#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Existential Nihilism: For and Against
Life lacks intrinstic meaning
Side Score: 5
|
 |
Life has intrinsic meaning
Side Score: 8
|
|
Life is the only possible thing with intrinsic meaning. It is the only possible thing with intrinsic value. That is because life is the generator of meaning and value. The mistake that nihilism makes is that, in an attempt to be objective, it looks beyond life for the source of meaning and value. It's similar to saying that you must prove the veracity of existence by looking beyond existence, which they also often do. One might as well look to see who is pushing or pulling your car only to determine that a cars movement is illusory. Side: Life lacks intrinstic meaning
Conscious life conceives of and projects both meaning and value. Neither existential nor value nihilism seeks to repudiate such evident phenomenon. Rather, both identify the phenomenon of meaning and value as being necessarily reliant upon the conscious projector rather than as adhering within the objects themselves. The meaning and value one affords to water are not attributes adhering intrinsically in the water, but exist only as projections of consciousness onto the water. Nihilism does not look 'beyond life' (whatever that means) anymore than identifying language as a subjective construction of consciousness would. Nor is it clear what you mean by 'looking beyond existence', so that's similarly hard to repudiate. Similarly, I have no idea what you're on about with the car. Further, nihilism is responsive to long standing ideologies which allege an objective basis for meaning and value, whether that be in naturalistic or divine origins (generally speaking). If anything looks 'beyond life' for its answers it would seem to be the class of arguments that relies on reference to completely unfounded entities or the anthropcentrizing of human concepts like evolution to have agency and will. Side: Life has intrinsic meaning
That's a poor definition of nihilism, albeit popular. I do believe life is objectively meaningless, but that doesn't prevent me from finding subjective meaning. I also do reject all religious and moral principles, but because of my egoism and not because I think life is meaningless. Insofar as my existence and activity are concerned, why should that be precluded by any of the above? Neither needs to mean anything or be good in order to be. Side: Life lacks intrinstic meaning
I acknowledged it was a definition. It's just a poor one based on populist misconceptions about what the broader philosophical position at large involves. Hiding behind simplistic misconceptions of complex ideas is evasive, though, and you're spot on for that. Side: Life lacks intrinstic meaning
Nihilism does not look 'beyond life' (whatever that means) Nihilism does not look 'beyond life' (whatever that means) anymore than identifying language as a subjective construction of consciousness would. Stating that life has no intrinsic value is like claiming that languages have no intrinsic definition. There is no reference for definition beyond languages just as there is no reference value beyond life. Nor is it clear what you mean by 'looking beyond existence', so that's similarly hard to repudiate. When a nihilist challenges some primary or undeniable truth concerning existence (such as the deniability of the fact of experience) they require proof or evidence, which are reliant upon the existence they wish to challenge. Thus the only way to challenge existence with evidence, is by seeking it from outside of existence. If anything looks 'beyond life' for its answers it would seem to be the class of arguments that relies on reference to completely unfounded entities or the anthropcentrizing of human concepts like evolution to have agency and will. It is not necessary for you to be right in order for them to be wrong. You can both be wrong in different ways. Side: Life has intrinsic meaning
Stating that life has no intrinsic value is like claiming that languages have no intrinsic definition. There is no reference for definition beyond languages just as there is no reference value beyond life. Yes. What's your argument. Nihilism does not look beyond life for value in life, language, or anything else (though it's counterparts seem to). When a nihilist challenges some primary or undeniable truth concerning existence (such as the deniability of the fact of experience) they require proof or evidence, which are reliant upon the existence they wish to challenge. Thus the only way to challenge existence with evidence, is by seeking it from outside of existence. The error in this critique is the baseless presumption of the reliability of things such as proof, evidence, or reason and all of the conclusions drawn therefrom. However, it is a critical and basic tenet of the evidentiary and logical schools of thought that it is fallacious to prove something through itself. It is a dilemma from within these schools, rather than from without them, which nihilism highlights. Reason cannot be used to prove itself, nor evidence, nor the rules of logic... without violating themselves. They are unproved and cannot be proved... without looking "beyond existence", as you put it. Nihilism merely observes that from the basis of proposed perspective we therefore cannot be certain of anything; it does not need to look "beyond existence" to come to that conclusion at all. Moreover, the only basis for rejecting that conclusion relies upon a rejection of the premises entailed with a valuation of logic, reason, and truth themselves; either way, your "undeniable truths" are quite deniable. It is not necessary for you to be right in order for them to be wrong. You can both be wrong in different ways. This is non-responsive to the remark you associated it with. Regardless, I never claimed otherwise. They (which includes you) are not wrong on a nihilistic account, but from within their own frameworks. Your conclusions of undeniable truth are at odds with the premises you engage to reach those conclusions; reason is a self-defeating proposition. Nor does nihilism claim to be proved or right, the very idea of rightness being untenable on a nihilist account. Nihilism is not a fixed position and it does not have an established framework; it is absence rather than substance. It steps into proposed perspectives and discredits them through themselves. Nihilism may safely engage instruments and premises such as logic or reason to counter claims extended therefrom, because if those premises are false then it's position of not adopting the other claims extended from those premises is not problematic from any known basis. And nihilism does not claim that it is correct if the premises fall, but as a practice of indifference to the conclusion and the premise refuses a conclusive position. It is a responsive attitude. It is therefore somewhat incoherent to think of nihilism being "wrong"; it would be more accurate to say that something else is "true"... but there is no theory which has proved itself yet. Nihilism ends when a proposition does not defeat itself (or when, however inconceivable it be, it advances itself without needing consistency or non-circularity as premises). Side: Life lacks intrinstic meaning
Yes. What's your argument. Nihilism does not look beyond life for value in life Life is the only possible thing with intrinsic meaning. It is the only possible thing with intrinsic value. That is because life is the generator of meaning and value. The Nihilistic assertion that life lacks intrinsic meaning or value is based on the fact that a thing has value only insofar as it is valued by something else. Since there is nothing else outside of life to value life, Nihilists come to the false conclusion that life has no intrinsic value. They look beyond life and see nothing there. The error in this critique is the baseless presumption of the reliability of things such as proof, evidence, or reason and all of the conclusions drawn therefrom The error in this response is the baseless presumption that reliability is exogenous to proof, evidence, or reason. It isn’t. But this is what is meant by “looking outside” a given axiom for reliability as a means to undermine the notion of reliability itself. However, it is a critical and basic tenet of the evidentiary and logical schools of thought that it is fallacious to prove something through itself That’s why proof requires no proof. Reason is necessarily reasonable. Life is intrinsically valuable. It is a dilemma from within these schools, rather than from without them, which nihilism highlights It is not a dilemma when the alternative is absurdity. They are unproved and cannot be proved... without looking "beyond existence", as you put it. Nihilism merely observes that from the basis of proposed perspective we therefore cannot be certain of anything; it does not need to look "beyond existence" to come to that conclusion at all The statement that we cannot be certain of anything relies on the baseless presumption that proof must be provable (reason reasonable, evidence for evidence, etc) for certainty to exist. It is absurd to look for the foundation of a foundation or the axioms underlying axioms. Nihilistic absurdity is not a dilemma for non-nihilistic philosophies. The recognition that things are what they are, is sufficient. The absurd alternative is unreasonable. Moreover, the only basis for rejecting that conclusion relies upon a rejection of the premises entailed with a valuation of logic, reason, and truth themselves; either way, your "undeniable truths" are quite deniable Deniable sure, but not deniable within reason. Rather deniable within absurdity. This is non-responsive to the remark you associated it with My argument does not belong to your class of argument, nor to the “class of arguments that relies on reference to completely unfounded entities or the anthropcentrizing of human concepts like evolution to have agency and will”. As such a response was not warranted, other than to point out that both classes can be wrong. Your conclusions of undeniable truth are at odds with the premises you engage to reach those conclusions; reason is a self-defeating proposition My conclusion, that fundamental premises are undeniable truths, is not at odds with the same said premises. It is a recognition that things are what they are. Reason is only a self-deflating proposition if one removes oneself from the realm of reason and accepts absurdity as undeniable truth. Nor does nihilism claim to be proved or right, the very idea of rightness being untenable on a nihilist account Indeed, this is a separate issue that I have taken with nihilism in the past. “Nothing is right, and everything is wrong, including this proposition” It (nihilism) steps into proposed perspectives and discredits them through themselves Rather it presents absurdity as discredit through fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of proposed perspectives. Nihilism may safely engage instruments and premises such as logic or reason to counter claims extended therefrom, because if those premises are false then it's position of not adopting the other claims extended from those premises is not problematic from any known basis If nihilism engages reason to counter a claim truly extended from reason, then nihilism is not engaging reason, but absurdity and is necessarily false, unless and only unless reason is itself false. One cannot reasonably claim that reason is false, but only absurdly. That is to say one must go outside of reason to claim reason is false. It is therefore somewhat incoherent to think of nihilism being "wrong" If it is incoherent, then I might expect a nihilist to embrace it, since the veracity of coherence cannot be proved. but there is no theory which has proved itself yet Axioms are not theories, but are those which theories are based on. They require no proof, but only discovery. Side: Life has intrinsic meaning
