Human Value Nonexistent?

[Edwardo Piet]

[...]the concept of praise exists in me. But is it objective at all?

Well, we're going to have to define "existence". Do we mean by "existence", "real" in the sense of "not-imaginary" or do we simply mean "there"? Your imagination is there, in the sense that you have it, therefore it exists if existence is defined as something being "there". But your imagination is not real in the sense that it is imaginary and imaginary is the opposite of real. And if "real" is also defined as existence, your imagination then does not exist.

[Mystic]

[...]the concept of praise exists in me. But is it objective at all?

Well, we're going to have to define "existence". Do we mean by "existence", "real" in the sense of "not-imaginary" or do we simply mean "there"? Your imagination is there, in the sense that you have it, therefore it exists if existence is defined as something being "there". But your imagination is not real in the sense that it is imaginary and imaginary is the opposite of real. And if "real" is also defined as existence, your imagination then does not exist.

When I praise a person, I imagine the person existing, and personhood, that has free-will and that I don't know their exact measurement, but I praise what I perceive of them. Obviously, I don't know the person well enough to know who they are for sure. In fact, it can be all delusion, our perception of everyone and ourselves, can be all wrong. And it seems to be the case, that no one really knows anyone. We only have an image of how they appear to us, but we don't know their nature.

I can have my image of Imam Khomeini, and it would be different from you.

But try as I might, I can't stop myself from judging and having a perception of a person.

When I feel attachment to a childhood friend, I'm assuming it's the same person.

I have a concept of that person.

All this for all we know is a delusion in a total sense. What I mean by a total sense, is that none of has a possible reality behind it.

I am disgusted by behaviour of one person, another person likes it. I am attracted to one personality and another person hates that person.

Who is right here?

Humans are inclined to believe there is an objective judgment to people, but this hasn't been proven.

Any value or praise to a person isn't proven.

---

You know, I just had a thought. Perhaps Mohammad was one of the most benevolent human beings, in that, he wanted to bring a total delusion to what human is worth.

The belief in you will see your actions on the day of judgment, read your book, and know your actions is exact measurement. That God hand's is above their hands. That God is pleased with believers.

That Angels had to bow down to the first human who had the breathe of God in him. That good Humans are not only higher then animals, but even perfect Angels.

His society was so miserable. Kids were being born of wedlock as the norm, and people were worshipping statues.

"Peace be upon the Messengers" - Who doesn't want peace? "peace be upon you" - who doesn't want peace.

Perpetual blessings. The holy spirit in humanity.

I dunno if I prefer the harsh skepticism world, as opposed to the whole world being convinced by Islam in a total world theocracy. I don't know if I care about freedom and pleasures all that much, then having humans feel they have higher purpose and meaning, and worth that they cannot imagine, as only God truly knows their worth.

So what if it's a delusion? So what if Tabatabai for example had all sort of mystical delusions in his mystic journey.

Is there a really a 'should' do here? Perhaps not, perhaps I am just hard wired to prefer humans live in a happy delusion.

Perhaps the religious leaders we all hate so much now due to "science" and "enlightenment" created the best thing for humanity from perspective of our happiness.

Perhaps Suratal Fatiha is the best invention in Arts, perhaps Quran delusion, is the best for humanity.

I don't know to be honest. All this hate to one another just makes me sad.

[Mystic]

The thing is we don't even seem to know if it is logically possible from naturalism perspective, let alone that it is. We can make up gods, we can make up super heros, we can imagine what we like, and believe in the greatness, but it's different to even know it can be real or there such a property to possible beings. We believe in worth and self-worth, but naturalism perspective, that simply may exist because of pure instinct. An although we can imagine gods which would have much worth and greatness then us, it doesn't mean the greatness we believe in them, is justified from naturalistic perspective as even possible. Possible as in logically possible.

[JohnDG]

People just want to feel good, they want something to comfort them no matter how insane it is. Like my cousin said to me once, people just need to feel like there is something more than what really is otherwise most would just give up on their lives.

[jonb]

JohnDG is right, but that is because people don't appreciate what they have, this is a brilliant universe, it was not created at anyone's dictation, there is nobody in charge to tell us what to do, we can make of it what ever we want to make of it, and we could make it even better if we could be bothered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knYOcaQ-x5o

[Mystic]

JohnDG is right, but that is because people don't appreciate what they have, this is a brilliant universe, it was not created at anyone's dictation, there is nobody in charge to tell us what to do, we can make of it what ever we want to make of it, and we could make it even better if we could be bothered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knYOcaQ-x5o

This is it. Appreciation. We loved when others did good to us, and we felt the need to praise them (evolution wise).

You assume we can make of it what we want, but can we? Or are we driven by assumptions. Some of it on instinct but most of created by culture.

I will give you an example. The structure of the months of Islam. Most Muslims their favorite month is Ramadan, because they feel, somehow all their actions are worth more.

Personally, my favorite month was Shaban. The month before. This is because it was really encouraged to fast without it being obligatory. I like the idea it was encouraged but not obligatory. I also appreciate the month of Ramadan because it's obligatory, and it forces you to a want to do more good.

Are our actions more significant during Ramadan then not? No...but belief creates a reality to us. Without belief in Islam, however, I cannot create the feeling that my actions are worth more significance than other times.

Then you have "the Night of measurement/greatness". It is suppose to be worth more then a thousand months. One day worth more than one thousands months of good actions.

You do one good deed that day, it's worth more than a thousand months of that good deed.

There is suppose to a change to the metaphysical composition of the universe. This is stated to be through "Angels descending, and the Spirit". The Spirit is meant by either Jebreil per Sunni understanding or shia understanding, it refers to the Imam of time.

Mohammad created significance in minds of Muslims to the night of measurement/greatness.

The belief in it creates a world to Muslims. It's valuable to them and worth a lot. They believe there is an objective value to their actions in the eyes of God worth more than other nights.

But without the myth, can they create this reality?

I use to recite a supplication against black magic, that summons the "sword of God" and attack the Sorcerers and Jinn, "with the might of God" "Honour of God"... and to "exalt myself with the highness of God".

I created my own vision of my self. I had "sword of God" from my perspective.

But without belief, can I create that reality?

Without belief something is praiseworthy, can we even praise it?

Sure, create your own meaning, I understand, but when you go to create your own meaning, you do believing in what you create is of significance and of meaning. But that requires some belief in objective meaning.

But objecting meaning is not proven.

The stanley cup has a lot meaning to NHL and NHL fans. But does it have an objective value? We roll with the tide, because that it was it means to be human.

To a mystic like Imam Khomeini, the stanley cup is totally vain effort worth nothing. To an Atheist, Imam Khomeini aim at "dissappearing into the light of God" or his favorite supplication "O God grant our hearts the the light of gazing upon you, till they pierce the veils of light, and our souls get suspended by the sanctity of your Spirit., may be meaningless.

Is there an objective meaning? And it subjective meaning people place possible without belief there is an objective meaning even if they can't quite tell you how.

[genkaus]

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 actual - or rather objective - if they are based on actual things - such as your actual actions or accomplishments. If they are based on imaginary things - such as Allah - then they are delusions.

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

As stated earlier, that'd depend on what they are based on.

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.

Good thing I'm not using a naturalistic perspective then.

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.

You are not making any sense.

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.

Or perhaps not. Present an argument for me to refute - not suppositions.

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

Read what I wrote again - that is not what I said.

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, we use separate standards for measuring value of different things all the time. The length of a stick is an objective value - whether we measure it by metres or inches. Money has an objective value - whether its in dollars or euros. Just because we haven'r found an acceptable standard for measuring the value of people doesn't mean it is not objective.

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.

Except, tribe-mentality has nothing to do with propagation of myths and delusions. It works just as well with facts.

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.

You are way off-base here. Neither tribe-mentality nor nationalism require you to abandon critical thinking and be blind followers.

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.

The character at fault here is not tribalism but the desire for explanations.

---

When I praise a person, I imagine the person existing, and personhood, that has free-will and that I don't know their exact measurement, but I praise what I perceive of them. Obviously, I don't know the person well enough to know who they are for sure. In fact, it can be all delusion, our perception of everyone and ourselves, can be all wrong. And it seems to be the case, that no one really knows anyone. We only have an image of how they appear to us, but we don't know their nature.

I can have my image of Imam Khomeini, and it would be different from you.

But try as I might, I can't stop myself from judging and having a perception of a person.

When I feel attachment to a childhood friend, I'm assuming it's the same person.

I have a concept of that person.

All this for all we know is a delusion in a total sense. What I mean by a total sense, is that none of has a possible reality behind it.

I am disgusted by behaviour of one person, another person likes it. I am attracted to one personality and another person hates that person.

Who is right here?

Humans are inclined to believe there is an objective judgment to people, but this hasn't been proven.

Any value or praise to a person isn't proven.

Can you, for once, go and read what I wrote about objective morality and values and tell me how it isn't proven?

