ok .. and so you (unlike your tasty target morsels) are NOT wasting your time on sophism ??.. and yet .. have nothing to show for .. in the way of a glimpse from your garden .. just to ..
you know ... prove your superior varieties .. eh .. varyitism (if you prefer,
got anything to trade?). Or are you leaving all that up to me to bring you as a propitiation?
You have even less patience with your garden than with the thicket
sprouting about through your head, making it a nonth(o)roughfare.
Fail, the moral landscape is how we should define our morals. Your idea is based on your own ego being way to big for your head. The moral landscape can be quantitatively proven using neuroscience, ergo you idea is massively flawed.
"There's a thin line between clever and, uh, stupid." Harris is a simpleton, as are you. Harris cannot overcome the is-ought gap or the Naturalistic Fallacy. His position was refuted before he argued for it.
@Ontologistics Calling someone with a PhD in neuroscience a simpleton? So my first comment about your ego being too big for your head was spot on. Considering you probably don't even hold a BSc your opinion is about as valid to humanity as Ebola. Philosophy is the garbage that was left behind after everything relevant was changed into science. Stop relying on that garbage to form opinions and rely on quantitative evidence to formulate actual answers to problems.
Yes I am calling you a simpleton as you cannot see that logic trumps science. Harris obviously does not overcome mentioned problems, and if you are so sure he does, why not explicate them against this video rather than appeal to authority? Also, for a doctor, your English is awful, which makes me doubt your credibility.
@Ontologistics *Sigh* I'm not a doctor, he is. My spelling is horrible because I don't bother checking my typing before posting when talking to the uneducated, call it sympathy for their intelligence (or lack of). I don't have to be credible I've not said anything you can't check for yourself. Do you want me to copy and paste his book for you? Logic never trumps science, ever. If you actually believe that it means you hate science because you could never understand it.
@InvincibleNumanist Science depends on the scientific method and quantifiable testing, so yes it does depend on logic. Now does logic depend on the scientific method and quantifiable testing? No, ergo logic can't trump science (in the manner ontologistics was referring to)
Harris establishes that we can evaluate the different neural patterns people have in relation to their personal wellbeing. But he settles for a form of consequentialism which is largely as arbitrary as any goal.
He also doesnt address the is ought gap, he mentions it but its like he completely dismisses it. A huge chunk of the book is devoted to talking about how religion isnt necessary, but thats besides the point.
Harris also fails to note that human valuations are constantly in flux and are ever changing due to environments and phenomenon. So even if we granted that "well being" is the end all of objective morality, we wouldnt be able to make any kind of cardinal measurements as to what should and should not occur because what takes away peoples felt uneasiness or unhappiness is constantly changing.
Unless somehow we can strap everyone to a machine and calculate a means to the most efficient means to achieve optimum happiness, his whole idea remains a fantasy that isnt applicable to the real world.
@InvincibleNumanist Finally someone who has read the book, the is-ought is only relevant when dealing with personal opinion. Quantitative evaluation eliminates any 'is' or 'ought' issues because 'ought' doesn't exist. Gravitational acceleration is 9.81 m/s2, ought it be less or more? No because it is 9.81 m/s2. Yes you would have to strap everyone to a machine and put them through the test, no one said the method would be quick and easy.
Also, if everyone was put through a test and strapped to their machines, dont you think their valuations would change from that experience? It would either be a self fulfilling prophecy or a case of a dog chasing its tail.
@InvincibleNumanist I said in the case of quantifiable evidence, oughts don't exist. I did not say they don't exist outright (I even said they exist where personal opinions are concerned). As for your second post, your stating you would know the outcome before the experiment has been conducted, which is rather silly unless you are an omniscient being. Unless you have papers you can site which show the experience of neuroscience experiments causing people to mentally change.
How can you determine with quantitative evaluation whether it would be more moral to perpetuate life on this planet or more moral to eradicate all life on this planet?
People that can't exist can't be harmed and there is no logical reason to prefer life over death.
It's not a stupid question but a serious moral question.
Another related problem would be the question whether and if when euthanasia, i.e. assisted suicide, is morally justified. The fact that many people would rather be dead than staying alive with an uncurable illness that causes them severe suffering, shows that "well being" cannot be the only criteria for morality.
@xknowledgeisfreex Why not? If death increases their well-being why would they not kill themselves? It's really easy to kill yourself, if anyone was serious about doing it they would have done it. So your question still remains a stupid question. (To get people not existing you would have to kill them all which I'm sure most do not want so you would be decreasing their well-being)
It's not so easy to kill yourself, if you are for example paralysed or otherwise incapable. In this situation you would need someone to assist you and euthanasia is illegal in most countries, including the U.S. afaik.
Suicide doesn't increase well-BEING, it leads to non-existence, i.e. no being at all.
Who is to say that existence is better than non-existence?
@xknowledgeisfreex Well would you rather me kill you or not kill you? If you said not kill you, you clearly thing existence is better (gee that was difficult). If you can't kill yourself and truly want die, euthanasia would increase your well-being as you no longer want to exist. If your in constant agonizing pain, non-existence may be preferable.
Despite your badly-written ramblings, you have not addressed a single issue in the video. You only mention that Harris vaguely wrote about these problems! You're out of your league my friend, leave now and read some proper philosophy (I suggest starting with Hume).
So this video states that not all cultures value the same attributes theirfore 1 attribute cannot be inherently better than another. I personally believe that not all cultures are equal. some are better than others. I guess nihilism is not for me.
I think you make a fine case but nihilism really doesn't apeal to me. I don't understand how neo nihilism is different. Humanism is my prefered stance as I feel that if the whole world was humanist, it would be a far better existence for everyone. The more humanists the better. I could be wrong but it seems to me like nihilism endorses acting on impulses no matter how harmful they may be. if i've made any outlandishly false statements feel free to correct me.
@derpaprikalyoner suffering is a universal negative experience. the key word there is universal. the totality of that statement is enough to then make the statement suffering aught not happen.
no its a negative experience for the person suffering at that period of time. But while you are suffering, I may be incredibly happy at your expense. So its not universal.
I've never heard of neo-nihilism, and I doubt that it is really an actual common philosophical stance. I assume then that "neo-nihilism" is your own extension of nihilism. This leads me to ask and state the following:
1. How does it differ from nihilism proper?
2. Cultural relativism and evolutionary psychology are observations, not moral systems (and social contract).
3. Classical nihilism is not incompatible with 2, why is "neo-nihilism"? It seems that you are rejecting Virtue Ethics instead.
@perfectibility999 Suffering is universally experienced by all sentient beings and it is also a universally negative experience. therefore suffering aught not happen. I aught not cause suffering in others or myself if there is anyway to avoid it. these are objective ethical facts I'm stating, they are not some kind of preference, they are not grounded in culture, religion, or even my own emotions. they come from my ability to use logic in order to understand myself and the world around me.
@IntheDudeWeTrust "Suffering is...a universally negative experience." If you mean negative specifically for the person suffering, then that's kinda dubious, it would probably help if you clarified what you mean by "suffering" and "negative experience". If we are talking about seeing another being suffer, well, that is certainly not "a universally negative experience"; it can be a neutral, or even, in some cases positive experience.
Fuck you, morality or rather ethics is based on the harm principle. As an atheist I have a responsibility to use my logic and reason to come to the only rational conclusion there is. And that conclusion is that I should live my life doing as little harm as possible and do my best to ease the suffering of others. Suffering is a real thing and it matters. Fuck nihilism.
It is a fact that suffering exists. But from that fact one cannot say that suffering ought to be eliminated You transgress the is-ought gap, so I presume you wrote your rant without watching the video.
I suggest you read Hume and Nietzsche, and come back in a few years.
@InvincibleNumanist Is there a particular fallacy this would fall under? I would argue this is simple cause and effect. Suffering is the cause and eliminating the suffering is the effect.
@Ontologistics Don't attack the church of morality. They are more deluded than Muslim terrorist, have more power than the Catholic Pope, and better legal teams than Scientology.
@Ontologistics Also both those things you claim Harris can't overcome he addresses in the first chapter. Science gives answers we though impossible a decade ago, technology is an amazing thing. No please be so kind as to pull your head out of your own ass and see how humans have advanced since those philosophical idea's you mentioned were coined.
Suffering matters to you, and it matters to many other people too. Nihilism isn't the claim that people don't have ethical preferences. It's the claim that there's no objective ground for those preferences.
Good Stuff any true intellectually honest atheist will have to come to the conclusion that nihilism is the most rational stance as an atheist...or the atheist if he indeed has courage to follow logic and rationality down to the abyss will nevertheless come back a nihilist and shook to the core about his realizations...then if he has even more courgae he can try to overcome his nihilism via thought and intellect and still yet if he has the courage to acknowledge that thought has limitations
Is neo-nihilism a choice? It seems to me that the typical atheist worldview excludes the possibility of free will and without free will, there are no real choices. So within an atheistic worldview (or a Calvinist one, which is remarkably similar) neo-nihilism would not be considered a choice. But if anything is a choice (if you believe in free will / metaphysical libertarianism) then neo-nihilism is a choice.
A very good overview of why I reject atheism. For me, the existence of an objective ethics (prescription) is an axiomatic premise (foundationalism: a basic belief, an epistemological faith) and theism or atheism is the negotiable thing: the thing needing to be proved. Watch my videos on "The Abolition of Man" on my channel for more on these subjects! :D
"Even perception itself is valuation", I'm not sure what you meant by that. Perhaps you should unpack this in a video. Are you referring to pragmatism, or Schopenhauer and Nietzsches adaptive idea of perception, with the will/evolution determining our perception of the external world?
@InvincibleNumanist I think he means that if you go down the street you will notice those things which you like and/or expect to see slightly faster than those you dislike and/or do not expect to see.
You say that we ought not follow incorrect ethical systems, but you yourself cannot bridge the is/ought gap. Any goal is equally arbitrary and in the end equally devoid of meaning or purpose. Why put on the pretense? In the end we are but ignorant apes screeching incoherently in order to distract ourselves from the inevitably devouring abyss.
@Ontologistics "merely asserted a form of Platonism, something I reject."
Well then, this would hinge I suppose more fundamentally on Platonism. I would argue on a very basic level that Platonism is just "the idea that there are ideas," which would make it true by definition. In a sense I can't help but not be a Platonist -all my ideas are ideas.
Though people often like the Godel's theorem argument better: watch?v=Swl0Pl4rURo
BTW this kind of reasoning is why Godel himself was Platonist.
I think you're playing 'definitional retreat': you've altered the definition of Platonism to such a degree that it's lost its original, essential meaning.
I think it would be more reasonable to argue a panpsychism emerged from what you wrote, rather than a panentheism.
@Ontologistics True I suppose. I guess part I defined it in this fashion was because to solve the mind/body problem we have to reduce both to something more fundamental. I reduced it to information (either empirical or mental), which if you think about it I can only really think of information having a Platonic type of existence.
Scrap the term "Platonism" perhaps though, just use "moments of experience" we can still have moments of experience of "goodness" and "evilness."
If you say that platonism is just the proposition that ideas exist, well, then it's just a statement of fact. This doesn't get you past the is-ought gap.
Also, platonism is not just the proposition that ideas exist. It's an ontological account of ideas that locates certain "ideas" - universals - in a non-spatiotemporal realm. So the definition of platonism that you're using is idiosyncratic.
You're conflating the platonist notion of universals with the mental stirrings in your head. They're two different things. Platonism maintains that some of those mental stirrings are "memories" of unworldly non-spatiotemporal ideas, in other words, that some special intuitive capacity of your mind links some of your mental stirrings to the supposed platonic reality.
@perfectibility999 "that some special intuitive capacity of your mind links some of your mental stirrings to the supposed platonic reality."
Yes, but they all ultimately originate from this. Second order ideas come when you combine intrinsic Platonic elements -like "a mathematically square shape" "brownness" and "roughness" etc. give you the idea of a wooden board. The wooden board is just a mental stirring, the component parts are intrinsic innate Platonic entities though.
Anyway, I don't think we really need to get into a debate on justification of atheism and/or theism. There's just something about youtube comments that causes it always to end up badly for both sides; leaving everyone angry and disappointed.
Okay, let's leave that old debate - needless to say I disagree with your stated cosmological argument; moreover, the Big Bang Theory itself is now very debatable.
Yet for the atheist who has rejected faith in God as irrational, they would be hypocrites not to reject faith in all other forms. An atheist cannot believe in Utilitarianism, Humanism, or any other moral system as anything more than a matter of preference. An atheist can follow a system of moral if he so chooses; but it is not that he knows it to be true, or even that he believes it to be true, merely that it is the system he likes the best.
@Ontologistics Well on that I would respectfully disagree. I believe that there are logical arguments that give sufficient reason to justify my belief. Such as the argument for a supernatural origin for the big bang. All that we know from physics and cosmology tells us that not only was matter and energy created in the big bang, but the very dimensions and laws of the universe itself. The universe was created at that moment, any naturalist explanation would be a circular argument.
Actually you might be interested to know that according to quantum gravity space-time actually emerges from a network of quantum information (not matter or energy) at the Planck scale: watch?v=4NP4QmrbBww
As for the mechanism that produced/"spoke" this quantum information it was necessarily the self-collapse of the wave-function of the universe (Hawking's "Phi"). Now guess what? According to Penrose's Orch-OR model self-collapsing wave-functions are minds! :D
So as a Theist, I completely concur with this video's assessment of life without a belief in God. From facts, we might be able to explain how those facts came to be; but we cannot say why they should have come to be simply because they did. In the end, any belief in objective value, regardless of what the basis for that value is, is necessarily an act of faith. A Utilitarian has faith in value from utility; a humanist has faith in value from human traits. A Theist has faith in value from God.
For every value derived from observation, there is an observation of the contrary, and a question of why the observation need be valuable at all.
If I say incest is wrong; and present the universal rejection of incest in humanity; perhaps this is true for humans. Yet bee and ant reproduction is exclusively incestuous, so we have contrary evidence that it is necessarily true of anything other than humans. And why should things that are universal of humans be valuable?
@Ontologistics (part 1) "But the principle of utility is not self-evident as its opposite is not a contradiction."
You can also have innate Platonic knowledge as self-evident truths. Non-contradiction isn't the only basis for self-evident truths.
I am aware that good and evil exist -even if we differ on what to put in those categories- as I can think of them, and for me to be able to think of them, they must pre-exist.
@Ontologistics (part 2)Isn't the link between neo-nihilism and atheism a demonstration that atheism if true is in fact a dangerous truth,and that therefore the bulk of society should be kept safe with noble lies like religion?
You say that morality is merely a system of control,but if neo-nihilism is really true,then I think to control might be something I would really enjoy.There's certainly nothing diabolical about wanting that right?I mean if God is dead then there isn't a Devil either.3:D
1.) Assuming Platonic categories of good and evil exist, they must fit rationalistically into the larger system of reality. This being the case one could use something like the Categorical Imperative to test if a given rule stated as good must be defined as evil in the larger system. All rules that don't contradict like this would be good -and it would be dangerous to these.
2.) Mine! (and I am very political with what morality I like to enforce)
Why assume such an unlikely theory? Plato himself questioned it in his later works. Kant's Categorical Imperative is also fundamentally flawed, as pointed out especially by Schopenhauer, a neo-Kantian.
@Ontologistics I will check into Schopenhauer, though if the critique is the Kant's CI is a construct detached from reality, I've thought of this problem already. My solution is to apply Korsgaard and say that the CI must work within some identity to make sense, and then I further argue that this identity is the same as Aristotle's "logos."
As for Plato, the third man argument can be solved with Platonic monism, and I can argue very strongly from this position from physics and Godel's theorem.
You'll find Schopenhauer's critique in his essay, 'On the Basis of Ethics'. It is not what you assume.
I cannot see how 'Physics' and Gödel's incompleteness theorem can uphold the Platonic Theory of Forms. Moreover, Plato used the theory of Forms to argue for Dualism, not monism (see, e.g. the Phaedo).
Sounds like H. Stapp's theory - who used Whitehead's Idealism. In fact, Schopenhauer is also a neutral monist in a sense. However, Schopenhauer was an atheist and refuted normative morality: our prima facie differences.
@Ontologistics I did see you had a video on double-aspect theory, which I liked. Though I think (and I will do a video on this in the future -Informationalist Metaphysics) it can be argued that consciousness is implicit in all moments of experience, and that moments of experience are (and I'll argue can be) all there is. And so a kind of panentheism would fall out as a natural consequence. (This would be completely compatible with physics though -in particular "It from bit," and Wigner's friend.
I notice that you're a theist. Schopenhauer was the one who said "Christianity is Platonism for the people', which makes me now suspect your underlying motives!
@Ontologistics (Part 1) I'm not a classical Platonist. I hold to a kind of Neoplatonism or Platonic monism, which is similar to Whitehead-style neutral monism.
"I cannot see how 'Physics' and Gödel's incompleteness
Well it has to do with the Penrose-Lucas theorem. Assuming substance dualism is false, then this theorem tells us that the moments of experience we observe in wave-function collapse (the DCQE tells us there's no matter behind them) must be Platonic info. It's Tegmark's math monism.
@Ontologistics (Part 2) Well it's no secret that one of the reasons people like my channel is for my Universal Orch-OR argument. I mean I practically advertise it.
Sure it's a deity, but it's still naturalistic! (and when I emailed Stuart Hameroff, he liked it and told me to look up an Italian physicist named Paola Zizzi, who had a similar idea called The Big Wow.)
And yes there are noticeable connections between Platonism and Christianity, but that's not really an argument against either.
Whilst its true that we cannot deduce an “ought” from nothing but “is” statements; it doesn't follow that facts cannot inform our values. Some combination of conceptual and empirical premises may, for example, yield normative conclusions based on a naturalised meta-ethics that is neither an example of relativism nor humanism.
Lol, hello there. Please bridge the gap for me then. You've been failing to do so constantly in your arguments with me. Is there some secret weapon youve been holding back this whole time? Please enlighten me.
One post failed to post. Ah. Point was that you aren't analyzing human desire. The ought must derive from the primary and ultimate desire living deep within the human heart. It cannot be and is not an arbitrary standard chosen merely to give us something to do. For Christians, this ultimate desire is reconciliation and unity with God; God is the goal, so to speak. For Nietzsche, it's an undetermined Ubermensch who is merely an empty idea. Ought, then, is not understood as an imposition.
constructs. The is/ought split is explained by the Abrahamic religions as the outcome of the Fall of Man, which is a weighty and tough subject to approach. But regardless, you should look over act/potency and understand them in the context of knowing the highest good. Communism attempted to supplant God and creating a burden with no real purpose. We cannot understand is/ought without knowing what it is that human nature strives for. The ultimate, true desire gives us ought.
So, your version of "realpolitik" is your answer? If so, then we have not really answered the question, mainly because we haven't determined the source of those cultural values we hold. You're essentially taking a somewhat Nietzschean view in that it doesn't matter what you will, just will (which is nonsense, because will is an appetite determined by the mind, one which directs itself towards the good). Aquinas (and Aristotle) discuss the natural inclination for human to value the Good, which...
Mind-games are not completely meaningless, they determine the ways humans cooperate or interact, and are significant for the perpetuation and prosperity of human societies.
It is loop, going from physical to social to physical and so on; the social and physical are inseparably connected for humans whether they know it or not.
So, there exists a is/ought hybrid; may be our language is not suited to describe it.
@osheaad Wow, waves and particles? Armchair intellectualization par excellence, eh? You assume prosperity as your premise from which you derive all else. But what is prosperity? For example, perhaps I hate feeling bad and feel terrible in a society where material satisfaction is guaranteed (and suicide rates are indeed high in places where this is the case) . One must define prosperity here.
What you perceive is a construct of the mind, the mind attaches imperatives; morality is a game of the mind, humanity is a game of the mind, ethics is a game of the mind.
These games have atoms that can only be found in the human mind, to look out at the objective is to evaluate how to use (like tools) the physical environment to emulate the conditions that allow our mind-games to operate peacefully and undisturbed.
I'd propose that ethics, humanity are meaningful only in the social world.
I stated that I do not think there is an absolute existent right or moral imperative. Only the intellectually honest recognition that as humans, IF we are to be happy and productive, we must be rational and obey the universe, if we are to 'command' it. You are right that if we have no goals, then there is nothing we ought to do. In that sense, there is no absolute need. If we wish to be alive, we must breath. We don't literally have to breath. Only if we are to live.
If we wish to be happy, as the vast majority of healthy people do, then we will be so only in as much as we serve our rational self-interests. If we wish to be happy and productive, then an egoistic code of behavior is needed. This is actually how it is done whether someone's mystical explicit ethical code is altruism or whether they don't have one, as in nihilism.
Our brains are designed to find happiness, which is dependent on rationality. It is the only value that is obtained for its own sake. It is the final goal for which all others are sought. The IS/OUGHT dichotomy is not a problem if you simply understand that IF you want X, you must do Y. It matters not that you musn't do Y across the board.
How do you prove that "our brains are designed to find happiness"? Nietzsche, for example, would disagree, arguing that happiness is a byproduct of power. Even if it were true, though, it still wouldn't mean that anyone contravening that principle ought not to. Furthermore, our own happiness might very well imply others' unhappiness, thereby refuting any egalitarian morality.
I believe a formal proof of it is a waste of time, almost like proving that 1+1=2. It is apparent that anything and everything anybody ever does is done so in that person's perceived self interest, even when it looks, from the perspective of the mystic, as an altruistic act, it is still always done on behalf of the chooser. If you take a bullet for your daughter it is still in YOUR interest, your perceived happiness. Power gives one the means to gain happiness.
The better you can manipulate your environment or act in a way to make the world you see into the world you want, the happier you will be. There is no reason to do anything at all, if it doesn't contribute towards the doer's perceived happiness. This is just the way reality is set up. I do not espouse anything egalitarian, other than individual rights, based on the fact that we all have singular consciousnesses and IF we are to be happy and productive, ..........
we will be so only in as much as we are able to act in our own perceived rational self-interest. What one person considers at the top of his values is his business and will be different than everyone else's. This recognition of a causal noncontradictory singular nature of the mind and the necessity that IF we want, which every healthy relatively free brain will, to be happy and productive, then we must use reason to act in our own rational self-interest. IS/OUGHT/IF.
We, our causal nature, assign meaning or ought to what is, only when we have a goal, and that goal is happiness. If we are to be happy, we must use rationality. I agree with you that there is no absolute morality. Only human morality. Our achieving happiness through acting in our rational self-interest does not essentially including trampling on other's rights.
When people are mistaken and think that force and fraud can be a means to happiness, they should be put in prison, for it would be a violation of individual rights. And individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. Law dictated by the nature of reality. Human nature is not that complicated. If you want to suffer, then do evil, and if you want to be happy, then do good. Something is moral or good if it does, in fact contribute to the happiness of the individual.
Something is immoral if it contributes to its suffering. Morality concerns the choices an individual makes and how it is related to their happiness. If you wish to give credence to a person who acts in an immoral fashion, because the world is such that they can, fine, but after a while, you must realize that evil is the opposite of what is moral and shouldn't be given weight, even if a billion people think it should.
And I must add that what is moral is what is rational as it pertains to the individual because knowledge can be the only reliable guide to successful action and reason is the only path to knowledge.
Utilitarianism has an arbitrary standard of utility. Egoism is concerned with achieving happiness of the self. Not just the greatest good in respect to whatever arbitrary priority of the decider, but rational SELF-interest. What is moral is so, if it is in the rational self interest of the individual, not some arbitrary unidentifiable greater good. Morality concerns the self because of the structure of the brain and the singular nature of consciousness and decision making.
While I don't disagree with most of this video and I loathe cultural relativism, I do believe that we can logically come to the conclusion that, while there are no absolute rights, logic can lead us to a moral code that recognizes that, IF we are to be happy and productive, THEN respecting individual rights is moral since, by nature, the necessarily singular mind makes moral decisions on its own behalf, whether or not toward a compassionate end for another. Consistent altruism is impossible.
Well your consistent altruism is simply another hypothetical imperative and therefore subjective: IF (as you say) you want everyone to be happy and productive, THEN you ought to respect rights (etc). But IF you don't want that then there is no ought.
@InvincibleNumanist We have known these claims to be wrong for quite some time. Look at the software you are using now. Quoting Hume on this subject is inane.
I was all 3 enlightened, entertained, and annoyed by this piece :) I have come to similar quarrels with Humanism in that it seems to assume modern, primarily western, and generalized human qualities as the universal good. I have more thoughts brewing on the matter now. Thank you for that. A quibble I have is that the delivery lends toward a dark, snobby tone than I think would be less representative of it's own message. But hey, that's subjective ;)
Without Criticism how can we ever evolve intellectually ? some people can’t handle Criticism and become offended not realizing Criticism is a good thing. Not realizing that Criticism is a sign of challenging there ideology they let there ego take over. I do realize that Criticism can cause harm if not used responsibly. I do admit I had my ego take over before. Do to lack of understanding.
"Universal morality" is an absurd notion, which need not be 'applicable to all' (as some on this comment page have argued). Morality is based on sentiment, which is rooted in an individual's subjective opinions. The law of 'non-contradiction' is of no relevance to the discussion of morality, as this law is related to reason/logic. This distinction is clearly found in the work of Hume, and is quite nicely articulated in this video.
If you actually watch my video, you'll see I don't only use Hume - just the bits that are correct. Your ad hom attack merely reveals your terrible argument. Again, prove to me your clause, "applicable to all" if you want to be taken seriously.
@Ontologistics An unprovable clause, which is rightly pointed out in this video. It is a shame that many are equating sentiment with rules of logic. Perhaps these viewers need to re-watch the video and listen more carefully. Thank you for posting this. Should I expect more insightful commentaries in the future?
I have a real problem with your statement that morality isnt based on reason but on sentiment.
From a pure logical standpoint that is a logical fallacy and here is why. Theres such a thing as objective morality. Morality is not just based on your view of the situation but in most parts actually evolved and inherited from society as a whole.
The default position for life is alive which makes life better than death purely from a objective perspective.
@SquirrelFromGradLife Could you explain in more detail why life is 'better' than death?
It seems to be an assumption that the 'default position for life is alive'.
If this is an assumption it can not be an objective fact that 'To prefer death to life is contrary to reason'. And if this is true, what would 'objective morality' be based on?
If morality 'evolves' or is 'inherited', it woud be constantly changing. So who decides what it actually is at any given moment? Do we guess?
@butimjustbored First: I believe in positive aggressive atheism, but I have a huge problem with most some philosophy out there especially nihilism or rather the so-called nihilists ie. internet atheists butchering of philosophy in general and nihilism in particular in their eagerness to appear intellectual.Had this discussion before with the user BionicDance and she actually managed to provide the philosophical proof for life after death ie. Heaven ie. Christianity ie. God and she's an atheist!
@butimjustbored I know that Nihilism have a problem with anything objective. I believe that definitions are objective or else words do not have meaning. By definitions I means a set off objective criteria on which you can base on which you can base your subjective opinion. If definitions are not objective then if said water you thought off sausage and that made sense somehow.
