Guys... I haven't even tried to argue for objective purpose. I'm simply trying to show how arguing about subjective purpose is completely irrational.
It's easy to destroy my argument. All you have to do is present any rationally compelling argument why someone should have one purpose as opposed to another. For example: let us say you meet a guy who's sole stated purpose is to secretly kill as many children as possible. Give me an argument based on logic and facts that would prove him incorrect in choosing that purpose.
Let us also say that he believes he is able to do it without ever being discovered.
I've said it before
Because they chose to
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43817799]I've said it before
Because they chose to[/QUOTE]
If that's a legitimate reason then all discussion is pointless. You can justify literally anything with that.
so what's your argument then if our existence is all irrational including yours
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
before i bother posting any of my own
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43817820]so what's your argument then if our existence is all irrational including yours
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
before i bother posting any of my own[/QUOTE]
So you concede? I'm not changing subjects until this one is finished.
All I'm asking is for you to present an actual argument of why arguing about/discussing/etc. anything about why one purpose is better than another is in any way logical, or at least different than something like favorite colors.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43817671]How would you feel if someone was seriously trying to argue that their favorite color was better than someone else's? I see no difference between that and arguing about purpose. They are both 100% subjective.[/QUOTE]
Depends, how are they trying to justify their colour as the best? Are they just shouting "NO RED IS FUCKING ACE PRO SHITLORD" or are they actually trying to explain why they think it's the best?
I mean, this is a shitty ass comparison in the first place, but as long as someone has good reasoning when trying to convince others of something, what's the harm in letting them try?
[editline]7th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;43817776]Guys... I haven't even tried to argue for objective purpose. I'm simply trying to show how arguing about subjective purpose is completely irrational.
It's easy to destroy my argument. All you have to do is present any rationally compelling argument why someone should have one purpose as opposed to another. For example: let us say you meet a guy who's sole stated purpose is to secretly kill as many children as possible. Give me an argument based on logic and facts that would prove him incorrect in choosing that purpose.
Let us also say that he believes he is able to do it without ever being discovered.[/QUOTE]
Does their purpose infringe on others? Does it cause harm to others (death, famine, injury, etc.)? Fuck that purpose if so. That wasn't particularly hard to be honest. We can easily say "no, your goal in life is to kill kids, I don't care if you think you won't get detected, you're killing people. That's bad".
I can't say I've seen anyone but lunatics argue that killing is totally okay under a subjective moral system.
[editline]7th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;43817840]So you concede? I'm not changing subjects until this one is finished.
All I'm asking is for you to present an actual argument of why arguing about/discussing/etc. anything about why one purpose is better than another is in any way logical, or at least different than something like favorite colors.[/QUOTE]
Now that I think about it. None of us even brought forward this whole "my reason is better than yours nyeh nyeh" shit. You just started posting about it. I don't remember ever saying that with no objective reason to live, subjective reasons must be argued over, only that if you refuse to believe a reason to live is objective, create your own. You don't need to convince people that your reason is the best, it's your reason after all, not theirs. If you happen to be talking about it and start debating whos is better, well that's not really the point at all.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43817850]Depends, how are they trying to justify their colour as the best? Are they just shouting "NO RED IS FUCKING ACE PRO SHITLORD" or are they actually trying to explain why they think it's the best?[/QUOTE]
Take favorite numbers then.
[QUOTE]I mean, this is a shitty ass comparison in the first place, but as long as someone has good reasoning when trying to convince others of something, what's the harm in letting them try?[/QUOTE]
That's my point... no good reasoning exists for something that's completely subjective. That's pretty much what subjective means. It's based on personal opinion, taste, etc. as opposed to facts and logic.
If you believe that rational arguments exist for certain types of purposes over other types (like you put forward by claiming that some are "bad") then you do in fact believe that purpose is at least partly objective.
[QUOTE]Does their purpose infringe on others? Does it cause harm to others (death, famine, injury, etc.)? Fuck that purpose if so. That wasn't particularly hard to be honest. We can easily say "no, your goal in life is to kill kids, I don't care if you think you won't get detected, you're killing people. That's bad".[/QUOTE]
"Fuck that purpose" isn't really an argument. You calling it bad isn't an argument either.
[QUOTE]I can't say I've seen anyone but lunatics argue that killing is totally okay under a subjective moral system.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much any dictator, people who support very strong forms of eugenics, etc. There are plenty of people who believe that killing is fine for one reason or another.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43817850]Now that I think about it. None of us even brought forward this whole "my reason is better than yours nyeh nyeh" shit.[/QUOTE]
It's an underlying premise of having a thread about it. You also happen to say that certain purposes were "bad" in your last post. So it seems you do put forward the notion yourself as well.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43817909]Pretty much any dictator, people who support very strong forms of eugenics, etc. There are plenty of people.[/QUOTE]
So...psychopaths, assholes, total crazies? You've not really disproven anything here...
So, if our ideas that people make their own reasons for living (which to be honest, seems to actually be the case, whether it be the pursuit of money, belief in an afterlife, pursuit of happiness, trying to change the world for the best or worst), how would an objective reason even come about? What would even be an objective reason? Logically we (well, should normally, it isn't always the case) want to live to reproduce. Continuation of the species and what have you. But outside of that what could possibly be called an objective reason?
[editline]7th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;43817909]It's an underlying premise of having a thread about it. You also happen to say that certain purposes were "bad" in your last post. So it seems you do put forward the notion yourself as well.[/QUOTE]
Whilst in subjective purpose and morals, of course "bad" is usually up to whoever it is you ask at the time, but there are certain actions a majority would agree are actually "bad". Murder being one of them. When your actions start impacting others in a negative way, it's probably safe to say they are bad in some manner. I think it's pretty fine to tell someone whos' sole purpose in life is to cause suffering, death, etc. that they are living for a bad reason.
Subjective purpose doesn't lead to a free-for-all scenario where everyone does literally anything, society alone doesn't allow that to happen.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43817976]So...psychopaths, assholes, total crazies? You've not really disproven anything here...[/QUOTE]
Do you have any proof that Stalin, as one very simple example, wasn't fully rational in his decision making?
[QUOTE]Logically we (well, should normally, it isn't always the case) want to live to reproduce. Continuation of the species and what have you. But outside of that what could possibly be called an objective reason?[/QUOTE]
Why is that logical? I see no inherent value of continuing the human species.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43817976]Whilst in subjective purpose and morals, of course "bad" is usually up to whoever it is you ask at the time, but there are certain actions a majority would agree are actually "bad". Murder being one of them. When your actions start impacting others in a negative way, it's probably safe to say they are bad in some manner. I think it's pretty fine to tell someone whos' sole purpose in life is to cause suffering, death, etc. that they are living for a bad reason.[/QUOTE]
Most people think X is true, therefore X is true is a logical fallacy. (Most people think murder is bad, therefore murder is bad)
What I'm getting from sgman91, is that you need to find your own subjective purpose for living, rather than search for some objective blanket statement that can give a meaning to it.
Also, just so you guys know, I'm not suicidal, or depressed, or anything out of the ordinary. I just find the whole thing a bit odd, this whole living business. I don't understand why people are so caught up in living. We seem to forget that it doesn't matter, and then do nasty things to each other - the slights, the one-upmanship, the lying, cheating, creating unfair laws and other various levels of horseshit - when we should all be trying to be the best we can be, in the things that we do, with the time that we have.
Maybe I'm just young and stupid, but I don't see this as a contest like a lot of people do. It's not a struggle for me. It's just life, no need to get that worked up about it.
So yes, I feel there is no objective point to life, other than perhaps the quest to find your own subjective meaning for living.
No sgman, i'm not conceding, I'm saying you need to put forward an argument that subjective reasoning isn't reality as we know it
you're arguing subjectivity doesn't make rational sense, that's your position. From this, I can draw two things. 1) you think it's irrational, 2) you think there's a level of objectivity at work here
so you should post your argument rather than continue on the same line of thought which you've already proven you don't care about responses to like the simple fact a colour and a meaning in life are totally different subjects that aren't similar beyond being opinions.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43818082]No sgman, i'm not conceding, I'm saying you need to put forward an argument that subjective reasoning isn't reality as we know it[/QUOTE]
I don't even know what this means. If it IS reality, then it's objective.
I'm trying to clarify what you even belief. First you say it's completely subjective and then you treat it as if actual arguments exist to prove your subjective belief... going against the entire meaning of subjectivity.
[QUOTE]you're arguing subjectivity doesn't make rational sense, that's your position. From this, I can draw two things. 1) you think it's irrational, 2) you think there's a level of objectivity at work here
so you should post your argument rather than continue on the same line of thought which you've already proven you don't care about responses to like the simple fact a colour and a meaning in life are totally different subjects that aren't similar beyond being opinions.[/QUOTE]
I will happily present my argument after we finish with this.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43818163]I don't even know what this means. If it IS reality, then it's objective.
I'm trying to clarify what you even belief. First you say it's completely subjective and then you treat it as if actual arguments exist to prove your subjective belief... going against the entire meaning of subjectivity.
I will happily present my argument after we finish with this.[/QUOTE]
You know what man? You're not even on the same page as me.
If our views are entirely subjective, that's an objective fact, but them being subjective doesn't negate that there's an objective truth to that. I'm asking you straight up what you think is a rational view point then and what an objective to life might be in your view point.
I understand my view point. I don't think you do.
[QUOTE=wooletang;43802277]Personally, I find that there is almost no point in living, other than to see it all through to the end. There is beauty in the journey, and there is certainly excitement and fun to be had, but ultimately, everything we do (as a society, as individuals, as a race) will disappear. Does that make it all meaningless, or is there an alternative to this nihilistic lens I see the world through?
I am a humanistic atheist. I also reject the idea of a life after this one. I say that in order to give a basis for argument, not to come across as a brat.[/QUOTE] There is no "specific" point of living. In the animal kingdom however, the point is to reproduce, and multiply!
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43818288]I understand my view point. I don't think you do.[/QUOTE]
You are correct. I would love to understand, but it doesn't seem like you're actually giving any fact based arguments.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43818830]You are correct. I would love to understand, but it doesn't seem like you're actually giving any fact based arguments.[/QUOTE]
What exactly am I missing? You've done a great job of not really saying anything yet
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43818941]What exactly am I missing? You've done a great job of not really saying anything yet[/QUOTE]
1) Life purpose is a completely subjective opinion.
2) Completely subjective opinions are not based on any objective facts.
3) An argument must contain objective facts to be logically compelling.
4) It is impossible to give a logically compelling argument for/against any subjective opinion.
5) It is impossible to give a logically compelling argument for/against any life purpose.
Which of these do you find incorrect? If you do have issue with one please explain.
*NOTE: morals can replace "life purpose" and the argument doesn't change.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43819150]Which of these do you find incorrect? If you do have issue with one please explain.[/QUOTE]
The last three I suppose.
[QUOTE]1) Life purpose is a completely subjective opinion.[/QUOTE]
Yep, that's fine.
[QUOTE]2) Completely subjective opinions are not based on any objective facts.[/QUOTE]
Also fine.
[QUOTE]3) An argument must contain objective facts to be logically compelling.[/QUOTE]
Sure, an argument must contain objective facts to be [i]objectively[/i] compelling, but that's not what we are dealing with. We're not out to prove that a certain aspiration is objectively correct, but that whatever you subjectively feel is most important to you may as well be what you in particular should attempt to achieve.
Your favourite colour example isn't a particularly good analogy because for most people their favourite colour is pretty inconsequential. For me, music is subjectively very important. I experience intense emotions when listening to my subjectively chosen favourite compositions, so consequentially they are the pieces of music it subjectively makes most sense for me to listen to out of all compositions that I am aware of.
Similarly, my subjectively most important aspirations in life are the ones that I desire to achieve the most (specifically for me, an example is to program video games that other people can enjoy). Because of this they are my subjective purpose in life, for I subjectively feel my life isn't complete unless I achieve my aspirations. I'm not claiming that any subjective aspiration is objectively better than any other (and so should be the aspiration of everyone on earth), but they some are subjectively better depending on the individual (this is a tautology).
[QUOTE]4) It is impossible to give a logically compelling argument for/against any subjective opinion.[/QUOTE]
It's impossible to give an [i]objectively[/i] compelling argument for/against any subjective opinion, but we're not trying to prove that a subjective opinion is objectively correct.
[QUOTE]5) It is impossible to give a logically compelling argument for/against any life purpose.[/QUOTE]
Only if you are trying to prove that a particular life purpose was objectively correct for everyone. This is the opposite of what we are describing.
It seems 3 is the sticking point. If 3 is true, then 4 and 5 must follow.
Notice how I used the words "logically compelling" as opposed to objectively compelling. I very purposefully put the word "logically" in there because it stresses the point that in order for an argument to be more than pure emotion (arguing from emotion is a logical fallacy, and therefore not logically compelling) it must contain some objective fact.
It's fine for you, personally, to believe strongly in something subjective, but I'm talking about the usefulness of attempting to form arguments in favor of one purpose over another. If I'm correct in this reasoning then any thread about life purpose would be considered a "post yours" as opposed to a discussion. Having strong feelings about something is not the same thing as having strong arguments for something. This applies when someone has what we would deem a "bad" purpose (or "bad" morals).
I'm not sure you've understood. I'm claiming there is no objective or logically superior "point to life", but that any point to life is entirely subjective. For someone to prefer one subjective point to life over another, emotional arguments are entirely sufficient because the comparison is subjective for every individual.
I'm not really sure what you are contesting, what I claim is pretty much a tautology. A subjective purpose for life is subjective.
I've always felt that the entire point of living is, just as the OP stated, to see life through to the end. But it's also about making a better tomorrow, not just for ourselves and our family, but for humanity as a whole. While no individual, apart from the true geniuses of this world, make any notable difference, to me it seems like a machine where every little piece in it matters.
As far as death is concerned, I'm terrified by it. Not so much dying, as that's part of life, as it is the unknown afterwards. Do we really just cease to exist? Is there some plane beyond this? I like to believe there is, although it makes me no less scared of the end.
[QUOTE=Ziks;43824236]I'm not sure you've understood. I'm claiming there is no objective or logically superior "point to life", but that any point to life is entirely subjective. For someone to prefer one subjective point to life over another, emotional arguments are entirely sufficient because the comparison is subjective for every individual.
I'm not really sure what you are contesting, what I claim is pretty much a tautology. A subjective purpose for life is subjective.[/QUOTE]
"emotional arguments" isn't a real thing. Using emotion in an argument is fallacious on it's face.
If normal rules of logic don't apply (emotional appeal being fallacious) then I guess all other forms of fallacious argumentation must also be allowed, like coercion, for example.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43825477]"emotional arguments" isn't a real thing. Using emotion in an argument is fallacious on it's face.
If normal rules of logic don't apply (emotional appeal being fallacious) then I guess all other forms of fallacious argumentation must also be allowed, like coercion, for example.[/QUOTE]
If the purpose for life is subjective then objective arguments for a specific purpose for life are not required. I really don't understand your problem with this.
What are you trying to demonstrate? I really don't understand what you are doing :/
[editline]7th February 2014[/editline]
Do you understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity?
[QUOTE=sgman91;43825477]"emotional arguments" isn't a real thing. Using emotion in an argument is fallacious on it's face.
If normal rules of logic don't apply (emotional appeal being fallacious) then I guess all other forms of fallacious argumentation must also be allowed, like coercion, for example.[/QUOTE]
what are you even arguing for anymore
if a persons purpose is subjective, and we've agreed to that, then what do we need an objective one for? to persuade? but I didn't think this was an argument about how to make everyone agree on the same purpose of life, I didn't think that because for all intents and purposes, it wasn't about that.
I just don't see what your argument is at all and you're not clarifying that yet.
It seems to be a language problem. Some things I don't think require further explanation, and stand on their own, ie existence
You will exist whether or not there is a reason for it. Asking whether there is a purpose for it or not seems to imply that something/somebody has assigned a meaning to it, which I don't think is so.
"Points" and "purpose" are things individuals assign to things..
Assigning purposes to things seems to be the only way to be motivated to do anything, otherwise you'd be a vegetable.
If anything, I'd assign a long term motivation to make my existence as enjoyable as it can and as long as it possibly can, because it would be very boring to do otherwise.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43819150]2) Completely subjective opinions are not based on any objective facts.
3) An argument must contain objective facts to be logically compelling.
4) It is impossible to give a logically compelling argument for/against any subjective opinion.[/QUOTE]
These have nothing to do with the meaning of life and more to do with the nature of debate itself.
I understand that these are the sticking points in your particular disagreement, but resolving them seems to be derailing the thread a bit.
[QUOTE=Larikang;43827717]These have nothing to do with the meaning of life and more to do with the nature of debate itself.
I understand that these are the sticking points in your particular disagreement, but resolving them seems to be derailing the thread a bit.[/QUOTE]
If my argument is correct then any debate on the purpose of a subjective life is literally useless, illogical, and fallacious. It's of the utmost importance because people seem to think that it's perfectly rational to hold purpose as completely subjective while also seriously debating it.
Is anyone in this thread who considers purpose subjective arguing for a certain purpose? I've read the thread and it doesn't seem like anybody is doing that.
So what the fuck is your argument because you're repeating yourself again
We know you're saying it's utterly pointless to debate subjective purposes to life, but it isn't. It's an objective truth that opinions are subjective. It is of no importance. No one is fucking arguing for an objective truth.
I honestly think you're saying nothing at this point.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43832534]If my argument is correct then any debate on the purpose of a subjective life is literally useless, illogical, and fallacious. It's of the utmost importance because people seem to think that it's perfectly rational to hold purpose as completely subjective while also seriously debating it.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be confusing debating for a universal subjective purpose for life, and debating a personal subjective purpose for life.
You'll need to help us a bit here, are you trying to argue that purpose being subjective is logically inconsistent?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