You know, I just had a thought. Perhaps Mohammad was one of the most benevolent human beings, in that, he wanted to bring a total delusion to what human is worth.

The belief in you will see your actions on the day of judgment, read your book, and know your actions is exact measurement. That God hand's is above their hands. That God is pleased with believers.

That Angels had to bow down to the first human who had the breathe of God in him. That good Humans are not only higher then animals, but even perfect Angels.

His society was so miserable. Kids were being born of wedlock as the norm, and people were worshipping statues.

"Peace be upon the Messengers" - Who doesn't want peace? "peace be upon you" - who doesn't want peace.

Perpetual blessings. The holy spirit in humanity.

I dunno if I prefer the harsh skepticism world, as opposed to the whole world being convinced by Islam in a total world theocracy. I don't know if I care about freedom and pleasures all that much, then having humans feel they have higher purpose and meaning, and worth that they cannot imagine, as only God truly knows their worth.

So what if it's a delusion? So what if Tabatabai for example had all sort of mystical delusions in his mystic journey.

Is there a really a 'should' do here? Perhaps not, perhaps I am just hard wired to prefer humans live in a happy delusion.

Perhaps the religious leaders we all hate so much now due to "science" and "enlightenment" created the best thing for humanity from perspective of our happiness.

Perhaps Suratal Fatiha is the best invention in Arts, perhaps Quran delusion, is the best for humanity.

I don't know to be honest. All this hate to one another just makes me sad.

That is just sickening. Using lies and delusions in name of peace is not benevolent, it is downright corrupt. And as seen in today's world, bound to fail. If he/they truly were benevolent, then they'd have understood that benevolence requires not just peaceful life for everyone, but a life where everyone could be happy and grow as they desire. That is not possible in a world ruled by delusions.

[Mystic]

They are actual - or rather objective - if they are based on actual things - such as your actual actions or accomplishments. If they are based on imaginary things - such as Allah - then they are delusions.

We all give different significance to actions and accomplishments. This doesn't mean there is an actual measurement to our actions. But you are assuming our actions can be of significance (meaning). You are assuming there can be praiseworthy actions. In other words you are just asserting the conclusion.

Our instinct to believe in praiseworthy actions. We wouldn't have survived if we didn't. But just because we have the concept of praiseworthy actions and praise an action, it doesn't make it praiseworthy.

You are not making any sense.

Your justification was that because we have these concept and we created them, they are somehow objective or have a basis and are not delusions. I showed that reasoning is non-sequitur, so what is your basis to it other then resorting to "we have a concept of it, therefore it's not a delusion".

I am not even sure we do have a concept of it or a rather a belief in it. What I mean by a concept is a firm grasp of what is the essence of praise.

It maybe an impossible concept, just as "the being that cannot be any greater or have anything" greater is a concept people have, but it maybe rationally impossible.

Just as Wrathful/Just + Merciful concept of Yahweh or God or Allah, can be contradictory. Is there a concept of it, or rather a belief in it.

Do we even have a concept of what makes something praiseworthy or do we have belief in praise and go on that instinct and create our own significance to actions.

Or perhaps not. Present an argument for me to refute - not suppositions.

You are the one making the claim I am the agnostic confused one.

Read what I wrote again - that is not what I said.

I read it again, it's exactly what you said.

Except, we use separate standards for measuring value of different things all the time. The length of a stick is an objective value - whether we measure it by metres or inches. Money has an objective value - whether its in dollars or euros. Just because we haven'r found an acceptable standard for measuring the value of people doesn't mean it is not objective.

True, but that there exists any objective measurement or worth, is not proven either.

Except, tribe-mentality has nothing to do with propagation of myths and delusions. It works just as well with facts.

Doesn't seem to be the case of the human condition. Belief in praise maybe a myth. But we can't live without that myth.

The character at fault here is not tribalism but the desire for explanations.

Well I'm not saying it's tribalism, I'm saying the evolutionary roots of created by a long history of tribalism development and moral development may incline us to believe in a certain type of explanation as opposed to another. It may also be the root cause to mythical belief, like belief in a metaphysical form to our actions or a soul.

[The Grand Nudger]

Our instinct to believe in praiseworthy actions. We wouldn't have survived if we didn't. But just because we have the concept of praiseworthy actions and praise an action, it doesn't make it praiseworthy.

Elephant in the room: Of course it does, because as you said directly before making this statement, we set the criteria ourselves. If it meets the criteria we have set it is "praiseworthy".

[KichigaiNeko]

Egocentric little shits aren't we?