe is real or can we just take the part about the universe as read? Must you be so pedantic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You keep demanding complete certainty from me. I don't know how to tell you more plainly that humans don't seem capable of complete certainty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That is how fornal syllogisms are formed.
IF a THEN b.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I know of no cases in which belief is independent of a mind. In fact that sounds nonsensical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
IF the belief is dependent on the mind THEN it is subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It means judging by that example alone that not all beliefs are subjective.
The belief, as separate from the fact, is dependent on your mind and so is necessarily subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The observable demonstrable fact that the earth is a rough spheroid is objective. It is also a cold sterile fact. That the earth is a rough spheroid does not in and of itself mean anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Beliefs are dependent upon a mind and are therefore subjective even if they concern the subjective belief that something is objective.
Created:
Posted in:
Then how can any belief be other than subjective? And if your beliefs are subjective then what is your issue with subjective beliefs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Would you agree that objective things exist independently of any human mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
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?
If you agree to the arbitrary rules then yes based on those rules you can make an objectively bad moves. You really seem to have a lot of trouble separating subjective from objective and understanding their interconnectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The rules of chess were decided upon subjectively and arbitrarily by its creator so I'm not sure what your point is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
On a side note when I mentioned consistency it was UNDER a belief, your question is in regards OVER the belief.
I'm not sure what this means. What does over a belief mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I'm not sure what your objection is please be specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I disagree with the framing of that question.
I'm sorry to hear that. Can you answer it or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I’m talking about from the outside looking in, whether or not I agree with someone’s ideology if I see that their actions are consistent under their belief (flawed or not) then that makes sense because it’s consistent.
Please explain the inconsistency and how your subjective belief in a thing you subjectively believe to be objective resolves the inconsistency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
as long you believe
Please explain how being dependent upon your personal beliefs isnot subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You don’t have to be, as long you believe you are then anything you do under that belief (true or false) makes sense.
You mean subjectively?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you believe you’ll get rewarded or punished for certain thoughts than it makes perfect sense to have or not have certain thoughts.
That doesn't answer why you have thinky thoughts at all instead of just blowing around like a tumbleweed. Especially since you believing something does not have any effect on whether you are correct.
How do you justify having thinky thoughts in your brainy noodle if your beliefs are not justified by rigorous application of the scientific method? Hell how do you know you aren't a brain in a jar? Not believe but know. Please recognize the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because I believe in life after death.
That neither demonstrates that there is any afterlife nor explains why you have thinky thoughts in your brainy noodle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't know what is your point? You are the one who thinks everyone has to justify the existence of their own mind. I mean you haven't explained to me why you have thinky thoughts in your brainy noodle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Your inability to answer that question is exactly why I can’t get on board with whatever your ideology is.
Well in as much as you are not arguing for any alternative you have not given me any alternative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Now it is important to know what you are asking whith that "why" before I answer. Are you asking me what mechanisms govern human attitudes? Because I'm not sure I understand it entirely but I feel like I have a better grip on the possible mechanisms than your other possible meaning. 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. I can address how to a limited degree I am not prepared to address why with the information available to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
In as much as everyone agrees to their own personal moral intuition it seems suspiciously as though morality is simply one's post hoc justification for ones subjective moral opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I mean that if you are killed by a heart attack you are just as dead and stay that way just as if you are killed by a gunshot wound. Until we use them as a measure of whether some human actions are "right or wrong" they are equal. Our evaluation changes again subjectively if we use human welfare and prevention of harm to measure who would be given priority for treatment in an emergency room at a hospital.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do you prove that objective harm?
Is there some disagreement that they are objectively bad for ones health?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
As I said the state reserves the right to define murder. There are judges specifically appointed to make such distinctions. In addition to military action such killings as killing in self defense, killing as an act of capital punishment, killing in self defense, the defense of ones home or the shooting of a suspect suspected of being armed (regardless of whether they actually were in some cases) by police may not always qualify as murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well color me disappointed.
Ok I'll try again.
We can say that some things are objectively harmful to humans but that is only a cold sterile fact until we apply context and subjective meaning.
Heart attacks and being shot are both objectively harmful. These are facts. Until we agree that we are using these events as a measure of human behavior they are equal.
Facts are objective and intrinsically meaningless.
Meaning is provided by context. Context is by it's very nature subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No not the post where you ask what I meant by saying it the post where I said it. When exactly did I say that harm and wellbeing were themselves subjective rather than being subjectively chosen standards?
Created: