TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Cessation of Existence & Afterlives.

Go To

UltimatelySubjective Since: Jun, 2011
#376: Apr 28th 2012 at 4:50:18 AM

I like the clarity of the universe you believe in.

But we are humans, and there's a human aspect to living and dying.

First of all, dying unremembered and forgotten is sad. Therefore even in life people would like to think that they can be remembered. And the longer, the better.

In a sense humanity and their tendency to create greater order can be thought of as a team, and as member of the group, we like to contribute. The greater the contribution, the happier we are.

Therefore having a contribution and being remembered can make people happier in life. This may not be something everyone understands, but I can see how it would link in with our very make-up as social beings capable of sadness and happiness.

In short I don't put my own life on the same scale as the universe. I'm not that good at objectively comparing scales on with that much difference in magnitude.

Have you read ManifoldSpace? It's a bit like that, with the whole small contribution from past life forms to speed up future cycles of life continually punctuated by apocalypses.

edited 28th Apr '12 4:52:48 AM by UltimatelySubjective

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#377: Apr 28th 2012 at 4:53:44 AM

I'd be very happy about having made an impact and I'd like to think that I'll be remembered fondly, but it won't matter even a little bit once I'm gone. It'll matter if my last thought is about the comfort of having achieved something, but after that it won't matter to me, but it will matter to others.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
UltimatelySubjective Since: Jun, 2011
#378: Apr 28th 2012 at 5:04:05 AM

I see. And ultimately there are going to be no others right?

Well, perhaps I cling to the notion that in the grand scheme of things what we do is important as a hold over from when I still believed that everything in my life had meaning.

Which doesn't feel like that long ago.

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#379: Apr 28th 2012 at 5:13:28 AM

And ultimately there are going to be no others right?

Even more ultimately, there won't even be a universe.

All that can matter is what I can care about, and I can't really care on a fundamental level about anything except life. That doesn't mean that I'm not interested in things that don't really relate to life, though; I'm interested in distant galaxies and phenomena in space and so on, but they do matter to me because I find them interesting. (But if there was no sapience to care, then they would not matter because there wouldn't be anything for them to matter to.)

So the entire future of humanity matters now because we care about it now and from that perspective, being a part in the machine that makes history is really important and meaningful to me. That my subjective experience will cease doesn't shock or worry me, and while I'm here, I take pride and comfort in my knowledge and hope that I'm making a contribution.

I can't imagine anything grander than that.

edited 28th Apr '12 5:14:43 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#380: Apr 28th 2012 at 5:25:11 AM

Best of gets it.

Objectively, things like "value" or "importance" has no meaning because these are things tha we assign to things in a rather arbitrary and subjective manner. You can more or less objectively that say "this and this is important to that goal", but even than that is implying that "goal" itself is important, ie you're assigning importance to that "goal". As such it is impossible to talk about "this and this is meaningless" objectively because it implies that "meaning" can exist objectively, which it can't.

Which is why I really hate it when people think that they are somehow being "objective" by saying things like "humans are all bastards and thus has no value", because that is as objective as saying "humans are great", which is not at all.

edited 28th Apr '12 5:56:42 AM by IraTheSquire

UltimatelySubjective Since: Jun, 2011
#381: Apr 28th 2012 at 5:27:05 AM

I'm big on determinism (which isn't the same thing as fate). Perhaps it was inevitable that we would come into being in this universe. Perhaps this universe is the only one ever. Sure we would still be insignificant, but even to almost be an inherent part of the one and only universe sounds big.

Further, to almost get back on topic information theory suggests that no data is ever lost. This would mean that all the information ever held in the universe can be recovered.

Plus we don't fully understand the "arrow of time" whether it's merely an illusion.

If you take that into account there's the possibility that "cessation of Existence" may be meaningless.

dRoy Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar from Most likely from my study Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
#382: Apr 28th 2012 at 5:42:26 AM

It'll matter if my last thought is about the comfort of having achieved something, but after that it won't matter to me, but it will matter to others.

Amen.

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
Sarkastique Hey, gorgeous from Baltimore Since: Dec, 2010
Hey, gorgeous
#383: Apr 28th 2012 at 5:52:40 AM

Your lack of interest isn't a criticism.

It's certainly an expression of your personal preference, but it isn't a criticism. Criticism would imply you found some sort of flaw to point out. Calling my perspective boring is just telling me you like vanilla instead of chocolate.

You're free to waste your life on a snipe hunt, just don't call that desire some sort of criticism against my perspective, especially if your "criticism" is something as arbitrary as what provokes amusement in one particular mammal.

edited 28th Apr '12 5:54:57 AM by Sarkastique

Memento Mori
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#384: Apr 28th 2012 at 7:04:49 AM

[up] Prove that there is value in objectivity.

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#385: Apr 28th 2012 at 7:42:25 AM

Why? "Value" is a subjective construct, so the "value" of objectivity is itself a subjective judgment. That said, objectivity is generally preferrable because it eliminates or greatly reduces the risk of placing too high an emphasis on one single agent's subjectivity.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#386: Apr 28th 2012 at 7:49:17 AM

Thumped due to redundancy

edited 28th Apr '12 7:52:40 AM by IraTheSquire

Sarkastique Hey, gorgeous from Baltimore Since: Dec, 2010
Hey, gorgeous
#387: Apr 28th 2012 at 8:29:04 AM

The fact is that objectivity is the only way to confirm one's beliefs about reality.

If you prefer to live in fantasy land, there's nothing wrong or right about that, and it's merely a difference of opinion. Just don't pretend fantasy counts as argument.

edited 28th Apr '12 8:29:22 AM by Sarkastique

Memento Mori
Carciofus Is that cake frosting? from Alpha Tucanae I Since: May, 2010
Is that cake frosting?
#388: Apr 28th 2012 at 8:31:24 AM

Your lack of interest isn't a criticism.
My criticism is that your position of "everything is pointless" is either false or pointless.

If it is false, there is no sense in adopting it; and if it is true, there is no sense in doing anything at all, including adopting it. I am actually fairly confident that it is false; but even if it was true, there is more dignity in "wasting one's life" in some sort of wild, glorious snipe hunt. By the way, why are you even talking about this? If you are correct, then I am utterly irrelevant, as is everybody else (you included, obviously). Why should it matter if a deluded primate is slightly more or slightly less deluded?

Personally, I think that there are such things as objective purposes, ideas, and so on. They are different from what our minds can perceive, obviously, and far more complex; but as our eyes allow us to gather information about the shapes of objects, our intellects allow us to gather information about pure Forms. The ideas of Truth, Justice, Compassion and so on are every bit as solid as mountains — more so, actually.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
Sarkastique Hey, gorgeous from Baltimore Since: Dec, 2010
Hey, gorgeous
#389: Apr 28th 2012 at 8:47:24 AM

and if it is true, there is no sense in doing anything at all
Opinions are like assholes.

You are free to disconnect your beliefs from reality to whatever degree you see fit, but the further you take your talk of values and meaning, the further you fling yourself into a bottomless pit of irrationality.

Memento Mori
Carciofus Is that cake frosting? from Alpha Tucanae I Since: May, 2010
Is that cake frosting?
#390: Apr 28th 2012 at 11:26:38 AM

Opinions are like assholes.
You can exchange them with other people over the Internet? ... no, doesn't seem to fit.

I find it rather amusing that you describe my point of view as "a bottomless pit of irrationality", when your point of view is the one that says that nothing has meaning or purpose.

I am not even sure of what you mean when you say "rationality": different people seem to mean different things with that term, and I am not particularly impressed my most of them — generally, they seem to involve taking some simple, occasionally useful idea, blowing it into some sort of all-encompassing principle, and then acting as if that principle held the key to everything.

I lost the count of the amount of things that have been suggested in the name of "rationality"; but "nothing has purpose or meaning" is an unusual one, this I'll grant you.

edited 28th Apr '12 11:49:22 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#391: Apr 28th 2012 at 11:32:12 AM

I don't think it's even possible to claim that literally nothing has value. While I don't subscribe to a philosophy that would have room for objective value, subjective value has to be placed on logic to have any kind of philosophy at all, so you can't be 100% without value judgements.

If you value objectivism, then obviously you do believe that something has value to you. As I said, you don't have to assume objective value, but you can't get anywhere without subjective value.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Sarkastique Hey, gorgeous from Baltimore Since: Dec, 2010
Hey, gorgeous
#392: Apr 28th 2012 at 12:42:25 PM

Sooner or later you'll get to a point or argument of some kind, I'm sure.

Memento Mori
Carciofus Is that cake frosting? from Alpha Tucanae I Since: May, 2010
Is that cake frosting?
#393: Apr 28th 2012 at 1:07:09 PM

Sooner or later you'll get to learning that condescension is a rather poor substitute for depth of thought, I hope.

I have made my argument. Repeatedly.

On the other hand, as far as you can see all you've done is throwing around such terms as "objectivity" and "rationality", without justifying how these buzzwords justify your opinions about some rather complex metaphysical matters.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
Sarkastique Hey, gorgeous from Baltimore Since: Dec, 2010
Hey, gorgeous
#394: Apr 28th 2012 at 1:25:06 PM

You haven't made an argument.

Your finding my worldview boring is not an argument. I find long division boring, but I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to offer that up as a criticism.

You thinking my worldview renders all human action pointless is, even if correct, not an argument. Conclusions are not false because you find them unpleasant.

If you don't understand basic concepts like "objectivity" or "rationality," then you have no place in this discussion to begin with. These are not buzzwords with vague meanings open to a broad scope of interpretation. They are merely terms which you have failed to understand. You shouldn't participate in a discussion if you don't understand some of the core concepts involved, especially when they can be looked up in the dictionary.

Memento Mori
Carciofus Is that cake frosting? from Alpha Tucanae I Since: May, 2010
Is that cake frosting?
#395: Apr 28th 2012 at 1:41:27 PM

Your finding my worldview boring is not an argument.
It is, actually. A worldview should provide an useful framework for arranging experience. By cutting away such categories as "purpose", and "meaning", without any good reason, you are effectively castrating it.

You thinking my worldview renders all human action pointless is, even if correct, not an argument.
It is an argument against adopting it. Adopting a worldview is an human action, after all.

As for "objectivity" and "rationality", the former seems to be considered equivalent to "holding true beliefs" or "not letting one's beliefs be conditioned by irrelevant phenomena", and the latter to "thinking in the right way". What that should imply in practice seems to change wildly according to the user; and I lost count of the amount of silly things which have been argued for in terms of these two concepts.

And I'll thank you not to tell me which discussions I can and cannot participate in.

edited 28th Apr '12 1:46:35 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
Sarkastique Hey, gorgeous from Baltimore Since: Dec, 2010
Hey, gorgeous
#396: Apr 28th 2012 at 2:57:36 PM

A worldview should provide an useful framework for arranging experience.

I would be extremely surprised if you could offer evidence of any kind for this assertion. It's another one of those subjective values which has no grounding in external reality, so far as I am able to determine. Your - if I may use this world - moral opinion on what a worldview should and should not provide is simply that, an opinion. An opinion which is wholly personal in nature and not a demonstrable fact. You are welcome to believe it, but I would be curious how you would argue that the proposition is, in fact, true.

Whenever you use the word "should," you are not making a statement about how the world is, but how, in your view, it ought to be. That is opinion, it is not a fact.

In any case, I'm not sure how a worldview devoid of objective meaning or purpose would fail to provide a useful framework for arranging experience. To the contrary, I find it quite useful indeed. You may not, but that is an opinion, not a fact. What is useful to you by no means has to be useful to another.

You could argue that I'm wrong to discard the idea of rational, objective meaning and values, but we've been here for some time and such argumentation has not been forthcoming. You've instead chosen to appeal to my emotions, rather than my reason.

It is an argument against adopting it. Adopting a worldview is an human action, after all.

