To what extent is life on this earth absurd?

[WmJackP]

But we say it doesn’t work well because we already have an idea of what it means to work well. It is this we are challenging you on. We all know that allowing theft doesn’t “work well,” but this is because we share, more or less, the idea of what “works well” means. But we don’t accept that you have given either a valid reason to accept this idea of working well (that we do in fact accept) or any particular reason why someone is bound to do stuff that works well, even if he agrees with you on what that means.

It appears that you are introducing an absolute of sorts, but trying to avoid calling it that and saying that it doesn’t really come from anywhere important, but that it still for some reason is kind of sort of binding.

You mentioned chess. The goal of chess is to check-mate the other king. Now there are lots of ways to do this, some better than others and some just really, really bad, but these value comparisons all depend on the fact that goal is to check-mate the other guy’s king.

And why is the goal to check-mate the other guy’s king? Because it’s written on a stone tablet, so to speak - it’s in the rules. But we made the rules and only play by them because we agree to. So what would you say to someone who decided the real goal of chess was to have all his pawns die horrible inventive deaths? He would be playing wrong according to the rules we like, but why does that actually matter at all, either to him or to us? To say that it matters simply because it goes against the rules are to elevate the rules, or at least the idea that we should follow the rules (or possibly the idea that we should follow some rules) to the level of an absolute turth, but where does it come from in a world with no objective absolute meaning?

Or in other words, we’re back to "why should I care what you consider to be ‘working well,’ and even if I agree with you on what that means, what is there about working well that compels one to try to achieve it?

That there are multiple ways that are acceptable is completely irrelevant by the way, there are also multiple ways I can throw a ball but no matter how I do, the ball will obey the absolute laws of physics.

We are not accomplishing anything, I’m afraid. We are both going to end up repeating ourselves. Nonetheless, I’ll try once more to convince you.

Even the “absolutes” of physics are hostage to the probalitiers imposed by the quantum and the relativism of space and time. To be somewhat over simplified, even the pitched ball you see traveling at 80 mph does so in your frame of reference but not in others.

We should “care” about working well because working well enhances our ability to get along and thus to thrive.

That’s the best I can do on the short shif and within the confines of this modality of argument. We probably would have a much more enjoyable discourse if we had a couple of cokes at some university student center, but, that is not possible.

 

[WmJackP]

That just means that the absolutes are more fundamental then our experience of time and space. That how things appear depends on circumstances is obvious, but does not in any way lend credence to the claim that there are no absolutes, because there are fixed laws which determine how the circumstances affect how things appear.

But physics aside, “there are no absolutes” is an absolute statement. Therefore, it can’t possibly be true.

“There are no absolutes is an absolute statement” is another cute word game. Please spare me the medieval Anselm-esque word play. If there are no absolutes then how else can the proposition be expressed than to say that such have no existential quality?

You need to read less Aquainus and Anselm and more Wittgenstein.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

We are not accomplishing anything, I’m afraid. We are both going to end up repeating ourselves. Nonetheless, I’ll try once more to convince you.

Even the “absolutes” of physics are hostage to the probalitiers imposed by the quantum and the relativism of space and time. To be somewhat over simplified, even the pitched ball you see traveling at 80 mph does so in your frame of reference but not in others.

True about the ball, but there is a quality of the ball that is objective that, together with the laws of physics, determines how it is perceived. Those of us who believe in an objective reality do not say that this objective reality must always be perceived in the same way by everyone, or even that the objectivity is on the level of perception. According to classical physics, whether I am walking -80 mph or whether the ball is moving at 80 mph and I am still, or whether we are both moving at 40mph away from the start point are all matters of perception, but the fact that the distance between us is increasing at 80 mph is objective. Of course, relativity complicates things a bit more, but the same principle applies - there is an objective description of what’s going on that determines what everything is perceived to be doing from various view points.

It is not that the absolutes of physics are hostage to our perceptions, but rather the other way around.

We should “care” about working well because working well enhances our ability to get along and thus to thrive.

That’s the best I can do on the short shif and within the confines of this modality of argument. We probably would have a much more enjoyable discourse if we had a couple of cokes at some university student center, but, that is not possible.

Indeed, the record does appear to be cracking. I understand that you say “morality” should be based on what gives desired consequences, but I don’t understand how “desired consequences” can be self generating, as it were.

“There are no absolutes is an absolute statement” is another cute word game. Please spare me the medieval Anselm-esque word play. If there are no absolutes then how else can the proposition be expressed than to say that such have no existential quality?

You need to read less Aquainus and Anselm and more Wittgenstein.

Word games are what happens when the truth is hidden behind meaningless splitting of definitional-hairs - without the content of what is being said changing, but with things being phrased so that without careful thought it might appear that it is. For example, I heard an argument that when a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, it does not make a sound because in order for the vibrations in the air etc (which the person said do occur) to be classified as sound, they must be received by something capable of interpreting it as such.

That is a word game. What I am saying could be phrased pretty nearly mathematically:

Let P( phi ) be a function mapping statements phi to 1 or 0.

P( phi ) is 1 if phi is “absolutely true,” 0 if not.

Let psi be the statement “P( phi ) = 0 for all phi.”

Suppose psi is true. Then P( psi ) = 1. But this is a contradiction, because we just said that P( anything ) is always 0.

So there must be at least some statements that are absolutely true.

Likewise, if there are no absolute truths, there cannot be absolute falsehoods, so it cannot be absolutely false that… anything.

I read some “modern” philosophy, but they seem to have fallen into two categories: nothing is true or good at all and everything is absurd and pointless, OR nothing is really true or good at all, really, but if we click our heels together three times and say “there’s no place like where you feel comfortable about imposing your moral beliefs on others” then we get transported to the magical lands where most of what the earlier philosophers reasoned was good and true still magically held because we wanted it to - and so we could still justify things like society and laws and policemen - but where we also had license to ignore all those parts we found inconvenient because, hey, it’s not really true.

I have a lot of respect for the first sort, even if I think they’re dead wrong. The second sort to me as always appeared to be trying to justify acting as though what they want to believe is good actually is good, simply because they want to believe it’s good. While I think I can also understand that position, I hardly call “make up your own world and live there, and hopefully enough people will agree with me that the resulting (perception of) reality (in my mind) will be pretty close to how I want to be, and so I’ll have warm and fuzzy feelings of happiness” an actual philosophical result. It’s just a way to keep the warm and fuzzy flowing in the absence of anything better to do.

So I may read some Wittgenstein, but I refuse to throw out the idea that if logic says something is false then it is, even if it allows me to be happy about things that logic says I shouldn’t be happy about. So far as I’m concerned, Aquinas has pride of place.