-->
@secularmerlin
Correction, for the sake of discussion I’m not claiming either (no matter how hard you try to force me into that corner) just acknowledging that only one is true.
Our most basic axioms
Posts
Total:
1,302
-->
@zedvictor4
Objective morality and nihilism are both suppositions....As such they can neither be correct nor incorrect.
Wanna support that assertion?
-->
@Tarik
Correction, for the sake of discussion I’m not claiming either (no matter how hard you try to force me into that corner) just acknowledging that only one is true.
Forget about nihilism for the moment. Let's just focus on this as a single true false question. False doesn't need an extra name we can just say false.
The basic question "is there some objective meaning or morality that exists independent of humanity?" The ONLY possible answers are yes, no and I don't know.
In as much as the nul hypothesis urges us to dismiss any argument for something that is unknown, such as arguments that aliens abduct people, the answer I don't know is functionally identical to a no. It becomes the answer "there is no reason to believe so".
So bare bones I'm giving you two possible answers.
The question: Does objective morality and meaning exist independently of humanity?
Your answers are limited by the nul hypothesis to either
A) Yes it demonstrably exists
or
B) no there is no reason to believe that it exists
So are you an A guy or a B guy?
-->
@secularmerlin
What’s the purpose of a question if the person asking tells you how you should answer it? Yet you want to accuse me of false dichotomy fallacy smh.
-->
@Tarik
Well I know the way I answer this question.
B there is no reason to believe in objective morality or meaning.
Now your turn. A or B?
-->
@Tarik
Oh i see what you are saying. There are false dichotomies and true ones. An example of a true dichotomy is
There is demonstrable reason to believe A versus there is no demonstrable reason to believe A.
You do get that right?
Is objective morality demonstrable or is there no demonstrating it?
-->
@secularmerlin
Just because I can’t demonstrate it doesn’t mean it’s not demonstrable.
-->
@Tarik
If you cannot demonstrate it then it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from undemonstrable. It is unfalsifiable within the context of this conversation. If you cannot demonstrate it then the answer is B. Now just so as to not put words in your mouth I will not assume B but instead ask you to confirm this one way or the other.
See we don't have to have a reason not to believe in something that we can't demonstrate. In fact that would be backwards since the demonstration is the reason for justified belief.
-->
@secularmerlin
It is unfalsifiable within the context of this conversation.
If that’s how you feel then why are you so hell bent on asking questions about it?
-->
@Tarik
If that’s how you feel then why are you so hell bent on asking questions about it?
This whole conversation has been about our answer to the question "what is your most basic axiom". Your most basic belief from which you build your world view is "maybe there is meaning but maybe there isn't"?
That isn't a very actionable belief. Maybe but maybe not isn't even an answer to the question it is just a reframing of the question.
My most basic axiom concerns believing with certainty only that which I can demonstrate to myself. Everything else builds from that. If my most basic axiom stopped at maybe what I'm experiencing is real and maybe it isn't and I didn't follow the logical syllogism of IF my experience is real THEN anything I can demonstrate within the framework I am experiencing can be believed provincially.
That's a really fancy way of saying testing is believing but it is just a logical extension of my skepticism.
Now let's compare.
IF my experience is real THEN testing is believing.
Now yours.
IF the universe has meaning THEN ???
See how it isn't a whole syllogism? Now my axiom demands that I don't believe there is meaning even if my experience is real but it doesn't even matter if you cannot finish the syllogism.
In fact I think it can be useful to reverse the syllogism too. It can say almost as much about what you are suggesting.
I'll demonstrate with my own.
IF my experience is merely an illusion THEN I am unable to know what is real but I can still learn about the laws that govern the illusion (the laws of physics) and testing is still believing (just not knowing)
So it couldn't hurt to finish this syllogism too.
IF there is no meaning THEN ???
I want to be very clear. You are not obligated to explain anything to me or to justify your beliefs but I am truly mystified that your axioms, such as you have chosen to share them with me, have any power to guide your decision making process or answer what is morally correct or incorrect even if anything actually is morally correct in the way you are describing. I've explained my axiom exhaustively and I am only asking that you do the same. Is that really unfair?
-->
@secularmerlin
I've explained my axiom exhaustively
Uncertainty is a hallmark of the human experience. I am comfortable if not entirely satisfied with "I don't know" as being the most honest answer to mote questions than not.I understand that this can be difficult to accept.
Doesn’t sound like much of an explanation to me or to use your words an “actionable belief”(note, I know this isn’t the actual axiom but the axiom is what lead this quote).
-->
@Tarik
I'm not really sure what you are asking but we can circle back to it in just a bit if you like. First however if you wish to continue having this conversation please complete the following syllogisms
IF there is meaning THEN ???
IF there is no meaning THEN ???
-->
@secularmerlin
IF there is meaning THEN ???IF there is no meaning THEN ???
Reward and punishment.
No reward and no punishment.
-->
@Tarik
Those are not workable syllogisms. You have created a definitional tautology instead.
I think we can fix it though.
I already know you believe that punishment and reward = morals = meaning. I don't think I actually accept that the three are the same or even contingent but just like all the other concerns let's put that aside for now.
Finish these syllogisms and maybe we can get to the root of what you are trying to say.
IF there is morality/punishmen/reward/meaning THEN ???
IF there is no morality/punishment/reward/meaning THEN ???
-->
@secularmerlin
You have created a definitional tautology instead.
How so?
-->
@Tarik
We are using your preferred definitions here. If you define meaning as reward and punishment then you have supplied your definition again not any conclusion.
You have essentially said A = A. I am looking for a full syllogism.
Something like
IF we agree that human wellbeing is something we would both like to foster THEN we can agree that some actions and attitudes are more likely to foster wellbeing than others (and possibly also disagree about some) and agree to treat each other in accordingly.
See IF and ONLY IF we agree to one THEN we can reasonably agree to the other. This implies an IF NOT.
So from the top.
IF there is morality/punishmen/reward/meaning THEN ???
IF there is no morality/punishment/reward/meaning THEN ???
-->
@secularmerlin
First however if you wish to continue having this conversation please complete the following syllogisms
Why what’s the point?
-->
@Tarik
Only you can answer that. Are you actually making an argument at all? If so what for or against? Is it worth trying to explain to me?
-->
@secularmerlin
While I consider this a false dichotomy
My argument is that it’s not, unless you have another valid option.
-->
@Tarik
So....."Wanna" unequivocally prove nihilism and objective morality and the basis thereof.
-->
@zedvictor4
You can’t prove a negative (one of the many rules of logic) and nihilism is a negative.
-->
@Tarik
My argument is that it’s not, unless you have another valid option.
Valid to whom? Validated by what? See there is a difference between valid and possible. I can suggest other possible options but value/validation would seem to me to be subjective and I need to know what standard you are applying before it is a sensible question.
-->
@secularmerlin
See there is a difference between valid and possible.
What’s the difference?
-->
@Tarik
value/validation would seem to me to be subjective and I need to know what standard you are applying before it is a sensible question.
-->
@secularmerlin
For questions sake let’s use the word possible.
Ok another possible position one could hold is humanism. That humans existing at all is meaningful enough even without any further universal meaning and that therefore we should try to preserve human life.
-->
@secularmerlin
we should try to preserve human life.
That claim still requires proof (reward/punishment).
-->
@Tarik
we should try to preserve human life.That claim still requires proof (reward/punishment).
It doesn't require any rewards or punishment because preserving human life is the goal. See I think you really are trying to insist that I find purpose in the same things that give you purpose and so you are dogmatically refusing to accept any other possible purpose as "valid" purpose or "real" purpose. Purpose is incoherent without a goal. A knife has the purpose of cutting things... unless it is a bread knife or a putty knife or a painter's knife. Are these valid knives or is cutting and only cutting a valid purpose for a knife to have?
Part of the problem,at least from my end of the conversation, is your still unfinished syllogisms.
IF there is morality/punishmen/reward/meaning THEN ???
IF there is no morality/punishment/reward/meaning THEN ???
What are we to take away from the presence or absence of this concept? What is the goal in each case?
-->
@secularmerlin
preserving human life is the goal
Why? (If nihilism is true)
-->
@Tarik
Would you object to rephrasing the question as "why (if there is no reward for preserving human life or punishment for failure to preserve human life)?