tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post114676688564035241..comments2024-03-27T00:15:41.321-07:00Comments on Kill The Afterlife: A Response to Frances the Magnificent Moral RelativistAaron Kinneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147722713033392112006-05-15T12:51:00.000-07:002006-05-15T12:51:00.000-07:00What is relativism? Oh, you know, That is relative...What is relativism? Oh, you know, That is relative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147629781926992162006-05-14T11:03:00.000-07:002006-05-14T11:03:00.000-07:00President of what? Isn't objective a gooey term? W...<I>President of what? Isn't objective a gooey term? What does it mean? Prove to me that George Bush even exists, and then we'll talk about his "presidency," whatever that is supposed to refer to.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't consider this to be valid. Not all words are "gooey," as I like to call them. President of the United States is a very hard, specific term. There's no way to legitimately debate what the term itself means. However, if you ask 10 million people what "ownership" entails, you are probably going to get a number of varying answers. All I'm saying is that none of those answers, intrinsically speaking, is preferable to any other. You have a definition of ownership that you've already laid out. Somebody else has a definition of ownership that absolutely requires the presence of a sales receipt. Why should I accept your assertion that your definition is better?<BR/><BR/>Ownership is gooey; president of the United States is not.<BR/><BR/><I>Anyway, statistically speaking, no living creatures prefer death... even when someone committs suicide, only about .0001% of the creatures involved chose death.</I><BR/><BR/>You cannot use "statistically speaking" and "no living creatures" together in this way. Certainly, SOME living creatures prefer death. According to official statistics, about a million people commit suicide annually, more than those murdered or killed in war. As for 2001 in the USA, suicides outnumber homicides by 3 to 2 and deaths from AIDS by 2 to 1. However, it is probable that the incidence of suicide is under-reported due to both religious and social pressures.<BR/><BR/>Since that's the case, the best you can do is say "Few living creatures prefer death." And I'm OK with that, since my point is still proved valid.<BR/><BR/><I>Frances' entire argument is based on the ridiculous premise that I cannot use the word "self" to refer to this real thing because other people may use the word differently.</I><BR/><BR/>That's not my argument. I wonder if you're still reading this increasingly dull exchange. All I'm saying is that your definition isn't the "correct" one, to the exclusion of the others. That's it. Someone could legitimately define the word "self" differently. It's a simple assertion, proved by the fact that other people do, indeed, define the word "self" differently.The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147535614925126372006-05-13T08:53:00.000-07:002006-05-13T08:53:00.000-07:00I never said there is NO objective truth in ANYTHI...I never said there is NO objective truth in ANYTHING. The fact that I live in New York is objectively true. The fact that I work for a magazine is objectively true. The fact that I have 10 fingers is objectively true. That fact that George Bush is president is objectively true. I just don't see objective truth in intangible notions like ownership, morality or spirituality. Those terms are amorphous, gooey and entirely malleable.<BR/><BR/><I>...and stops being a living creature!</I><BR/><BR/>That's right. Who's debating that? All I'm saying is, at any given moment, some living creatures prefer death. I never alleged that those creatures continue living afterward. I'm satisfied with the fact that, at any given moment, some living things prefer to die.The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147502026161439362006-05-12T23:33:00.000-07:002006-05-12T23:33:00.000-07:00Thus, making them dead creatures, of course. I can...<I>Thus, making them dead creatures, of course. I can't believe you keep walking into this.</I><BR/><BR/>Not all living creatures prefer survival. Creatures don't prefer death and then suddenly die. They might have to set up the mechanism of death, for example a noose and a chair. From the moment death is decided upon to the moment death occurs, that living creature prefers death. Since that's the case, you cannot say all living creatures prefer survival.The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147497556307082152006-05-12T22:19:00.000-07:002006-05-12T22:19:00.000-07:00I don't engage in transactions with fundamentally ...<I>I don't engage in transactions with fundamentally immoral people.</I><BR/><BR/>"Immoral" by the arbitrary definition of whom?<BR/><BR/><I>Or, to translate... that's not true, some living creatures are dead!</I><BR/><BR/>Proper translation: Some living creatures kill themselves. If they preferred survival to death, they wouldn't do that.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I have been very upfront in my nihilism. I already said I don't believe objective truth can be found, philosophically speaking.The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147487422862050942006-05-12T19:30:00.000-07:002006-05-12T19:30:00.000-07:00Then we need a new word, because we can't use "pre...<I>Then we need a new word, because we can't use "preference" if we don't share a meaning of the word. You use preference interchangeably with fantasy and desire, and I don't.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to define a term: "preferred choice"<BR/><BR/>1. an entitiy has a range of options.<BR/>2. the entity takes a choice.<BR/>3. this is the choice the entity prefers, or, the "preferred choice."<BR/><BR/>You have two choices. You can go to work. You can stay at home. For whatever reason, your preferred choice is to go to work.<BR/><BR/>Another way to look at it is as the dominating preference, that is, given a hierarchy of preferences where some dominate others, the one that dominates in a particular situation.<BR/><BR/>In the sense I'm using the term here, winning the lottery can not be preferred and cannot dominate, because it is not an option. Playing the lottery can be preferred over spending money in some other way, however.<BR/><BR/>Bear in mind, everywhere I've used the word preference in this discussion so far, I have actually meant preferred choice or dominating preference. I have never used the word in the sense you mean it.<BR/><BR/>So, your dominating preference is to go to work.</I><BR/><BR/>So now, correct me if I'm wrong here: Every action, by definition, is moral. Why? Because moral actions are those done in accordance with one's preferences. And, as you just said, every action we take is the execution of a preference. Therefore, every action is done in accordance with one's preferences, and thus every action is moral. Right?<BR/><BR/><I>All living creatures (statistically speaking) have a dominating preference for life.</I><BR/><BR/>That's untrue. On any given day, people commit suicide. Therefore, on any given day, some living things prefer death. Therefore, you cannot say all living things have a preference for life. Some prefer life, and some prefer death.<BR/><BR/><I>Okay, on to self ownership! You request a chart and scientific data. I'm assuming that you are joking, because I don't think you are actually that petty and stupid.<BR/><BR/>But in case you actually don't see the relationship between knowledge of self and ownership of self, I will explain:<BR/><BR/>When I say "own" I mean to "have possession of." When I say "self" I refer to an emergent phenomena that occurs (apparently) inside the skull of the physical being commonly thought of as me, I.E., "self" is inseperable from information content... it is a property of interacting memes. It is clear to me that there is no way that another being can possess this phenomena.<BR/><BR/>To use a metaphor: if I steal a read only thumb drive with unbreakably encrypted contents, there is no meaningful sense in which I own the information on the drive. I simply do not have possession of the information, because I can't acess it, I have no knowledge of the contents. I have no means to confirm that it is there. I can't even destroy it without destroying the medium itself. I can't sell the information and I can't alter it. Most importantly, there is no difference between having this thumb drive and having any other thumb drive with any other information.<BR/><BR/>What if this information has an intelligent agent program on it, that alters and updates the contents of the drive every time it is connected to a power source. I don't own the agent either, I can't confirm it is there or control its behavior, I have no idea what it does with the information on the rest of the drive and I can't control that. Posession of the container does not confer possession of the agent program.<BR/><BR/>"I" am defined as information, my "self" is an emergent phenomena of my thoughts. You cannot possess this thing, this self, because you have no acess to it, no means to confirm its contents, no way to confirm its existence. I have possession of the information and you don't.<BR/><BR/>Or, more succinctly, "What number am I thinking of?"<BR/><BR/>I suspect that you are probably going to argue about this. I request that you define "self" and "own" before you do so, because I don't want to spend another three days figuring out that when you say "own" you mean "be in the vicinity of" or something like that.</I><BR/><BR/>"Self" can be defined myriad ways. "Own" can also be defined myriad ways.<BR/><BR/>I define "self" as my physical being. My hand is part of my "self." My thoughts are part of it. My toes are part of it. The entirety of all my parts and physical phenomena is my "self."<BR/><BR/>I define "own" as having legitimate possession of (having complete understanding of or unfettered access to isn't necessary).<BR/><BR/>The reason I reject the factuality of self-ownership is because the words of which the term of comprised can be interpreted differently. Somebody could define "own" as "Having general physical control over." In that case, the person could take another individual prisoner and, according to that definition, own the prisoner. Another person could define "own" as "Having government-legitimized paperwork indicating possession of." In that case, if a country had legalized slavery, the master could claim legitimate ownership of the slave.<BR/><BR/>You have a definition of self, as do I. You have a definition of own, as do I. But, the nihilist in me says that there is no "correct" definition. Incorporating a sales receipt as a necessary part of ownership is equally as legitimate (or illegitimate) as any other standard. This is what nihilists mean when they say objective truth cannot be found (at least with respect to philosophical matters, such as ownership).The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147400083279194952006-05-11T19:14:00.000-07:002006-05-11T19:14:00.000-07:00Frances, if you have two courses of action or desi...<I>Frances, if you have two courses of action or desires and you pick one, you prefer the chosen action. I think you may be confusing the word "preference" with "desire".<BR/><BR/>And I'm stopping on that point. I will not discuss any other issue until we resolve this point, one way or the other.</I><BR/><BR/>This might well be irreconcilable. I PREFER to stay home, rather than go to work. I PREFER to earn money from a job, rather than be poor. Those are conflicting preferences. Therefore, I follow one preference, and ignore the other preference. Hence, some preferences are followed, and some preferences aren't.<BR/><BR/>Another example: When I play the lottery, I prefer to win. Sometimes (most times), I don't win. Therefore, my preference to win the lottery isn't fulfilled.<BR/><BR/>Some preferences are fulfilled, and some preferences aren't.The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147304113289327132006-05-10T16:35:00.000-07:002006-05-10T16:35:00.000-07:00First, it isn't true that if a notion is scientifi...<I>First, it isn't true that if a notion is scientific, I can "pinpoint the moment it took effect." When did life arise from non-life? Just because you can't answer that doesn't mean that living things have different properties from non-living things, or that the concept of life is not scientific.</I><BR/><BR/>The concept of life is scientific because you can pinpoint the distinctions between living things and inanimate things. I am asking you to pinpoint the distinctions between entities that have self-ownership and entities that don't have self-ownership. That's all. I think you are applying the concept arbitrarily.<BR/><BR/><I>Second, I could argue that self-ownership can only be observed to apply to humans. I am a human, it applies to me, you are a human, so based on our shared humanity, I assume it belongs to you. I can't make the same statement about a dog.</I><BR/><BR/>Right, but I'm not willing to grant that it applies to you.<BR/><BR/><I>However, this doesn't mean that amoeba don't own themselves, because I can apply the fact that this is a living creature with data about their internal state that I cannot access. Therefore, they own themselves.</I><BR/><BR/>If non-human animals have self-ownership, is having a pet equally as immoral as having a slave?<BR/><BR/>Let's go back a bit, since I didn't reply to some of your comments...<BR/><BR/><I>Absolute proof of my self ownership, of course, can be summed up thusly: "What number am I thinking of?"</I><BR/><BR/>Disagree. You are presuming a relationship between the concept of ownership and knowledge of unspoken thoughts. With a chart, employing scientific data, demonstrate such a relationship exists.<BR/><BR/><I>Two things: first, you follow your preferences whenever you act. You prefer going to work to staying at home, otherwise, you would stay at home.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you anticipate consequences and you are going to work to avoid them... doesn't matter. Thats a preference too, and you are definitely acting to fulfil it.</I><BR/><BR/>Disagree. I follow some of my preferences, and ignore some of my preferences. I prefer to stay home, rather than go to work. But, I also prefer to earn money at a job than be unemployed. Those are two conflicting preferences. I ignore the former, and follow the latter. Even though I go to work every day, I still would prefer to stay home. Therefore, not all preferences are followed.<BR/><BR/><I>I am saying that actions have consequences. These consequences fall into natural categories, some of which, like life/death for one organism, are mutualy exclusive. Dividing these consequences, we arbitrarily label one discrete set as "good" and the other as "bad", and arbitrarily define "moral" as leading to good consequences.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with some of that. My main argument is that death, for example, could be defined as either "good" or "bad." It's abitrary, and decided on a person-by-person basis. Moreover, nobody has yet proven to me that morality deals with consequences for individuals. Morality could just as easily have to do with how individuals' behaviors affect society at large, or the environment. You are presuming that morality has some relationship to the effect of behaviors on individuals.<BR/><BR/><I>We notice that life generally strives to survive, so we label the set that includes survival as good.</I><BR/><BR/>No. WE don't do anything. All these arbitrary decisions are made on a person-by-person basis. There is no "we" in morality. It's a person-by-person thing...a term only coherent in the context of "to me."The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147216710145480092006-05-09T16:18:00.000-07:002006-05-09T16:18:00.000-07:00OK...here's a question about self-ownership, then....OK...here's a question about self-ownership, then...<BR/><BR/>Does it only apply to humans, or does it apply to the whole of animalia? Does it apply to plants? What about inanimate objects?<BR/><BR/>If it only applies to humans, why is that the case? Did it apply to our ancestors, such as australapithecus afarensis? What about homo neanderthalensis?<BR/><BR/>If the notion is precise and scientific, you should be able to pinpoint the moment at which it took effect.The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147195455591069242006-05-09T10:24:00.000-07:002006-05-09T10:24:00.000-07:00Because individuals, following some simple rules, ...<I>Because individuals, following some simple rules, make individual decisions that happen to move the flock or school in one direction, based on sense data. The math behind this is well understood and does not involve a collective mind, but rather emergent phenomena of local (individual) decisions. Facts support Aaron.<BR/><BR/>Absolute proof of my self ownership, of course, can be summed up thusly: "What number am I thinking of?" </I><BR/><BR/>THANK YOU SETH! :)Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147046351470302622006-05-07T16:59:00.000-07:002006-05-07T16:59:00.000-07:00I accept the fact that everybody has myriad prefer...I accept the fact that everybody has myriad preferences. I can speak for myself as a direct example; I have many, many preferences. All I'm saying is that one isn't "supposed to" fulfill one's preferences. One can fulfill them, or ignore them. I fulfill some of my preferences (wearing glasses in order to see more clearly) and ignore some of my preferences (I go to work every weekday rather than doing what I would prefer - stay home). All I'm arguing is that one isn't "supposed to" do anything, including fulfill one's preferences.The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147039592763595702006-05-07T15:06:00.000-07:002006-05-07T15:06:00.000-07:00"Animals are objects of natural forces, not potent...<I>"Animals are objects of natural forces, not potential subjects of their own destiny. They act out a drama, not create it.<BR/><BR/>Humans, however, are not disenchanted creatures. We possess - or believe we possess - purpose and agency, self-consciousness and will, qualities that science has expunged from the rest of nature. Uniquely among organisms, human beings are both objects of nature and subjects that can, to some extent at least, shape our own fate."</I><BR/><BR/>I am immediately suspicious of this for one main reason: The author is making a false distinction between humans and animals. Humans <B>are</B> animals. Our species is Homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore, saying, "For animals this is true but for humans this is true" is analogous to saying "For animals this is true but for dogs this is true." We are, quite simply, a complex animal that has a brain big enough to create the illusion of an "I" inside.<BR/><BR/><I>"Some scientists and philosophers argue that conscious and teleology are illusions, phenomena that natural selection has designed us to believe in, not because it is true, but because it is useful. As the neuroscientist Colin Blakemore has put it, when 'we feel ourselves to be in control of an action, that feeling itself is the product of our brain, whose machinery has been designed, on the basis of its functional utility, by means of natural selection'."</I><BR/><BR/>My point, exactly. There is no "I." It is purely an illusion created by my large brain.<BR/><BR/><I>"A variation on this argument is provided by the psychologist Susan Blackmore who adopts Richard Dawkins' notion of a meme, a unit of culture that inhabits, or rather parasitises, our brains. Blackmore suggests that 'Instead of thinking of our ideas as our own creations, and working for us, we have to think of them as autonomous selfish memes, working only to get themselves copied.' Since 'we cannot find either beliefs or the self that believes' by looking into somebody's head, she argues, so we must conclude that there are no such things as beliefs or selves, 'only a person arguing, a brain processing the information, memes being copied or not'."</I><BR/><BR/>I sympathize with this view, being a physicalist. All the features that we use to declare ourselves more important than other animals, particularly the notion of an "I" inside, are purely illusory. Why can't you find a "self" inside my body? Because there is no "self." One of the things a big brain is best at is fabricating justifications for speciocentricity.The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1147038060425686792006-05-07T14:41:00.000-07:002006-05-07T14:41:00.000-07:00I would say there is some confusion about what is ...<I>I would say there is some confusion about what is meant by nihilism. If it means that there are no objective moral values and that systems of authority and social customs are not moral, which seems to be Frances's view, I agree with him. But if you take it in another sense, the nietzschean sense, I think Frances is wrong to describe himself as a nihilist.</I><BR/><BR/>I will clarify, and perhaps I am indeed taking some liberties with the term. For me, nihilism means two main things: 1. Nothing, intrinsically speaking, is preferable to anything else. 2. Nothing is self-evident; every single thing requires hard evidence, or else is doubtful. Finally, nihilism is also connected to my view that humans aren't "special" among the rest of animalia. I establish equivalency arguments between, say, humans and goldfish. If goldfish aren't "supposed to" do things, then neither are humans. If self-ownership doesn't apply to hedgehogs, then it doesn't apply to humans. If we cannot discuss morality with respect to Fido the dog, we can't discuss morality with respect to Joe the human. That's nihilism to me. And yes, it's very different from the Nietzschean sense.<BR/><BR/><I>For Nietzsche, nihilism was the rejection of the real world by those who postulated an ideal world, usually in another life. For him, christianity was the epitomy of nihilism. What is more nihilistic than the supposed sacrifice of Jesus or the apocalypse in Revelations? Frances certainly doesn't identify with christianity.<BR/><BR/>Nietzsche saw nihilism as the will to nothingness and opposed that with the idea that each one had to create their own purpose, and that that purpose could only be in enjoying this world. He called this the revaluation of morals. Some examples of the damage done by christianity are the transformations of basic concepts: powerlessness became "goodness", baseness "humility", submission to people one hates 'obedience', "not-being-able-to-take-revenge" becomes "forgiveness".</I><BR/><BR/>Well, my definition of nihilism certainly doesn't match up with that. As I said, I take nihilism to mean that nothing, intrinsically speaking, is preferable to anything else. What's better, power or powerlessness? Purely a matter of opinion. What's better, freedom or enslavement? Purely a matter of opinion. What's better, eating to fullness or starving to death? Purely a matter of opinion. Nihilists will gladly admit that individuals have myriad preferences, but the nihilist would also say that one isn't "supposed to" fulfill one's preferences. One can fulfill them, or be apathetic to them. Again, nobody is "supposed to" do anything, anymore than the goldfish is "supposed to" swim one way or the other.<BR/><BR/><I>Another aspect of recent posts has been the discussion of "value fulfillment". That is basically the utilitarian argument, notably by John Stuart Mill, who wrote, "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the abscence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."</I><BR/><BR/>That's one way of looking at morality, though it's far from the only way. Who's to say "right" is connected with happiness while "wrong" is connected with unhappiness? The nihilist might ask how this applies to somebody who prefers to be unhappy. In that case, would "right" be associated with unhappiness and "wrong" associated with happiness? And happiness and unhappiness in the context of whom? The individual who is acting? The individual's peers in society? Certainly one could interpret it to mean the latter, since utilitarian philosophy is connected to the notion of "The greatest good for the greatest number," which is the antithesis of individualism. Once again, morality proves itself to be an incoherent word except when defined on a person-by-person basis.<BR/><BR/><I>Nietzsche considered that to be a very limited view. Creating your own purpose required more than that.</I><BR/><BR/>Purpose is also problematic. One can create a purpose for oneself, or not. Neither is preferable to the other. Then, if one makes a purpose for oneself, the person can either pursue it or ignore it. Neither is preferable to the other. One more time: Nobody is supposed to do anything. As an example of this, say I want an ice cream cone. I can either go and get it, or not go. There is no "supposed to" to be found. The key word of nihilism is, "Whatever."The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1146988128901256992006-05-07T00:48:00.000-07:002006-05-07T00:48:00.000-07:00Trying to make some sense of blacksun's mystical "...Trying to make some sense of blacksun's mystical "agency", I only found something that seems somewhat related called "human agency".<BR/><BR/>An article in Wikipedia differentiates it from "free will". "Human agency entails the uncontroversial, lower claim that humans do in fact make decisions and enact them on the world. How humans come to make decisions, by free choice or other processes, is not at issue."<BR/>...<BR/><BR/>"In certain philosophical traditions (particularly those established by Hegel and Marx), human agency is a collective, historical dynamic, more than a function arising out of individual behavior."<BR/><BR/>A rather more serious analysis of "agency" than blacksun's vague assertions can be found at the following site In Defense of Human Agency. The writer accepts agency, but presents the arguments against it too. <BR/><BR/>Please don't say I am making claims about something. I am investigating something I don't entirely understand and presenting possibilities. I am not a true believer like blacksun. For the moment, I am an agnostic on the subject.<BR/><BR/>http://www.kenanmalik.com/papers/engelsberg_nature.html<BR/><BR/>"Animals are objects of natural forces, not potential subjects of their own destiny. They act out a drama, not create it.<BR/><BR/>Humans, however, are not disenchanted creatures. We possess - or believe we possess - purpose and agency, self-consciousness and will, qualities that science has expunged from the rest of nature. Uniquely among organisms, human beings are both objects of nature and subjects that can, to some extent at least, shape our own fate."<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>"Some scientists and philosophers argue that conscious and teleology are illusions, phenomena that natural selection has designed us to believe in, not because it is true, but because it is useful. As the neuroscientist Colin Blakemore has put it, when 'we feel ourselves to be in control of an action, that feeling itself is the product of our brain, whose machinery has been designed, on the basis of its functional utility, by means of natural selection'."<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>"A variation on this argument is provided by the psychologist Susan Blackmore who adopts Richard Dawkins' notion of a meme, a unit of culture that inhabits, or rather parasitises, our brains. Blackmore suggests that 'Instead of thinking of our ideas as our own creations, and working for us, we have to think of them as autonomous selfish memes, working only to get themselves copied.' Since 'we cannot find either beliefs or the self that believes' by looking into somebody's head, she argues, so we must conclude that there are no such things as beliefs or selves, 'only a person arguing, a brain processing the information, memes being copied or not'."<BR/><BR/>As the title indicates, the writer goes on to oppose these arguments. But as you can see, there are respectable people honestly holding different points of view on the subject.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1146985255794333552006-05-07T00:00:00.000-07:002006-05-07T00:00:00.000-07:00I would say there is some confusion about what is ...I would say there is some confusion about what is meant by nihilism. If it means that there are no objective moral values and that systems of authority and social customs are not moral, which seems to be Frances's view, I agree with him. But if you take it in another sense, the nietzschean sense, I think Frances is wrong to describe himself as a nihilist.<BR/><BR/>For Nietzsche, nihilism was the rejection of the real world by those who postulated an ideal world, usually in another life. For him, christianity was the epitomy of nihilism. What is more nihilistic than the supposed sacrifice of Jesus or the apocalypse in Revelations? Frances certainly doesn't identify with christianity.<BR/><BR/>Nietzsche saw nihilism as the will to nothingness and opposed that with the idea that each one had to create their own purpose, and that that purpose could only be in enjoying this world. He called this the revaluation of morals. Some examples of the damage done by christianity are the transformations of basic concepts: powerlessness became "goodness", baseness "humility", submission to people one hates 'obedience', "not-being-able-to-take-revenge" becomes "forgiveness".<BR/><BR/>Nietzche also saw nihilism in his time as inherent in European culture to the extent that it was based on the judeo-christian morality, and that since this culture was then bankrupt, general destruction or maybe de-structurization was inevitable.<BR/><BR/>There is far too much to say about this topic and books have been written about it.<BR/><BR/>Another aspect of recent posts has been the discussion of "value fulfillment". That is basically the utilitarian argument, notably by John Stuart Mill, who wrote, "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the abscence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."<BR/><BR/>Nietzsche considered that to be a very limited view. Creating your own purpose required more than that.<BR/><BR/>For a very readable overview of some main philosophical concepts, try "The Consolations of Philosophy" by Alain de Botton.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1146963307954214962006-05-06T17:55:00.000-07:002006-05-06T17:55:00.000-07:00I find it tough to believe that anyone would spend...<I>I find it tough to believe that anyone would spend time arguing the meaning of "good" and "bad." Obviously, they have two different meanings when applied subjectively or objectively. To use your argument about food: eating protein can be said to be objectively "good" for survival--provided it's in the right amounts and proportions to other foods. This is an objective fact.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. I will agree with that. Eating protein is objectively good for survival. However, that does NOT mean eating protein is objectively good. For, to make that leap, one would have to demonstrate, with hard evidence, that survival is "good." The argument of the nihilist is that survival is neither good nor bad, intrinsically speaking. It's a matter of each individual's opinion.<BR/><BR/><I>Subjective "good" and "bad" varies from individual to individual. It has to do with things supporting or hindering an individuals desires or wish-fulfillment. Let's not get started over whether someone fulfilling their desires is "good" or not. That's why they're called desires. People want something, and fulfilling their wants is what people do.</I><BR/><BR/>I vehemently disagree. What if my desire was to kidnap somebody off the street, bring them to my basement, and turn them into various pieces of furniture? Would it be "good" for me to fulfill that desire? Was it "good" for Jeffrey Dahmer to fulfill his desires? Hey, let's not even get that extreme. I desire to stop going to work. I'd much rather stay home all day, reading and watching movies. Does the fact that I still go to work every weekday mean I am acting in an immoral way? People have myriad desires, some of which they pursue and some of which they don't.<BR/><BR/>And, I still have seen no convincing evidence that "morality" has any relationship to the way in which an individual's behaviors affect that individual. Why doesn't morality have to do with how an individual's behaviors affect society? Why doesn't morality have to do with how an individual's behaviors affect the environment? You are presupposing a relationship between the concept of morality and the concept of individual preference fulfillment.<BR/><BR/><I>FTM, The same can be said for nihilism: You may feel that the tenets of nihilism make sense, and they may make you feel good, but that doesn't mean that applying them will bring you objective success, or can be supported empirically.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't recognize the existence of objective success. "Success" is an opinion word. Nothing is intrinsically preferable to anything; that being the case, success is defined on a person by person basis.<BR/><BR/><I>Nihilism is a state of mind, a point of view, and inherently subjective. It's a feel-good philosophy for the non-committal. It's a "fuck you" to hierarchical systems. But you cannot say that nothing matters, or that nothing is better than anything else. It doesn't hold up empirically for life forms. Our value system is based primarily on the survival instinct. So this sets our priorities and agenda. (Excepting the suicidal), if an entity does not prefer survival to non-survival, we are not talking about a living system.</I><BR/><BR/>What is this "our value system" of which you speak? I don't think it exists. If you mean "our value system" to be synonymous with morality, then it's really just an individual-by-individual value system. And, I've seen no hard evidence that morality and survival instinct are related. <BR/><BR/>I'm honestly not sure what you mean when you say, "If an entity does not prefer survival to non-survival, we are not talking about a living system." Preferring non-survival to survival is perfectly legitimate. It's just a matter of an individual's subjective preferences: preferring chocolate to vanilla, preferring comedies to dramas, preferring blondes to brunettes, preferring non-survival to survival. Will such an entity probably end up dying rather quickly? Yes, of course. So what? The survival instinct isn't universally present, and even if it was, the onus would still be on you to demonstrate a relationship of some type between morality and instinct.<BR/><BR/>I have no burden of proof in this case because I'm an agnostic about the whole thing. I don't know what the fuck "morality" means objectively; I can only speak of my definition, which is my opinion.<BR/><BR/><I>Self-ownership: If I can will my hand or other part of my body to move, and no one else can, I can prove to control myself. Ownership as defined in the law is the "right to possess and control." If someone else owns me as a slave, they have the right to control me. It is the essence of ownership.</I><BR/><BR/>What I find interesting is that my computer ownership analogy is much closer to other-ownership than self-ownership. Indeed, for my computer to do what I want it to do, I must use physical force on it. And, there are some things I want the computer to do that it never will do. This seems perfectly analogous to one person owning another: the necessity of physical force, and the fact that total control isn't possible. But I think the death-blow to the notion of objective self-ownership is the fact that it's prejudicially applied. Does the rose own the rose? Does the horse own the horse? If not, why does the human own the human?<BR/><BR/>The fact that all these notions (morality, "should" and "ought to," and self-ownership) are only applied to humans is what makes me feel as though they are all invented. Nobody says "That goldfish should have done that!" Nobody says, "What that monkey did was immoral!" Nobody says, "Don't trap that frog! You're violating its self-ownership!" If none of these notions apply to the rest of animalia, why should they apply to this species? And, if all these things did spontaneously pop into existence, when did they do so?<BR/><BR/>Did morality and self-ownership apply to Homo habilis? Did they apply to austrapithecus afarensis? Did they apply to Neandertals? And, once you draw the line in a particular spot, demonstrate (with evidence) why the line belongs there.<BR/><BR/>As I've said before, there's <B>ONE</B> Tree of Life. Just one. That being the case, it makes sense to me that every species is more or less the same (not physically, but philosophically). On that basis, I deny the specialness of humans. When one says humans are basically the same as hedgehogs, it's very easy to embrace nihilism.The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1146950679463284232006-05-06T14:24:00.000-07:002006-05-06T14:24:00.000-07:00Bernarda--Do you have a point to make about Nihili...Bernarda--<BR/><BR/>Do you have a point to make about Nihilism and evolutionary hierarchy, or are we going to go back and forth about semantics?BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1146950344466296412006-05-06T14:19:00.000-07:002006-05-06T14:19:00.000-07:00Dictionary or not. Your definition doesn't mean an...Dictionary or not. Your definition doesn't mean anything. Do you even think about what you write before you post?<BR/><BR/>Of course you never spoke of the ants before.<BR/><BR/>Go back to Sunday school. What you are saying can only be learned there.<BR/><BR/>What is the "person or thing" or the "power" you are talking about?<BR/><BR/>Are you totally incapable of independant thought?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1146944979138286122006-05-06T12:49:00.000-07:002006-05-06T12:49:00.000-07:00Your so-called definition doesn't mean anything,It...<I>Your so-called definition doesn't mean anything,</I><BR/><BR/>It's from the dictionary, moron. Or are we questioning the dictionary now? This is a case in point of meaningless debate by someone who can't even define their terms.<BR/><BR/><I>The ants clearly farm, but you are unwilling even to discuss that.</I><BR/><BR/>I never said anything of the sort. Of course they farm.<BR/><BR/><I>Sorry if I am brutal</I><BR/><BR/>No you're not, you're weak and don't have an argument. You still haven't made any point.BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1146943803885018112006-05-06T12:30:00.000-07:002006-05-06T12:30:00.000-07:00Total nonsense. Your so-called definition doesn't ...Total nonsense. Your so-called definition doesn't mean anything, except maybe to a jesus freak. What you are saying is that something like god acts through a person. Give me a break.<BR/><BR/>Did you even consider the "through which"? What is that power? Where does it come from? How does it act?<BR/><BR/>I can almost believe that you know how to read.<BR/><BR/>The ants clearly farm, but you are unwilling even to discuss that. Sorry if I am brutal, but I find you either extremely dense or maybe dishonest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1146938266437550102006-05-06T10:57:00.000-07:002006-05-06T10:57:00.000-07:00Bernarda, first of all, a definition:agency: 1 : t...Bernarda, first of all, a definition:<BR/><BR/>agency: 1 : the person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved<BR/><BR/>Since you are discussing hierarchy, and questioning commonly held beliefs about who is in control, then you should understand the concept of agency. To postulate that somehow domestic animals or wheat have agency with regard to humans is absurd. If you are going to make such absurd claims, then be prepared to back them up.<BR/><BR/>You missed my point with the shit example. It is clearly absurd. I'm saying that wheat for example has no more agency with humans than shit. If you are claiming otherwise, then the burden of proof is on you.<BR/><BR/>I did read your linked article. It's simply a description of evolutionary symbiosis and farming practices. It doesn't support any re-evalutation of hierarchies. Sure, a dominant symbiant might not be able to live without the partner--but that's simply because a dependency has been established that began as a mutually beneficial trading relationship.<BR/><BR/>Dependency is not neccesarily subservience. Without establishing agency, you can't claim anything about wheat or domestic animals.<BR/><BR/>Humans clearly farm both, not the other way around.BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1146913401699474552006-05-06T04:03:00.000-07:002006-05-06T04:03:00.000-07:00In contrast to the scientific article I linked, I ...In contrast to the scientific article I linked, I found a good example of pseudo-science at a creationist site. A good example of sheer ignorance and stupidity.<BR/><BR/>"The ant's highly complex social structure, life cycle, strength, navigational abilities and the intelligence to 'farm' aphids, are all said to be the result of evolution. Such a claim defies logic and plain common sense.<BR/><BR/>When do evolutionists say that ants evolved? Britannica acknowledges that there is disagreement among entomologists as to when members of the order Hymenoptera first appeared on this planet. Some believe it was 225 million years ago (allegedly the same time as the first butterflies, moths and flies); others believe it was more like 150 million.<BR/><BR/>Britannica states that many fossil ants are known from the Early Tertiary Period (allegedly 60 million years ago), at which time 'males, females and workers were already clearly differentiated'. Some of these fossil ants—supposedly 60 million years old—have been assigned to 'living genera'.7 In other words, fossil ants look so much like ants today, they are classified in the same genus! What this really means is that fossil ants were ants—no evolution has taken place."<BR/><BR/>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i1/ants.asp<BR/><BR/>That writer really does defy plain logic and common sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1146911752370754162006-05-06T03:35:00.000-07:002006-05-06T03:35:00.000-07:00I didn't make a claim. I just gave some evidence t...I didn't make a claim. I just gave some evidence to consider. Yes, it is "what if"? I was responding to someone who was quite certain of their arguments. I gave some possible counter-examples.<BR/><BR/>Sorry to say, but most of your post is not well argued. You make an analogy with "shit" which is not valid. Learn something about logic in debate.<BR/><BR/>Also, using charged words is not arguing the point, but an attempt to discredit the opponent.<BR/><BR/>What do you mean by "agency"? Do the ants farming the aphids have what you call agency? Those ants could not live if they didn't farm aphids. But I really have no idea about what you mean by "agency". Using vague undefined words is not a good debating tactic.<BR/><BR/>You apparently have not read the article I linked.<BR/><BR/>By your aggressive tone, I have the impression that I must have touched on some deeply held belief and may have caused some doubt in your mind that you don't want to consider. Maybe your should examine why you acted so passionately about my post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1146907784891657892006-05-06T02:29:00.000-07:002006-05-06T02:29:00.000-07:00bernarda,It's pretty much accepted that ants and a...bernarda,<BR/><BR/>It's pretty much accepted that ants and aphids have a symbiotic relationship and that ants control or "farm" the aphids. There is a clear hierarchy.<BR/><BR/>By your argument, we could take this to the absurd:<BR/><BR/>Humans are just shit's way of creating more shit. Not a logical postulate--any more than that humans are somehow subservient to domesticated animals. Neither shit nor domesticated animals have agency.<BR/><BR/>There are many examples of interdependence and symbiosis. I think it's important to distinguish hierarchical relationships between life forms. Bees pollinate flowers, but could probably exist without them. They could find other sources of food. Humans are agents for spreading plants and animals around the world. But humans could find substitutes for almost all plants or domesticated animals. The plants and animals, on the other hand, can be seen submitting to human will. Flowers utterly depend on insect pollination.<BR/><BR/>You bring up examples that question causality. But you haven't provided anything other than vague "what if" notions to support your claim. You haven't provided a mechanism for how wheat or animals are somehow 'controlling' humans.<BR/><BR/>What's your point?BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1146904322934916542006-05-06T01:32:00.000-07:002006-05-06T01:32:00.000-07:00An addendum to my previous post. This also comes f...An addendum to my previous post. This also comes from the site I linked.<BR/><BR/>" "[Wheat] now covers more than 600 million acres of the surface of the planet. . . [People in the future] will classify us, perhaps, as puny parasites, victims of feeble self-delusion, whom wheat cleverly exploited to spread itself around the world. Or else they will see us in an almost symbiotic relationship with edible grasses, as mutual parasites, dependent on each other and colonizing the world together."<BR/>—Felipe Fernández-Armesto, in Near a Thousand Tables: A History of Food (2002).<BR/><BR/>Only recently have scientists begun to wonder who has domesticated whom in human relationships with domestic animals and plants. Did people mold the ancestors of domestic cats, Felis sylvestris libyca, to suit their purposes, or did wild cats find tolerating people a small price to pay for the superabundant rats and mice that lived on human food and waste? This species certainly took advantage of people to move all over the globe and to achieve astonishing success: There are an estimated 70 million owned cats in the United States, a figure that doesn't include many million more feral cats. The relationships between people and domestic animals are likely far more complex than was once assumed."<BR/><BR/>Far more complex than once was assumed seems like a safe statement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com