Life is the only possible thing with intrinsic meaning. [...] They look beyond life and see nothing there. That which is intrinsic is whatever is essential to the constitution of a thing. Conscious life may conceive of value in its own ontology, but that does not cause value itself to be a constituent part of the conscious life. Only the conception of value is intrinsic. Life is valued, but it has no value. The error in this response is the baseless presumption that reliability is exogenous to proof, evidence or reason. It isn't. My argument actually identifies reliability as endogenous to reason. Keep repeating your strawman mantra that I'm looking beyond life, though, and it might actually become a real boy. That's why proof requires no proof. & It's not a dilemma when the alternative is absurdity. & The statement that we cannot be certain of anything relies on the baseless presumption [..] The absurd alternative is unreasonable. & Deniable sure, but not deniable within reason. Rather deniable within absurdity. & My conclusion, that fundamental premises are undeniable truths [...] the realm of reason and accepts as undeniable truth. & If nihilism engages reason to counter a claim truly extended from reason [...] That is to say one must got outside of reason to claim reason is false. & Axioms are not theories, but are those which theories are based on. They require no proof, but only discovery. & etc. Yours is a narrative of received truths and tautological revelation. You assert your axioms as proof of themselves, as perfectly incontrovertible... thereby obviating the need for any critical thought or warrant. You say they are simply discovered, but articulate no process of discovery and vehemently reject the process of discovery which follows from the axioms themselves. You meet an analysis of the contradiction which arises from the axioms being applied to themselves not with a substantive argument, but with an insensible allegation that this by exercising those axioms the analysis (somehow) looks outside them. You find a dozen ways to deride the critique as unreasonable and absurd, without ever showing how the critique is unreasonable... except through reversion to the proclamation of your axiomatic truths as self-evident. This is more than just poor argumentation; it is a demonstration of my very point: that the only defense of these axioms is through the irrational, contradictory refusal to apply them to themselves. If you are being consistent, if you are being rational, then proof and reason cannot be taken as self-evident axioms but are necessarily subject to the standards they advance. Because to be self-evident is nothing more than to be easily reconciled with pre-existing intuition. To declare an axiom is not to engage in the rigor of critical reasoning, but is an obviously convenient way to avoid it. That you cannot face the prospect of losing faith with your axioms, that you find it too unsettling to even consider their fallibility, does not make them infallible but it does make you dependent upon them. Your dogma here is the same as any "primitive philosophy" of religion. Indeed, this is a separate issue that I have taken with nihilism in the past. “Nothing is right, and everything is wrong, including this proposition” & If it is incoherent, then I might expect a nihilist to embrace it, since the veracity of coherence cannot be proved. & Rather it presents absurdity as discredit through fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of proposed perspectives. You are taking issue with a well-stufffed strawman. I've already explained at length why this notion that "everything is wrong" is not representative of nihilism, and there is no reason for nihilism to embrace incoherence any more than coherence. Your expectations of nihilism remain predicated upon your dogmatic misconceptions of it, which makes your allegation about nihilism using misrepresentation rather the height of irony (particularly as you've not identified any particular instance where nihilism has actually done this). Side: Life lacks intrinstic meaning
That which is intrinsic is whatever is essential to the constitution of a thing. Conscious life may conceive of value in its own ontology, but that does not cause value itself to be a constituent part of the conscious life. Only the conception of value is intrinsic. Life is valued, but it has no value Nothing is valued but for the value that it has to something living. Life has value to the living. If it does not, then the life ends. All other values are extrinsic to themselves because they are in relative to the only thing capable of valuation, life. Only life can value, thus only life can value itself. Without self value, the life ends. Thus, value is essential to the constitution of life. Yours is a narrative of received truths and tautological revelation etc etc.. Tautologies are necessarily true. Discovering them isn’t the same as receiving them. Most of the next paragraph is an attempt to reason away reason. Just by engaging in the debate you have lost. thereby obviating the need for any critical thought If you use critical thought to attack critical thought, then you are either not using critical thought, or what you attacked is not critical thought. You meet an analysis of the contradiction which arises from the axioms being applied to themselves not with a substantive argument, but with an insensible allegation that this by exercising those axioms the analysis (somehow) looks outside them It necessarily looks outside of them. You cannot use an object in seeking evidence for the validity of said object. You must look outside an object to seek evidence for it’s validity lest your evidence be