Something I've been trying to get at all along here, is where does your conception of morality stem from? Historically, a lot of the moral framework we all live within is descended from Christianity. That's why I asked about your flowers. How do you even conceive of "lives, rights, and well-being of innocent individuals" as having value or meaning? Why do those things matter? Why do they matter within a temporal life? Those concepts were originally predicated on the eternal, not the temporal. Ripped from an eternal framework and placed within a temporal one, they have no actual content. — Noble Dust

My morality stems from values I derive through experience (values which are shared by others). They matter because that's how we feel about them. Imagine dropping a TV on your foot experimentally substantiates value in avoiding pain (or preserving comfort). The desire to go on living substantiates value in preserving life itself. And finally, the joy that can be found in life substantiates the value of actually living. (the last bit is more existential than moral).

They aren't exactly ripped from an eternal framework, they emerge naturally within our temporal. You can say that Christianity had "don't murder" first, but that doesn't mean Christianity or some other eternal framework is required to have it make sense or be useful. We hold murder to be immoral because if we didn't work to fight against it (along with some other crimes) society would fall apart and our temporal lives would be worsened or worse.

Since a temporary life seems to be what we've got, it's imperative we make the most of them.

I agree on want being present in the human condition in general. But as far as how we fill the hole encapsulating our meaning in life, I revert back to Tillich's faith. That sound's like ultimate concern to me; the problem is that you're equivocating it with something absolute. The fact that you label our own individual search as the meaning of life labels that search as absolute. If it's not absolute, then it's easily over-turned. Which I think it is — Noble Dust

Something can be not absolute and also not easily over-turned. (you've got to overturn pain and pleasure as things people care about)

An ascribing of meaning that is not absolute is always, ultimately, only tentative. So your description of the meaning of life here would only be tentative. How can it be otherwise if it's based purely subjectively? This to me is an equivocation of objectivity with subjectivity. "The meaning of (one's) life" is an objectivity, but you're assigning it subjectively. The Meaning (capital M) should rather be the objective, while the subjective is you or I. — Noble Dust

Life is tentative. We're born bereft of Meaning, we learn, we make meaning, it changes over time, sometimes we lose it, and we die.

You're approaching the question of "what's the meaning of life" as if we can make sense of it from outside of the subjective human perspective. The actual Christian answer to that question is "to worship God" because per the christian doctrine, that's more or less the purpose for which we were created. That's a boring and unfulfilling purpose though. Even if it's eternal I'm not enticed by it.

Unless you've got some God or creator/designer that is external to ourselves, how are you going to find the objective meaning of human life itself? If you're agnostic you should already have given up on this. The only thing that's left is the lower case meaning that we assign to our own lives by virtue of how we choose to live, what goals we set for ourselves, and how we feel about them. Even if there is some creator out there with an objective meaning written down in their pocket, it's not like that meaning should matter to us because we don't have access to it and might not stand to benefit from it.

Right, and I don't think cherry picking is a problem; the phrase just has a negative connotation. I "cherry pick" when I accept Jesus's unconditional love as something I want to emulate, and something I consider deeply True. And then I continue cherry picking when I reject the notion that Scripture is innerant, or that hell exists. I'm not taking the convenient bits, I'm taking the bits that resonate with the part of me that seeks the truth. — Noble Dust

I seek the truth too, but instead of picking what resonates with me (when it comes to truth), I pick what resonates with observed reality. If I reject hell because it doesn't resonate with reality, then I've got to reject heaven too. When it comes to things I value (morally) then I pick what resonates with me. What is generally unobservable (like a hypothetical eternity or after-life) I find myself unable to value from a moral perspective because it's unobservable; unreal.

But you and other atheists philosophize, and you do so from your position of atheism. I really don't see how you can keep saying otherwise. I get that atheism is, formally, a lack of belief in God, that's obvious. But to then say you have no atheistic philosophy is nonsensical. Just because it's a simple lack of belief does not mean you have no philosophical beliefs that relate to your stance of atheism. Lack of belief in God has to profoundly affect how you do philosophy, which it clearly does. — Noble Dust

All of my philosophical beliefs relate to my being an atheist in that none of them incorporate the existence of god(s).

How can I explain this... Imagine a philosopher who based most or all of their philosophy on the Boston Redskins. Imagine that most of the philosophy they typically navigated also had to do with the Boston Redskins... From their perspective, a philosopher who does not base any of their philosophy on the Boston Redskins in appearance has philosophy that is based on the non-existence of the Boston Redskins, but it's not necessarily the case at all. They may base their philosophy on things other than the existence of the Boston Redskins.

Belief in God profoundly affects how people do philosophy, so since I don't believe in God, I don't experience that effect. It only appears as effect because belief in God is the presumed norm.

Once you've glimpsed the infinite, the eternal, it's hard to be satisfied with just the temporal. — Noble Dust

Can you describe your glimpse of the infinite?

explained that in my description of physical reality being an objectivization of spirit. There would be no meaning without Meaning, in this scenario. Lowercase meaning is descended from Meaning. — Noble Dust

I don't know what that means though (objectivization of spirit). I've re-read all your posts on it and all I can decipher about this is that it has something to do with your belief in "the eternal".

Referring to something higher than the laws, in order to determine that particular laws are inapplicable in particular situations, implies disrespect for "the laws in general". — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm surprised that you have such a binary, black and white view of things. Do you not know of any people whom you mostly respect, but who have done one thing that you regard as stupid or mean? Are all your feelings about people either unconditional respect and obedience or complete dismissal?

My morality stems from values I derive through experience (values which are shared by others). — VagabondSpectre

I'm fine with this, but I think the difference is that I don't stop there. I can see how this jives with your reliance on empirically observing reality. I rely more on creativity or intuition; that's what leads me to go beyond simple experience. I do really on experience, but I also drape it unto the backdrop of what my intuition tells me about reality. This is connected to the experience of the infinite, which I'll get to later as per your question.

The desire to go on living substantiates value in preserving life itself. And finally, the joy that can be found in life substantiates the value of actually living. (the last bit is more existential than moral). — VagabondSpectre

I can agree with this, if I sort of re-frame it within a mode of thinking that I've been entertaining lately. The idea of "belief in life". (yes, you may find the word belief annoying). I recently wrote this note to myself: "Belief in life means passively leaving yourself open to the possibility that life has a meaning or purpose." Along with your comment above, it's definitely a much more existential approach. The reason I call it belief is because I think it's possible to have a belief in life even within feelings of meaninglessness. I may feel no meaning in my life, but I might still believe in life. But the difference is that I won't necessarily stop there; that's not the end point. Belief leaves me open to experience in a way that can change my perspective in the future. That's why it's a passive, open stance, rather than an active, closed stance of putting the lid on the jar of meaning/truth. This is an important principle to me, especially when it comes to avoiding dogma or fundamentalism, whether religious or atheistic or otherwise.

You can say that Christianity had "don't murder" first, but that doesn't mean Christianity or some other eternal framework is required to have it make sense or be useful. — VagabondSpectre

I didn't mean it needs a Christian framework specifically. My concern is that, when religious principles are taken out of their religious or spiritual context, they lose the inner life that substantiated them. Moral claims need a rich inner life in order to flourish. We live in an age of spiritual poverty, and I think the moral failings in the world right now are a clear indicator of that inner poverty. This may or may not apply to you or me specifically, but it applies to the general state of humanity.

Since a temporary life seems to be what we've got, it's imperative we make the most of them. — VagabondSpectre

Why?

You're approaching the question of "what's the meaning of life" as if we can make sense of it from outside of the subjective human perspective. — VagabondSpectre

What I'm trying to point out, is that if life is in fact tentative, and so meaning is also, then your position needs to be equally tentative. It needs to be open to change and correction, but the way you've been arguing has been with such a firm hand that it almost feels dogmatic; I would expect your arguments to be more open and tentative if you see life and meaning in that way. You seem to be invested in convincing me of your position, for instance. Why do so if it's only tentative?

The difference seems to be that an atheistic seeking of the truth remains less open. The classic spiritual seeker, whether studying religions, committing to asceticism, philosophy, meditation, etc etc., is on a journey, and takes the position of a student. I don't get that sense from atheists who claim to be seeking the truth, rather they seem to feel that they've found it. This is what leads to atheistic dogmatism and fundamentalism. I'm not accusing you of that, but I do feel like I sense a little bit of it in your arguments. You seem very settled for one who claims to be seeking the truth.

how are you going to find the objective meaning of human life itself? — VagabondSpectre

I'm not sure yet, but I'm open to it being possible, whether in this life or no.

If I reject hell because it doesn't resonate with reality, then I've got to reject heaven too. — VagabondSpectre

Why?

Can you describe your glimpse of the infinite? — VagabondSpectre

I can give it a shot. I'm a songwriter/composer, and the best stuff I've written has been in uninterrupted 7 or 8 hour sessions, usually totally spontaneous. The feeling of not really being responsible for writing the song is real, regardless of how cliche it may be. The experience is of a real connection with a force outside of oneself; outside of one's own creative ability; it's the experience of being a conduit. The Greek understanding of time is Cronos (linear time) and Kairos (God's time). Kairos cuts into Cronos at opportune times; the infinite cuts into the temporal. I've experienced that on many occasions.

I don't know what that means though (objectivization of spirit). — VagabondSpectre

It's an idea borrowed from the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev. I personally am not married to it, but I like it. The idea is that freedom is ultimate, prior to being. From freedom springs spirit, and the physical world is a symbol, an objectivization of the spiritual world.

"Dialectic materialism in the form it has taken in Soviet Russia has been an attempt to introduce correctives into the theory of evolution and to recognize self-movement within. Thus matter was endowed with qualities of spirit, with creative activity, with freedom, and intelligence. In this way violence was done to language. A thoroughgoing transvaluation of naturalistic determinism is required. Laws of nature do not exist, laws that is, which dominate the world and man like tyrants. All that exists is a direction in the action of forces which in a given co-relation act uniformly as regards their results. A change in the direction of the forces may change the uniformity. In the primary basis of these forces there lies a spiritual principle, the noumenal. The material world is only the exteriorization and objectivization of spiritual principles. It is a process of induration, of fettering. It might be said that the laws are only the habits of the acting forces, and frequently bad habits. The triumph of new spiritual forces may change the effect of the measured tread of necessity. It may bring about creative newness." - Berdyaev, Divine and the Human

The difference seems to be that an atheistic seeking of the truth remains less open. The classic spiritual seeker, whether studying religions, committing to asceticism, philosophy, meditation, etc etc., is on a journey, and takes the position of a student. I don't get that sense from atheists who claim to be seeking the truth, rather they seem to feel that they've found it. This is what leads to atheistic dogmatism and fundamentalism. I'm not accusing you of that, but I do feel like I sense a little bit of it in your arguments. You seem very settled for one who claims to be seeking the truth. — Nobel Dust

Depends which atheists you are talking about. The fundamentalists (e.g. Dawkins) are desperate to find a world without religion. For them it occupies the space of Meaning which belongs to God or religion to the people he criticises. It terminates the question: "Where does meaning come from?" and replaces it with an answer of: "In the end of religion in human communities."

For atheists concerned with Meaning, they have good reason for abandoning The Journey: their knowledge of Meaning makes it irrelevant. The Journey is a quest to find out how to make the meaningless world ("temporal," in your words) into the meaningful one ("infinite,"in your words). It's pointless to the atheist who knows Meaning because they know nothing is needed to turn the world Meaningful. They understand states of the world ( "temporal" ) express Meaning ( "infinite" ) all by themselves.

Let's put it in context. How is it that any state of action is worthwhile? Is caring for your community only worthwhile because it'll get you eternal life? Is protecting your child only worthwhile becasue it will mean you will get to live forever? Is writing a symphony only worth it becasue it means endless life?

In every case, the answer is no. In each case, there is an important state, done for itself, which is worthwhile. They don't matter merely because they are a means to get eternal life. None of them are worthless or even less important if we all cease to exist at some point. All have infinite meaning of which the world would be a worse place without. What such an atheist knows is there is no "problem of Meaning to answer." Meaning is necessary, no matter who you are, no matter your culture, religion, philosophy or politics.

VagabondSpectre appears tentative because he both understands that the religious argument is bullshit (i.e. Meaning is necessary, so it doesn't need to be created) but also that the practice of any religion amounts to a Meaningful life. On the one hand, his knowledge of Meaning shows the religious argument is a falsehood, but he respects religion (where it is not ethically egregious) as the practice of a meaningful life.

You're absolutely right that the underlying atheistic position is "dogmatic." From the point of view of religion, it's even worse than the fundamental atheists. Dawkins and co. only insist religions make absurd claims about the world. To understand the world, itself, is meaningful undercuts religion on its own terms. It eliminates the "problem of Meaning" which drives The Journey and supposed need for religious belief.

But what does the end of religion really mean? Not all that much. In knowing the world is Meaningful itself, one is aware lives involved in religion are worthwhile. Despite knowing religious thought to be false about Meaning, there's no need to have everyone understand of believe it. Indeed, trying to talk about it with the religious is often unethical because it can cause them great distress-- it undermines their entire sense of self and worth.

Nice points, Willow.

I'm surprised that you have such a binary, black and white view of things. Do you not know of any people whom you mostly respect, but who have done one thing that you regard as stupid or mean? Are all your feelings about people either unconditional respect and obedience or complete dismissal? — andrewk

Now you've changed the subject, talking about people rather than the law. I don't think I've ever met a person whom I don't have respect for. But how do you suppose that this relates to my respect for the law? I still don't see how one can pick and choose which laws one will abide by, without having disrespect for "the law" in general. Are you suggesting that each law is a separate individual law, and not part of a coherent structure called "the law"? That way you could pick and choose which laws to abide by, without worrying that this means you have disrespect for "the law" in general. You only have disrespect for particular laws. But what gives you the right to pick and choose which laws to abide by? If you give yourself permission to choose which laws you will obey, isn't this best described as "disrespect for the law"? You will only choose to obey the laws which suit your purpose.

The Journey is a quest to find out how to make the meaningless world ("temporal," in your words) into the meaningful one ("infinite,"in your words). — TheWillowOfDarkness

The circumstances of a spiritual journey for truth differs from person to person. For instance, I don't begin with the assumption that the world is meaningless, as you suggest here, because I don't equate the temporal with meaninglessness, as you do here.

Let's put it in context. How is it that any state of action is worthwhile? Is caring for your community only worthwhile because it'll get you eternal life? Is protecting your child only worthwhile becasue it will mean you will get to live forever? Is writing a symphony only worth it becasue it means endless life?

In every case, the answer is no. In each case, there is an important state, done for itself, which is worthwhile. They don't matter merely because they are a means to get eternal life. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I never suggested that any moral act is only good insofar as it gets you eternal life. That completely misses the point of what I'm trying to express. I need to make an important distinction here between Religion as such, and my own views. What you say is often true of the religious, but I'm not arguing from their perspective, I'm arguing from my own perspective here.

So, the relationship between morality and eternity is not "a moral life leads to immortality". It's the opposite: The eternal is one with Goodness, of which Meaning and morality are then generated. (These terms start to get hazy here). So the moral act is good because of it's prior relation to the eternal, not a future relation.

You're absolutely right that the underlying atheistic position is "dogmatic." From the point of view of religion, it's even worse than the fundamental atheists. — TheWillowOfDarkness

As someone neither religious nor atheist, I actually find this form of atheism as more level-headed than the Dawkins crowd.

To understand the world, itself, is meaningful undercuts religion on its own terms. It eliminates the "problem of Meaning" which drives The Journey and supposed need for religious belief. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You have yet to explain just exactly how the world is Meaningful from this atheistic perspective. So, the world is Meaningful on its own terms. How? In what way?

That way you could pick and choose which laws to abide by, without worrying that this means you have disrespect for "the law" in general. — Metaphysician Undercover

'pick and choose' is a loaded term, implying a flippant attitude to the decision.

There was nothing the least bit flippant about Gandhi's decision to defy an unjust law. He expected to be beaten, vilified, imprisoned and fined.

Stripped of the loaded language, I can accept your formulation. That is, I believe that it is reasonable and consistent to choose, after serious ethical consideration, to disobey a law that one is convinced is unjust, while still believing that, in the absence of gross injustice, laws should be obeyed.

Peter Singer has written about this at length. He argues that one should obey the law except where there are gravely serious reasons not to do so. In a nutshell, his argument is that we all benefit when nearly everybody obeys the law. That benefit can only be outweighed by very strong considerations in the opposite direction, usually in relation to a grossly unjust or otherwise harmful law. Such exceptions occur only rarely, but they do occur.

Singer has lived out this philosophy by breaking laws to trespass to try to prevent environmental destruction, for which he was arrested in the 1980s. But in every other respect he has - to my knowledge - been a model law-abiding citizen and encourages others to do likewise.

If you want to call that 'disrespect for the law' then go ahead. But that looks to me a meaningless bunch of words, that is unable to account for why Singer scrupulously pays his taxes, does not litter, drives within the speed limit, etc.

If you'd like to dip into Singer's arguments why - other things being equal - it is ethically better to obey the law, they can be found in his book 'Practical Ethics' in chapter 11: 'Civil Disobedience, Violence and Terrorism'. I highly recommend it. It's a cracking read.

Stripped of the loaded language, I can accept your formulation. That is, I believe that it is reasonable and consistent to choose, after serious ethical consideration, to disobey a law that one is convinced is unjust, while still believing that, in the absence of gross injustice, laws should be obeyed. — andrewk

OK, so this implies that you believe that you yourself are better able to decide what you should and shouldn't do, with respect to ethical decisions, than the law. If you see the application of a particular law as a "gross injustice", you will not obey that law.

Do you agree, that this puts you "higher than the law"? Or, do you think that there is no such thing as "the law"? There are just different particular laws, made by different particular groups of people, with different particular interests, and no such thing as "the law" in general. In the latter case, if the law appears like a "gross injustice" to your particular interest, it ought not be followed. It is not the case that you place yourself "higher than the law", because there is no such thing as "the law". There is only individual laws, and you can judge each one as applicable, or grossly unjust with respect to your interests, without placing yourself as "higher than the law".

Peter Singer has written about this at length. He argues that one should obey the law except where there are gravely serious reasons not to do so. In a nutshell, his argument is that we all benefit when nearly everybody obeys the law. That benefit can only be outweighed by very strong considerations in the opposite direction, usually in relation to a grossly unjust or otherwise harmful law. Such exceptions occur only rarely, but they do occur. — andrewk

Now you introduce another reason not to obey the law. If there are "gravely serious reasons", then the law ought not be obeyed. "Gravely serious reasons" means something completely different from "gross injustice". So we have two described situations in which we should not obey the laws. We could consult multiple other authors, and compile a whole list of situations in which the laws should not be followed. But how do we judge the authority of those authors? If we consult the right (or wrong depending on your judgement) authors, we could find reason to disobey all laws. My opinion is that you are leading me down a slippery slope, claiming that an author has the authority to tell me when it is ethical to disobey the laws.

If you want to call that 'disrespect for the law' then go ahead. But that looks to me a meaningless bunch of words, that is unable to account for why Singer scrupulously pays his taxes, does not litter, drives within the speed limit, etc. — andrewk

Why, do you accept Singer's words as to when to disobey the laws? Is Singer more intelligent than the lawmakers? Why not turn to someone like Thoreau instead? He will give you reason not to pay your taxes. Why would you think that paying your taxes, obeying the speed limit, and not littering, but disobeying other laws for "gravely serious reasons" makes a person more ethical than someone like Thoreau who saw large scale decisions made by the state, such as foreign policy, as grossly unjust, and concluded that protest is necessary? Remember, your personal reason, stated above is "gross injustice", not "gravely serious", which might put you closer to Thoreau than to Singer.

Or, ..... there is no such thing as "the law". There is only individual laws, and you can judge each one as applicable, or grossly unjust with respect to your interests, without placing yourself as "higher than the law". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, of the two alternatives you describe, this one sounds closer to my position.

But how do we judge the authority of those authors?
..... Why, do you accept Singer's words as to when to disobey the laws? — Metaphysician Undercover

I place the authority of all authors at naught, and I would encourage others to do likewise.

I do not accept Singer's words, and I would encourage others to do likewise.

That may seem strange to you, since I agree with Singer on many things, including the circumstances in which it is reasonable to disobey the law.

But my principle is that I must decide for myself.

The reason I mentioned Singer is because he highlighted a number of considerations that I had not previously considered, and thereby enabled me to reason through to my own conclusion more clearly and with more confidence.

Singer is not your guru. I am not your guru. Nobody is your guru except you. You are your own guru. It is good to listen to what others have to say, as it helps one to think more widely and clearly. It exposes one to ideas, perspectives and channels of reasoning that one may not have previously experienced. But I believe that it is best for one to decide for oneself.

Since I am not your guru, you should not just accept that last sentence. If I were you I would think about it and decide for myself whether to accept it.

BTW your allusion to Thoreau's 'On the Duty of Civil Disobedience' is timely. I have been meaning to read it, and will bump it up my reading list as a consequence of this discussion. I suspect I will not agree with many of his conclusions as - based on Walden - his temperament seems to be much less communitarian than mine. But who knows? And in any case I expect it to be an enriching and entertaining read.

I have you to thank for the fact that I will probably now get around to reading it, whereas otherwise I would not have.

BTW BTW apropos of an earlier discussion: did you read 'The Death of Ivan Ilych'? I just finished it. It's a short and easy read. I'm still working out what to make of it. I'm glad I read it.

Yes, of the two alternatives you describe, this one sounds closer to my position. — andrewk

OK, then to maintain consistency with your beliefs I will not refer to "the law", I will refer to "the laws". We could digress into a discussion of the reality of "the state" here, because I think that if you believe that the multitude of "laws" belonging to a governing state, do not exist under one coherent structure of "the law", then you cannot believe that there is a coherent "state". Then again, if each state itself represents "the law", then with a multitude of states, there is a multitude of "the law"s, and no real, coherent "the law" unless there was a world state.

I place the authority of all authors at naught, and I would encourage others to do likewise.

I do not accept Singer's words, and I would encourage others to do likewise. — andrewk

I agree that we should decide for ourselves what to believe, but we do need to get some ideas from others. You write pretty well, maybe you could be influential. In the case of deciding when to obey or disobey the law though, it may be the best policy for the average person, to always try to obey the law as much as possible. When I was younger I was not so committed to this principle, and I found that once I allowed the habit of deciding when it was good not to follow the law to form, there can be very unfavourable consequences. That is because the laws are defended with much force, and whether or not the law which you choose to disobey is a good or bad law, when you do disobey it, you are vulnerable to that force.

Singer is not your guru. I am not your guru. Nobody is your guru except you. You are your own guru. It is good to listen to what others have to say, as it helps one to think more widely and clearly. It exposes one to ideas, perspectives and channels of reasoning that one may not have previously experienced. But I believe that it is best for one to decide for oneself.

Since I am not your guru, you should not just accept that last sentence. If I were you I would think about it and decide for myself whether to accept it. — andrewk

OK, so I agree with you, take your advise, and decide for myself what to believe. But here we are discussing ethics, and ethics deals with actions. I like to believe that there is a difference between what one believes, and how one acts. You might think that one's actions are necessarily consistent with one's beliefs, and provide a representation of one's beliefs, but I don't think that this is true. So for instance, if I believe that a particular law is bad, and to be ethical I should not obey it, I will still obey it, believing myself to be behaving unethically, because of the threat of law enforcement. Therefore I believe myself to be acting unethically, but this is justified because I am being forced to act unethically by those who defend the laws. I think it is better to live unethically than to suffer the consequences of that force.

BTW your allusion to Thoreau's 'On the Duty of Civil Disobedience' is timely. I have been meaning to read it, and will bump it up my reading list as a consequence of this discussion. I suspect I will not agree with many of his conclusions as - based on Walden - his temperament seems to be much less communitarian than mine. But who knows? And in any case I expect it to be an enriching and entertaining read. — andrewk

I've read some Thoreau, I remember Walden's Pond quite well. He was a unique, and therefore odd character, probably very difficulty to befriend, but I do have respect for his thought. I think he was quite intelligent. I do not agree with his principles of civil disobedience though. As I've described above, I think it best to obey the laws as much as possible, regardless of how much you disagree with them. This is because disobeying becomes habitual and you will most likely suffer consequences. There are those who might choose to suffer the consequences, like Gandhi, in order to make a statement, but a campaign like that must be well orchestrated in order that it be successful. And in this type of campaign the question becomes whether or not it is necessary to appeal to religion, or God, as Jesus and Muhammad did, in order to have a truly successful campaign. It is difficult to unite people against a ruling force without a principle of unity. To say "X is bad" is one thing, but until you offer Y as the alternative which is good, it's difficult to unite against X.

BTW BTW apropos of an earlier discussion: did you read 'The Death of Ivan Ilych'? I just finished it. It's a short and easy read. I'm still working out what to make of it. I'm glad I read it. — andrewk

I started reading it and made it through the first chapter before I got very busy and had to put it down. I never got back to it, but I should because I was enjoying it. I really like the personalities which Tolstoy creates in his characters, there are literally layers of meaning within an individual's personality.

I'm fine with this, but I think the difference is that I don't stop there. I can see how this jives with your reliance on empirically observing reality. I rely more on creativity or intuition; that's what leads me to go beyond simple experience. I do really on experience, but I also drape it unto the backdrop of what my intuition tells me about reality. This is connected to the experience of the infinite, which I'll get to later as per your question. — Noble Dust

All I'll say is that intuition can be impressively powerful, but it mustn't be blindly trusted.

I recently wrote this note to myself: "Belief in life means passively leaving yourself open to the possibility that life has a meaning or purpose." Along with your comment above, it's definitely a much more existential approach. The reason I call it belief is because I think it's possible to have a belief in life even within feelings of meaninglessness. I may feel no meaning in my life, but I might still believe in life. But the difference is that I won't necessarily stop there; that's not the end point. Belief leaves me open to experience in a way that can change my perspective in the future. That's why it's a passive, open stance, rather than an active, closed stance of putting the lid on the jar of meaning/truth. This is an important principle to me, especially when it comes to avoiding dogma or fundamentalism, whether religious or atheistic or otherwise. — Noble Dust

I too am open to the possibility that through learning we may one day come to find something we can label with an upper case M (for Chistianity, this would entail meeting god) but I've given up expectation that such a thing is ever going to happen in this life. So, bereft of hard Meaning i've decided to settle for the soft kind, preferably as much quantity, quality, and variety of it as can be found. Higher learning instead becomes oriented around soft meaning. I do take intrinsic pleasure in learning itself, but the utility of the things I learn often facilitate more reliable paths to soft meaning (which again is valuation of temporary things as opposed to the value contained in the infinite).

