Nothing wrong with that if everyone had the same mentality as op nothing would get done
so what going on from what i read there is, there's a value system, no? one that says "things have to get done" has worth, that says that things getting done is a good thing. right?
the problem with that is that it highlights that there exist a possible opposite. that if we wanted to, really, we could all do nothing. that that is also a choice.
it states that "things have to get done" and "things don't have to get done" both exist as options, neither of which have any inherent value first and foremost.
and that then, we're the ones who get to decide that one option has value and the other doesn't, or that neither have value.
yep, i began noticing this pattern with atheists i would attempt to discuss with, this is particularly prominent with the hard problem of consciousness
ive opened up with the question, "Why are we able to consciously experience things like beauty, love pleasures etc. if we would be able to survive without these things? What use are these experiences if consciousness solely developed as a survival utility?"
"its an accident/a misfunction"
better yet, if we extend it to why did our particular consciousness arise at all pertaining to our ability to create and rationalize to a higher ability than our animal peers, (and MIND you, they dont even have a clear-cut explanation as to how something clearly immaterial like consciousness arises from physical processes) that's usually a " 'Cause evolution. "
the hyper-rational aren't as rational as they attempt to paint themselves to be
i mean i don't think those specifically are necessarily unanswerable questions within the framework of the theory of evolution (your interlocutors were probably just midwits)
but even if we went in circles for a while, my mentality at this juncture is that rationality necessarily accepts that questions which cannot be answered are assumed to be open
so if rationality, or empiricism, or whatever you want to call it, has been ontologically unable to give an answer to an open question, we must assume that there at least exists the possibility of a way of knowing (to copy cringe academia terms) which exists outside of the ambit of rationalism
this speaks to the notion of a world outside our world that you referenced earlier
so what going on from what i read there is, there's a value system, no? one that says "things have to get done" has worth, that says that things getting done is a good thing. right?
the problem with that is that it highlights that there exist a possible opposite. that if we wanted to, really, we could all do nothing. that that is also a choice.
it states that "things have to get done" and "things don't have to get done" both exist as options, neither of which have any inherent value first and foremost.
and that then, we're the ones who get to decide that one option has value and the other doesn't, or that neither have value.
If we all did nothing then we would have to survive off of hunting for food. A lot of people would die off due to their lack in that particular field
Does that mean modern society has artificially increased the life span of humans
And we are living on fake time
If we all did nothing then we would have to survive off of hunting for food. A lot of people would die off due to their lack in that particular field
Does that mean modern society has artificially increased the life span of humans
And we are living on fake time
lol
if we're using value systems then we are giving the "bad" thing weight by default because we're recognizing it as a valid option.
"we have to survive" and "we don't have to survive" are both possibilities. we have the choice to do either.
value systems are all consistently saying "we have a choice". or you have a choice. or i have a choice. we have a choice.
*and the opposite is true lol.
i mean i don't think those specifically are necessarily unanswerable questions within the framework of the theory of evolution (your interlocutors were probably just midwits)
but even if we went in circles for a while, my mentality at this juncture is that rationality necessarily accepts that questions which cannot be answered are assumed to be open
so if rationality, or empiricism, or whatever you want to call it, has been ontologically unable to give an answer to an open question, we must assume that there at least exists the possibility of a way of knowing (to copy cringe academia terms) which exists outside of the ambit of rationalism
this speaks to the notion of a world outside our world that you referenced earlier
yeah there's "answers" for the questions i levied for sure, but they are lacking, they're plausible enough for people who want to accept physicalist models of reality, but it seems like at least in more philosophically educated circles (v the midwits u mentioned earlier lol) that it's borderline universally acknowledged that scientific realism and co have a lot of inextricable problems in their worldview
renown scientific materialist Daniel Dennett even went as far to rejecting experience itself in an attempt to preserve the materialist thesis
*The philosopher best known for the idea that consciousness is really just an illusion is Daniel Dennett. Here’s one image, to unpack his idea:
What we think of as our consciousness is actually our brains pulling a number of tricks to conjure up the world as we experience it. But in reality, it’s all smoke, mirrors, and rapidly firing neurons…
Our brains, pulling such tricks, are robots:
But it goes even further than that: if our brains are robots, then our neurons are smaller robots, which are in turn made up of even smaller robots. So even if we lose the concept of consciousness along the way, we’re still pretty incredible “machines.*
mindmatters.ai/2019/01/has-science-shown-that-consciousness-is-only-an-illusion
and as you said, there must be a way outside of the hard science spectrum to find answers, in my opinion this is where philosophy, spirituality and religion come into the forefront (albeit, i personally dont think consciousness is something that can ever be known - mysterianism, as an advaitin i take consciousness as the self, and you can't know the self because you are the self) but this sort of scientismic/hard science pedestalization is very commonplace with anyone you care to discuss this with, which lends itself to threads like these to an extent, and a lot of frustration and bitterness on my end breaking this down each and every single f***ing time
Ok so I don’t have to finish the game now thanks
once you finish the game you're gonna look at yourself like this for sayin that
you need to finish that game dawg
OP just started reading philosophy and will likely get over this phase at some point
doubtful.. there's no way i can go back to believing in God.
OP just started reading philosophy and will likely get over this phase at some point
there is no 'getting over it' because there isnt a real answer to his question
its just that eventually enough time passes such that it doesnt sting as much + you fabricate some kind of purpose to cope with it
True
But you can still find a subjective meaning that makes your life worth it to yourself.
It doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things, but it does for this brief moment you are here
Also, the fact we are literally the universe being self-conscious of itself is kinda crazy and awesome
I dunno, I always see it as you can either go full Cioran, humanity should just choose to die out, existence is futile and painful
Or you can go Camus and embrace the absurdity of it all and choose to rebel in the face of nothingness and death, accept life for all it is
I prefer Camus, life is too good not to imo tbh
this is not good bro... without the existence of God the entire world bends towards injustice.
yes you can still like playing video games... or whatever... but thats basically it. otherwise, we all live our lives, some people get given good cards, other people get screwed over badly, but nothing about this will matter anyway. there is no future justice, there is no standard to say this world is bad with... nothing.
doubtful.. there's no way i can go back to believing in God.
Lol no one said anything about god
there is no 'getting over it' because there isnt a real answer to his question
its just that eventually enough time passes such that it doesnt sting as much + you fabricate some kind of purpose to cope with it
Sure lol
Sure lol
scrolling through your threads you seem like a pretty good example of the latter lol
no shame in that, im the same way too
but lets not make it any deeper than it is yfm
@ye look what you've done
who said i don't wanna do anything?
lol how convenient for you and your life view that OP's experience of reality is an "awkward phase in his life where he has to search for meaning".
this is not good bro... without the existence of God the entire world bends towards injustice.
yes you can still like playing video games... or whatever... but thats basically it. otherwise, we all live our lives, some people get given good cards, other people get screwed over badly, but nothing about this will matter anyway. there is no future justice, there is no standard to say this world is bad with... nothing.
You don't need God to be moral
And the world is injust and yeah, life sucks in general, yeah. That's how it's always been and always will be
But the good moments in between those that suck make it worth it tbh
Why y’all even engage with this clown @Synopsis lol. They act like they’re holier than thou and has all the answers to life’s question. Always condescending in their approach and probably would act differently in person.
With them you either haven’t read as much a they have, you aren’t at the point in life to understand as much as they do or you’re plain just more evil than they are.
i will gladly die and can't f***ing wait but i dont think it's pointless to do anything good just because of that. maybe its the least you can do with whatever time you have, as much as you want it to end
let's imagine one of the worst possible lives a person could have:
they're born into a slum, a parasite blinds them at a young age, their family leaves them because they can't take care of them. They have to walk the streets and a car hits them, so now they can't really even do that. Slowly this person's ears go bad too. now they can't really walk well or see at all and have to scrounge for food, don't know where their family is, etc. people constantly take the little money or food they can gain because there's nothing they can do about it.
how can this person turn this into a positive? i think people that disagree with this logic live a good life and dont have to worry about things like starving to death or getting their legs blown off..
Be happy you arent like that and live your life dude
for everything to be said about this topic it comes down to one thing; you either worship life or you worship death
all your questions, what you should or shouldnt do, what you oppose, it doesnt have anything to do with your personal taste or your identity or any of that, it has to do w whether you worship the devious insectoid philosophy of machines and demons or if you worship life and freedom
Why y’all even engage with this clown @Synopsis lol. They act like they’re holier than thou and has all the answers to life’s question. Always condescending in their approach and probably would act differently in person.
With them you either haven’t read as much a they have, you aren’t at the point in life to understand as much as they do or you’re plain just more evil than they are.
Damn you're big f***ing mad
for everything to be said about this topic it comes down to one thing; you either worship life or you worship death
all your questions, what you should or shouldnt do, what you oppose, it doesnt have anything to do with your personal taste or your identity or any of that, it has to do w whether you worship the devious insectoid philosophy of machines and demons or if you worship life and freedom
Very interesting way of looking at this. @op
Never heard someone broke it down like this to simply worshiping death vs worshipping life.
Even though I reject the notion that one is somehow more mythical or mystical than the other, which is how you made it seem in the last two lines of the last sentence.