Wednesday, December 1, 2010

An introduction in brief

The writings contained in this blog hereafter will revolve largely around the ramifications of life, death, suicide and procreation, as viewed through the lens of various philosophical schools of thought. Ambitious as though it may seem, I also hope to expose the illogic, the psychological blind spots and the dearth of critical thinking through which people are sapped of their ability to reflect without prejudice upon these issues. As such, I pre-emptively apologise for my own failings in these areas as one who is likewise susceptible to the shortcomings inherent to the human condition.

Given its nature, this blog may indeed eventuate as some form of suicide note, or even, as the title suggests, a suicide treatise. More likely however, this blog will fade away into oblivion; the symbolism of this hypothetical occurrence reflected all too readily in life itself. But regardless, whether or not this ever becomes the case is less important than whatever thoughts and ideas are presented hereafter. While many of these views will be undoubtedly unpopular, I hope to nonetheless advance them with as much logic and rigour as I can afford to obviate any accusations against me personally.

7 comments:

  1. You left a comment on my blog a few weeks ago which I've only recently gotten around to replying to (see my blog for the actual comment). A couple of additional thoughts:

    1. We share similar sentiments regarding the nature of life, it seems. Do you ally yourself with the nihilistic worldview? I find the standard arguments that reality is valueless rather easily refutable, and somewhat selfish in their neglect of the fates of billions of organisms; this seems to often occur as a result of internalizing value, rather than rejecting it, and is thus just another way for humans to justify their particular variants of self-interest -- a phenomenon present at the inception of the first cell almost four billion years ago.

    Nullifying value is just another way to get defining value wrong, especially if the justification is self-referencing, as it is with most. You acknowledge your shortcomings as regards psychological bias (as do I), but perhaps you should consider this idea in an effort to either affirm or improve your outlook. My general rule: If it benefits me, it's especially dubious, and thus in need of serious scrutiny prior to adoption. The idea that we are biased toward wanting to live is a sound one, but if it's predicated on the notion of everything being valueless, then we'll fail to come up with adequate alternatives to life, leading to a "Do whatever you want; live if you think life is great, and don't if you don't" mentality. In other words, everything has at least one alternative, and is necessarily either superior or inferior to its alternatives. Therefore, we can't just show what's "wrong"; we have to show what's "right" as well, even if that means showing only what's "better" than what's "wrong."

    2. Although I find what I'm reading to be your stance to be yet another manifestation of the genetic motivations behind life and self-preservation, you seem in possession of a mind on the path to unimpeded rationality. I would rather discuss issues with someone utilizing an efficient mental processor who disagrees with me than with someone utilizing an inefficient mental processor who agrees with me. What do you think about this? Do you also find more value in the initial "how" than in the "what" that eventuates from that process?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't so much as ally myself with nihilism as I simply dismiss everything else I've encountered. Etymologically, nihilism would suggest a belief in nothing which doesn't accurately describe my position (or lack thereof). Contrast this to the distinction between the non-belief in god and the belief in the non-existence of god which often arise in theistic debates. Nonetheless, I obviously do hold values even if I acknowledge them to be vacuous.

    The life bias I mentioned was a simple observation into a pervasive feature of human psychology and didn't commit the reader to take any action other than to be aware that such a bias exists. This observation is certainly not predicated upon valuelessness and wasn't intended to suggest that either life or death are preferable to each other. Indeed, an alternative needn't be superior to another if both are equal.

    I object to your characterisation of my stance as genetically motivated, especially given that most of what I believe is completely antithetical to the operation of evolution. Also, while potentially interesting, the theoretical issues that underpin whatever I may cogitate are always subsidiary to their ends. Call it utilitarian but argumentation is only useful insofar as it allows us to make inferences about the world even if the "how" is taken for granted. But of course, I'm generally open to more debate on most philosophical topics.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To me, the universe exudes the appearance of meaning, because it appears to function based on cause-and-effect relationships between qualia and quanta -- though those phenomena are mere abstractions, but the level of abstraction needn't alter our understanding of the mechanics of reality themselves.

    Conversely, the universe does not exude the appearance of having been created by something, so I find it impractical and unwise to invest energy in the inverse claim. I believe nothing, because my reliance on my senses begs the question, but I ACT as though value and meaning have a stronger foundation than god, because that's what the evidence indicates -- if that makes sense.

    If two options were of equal merit, then I would refrain from categorizing them separately, and would instead refer to them as being the same thing, for the most part. I don't see how one could make non-subjective claims regarding the superiority of baseball to football, for example, so I'd refer to those activities, philosophically, as "sports" -- rather than as the two separate categories of "baseball" and "football." In this case, what is actually occurring is that abstraction is taking place on a different scale, so the alternative to be considered wouldn't be another sport -- it would be "not-sports," including, of course, the "non-action" of not enjoying either sport.

    I see your stance as genetically motivated only because it justifies all actions undertaken by genetically motivated organisms under the pretense that they are equally as meaningful/meaningless as their alternatives; as a consequence, selfish actions that benefit only their initiators, because said actions "feel" good (or eliminate personal feelings of negativity, even at the expense of others), are deemed acceptable.

    The processes by which we come to conclusions, to me, matter more than their ends, because conclusions, ideas, etc. are merely symptoms of those processes; if an inefficient process "accidentally" generates a good idea, that doesn't mean that the process itself is good, nor does it mean that more good ideas will be generated by the process. Therefore, associating with people whose ideas are the by-products of flawed systems, even where their ideas are good, is usually a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To me, we seem to be living in an absurd and meaningless universe; the apparent order in nature doing nothing to allay this. Even extant gods would do nothing as they and their actions would strike me as being equally absurd.

    While my stance does justify all actions undertaken by genetic organisms, it also justifies all actions counterproductive to genetic organisms; I don't see why preference should be given to either. Regardless, the acceptability of certain actions under my nihilistic ideations don't in any way serve to refute or weaken them as that would presuppose the very thing my position denies.

    Even though thought processes are inextricably linked to their conclusions, nothing can be said about processes without having arrived at some conclusion based some other process whose truth value is taken for granted. In way, there's a certain circularity or even holism to the nature of thought; meta-thought leads to thoughts which analyse those meta-thoughts etc. Perhaps my initial assessment of the relative value of the 'what' was myopic but only on account of the favourability of a related paradigm.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "To me, we seem to be living in an absurd and meaningless universe; the apparent order in nature doing nothing to allay this."

    I agree that the universe is absurd -- and even unfortunate, potentially -- but part of that absurdity lies in the meaning imposed upon the universe by math, logic, and, ultimately, sentience itself. Again, two objects colliding in space MEANS that a change in velocity will occur for both. In more complex forms, meaning is arrived at for organic reasons, as in the case of the meaning inherent in a bacterium's decision to consume one type of compound at the expense of another. Finally, sentience adds a third layer of meaning (this is arbitrary, but necessary for illustration); all three are unavoidable, regardless of how many options and possibilities exist for each scenario.

    "Even though thought processes are inextricably linked to their conclusions, nothing can be said about processes without having arrived at some conclusion based some other process whose truth value is taken for granted."

    This is only the case if you find truth in such a process, but, again, you don't have to in order to act. It's perfectly possible for me to say, "I have no idea if this is really happening right now, or if any of this matters, but I'm going to do it anyway; furthermore, I'm going to think that it's better than the alternatives." This does not rely on any kind of assumption whatsoever, because I acknowledge that I could, in fact, be wrong, and I also acknowledge that not acting or not choosing is often based on a similar kind of certainty to that of acting or choosing. You could spin a wheel or flip a coin, but how that would benefit you and your sentience is beyond me; only those who neither value their own lives nor comprehend that others value theirs would do such a thing (schizophrenics, depressives, psychopaths, et al.).

    Utilizing a process to improve a preexisting process is acceptable in some cases, but it logically terminates in an infinite regress of processes, which would be inefficient to dwell upon or attempt. Acting does not equal believing, assuming, or even referencing against something else; likewise, it does not entail that everything is meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  6. “I agree that the universe is absurd -- and even unfortunate, potentially -- but part of that absurdity lies in the meaning imposed upon the universe by math, logic, and, ultimately, sentience itself.”

    At this point I feel that this part of the debate has devolved into a semantic war over the term 'meaning' and given that neither of us has defined precisely what is meant by this term, any further discussions seem pointless until this is resolved. Though at this point I'm not convinced that quibbling over meaning would have any practical ramification on either of our beliefs which would render this portion of the discussion moot.

    “It's perfectly possible for me to say, "I have no idea if this is really happening right now, or if any of this matters, but I'm going to do it anyway; furthermore, I'm going to think that it's better than the alternatives."” This does not rely on any kind of assumption whatsoever, because I acknowledge that I could, in fact, be wrong, and I also acknowledge that not acting or not choosing is often based on a similar kind of certainty to that of acting or choosing.”

    The potential for falsification doesn't obviate the need to make assumptions. The fact that you're believing that some action is better than another doesn't detract from assumptions and value judgements being imposed on a situation. In fact, I'm not convinced there's ever a way of breaking free of assumptions, this being an inherent condition of all sentient life.

    “You could spin a wheel or flip a coin, but how that would benefit you and your sentience is beyond me; only those who neither value their own lives nor comprehend that others value theirs would do such a thing (schizophrenics, depressives, psychopaths, et al.).”

    Flipping a coin to make decisions may not be beneficial to an individual, but the real question here is why they ever wanted to benefit themselves. Instead of doing something strengthening, why not do something weakening? Instead doing something socially acceptable, why not do something humiliating? What difference does it make? When I start viewing in these terms, the actions and choices that once seemed significant now seem much less so.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "At this point I feel that this part of the debate has devolved into a semantic war over the term 'meaning' and given that neither of us has defined precisely what is meant by this term, any further discussions seem pointless until this is resolved."

    According to dictionary.com, "meaning" is "the end, purpose, or significance of something". Objects, by definition, act as signifiers by interacting with surrounding objects; sentience introduces a very stark, visceral layer of meaning on top of this.

    "The potential for falsification doesn't obviate the need to make assumptions."

    I'm going to disagree here. I honestly don't think that I possess absolute knowledge of anything, and therefore don't believe anything to be true at all; the "maybes" are always in the back of my mind. Moreover, even that which lies at the forefront of my mind is a "maybe": maybe two plus two equals four, but maybe it doesn't. This is a slightly trivial but necessary and fundamental concession that must be made prior to beginning any thought process. I do think that it's best, however, that this concession remain implicit in the majority of discussions, so long as both parties have made it, and are aware that they've done so (perhaps based on a society-wide standard).

    "Flipping a coin to make decisions may not be beneficial to an individual, but the real question here is why they ever wanted to benefit themselves."

    Because it feels good or terminates a negative -- the positive/neutral half of the sentience dichotomy. Our senses appear to be giving us this information; it makes more sense to listen to them than to ignore them, as ignoring them ISN'T based on anything at all -- aside from, perhaps, the sentient desire to be "different," or to ensure the invalidity -- and, thus validity -- of all actions. This is itself predicated on some form of desire-chasing -- if only in the sense of wanting to find a shortcut or cheat for the oftentimes complex process of decision-making.

    ReplyDelete