I didn't mean it needs a Christian framework specifically. My concern is that, when religious principles are taken out of their religious or spiritual context, they lose the inner life that substantiated them. Moral claims need a rich inner life in order to flourish. We live in an age of spiritual poverty, and I think the moral failings in the world right now are a clear indicator of that inner poverty. This may or may not apply to you or me specifically, but it applies to the general state of humanity. — Noble Dust

It sounds like you're saying that religious or spiritual beliefs (and their inner life) are required for moral claims to flourish, and that the spiritual poverty of today is the cause of today's moral failings, but the past was actually no morally superior to the present by any metric. The further back you go the more spiritual things seem to get, but also the more you tend to see widespread "moral failings". Is there a context that I'm missing?

Why? — Noble Dust

Because heaven doesn't resonate with observable truth. As much as I want it to exist, I know allowing myself belief would be an arbitrary or irrational emotional treat.

What I'm trying to point out, is that if life is in fact tentative, and so meaning is also, then your position needs to be equally tentative. It needs to be open to change and correction, but the way you've been arguing has been with such a firm hand that it almost feels dogmatic; I would expect your arguments to be more open and tentative if you see life and meaning in that way. You seem to be invested in convincing me of your position, for instance. Why do so if it's only tentative? — Noble Dust

So we need to separate out atheism from my existential/moral views, and also my existential views from my moral views, because they're not predicated on one-another and are distinct aspects of my mind. I'm an atheist because I find no argument for god's existence satisfyingly persuasive. It's a lack of belief which I defend by criticizing the arguments of others. To convince you to assent to my atheism would be to have you agree that X or Y proof of god is irrational. (I attack the proof of others, but I have no central claim of my own which requires proof).

My existential views pertaining to the subjective value (and therefore meaning) of life (being a subjective interpretation of one's desires) is minimalist in comparison to anything seeking objective meaning. You're free to grab a pick and start digging for spiritual gold, but I'm satisfied with less.

The moral values I promote are functionally universal and the moral arguments I use to promote them employ observation and logic rather than creativity or the spirit. I find it very easy to convince others to adopt my moral positions because I only make moral claims which appeal directly to basic shared values via logic and reason to show how moral positions can preserve or promote those basic shared values. I don't even have to use words like "immoral", "right" and "wrong" because I can frame all my arguments directly in terms of benefit. A good moral tenet is like a technology that allows humans to thrive; it's like offering irrigation to a farmer, you just need to show them and they will want it.

So when it comes to my moral positions, I would be invested in convincing you to adopt my positions if we actually had a moral disagreement. My existential views are something which more or less everyone already assents to in the way they behave. Even asceticism, which is meant to be a rejection of earthly value, is itself an embrace of earthly values: emotional/cognitive fulfillment. When it comes to my position as an agnostic atheist, I'm not actually very interested in convincing you to join me in my atheism, but I am quite interested in refuting any proof's of god that you might offer. My atheism is in fact tentative, but my existential beliefs are not, and my moral views are only as tentative as they contain room for improvement.

The firmness of my existential and moral arguments results from their rational robustness. The firmness of my atheism results from the lack of rational robustness in theistic arguments.

The difference seems to be that an atheistic seeking of the truth remains less open. The classic spiritual seeker, whether studying religions, committing to asceticism, philosophy, meditation, etc etc., is on a journey, and takes the position of a student. I don't get that sense from atheists who claim to be seeking the truth, rather they seem to feel that they've found it. This is what leads to atheistic dogmatism and fundamentalism. I'm not accusing you of that, but I do feel like I sense a little bit of it in your arguments. You seem very settled for one who claims to be seeking the truth. — Noble Dust

How long should I search for the truth of god to the expense and detriment of searching for other truths (non-god related truth)? It's not as if I've suddenly decided there are no good proofs of god arbitrarily. I went looking for them, and I've seen many many different attempts to prove the existence of some kind of deity, and they've all wound up proving irrational. It's like "ghosts"; when I was a kid I was open to the idea of ghosts, but now that I'm older and I've seen the absolute hogwash they call "evidence", I'm so firmly skeptical of "ghosts" that you might as well call me the pope of dogmatic skepticism.

In the face of continuous failure (trying to prove god) it eventually becomes prudent to give up and move onto other things. I'm seeking lower tier truth because that's what I've learned can actually be found.

Regarding your description of your glimpse of the infinite, it doesn't exactly seem like creative energy requires some external force in order to exist. Instead of an external force, a subconscious internal force seems like a more plausible candidate. I'm not saying for certain that your creative energy doesn't come from god, but can you actually prove to a reasonable degree or persuade me that your experience did in fact come from god or the infinite and not your own subconscious mind?

It's an idea borrowed from the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev. I personally am not married to it, but I like it. The idea is that freedom is ultimate, prior to being. From freedom springs spirit, and the physical world is a symbol, an objectivization of the spiritual world. — Noble Dust

What if science and technology could offer you potentially infinite life extensions and no upper limit on your ability to increase your freedom? (ignoring that it doesn't).

I'm curious because I'm trying to understand the root of the value you place in the infinite... If infinite freedom and infinite life was your state of existence in this world, would that be a capital M source of Meaning?

What I'm asking is how is it possible that the person who was found not-guilty by the court is "in fact guilty"? By whose judgement is that person guilty? — Metaphysician Undercover

If a person commits a crime that person is responsible for the crime, and is therefore guilty of committing the crime. The person is responsible for the crime taking place. A person may think he has not committed the crime, in which case he has amnesia, or is insane (for example). A person may not think he's committed a crime--i.e. that what the person did should not be a crime, or is not crime, really, despite the fact that it is defined as a crime; but the person nonetheless has committed one, as whether a crime is a crime is not dependent on the person's beliefs.

OJ was found not guilty. Many believe that he nonetheless is guilty because they believe he is responsible for the crime having taken place--he committed the crime. This seems quite clear. The determination being made, or not being made, is whether a crime was committed, not whether it is "wrong" to commit the crime.

All I'll say is that intuition can be impressively powerful, but it mustn't be blindly trusted. — VagabondSpectre

Why not say the same thing of empirical observation?

It sounds like you're saying that religious or spiritual beliefs (and their inner life) are required for moral claims to flourish, and that the spiritual poverty of today is the cause of today's moral failings, but the past was actually no morally superior to the present by any metric. The further back you go the more spiritual things seem to get, but also the more you tend to see widespread "moral failings". Is there a context that I'm missing? — VagabondSpectre

That's certainly true, there's no moral evolution per se. But I think we're dealing with different kinds of moral failings now. Less barbarous and more cunning, so to speak. The older, more spiritual world seems less dependent on reason, and we can almost smell the blood sacrifices of the holy. A brutal and barbarous world, no doubt, but one swimming in Meaning. Now we live in a world predicated on civility, thanks to sciences offspring (technology) which allows us to live a less barbarous, more reasonable life, but the human condition (the lack), still presents itself, just in a more cunning, subversive way. See "fake news" and our apathy and inability to personally do anything about it. Fake news is almost the grand culmination of postmodernity and the loss of Meaning, and it's hard to say whether it's a comedy or a tragedy. We live in a different milieu of moral failing, but we have the cloak of civility. Blake says "Pride is shame's cloak", and we could say "civility is barbarity's cloak".

So, to be very clear, I'm not suggesting we should revert back to the barbarous times of a spiritual milieu. (impossible to do anyway, unless we find ourselves in a post-apocalyptic wasteland anytime soon, which I don't rule out). I'm just describing what I see as the change from an inner spiritual life, to a poverty of spiritual life, and the changes that occur. This change is even mirrored in the very common experience (at least in the US) of the child growing up in the church "losing her faith" in the 21st century. The microcosm reflects the macrocosm.

So we need to separate out atheism from my existential/moral views, and also my existential views from my moral views, because they're not predicated on one-another and are distinct aspects of my mind. — VagabondSpectre

I'll trust that you're able to do that, but I'm cautious of the idea that a separation of those views can be actual. It's certainly possible to do so in abstraction, for the sake of analyzing each, but surely each aspect of your whole view of life affects the other, whether you're aware of it or not.

A good moral tenet is like a technology that allows humans to thrive; it's like offering irrigation to a farmer, you just need to show them and they will want it. — VagabondSpectre

I think this analogy breaks down when you include the variable of human consciousness or mental health, though. Depression, suicidal tendencies, addiction, past abuse, these things inhibit the "farmer of life" from accepting "irrigation". So, predicated on that problem, your (attractively) simple approach to a moral framework wouldn't be universally effective given the state of humanity. More variables would need to be factored in, which would add complexity to the moral situation.

When it comes to my position as an agnostic atheist, I'm not actually very interested in convincing you to join me in my atheism, but I am quite interested in refuting any proof's of god that you might offer. — VagabondSpectre

Why be interested right away in refutation if soft-atheism is merely the lack of belief? Wouldn't soft-atheism entail an openness to new proofs of God that would overturn said atheism? As you say in the next sentence, your atheism is tentative.

How long should I search for the truth of god to the expense and detriment of searching for other truths (non-god related truth)? — VagabondSpectre

I'm not sure; you're free to end the search anytime you like. To be clear, I'm not here to try to convince you to pursue God, just as you say you're not here to convince me of atheism. Anyway, on days when I believe in God (tuesdays??) I'm a universalist...

I will say, though, that as far as "proofs for God", I consider it the wrong approach entirely. I actually have no interest in the classical proofs, or whatever else. The possibility of God to me is existential; it's based on existence and experience. How else can we go about an inquiry into an infinite being that exists outside of and generated the world we know? Not through empiricism, clearly. Empiricism deals with that world outside of which the eternal being would exist. This is why I find your soft-atheism unsatisfying. It's not about empirical proof. On the other hand, I'm way more sympathetic to the idea of God being unknowable. So, the God concept is only irrational insofar as it transcends rationality. The reason you find it irrational and end your inquiry there is that your inquiry seems to begin and end with rationality.

I'm not saying for certain that your creative energy doesn't come from god, but can you actually prove to a reasonable degree or persuade me that your experience did in fact come from god or the infinite and not your own subconscious mind? — VagabondSpectre

No, because I can't put you in my shoes and let you experience what I experience. This is the limit of existentialism, in a way. And I'm fine with that. I don't expect my experience to be compelling to someone who relies on rationality to determine their view of reality. I'm open to the possibility that subconscious processes are not self-contained within the mind. And as to the mechanical workings of my brain, it's less important to me than the whole canvas of my life's experiences, and how my experience of this intense form of creativity relates to all the rest of the canvas. It's a bold color among other pastels and shades. I often wonder who the artist is.

What if science and technology could offer you potentially infinite life extensions and no upper limit on your ability to increase your freedom? (ignoring that it doesn't). — VagabondSpectre

If it was accompanied by a moral evolution, then I would be interested.

I'm curious because I'm trying to understand the root of the value you place in the infinite... If infinite freedom and infinite life was your state of existence in this world, would that be a capital M source of Meaning? — VagabondSpectre

I don't blame you for trying to figure this out, because I haven't done so myself. The curse of an intuitive approach to life and philosophy. I don't have a firm structure of my philosophy in place as you do, and I'm ok with this for now. But things like infinite freedom, infinite life and Meaning all need to be predicated on a supreme moral reality, a reality that I don't think exists yet. Optimistically, I'm searching for a way for morality to evolve. Pessimistically, I'm not sure if it can. But my experience of the infinite (almost related too to Plato's "memory" thing), is a driving factor in my view of how morality could evolve. That's more of the thrust here for me, not the infinite itself. The use of the word infinite in this discussion actually came about arbitrarily in the midst of it. It's just an aspect of my view, not the goal. My discussion of the infinite was just in response to your questions about it, as far as I remember. Again, I'm not over here in my corner trying to work out how to fool God into letting me live eternally and avoid hell. If I have any fixation on the infinite, it's because of my search for a moral evolution that I find satisfying. I'm a bit of a perfectionist.

There are no terms. Meaning is necessary, is infinite. To specify a particular "how" (e.g. go on a spiritual journey, be an atheist, accept Jesus, etc.) is incohrent. Doing so would require treating the infinite (Meaning) as if it were temporal (some state of the world, way of acting or thinking).

Meaning is beyond any instance of the temporal. It's true regardless of particular actions or states. No matter who someone is or what they are doing, their life has Meaning. The ignomy (Meaninglessness) religion assigns to us is a myth. We cannot be severed from the infinite and have never existed without it.

My use of "eternal life" isn't just literal. I'm also using it in a metaphorical sense, where it refers to gaining Meaning. Is my life only worthwhile because I get to act in a way that turns it meaningful?

Well, no. An act to help my community is, for example, has the same worth no matter my religious beliefs. I don't need to, for example, accept Jesus or go on a spiritual journey for the act or my life to have Meaning. Either way, it has Meaning.

When I say you assume meaninglessness, I'm referring to how you don't recognise Meaning itself.

Rather than understanding Meaning to be infinite, without beginning not end, you treat it like achieved with a particular "how" or action, as if Meaning were a finite state created by behaving in the correct manner.

There are no terms. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And philosophy falls apart, along with your following post.

If a person commits a crime that person is responsible for the crime, and is therefore guilty of committing the crime. — Ciceronianus the White

How does introducing a counterfactual condition explain how the person is "in fact guilty"? The point of my example is that the person's actions have not been judged as criminal, so whether or not the person committed a crime is indeterminate. We know the person was active, but there is no description of the actions. How can you say that the person is "in fact guilty"? To introduce a counterfactual to explain your claim of what is "in fact" the case, is contradictory.

OJ was found not guilty. Many believe that he nonetheless is guilty because they believe he is responsible for the crime having taken place--he committed the crime. This seems quite clear. The determination being made, or not being made, is whether a crime was committed, not whether it is "wrong" to commit the crime. — Ciceronianus the White

Are you saying that despite the fact that the court found OJ not guilty, the fact that many people believe he is guilty makes him "in fact guilty"? If I believe that someone is guilty does that make the person "in fact guilty"? Or does it require that many people believe that the person is guilty to make the person guilty in fact?

How does introducing a counterfactual condition explain how the person is "in fact guilty"? The point of my example is that the person's actions have not been judged as criminal, so whether or not the person committed a crime is indeterminate. We know the person was active, but there is no description of the actions. How can you say that the person is "in fact guilty"? To introduce a counterfactual to explain your claim of what is "in fact" the case, is contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

We seem to have a problem communicating, or I do. The definition of "guilty" includes "responsible for" (in dictionaries I've seen, in any case). The definition of "responsible" includes "being the cause (or primary cause) of" something--again, according to dictionaries I've seen.

It seems to me that it follows that someone is guilty of a crime if he/she caused it, i.e. committed the crime, and so is responsible for it, having caused it. And, that a person is not guilty of a crime if he/she did not commit the crime, and so is not responsible for causing it.

That's not the case in the law, however.

A finding of "not guilty" by a jury is simply a finding that the defendant has not been shown to have committed the crime at issue beyond a reasonable doubt. A typical jury instruction given to a jury in a criminal case includes language like this (Pennsylvania):

"It is not the defendant’s burden to prove that [he] [she] is not guilty. Instead, it is the Commonwealth that always has the burden of proving each and every element of the crime charged and that the defendant is guilty of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The person accused of a crime is not required to present evidence or prove anything in his or her own defense [except with respect to the defense of [type of defense], which I will discuss later]. If the Commonwealth’s evidence fails to meet its burden, then your verdict must be not guilty. On the other hand, if the Commonwealth’s evidence does prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then your verdict should be guilty."

So, outside the law, given the definitions of the pertinent words, it makes complete sense to say that someone is guilty of a crime if that someone caused it, committed it (is responsible for it), and not guilty of a crime if that someone did not cause it, did not commit it (is not responsible for it).

You seem to have some difficulty with the claim that a person may commit a crime and yet be found "not guilty" by a jury. I'm not sure why, though, since the fact that a jury found a defendant not guilty doesn't require a finding that person did not commit a crime.

Why not say the same thing of empirical observation? — Noble Dust

There's something peculiar about the statement "Don't trust what you observe blindly", but yes, we would say that. Empiricism is about testing predictive models (of observed phenomena) to find out how accurate and reliable they are, but god/the infinite is not a testable and therefore falsifiable theory, leaving us no way of knowing how reliable said intuition really is.

That's certainly true, there's no moral evolution per se. But I think we're dealing with different kinds of moral failings now. Less barbarous and more cunning, so to speak. The older, more spiritual world seems less dependent on reason, and we can almost smell the blood sacrifices of the holy. A brutal and barbarous world, no doubt, but one swimming in Meaning. Now we live in a world predicated on civility, thanks to sciences offspring (technology) which allows us to live a less barbarous, more reasonable life, but the human condition (the lack), still presents itself, just in a more cunning, subversive way. See "fake news" and our apathy and inability to personally do anything about it. Fake news is almost the grand culmination of postmodernity and the loss of Meaning, and it's hard to say whether it's a comedy or a tragedy. We live in a different milieu of moral failing, but we have the cloak of civility. Blake says "Pride is shame's cloak", and we could say "civility is barbarity's cloak". — Noble Dust

What Meaningful spiritual riches are there to be found in the past which cannot be found today? People seemed more deeply committed to their religion and derived more of their meaning directly from it in the past, but nothing stops people so inclined from wholly embracing sprituality. I don't see why we would benefit were we all more spiritual.

Post-modernism, and "fake news", aren't really connected with the rise of atheism, but I'm sure they do share some common contributing factors. The rise of sophisticated empirical science (which replaces a lot of the whys of the world religion used to explain) contributes to atheism, and maybe post-modernism is in part a scramble to find meaning since the disheveling of traditional religious societal and psychological foundations, but fake news is another thing entirely. That's mostly the result of unmoderated propaganda flooding the internet and it's growing communication channels

So, to be very clear, I'm not suggesting we should revert back to the barbarous times of a spiritual milieu. (impossible to do anyway, unless we find ourselves in a post-apocalyptic wasteland anytime soon, which I don't rule out). I'm just describing what I see as the change from an inner spiritual life, to a poverty of spiritual life, and the changes that occur. This change is even mirrored in the very common experience (at least in the US) of the child growing up in the church "losing her faith" in the 21st century. The microcosm reflects the macrocosm. — Noble Dust

While you view "losing one's faith" as the descent into spiritual poverty, I view it as the ascent into intellectual development and robustness. In my view children don't start out with faith, it's arbitrarily forced upon them by their family and community before they're capable of critical thought. Babies are soft-soft-atheists!

I'll trust that you're able to do that, but I'm cautious of the idea that a separation of those views can be actual. It's certainly possible to do so in abstraction, for the sake of analyzing each, but surely each aspect of your whole view of life affects the other, whether you're aware of it or not. — Noble Dust

What you're trying to tell me is that my moral and existential views are a symptom of my lack of spirituality. My moral and existential views aren't spiritual, but they're not predicated on "non-spirituality". Spritual moral and existential views are founded on spiritual beliefs; non-spiritual moral and existential views are founded on something else. I don't found my moral or existential views on the absence of god, they just don't include god in their workings. They work with or without god in fact (generally).

The possibility of God to me is existential; it's based on existence and experience. How else can we go about an inquiry into an infinite being that exists outside of and generated the world we know? Not through empiricism, clearly. Empiricism deals with that world outside of which the eternal being would exist. This is why I find your soft-atheism unsatisfying. It's not about empirical proof. On the other hand, I'm way more sympathetic to the idea of God being unknowable. So, the God concept is only irrational insofar as it transcends rationality. The reason you find it irrational and end your inquiry there is that your inquiry seems to begin and end with rationality. — Noble Dust

I'm very sympathetic to the idea of god being unknowable, including it's existence. I find all of metaphysics unsatisfying because it inherently moves past the observable and testable world and heads into a purely invisible, unknowable, and therefore hypothetical world to which we have no access. It's all true, it's all false; it doesn't matter: who knows? Nobody can know. Some people might object to my use of the term metaphysics in this sense, but theological metaphysics does tend to have the quality of being unfalsifiable; blind.

I don't blame you for trying to figure this out, because I haven't done so myself. The curse of an intuitive approach to life and philosophy. I don't have a firm structure of my philosophy in place as you do, and I'm ok with this for now. But things like infinite freedom, infinite life and Meaning all need to be predicated on a supreme moral reality, a reality that I don't think exists yet. Optimistically, I'm searching for a way for morality to evolve. Pessimistically, I'm not sure if it can. But my experience of the infinite (almost related too to Plato's "memory" thing), is a driving factor in my view of how morality could evolve. That's more of the thrust here for me, not the infinite itself. The use of the word infinite in this discussion actually came about arbitrarily in the midst of it. It's just an aspect of my view, not the goal. My discussion of the infinite was just in response to your questions about it, as far as I remember. Again, I'm not over here in my corner trying to work out how to fool God into letting me live eternally and avoid hell. If I have any fixation on the infinite, it's because of my search for a moral evolution that I find satisfying. I'm a bit of a perfectionist. — Noble Dust

I too am looking to evolve (my own) morality, but I'm very wary of anything presenting itself as ultimate because it then becomes more justifiable to sacrifice the temporal (one's life and everything else in it) to preserve it. Ultimate importance has no equal, so in your future pursuits when you see someone claiming to have found it, feel obligated to really put it to the test should you consider adopting it. If it really is an ultimate force, it can take it.

Pascal makes an impassioned case for gambling your one chit on the ultimate, and I'm here to be the conservative nag who urges people to really consider the risk. Gambling is after all frowned upon in most religions ;)

That's a strawman.

My point wasn't there are no terms, for there are plenty of those: Meaning, infinite, worth, etc., but that you were demanding finite terms to account for the infinite.

There isn't a "how" by which one becomes Meaningful. It's not one's actions, appearance, status, wealth, politics, values, religion of philosophy which makes their life Meaningful. The worth of a sinner is not defined by any of those terms.

Even the abusive, genocidal, depressed, unrepenting slimeball's life has Meaning. They are person, whose actions are important, who are worth forgiving, with a life that matters, no matter how much they hate their life (and everyone else) and think it's all worthless. Meaning is not something gained through action in the world. Everyone, always and necessarily, has it.

Earlier I eviscerated Grace for inequality, this is why. Sure Grace claims to be equal, and it is insofar as it destroys the idea Meaning is dependent wealth, status or displays of piety, but it is only within the context of the practice of accepting Jesus.

In the end, Grace still makes Meaning dependent on what you do, on display of action for others. It's another misunderstanding of Meaning as a possession gained by particularly action world-- it just replaces wealth, status and piety with "being Christian."

Any approach which thinks Meaning is dependent on "how" is making a similar mistake.

You seem to have some difficulty with the claim that a person may commit a crime and yet be found "not guilty" by a jury. — Ciceronianus the White

No, what I am arguing is that in order for it to be true that a particular individual is a criminal, that person's actions must have been judged as being criminal, according to some set of laws. If that judgement is not made by human beings, who is it made by?

Here's an analogy. People will say that a rock, never observed by a human being, exists as a rock. Or some might say some thing never before observed by human beings, like a planet on the other side of the universe, exists as a planet on the other side of the universe. But unless this existence is judged to be "a rock", or to be "a planet", how is it correct to assume that such a thing exists as "a rock", or as "a planet"?

In this case, you seem to want to say that the person is "a criminal" ("in fact guilty"), even though the person has never been judged to have fulfilled the conditions of "having committed a crime". How is that possible? Sure, you can say that if the person committed a crime, then the person is a criminal, just like you can say that if there is something on the other side of the universe which fulfills the conditions of being a planet, then there is a planet there, but how does that make any particular person a criminal, or any particular thing a planet? In order for a person to "be in fact, a criminal", one must have been judged as such.

Consider, we would say that prior to the existence of human beings, the planets in the solar system existed. But they did not exist as "planets", because they has not been judged to be planets. How could they exist as "planets" if there was no one to judge them as being "planets"? We extrapolate, now, from our understanding, to say that the planets were there then, as "planets", before our existence, and so this statement that the planets were there before us, is justified. But we are not justified in the statement that the planets were "planets" without having been named as such. So we are not justified in the claim that a person is "a criminal" without having been named as such.

Any name "criminal" in this case, has meaning associated with it. And a mind associates the name with the object. But we cannot correctly claim that the object, the person in this case, has the name "criminal" associated with it, unless a mind makes that judgement.

A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. We determine what constitutes a crime, as we adopt laws. A crime is "an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law." We may also refer to acts we consider bad or evil "crimes" even when they are not illegal, but we do so metaphorically--we say, in effect, "there outta be a law."

We know what a crime is by consulting the law, and determining whether the terms of the law have been violated, when prompted by circumstances to do so. We can refer to an "unsolved" crime as we can determine whether a law has been violated but may be unable to determine how it was committed or by whom. When we don't know a crime has been committed, though, then we don't think of or speak of a crime.

May laws have been violated, crimes committed, without our knowledge? Yes, as trees may have fallen without our knowledge. But I don't think this is a useful inquiry.

May laws have been violated, crimes committed, without our knowledge? Yes, as trees may have fallen without our knowledge. But I don't think this is a useful inquiry. — Ciceronianus the White

You seem to be missing the point. The question is whether the thing is "a tree" without being named as a tree. Since "tree" is only the name that we call it, it could not be. So how could a person be "a criminal" without being named as a criminal, when "criminal" is just a name that we assign to some people. You would not be "Ciceronianus" if you had not been named that, so why would a person be "a criminal" without having been named that?

It's a relevant inquiry, because you clearly desire to say that a criminal is a criminal without being named that, and that a tree is a tree without being named that. But this requires that someone, such as God attaches the name to the object.

It's a relevant inquiry, because you clearly desire to say that a criminal is a criminal without being named that, and that a tree is a tree without being named that. But this requires that someone, such as God attaches the name to the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think merely that one can have committed a crime without having been found to have done so. This assumes, of course, that there are laws, but we don't require God in order to establish that laws exist. A crime is by definition a violation of a law which is subject to punishment by the state. If there are no laws, there can be no crime.

But if there are laws, we know of them, and so know what a crime is as a result. Murder is a crime (whether God thinks so or not). We know that murder is a crime regardless of whether we know that a murder has been committed. We know that a person who has murdered someone has committed a crime regardless of whether we know the person has murdered someone. We may not know that a murder has been committed, but know that if one is committed a crime has been committed.

So here's the point Ciceronianus. There are laws, that's a fact. There are human actions, and that's a fact as well. These are two very distinct things, laws and human actions. In order that a person's actions may be criminal, a comparison between the actions and the laws must be made, with a judgement following that comparison. Do you agree with me here? If you do agree, then in cases where human beings do not pass that judgement, whom other than God could?

So here's the point Ciceronianus. There are laws, that's a fact. There are human actions, and that's a fact as well. These are two very distinct things, laws and human actions. In order that a person's actions may be criminal, a comparison between the actions and the laws must be made, with a judgement following that comparison. Do you agree with me here? If you do agree, then in cases where human beings do not pass that judgement, whom other than God could? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you're confusing judging and knowing. Accepting what I think is the common conception of God, God doesn't judge whether or not someone violated one of our laws. Knowing everything, though, he would know what our laws are and know if something took place, which would include what we define as a crime, though we do not. If that's your point, I agree.

I think that "knowing" implies correct judgement, because "truth" requires that a statement be interpreted, and judged as corresponding with reality. Even knowing what occurred requires a interpretation of reality. To know something is to make a correct interpretation, and interpretation requires judgement. So if God is believed to be the supreme knower, then God is believed to be the supreme judge. If God knows everything then all of God's judgements are correct, as knowing something is to make the correct judgement. This is how God is related to truth. If human judgements can be faulty, yet we assume that there is a truth (about whether or not a person is guilty for example) to the matter, then it must be God's judgement which comprises that truth, which is supposed to exist independent of human judgement.

Empiricism is about testing predictive models (of observed phenomena) to find out how accurate and reliable they are, but god/the infinite is not a testable and therefore falsifiable theory, leaving us no way of knowing how reliable said intuition really is. — VagabondSpectre

So fascinating. This need for testability, for empiricism, isn't even something that I actually have any critique of; I just can't fathom it for myself. I love the unknown. I love being lost. When I visit a new city, I consciously wander around until I'm literally lost. So I just can't relate. But so interesting that there's people like yourself who are so committed to this thing.

What Meaningful spiritual riches are there to be found in the past which cannot be found today? — VagabondSpectre

In a way, I think the true spiritual riches of the past are either dormant, or coming to birth in the world we live in today. So I'm not worried, and I'm not concerned with explaining it in more detail for you, because I don't think you're particularly interested. Of course, if you are, I'll give it a shot once I'm more properly rested.

Post-modernism, and "fake news", aren't really connected with the rise of atheism, — VagabondSpectre

To the contrary, one can crudely make a vague map as such: Protestantism -> The Enlightenment -> The Death of God (a seed of modern atheism)-> Modernism -> The World Wars -> Post-Modernism -> Our Current Epoch (including fake news, etc) (what exactly do we call ourselves now???). Ah, this is a bit of a gross generalization. I'm not actually that concerned with how atheism fits in here, but, to your statement: after the World Wars, it seems like the various nuances and aspects of modern atheism really started to take shape. The existential crises of the wars really helped the Western World to frame their atheistic feelings. There was a context of horror that helped the world at large set it's agnostic and it's atheistic bar. Elliot's The Wasteland is a perfect barometer of that moment. All of these various worldviews, along with competing worldviews like right-wing conservatism and it's requisite faux-Christianity, bring us to where we are now, with our "fake news". So there is certainly a connection, or a parallelism, with the rise of atheism, as I can see it, historically. I'm not accusing atheists of being responsible for "fake news"; I hope that's clear. What I'm saying is that these various factors: fake news, atheism, post-modernism, are related. They all can't properly exist without one another, historically and politically.

While you view "losing one's faith" as the descent into spiritual poverty, I view it as the ascent into intellectual development and robustness. In my view children don't start out with faith, it's arbitrarily forced upon them by their family and community before they're capable of critical thought. Babies are soft-soft-atheists! — VagabondSpectre

Maybe I spoke wrongly or didn't express my view adequately; to the contrary, I view "losing one's faith" as the potential for acquiring "true faith". If I can make one more criticism, it's that I'm always struck by the black and white, "either/or" mentality of so many ex-members-of-Christendom like yourself. I'd rather not presume to know why you respond the way you do, and why I respond the way I do (to being raised within Christendom). But I find so much wisdom in a passive approach that is so careful to lay no inherent blame on teachings, but only on teachers; this allows one to assess the teachings with less of a grudge.

Spritual moral and existential views are founded on spiritual beliefs; non-spiritual moral and existential views are founded on something else. — VagabondSpectre

On what, then? At this point I would be inclined to say "on nothing" (I mean that formally, not pejoratively).

Some people might object to my use of the term metaphysics in this sense, but theological metaphysics does tend to have the quality of being unfalsifiable; blind. — VagabondSpectre

This to me speaks presciently to the untranslatability of your empiricism to my intuition. My view on that is best illustrated by my first response in this post. Do you at least see how me saying this is not at all an avoidance of your argument? We're both literally speaking different languages here, languages we seem to find satisfying enough to stake our claims on.

Ultimate importance has no equal, so in your future pursuits when you see someone claiming to have found it, feel obligated to really put it to the test should you consider adopting it. If it really is an ultimate force, it can take it. — VagabondSpectre

I can honestly say that I very much appreciate this advice; not only because it's something that I've used as a metric for myself in the past, but because it's also a finicky standard that my desire for something ultimate often falls prey to because of it's inherent motive. Indeed, "if it really is an ultimate force, it can take it." As you say. Did you mean to hit on the very core of my philosophy here???

To the contrary, one can crudely make a vague map as such: Protestantism -> The Enlightenment -> The Death of God (a seed of modern atheism)-> Modernism -> The World Wars -> Post-Modernism -> Our Current Epoch (including fake news, etc) (what exactly do we call ourselves now???)....What I'm saying is that these various factors: fake news, atheism, post-modernism, are related. They all can't properly exist without one another, historically and politically. — Noble Dust

Sure they are related in some ways, but each of these thing you have named represent vast and diverse swaths time and thought; they aren't very interdependent.

The protestant reformation was an internal religious schism that eventually culminated in 'The Thirty Years War' whose conclusion marked the end of war between European states driven by theological differences. It was during this time that the atlantic system (of colonial slavery) began to ensure a steady flow of goods to Europe while renaissance thought and art began to take shape (thanks to wealth). After the thirty years war the French in particular started trading enlightenment ideas (largely thanks to their books, newspapers, salons, and coffé houses which offered them the media to do it and the atlantic system which provided them the affluence and free time required), which eventually lead to the French revolution (Louis was too much of a fancy pants in the face of the french population who lived day to day). Perhaps here we're at the most relevant development in favor of atheism, which was the notion that authority to govern should come from the people being governed, not from a divine representative of god called a monarch. This is not atheism, but having it makes cultivating atheism much easier.

Nietzsche kicked off the modern era by announcing god is dead to indicate that Christian moral foundations needed replacement, and after a brief nihilistic affair, secularism was the result. After the first world war secular humanism emerged as a product of rational and ethical inquiry. It's noteworthy that secular humanism plays a role in enabling atheism, but it should be understood that secular humanism is a kind of moral foundation which functions without theological claims; atheists largely adopt secular humanism because it's one of the main moral foundations available to them. The second world war and the ensuing half a century did to modernism what early modernism did to religious belief: it marginalized it; post-modernism is born. "Post-modernism" is a term I don't like using because of how vague it is (does that make me a post modernist? Damn it.) but in regards to what we're discussing, it wasn't beneficial to atheism at all.

Atheism had been around and didn't need post-modernism mucking up and doubting it's structure; Atheism came under fire for being too certain. "Theological non-cognitivism" is born, which essentially states that all religious language is meaningless because it refers to experimentally non-existent attributes of non-existent and ill defined things. To even say "god" is to pretend that anything of meaning is being said at all, and so they reject all theological claims and positions (even the atheist lack of position) and refuse to even talk about it... (Stinkin post-modernists am I right?)

I'm not sure what you mean by "fake news", but if you're talking about the modern phenomenon, then you're not talking about run of the mill manipulation through propaganda. Manipulative propaganda really took off during and after the second world war when governments realized just how effective it was for keeping their citizens well ordered. Our media outlets have been intentionally and unintentionally lying to us for over half a century. Fudging numbers, ignoring truths, focusing on and magnifying specific half-truths, and appealing directly to the deepest emotions they're able to appeal to. The new fake news is a phenomenon where extremely emotionally appealing and extremely fabricated "news" is able to make an impact in our media channels thanks to social media technology offering instantaneous means of transmission without also inherently providing fact-checking and vetting functionality.

Fake news is basically sophisticated face-book trolling for cash or political influence. The uncertainty it creates might resemble post-modernism but in order to find a common factor/progenitor we need to go all the way back to the creation of mass media (the printing press), which simultaneously created our ability to share/refine ideas and our ability to manipulate those ideas through lies and lies of omission.

Atheism isn't tied in any meaningful way to post-modernism or to "fake news" though, whether we're talking about new fake news or regular old propaganda.

Maybe I spoke wrongly or didn't express my view adequately; to the contrary, I view "losing one's faith" as the potential for acquiring "true faith". If I can make one more criticism, it's that I'm always struck by the black and white, "either/or" mentality of so many ex-members-of-Christendom like yourself. I'd rather not presume to know why you respond the way you do, and why I respond the way I do (to being raised within Christendom). But I find so much wisdom in a passive approach that is so careful to lay no inherent blame on teachings, but only on teachers; this allows one to assess the teachings with less of a grudge — Noble Dust

Some grudges I enact because it's morally praiseworthy to do so. Take any religious lampoon I've ever hurled, and in it you will find a morally repugnant target of my abuse. Mostly I paint religion in grey scale or full color, but there are parts of it that merit the black (and some parts the white as well). Pacifism is only useful so long as it's reciprocal, and condemning people to hell because they don't share beliefs is far from pacifism in the realm of ideas.

On what, then? At this point I would be inclined to say "on nothing" (I mean that formally, not pejoratively). — Noble Dust

I think I can see why you have this inclination, but honestly ask yourself this question: "if a view is not founded in spiritual beliefs does that mean it must be founded on nothing?"

Of course not, but this is Nietzsche's whole point in declaring god dead. When someone with Christian or spiritual foundations for their moral and existential views suddenly becomes bereft of that spirituality, they therefore lose their existential and moral beliefs too and are left with nothing.

Religious belief and spirituality are first constructed from nothing in a human mind, and generally it's all that mind will ever know in terms of existential belief. Non spiritual beliefs are similarly constructed from nothing as a starting point, but they do base themselves in real things. "I think therefore I am" and "pain and pleasure are real (and have inherent value)", are some basic facts upon which non-spiritual moral and existential views can be founded.

This to me speaks presciently to the untranslatability of your empiricism to my intuition. My view on that is best illustrated by my first response in this post. Do you at least see how me saying this is not at all an avoidance of your argument? We're both literally speaking different languages here, languages we seem to find satisfying enough to stake our claims on. — Noble Dust

I can understand where you're coming from, but don't hold it against me for defending my laboriously constructed (from nothing) existential and moral views (and my criticisms of some other moral views).

Getting lost in a forest of ideas is indeed enjoyable and perhaps necessary for intellectual development, but personally after spending so much time inside of it, I've become more interested in bushwhacking my own trails and setting fires where I think the forest could use some regeneration. For me the most enjoyable part of going to a new place isn't the being lost part, it's the process of discovering the whole.

I can honestly say that I very much appreciate this advice; not only because it's something that I've used as a metric for myself in the past, but because it's also a finicky standard that my desire for something ultimate often falls prey to because of it's inherent motive. Indeed, "if it really is an ultimate force, it can take it." As you say. Did you mean to hit on the very core of my philosophy here??? — Noble Dust

I didn't realize it would resonate so strongly with you, but I can very much relate to it myself. The perfection of an extraordinarily robust idea or belief fascinates me like flame fascinates a moth. I have spent a lot of time looking to find some, and so far I've been able to collect a handful of useful ones (i.e, the validity of pain/pleasure, the strength of empiricism, the reliability of reason). Compared to the ivory towers of divine existential purpose and moral authority, my moral and existential constructs appear as mud-huts which require constant maintenance. That's O.K though, because they do they job well and in reality I think require less upkeep than the great towers I grew up in due to their minimalism. From a tower the view is all clouds and mountain-tops, but down at the eroding shore you see everything up close in all it's confusing complexity. If you do inherently enjoy feeling lost, I'd bet that the unending challenges offered by scientific exploration would prove a source of much longer lasting value than the various top floors of the many metaphysical and ideological towers whose decorative spandrels give intrigue and purchase to those willing to climb them.

Scrutinize the living shit out of any tower claiming to have reached heaven. That's been my strategy for awhile now and so far they've all turned out to be babble.

Sure they are related in some ways, but each of these thing you have named represent vast and diverse swaths time and thought; they aren't very interdependent. — VagabondSpectre

I dunno, I would venture to say that everything is interdependent of everything else within the history of ideas. Unless you're of the persuasion that real, divine inspiration can occur, where something totally new cuts through the clouds...

which was the notion that authority to govern should come from the people being governed, not from a divine representative of god called a monarch. — VagabondSpectre

I tentatively agree with this concept and don't consider it to be particularity atheistic. But all of that said with some caveats as well.

Nietzsche kicked off the modern era by announcing god is dead to indicate that Christian moral foundations needed replacement, and after a brief nihilistic affair, secularism was the result. — VagabondSpectre

I am not a Nietzsche expert (The Gay Science has been traveling around with me in my backpack for some time now, waiting to be read), but it seems to me, from reading a lot about Nietzsche, that it's often forgotten that he actually said "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?" It doesn't seem like it was a triumphant atheistic statement of liberation.

but in regards to what we're discussing, it wasn't beneficial to atheism at all. — VagabondSpectre

Perhaps, but post-modernism also was not beneficial to religion (Christianity, generally, in the west), either. I grew up with the notion that subjectivity and objectivity can't be reconciled to one another, and that objectivity always trumps subjectivity, thanks to a 40-years-late Evangelical obsession with fighting ever so valiantly against the notion of "subjective truth".

Atheism had been around and didn't need post-modernism mucking up and doubting it's structure; Atheism came under fire for being too certain. — VagabondSpectre

But that's just why post-modernism was beneficial to atheism. Atheism, like any worldview, requires a rigorous (or robust, as you say) critique of itself, if it's to continue to be a viable view for people. Why do you think Christian theology has survived for the past 2,000 years? Veracity. Indeed, atheism and Christianity both equally needed the challenge of post-modernism. Post-modernism, for all it's pastiche, panache and bullshit, is hugely a positive force in the evolution of human consciousness. It's an apophatic evolution; a negative evolution. The next step is to rid ourselves of it's shell with grateful hearts.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fake news" — VagabondSpectre

You basically described what I mean by it.

Atheism isn't tied in any meaningful way to post-modernism or to "fake news" though, whether we're talking about new fake news or regular old propaganda. — VagabondSpectre

But Stalinist Russia, and to some extent, Hitler's Germany were atheistic political endeavors, the disasters of which informed the disillusionment of the post-modern movement. Hell, even the soft-religiosity of the American nuclear family contributed to this disillusionment, and probably just as profoundly. I'm not specifically accusing atheism of spawning post-modernism, I'm trying to suggest that all sorts of things, including atheism and religiosity (the nuclear family, for instance), enabled post-modernism. I'm no post-modernist myself, but I often think it gets a bad rap for how unintelligible it is. But it's actually a movement that makes utter perfect logical sense, given the direction the world has moved in within the past 100 years. Unintelligibility was the next logical step of the competing strands of thought that met after the 2nd world war ended, and ended with such an existential swan song (or so it seemed). And the unintelligibility of "fake news" is the perfect logical next step. It aligns perfectly with the unintelligibility of post-modernism. Fake news doesn't miss a beat; rather, it was the next moment for us; it was obvious.

Some grudges I enact because it's morally praiseworthy to do so. — VagabondSpectre

I don't see a grudge as being morally praiseworthy in any context. A grudge suggests harm done to one party by another, thus eliciting the grudge. The proper, moral way to deal with harm is not to perpetuate the harmful act itself through lambasting and lampooning (a sort of retaliation that places the harm back on the perpetrator; thus, a form of the perpetuation of the bondage to "The Other"; a form of oppression in it's own right). I'm not wise enough to say exactly how grudges should be dealt with, but I can at least see far enough ahead (and reference my own experience) to intuit how they shouldn't be dealt with. Of course, I hold my own personal grudges, I just don't hold one against the actual Christian teachings that I grew up with.

"if a view is not founded in spiritual beliefs does that mean it must be founded on nothing?" — VagabondSpectre

At this point in my life, the answer is "yes".

When someone with Christian or spiritual foundations for their moral and existential views suddenly becomes bereft of that spirituality, they therefore lose their existential and moral beliefs too and are left with nothing. — VagabondSpectre

This sounds more like a projection of your own experience unto the idea. I personally have had the opposite experience; I've found deeper and more meaningful spiritual concepts through the abandonment of the strict religious environment I grew up in.

Religious belief and spirituality are first constructed from nothing in a human mind, and generally it's all that mind will ever know in terms of existential belief. — VagabondSpectre

This reads to me as incredibly reductionist.

Non spiritual beliefs are similarly constructed from nothing as a starting point, but they do base themselves in real things. "I think therefore I am" and "pain and pleasure are real (and have inherent value)", are some basic facts upon which non-spiritual moral and existential views can be founded. — VagabondSpectre

But what value do those real things have? How can value be predicated within the realm of the value itself? The value of currency, for instance, is (or was) predicated on the value of gold or silver, or whatever, not on the value of the paper that the money itself is made of. And now, we live in a world where paper money has no referent, which I think is analogous to the idea of an atheistic worldview with no spiritual referent. So again, it comes down to either spirituality or nihilism, with no room for anything in between. A meaningful atheism based on robust concepts of pleasure and pain is in this context analogous to the currency we currently use: paper printed by the government that has no actual value in and of itself; it's value is descended from former value, and not predicated on actual value.

but personally after spending so much time inside of it, I've become more interested in bushwhacking my own trails and setting fires where I think the forest could use some regeneration — VagabondSpectre

True, I'm sure I'll get there.

From a tower the view is all clouds and mountain-tops, but down at the eroding shore you see everything up close in all it's confusing complexity. — VagabondSpectre

Why not travel between the two altitudes?

If you do inherently enjoy feeling lost, I'd bet that the unending challenges offered by scientific exploration would prove a source of much longer lasting value than the various top floors of the many metaphysical and ideological towers whose decorative spandrels give intrigue and purchase to those willing to climb them. — VagabondSpectre

So far in my life, my enjoyment of getting lost has been more aesthetic than scientific. I'm not concerned with being lost for the sake of finding scientific proofs that have veracity; I'm more concerned with the state of lostness. I'm a poet more than a philosopher, and I mean that honestly, not pretentiously.

Scrutinize the living shit out of any tower claiming to have reached heaven. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, and the towers to heaven that I scrutinize the living shit out of include the towers of atheists like yourself.