How we define life is by a set of objective criteria or attributes and a collection of dead cells do not constitute life
@butimjustbored In regards to Life then ALIVE is objectively better than DEAD simply because alive is the default position to life or the definition off life and death are the same and you have broken Aristotle's law off non contradiction. So its alive and not alive and not alive is what we objectively define as dead.
Morality is the intellectual scales on which you weigh actions or principles and decide if they are right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse.
@butimjustbored Morality evolves because not all morality are based purely on objective criteria nor is it consistent or even not conflicting. It stems from education and enlightenment. The objective morality or moral truth if you may are based on the definitions.
Thats why the Bible advocates slavery and the barbaric killing off everyone not sharing your views and yet "love thy neighbor" is their slogan.
So if objective morality criteria do not exist then we just guess and we dont..
@butimjustbored We do have the need for objective definition because of the point you raised about "intrinsically different viewpoints". I would argue that the difference in subjective definitions are so minute that they reasonably could be called a collective objective definition. Otherwise words would have no meaning and communication be pointless.
We do have a common objective definition of water H2O in all its forms.
We also have that for being alive, for being happy or free.
@butimjustbored I now feel that you're purposely misreading or not understanding the very simple explanation I gave regarding LIFE. I didnt say life is better than death did i? "In regards to Life then ALIVE is objectively better than DEAD simply because alive is the default position..."
Since you do not believe we have objective criteria or a definition for life or death, how can establish if anything is dead?
You have in fact just dismantled science as a whole with your statement...
@butimjustbored I think you're completely missing the point on objective morality and the criteria on which we base that.
The objective criteria for which you can determine if you're alive are such as heartbeat, brain function, nerve response, bodily functions, metabolism etc. So if you value being alive over being dead thats the objective criteria you base your objective morality of being alive on. It follows that you value people not depriving you of those functions ie not killing you.
@butimjustbored I dont know how else to simplify it in 500 characters or less. I mean if philosophers only had 500 characters on which to base their argument philosophy would have never left the ground.
If you do not understand what an objective criteria might be on which we base our definitions and why definitions are thought of as objective just like words have "meaning" then I cant help you.
If you believe that definitions of words are purely subjective then life=death is reasonable to you!
@butimjustbored and if you want to use logic you have to follow the laws of logic. If you want to have reason then you have to avoid logical fallacies. If you want to have any kind of meaning then you have to be consistent and adhere to Aristotle's law of non-contradiction.
Those are some of the objective criteria on which to base an argument and objective morality.
If you claim that definitions are purely subjective and fluid then they can in fact be contrary and therefor a logical fallacy.
I did not doubt that morality in parts evolved and is inherited from society. But this is DESCRIPTIVE morality, from which one cannot logically derive PRESCRIPTIVE morality.
I think you wrote this without actually listening to the video - you just spouted your preconceived ideas.
@Ontologistics I believe its perfectly reasonable to derive some prescriptive morality from descriptive morality.
If you value being alive over being dead (descriptive) you out not to kill (prescriptive). Heres why:
The objective values your build your morality on have to be universally true and applicable to all. Meaning they value being alive as much as you. Therefor if you kill someone you've legalized them killing you which goes against you values of being alive. So you out not to kill.
Your errors: "IF you value being alive over being dead" is a conditional - i.e. subjective, therefore not prescriptive. Those with suicidal tendencies, for example, will not value that.
Secondly, even if you do value your own life over death, this does not mean that you value other people's lives over their deaths.
Thirdly, as the last two points show, there can be no objective morality - so your statement is meaningless. You need to discard this faith you have.
@Ontologistics First of all I do not have any faith to discard because I am an atheist.
Secondly any value, logic argument or morals have to adhere to the laws of logic and non-contradiction and be universally true and applicable to all. Making a moral argument that contains a contradiction is a logical fallacy and therefor invalid.
According to you its perfectly reasonable to have conflicting value, double standards and morality that do not adhere to the law of non-contradiction.
But you do have a faith in objective morality, which is as illogical as faith in religion.
And here's your fourth error: morals do not at all have to adhere to the laws of logic nor be universally true. Hume disproved this. To say they do is akin to saying that one's emotions must adhere to the laws of logic! If you define morality as being necessarily universal then you beg the question.
It is perfectly reasonable to have conflicting values as values are subjective.
@Ontologistics It appears to me that you have somehow replaced God with Hume and know you're blindly parroting everything you believe him to say just like religious people parrot their God.
Your argument is pure appeal to authority and therefor a logical fallacy.
Have you ever considered that Hume might be wrong on something or is that completely unlikely to you?
Its not completely reasonable to have conflicting values in an age of reason and thats why slavery was banned!
ok .. and so you (unlike your tasty target morsels) are NOT wasting your time on sophism ??.. and yet .. have nothing to show for .. in the way of a glimpse from your garden .. just to ..
you know ... prove your superior varieties .. eh .. varyitism (if you prefer,
got anything to trade?). Or are you leaving all that up to me to bring you as a propitiation?
You have even less patience with your garden than with the thicket
sprouting about through your head, making it a nonth(o)roughfare.
poetpiet 2 days ago
@poetpiet
Quite so.
Ontologistics 1 day ago
Comment removed
poetpiet 2 days ago
Fail, the moral landscape is how we should define our morals. Your idea is based on your own ego being way to big for your head. The moral landscape can be quantitatively proven using neuroscience, ergo you idea is massively flawed.
grahamgeons 3 days ago
@grahamgeons
Wrong. Listen to what I say regarding the is-ought gap.
Ontologistics 2 days ago
@Ontologistics I'd rather not, generally listening to stupidity makes you stupid. Read the moral landscape then re-evaluate your position.
grahamgeons 2 days ago
@grahamgeons You mean Sam Harris's moral landscape? lmfao.
StygianDysnomia 2 days ago
@StygianDysnomia Well yes, what other moral landscape exists? I'd have thought that Sam Harris was implied when I used his exact termanology.
grahamgeons 2 days ago
@grahamgeons
"There's a thin line between clever and, uh, stupid." Harris is a simpleton, as are you. Harris cannot overcome the is-ought gap or the Naturalistic Fallacy. His position was refuted before he argued for it.
Ontologistics 2 days ago
@Ontologistics Calling someone with a PhD in neuroscience a simpleton? So my first comment about your ego being too big for your head was spot on. Considering you probably don't even hold a BSc your opinion is about as valid to humanity as Ebola. Philosophy is the garbage that was left behind after everything relevant was changed into science. Stop relying on that garbage to form opinions and rely on quantitative evidence to formulate actual answers to problems.
grahamgeons 2 days ago
@grahamgeons
Yes I am calling you a simpleton as you cannot see that logic trumps science. Harris obviously does not overcome mentioned problems, and if you are so sure he does, why not explicate them against this video rather than appeal to authority? Also, for a doctor, your English is awful, which makes me doubt your credibility.
Ontologistics 2 days ago
@Ontologistics *Sigh* I'm not a doctor, he is. My spelling is horrible because I don't bother checking my typing before posting when talking to the uneducated, call it sympathy for their intelligence (or lack of). I don't have to be credible I've not said anything you can't check for yourself. Do you want me to copy and paste his book for you? Logic never trumps science, ever. If you actually believe that it means you hate science because you could never understand it.
grahamgeons 2 days ago
@grahamgeons
science depends upon logic.
InvincibleNumanist 2 days ago
@InvincibleNumanist Science depends on the scientific method and quantifiable testing, so yes it does depend on logic. Now does logic depend on the scientific method and quantifiable testing? No, ergo logic can't trump science (in the manner ontologistics was referring to)
grahamgeons 2 days ago
@grahamgeons
Harris establishes that we can evaluate the different neural patterns people have in relation to their personal wellbeing. But he settles for a form of consequentialism which is largely as arbitrary as any goal.
He also doesnt address the is ought gap, he mentions it but its like he completely dismisses it. A huge chunk of the book is devoted to talking about how religion isnt necessary, but thats besides the point.
InvincibleNumanist 2 days ago
@InvincibleNumanist
Harris also fails to note that human valuations are constantly in flux and are ever changing due to environments and phenomenon. So even if we granted that "well being" is the end all of objective morality, we wouldnt be able to make any kind of cardinal measurements as to what should and should not occur because what takes away peoples felt uneasiness or unhappiness is constantly changing.
InvincibleNumanist 2 days ago
Unless somehow we can strap everyone to a machine and calculate a means to the most efficient means to achieve optimum happiness, his whole idea remains a fantasy that isnt applicable to the real world.
InvincibleNumanist 2 days ago
@InvincibleNumanist Finally someone who has read the book, the is-ought is only relevant when dealing with personal opinion. Quantitative evaluation eliminates any 'is' or 'ought' issues because 'ought' doesn't exist. Gravitational acceleration is 9.81 m/s2, ought it be less or more? No because it is 9.81 m/s2. Yes you would have to strap everyone to a machine and put them through the test, no one said the method would be quick and easy.
grahamgeons 2 days ago
@grahamgeons
Admitting that oughts dont exist is really stating what the is ought gap is though. Its not a rebuttal its an acceptance.
InvincibleNumanist 2 days ago
cont
Also, if everyone was put through a test and strapped to their machines, dont you think their valuations would change from that experience? It would either be a self fulfilling prophecy or a case of a dog chasing its tail.
InvincibleNumanist 2 days ago
@InvincibleNumanist I said in the case of quantifiable evidence, oughts don't exist. I did not say they don't exist outright (I even said they exist where personal opinions are concerned). As for your second post, your stating you would know the outcome before the experiment has been conducted, which is rather silly unless you are an omniscient being. Unless you have papers you can site which show the experience of neuroscience experiments causing people to mentally change.
grahamgeons 2 days ago
@grahamgeons
How can you determine with quantitative evaluation whether it would be more moral to perpetuate life on this planet or more moral to eradicate all life on this planet?
xknowledgeisfreex 2 days ago
@xknowledgeisfreex What causes the greatest harm to people, them existing or not existing. That's a very stupid question.
grahamgeons 2 days ago
@grahamgeons
People that can't exist can't be harmed and there is no logical reason to prefer life over death.
It's not a stupid question but a serious moral question.
Another related problem would be the question whether and if when euthanasia, i.e. assisted suicide, is morally justified. The fact that many people would rather be dead than staying alive with an uncurable illness that causes them severe suffering, shows that "well being" cannot be the only criteria for morality.
xknowledgeisfreex 2 days ago
@xknowledgeisfreex Why not? If death increases their well-being why would they not kill themselves? It's really easy to kill yourself, if anyone was serious about doing it they would have done it. So your question still remains a stupid question. (To get people not existing you would have to kill them all which I'm sure most do not want so you would be decreasing their well-being)
grahamgeons 2 days ago
@grahamgeons
It's not so easy to kill yourself, if you are for example paralysed or otherwise incapable. In this situation you would need someone to assist you and euthanasia is illegal in most countries, including the U.S. afaik.
Suicide doesn't increase well-BEING, it leads to non-existence, i.e. no being at all.
Who is to say that existence is better than non-existence?
xknowledgeisfreex 2 days ago
@xknowledgeisfreex Well would you rather me kill you or not kill you? If you said not kill you, you clearly thing existence is better (gee that was difficult). If you can't kill yourself and truly want die, euthanasia would increase your well-being as you no longer want to exist. If your in constant agonizing pain, non-existence may be preferable.
grahamgeons 2 days ago
@grahamgeons
Despite your badly-written ramblings, you have not addressed a single issue in the video. You only mention that Harris vaguely wrote about these problems! You're out of your league my friend, leave now and read some proper philosophy (I suggest starting with Hume).
Ontologistics 1 day ago
I'm a non-cognitivist, subjectivist, nihilist, rational egoist. trololololol. u mad.
Esoparagon 5 days ago
So this video states that not all cultures value the same attributes theirfore 1 attribute cannot be inherently better than another. I personally believe that not all cultures are equal. some are better than others. I guess nihilism is not for me.
calebbrown1994 1 week ago
I think you make a fine case but nihilism really doesn't apeal to me. I don't understand how neo nihilism is different. Humanism is my prefered stance as I feel that if the whole world was humanist, it would be a far better existence for everyone. The more humanists the better. I could be wrong but it seems to me like nihilism endorses acting on impulses no matter how harmful they may be. if i've made any outlandishly false statements feel free to correct me.
calebbrown1994 2 weeks ago
@calebbrown1994
nihilism doesnt endorse any kind of behaviour
InvincibleNumanist 1 week ago
18th century thinker
AEVautomatic 2 weeks ago
@derpaprikalyoner suffering is a universal negative experience. the key word there is universal. the totality of that statement is enough to then make the statement suffering aught not happen.
IntheDudeWeTrust 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IntheDudeWeTrust suffering is a universal negative experience.
no its a negative experience for the person suffering at that period of time. But while you are suffering, I may be incredibly happy at your expense. So its not universal.
InvincibleNumanist 1 week ago
I've never heard of neo-nihilism, and I doubt that it is really an actual common philosophical stance. I assume then that "neo-nihilism" is your own extension of nihilism. This leads me to ask and state the following:
1. How does it differ from nihilism proper?
2. Cultural relativism and evolutionary psychology are observations, not moral systems (and social contract).
3. Classical nihilism is not incompatible with 2, why is "neo-nihilism"? It seems that you are rejecting Virtue Ethics instead.
derpaprikalyoner 2 weeks ago
@perfectibility999 Suffering is universally experienced by all sentient beings and it is also a universally negative experience. therefore suffering aught not happen. I aught not cause suffering in others or myself if there is anyway to avoid it. these are objective ethical facts I'm stating, they are not some kind of preference, they are not grounded in culture, religion, or even my own emotions. they come from my ability to use logic in order to understand myself and the world around me.
IntheDudeWeTrust 3 weeks ago
"they come from ***my ability*** to use logic" ="objective ethical fact"???
Ifallo 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IntheDudeWeTrust
" therefore suffering aught not happen"
why not?
You made a leap there.
InvincibleNumanist 2 weeks ago
@IntheDudeWeTrust
I will destroy your argument using a 300 year old question in the tradition of David Hume: why ought suffering not happen?
Resolve the is-ought problem before making a conclusion based on the normative being true.
derpaprikalyoner 2 weeks ago
@IntheDudeWeTrust "Suffering is...a universally negative experience." If you mean negative specifically for the person suffering, then that's kinda dubious, it would probably help if you clarified what you mean by "suffering" and "negative experience". If we are talking about seeing another being suffer, well, that is certainly not "a universally negative experience"; it can be a neutral, or even, in some cases positive experience.
Aletheophile 2 days ago
Fuck you, morality or rather ethics is based on the harm principle. As an atheist I have a responsibility to use my logic and reason to come to the only rational conclusion there is. And that conclusion is that I should live my life doing as little harm as possible and do my best to ease the suffering of others. Suffering is a real thing and it matters. Fuck nihilism.
IntheDudeWeTrust 3 weeks ago
@IntheDudeWeTrust
It is a fact that suffering exists. But from that fact one cannot say that suffering ought to be eliminated You transgress the is-ought gap, so I presume you wrote your rant without watching the video.
I suggest you read Hume and Nietzsche, and come back in a few years.
Ontologistics 3 weeks ago
@Ontologistics If you are suffering, you don't think it ought to be eliminated?
DeterministicOne 3 weeks ago
@DeterministicOne
"If you are suffering, you don't think it ought to be eliminated?"
Rephrase that.
If I am suffering, my usual reaction is to try to get out of that state of discomfort.
but it doesnt follow logically that I ought to, and nor does it follow logically that others ought to seek to avoid suffering as a whole.
Youre making two leaps.
InvincibleNumanist 3 weeks ago
@InvincibleNumanist Is there a particular fallacy this would fall under? I would argue this is simple cause and effect. Suffering is the cause and eliminating the suffering is the effect.
DeterministicOne 3 weeks ago
@DeterministicOne
Youre confusing two types of causes. Cause in terms of intention, and cause in terms of causality.
InvincibleNumanist 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeterministicOne
Youre confusing two types of causes. Cause in terms of intention, and cause in terms of causality.
InvincibleNumanist 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
GompCelticPL 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ontologistics Don't attack the church of morality. They are more deluded than Muslim terrorist, have more power than the Catholic Pope, and better legal teams than Scientology.
GompCelticPL 3 weeks ago
@Ontologistics Also both those things you claim Harris can't overcome he addresses in the first chapter. Science gives answers we though impossible a decade ago, technology is an amazing thing. No please be so kind as to pull your head out of your own ass and see how humans have advanced since those philosophical idea's you mentioned were coined.
grahamgeons 2 days ago
@IntheDudeWeTrust
Suffering matters to you, and it matters to many other people too. Nihilism isn't the claim that people don't have ethical preferences. It's the claim that there's no objective ground for those preferences.
perfectibility999 3 weeks ago
Morality is what we call our own personal preferences when we want to inflict them on others.
Chuck1863 3 weeks ago
he shall experience the truth of that thing we call being.
F1ghtclub2k11 3 weeks ago
Good Stuff any true intellectually honest atheist will have to come to the conclusion that nihilism is the most rational stance as an atheist...or the atheist if he indeed has courage to follow logic and rationality down to the abyss will nevertheless come back a nihilist and shook to the core about his realizations...then if he has even more courgae he can try to overcome his nihilism via thought and intellect and still yet if he has the courage to acknowledge that thought has limitations
F1ghtclub2k11 3 weeks ago
Is neo-nihilism a choice? It seems to me that the typical atheist worldview excludes the possibility of free will and without free will, there are no real choices. So within an atheistic worldview (or a Calvinist one, which is remarkably similar) neo-nihilism would not be considered a choice. But if anything is a choice (if you believe in free will / metaphysical libertarianism) then neo-nihilism is a choice.
MrBenMcLean 2 months ago
A very good overview of why I reject atheism. For me, the existence of an objective ethics (prescription) is an axiomatic premise (foundationalism: a basic belief, an epistemological faith) and theism or atheism is the negotiable thing: the thing needing to be proved. Watch my videos on "The Abolition of Man" on my channel for more on these subjects! :D
MrBenMcLean 2 months ago
"Even perception itself is valuation", I'm not sure what you meant by that. Perhaps you should unpack this in a video. Are you referring to pragmatism, or Schopenhauer and Nietzsches adaptive idea of perception, with the will/evolution determining our perception of the external world?
InvincibleNumanist 2 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist I think he means that if you go down the street you will notice those things which you like and/or expect to see slightly faster than those you dislike and/or do not expect to see.
MysticOfTheSands 2 months ago
You say that we ought not follow incorrect ethical systems, but you yourself cannot bridge the is/ought gap. Any goal is equally arbitrary and in the end equally devoid of meaning or purpose. Why put on the pretense? In the end we are but ignorant apes screeching incoherently in order to distract ourselves from the inevitably devouring abyss.
nathan37354 2 months ago
@nathan37354
"You say that we ought not follow incorrect ethical systems"
No he didnt.
InvincibleNumanist 2 months ago
Ultimately, you have not at all disproved anything said in this video. You have merely asserted a form of Platonism, something I reject.
Ontologistics 3 months ago
@Ontologistics "merely asserted a form of Platonism, something I reject."
Well then, this would hinge I suppose more fundamentally on Platonism. I would argue on a very basic level that Platonism is just "the idea that there are ideas," which would make it true by definition. In a sense I can't help but not be a Platonist -all my ideas are ideas.
Though people often like the Godel's theorem argument better: watch?v=Swl0Pl4rURo
BTW this kind of reasoning is why Godel himself was Platonist.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
I think you're playing 'definitional retreat': you've altered the definition of Platonism to such a degree that it's lost its original, essential meaning.
I think it would be more reasonable to argue a panpsychism emerged from what you wrote, rather than a panentheism.
But all of this rests on mere definitions.
Ontologistics 3 months ago
@Ontologistics True I suppose. I guess part I defined it in this fashion was because to solve the mind/body problem we have to reduce both to something more fundamental. I reduced it to information (either empirical or mental), which if you think about it I can only really think of information having a Platonic type of existence.
Scrap the term "Platonism" perhaps though, just use "moments of experience" we can still have moments of experience of "goodness" and "evilness."
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
If you say that platonism is just the proposition that ideas exist, well, then it's just a statement of fact. This doesn't get you past the is-ought gap.
Also, platonism is not just the proposition that ideas exist. It's an ontological account of ideas that locates certain "ideas" - universals - in a non-spatiotemporal realm. So the definition of platonism that you're using is idiosyncratic.
perfectibility999 3 weeks ago
@JohananRaatz
You're conflating the platonist notion of universals with the mental stirrings in your head. They're two different things. Platonism maintains that some of those mental stirrings are "memories" of unworldly non-spatiotemporal ideas, in other words, that some special intuitive capacity of your mind links some of your mental stirrings to the supposed platonic reality.
perfectibility999 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@perfectibility999 "that some special intuitive capacity of your mind links some of your mental stirrings to the supposed platonic reality."
Yes, but they all ultimately originate from this. Second order ideas come when you combine intrinsic Platonic elements -like "a mathematically square shape" "brownness" and "roughness" etc. give you the idea of a wooden board. The wooden board is just a mental stirring, the component parts are intrinsic innate Platonic entities though.
JohananRaatz 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
Anyway, I don't think we really need to get into a debate on justification of atheism and/or theism. There's just something about youtube comments that causes it always to end up badly for both sides; leaving everyone angry and disappointed.
Satarack 3 months ago
@Satarack
Okay, let's leave that old debate - needless to say I disagree with your stated cosmological argument; moreover, the Big Bang Theory itself is now very debatable.
Anyway, thanks for your comments.
Ontologistics 3 months ago
Yet for the atheist who has rejected faith in God as irrational, they would be hypocrites not to reject faith in all other forms. An atheist cannot believe in Utilitarianism, Humanism, or any other moral system as anything more than a matter of preference. An atheist can follow a system of moral if he so chooses; but it is not that he knows it to be true, or even that he believes it to be true, merely that it is the system he likes the best.
Satarack 3 months ago
@Satarack
Yes, that's my point. (Neo-)Nihilism follows from atheism. But you are still irrational in believing in God.
Ontologistics 3 months ago
@Ontologistics Well on that I would respectfully disagree. I believe that there are logical arguments that give sufficient reason to justify my belief. Such as the argument for a supernatural origin for the big bang. All that we know from physics and cosmology tells us that not only was matter and energy created in the big bang, but the very dimensions and laws of the universe itself. The universe was created at that moment, any naturalist explanation would be a circular argument.
Satarack 3 months ago
@Satarack "know from physics..."
Actually you might be interested to know that according to quantum gravity space-time actually emerges from a network of quantum information (not matter or energy) at the Planck scale: watch?v=4NP4QmrbBww
As for the mechanism that produced/"spoke" this quantum information it was necessarily the self-collapse of the wave-function of the universe (Hawking's "Phi"). Now guess what? According to Penrose's Orch-OR model self-collapsing wave-functions are minds! :D
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
So as a Theist, I completely concur with this video's assessment of life without a belief in God. From facts, we might be able to explain how those facts came to be; but we cannot say why they should have come to be simply because they did. In the end, any belief in objective value, regardless of what the basis for that value is, is necessarily an act of faith. A Utilitarian has faith in value from utility; a humanist has faith in value from human traits. A Theist has faith in value from God.
Satarack 3 months ago
For every value derived from observation, there is an observation of the contrary, and a question of why the observation need be valuable at all.
If I say incest is wrong; and present the universal rejection of incest in humanity; perhaps this is true for humans. Yet bee and ant reproduction is exclusively incestuous, so we have contrary evidence that it is necessarily true of anything other than humans. And why should things that are universal of humans be valuable?
Satarack 3 months ago
The principle of utility does not come from the fact that we seek pleasure and avoid pain.
It is an axiom. Self-evident... unprovable.
All knowledge begins with self-evident axioms.
otakurocklee 4 months ago
@otakurocklee
If it is self-evident it is thereby proved. But the principle of utility is not self-evident as its opposite is not a contradiction.
Ontologistics 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ontologistics (part 1) "But the principle of utility is not self-evident as its opposite is not a contradiction."
You can also have innate Platonic knowledge as self-evident truths. Non-contradiction isn't the only basis for self-evident truths.
I am aware that good and evil exist -even if we differ on what to put in those categories- as I can think of them, and for me to be able to think of them, they must pre-exist.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@Ontologistics (part 2)Isn't the link between neo-nihilism and atheism a demonstration that atheism if true is in fact a dangerous truth,and that therefore the bulk of society should be kept safe with noble lies like religion?
You say that morality is merely a system of control,but if neo-nihilism is really true,then I think to control might be something I would really enjoy.There's certainly nothing diabolical about wanting that right?I mean if God is dead then there isn't a Devil either.3:D
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
'Dangerous' according to what set of values? What sanctions the belief that 'society should be kept safe'?
Danger and Safety are loaded terms.
Ontologistics 3 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@Ontologistics There are 2 answers to that.
1.) Assuming Platonic categories of good and evil exist, they must fit rationalistically into the larger system of reality. This being the case one could use something like the Categorical Imperative to test if a given rule stated as good must be defined as evil in the larger system. All rules that don't contradict like this would be good -and it would be dangerous to these.
2.) Mine! (and I am very political with what morality I like to enforce)
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Why assume such an unlikely theory? Plato himself questioned it in his later works. Kant's Categorical Imperative is also fundamentally flawed, as pointed out especially by Schopenhauer, a neo-Kantian.
Ontologistics 3 months ago
@Ontologistics I will check into Schopenhauer, though if the critique is the Kant's CI is a construct detached from reality, I've thought of this problem already. My solution is to apply Korsgaard and say that the CI must work within some identity to make sense, and then I further argue that this identity is the same as Aristotle's "logos."
As for Plato, the third man argument can be solved with Platonic monism, and I can argue very strongly from this position from physics and Godel's theorem.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
You'll find Schopenhauer's critique in his essay, 'On the Basis of Ethics'. It is not what you assume.
I cannot see how 'Physics' and Gödel's incompleteness theorem can uphold the Platonic Theory of Forms. Moreover, Plato used the theory of Forms to argue for Dualism, not monism (see, e.g. the Phaedo).
Ontologistics 3 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Sounds like H. Stapp's theory - who used Whitehead's Idealism. In fact, Schopenhauer is also a neutral monist in a sense. However, Schopenhauer was an atheist and refuted normative morality: our prima facie differences.
Ontologistics 3 months ago
@Ontologistics I did see you had a video on double-aspect theory, which I liked. Though I think (and I will do a video on this in the future -Informationalist Metaphysics) it can be argued that consciousness is implicit in all moments of experience, and that moments of experience are (and I'll argue can be) all there is. And so a kind of panentheism would fall out as a natural consequence. (This would be completely compatible with physics though -in particular "It from bit," and Wigner's friend.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
I notice that you're a theist. Schopenhauer was the one who said "Christianity is Platonism for the people', which makes me now suspect your underlying motives!
Ontologistics 3 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ontologistics (Part 1) I'm not a classical Platonist. I hold to a kind of Neoplatonism or Platonic monism, which is similar to Whitehead-style neutral monism.
