Is There a Point to Living - General

[QUOTE=Ziks;43833847]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?[/QUOTE] No, he is saying that arguing for a claim that is subjective is irrational. It's like saying "Morality has no truths to it, only opinions. Now I'm going to argue why my morality is 'right'" [editline]8th February 2014[/editline] Without any objectivity, any and all rational debate becomes impossible. There is no fixed points. If you are interested read [url="http://www.ghandchi.com/IONA/newsword.pdf"]Trying Out One's New Sword[/url] by Mary Midgley

yeah but that's not an argument FOR objectivity that's just an argument that subjectivity sucks. it has no bearing on the real world. If it's true that everyone's opinion is entirely subjective, that is an objective fact of the universe. So what was this about there being no objectives to moore a point to? WHat would be an example of objectivity that falls in line with his and your argument? You can't simply argue against something and not have your own point of view without being a waste of time, so what is the opposite to the predicament i'm in here where there is no meaning to anything what so ever as you so claim? What will suddenly bring meaning to everything, even to purpose of life

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43837794]yeah but that's not an argument FOR objectivity that's just an argument that subjectivity sucks. it has no bearing on the real world. If it's true that everyone's opinion is entirely subjective, that is an objective fact of the universe. So what was this about there being no objectives to moore a point to? WHat would be an example of objectivity that falls in line with his and your argument? You can't simply argue against something and not have your own point of view without being a waste of time, so what is the opposite to the predicament i'm in here where there is no meaning to anything what so ever as you so claim? What will suddenly bring meaning to everything, even to purpose of life[/QUOTE] Well under my model, the most mighty being dictates the objective law. But iirc Sgman did specifically say he hasn't moved on to his argument for objectivity yet, just his rebuttal to subjectivity.

yeah but for me to justify following that I'll need more evidence than you have supplied in 5 months of arguments

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43837345]No, he is saying that arguing for a claim that is subjective is irrational. It's like saying "Morality has no truths to it, only opinions. Now I'm going to argue why my morality is 'right'" [editline]8th February 2014[/editline] Without any objectivity, any and all rational debate becomes impossible. There is no fixed points. If you are interested read [URL="http://www.ghandchi.com/IONA/newsword.pdf"]Trying Out One's New Sword[/URL] by Mary Midgley[/QUOTE] How is subjectivity being inconvenient a valid argument against it? You can't reject a truth because you would prefer it not to be true. You have literally no argument against morality being subjective other than your assumption that a god exists to define it. Also, while you can't expect to reason your way to a single "perfect" moral system or purpose for life (because perfection is subjective), you can still debate on which moral system or purpose for life is expected to maximise some subjectively defined metric.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43838168]you can still debate on which moral system or purpose for life is expected to maximise some subjectively defined metric.[/QUOTE] What none-arbitrary metric exists that doesn't depend on some unfounded assumption? For example: attempting to maximize human happiness assumes that human happiness is objectively better then human suffering. Can you give a fact and logic based argument for the inherent goodness of human happiness? If not, then it is useless as a metric.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43839160]What none-arbitrary metric exists that doesn't depend on some unfounded assumption? For example: [B]attempting to maximize human happiness assumes that human happiness is objectively better then human suffering.[/B] Can you give a fact and logic based argument for the inherent goodness of human happiness? If not, then it is useless as a metric.[/QUOTE] What is the alternative? Answer this, you've dodged it this whole conversation. also it only assumes this subjectively, not objectively, it doesn't need to prove it to be fact to say it is preferable as it is subjective

What would be the point to anything if there were no life in the universe?

[QUOTE=sgman91;43839160]What none-arbitrary metric exists that doesn't depend on some unfounded assumption? For example: attempting to maximize human happiness assumes that human happiness is objectively better then human suffering. Can you give a fact and logic based argument for the inherent goodness of human happiness? If not, then it is useless as a metric.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][I]subjectively[/I] defined metric[/QUOTE] Nothing will be achieved until you make some sort of effort in this discussion.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43839444]Nothing will be achieved until you make some sort of effort in this discussion.[/QUOTE] I've decided that I want the metric under discussion to be the maximum number of jellybeans produced. If everything is subjective then why not? It's just as subjectively legitimate as anything else. [editline]8th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43839335]What is the alternative? Answer this, you've dodged it this whole conversation. also it only assumes this subjectively, not objectively, it doesn't need to prove it to be fact to say it is preferable as it is subjective[/QUOTE] Why does there have to be an alternative? Is it not possible that no non-arbitrary metric exists?

If no non arbitrary metric exists, then what are you arguing for? I agree, it's absolutely most certainly true that there is no objective metric. I don't see a need for one.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43840042]I've decided that I want the metric under discussion to be the maximum number of jellybeans produced. If everything is subjective then why not? It's just as subjectively legitimate as anything else.[/QUOTE] No, it's just as [I]objectively[/I] legitimate as any other metric, because all metrics for morality are subjective (unless a god defines morality). You can consider the number of jellybeans produced as being [I]subjectively[/I] more legitimate than other metrics if you personally emotionally value jellybeans more than eliminating suffering. [editline]8th February 2014[/editline] All elements in a set with no objectively defined values but only subjectively defined values are objectively equivalent (strictly speaking, they are incomparable) but may not be subjectively equivalent. [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] You are arguing against a tautology. Subjectively defined metrics can be subjectively compared but not objectively compared. How can you have possibly spent so many post arguing against that?

[QUOTE=sgman91;43839160]For example: attempting to maximize human happiness assumes that human happiness is objectively better then human suffering. Can you give a fact and logic based argument for the inherent goodness of human happiness?[/QUOTE] Qualia. When feeling happy or suffering I experience different qualia, one being a "positive" sensation that I inherently want more of and one being a "negative" sensation that I inherently want less of - that is a fact. Through extrapolation and talking with other people I can make the reasonable assumption that this experience is universal, and they also experience "positive" and "negative" sensations associated with these experiences, and I can use that combined with the experience I have with happiness and suffering to logically conclude that I should try and minimize suffering and maximise happiness amongst others and myself. But when it comes right down to it, you need qualia - that forms the base facts that you can logically work from. BTW it's also worth pointing out that "positive" qualia are generally associated with things that benefit survival & reproduction, and "negative" qualia are generally associated with things that harm survival and reproduction. I experience qualia in the way that I do for a reason - it's not arbitrary, it serves a purpose. If human experience were opposite to how it is ("happiness is good, suffering is bad" vs. "happiness is bad, suffering is good") then humans wouldn't exist in the first place. So I suppose if you take that to its logical conclusion, you could say existence is good and non-existence is bad, because without existence you wouldn't be here to contemplate the question. IDK, I'm thinking out loud here.

[QUOTE=Tweevle;43841155]Qualia. When feeling happy or suffering I experience different qualia, one being a "positive" sensation that I inherently want more of and one being a "negative" sensation that I inherently want less of - that is a fact. Through extrapolation and talking with other people I can make the reasonable assumption that this experience is universal, and they also experience "positive" and "negative" sensations associated with these experiences, and I can use that combined with the experience I have with happiness and suffering to logically conclude that I should try and minimize suffering and maximise happiness amongst others and myself. But when it comes right down to it, you need qualia - that forms the base facts that you can logically work from. BTW it's also worth pointing out that "positive" qualia are generally associated with things that benefit survival & reproduction, and "negative" qualia are generally associated with things that harm survival and reproduction. I experience qualia in the way that I do for a reason - it's not arbitrary, it serves a purpose. If human experience were opposite to how it is ("happiness is good, suffering is bad" vs. "happiness is bad, suffering is good") then humans wouldn't exist in the first place. So I suppose if you take that to its logical conclusion, you could say existence is good and non-existence is bad, because without existence you wouldn't be here to contemplate the question. IDK, I'm thinking out loud here.[/QUOTE] That's still a subjective system, although I'm sure most people would agree that it is subjectively better than valuing the promotion of negative sensations.

I'm not entirely sure where you're actually going with this sgman, I don't think any of us argued that we have the best subjective reason to live or anything (that seems to be what you're going on about, it's pretty hard to tell at times). But more that objectively, people should live (or do live) for subjective reasons as there are no objective ones to live for outside of preservation.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43841294]That's still a subjective system, although I'm sure most people would agree that it is subjectively better than valuing the promotion of negative sensations.[/QUOTE] Well, it's subjective in the sense that I can't be certain that other people experience things in the same way I do, or indeed, experience anything at all. But given the information I have I can come to a reasonable degree of certainty that people [I]do[/I] experience things and they broadly experience them in the same way (i.e. being unhappy is a negative sensation that they desire to avoid). It's not 100% certainty, but certain enough that in practical terms it can be treated as if it's objective, even though it technically isn't. That's my opinion, anyway. :P

Objectively, there is no point in life at all. Subjectively, people will always find purpose in their lives. Love, education, fun.

[QUOTE=Mr_Awesome;43841766]Objectively, there is no point in life at all.[/QUOTE] Why?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43841812]Why?[/QUOTE] Because given enough time, everything we do will be forgotten/destroyed. Most likely. Not saying it's impossible that we can somehow avoid that, but I am saying that is extraordinarily unlikely.

[QUOTE=wooletang;43842258]Because given enough time, everything we do will be forgotten/destroyed. Most likely. Not saying it's impossible that we can somehow avoid that, but I am saying that is extraordinarily unlikely.[/QUOTE] Why should one come to the conclusion that life is pointless based purely off of that though? Perhaps you should define what you mean by life, I always assume the usage in this context to mean our conscious experience.

Does a mountain have a "purpose"? Does a star? Does the most complex of interactions that occur in our universe have a "purpose" as humans would define it? I don't think so. So I wouldn't say life has an objectively definable purpose.

To be honest, no...not really. Your life is what you make of it.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43841812]Why?[/QUOTE] Because "purpose" is a subjectively defined concept invented by humans.

As an Atheist there is no God. The Universe is huge it doesn't need an explanation. I don't think living is exclusive to us. Experiences are universal. But as an Atheist myself I generally know for a fact that I'm literally nothing and n one is anything. Simple.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43845052]Because "purpose" is a subjectively defined concept invented by humans.[/QUOTE] That doesn't remove the need to support why the fact that everything we do will some day be forgotten/destroyed means that life is pointless.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43846097]That doesn't remove the need to support why the fact that everything we do will some day be forgotten/destroyed means that life is pointless.[/QUOTE] All of our actions being forgotten/destroyed was someone else's explanation for why existence has no objective purpose. My explanation for why life has no objective purpose (more specifically, for why the purpose for life is objectively undefined) is exactly my previous post: [QUOTE=Ziks;43845052]Because "purpose" is a subjectively defined concept invented by humans.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ziks;43846158]My explanation for why life has no objective purpose (more specifically, for why the purpose for life is objectively undefined) is exactly my previous post:[/QUOTE] By purpose I assume you mean that the thing it is applied to exists in its form for a specific reason? In that case purpose would be an objective property applied initially, regardless of what purpose others could apply to it afterwards. I can take a hammer and use it to eat my meals, but that does not change the hammer's intended purpose.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43847842]By purpose I assume you mean that the thing it is applied to exists in its form for a specific reason?[/QUOTE] I would perhaps substitute "intention" for "reason" to remove ambiguity, but pretty much. [QUOTE]In that case purpose would be an objectively property applied initially, regardless of what purpose others could apply to it afterwards. I can take a hammer and use it to eat my meals, but that does not change the hammer's intended purpose.[/QUOTE] You could perhaps claim that the hammer has an objective purpose because it was created by a sentient entity with the intention of being used to hammer nails. You cannot make a similar claim for the purpose of existence being objective unless you make the assumption that a sentient creator exists to define the intended purpose of life.

To serve God

[QUOTE=GootarKidd;43848392]To serve God[/QUOTE] That makes the assumption that a god exists.