Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

aelfrictr t1_iw34ugn wrote

Oh poor humans. The innate need to chase a kind of meaning where one is identified as something bigger than life. Because something must be different because we were here right? We must matter!

News flash, we don't. But it doesn't have to mean despair and follow a feeling of defeat. Just try to be immortal with the memories and pieces you leave behind. But it will never be enough for some, that I can see as well.

−11

smurficus103 t1_iw35czz wrote

If your whole tribe died, it would be a lot easier to keep pushing forward with some sense of divinity. It may be out of necessity, in some situations.

7

ridgecoyote t1_iw3gh3g wrote

Ah yes, there is no meaning of life, there’s no purpose in evolution, free will is a myth, all the common tropes of MORONISM - the Metaphysics of Randomness as Ontological Necessity.

I encounter lit often on Reddit. Not so much a philosophy tho as a psychological reaction. A way of thinking that projects: Thou shalt have no other gods other than me.

−1

aelfrictr t1_iw485v2 wrote

I don't think we interact with reality in its pure form at all so talking about free will and randomness is whole another debate. Although you are aggressive with your assumptions about me I don't think what I wrote was psychological reaction. All I am saying is we are not content without objective purpose en masse and that causes issues.

Humans in my humble estimation including me inherently weak because they had to be ignorant in some things to survive this long.

2

ridgecoyote t1_iw49vkh wrote

If I sound aggressive, it’s not because I’m railing against you, but a philosophical stance I find facile and ill-thought. Your reply just gave me a chance to unload something that’s been stirring inside.

There ARE problems with your statement- for one it assumes an objective reality outside of ourselves

  • independent of our observation or interaction. The refuting of this idea would take longer than I have right now, but suffice it to say that there is nothing to logical stand on there.

As far as humans being weak, I’ll just have to ask, compared to what?

−1

VitriolicViolet t1_iw4ot0i wrote

>There ARE problems with your statement- for one it assumes an objective reality outside of ourselves

thats not a problem.

frankly onus is on you to demonstrate that universe is mind-dependent. assuming the universe exists is a perfectly fine assumption, more so then fucking solipsism anyway.

3

ridgecoyote t1_iw8049a wrote

."Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object." C.S. Peirce

The problem with your “assumption “ (it’s actually more of a postulate) about a mind- independent world (and I assume you follow this from a scientifically oriented worldview ) Is the way one tends to reify one’s conception as if it’s absolutely real. This is The problem of our modern day. Josiah Royce in his biggest work, The World and the Individual, described it as the common metaphysical stance, but no real thinker can hold it for long because of its inherent self contradictions. “

However to make a fully supported argument would take more space than we have time for in this forum, and besides, my philosophical heroes do a better job than I. A good intro would be RM Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

1

aelfrictr t1_iw4mor8 wrote

Compared to our potential. Time and time again I see we will never achieve it fully. And it's not helping our social structures does not reward certain actions compared to short sighted unfiltered goals.

I think there is objective reality but we lack the tools to interact with it in it's complete form because it wasn't really useful for our survival within our evolutionary process. An interface of simplified perception was way more energy efficient to stay alive and still achieved the purpose of reproduction. This interface called body has enough senses to ask the right questions and look for answers up to certain point but at the same time is not satisfying if you gathered enough independently tested scientific knowledge.

I'm sorry I couldn't write a lot as I am at my phone, I will try to explain better when I get to my pc. I will try to do my best to understand your position that triggered a reaction by my words.

2

ridgecoyote t1_iw83gxw wrote

So what defines our potential? The Bible? Mein Kampf? Scientology? You? Whatever ideals you’ve assimilated , the fact of Human potential is the potential to destroy life on the planet and while I’d say that’s pretty stupid, it’s certainly not weak.

The intellectual problems that come with asserting an objective reality are myriad but I’m happy to continue the discussion at a leisurely pace. William James said that he didn’t see how a philosophical club or society would be possible when it takes so much patience to define terms and understand the others. If you have the time and patience, so do I.

1

arkticturtle t1_iw44nxg wrote

I think it can go the other way though. Free will can be criticized by appealing to randomness or order.

1

ridgecoyote t1_iw4ayjg wrote

Free will cannot be criticized because criticism itself is dependent upon a will to truth. People talk about free will like it’s such absolutist terms - if there is any environmental constraint or causes, then how can I be free? Freedom, like truth and gravity and substance, is a relative thing. We seek more freedom, we evolve towards freedom and if we are constrained, we struggle against those constraints. It IS possible to choose to confine ourselves or others with our beliefs, but at some point we used our free will to adopt those beliefs.

−4

arkticturtle t1_iw4wpxu wrote

That doesn't really address much. How is the will somehow outside the realm of causality? Why do you think that is the case?

3

ridgecoyote t1_iw7veqd wrote

Causality as such doesn’t exactly exist outside of the will. It’s a tool of human thought used to help us understand the world.

1

arkticturtle t1_iw85u0p wrote

Why do you think so?

1

ridgecoyote t1_iw87byp wrote

Because I’m a Pragmatist.

From wiki:

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.

1

arkticturtle t1_iw891r8 wrote

Then how do you make sense of anything whatsoever?

What is being predicted other than reality?

If cause and effect are incorrect then why am I able to repeat experiments and how does change occur?

1

VitriolicViolet t1_iw4olm9 wrote

i mean there is no meaning to 'life' other then reproduction (its on you to choose a meaning), evolution by definition has no purpose (if it doesnt stop you having kids its considered 'good' in evolution) and free will exists (the definitions used by philosophers are useless. libertarian free will is patently absurd, as is the idea that just because the universe is determined that all choices are magically not choices).

half the 'debates' here are far more moronic that half the shit the edgy atheists spew out.

−3

ridgecoyote t1_iw80x5k wrote

I wish downvotes were used a bit more sparingly in the Philosophy sub. I mean is the main idea of philosophical discussion limiting things you disagree with? Maybe that’s where moronic arguments come from.

1