invalidated via use of the object. The fact that there is necessarily nothing outside of the objects we’ve been discussing does not invalidate reason, but rather exemplifies the focus of nihilism. You find a dozen ways to deride the critique as unreasonable and absurd, without ever showing how the critique is unreasonable I believe I have illustrated how several times now. To claim I merely repeat that you are wrong because my position is self-evident is disingenuous and ignores my illustrations of why my position is self-evident. This is more than just poor argumentation; it is a demonstration of my very point: that the only defense of these axioms is through the irrational, contradictory refusal to apply them to themselves Since axioms cannot, in fact, be applied to themselves without using them in the application, any finding of invalidation is invalidated by their use in the application. Furthermore, you have not actually applied them to themselves. You have merely clung to doubt where it is impossible to (reasonably) do so. Speaking of poor argumentation, you go on to claim that my adherence to reason is based in faith. That’s rich. What would the abandonment of reason represent? If we take my dogmatic adherence to reason, and your dogmatic adherence to doubt, who do you suppose will most resample a primitive religion? To declare an axiom is not to engage in the rigor of critical reasoning To engage in the rigor of critical reasoning is to employ axioms. To leave those axioms un-declared is to engage in self-deceit. particularly as you've not identified any particular instance where nihilism has actually done this If by “this” you mean claimed that nothing is right and everything is wrong, perhaps I went to far in saying you think everything is wrong. To solid a statement for a nihilist maybe. But you did say that “ the very idea of rightness (is) untenable on a nihilist account”. Your defense suggests you think otherwise. Side: Life has intrinsic meaning
Nothing is valued but for the value that it has to something living. Life has value to the living. If it does not, then the life ends. All other values are extrinsic to themselves because they are in relative to the only thing capable of valuation, life. Only life can value, thus only life can value itself. Without self value, the life ends. Thus, value is essential to the constitution of life. The value is not of the thing but to the thing, which means it is not an intrinsic attribute observed by consciousness but a contingently generated concept of consciousness projected onto itself. The concept of value is therefore intrinsic as an attribute of the material consciousness, but there is no material value to which the concept refers. If I conceive of myself as having a third arm, that does not mean that my having a third arm is an intrinsic attribute of mine. Your account also renders any value life places on anything other than itself non-intrinsic. This means that the value life places on itself cannot be externally observed or affirmed. If the value were truly intrinsic to the life, though, then we could reasonably expect that other life could observe it. Nor is it necessary that life value itself in order to continue. The only way your claim makes any sense at all is if you're reverting to yet another tautology (more on that later) wherein to value is merely to not stop existing. That seems to dilute the significance of value so much so that it becomes a rather empty observation. All you are saying then, effectively, is that life perpetuates itself. Not because it is good or desirable or important or meaningful... but just because it does. Value dilutes to mere extant state. It is unclear why rocks, computers, and other inanimate objects then don't have equal value so long as they continue to exist. There is no difference between the value to a human life and the value to a rock. At that point, what exactly do you think you're getting here that the nihilist doesn't? Sure, you get value... but it's a kind of value that is so empty and non-unique that it's meaningless (and most people wouldn't even consider that to be "value"). Tautologies are necessarily true. Discovering them isn’t the same as receiving them. Most of the next paragraph is an attempt to reason away reason. Just by engaging in the debate you have lost. No. A tautology is "an empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false" (American Heritage Dictionary). This means that your argument is valid but not necessarily sound, and it is the soundness of your axioms which is in question. Discovery is the same as receipt if you cannot articulate a process of discovery that proves the conclusion, which you have not done. Given your repeated opportunities to do so, I safely presume at this point that you cannot. I am not reasoning away reasoning. I am challenging the alleged soundness of reason, on the basis that it cannot be proved since it cannot be used to prove itself and precludes other means of proof. If you think this means my argument is fallacious or unsound then by all means demonstrate why that is the case, but until you actually proffer that analysis my argument does stand. It necessarily looks outside of them. You cannot use an object in seeking evidence for the validity of said object. You must look outside an object to seek evidence for it’s validity lest your evidence be invalidated via use of the object. The fact that there is necessarily nothing outside of the objects we’ve been discussing does not invalidate reason, but rather exemplifies the focus of nihilism. I am not using an object to seek evidence for itself. I am observing that the object cannot be proof of itself by virtue of its nature, and therefore cannot be proved without looking beyond itself which is also impossible by virtue of its nature. At all times, my argument is centered upon the nature of the object itself. You cannot prove that there is necessarily nothing outside of the objects in question because you cannot prove them (and therefore their exclusivity) without looking outside them. Since axioms cannot, in fact, be applied to themselves without using them in the application, any finding of invalidation is invalidated by their use in the application. Yes, that's my point. So glad you agree. Logic and reason cannot prove themselves. Nothing can be used outside of them to prove them either, as this would disprove them since their soundness is predicated upon their exclusivity. Just because it is impossible for logic and reason to be proved does not mean they are proved or otherwise certain, either (which your desperate emotional aversion to "absurdity" compels you to fervently conclude). Furthermore, you have not actually applied them to themselves. Yes. I have instead shown that they cannot be applied to themselves because that would be a violation of themselves. I have further shown that they cannot be proved outside of themselves because that would also violate them. You still have not explained what exactly is unsound or invalid about this analysis. I presume at this point that you cannot do so. Speaking of poor argumentation, you go on to claim that my adherence to reason is based in faith. That’s rich. What would the abandonment of reason represent? If we take my dogmatic adherence to reason, and your dogmatic adherence to doubt, who do you suppose will most resample a primitive religion? In what way, exactly, have I been dogmatic about doubt? It isn't a position, and I'm not even using it as an argument. I'm using your axioms to show their own unsoundness. Doubt is a consequence of your position being unproved, and if that's not sufficient grounds for doubt then your opposition to religion is just as dogmatic as you think nihilism is to reason (and is no different from religion). To engage in the rigor of critical reasoning is to employ axioms. To leave those axioms un-declared is to engage in self-deceit. You are conflating transparency with criticality; the former may be necessary to the latter, but it doesn't constitute it. You can be honest about the things you are assuming, but that doesn't make them any less assumed. Using axioms may be necessary to thinking about what follows from them critically, but that doesn't mean they are themselves a product of critical reasoning. If by “this” you mean claimed that nothing is right and everything is wrong, perhaps I went to far in saying you think everything is wrong. To solid a statement for a nihilist maybe. But you did say that “ the very idea of rightness (is) untenable on a nihilist account”. Your defense suggests you think otherwise. To be "untenable" is simply to be indefensible, so to say that the idea of rightness is untenable on a nihilist account is nothing more than to observe that it's not an idea which one could defend through nihilism. That's consistent with my explanation about nihilism, which was more complicated than your representation of it here... but what do I really expect at this point. Trying to debate the soundness of logic with you has really been no more stimulating than trying to debate the soundness of God with most theists. I suspect you're just going to respond with the same worn out tautologies about axioms, truths, and life to avoid having to establish soundness. Some faith just won't be tested it seems. I don't anticipate responding any further. Side: Life lacks intrinstic meaning
A tautology in logic is "a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form". A thing has value if and only if action is taken to gain and/or to keep it. This includes conscious and unconscious action. This includes purposeful action and simple sensory response. I have provided this definition of value to you in the past (though, since it may have been over a year ago, it's reasonable that you may have forgotten). Thus, value does not apply to non-living. But only to things which act. Only living things. All living things act to gain/keep their wants/needs. This is in order to maintain their primary want/need, their life. Life is valued by life and has value to life. Value is essential to the constitution of life. That had been your definition of intrinsic prior to your last post. Your argument against the soundness of reason is unsound for two reasons. First, to doubt the soundness of reason is to doubt the soundness of soundness. Which is a contradiction. Second, to doubt something is to believe in the possibility of an alternative. Thus, to doubt the veracity of reason is to believe in the possibility that the impossible is possible. This too is a contradiction. Thus, your position is fallacious and unsound. It is the impossibility of alternatives that prove the veracity of logic. That which is impossible is impossible. It won't hurt my feelings if you choose not to respond. But in your way out, consider what it takes to believe in the possibility of the impossible. Side: Life has intrinsic meaning
The truth expressed in logical tautology is referent to the contingent truth values that result from combined statements, not to actual ontological truths. It entails logical validity, but not necessarily soundness. For instance, "all mammals are humans" is a logical tautology which may be logically true but is not sound. This is because the universal "truth" does not follow from any facts noted about actual humans but only from the use of the terms "human" and "mammal" which makes it purely a matter of definition. It proves nothing about actuality. This is rudimentary logic. [1] I don't recall that exchange, no. Without appealing to tautology, why does a thing have a value iff action is taken to gain and/or keep it? Why is the taking of action the significant determinant constituting value? Further, if the taking of action to gain or keep life is all that is necessary to establish value then why can't one life act to value another life? Your earlier remarks suggest this is impossible, but that doesn't follow from your definition which suggests either that you are not using your definition or that there is something further to it that you are not including here. I don't recall it, no. Without appealing to tautology since that cannot establish ontological fact, why does a thing have value iff [it takes] action to gain or keep value? What makes the taking of action constitutively significant to value? Even if you can establish this as sound, not just logically valid by definition, I think you've still diluted the meaning of 'value' beyond its common usage or desired state. So what if rocks aren't of equal value to a human? Grass still is. And, perhaps more significantly, this sort of value still doesn't establish anything like meaning or goodness because literally all it encompasses is the function of continuity as a descriptive reality. That hasn't gotten you the meaning you think is lost on the nihilist account. I've made this point already and you didn't address it. (1) How, exactly, is doubting the soundness of soundness a contradiction? Assertions are not arguments; you seem to really be struggling with that. At no point does my analysis claim that P & -P, so there isn't a contradiction. Either P --> P or -P --> -P. I've explained this already. (2) Doubt does not logically necessitate positive belief in anything else. It isn't even an observation of -P. It is simply suspension of belief that P until P is proved sound. Even were you correct, it still doesn't follow that belief in the possibility of an alternative is a belief that the impossible is possible. What is considered as impossible here is impossible only because the truth value of the proposition that reason is sound is presumed positive. If that truth value is actually negative, however, then what was regarded as impossible was not actually impossible. You've gone beyond tautology now to circularity. If alternatives were impossible under logic (they aren't) then this would be because it is a condition of logic that alternatives are impossible, and therefore the impossibility of alternatives cannot be used to prove logic as that would be using logic to prove itself. This is, again, an obvious demonstration of my central analysis. All that is necessary to consider the possibility of the impossible is to suppose that the conditions which establish impossibility are unsound. It's not really that difficult. Side: Life lacks intrinstic meaning
For instance, "all mammals are humans" is a logical tautology which may be logically true but is not sound If you are going to refer to rudimentary logic, you should use a correct example. “all mammals are human is not a tautology, as it is not redundant nor necessarily true by its form. “All humans are human” is a tautology. What a tautology proves about reality is that a thing is what it is, rather than something else. Without appealing to tautology, why does a thing have a value iff action is taken to gain and/or keep it? What you mean here is “without using your own definition”, since a thing is what it’s definition says it is (or it is the wrong definition). A thing has value to the thing taking action. If you wish to dispute my definition of value, then provide an example wherein value is present and my definition does not apply. why can't one life act to value another life? It can. I never said otherwise. I think you've still diluted the meaning of 'value' beyond its common usage or desired state My definition is broad enough to include all instances commonly referred to as value. If that is too diluted, then provide an alternative definition that is more accurate. How, exactly, is doubting the soundness of soundness a contradiction? Because “soundness is sound” is a tautology. To believe soundness may not be sound is to believe in the possibility of the impossible. And yes, every instance of doubt is an instance of believing an alternative may be possible. There is no situation where doubt occurs without the believe that an alternative is possible. Where there is no belief in a possible alternative, there is no doubt. Just as I challenge you to find an instance of value that does not fit my definition, I challenge you to find an instance of doubt wherein the doubter believes there is no alternative. Even were you correct, it still doesn't follow that belief in the possibility of an alternative is a belief that the impossible is possible The fundamental laws of logic are based on the impossibility of an alternative. For example, the law of non-contradiction. To doubt the law of non-contradiction is to believe that that which is impossible, is possible. Incidentally, why do you take issue with the law of identity (tautology) but you to not take issue with the law of non-contradiction? You seem to want to do away with identity, but maintain non-contradiciton. Side: Life has intrinsic meaning
|
I strongly agree with the idea that consciousness is the source of meaning in reality. This was actually my position before I even encountered existential nihilism due to my interest in consciousness and qualia. Since meaning in life is dependent on the existence (or possibility of future existence) of conscious entities, life's meaning is clearly linked to consciousness. So far my view is the same as that put forth by existential nihilists. Where my reasoning diverges, however, is in asserting that this entails that the meaning of life is subjective. Rather I argue the opposite; that for this reason the meaning of life is objective. The purpose of life is conscious experience. While I broadly am saying the same thing as existential nihilists my polar opposite conclusion has some very different ramifications. It also leads onto why I disagree with moral nihilism. Side: Life has intrinsic meaning
|
