Could it be that again, you just assumed that I’ve assumed that?
That made me laugh, despite how you worded it, l kind of feel the same (about theologians complicating matters)
Err no, Age isn’t a theologian. Age is God. I mean anew1
You presented the actual proof, in your very words here. So, although I ‘could have’ assumed it, (again because absolutely anyone is free to assume absolutely anything), however, I did not ‘have to’ assume it. Your words alone are living proof, which could not be refuted by absolutely anyone, forever more. So, I know it. Therefore, no assumption was made.
But, please do not let this stop you from continually assuming more and more things.
LOL Even after all of this time, you still cannot get it Right.
Again, your beliefs and pre-assuming is letting you down absolutely.
So, once more, I will again suggest you seek out and obtain actual clarification before you jump to conclusions. If you did, then your words will not be as wrong as they are, nor as often as they are also.
Could it be that you just assumed that I have presented actual proof for anything? Remember it’s only your assumption that the ‘I’ there and the ‘I’ here are the same.
Well, I’m not a materialist. I think existence exists, in whatever form it exists. Concepts, time, love, numbers, consciousness, etc. exist and aren’t made of matter.
I take issue with your use of “metaphysical” to mean “non-material”. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of existence, and some things that exist are made of matter. I don’t really see why this is relevant to living.
I choose to live because living is good. I don’t see why I need any other reason. I enjoy life. And life is the only thing that makes enjoyment possible.
Metaphysical is an intellectual abstraction of the world, that’s what l meant.
It falls under “sentiment” / “sentimental”. I needed hard material answers to my existential question, despite myself endorsing spirituality - l forbade it to the materialists.
Well, I still don’t agree with your characterization of metaphysics. If you consider my answer to be sentimental then I guess it isn’t acceptable to you, but why would you divorce values from the question?
I’m trying to keep materialism within materialism. I know formally, Materialism is a band of ideologies, but they all come from giving matter primacy in the universe.
When faced with the existential question there’s no way out but to admit that existence is worthless if once we die, that’s the end.
Anything contingent upon absolute nonexistence, becomes Absurd. That’s why the finite universe fails, and that’s why a finite life fails.
I can think of 2 vague ways out of this:
- To justify this existence, is an intellectual abstraction in itself. I’m forcing the materialist into a contradictory situation, by saying “you cannot allow intellectual abstractions in your reasonings, so come on, reason your way out of this”
- If whatever touches absolute nonexistence becomes tinged with the absurdity of nonexistence too, then why can’t it work in the reverse direction: whatever touches death, or absolute void, gives life to the latter?
- (But then, how would that even look? What is giving life to death? Could it be giving meaning to death? But to me, that’s a weak argument)
I don’t agree with you at all. One can recognize that one will die eventually, but that does not make life worthless. Things can only have worth while one is alive. That’s a structural fact. Fighting what’s natural is what’s absurd. Eternality is an irrational standard of value. The food I ate for breakfast was worth it, but now it is gone. My life has worth to me, but only so long as I live.
1 Like
So you’re saying logic needs a human for it to exist?
It was a physiological need, for sure. I bet if you were in a civilian nuclear bunker during doomsday, you would not be celebrating other civilians’ eating. It would be a bit frustrating actually.
I have mentioned multiple times in our debate and in the other thread that what you describe as materialism is not what actual materialists consider.
“Life is worthless” is agnostic position. Materialists do not doubt life’s value. Different materialistic schools give different interpretations on what a meaningful life entails. And for materialists, sentiments are not metaphysical.
Humans belong to the animal kingdom. All animals have survival instincts, so as humans. Suicide in animals appear when they are under stress, under depression, and for other health related reasons. Similarly happens in humans.
Our big difference with animals is that our brain evolved to such degree, that we became aware of our mortality. Thus, our natural survival instinct conflicts with the realization that death is inevitable.
To address this conflict, people find several ways. Religion and afterlife claims is one way. Focusing on happiness is another. Whatever suits everyone, I am subjectivist and I will not tell you how to build your life and give a meaning to it.
Too much doubt on the meaning of life and long thoughts on death are unhealthy. Even agnostics, who do not want to subscribe meaning, do not think of death too much. Those who spend a lot of time on these questions, unfortunately usually commit suicide.
If the subjective human meaning of life is made of “matter”, then there could be a universal, objective meaning made of “matter” too, plus we could also invent immortality. Ta-taa
Of course, logic needs humans to exist. Logic is a conceptual tool. Concepts don’t exist apart from the subject-object relationship.
1 Like
Apart from Epicureans and Stoics, for which I explained their meaning of life, here are examples from “recent” materialists philosophers:
For Thomas Hobbes, life does not have a built-in cosmic or spiritual purpose. His view is broadly materialist and psychological:
In practical terms, a good life is:
Staying alive and secure
Satisfying desires successfully
Gaining enough power/resources to preserve future well-being
Living in stable society under political order rather than violent chaos
For Marx, the meaningful human life is one in which people freely develop their capacities through unalienated labor and social cooperation.
For Daniel Dennett, life does not come with a pre-given cosmic purpose. Meaning emerges from conscious beings—especially humans—through the kinds of lives they build.
In other words, materialists give subjective meaning of life, not an objective one. They define the meaning according to their own liking.
- I have explained in an earlier formal debate that Agnosticism is impossible
- You had a chance to explain how life has worth from a materialist POV.
- You are talking about magic. Brain matter giving rise to magic. Or (as l would say) a divine miracle. Either way it does not sit well with materialism.
- Materialism is a belief in the primacy of matter. Materialists may espouse some distinctly middle-class views and l admire these. Materialists may say we must maximise health, and minimise pain. They may even say the universe is atoms and nothing more. Some may go further to say “atoms and energy” and l must admit, this gets tricky but l’ll save that for another debate maybe, because l consider light to have some part of divinity about it and by extension all energy too. But anyway: whatever your take on materialism, it hits a brick wall with death.
- So, imagine you are in a car speeding toward a brick wall at a speed that will absolutely kill you. Does it matter what you say or do or the music you listen to, while in the car? As you are the only person that provably exists, l say no it doesn’t matter and you must at best take the Absurdist position, which is also the mind of a crackhead.
Mic drop.
I think logic is based on mathematics and geometry. These things have an objective existence. Reason may need the intellect but not logic, it is objective. That’s the whole point of logic, it exists objectively.
^^^ Agnosticism is no more. Long live it.
i.e. ferally grinning and fist bumping all the way to the end, that is Absurdism. Fine if you’re in an arty middle class clique of decadent pieds-noirs. But the same approach on the wrong side of the tracks, in the poor arrondissement isn’t pretty, l’ve lived there my friend.