|>> || |
Jesus why do you have to be so vitriolic. Here's my advice to you; stop doing a bunch of coke before you log onto /pss./ Pack exactly one marijuana, put it to your lips, ignite, and inhale before you post again.
>>That's not a value claim.Yes, it is. I'm sorry this degenerated into Philo 101 but actually it's you who should be sorry so not really. It might be an extremely basic value claim that almost everyone would readily assent to without any argument, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a value claim. Did you never learn to analyze which parts of a philosophical statement are claims? (Have you never even been in an actual philosophy class? It's ok I won't tell.) If I were a nihilist, I would argue that it is an unwarranted leap to claim that you can ascribe 'goodness' to things that are intrinsically meaningless and only lengthen the amount of time you suffer before dying. And if those statements weren't philosophical value claims and I said that, you would literally have no recourse to defend your opinion. So you better damn well hope they are value claims!
If you want to follow this idea to a deeper level (and I don't mean you, because you will sperg out on some minor misplaced turn of phrase and never actually engage the substance of my comments, but I mean anyone else who may be reading) you could say that sentient (not sapient) life itself must make a value claim even in order to maintain biological existence. What I mean is, a cell maintains homeostasis completely instinctually...instinctual isn't even the right word as it doesn't really have discrete behaviors, it just exists and its various organelles operate. So it does not need to have the opinion that it is 'good' for it to continue eating to survive.
But, as soon as something has a brain stem big enough to coordinate complex behaviors and select between them, every living organism on earth must, at a fundamental, pre-verbal level, assent to the idea that it's daily quest for food is 'good'; it's neuronal pathways balance and coordinate desires and output from different brain regions to select the food seeking behavior over others. But it doesn't always happen this way. Sometimes, for various reasons, an animal will refuse to eat and starve. Even without making a claim about animal consciousness, we can say that the neuronal pathways of the animal in question altered their philosophical opinion about the value of food, thus even for animals these aren't just 'cold hard biological facts;' the idea that food is good, that life is good, is something that the information processing capacity of life constantly weighs out, and occasionally rejects. It's not a given, there's nothing intrinsic about life that says it *has* to seek survival (many organisms fundamentally fail to survive) so the claim that survival or any of the things necessary to it is a given that doesn't constitute a value claim is false.
>>does require some philosophical thought on value, meaning etc. in a universe that lacks these. But you still don't need religion for any of those.To say that something has value and meaning we have to reach into the branch of philosophy that is metaphysics. We cannot get it from physics (using these terms in their Platonic distinctions.) And we're back to my earlier claim that you ignored that 'religion is metaphysics for the masses.' All religions are watered down metaphysical ideologies pre-packaged for mass consumption. Now that doesn't mean they are all equally valid or good, and the vast majority of them aren't. But if you say religion is useless as such, then you're basically saying metaphysical thinking is useless as such, which means you can only be a logically atomistic materialistic reductionist or else a nihilist, as all other philosophical stances become incoherent without metaphysics or are forced to hide their metaphysics in different places and claim that's not what it is.
Everything you are saying is in defense of some bullshit you claimed earlier which was clearly indefensible, and you were just hoping it wouldn't come up and you wouldn't actually have to defend it by chesting up and acting goofy. Essentially in order for us to be talking about the same thing and for you to win this argument you have to prove both that you don't use metaphysics in your philosophical outlook and that metaphysics is useless and has never produced any results for humanity. So far you are moving the goalposts back to admit that your answer to the question of what you ought to do necessarily includes metaphysics. Just keeping everyone aware of the state of play.