"I cannot see how 'Physics' and Gödel's incompleteness
Well it has to do with the Penrose-Lucas theorem. Assuming substance dualism is false, then this theorem tells us that the moments of experience we observe in wave-function collapse (the DCQE tells us there's no matter behind them) must be Platonic info. It's Tegmark's math monism.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@Ontologistics (Part 2) Well it's no secret that one of the reasons people like my channel is for my Universal Orch-OR argument. I mean I practically advertise it.
Sure it's a deity, but it's still naturalistic! (and when I emailed Stuart Hameroff, he liked it and told me to look up an Italian physicist named Paola Zizzi, who had a similar idea called The Big Wow.)
And yes there are noticeable connections between Platonism and Christianity, but that's not really an argument against either.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
What's your view on non-cognitivism?
StatelessLiberty 4 months ago
Comment removed
jabbatherabba 5 months ago
Whilst its true that we cannot deduce an “ought” from nothing but “is” statements; it doesn't follow that facts cannot inform our values. Some combination of conceptual and empirical premises may, for example, yield normative conclusions based on a naturalised meta-ethics that is neither an example of relativism nor humanism.
wisdominnature7 5 months ago
@wisdominnature7
I'd say fact can inform our subjective values (i.e. means to your personal ends), but this can only be a form of relativism.
Ontologistics 5 months ago
I don't agree because I know how to bridge the gap with a normative statement.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
@AEVautomatic
Lol, hello there. Please bridge the gap for me then. You've been failing to do so constantly in your arguments with me. Is there some secret weapon youve been holding back this whole time? Please enlighten me.
InvincibleNumanist 2 months ago
How does this Neo-Nihilism differ from Existentialism?
VicariousViewer 5 months ago
One post failed to post. Ah. Point was that you aren't analyzing human desire. The ought must derive from the primary and ultimate desire living deep within the human heart. It cannot be and is not an arbitrary standard chosen merely to give us something to do. For Christians, this ultimate desire is reconciliation and unity with God; God is the goal, so to speak. For Nietzsche, it's an undetermined Ubermensch who is merely an empty idea. Ought, then, is not understood as an imposition.
crewalpha 6 months ago
constructs. The is/ought split is explained by the Abrahamic religions as the outcome of the Fall of Man, which is a weighty and tough subject to approach. But regardless, you should look over act/potency and understand them in the context of knowing the highest good. Communism attempted to supplant God and creating a burden with no real purpose. We cannot understand is/ought without knowing what it is that human nature strives for. The ultimate, true desire gives us ought.
crewalpha 6 months ago
So, your version of "realpolitik" is your answer? If so, then we have not really answered the question, mainly because we haven't determined the source of those cultural values we hold. You're essentially taking a somewhat Nietzschean view in that it doesn't matter what you will, just will (which is nonsense, because will is an appetite determined by the mind, one which directs itself towards the good). Aquinas (and Aristotle) discuss the natural inclination for human to value the Good, which...
crewalpha 6 months ago
Mind-games are not completely meaningless, they determine the ways humans cooperate or interact, and are significant for the perpetuation and prosperity of human societies.
It is loop, going from physical to social to physical and so on; the social and physical are inseparably connected for humans whether they know it or not.
So, there exists a is/ought hybrid; may be our language is not suited to describe it.
Like the wave/particle nature of electrons.
osheaad 7 months ago
@osheaad Wow, waves and particles? Armchair intellectualization par excellence, eh? You assume prosperity as your premise from which you derive all else. But what is prosperity? For example, perhaps I hate feeling bad and feel terrible in a society where material satisfaction is guaranteed (and suicide rates are indeed high in places where this is the case) . One must define prosperity here.
crewalpha 6 months ago
Comment removed
osheaad 7 months ago
The function of the physical world is to emulate the conditions that allow the social world to continue prosperously.
The function of the social world is to manage human relations when persons and people meet and must share or battle for a resource.
osheaad 7 months ago
What you perceive is a construct of the mind, the mind attaches imperatives; morality is a game of the mind, humanity is a game of the mind, ethics is a game of the mind.
These games have atoms that can only be found in the human mind, to look out at the objective is to evaluate how to use (like tools) the physical environment to emulate the conditions that allow our mind-games to operate peacefully and undisturbed.
I'd propose that ethics, humanity are meaningful only in the social world.
osheaad 7 months ago
I stated that I do not think there is an absolute existent right or moral imperative. Only the intellectually honest recognition that as humans, IF we are to be happy and productive, we must be rational and obey the universe, if we are to 'command' it. You are right that if we have no goals, then there is nothing we ought to do. In that sense, there is no absolute need. If we wish to be alive, we must breath. We don't literally have to breath. Only if we are to live.
MCTMD1 8 months ago
If we wish to be happy, as the vast majority of healthy people do, then we will be so only in as much as we serve our rational self-interests. If we wish to be happy and productive, then an egoistic code of behavior is needed. This is actually how it is done whether someone's mystical explicit ethical code is altruism or whether they don't have one, as in nihilism.
MCTMD1 8 months ago
Our brains are designed to find happiness, which is dependent on rationality. It is the only value that is obtained for its own sake. It is the final goal for which all others are sought. The IS/OUGHT dichotomy is not a problem if you simply understand that IF you want X, you must do Y. It matters not that you musn't do Y across the board.
MCTMD1 8 months ago
@MCTMD1
How do you prove that "our brains are designed to find happiness"? Nietzsche, for example, would disagree, arguing that happiness is a byproduct of power. Even if it were true, though, it still wouldn't mean that anyone contravening that principle ought not to. Furthermore, our own happiness might very well imply others' unhappiness, thereby refuting any egalitarian morality.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics
I believe a formal proof of it is a waste of time, almost like proving that 1+1=2. It is apparent that anything and everything anybody ever does is done so in that person's perceived self interest, even when it looks, from the perspective of the mystic, as an altruistic act, it is still always done on behalf of the chooser. If you take a bullet for your daughter it is still in YOUR interest, your perceived happiness. Power gives one the means to gain happiness.
MCTMD1 8 months ago
The better you can manipulate your environment or act in a way to make the world you see into the world you want, the happier you will be. There is no reason to do anything at all, if it doesn't contribute towards the doer's perceived happiness. This is just the way reality is set up. I do not espouse anything egalitarian, other than individual rights, based on the fact that we all have singular consciousnesses and IF we are to be happy and productive, ..........
MCTMD1 8 months ago
we will be so only in as much as we are able to act in our own perceived rational self-interest. What one person considers at the top of his values is his business and will be different than everyone else's. This recognition of a causal noncontradictory singular nature of the mind and the necessity that IF we want, which every healthy relatively free brain will, to be happy and productive, then we must use reason to act in our own rational self-interest. IS/OUGHT/IF.
MCTMD1 8 months ago
We, our causal nature, assign meaning or ought to what is, only when we have a goal, and that goal is happiness. If we are to be happy, we must use rationality. I agree with you that there is no absolute morality. Only human morality. Our achieving happiness through acting in our rational self-interest does not essentially including trampling on other's rights.
MCTMD1 8 months ago
When people are mistaken and think that force and fraud can be a means to happiness, they should be put in prison, for it would be a violation of individual rights. And individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. Law dictated by the nature of reality. Human nature is not that complicated. If you want to suffer, then do evil, and if you want to be happy, then do good. Something is moral or good if it does, in fact contribute to the happiness of the individual.
MCTMD1 8 months ago
Something is immoral if it contributes to its suffering. Morality concerns the choices an individual makes and how it is related to their happiness. If you wish to give credence to a person who acts in an immoral fashion, because the world is such that they can, fine, but after a while, you must realize that evil is the opposite of what is moral and shouldn't be given weight, even if a billion people think it should.
MCTMD1 8 months ago
And I must add that what is moral is what is rational as it pertains to the individual because knowledge can be the only reliable guide to successful action and reason is the only path to knowledge.
MCTMD1 8 months ago
@MCTMD1
nope, thats just utilitarianism and it was dealt with in this video
SecularNumanist 7 months ago
@SecularNumanist
Utilitarianism has an arbitrary standard of utility. Egoism is concerned with achieving happiness of the self. Not just the greatest good in respect to whatever arbitrary priority of the decider, but rational SELF-interest. What is moral is so, if it is in the rational self interest of the individual, not some arbitrary unidentifiable greater good. Morality concerns the self because of the structure of the brain and the singular nature of consciousness and decision making.
MCTMD1 7 months ago
While I don't disagree with most of this video and I loathe cultural relativism, I do believe that we can logically come to the conclusion that, while there are no absolute rights, logic can lead us to a moral code that recognizes that, IF we are to be happy and productive, THEN respecting individual rights is moral since, by nature, the necessarily singular mind makes moral decisions on its own behalf, whether or not toward a compassionate end for another. Consistent altruism is impossible.
MCTMD1 8 months ago
@MCTMD1
Well your consistent altruism is simply another hypothetical imperative and therefore subjective: IF (as you say) you want everyone to be happy and productive, THEN you ought to respect rights (etc). But IF you don't want that then there is no ought.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
@Ontologistics Why did you respond to that bad of a run on sentence?
Evaporator134a 5 months ago
@Ontologistics And even if you couldnt bridge it how does that prove any random choice like "neo-nihilism?"
