• 180 Proof
    14.5k
    Addendum to
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904275

    Good - what should be
    Existence - what is
    Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
    Our first necessarily objective good: Existence
    — Philosophim

    :lol:

    Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real..
    — Thomas Ligotti
    180 Proof
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    36
    If existence is inherently good then that would mean, as something fundamental to existence, perspective is also good, which means the only objective morality must be to respect the subjective over the objective, which means one must build many bridges.
  • Philosophim
    2.4k
    Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real..180 Proof

    Statements like these are subjective opinions and don't address the OP. Feel free to point out where the logic of the OP is flawed and we can discuss that.
  • Philosophim
    2.4k
    If existence is inherently good then that would mean, as something fundamental to existence, perspective is also good, which means the only objective morality must be to respect the subjective over the objective, which means one must build many bridges.DifferentiatingEgg

    I continue with the next steps here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life

    I'm not sure how you automatically elevate the subjective over the objective, when the objective also exists and is good as well. This first part doesn't really declare what particular type of existence is better than any other type of existence, just the fact that existence, innately, is good compared to their being nothing.
  • 180 Proof
    14.5k
    Feel free to point out where the logic of the OP is flawed and we can discuss that.Philosophim
    :roll: Like some others already have (which you incorrigibly don't get, Phil), been there, done that:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904265
  • Philosophim
    2.4k
    Like some others already have (which you incorrigibly don't get, Phil), been there, done that:180 Proof

    If you would expand on your points a bit, I might be able to engage with you. I've tried responding based on what I thought you were trying to say, but it doesn't seem like I've hit the mark. No, I don't understand it, but I'm willing to try if you'll expound on it a little.
  • 180 Proof
    14.5k
    (Sorry if my counter-argument requires more thought than you gave your argument in the OP.) Once again ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904196
  • Philosophim
    2.4k
    ↪Philosophim (Sorry if my counter-argument requires more thought than you gave your argument in the OP.) Once again ...180 Proof

    Alright, I've been polite and you insist on trolling. What a waste of an intellect.
  • 180 Proof
    14.5k
    "Trolling?" Nah, just rodeo clowning bulls*** :smirk:
  • bert1
    1.8k
    What does 'rodeo clowning bulls' mean?
  • 180 Proof
    14.5k
    What does 'rodeo clowning bulls' mean?bert1
    The opposite of "trolling".
  • bert1
    1.8k
    What are you talking about?
  • Philosophim
    2.4k
    ↪180 Proof What are you talking about?bert1

    I have no idea. He put two incoherent sentences together, and I've been trying to get him to explain what he meant by them. Instead he wants to climb on trash talk mountain and declare himself king. I genuinely thought he was playfully admitting he was trolling here, which I can forgive if it stops when requested. Apparently he can't even communicate basic trash talk clearly.

    I did request in my other thread that he move on, so I'll give him a chance to. Otherwise I'll report him for clear trolling at this point, and I'll talk with the mods to ensure he stays out of my threads going forward. For a member that's been here as long as he has, his conduct is pretty poor here.
  • Pantagruel
    3.3k
    e. If it is the case that there is something objective which concludes there should be no existence, that objectivity must exist.

    f. But if it exists, then according to itself, it shouldn't exist.

    g. If it shouldn't exist, then the answer "No" objectively shouldn't exist thus contradicting itself.
    Philosophim

    It seems like all of your subsequent reasoning devolves upon this set of specious reasonings.


    First, even if there is an objective morality, it is inherently nonsensical that that morality should make existential claims. Morality is by definition about right and wrong. You are committing a flagrant category mistake by attempting to extrapolate from a moral ought to a metaphysical is. What would it even mean to assert "there should be no existence"?

    All your claims about an objective morality being existentially self-founding prove is that anything which exists must exist in a state of non-self-contradiction. Which is trivially (definitionally) evident, and doesn't add any substantial information. Your argument makes exactly this much sense:

    If a banana exists, then it is good.
    If a banana claims that it does not exist, then it is self-contradictory.
    Therefore bananas are good.

    As others have pointed out, all you are doing is repeatedly assuming what you are claiming to "prove," which is that existence is good. In fact, there is extensive evidence to the fact that moral badness exists. It exists all around us. In which case you may not stipulate that "existence is good" because what exists is clearly both good and bad.

    Existence qua existence is neither good nor bad, it just is. Non-existence is not; meaning nothing can be meaningfully predicated of it.
  • Philosophim
    2.4k
    First, even if there is an objective morality, it is inherently nonsensical that that morality should make existential claims. Morality is by definition about right and wrong.Pantagruel

    Lets look at the definitions in the OP once again.

    Good - what should be
    Existence - what is
    Morality - a method of evaluating what is good

    If good is "what should be" then morality is an analysis of evaluating "what should be". Therefore it is not nonsensical using these definitions. If you would like to propose other definitions, and why they would be better, then we can discuss that.

    You are committing a flagrant category mistake by attempting to extrapolate from a moral ought to a metaphysical is. What would it even mean to assert "there should be no existence"?Pantagruel

    I'll repost point one again:

    1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?"

    Starting with human centric morality, a question might be asked, "Should I lie to another person for personal gain?" But to truly answer this objectively, I must first have the answer to the question. "Should I exist at all?" Yet this goes further. until we arrive at a fundamental question of morality that must be answered before anything else can. "Should there be existence at all?"
    Philosophim

    My point is if good is "what ought to be" and we are analyzing "what ought to be", all moral questions will arrive at a fundamental that must be answered. "Should anything exist?" If existence should not be, then it is not good. If existence should be, then it is good. And to be clear, we are talking about any existence vs no existence at all. This is not 'existents' or discrete identifies of existence like atoms, humans, etc. This is the fundamental question of, "If there would be no existence, or some existence at all, what would an objective morality have to answer?"

    All your claims about an objective morality being existentially self-founding prove is that anything which exists must exist in a state of non-self-contradiction.Pantagruel

    No, I don't prove ruductio ad absurdum. I'm using it to prove a point that any objective morality that claims, "Existence should not be" contradicts itself. Let me post the last few points again:

    e. If it is the case that there is something objective which concludes there should be no existence, that objectivity must exist.

    f. But if it exists, then according to itself, it shouldn't exist.

    g. If it shouldn't exist, then the answer "No" objectively shouldn't exist thus contradicting itself.
    Philosophim

    This is not the same as a banana proving that it is good. This is noting that at the fundamental question, there is a binary response. One leads to a contradiction, the other one does not, therefore the other one is true.

    As others have pointed out, all you are doing is repeatedly assuming what you are claiming to "prove," which is that existence is good.Pantagruel

    And once again, those others are clearly wrong. I assume both binaries, and the binary that "Existence should not be" contradicts itself, while the "Existence should be," does not. Its a fairly straight forward Reductio ad absurdum argument.

    In fact, there is extensive evidence to the fact that moral badness exists.Pantagruel

    True. You may want to read the next steps then. This part is only about answering the fundamental of "Existence vs non-existence". In my later papers that are linked in the OP, I note how to identify within existence discrete entities called 'existents'. So at that point I'm able to say, "This is separate from that" in existence. As we dig deeper, we find that some existents and their combinations result in over all more or less existence. For example, it is more existence for a father and son to live then the father to die and the son to live.

    For now, understand that we are starting a base fundamental here, and the problem of the fundamental should be analyzed as it is.
  • Pantagruel
    3.3k
    If good is "what should be" then morality is an analysis of evaluating "what should be". Therefore it is not nonsensical using these definitions.Philosophim

    Hang on. If good is what should be, then morality is an evaluation of what should be. Sure. If anything, that exactly contradicts your conclusion that existence is good, since it is about a good which does not yet exist (but can be instantiated by actions).

    "If existence should not be, then it is not good" Alright. But who says existence should not be? What is the point of assuming that? All you are doing is begging the question of the contrary, and trying to make it look like you are somehow deriving it from a logical operation (self-contradiction).

    What I really, really dislike is the way that you are now, in subsequent posts, presenting all of these poorly substantiated and widely criticized assumptions in an axiomatic fashion ("Once again, in participating here, you assume the validity of the previous conclusions.") You are pre-empting criticisms in order to extend your reasonings, which motivation I can understand. But some of your fundamental assumptions are highly idiosyncratic and far from intuitively clear, as the objectors have been trying to point out.

    Then you start presenting more idiosyncratic ideas in later posts like "quantifying existence", which really isn't a thing. Do you mean counting? Anyway, You "prohibit" people from making legitimate observations about any of your current ideas unless they are willing to already concede all your preceding assumptions? That's a poor idea. It's like you are trying to retroactively confer authority on your own un-substantiated axioms by weaving them into a system that people must agree with before they can criticize it.
  • Philosophim
    2.4k
    Hang on. If good is what should be, then morality is an evaluation of what should be. Sure. If anything, that exactly contradicts your conclusion that existence is good, since it is about a good which does not yet exist (but can be instantiated by actions).Pantagruel

    Right, so morality is an analysis of what ought to be. So, if presented with two scenarios, I can use the premises of a morality to decide what outcome would be most optimal, or good. In this instance, its the state of there being existence, vs there being none at all. Where is the contradiction here?

    "If existence should not be, then it is not good" Alright. But who says existence should not be? What is the point of assuming that? All you are doing is begging the question of the contrary, and trying to make it look like you are somehow deriving it from a logical operation (self-contradiction).Pantagruel

    Let me post these points from the OP again:

    a. Assume that there is an objective morality.

    If there is not an objective morality, then of course this is moot.

    b. This leaves two answers to the question, "Should there be existence?". They are, "Yes", or "No".

    Now we have a binary. If one is true, the other is false.
    Philosophim

    In sum, we work down to a fundamental question of morality, and realize there can be only two answers. Logically, if I demonstrate that one answer leads to a contradiction, then this means the other solution must be true if it does not lead to a contradiction. This is a basic Reductio Ad Absurdum argument. There is no begging of any question here.

    What I really, really dislike is the way that you are now, in subsequent posts, presenting all of these poorly substantiated and widely criticized assumptions in an axiomatic fashionPantagruel

    Why? The subsequent posts rely on the conclusions of the previous posts. This helps separate the arguments into chunks for better discussion, and helps focus the conversation on areas that people have difficulty with. I'm also clearly indicating that each post builds upon the last. If you don't agree with previous points, then you won't be able to understand how I build to the new points.

    some of your fundamental assumptions are highly idiosyncratic and far from intuitively clear, as the objectors have been trying to point out.Pantagruel

    Feel free to point them out. I have no objection to that. But specify them, don't generally accuse if you want to make a point. I'll answer as they come, and if you point out something I agree with, I'll let you know. Just post them in the section that best suits your questions.

    Then you start presenting more idiosyncratic ideas in later posts like "quantifying existence", which really isn't a thing.Pantagruel

    Feel free to post in that one about quantification of existence. I can refer to the OP points there, answer your questions, and go into detail. However, I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion on that section, if you don't find the premises that build to it sound. Then we've just wasted both of our times when really we needed to agree to the underlying points first (Or at least assume it while discussing the next steps).

    Of course, if in the later steps I contradict conclusions in the earlier steps, that's perfectly fine to call out.

    It's like you are trying to retroactively confer authority on your own un-substantiated axioms by weaving them into a system that people must agree with before they can criticize it.Pantagruel

    Nope. You'll find I'm straight forward with any issues or questions you have. Its just a simple A-> B -> C set of arguments, so if you're going to argue against point C because you believe point A is wrong, we really need to discuss point A before C. I am not claiming that you must agree to all the points in this, the first post. Only that if you want to discuss the later posts, its assumed that you understand and accept the premises of the previous posts.
  • Pantagruel
    3.3k
    Right, so morality is an analysis of what ought to be. So, if presented with two scenarios, I can use the premises of a morality to decide what outcome would be most optimal, or good. In this instance, its the state of there being existence, vs there being none at allPhilosophim

    The only sense, the only sense in which any of this makes any sense, is in the sense of the Shakespearian question. So if you are actually contemplating whether to be or not to be, as a choice, then you can come to the conclusion that existence is a good. But only then. Otherwise, you have no business bringing existence into the domain of morality. None. That is the only sense in which "what ought to be" can meaningfully confront the question of non-existence.
  • Philosophim
    2.4k
    The only sense, the only sense in which any of this makes any sense, is in the sense of the Shakespearian question. So if you are actually contemplating whether to be or not to be, as a choice, then you can come to the conclusion that existence is a good.Pantagruel

    Correct, and that is all this section is proving. The follow up post is where I try to logically build something off of this fundamental. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to post your critiques in that section and I'll address them to the best of my abilities.
  • Pantagruel
    3.3k
    But then for anyone who seriously asks that question, the inherent goodness of existence must precisely be in question, must it not?
  • Philosophim
    2.4k
    ↪Philosophim But then for anyone who seriously asks that question, the inherent goodness of existence must precisely be in question, must it not?Pantagruel

    Yes, what I do here is question the inherent goodness of existence, and determine that if there is an objective morality, it must conclude that existence, as a fundamental, should be. After the proof is finished, there is no longer any question. Even if my other proposals which build upon this fundamental are flawed, this fundamental answer to the base question stands.
12345Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.