Hi Wonderer1

Thanks for the input.

Yes, I'm aware of the ambiguity of many of the terms used, but this is by design.

It intends to:
Enhance portability across disciplines (e.g., from evolutionary biology to moral philosophy).
Create resonance by tapping into intuitive affirmations of life (e.g., "every child instinctively lives it").
Allow layered applicability (axiomatic foundation, affirmative drive, moral grounding).

I'm particularly attached to the use of 'Life' and 'Good' because of the portability offered once the initial axiom is accepted.

Less so with 'value'. I'll definitely consider your point, I do think that might be clearer.

Thanks!

This isn't a debate or an opinion piece, it's me explaining my axiomatic framework — James Dean Conroy

We’re not here to test out your axiomatic system. We’re here to debate philosophy. That’s why it’s called a philosophy forum.

There is no such thing as a life without purposes, however humble those purposes may be. All purposes are geared towards either sustaining life, or fulfilling desires, even if only, in extremis, one's own life and desires. — Janus

Emotional crises such as grief and depression involve the loss of a sense of purpose. In these states we are plunged into the fog of confusion and chaos. Purpose is bound up with the sense of agency, of being able to act coherently by making sense of events in a consistent way, and this is taken from us in such moods. We lose our compass for action. Even though we are still alive, life loses its salience, relevance and meaning. The specter of physical death pales in comparison to this psychical death of meaning.

No, you're on my thread - I set out the topic and asked for analysis - you're being a nuisance burdening me with your misrepresentations.

If you don't like it, don't bother. I'm not tending to babies who don't understand, repeating myself because they want to play semantic games and don't bother reading.

You're a burden unnecessarily. Stop being lazy, read the thread info and respect the rules of discourse.

I don't want you here. You're engaging other participants meaninglessly.

You're not adding anything. You're sucking the life out of this thread.

I'm going to ignore you.

Death is not a state or a force - it's the absence of life. To consider it 'perfection' is to mistake absence for presence. Life is the condition for meaning, value, and action. Without life, there is no framework to even discuss 'better' or 'worse.' This is not a matter of sentiment, but of ontological necessity - life is the prerequisite for all value and purpose. — James Dean Conroy

No worries. Thank you for your patience. I guess we can leave it there. I understand your reasoning but I'm not convinced.

Which part are you unsure of?

Seems odd.

Death is not a state or a force - it's the absence of life. To consider it 'perfection' is to mistake absence for presence. Life is the condition for meaning, value, and action. Without life, there is no framework to even discuss 'better' or 'worse.' This is not a matter of sentiment, but of ontological necessity - life is the prerequisite for all value and purpose.

It seems you can't differentiate these things: the moral implications you associate with the word 'Good' and how it's framed in the model - how can I help you pull these things apart?

Antinatalism is parasitic because it denies the very process that sustains meaning. If it rejects life, it undermines the foundation from which it could even argue.

And no, it is not wrong to preserve life - it’s the axiom of value. Killing another person directly undermines the most fundamental condition for meaning to exist: life itself.

To reiterate: This is not my opinion; it is axiomatic. Without life, there is no value. — James Dean Conroy

I'm not sure you and I are going to get anywhere with this one.

I understand the argument that life is the grounding of all value. But to this I say, so what? Life is the grounding of all experience, the condition of everything that is us. I don't see how this is ipso facto good. We are "trapped" by life until we die.

Why should we care if antinatalism undermines this foundation? I see nothing inherent in the grounding of meaning that elevates it. I can say screw life and it makes no difference.

You say antinatalism is parasitic because it denies the very process that sustains meaning. But why couldn't we say life is parasitic because it denies death?

You say antinatalism is parasitic because it denies the very process that sustains meaning. But why couldn't we say life is parasitic because it denies death? — Tom Storm

I think if your presuppositions are so diametrically opposed that you can't accept an axiom, then there is an issue. I'm not stating an opinion, you are.

If this prevents you from accepting truth, then I can't help you.

You become part of the signal.

Antinatalism: The Philosophy of Self-Terminating Noise

Antinatalism is not a worldview. It is the conscious rejection of all worldviews. It does not seek to build, heal, or elevate - it seeks only to negate. At its core lies a parasitic paradox: it clings to the fruits of life (consciousness, reason, communication, argument) while demanding that the very tree be burned to ash. It is not profound - it is a tantrum against existence. A metaphysical sulk.

When someone declares that life is not good, they are not offering a counter-axiom - they are refusing to play the game. They are speaking from the very medium they wish to destroy. Their own position is made possible only by the thing they condemn. This is not intellectual - it is cowardice dressed up as critique.

If life is not inherently good - if the very capacity to evaluate is not rooted in a life-process - then no statement, no ethics, no value can stand. Antinatalism is not an answer; it is philosophical euthanasia. And like all self-negating systems, it terminates itself. It has no future because it rejects having one. It is not signal - it is the echo of a system collapsing in on itself.

And so, the question must be asked to antinatalists: if death is preferable, why are they still here?

Emotional crises such as grief and depression involve the loss of a sense of purpose. In these states we are plunged into the fog of confusion and chaos. Purpose is bound up with the sense of agency, of being able to act coherently by making sense of events in a consistent way, and this is taken from us in such moods. We lose our compass for action. Even though we are still alive, life loses its salience, relevance and meaning. The specter of physical death pales in comparison to this psychical death of meaning. — Joshs

Grief is usually a temporary loss of compass due to losing something that figured as central to what had been felt to be the meaning of one's life. It doesn't usually causes people to wish to be dead. Nor does depression. As far as I am aware research shows that suicide is most often motivated by an impulse towards seeking attention, proving something or punishing someone. In any case it seems reasonable to think it is usually associated with an extraordinarily intense emotional reaction. Many people are depressed, at least at times, and many more are probably depressed most or even all of the time, and it would seem that only a small percentage of those end their lives.

I think you are being too black and white in your thinking in saying that "life loses all its salience, relevance and meaning". In any case how do you know that is the general case? have you asked all the depressed people in the world?

The specter of death is with all of us, the actuality of impending death not so much.

So, no, this isn’t a matter of opinion or hermeneutic complexity - without life, there is no value. The axiomatic nature means hermeneutic drift (of the axiom at least - not the contextually driven implications of acting on it - which are dynamic, think Foucault - you highlighted this) is impossible. It is an axiomatic foundation - undeniable by definition. — James Dean Conroy

I understand that (or at least think I do). It's precily the dynamic context, though, that makes the axiom meaningful. Otherwise it's just... floating free. This is why I called my reservations "mostly methodological". You reply seems to indicate you think I was talking about the content.

I'm looking for an application of the axiom; I can't see one.

You're absolutely right to focus on application - because the axiom alone doesn’t act. What makes Synthesis different from inert metaphysics is exactly what you’re pointing toward: the contextually-driven implications of acting on the axiom.

So here’s the application, in concrete terms:

Ethics becomes clear: Any action, ideology, or system that undermines life is self-refuting. That includes nihilism, antinatalism, and even parts of postmodernism. The axiom is the ultimate ethical compass: Does this help life flourish? If not, it's noise.

Politics: You can evaluate structures by how well they allow human life to organise, learn, and grow. From state policy to technology regulation, it gives you a non-arbitrary standard.

AI Alignment: You can’t build truly aligned systems without first knowing what value is grounded in. Life becomes the anchor-point for alignment - because no synthetic value system can surpass the thing that created value in the first place.

Philosophy itself: Instead of endlessly debating what is “good” or “true,” Synthesis collapses the regress by showing that truth is only meaningful within life’s frame. That makes the direction of truth teleological - truth moves with life.

So yes, the axiom by itself would just float in abstraction. But once you plug it into the system of feedback, context, power, language, embodiment (Foucault, Nietzsche, etc.) - what you get isn’t just an idea.

You get the operating system for reality.

More Info