Evaporator134a 5 months ago
@Evaporator134a
because neo nihilism isnt a choice, its a rejection of the others
InvincibleNumanist 2 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist We have known these claims to be wrong for quite some time. Look at the software you are using now. Quoting Hume on this subject is inane.
Evaporator134a 1 month ago
@Evaporator134a
Which claims? The claim that "neo nihilism isnt a choice"? How was that disproven?
And bringing up technology sounds like an appeal to naive realism, but even if it wasnt it still has nothing to do with metaethics...
And I never mentioned Hume...
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
I was all 3 enlightened, entertained, and annoyed by this piece :) I have come to similar quarrels with Humanism in that it seems to assume modern, primarily western, and generalized human qualities as the universal good. I have more thoughts brewing on the matter now. Thank you for that. A quibble I have is that the delivery lends toward a dark, snobby tone than I think would be less representative of it's own message. But hey, that's subjective ;)
toddfrazie 8 months ago
like the content of your vid. but would be better without the music and echo effects (in my humble opinion, obviously)
rwtj01 9 months ago
So what exactly is the difference between nihilism and neo-nihilism now?
xknowledgeisfreex 9 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex
That the latter accepts the efficacy and existence of (subjective) values.
Ontologistics 9 months ago
Without Criticism how can we ever evolve intellectually ? some people can’t handle Criticism and become offended not realizing Criticism is a good thing. Not realizing that Criticism is a sign of challenging there ideology they let there ego take over. I do realize that Criticism can cause harm if not used responsibly. I do admit I had my ego take over before. Do to lack of understanding.
boogerfly100 9 months ago
if murder is ok, then kill yourself
splifsend 9 months ago
@splifsend
how does that follow exactly?
SecularNumanist 9 months ago
"Universal morality" is an absurd notion, which need not be 'applicable to all' (as some on this comment page have argued). Morality is based on sentiment, which is rooted in an individual's subjective opinions. The law of 'non-contradiction' is of no relevance to the discussion of morality, as this law is related to reason/logic. This distinction is clearly found in the work of Hume, and is quite nicely articulated in this video.
MetusInfinitas 9 months ago
If you actually watch my video, you'll see I don't only use Hume - just the bits that are correct. Your ad hom attack merely reveals your terrible argument. Again, prove to me your clause, "applicable to all" if you want to be taken seriously.
Ontologistics 9 months ago
Comment removed
MetusInfinitas 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ontologistics An unprovable clause, which is rightly pointed out in this video. It is a shame that many are equating sentiment with rules of logic. Perhaps these viewers need to re-watch the video and listen more carefully. Thank you for posting this. Should I expect more insightful commentaries in the future?
MetusInfinitas 9 months ago
I have a real problem with your statement that morality isnt based on reason but on sentiment.
From a pure logical standpoint that is a logical fallacy and here is why. Theres such a thing as objective morality. Morality is not just based on your view of the situation but in most parts actually evolved and inherited from society as a whole.
The default position for life is alive which makes life better than death purely from a objective perspective.
To prefer death to life is contrary to reason
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife Could you explain in more detail why life is 'better' than death?
It seems to be an assumption that the 'default position for life is alive'.
If this is an assumption it can not be an objective fact that 'To prefer death to life is contrary to reason'. And if this is true, what would 'objective morality' be based on?
If morality 'evolves' or is 'inherited', it woud be constantly changing. So who decides what it actually is at any given moment? Do we guess?
butimjustbored 9 months ago in playlist Philosophy Vids
@butimjustbored First: I believe in positive aggressive atheism, but I have a huge problem with most some philosophy out there especially nihilism or rather the so-called nihilists ie. internet atheists butchering of philosophy in general and nihilism in particular in their eagerness to appear intellectual.Had this discussion before with the user BionicDance and she actually managed to provide the philosophical proof for life after death ie. Heaven ie. Christianity ie. God and she's an atheist!
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
@butimjustbored I know that Nihilism have a problem with anything objective. I believe that definitions are objective or else words do not have meaning. By definitions I means a set off objective criteria on which you can base on which you can base your subjective opinion. If definitions are not objective then if said water you thought off sausage and that made sense somehow.
How we define life is by a set of objective criteria or attributes and a collection of dead cells do not constitute life
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
@butimjustbored In regards to Life then ALIVE is objectively better than DEAD simply because alive is the default position to life or the definition off life and death are the same and you have broken Aristotle's law off non contradiction. So its alive and not alive and not alive is what we objectively define as dead.
Morality is the intellectual scales on which you weigh actions or principles and decide if they are right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse.
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
@butimjustbored Morality evolves because not all morality are based purely on objective criteria nor is it consistent or even not conflicting. It stems from education and enlightenment. The objective morality or moral truth if you may are based on the definitions.
Thats why the Bible advocates slavery and the barbaric killing off everyone not sharing your views and yet "love thy neighbor" is their slogan.
So if objective morality criteria do not exist then we just guess and we dont..
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife Please explain why the existence of life itself (ie. 'default position'), is objectively better than death.
Which aspects of morality are based on 'objective criteria'?
Could you give some specific examples?
How can we all agree on the 'definitions' if we all have intrinsically different viewpoints based on individual 'education and enlightenment'?
I posit that it is impossible for everyone to agree on any 'objective morality criteria'.
Morality MUST be subjective.
butimjustbored 9 months ago in playlist Philosophy Vids
@butimjustbored We do have the need for objective definition because of the point you raised about "intrinsically different viewpoints". I would argue that the difference in subjective definitions are so minute that they reasonably could be called a collective objective definition. Otherwise words would have no meaning and communication be pointless.
We do have a common objective definition of water H2O in all its forms.
We also have that for being alive, for being happy or free.
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
@butimjustbored I now feel that you're purposely misreading or not understanding the very simple explanation I gave regarding LIFE. I didnt say life is better than death did i? "In regards to Life then ALIVE is objectively better than DEAD simply because alive is the default position..."
Since you do not believe we have objective criteria or a definition for life or death, how can establish if anything is dead?
You have in fact just dismantled science as a whole with your statement...
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
@butimjustbored I think you're completely missing the point on objective morality and the criteria on which we base that.
The objective criteria for which you can determine if you're alive are such as heartbeat, brain function, nerve response, bodily functions, metabolism etc. So if you value being alive over being dead thats the objective criteria you base your objective morality of being alive on. It follows that you value people not depriving you of those functions ie not killing you.
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
@butimjustbored I dont know how else to simplify it in 500 characters or less. I mean if philosophers only had 500 characters on which to base their argument philosophy would have never left the ground.
If you do not understand what an objective criteria might be on which we base our definitions and why definitions are thought of as objective just like words have "meaning" then I cant help you.
If you believe that definitions of words are purely subjective then life=death is reasonable to you!
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
@butimjustbored and if you want to use logic you have to follow the laws of logic. If you want to have reason then you have to avoid logical fallacies. If you want to have any kind of meaning then you have to be consistent and adhere to Aristotle's law of non-contradiction.
Those are some of the objective criteria on which to base an argument and objective morality.
If you claim that definitions are purely subjective and fluid then they can in fact be contrary and therefor a logical fallacy.
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
I did not doubt that morality in parts evolved and is inherited from society. But this is DESCRIPTIVE morality, from which one cannot logically derive PRESCRIPTIVE morality.
I think you wrote this without actually listening to the video - you just spouted your preconceived ideas.
Ontologistics 9 months ago
@Ontologistics I believe its perfectly reasonable to derive some prescriptive morality from descriptive morality.
If you value being alive over being dead (descriptive) you out not to kill (prescriptive). Heres why:
The objective values your build your morality on have to be universally true and applicable to all. Meaning they value being alive as much as you. Therefor if you kill someone you've legalized them killing you which goes against you values of being alive. So you out not to kill.
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife:
Your errors: "IF you value being alive over being dead" is a conditional - i.e. subjective, therefore not prescriptive. Those with suicidal tendencies, for example, will not value that.
Secondly, even if you do value your own life over death, this does not mean that you value other people's lives over their deaths.
Thirdly, as the last two points show, there can be no objective morality - so your statement is meaningless. You need to discard this faith you have.
Ontologistics 9 months ago
@Ontologistics First of all I do not have any faith to discard because I am an atheist.
Secondly any value, logic argument or morals have to adhere to the laws of logic and non-contradiction and be universally true and applicable to all. Making a moral argument that contains a contradiction is a logical fallacy and therefor invalid.
According to you its perfectly reasonable to have conflicting value, double standards and morality that do not adhere to the law of non-contradiction.
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
But you do have a faith in objective morality, which is as illogical as faith in religion.
And here's your fourth error: morals do not at all have to adhere to the laws of logic nor be universally true. Hume disproved this. To say they do is akin to saying that one's emotions must adhere to the laws of logic! If you define morality as being necessarily universal then you beg the question.
It is perfectly reasonable to have conflicting values as values are subjective.
Ontologistics 9 months ago
@Ontologistics It appears to me that you have somehow replaced God with Hume and know you're blindly parroting everything you believe him to say just like religious people parrot their God.
Your argument is pure appeal to authority and therefor a logical fallacy.
Have you ever considered that Hume might be wrong on something or is that completely unlikely to you?
Its not completely reasonable to have conflicting values in an age of reason and thats why slavery was banned!
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago