Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

StrictlyLogical

Regulars
  • Content count

    1798
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

Everything posted by StrictlyLogical

  1. Truth as Disvalue

    Truth as Disvalue Truth as disvalue, evasion as value, a belief system which maximizes life’s value. I have heard it said that nothing which is untrue can ultimately be of value to a rational person and that knowledge of the truth is always a value. When dealing with statements of these kinds, of course one must keep in mind what one means by value, we know for example that truth does not have intrinsic value, as there is no such thing as intrinsic value. So investigating the claim that truth is always a value necessitates an evaluation according to a particular chosen standard of value. Is it true that truth is always a value? Can it ever be a disvalue? I will herein below show that according to certain classes of standards of value, truth can be a disvalue. Moreover, I will illustrate how, in that context, evasion can in fact be a value. I then proceed to show how one can proceed successfully (according to that standard of value) to adopt a belief system which maximizes values according to that standard, and in fact that such a belief system is entailed and required by such a standard. The One Truth Knowledge of reality is incredibly powerful. It is indispensable to action, allows prediction of nature, is the foundation of science, invention, agriculture, architecture, medicine, art, literally everything we know which sustains us and enables happiness is in some way tied with knowledge and rationality. None of these truths which prove useful are to be abandoned or contradicted as they are invaluable. They form a wholeness of knowledge which is at one with the blinding Truth of existence. In this the wholeness though lurks but one black hole… one truth in which sits the opposite of the whole of truth’s promise for life, the very fact of Death itself. After decades of accepting as true, complete oblivion, as the state succeeding life on Earth, I have come to the realization that it is an ugly life draining truth which brings me nothing but horror, fear, and sadness. Resignation to its truth has not assuaged the extreme aversion to physical risk, the morbid thoughts, the nagging sense of death being around every corner, on every highway, hidden in every airplane booking. The reflection that all those living, family and friends will end in the same zero… and that all the daughters and sons of my sons and daughters will, finally, amount to more than the dead matter from which they sprung for their brief lives, ripples unceasingly in my mind. When I was a Deist and believed in an afterlife, I of course did my best to avoid death, I did not entertain unduly risky behavior, because after all, I enjoyed and cherished my life, my family and friends and what I could achieve over my life span, but death itself was seen only as a bump in the road, another transformation, that once traversed, would seem almost inconsequential. Upon death, Life would become some nostalgic memory, no more disturbing than the memories of an adult fondly recalling some childhood haunt or cherished toy. We throw off the trappings of our former selves to become that which we are meant to be, and death was only one step of growth in an existence beyond this one. But the final and true death, of non-being, non-existence, of oblivion, is the black maw of the worst possible monster, literally, as nothing could be worse for me than the negation and destruction of absolutely everything of value to me. It pesters my mind and my soul like some incessant midge from the underworld, and no matter how much I swat at it in a futile attempt to live my life in peace, it always harries me time and again. According to a standard of value which belongs to a class in which the standard of value to the life of man qua man comprises a combination of survival, pleasure, and happiness, the one truth of death IS and always will be a disvalue to me. This I know of myself with unshakable certainty. When I compare my happiness, and daily pleasure at the wonders around me, as they are experienced now, with that ever present darkness in the sky, with my happiness and daily pleasure as one who believed in an afterlife, as I had in the past, I am certain, absolutely certain, that the truth negates a great deal of happiness, pleasure, and peace in my life. As such, according to those certain classes of standards of value, the one truth of death, IS a disvalue to me. Truth indeed can be a disvalue. [For simplicity, “value” hereafter means “value” according to those classes of standard of value to the life of man qua man comprising a combination of survival, pleasure, and happiness] The One Evasion As a Deist, I believed that nature and the beyond (the supernatural) were distinct and sundered. I faithfully held that there was absolutely no connection between them except the traversal (and one way only) upon death. The dead cannot reach the living nor the living reach the dead, and no God nor Omnipotency could affect the natural world of reality. There was only existence, and nothing supernatural there, until death, after which there was nothing but that realm beyond. Maintaining such an evasion was not uncommon to me, nor even unique to my life as a Deist. My former self as a traditional Christian, was very interested in science was very adept at the necessary evasions. Compartmentalization is no mystery to me, and I am all too familiar with it and evasion. I am very cognizant that these are “skills” which I used often and relentlessly. As a person very interested in science, and even after having gone through a few degrees in science, I was capable of all kinds of evasions, but then I did not have the motivation any more. At one point I decided that the truth was more important that what I wanted to believe, more important that the comfort or pleasure I might obtain from a falsehood. According to what standard? Why? At this point, not having been exposed to Objectivism, I really did not have any well-reasoned basis, I simply took for granted that what is true is the Truth and that the Truth was more “important” than any falsehood, that indeed Truth was a kind of “intrinsic” good. So over time I was able to escape the trap of mysticism, because of my motivation for truth, and nothing more. I escaped all forms of mysticism and embraced the absolute of reality and Objectivism. As an Objectivist, I understood the vast majority of truths for what they are, a great value to life. Woven into a web of integrated understanding of reality and man, they are the basis for living. Seeing this I dropped evasion as a disvalue. And in all things other than the single dark truth, evasion indeed would be a disvalue. Because all of reality is interconnected no evasion about any single existent which by necessity is related to any and thus every other thing in existence, could be held without some fact of reality being sullied, warped, held in error. Therefor evasion in this regard is inevitably a disvalue and leads to the corruption of the whole. Only now, armed with a proper understanding of the standard of value is it possible to see that blind pursuit of truth is not necessarily a value. Value is defined by and depends upon a standard. A truth which is sad and painful and brings no happiness and which never could be but a stain upon existence and happiness, cannot be a value. Such a truth is clearly a disvalue. But what of the interconnectedness of truths, what of the disvalue of evasion? There is one evasion which does not encounter this problem if surrounded by judiciously held supporting evasions. Clearly a religious person (as I was) is able to hold evasions able to withstand a great deal of reality thrown against it. Using compartmentalization and ignorance and avoidance, I could simultaneously hold truths about reality while believing in the miraculous. But miracles, and intervention by God poses a real problem, the evidence such would leave behind, the absence of which we clearly note. Of course once I became a Deist no such lack of evidence was logically entailed. The belief of that sort of Deism was in an afterlife wholly separate and sundered from reality and for which there would and could be no evidence until death. The One evasion, that there is an afterlife, of a completely unconnected supernatural and everlasting afterlife, although arbitrary is not disproven by the evidence of the senses. Such to be sure is an arbitrary assertion, a groundless maybe…. Not even worth the label “possible”. The onus is on he who asserts the positive… but what reason, by what standard would I hold myself to that onus? The subsidiary evasion then would be the permission of arbitrary assertions… no… the permission of ONE arbitrary assertion. I know I am capable of evasion, I have done so throughout my life, why not employ these evasions, to permit a single arbitrary assertion, and to believe that arbitrary assertion in absence of any evidence? Clearly, Truth in and of itself is not automatically a value. This is clear from the above. Second, the problem of accepting the arbitrary would only be a threat if it invaded into all aspects of knowledge of reality, I am considering to allow it for only one aspect of reality which is (arbitrarily) wholly disconnected from all of existence. Moreover, if I am required to permit the arbitrary and the belief in one single truth through evasion in order to regain the value of life without the constant fear and darkness and morbidity, then by what standard am I to give up the evasions which permits it? Evasion in these aspects only, to permit the arbitrary belief in an afterlife, are a value. The Objectivist Deism Plan In order to maximize my life according to the standard of value I need only engage in minimal evasion to permit a belief of a single falsehood and deny a single truth. With practice and effort I will come to believe it with all my being, because I know it is a value to believe it. I am motivated by my very life to do so. I will not fail in my minimal evasions for the sake of my very life. I will permit myself that one evasion, supported by the subsidiary evasion (from the fact that the arbitrary should be dismissed), in only this one single instance, the one evasion permitting the belief that there is an afterlife. Such brings about a belief system I call Objectivist Deism. Reality is as it is, A is A, but there is another reality, a super-reality for which there is no evidence, and into which I will have an afterlife. This sole major evasion, that I will not die the true and unending dark death, with its subsidiary evasion permitting the acceptance in only a single arbitrary assertion, is my choice, precisely BECAUSE it is of value and my life will be better for it. I will still understand reality as it is with all the rigor of Objectivism and science, but I will live my life, essentially better than I would have, with the added pleasures, and happiness, and the flourishing which accompanies it, with the knowledge that I will not truly die. I will not be JUST AS successful as I would have been but for the evasion, in fact, because of my added pleasure and happiness and zest for life, I will flourish more, I will have lived more, I will have lived a life of more value than I otherwise would have lived. As such, it is not merely an option open to me, it is necessary for me to follow this path. According to the standard of value it IS the moral course of action, I must and will take it and I will benefit all the more throughout my entire life because of it.
  2. Truth as Disvalue

    Is it now? Part of the standard of morality/value? not its purpose? Isn't Happiness the goal and the reward, not the standard? This is an unnecessary confusion. I am not raising the possibility than someone is blameworthy (according to some standard) for not knowing what makes them happy. I'm simply asking.. if what makes one happy is difficult to judge ... is it appropriate (directly) as a guide to action, i.e. as part of the standard? lol. You raised an excellent point about "pleasure"... that it cannot be a reliable part of the standard of value... it leads to unworkable evaluations that actually conflict with life. This is due to the subjective nature of pleasure. Is a man's purported happiness immune to similar problems? Can a man's assessment of judgment of happiness be immune to subjectivity such that it can never conflict with his life? This is not an issue of objective fallibility but one of consistency between a man's judgments about his life and his happiness... can a man think something would be better for his life and at the same time think it would not be best for his happiness? Is this a problem? Is it true that his life and his happiness can actually be at odds or is this really a mistake? Does this mistake (inconsistency) have consequences because it is part of a standard which guides action?
  3. Truth as Disvalue

    This identifies a proposed specific error of the OP, that the standard of value it presupposes is non-objective, and therefor cannot serve as a standard for actual (objective) values. The rest of your post is an eloquent argument for why a non-objective standard and non-objective value is unworkable. I am walking away from the edge of the abyss... a more formal response will follow. I make two observations, 1. you seem to disallow pleasure (or pain) from the standard of value as it leads to pursuit of things which are not objective values. but 2. you seem to allow happiness as part of the standard of value.. which implies (at least) a belief that happiness and survival qua man are never at odds. Query whether a man knows enough about survival qua man and happiness so as never to misapprehend a conflict between the two. If there ever were such a conflict, the standard would be difficult or even unworkable to guide action... if I mistakenly identify a conflict between my life and my happiness... what guides my actions? The implications and the rest of your argument are intriguing and quite persuasive... again a formal response shall follow.
  4. The Audit

    People think in many ways and use various techniques. Some rely on words almost purely linguistically and manipulate them like in a game before translating them back into concepts they refer to while others think primarily conceptually and only when they can they will express the thoughts in words. Some rely more or less on abstraction and processing the abstractions and applying them to concretes, while others subconsciously hold the abstractions in the background, dealing with a few concretes which pull along the abstractions to arrive at general conclusions. At one far end of this are floating abstractions and rationalism and at the other concrete boundedness. Some people use deductive and inductive A, B, C, D implies X type structures to think, rigorous use of logic and abstractions, while others inspect a bunch of ideas, and upon reflection and introspection pull something out which feels like the correct conclusion. Many of the above can at times be useful in a process of thought, of getting to the right conclusions eventually, and I have not exhausted all the possibilities. I have encountered some who simply cannot think with rigor in any abstract way. While others cannot see how completely untied their artificial formulations are from reality. My suggestion is to try to identify which of the above and other strategies for thinking you currently use, and try to practice diligently some of the others. If I had to make a more specific suggestion once in a while exercise your thought process more along the lines of mathematics, abstraction, and rigor (give reflection and intuition a rest now and again). It might sound silly, but picking up an LSAT prep book to exercise the grey matter might be the particular work out for you.
  5. Truth as Disvalue

    I was looking for the rigorous philosophical answer. What specifically do you mean by truth being the "foundation of morality"? The act of "Moral evaluation" MEANS evaluating something morally, this NECESSITATES a standard of value/morality ("evaluation" is not an act which can be performed without some standard being used). What specifically are you saying about the moral evaluation and the evaluation of value in the OP?
  6. Truth as Disvalue

    Thank you, your post is quite good. I only want to say for now that it slightly skirts a few distinctions which I would like to point out are in fact separate things. 1. life going out of existence is a fact of reality 2. a particular fact of reality is not the same as the knowledge of that fact of reality (or the assessment of any statement regarding that fact of reality as true or false) 3. knowledge of facts of reality (and associated assessments of that knowledge in the form of statements as true or false) can be instrumental but also can separately be a source of pain or joy or pleasure or disgust etc 4. knowledge is something which can be attained, pursued, or evaded 5. various things one acts to gain or keep can constitute values 6. a standard of value is a guide to action (gaining or keeping are actions) by defining what constitutes a value, and recall the standard of value of the OP is a mixture of survival qua man, pleasure, and happiness
  7. Truth as Disvalue

    The truth of death brings pain and fear and sadness, IF I had not known of it (believed in an afterlife or never saw anyone die ... as say a very young child who has yet to be confronted with death) there would be no need to fake belief. The need to fake the belief is driven by the DISvalue the knowledge represents upon its discovery. The falsehood or equally the evasion of a truth is valuable (according to the standard of the OP) because it avoids the disvalue of the truth. The idea is not to just forget the truth, but to consciously disavow it, I.e. to deny it and evade it ACTIVELY and continually (as needed). This is buttressed by the belief in the afterlife as the alternative to Oblivion, which can be reinforced as a positive affirmation (and an arbitrary one to be sure), over and over. I will encounter the fact of death from time to time, and it will appear consistent with my arbitrary faith, the corpses remain and what continues will leave behind no evidence whatever to me here in reality... To maintain the delusion, I will always have to cling to the comfort of my arbitrary belief and evasion, that I will continue in an afterlife. The plan does not need to consider my mind seeing the fact of the true final death ever again, it is formulated precisely to avoid it. Here's a question for you. If I could pull of my plan as written, and really could evade the truth with mental evasion and a form of continual brainwashing would there be anything morally wrong with it? If so, why or how could it be morally wrong, because according to the standard of the OP, apparently it would be morally right?
  8. Truth as Disvalue

    In attempting to see what is wrong with the argument which leads to the plan (which I find reprehensible) I have asked what is wrong with the essential conclusion that "truth can be a disvalue". Your answer and what it hints at is intriguing. I think it is correct that truth (knowledge of it, and the capacity to obtain it) and value are related but cannot be equated. The alternative being investigated indeed is whether 1. Some (at least one) truth can be a disvalue or 2. No truths can be a disvalue But knowledge of the truth of what? If a truth is in respect of something which is irrelevant to your values (according to the standard) then that truth simply is unrelated to value. So, even if one concludes 2 is correct, it does not necessarily imply every truth is a value (arriving at that conclusion could be complicated), some truths might not be a value but aren't a disvalue either. (an analogy would be that ingesting some substances neither nourishes nor poisons the body) So an equation of truth and value would be unwarranted, and value is not as such "at its core" the truth. Your discussion, and your example of the plant implies that the unreal itself cannot be a value. Certainly a non-existent cannot cause anything, and literally cannot be pursued, so the non-existent afterlife cannot literally be a value. But here we are dealing with a voluntarily held untruth, or a belief in an untruth, which technically is a state of mind. Knowledge of a truth, a state of mind, can be pursued or evaded. This exists, and can cause pain or pleasure, and is distinct from the non-existent afterlife. Furthermore, although the unreal cannot be a value, real things can be a disvalue, and the knowledge of a real thing, such as death is doubly real. According to a standard of value that includes pleasure, such knowledge of the truth is a disvalue. This is to be contrasted here with your example: you deal with a plant whose standard of value cannot include pleasure as a plant does not experience pleasure. You've implied as much... we haven't quite reached the destination. I have turned, and stopped at the edge of the abyss. I am listening.
  9. Truth as Disvalue

    What efficacy for living in reality is gained by thinking about anything outside of life in reality? How does the knowledge of a state after life (literally a zero) improve any efficacy for facing the non-zero, and the great multitude of reality? Efficacy to what end, what aim? What kind of "efficacy"? According to what standard of value is "efficacy" judged? If survival and pleasure are both part of the standard of value, and if these sometimes conflict with one another, then at least some mixture of efficacious rationality and efficacious evasion would be required. The OP is a good example of that. If the standard of value dictates the pursuit of untruth when survival and pleasure are at odds, then efficacious evasion is a virtue and it leads to greater good according to that standard of value. Certainly blindness, to the extent it thwarts pursuit of values in general (according to whatever standard) would be counter productive. BUT if the extent of that blindness did not thwart the general pursuit of values in this life... not in any significant way.. and in fact only thwarted the "sight" of a fact whose knowledge is a disvalue (according to the standard in the OP) and pertains only to something which lies outside of life's possibilities and choices and is in any case unavoidable, then that so called Blindness in fact becomes a virtue. This is equivalent to the conclusion that evasion of truth can be a value. Do you not agree that according to the standard of value of the OP that at least one truth can be a disvalue? What if I chose "carefree experience" (not "life" nor "a pleasant life") as my pre-moral choice, and my standard of value was "the mental state of being completely care free"? I think it trivial that according to that standard (which I am not claiming is a valid or workable standard) the at least one truth surely can be a disvalue. The same goes for arbitrarily choosing as the pre-moral choice "pleasure as such", or "complete peace of mind". HD if you had to identify what is wrong with the early conclusion "truth (at least one truth) can be a disvalue" what would it be?
  10. Truth as Disvalue

    You are correct that this implies that the particular truth is not seen as directly contributing to or reducing survival significantly. Some, yourself included, likely hold that knowledge of final death does not reduce survival significantly, and I've never heard of any headline stating that Atheism is likely to extend life by virtue primarily of its denial of an afterlife.
  11. Truth as Disvalue

    I have, for the purposes of this discussion (as described in the OP), adopted a standard of value which is man's survival qua man plus pleasure and happiness. As such, to determine value, one must assess a mixture of factors.
  12. Truth as Disvalue

    The claim is not that life is death or death is life. The claim is a completely arbitrary one, for which no evidence could possibly exist here in reality (and it doesn't). A is A. At the instant A is becoming not-A, (life is going out of existence) A is no longer Here but continues, morphing into A' in the There. The non-A (or B as you call it) we see A transforming into Here, is a corpse. The claim is arbitrary by definition, nothing in the There can be detected here. Only death could "confirm" the going from Here to There. A claim that requires death as a precondition for any evidence to confirm it, is a good example of an arbitrary assertion (one for which no evidence actually exists, and for which none COULD possibly exist). What the A' actually is or where the There is or what it is like are all beyond my possible knowledge as I have designed the belief (arbitrarily) such that Here and There are sundered completely (but for the one way passage of death) and hence beyond knowledge of myself, now, Here, alive. I am not trying to prove to you that the arbitrary is real. That would place an onus on me to prove a positive to you. This is precisely the onus (otherwise owed to myself) I abdicate in the process of evading and simultaneously lobotomizing myself.
  13. Truth as Disvalue

    Had I invoked the wrong kind of arbitrary belief, then you would be correct about my having to accept some other thing implied by that arbitrary belief. But this apparent straight jacket to accept something (like a mind-body dichotomy) depends upon an assumption that the belief I have chosen is not completely arbitrary, that it is tied to all the consequences apparently dictated by the alternate reality no matter how bizzare. But during my lifetime there is no alternate reality, no consequence dictated by it. You see the "power" of the arbitrary belief I have engaged is that it is "arbitrarily" arbitrary, in the exact way I decide. So ... mind body dichotomy? No such thing. Reality is reality, while alive all of me is what it is, I possess identity, all the rules of existence are intact... there is no soul in material body, just a natural system. Rising from the dead like Jesus ... no such thing. Arbitrarily, reality and the afterlife are completely sundered except for one thing, at one point in time, (and whether or not time even "exists" in the afterlife), continuity of myself into another transformed existence, any of the details of which "I know not what". As for while I am alive, I choose to live life according to this reality, and all that entails. My standard of value will remain the same in the sense that I have only one life in this existence and I know nothing in particular about the afterlife. According to some, a person who engages in the single evasion of believing in an afterlife is a Mystic. Whether you call it mysticism or self-delusion or mini-intellectual suicide, it is immaterial, it would be what it is. Flourishing, according to the OP, would be according to the standard of the OP which includes survival of man qua man plus pleasure and happiness.
  14. Truth as Disvalue

    Eventual death itself is inevitable and cannot be pursued as a value or avoided forever as a disvalue. This undeniable existent is independent from and distinct from the truth of death, I.e. the knowledge of that inevitability. That knowledge is a value or a disvalue independent of the fact that everlasting life cannot be an actual value because it simply does not exist. Of course, the possibility of knowledge ever being a disvalue depends on the standard of value at issue. Good that you note the difference between the act of valuation versus emotion. If pleasure or emotion is part of the standard of value (it is in the OP), then how I feel, although not an act itself of evaluation, must be taken into account when engaging in the act of evaluation. Assessing value according to a standard including emotion entails assessing the emotional consequences of whatever is being evaluated. To summarize, it is the knowledge of death (acceptance of its truth) which causes pain and sadness, and the choice between acceptance of that knowledge of the truth or evasion of that truth which is evaluated as respectively disvalue and value according to a standard of morality including survival, pleasure, and happiness.
  15. Sci-fi/fantasy Reading Recommendations

    Any Objectivist interested in the far future or Sci-Fi MUST read John C. Wright's Golden Age trilogy. It is a stunning masterpiece of imagination, individualism, reality, and morality. It is at times, perplexing, inspiring, soaring, complex and at times simply human. Now that it is available electronically (kindle ebook with free reader to read on any device) for a very fair price (8 bucks each book) there is no reason not to grab it. The Golden Age: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FA5QJK/ The Phoenix Exultant: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001OWEEHI/ The Golden Transcendence: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001OD6KAQ/ Be careful not to read too many reviews ... in fact avoid it all to avoid any spoilers!
  16. Truth as Disvalue

    HD Lets take a breath. I'd like to establish a few things first and then give you the opportunity to address some earlier conclusions of the OP. 1. My struggle with oblivion is real and ongoing 2. I have chosen life 3. In order to obtain 2 I have believed the standard of value is survival qua man and an objective kind of flourishing In my musings though I have asked what kind of life have I chosen? Do I have to have life with so much pain? Would having a shorter life with less pain ... more pleasure... more happy subjective experience .. in fact be equivalent to having a better life? More of the good life? Is my standard of life wrong for me? At the top of the rabbit hole is an alternative... choosing life, mostly. Choosing a subjective variant of the Objective, choosing a "pleasant life". My pre-moral semi subjective choice thus requires a different standard of value ... one which explicitly and directly balances survival and pleasure... I began to ponder the possibilities for addressing a pleasant life. So the OP was born. It is a solid plan built on a consciously chosen subjective standard of value. Designed specifically to make a pleasant life possible... Is it so ridiculous to investigate opportunities, alternatives open to me? No, if I am to continue to live through pain holding the standard of value I currently have, I must understand that as against all alternatives that life of pain, and that standard of value truly is in my best interest. Otherwise, why hold on to it? So finally it comes to the formulation and expression of a standard of value which is workable for me. HD if you had to identify what is wrong with the early conclusion "truth (at least one truth) can be a disvalue" what would it be?
  17. Truth as Disvalue

    My memory of that movie is not so acute, did he?
  18. Truth as Disvalue

    This states the temptation as well as the hope. Indeed why not explore? This why I am still here participating in thread and not simply going ahead with the mini suicide.
  19. Truth as Disvalue

    Speaking of the "next life" and opening Pandora's Box, I've heard it essentially said even here on this very forum that suicide can be moral (not only "justified" in a weaker sense) i.e. that one should do it, if and when life becomes sufficiently unbearable or impossible (whatever that could mean). In a sense the plan of the OP is like a form of mini-suicide, an intellectual one... if actual suicide of an entire life and organism can be moral when life is unbearable, which IS the most extreme of cases, is it not is it much easier to accept also that when intellectually something in life is unbearable, a kind of intellectual suicide is moral? Honestly, I am not completely safe from the OP even though I strongly think the plan is immoral.
  20. Truth as Disvalue

    Aha. Then only those few people who have seen the plan (including myself) would be its potential victims. Perhaps, only once it is established that one cannot fight with reason, should one conclude that, as a last resort, censorship is the only answer to contain the potential damage of such an immoral idea.
  21. Truth as Disvalue

    I cannot speculate as to another's emotions or motivations. To extent I shared anything real about myself I have done so in a manner than only I truly know what in particular about me personally is out there. I think given the person in the OP, the plan in the OP is a real threat. I think it is a real threat to potentially anyone, that personally, is not easily dismissed. No one here has bothered to rigorously put this idea finally out of its misery. My sincere hope is that someone will.
  22. Truth as Disvalue

    What if I genuinely "feel" that way from the OP but know it's wrong? Does the fact that I think it is possibly an immoral plan cancel with my wish? If I am struggling against the lure of mysticism to help with my feelings is it any wonder I want someone to use logic to convince me otherwise? Can I not find that lure to be repulsive? What if the logical exercise is the only way to convince me that actually the plan would not be a good idea? What if people need to be more precise and rigorous to prove why it is wrong and explicitly state it because even though I know the plan would be wrong I feel it could be right? What if I already think I know the answer but all I need is a brilliant explicit rigorous statement of it from someone else? Would I be wrong to yell and demand while asking you to pull the arrow from my chest?. ... perhaps so. Would that offend you so much that you would refuse me? I cannot know. Is using rigorous logical argument equivalent to yelling? If people here cannot engage in civil rigorous nonevasive logic, then they should leave the potential victim to a braver hero.
  23. If You Could Have Any Superpower, What Would It Be?

    The ability to cure everyone of irrationality with a mug of yummy hot chocolate.
  24. Truth as Disvalue

    My last post told you multiple times that I don't consider survival relevant to it in the first place. I even alluded to my reasons why. I don't have the time to try doing your thinking for you. Is that all you had to say? Survival plays at least some part in them standard of value does it not? As such it cannot be irrelevant ... the whole point in evaluating the plan and whether it is is moral requires an analysis against the standard of value. Each of its components or aspects (if more than merely survival). I think it would be incredibly unobjective to hold a standard of value with absolutely no consideration for survival at all. I see you've decided to bow out. I'm disappointed but I respect it on some level.
  25. Truth as Disvalue

    You missed my final question...
×