While there seems to be an objective universe (external reality), the experiencing of this universe is 100% subjective. So, the "quality" of a life will ultimately be determined by the one doing the living.

Given these premises, wouldn't one "belief system" be as good as the next? We'll make this a hypothetical and remove beliefs that result in harm to others.

We each live from the cradle to the grave. My meaning may be found in seeking objective truths through science and logic. Your meaning may be to immerse yourself in sports. Someone else may find meaning in gardening. Someone else in living as a Catholic monk....

We all eventually wind up in the graveyard and probably completely forgotten in a few generations. Who cares what my deceased father believed politically and philosophically? His existence left a small foot print that will erode to obscurity in time. What mattered was the quality of experience he enjoyed (or suffered) during his waking moments.

Views: 145

Replies to This Discussion

I cannot fathom a world where 'every' interpretation is as good or meaningful as the next. Sure it is true that we live our lives in a subjective prison of sorts; however, through inter-subjective dialogue we can begin to form a more objectively biased glimpse of the world.

The ultimate nature of the world is likely beyond our current ability to comprehend, we are after all, little more than pink apes: We are a pragmatic conglomeration of bits that somehow became self-aware. That said, I firmly believe we can evaluate the overall health, or condition, of other cultural systems through a vigorous dialectic - only then can we even begin to assemble the tools of thought to wrestle with these issues.

Truth, itself, is a conditional statement, and all Truths are conditional. At best we can have a consensus of agreement based on the accumulation of inter-subjective 'nominals' (empty containers that exist objectively on to which we place subjective values). That doesn't render every concept impotent or make judgments impossible. It doesn't matter if a 'Truth' today is false, what only matters is that it works, has a value, and can produce like results that have a measurable and predictable impact across a spectrum of experiences.

That is how we can stand in judgment of our own culture and the culture of others and hold one or more epistemological paradigms up as the gold-standard to which we aspire. This is how, and why, we see moral standards from the past erode and new moral standards arise. There is a constant ebb and flow in the tide of reason. As more and more of the sacred is held by reason, the more it has to retreat into the shadows precisely because of inter-subjective dialog and rationale.

It is much harder to deny the soul of a woman when one has to account for tears and the terse bitterness of a sullen and brooding existence. The more we strip away the layers, the more existential things become, and the more existential, the greater the dialogue; the greater the dialogue, the greater the understanding, the greater the understanding, the greater our reasoning.

I would argue the mire of post-modernism is nihilistic and depraved. It is not so much the overman as it is the the going under. When you assert that every narrative has equal value you deny every narrative value and destroy whatever IS that IS in favour of some gossamer notion that nothing can be as it IS. It is a path of destruction without renewal or hope, it stands as a veil at the edge of existence blinding humanity with indelible ignorance, shaking our will to be, condemning the brightest to be shepherds and the dull and witless to be as sheep.

To hold all existence to be subjective is to make an objective statement based on Conditional Truths attested to by the interactions and the dialectic of many minds working inter-subjectively in a synergistic intellectual groping of the darkness. To deny our condition would be the madness of ignorance; but to assume our condition terminal and without hope or the possibility of overcoming is cowardice of reason - a god of the gaps for the philosopher afraid of their own shadow.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


Latest Activity

Tom Brock replied to jlaz's discussion Is "God" possible?
1 hour ago
Mel Quay commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Tom Brock posted a status
"Technology is the new religion and Artificial Intelligence may be our new god. Leave your epitaph for humanity at www.humanitybeacon.com"
1 hour ago
Thomas Murray commented on Loren Miller's group Quotations – Momentous, Memorable, Meaningful
1 hour ago
Joan Denoo replied to Mel Quay's discussion Weekly Sunday Get-together...
1 hour ago
Ruth Anthony-Gardner commented on Skylar's group Psychology
2 hours ago
Mel Quay joined Daniel W's group
2 hours ago
Mel Quay replied to Mel Quay's discussion Weekly Sunday Get-together...
2 hours ago

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service