Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2014, 04:08 PM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(08-10-2014 09:42 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No, there's plenty of topics discussed here upon the meaning of life in many types of questioning, and never overall dismissed for not being science. You're continually disingenuous which makes responding to any attempted serious topic of yours not respectable.

Mainly your threads and ideas were dismissed because of your consistency arrogant attitude of proclaiming you already have answers figured out but yet you don't seem to be confide in them or you rather would be intellectually dishonest.
I don't understand. I am arrogant for being certain about things derived logically from the first principles (Aristotle + Kant) but other people are not arrogant for using a plenty of worst insults. Dodgy

Virtue leads to happiness and happiness is the purpose of life. I thought that is the standard Aristotelian curriculum and I go along with that. The question is, what is virtue. I have determined that virtue is thinking, acting and talking in a moral, principled way, that is, with integrity (consistency, logic, reason), universality (rejecting made-up rules that aren't universal), and promoting freedom. I find that a very meaningful and satisfying thing to do and to talk about - but one of the most difficult things. This stuff costs people relationships that they thought were viable. It's nothing short of brutal on ourselves, in this world and society. But it's objective and it's meaningful thing to do in life, so there's that. So far, I haven't seen a better answer, if I did, I'd adopt it just like I did this one.


One jab I'll repeat, EK claims that there is a spectrum, continuum or grey area between approval or disapproval of shooting or arrest of some people. Well, I say there is no middle ground between being in jail and not being in jail, or being shot or not being shot, so there can be no middle ground in attitudes towards it. What does it mean? Getting grazed by bullets? Putting one foot in cage and one out? "Middle ground" is an empty phrase, nobody actually provides an objective definition for it.
Thus I send the trolls into the hell of cognitive dissonance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2014, 04:11 PM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
"Thus I send the trolls into the hell of cognitive dissonance."


Lumi are you trying to cast a curse?
Cause you suck at it.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(08-10-2014 04:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 09:42 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No, there's plenty of topics discussed here upon the meaning of life in many types of questioning, and never overall dismissed for not being science. You're continually disingenuous which makes responding to any attempted serious topic of yours not respectable.

Mainly your threads and ideas were dismissed because of your consistency arrogant attitude of proclaiming you already have answers figured out but yet you don't seem to be confide in them or you rather would be intellectually dishonest.
I don't understand. I am arrogant for being certain about things derived logically from the first principles (Aristotle + Kant) but other people are not arrogant for using a plenty of worst insults. Dodgy

Virtue leads to happiness and happiness is the purpose of life. I thought that is the standard Aristotelian curriculum and I go along with that. The question is, what is virtue. I have determined that virtue is thinking, acting and talking in a moral, principled way, that is, with integrity (consistency, logic, reason), universality (rejecting made-up rules that aren't universal), and promoting freedom. I find that a very meaningful and satisfying thing to do and to talk about - but one of the most difficult things. This stuff costs people relationships that they thought were viable. It's nothing short of brutal on ourselves, in this world and society. But it's Yeaobjective and it's meaningful thing to do in life, so there's that. So far, I haven't seen a better answer, if I did, I'd adopt it just like I did this one.


One jab I'll repeat, EK claims that there is a spectrum, continuum or grey area between approval or disapproval of shooting or arrest of some people. Well, I say there is no middle ground between being in jail and not being in jail, or being shot or not being shot, so there can be no middle ground in attitudes towards it. What does it mean? Getting grazed by bullets? Putting one foot in cage and one out? "Middle ground" is an empty phrase, nobody actually provides an objective definition for it.
Thus I send the trolls into the hell of cognitive dissonance.

Yes, because that's precisely what arrogant means. It's being exaggerated self assured in ones own methods or abilities... using various insults isn't a demonstration of arrogance. Unless they claim to be the greatest insulter.

Your problem is constantly trying to tie things down into boxes. Generalizing here or there, and in this case, thinking there should be/is a universal type answer to "the purpose of Life." I ask you seriously, why anyone would be so convinced of the principals Aristotle laid out? Is it not clear to most that these aren't some grand thoughts and concepts these days? That things don't have necessary tight fit holes, or is that too open and frightening that there must be a plot people can fill out to devise a simple and clear answer?

I find it laughable to defend an all or nothing approach.. you have to argue it by black and white scenarios. You stance says, well in random example, there is no black and white scenario, therefore no spectrum can exist... But a spectrum or open ended approach, allows these full end scenarios as well as "middleground" that you dislike. It's an open non exclusive range. I would of thought you were fine with open thought and willingly to understand that half a year ago from your old thread topics, but you seem to be too set in stone to accept anything outside your pre-believed concepts.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
08-10-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(08-10-2014 04:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  "Middle ground" is an empty phrase, nobody actually provides an objective definition for it.

"Middle Ground":
The space existing between two extremes.

QED, motherfucker.

The universe is not binary. That you are incapable of understanding that due to your own mental issues is not my problem.

I also note that you have completely failed to address your own shortcomings re: the historiography of the atomic bombing of Japan. Thus demonstrating that either you don't understand why being wrong is problematic, or you simply don't give a shit about facts.

(08-10-2014 04:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Thus I send the trolls into the hell of cognitive dissonance.

Is it hard to see the sun, when you're that far up your own asshole?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
08-10-2014, 05:16 PM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2014 05:29 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(08-10-2014 04:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes, because that's precisely what arrogant means. It's being exaggerated self assured in ones own methods or abilities... using various insults isn't a demonstration of arrogance. Unless they claim to be the greatest insulter.
Exaggerated? I don't happen to claim to be the best or the most at something, so I must ask, compared to what? If something is to be real, such as my arrogance, there must always be something in objective reality to compare it to. If there isn't, then maybe the problem is not in me.

(08-10-2014 04:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Your problem is constantly trying to tie things down into boxes. Generalizing here or there, and in this case, thinking there should be/is a universal type answer to "the purpose of Life." I ask you seriously, why anyone would be so convinced of the principals Aristotle laid out? Is it not clear to most that these aren't some grand thoughts and concepts these days? That things don't have necessary tight fit holes, or is that too open and frightening that there must be a plot people can fill out to devise a simple and clear answer?
I warn you, this stuff is difficult to understand, it's university course stuff at least.
So I won't think any lesser of you if you disagree, FSM knows I had no idea of philosophy for most of my life - and my class had most people who I think didn't really get it even after the semester of lectures. So asking you to accept something like that on spot would be quite unfair. Take it as suggestions to causally check for internal consistency.

Well, it's the Aristotelian logic 101 I was taught in university. Rational method is like programming, you can write any proposal, but you must run it through, if it does compute. There are various techniques to do that, like making up a counter-example, or using the principle of contradiction. If it does compute, then it's rationally 100 % true and absolutely accurate, because 4 is just another way of saying 2 + 2. But it's a real knowledge, nobody can deny that.

The downside of the rational method is, that it does not bring any new knowledge.
But THIS is how human mind and language works. We can generalize, we can set the boxes as you say, we can create a yard stick for measuring all reality - but there is just ONE way to do it objectively and irreducibly simply and THIS is it. There are no alternatives to the irreducible simplicity of the first principles.
There are a plenty of more complex theories, but they're all reducible on the principle of contradiction. We don't necessarily know for sure if something is true or false, but we do know it is either true or false, real things can not be true AND false at the same time in the same way. And that knowledge is absolute and generally true about the whole reality. Without this absolute certainty science and language would be impossible.
The simplest way to put it is, people who say there is no meaning and no sure way to know anything seem awfully sure in that piece of knowledge and in the sound waves that carry this meaning across to other people.

(08-10-2014 04:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I find it laughable to defend an all or nothing approach.. you have to argue it by black and white scenarios. You stance says, well in random example, there is no black and white scenario, therefore no spectrum can exist... But a spectrum or open ended approach, allows these full end scenarios as well as "middleground" that you dislike. It's an open non exclusive range. I would of thought you were fine with open thought and willingly to understand that half a year ago from your old thread topics, but you seem to be too set in stone to accept anything outside your pre-believed concepts.
Empirical knowledge always has a final word, it overrules every rational argument. The problem with empirical knowledge is, it's not general. Science has a gazillion of boxes of empirical concepts that never mix without a cause. OTOH, the Aristotelianism 101 has just one box, the first principles, which are so irreducibly simple and general, that they apply to all knowable reality and all science without exception. It's not talking about things, which are countless, it's talking about the shared properties of all things, which are very few and quite regular.

So when you use a word like "spectrum", that is not really fair. If you mean the spectrum of light, then you must talk about optics if it's visible light or physics or electronics. "Middle ground" might be a concept from geography or cartography, I suppose. Otherwise it's just another buzzword. There is no spectrum between truth or falsehood, yes or no, pairs of opposites, because rational values are not optics or geology or anything like that.

Yes, you can talk about "open-ended approach" and other metaphors, but you can never give them objective, universal meaning through logic. You can only prove it with evidence, but such evidence can never be universal, it can never apply to all people for example, so it can never be used to make moral (or political) obligations that apply to indefinite and non-specific people. Only philosophy could do that, but as you saw, it is much easier to use philosophy to reject bullshit general obligations, than to actually make new general obligations. Philosophy is about freedom, you set your own goals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2014, 05:25 PM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(08-10-2014 05:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If it does compute, then it's rationally 100 % true and absolutely accurate, because 4 is just another way of saying 2 + 2. But it's a real knowledge, nobody can deny that.

It's not true in trinary. So there's that.
(2 + 2 = 11. FACT)

But yeah, yeah, we know, you have a pathological fear of nuance and an inability to recognize context...

(08-10-2014 05:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There are no alternatives to the irreducible simplicity of the first principles.

That was insufficient before and it's insufficient now.

Intuitive feels are not special.

No, ol' Lumi, not even yours.

(08-10-2014 05:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There are a plenty of more complex theories, but they're all reducible on the principle of contradiction. We don't necessarily know for sure if something is true or false, but we do know it is either true or false, real things can not be true AND false at the same time in the same way. And that knowledge is absolute and generally true about the whole reality. Without this absolute certainty science and language would be impossible.

The fact that you added "at the same time in the same way" reveals the vacuity of your insufficient feels.

All you have stated is thus that it is possible to define things a certain way.

That is in and of itself meaningless. Congratulations?

(08-10-2014 05:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Empirical knowledge always has a final word, it overrules every rational argument.

Unless it contradicts your own personal magical dark matter ether woo woo, am I right?

(yes, I am)

(08-10-2014 05:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The problem with empirical knowledge is, it's not general. Science has a gazillion of boxes of empirical concepts that never mix without a cause. OTOH, the Aristotelianism 101 has just one box, the first principles, which are so irreducibly simple and general, that they apply to all knowable reality and all science without exception. It's not talking about things, which are countless, it's talking about the shared properties of all things, which are very few and quite regular.

So when you use a word like "spectrum", that is not really fair. If you mean the spectrum of light, then you must talk about optics if it's visible light or physics or electronics. "Middle ground" might be a concept from geography or cartography, I suppose. Otherwise it's just another metaphor. There is no spectrum between truth or falsehood, yes or no, pairs of opposites, because rational values are not optics or geology or anything like that.

Only toys are absolute. Reality is complicated. Your inability to confront that is not meangingful.

You can fantasize about semantic definitions all you like; it is not helpful in assessing the real world.

There is entirely no point to my even speaking to you, because you're too stubborn and self-absorbed to engage in any actual dialogue, but let's just pretend that's not so; I have a question for you:
how do you define 'truth'?

Feels are not an answer. Any criteria you propose exists within a constructed logical system. These are varied and variable, all your childish objections to the contrary.

(08-10-2014 05:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, you can talk about "open-ended approach" and other metaphors, but you can never give them objective, universal meaning through logic. You can only prove it with evidence, but such evidence can never be universal, it can never apply to all people for example, so it can never be used to make moral (or political) obligations that apply to indefinite and non-specific people.

It's very rich for you to speak of "evidence", when you have never once presented a legitimate citation for anything you've ever claimed...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 05:32 AM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(08-10-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's not true in trinary. So there's that.
(2 + 2 = 11. FACT)

But yeah, yeah, we know, you have a pathological fear of nuance and an inability to recognize context...
Is trinary mathematics valid? Enough to be graded at school? Yes or no. The irreducible principle of contradiction that we use to prove the existence of truth is binary Smartass

(08-10-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The fact that you added "at the same time in the same way" reveals the vacuity of your insufficient feels.

All you have stated is thus that it is possible to define things a certain way.

That is in and of itself meaningless. Congratulations?
Sure it doesn't tell us anything new, that's the rational limitation. So what? "Meaning" is a philosophical concept. You can't deny philosophy because it lacks meaning, because you need philosophy to define what is meaning Smartass

(08-10-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 05:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Empirical knowledge always has a final word, it overrules every rational argument.
Unless it contradicts your own personal magical dark matter ether woo woo, am I right?
Well, that is actually empirical knowledge. For a long time it made no sense rationally, because I lacked information.

(08-10-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Only toys are absolute. Reality is complicated. Your inability to confront that is not meangingful.

You can fantasize about semantic definitions all you like; it is not helpful in assessing the real world.

There is entirely no point to my even speaking to you, because you're too stubborn and self-absorbed to engage in any actual dialogue, but let's just pretend that's not so; I have a question for you:
how do you define 'truth'?
Yes, reality is complicated, this is why it has only a few aspects that are the same for all reality. These few general aspects are what philosophy uses to define identity, logic, scientific method and so on.

Truth is of course "that which connects us to reality". Reality is always something of matter and energy.
Thinking does not necessarily connect us with reality, only if it's philosophical, which means, if it shares its basic properties with reality, such as consistency. Also, thinking must respect senses. Everything must pass through senses, even communication and scientific measurement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 05:55 AM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(09-10-2014 05:32 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's not true in trinary. So there's that.
(2 + 2 = 11. FACT)

But yeah, yeah, we know, you have a pathological fear of nuance and an inability to recognize context...
Is trinary mathematics valid? Enough to be graded at school? Yes or no. The irreducible principle of contradiction that we use to prove the existence of truth is binary Smartass

Your knowledge of mathematics and logic is poor as is demonstrated by your lack of understanding of what is meant by that example.
The number base we use is arbitrary and binary logic is only one choice - the simplest.

Your unsupported assumption that only binary logic is valid is indicative of your entire black-and-white outlook.
When it is said that you lack nuance, it is to say that your thinking is simplistic, shallow, naive, ideological, and illogical.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
09-10-2014, 06:04 AM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
Ol Lumi's a mathematician these days too? Rolleyes Naturally he gotta be the *best* mathematician who ever lived, otherwise how come all those others disagree with him? Must be because they lack vision. They wuz spanked.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 06:10 AM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(09-10-2014 05:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your knowledge of mathematics and logic is poor as is demonstrated by your lack of understanding of what is meant by that example.
The number base we use is arbitrary and binary logic is only one choice - the simplest.

Your unsupported assumption that only binary logic is valid is indicative of your entire black-and-white outlook.
When it is said that you lack nuance, it is to say that your thinking is simplistic, shallow, naive, ideological, and illogical.
No, I did not say only binary logic is valid Facepalm Only that binary logic is the most simple, irreducible form of validity, that is the very concept of validity.
I don't refer to mathematics at all Drinking Beverage I refer to the discipline of definitions, which is philosophy. Philosophy deals with irreducibly simple general concepts that allow us to keep track of all other disciplines, if they are valid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: