Human Value Nonexistent?

[genkaus]

Heh, the paradox form of our evolution of morality. People needed to unite on myths/delusions. There is natural inclination, to want others to share your view and even believe others should share your view.

We naturally believe in things we believe we should. And we couldn't believe we should, if we thought others should not.

So here we are with everyone trying to convince everyone they are right.

It's paradoxical in that it's needed for harmony but at the same time is the root cause of disharmony.

The paradox resolves itself once you realize that the truth would serve the function just as well. Unfortunately, the we were able to find it out a bit too late - after the delusions had taken hold.

[Mystic]

The paradox resolves itself once you realize that the truth would serve the function just as well.

But what if the truth is that there is no meaning, no value, no praise, no morals, no justice, and it's all a delusion?

I don't know if the truth would make a better society than delusion at all.

You may know, but I don't.

[genkaus]

But what if the truth is that there is no meaning, no value, no praise, no morals, no justice, and it's all a delusion?

As you'll find, the truth is that there is meaning, value, praise, morals and justice because we've made them.

I don't know if the truth would make a better society than delusion at all.

You may know, but I don't.

Considering what those delusions have done to society, truth could hardly be any worse.

[Mystic]

As you'll find, the truth is that there is meaning, value, praise, morals and justice because we've made them.

That seems non-sequiter. We made Gods doesn't mean they exist. So what if we made meaning, value, praise, morals, justice, it's a perception.

You may feel superior to someone, that is your perception, but it doesn't make you superior.

Like wise you can feel an act is praiseworthy, it doesn't make it praiseworthy.

You can value a thing, but it can be total without value.

Considering what those delusions have done to society, truth could hardly be any worse.

I don't know. Maybe humanity is not ready for the truth and will never be. Perhaps majority will always incline to delusions.

Even if we end religion, people might still incline to believe a eternal objective judge for example and a soul.

They might delude themselves that they know.

[Mystic]

Perhaps the logic Theists go through is the following even if they never express it, when they ask Atheists "Where did you get value/morals/meaning from"

I can only know there is meaning, value, morals, praise, if I know there is a soul and metaphysical reality, behind my perception.
I can only know there is a soul and metaphysical reality behind my perception, if I know there is value, morals, praise, meaning.

I cannot know one without the other. Instinct and emotion attachment makes you either want to believe in both or in the case there is knowledge of both, then it makes you to incline to hold on to that knowledge.

Like I said, evolution could've hardwired religious thought, because we sought to justify praise, morals. It can be a complete delusion, but perhaps, it's not.

Perhaps religious people are wrong about their world views but they are not wrong in feeling there must be meaning and a soul.

[genkaus]

That seems non-sequiter. We made Gods doesn't mean they exist. So what if we made meaning, value, praise, morals, justice, it's a perception.

There are two different modes in which things exist - natural and conceptual. For example, the world you see around you exists in a physical form. The scientific theories describing that world exist in conceptual form. Similarly, the gods we made exist in conceptual form as well, i.e. we do have ideas regarding those gods. Since they do not exist in the natural world - as is often asserted - we say that they are not 'real'.

However, things like meaning, value, praise etc. are not even thought of as existing in any other form that conceptual. They are and always have been the products of consciousness. They do exist and they are real. And if they are based on physical reality, then they are objective as well.

You may feel superior to someone, that is your perception, but it doesn't make you superior.

If I just feel superior, then no. But if I can show myself to be, then yes.

Like wise you can feel an act is praiseworthy, it doesn't make it praiseworthy.

Exactly. Just feeling that doesn't make it so. For it to be praiseworthy would depend on the details of the act itself.

You can value a thing, but it can be total without value.

What do you mean by that?

---

Perhaps the logic Theists go through is the following even if they never express it, when they ask Atheists "Where did you get value/morals/meaning from"

I can only know there is meaning, value, morals, praise, if I know there is a soul and metaphysical reality, behind my perception.
I can only know there is a soul and metaphysical reality behind my perception, if I know there is value, morals, praise, meaning.

I cannot know one without the other. Instinct and emotion attachment makes you either want to believe in both or in the case there is knowledge of both, then it makes you to incline to hold on to that knowledge.

Like I said, evolution could've hardwired religious thought, because we sought to justify praise, morals. It can be a complete delusion, but perhaps, it's not.

Perhaps religious people are wrong about their world views but they are not wrong in feeling there must be meaning and a soul.

Except, you cannot blame evolution for this flawed reasoning because there are a lot of atheistic philosophies as well which believe in value, morals, praise and meaning. Therefore, they would not only be wrong in their worldview but in feeling that there must be a soul as well.

[pocaracas]

Just a little notch on that whole "evolution made us all religious animals": When the portuguese people "discovered" Brazil, they found that the indigenous people there were, as far as they could tell, non-theist. They didn't even have the concept of god. The jesuits quickly saw to it that they gain that concept and now south America is one of the more religious places on the planet... -.-'

[Edwardo Piet]

The universe is indifferent to us.

Except for the parts of the universe that are us.

[Annik]

The universe is indifferent to us.

Except for the parts of the universe that are us.

That is true, for we ARE the universe, experiencing itself.



Big hug, fellow universe buddies. <3

[Mystic]

However, things like meaning, value, praise etc. are not even thought of as existing in any other form that conceptual.

But this seems to indicate that they are delusions then, not that they are real. They are a real only the sense, yes we feel that way, but not in the sense there actual praise, value, etc...From one way, yes, if I praise "Allah", the concept of praise exists in me. But is it objective at all?

They are and always have been the products of consciousness. They do exist and they are real. And if they are based on physical reality, then they are objective as well.

Well assuming naturalism is true, they would be created by physical reality. But it doesn't mean they aren't delusions.

If I just feel superior, then no. But if I can show myself to be, then yes.

This is assuming there is a way for you to know and judge. This assuming this is objective measurement to one's existence. But all of this is not proven from naturalism perspective.

Anyways, your concept was non-sequitor, because you said they exist because we have the concepts. Now you are saying they need to be justified concepts. But saying they can be justified because we have these concepts (your justification) doesn't justify it.

Exactly. Just feeling that doesn't make it so. For it to be praiseworthy would depend on the details of the act itself.

Perhaps, perhaps it's not only the act, but the spirit behind the act. Perhaps we don't attribute that much importance to actions, but the emotion that motivates such actions, the conscious feeling behind it. And we do so with belief there is perpetual free-will identity that grows and is chosen to a degree by the person.

But again, you "we can conceive of it, therefore they exist" is not justified.

You can value a thing, but it can be total without value.

What do you mean by that?

It has value in subjective sense for sure, because you give it value, it's valuable to you.

But if two people value you differently, for example, does that mean there is two value measurements to you? In only one sense of language, but in another sense, no there is only one measurement of who you are.

If someone values something to a degree, and another person feels the opposite of it, yes there is value in the sense of how people feel about, but what is the objective value to that thing?

And because we imagine or assume there is an objective value when we make our subjective value, doesn't mean there is any.

Except, you cannot blame evolution for this flawed reasoning because there are a lot of atheistic philosophies as well which believe in value, morals, praise and meaning.

Total blame, no, but partial blame yes. Tribalism is our roots, but right now, a lot of people can feel non-nationalistic, but feel part of the whole community of the world without favoring one people over another. But it doesn't mean the human condition is not the tribe mentality.

There can be all sorts of free-thinkers now, doesn't mean evolution didn't favor inclination to trusting our community leaders.

There can be a lot of critical thinkers now due to the culture of education we went through, but doesn't mean evolution didn't favor non-critical think but blind following.

How much people have come up with their own philosophy as opposed to following one?

Sure a society could've went away from the tribal roots of myth, and believed in morals/praise without belief in spirit/soul, but it doesn't take away what the theists feel when they assume both. A theist maybe going back to the root of tribal instinct, while an atheistic society, is "suppressing" that instinct/feeling.