Actually, I'd reject your claim that adopting or rejecting beliefs is an action at all, or at least that it's a conscious one. It seems a bit - to use your word - pointless to claim that people ought not to do things which they don't consciously control. One would not argue that people "shouldn't" dream, as dreaming is an involuntary action. However, the questions of whether accepting or rejecting beliefs is voluntary is a second order question.

The more obvious flaw is the claim that your alleged criticism is actually an argument against adopting my worldview. First, please note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether my worldview is true. That's a question you have thus far dodged completely, except to illustrate your confidence that it is indeed false, without an actual explanation as to why.

Secondly, so far as I can tell, you haven't justified this assertion at all. It's a very big claim to say that without objective meaning or purpose, there is no motivation for human action. I'd be interested to see how you defend the idea that acting at all requires some sort of external justification to begin with. I am perfectly capable of behaving in whatever way I wish, for whatever reason I wish, without metaphysical permission.

There's quite a bit of sense in acting without objective meaning to attribute to my actions. If the water in my shower is too hot, it will cause me pain. I dislike pain, and thus it is quite sensible for me to either step out of the shower, or lower the water temperature. You're going to have your work cut out for you if you aim to prove that cooling the water in my shower requires some sort of objective purpose to make it sensible.

To ask me why I choose to act rather than slump idly in my couch till kingdom come is just as silly as asking me why I don't prefer chocolate to vanilla. That's simply my preference, and I don't require the universe's permission to have those preferences, or to act in accordance with them.

Just as a side note: You will notice that I did not tell you which conversations you may and may not participate in. I merely made a subjective value judgement about the wisdom of arguing against claims of which you, by your own admition, do not have a clear understanding.

As for "objectivity" and "rationality", the former seems to be considered equivalent to "holding true beliefs" or "not letting one's beliefs be conditioned by irrelevant phenomena", and the latter to "thinking in the right way". What that should imply in practice seems to change wildly according to the user; and I lost count of the amount of silly things which have been argued for in terms of these two concepts.

Holding true beliefs is not equivalent to objectivity. It is perfectly possible to hold true beliefs for completely subjective reasons. An objective fact is one which is accurate independent of the subject's perception of, or feelings about that fact. That is to say, it's true whether or not you accept it, and regardless of your feelings on the matter. For example, evolution by natural selection is objectively correct, because it stands on its own merits. It requires no perception of it or personal approval. Evolution is factually correct whether or not you find it boring, to use a randomly selected emotional reaction as an example.

Accepting evolution based on established scientific facts which are not subject to human value judgements would be an objective basis for that acceptance. Accepting evolution because you said a prayer and felt the power of Charles Darwin coursing through your veins is not, because your personal endorsement is not independent evidence. It's not even evidence at all.

Reason (I'm using the term interchangably with "rationality" here because I don't feel like addressing semantics right now), on the other hand, is most certainly not "thinking the right way," at least in any objective sense. The term is not quite synoymous with logic, but does refer to the quality of obeying the rules of logic. To be rational is logical, as reason obeys logic, and rationality is applied reason.

edited 28th Apr '12 3:03:16 PM by Sarkastique

Memento Mori
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#397: Apr 28th 2012 at 3:09:59 PM

To be fair, "thinking right" does sound like "thinking that is based in the right (as in, correct) principles (of logic)" more than it does "thinking about statements that happen to be right," which seems to be the other way to interpret "thinking right."

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Sarkastique Hey, gorgeous from Baltimore Since: Dec, 2010
Hey, gorgeous
#398: Apr 28th 2012 at 3:14:43 PM

That's definitely a valid semantic interpretation, but given the track record of this conversation, it seemed to me like he meant that rationality dictates thinking in the "right (morally correct, that is to say a claim about how one should think) way.

In other words, a value judgement about the system of thought people use to understand the world. That, I think, would be wrong on its face, given what logic has to say about subjective "facts."

Memento Mori
Thorn14 Gunpla is amazing! Since: Aug, 2010
Gunpla is amazing!
#399: Apr 28th 2012 at 3:16:29 PM

Veering on topic.

Its not a matter of worth but just...don't you guys feel any sense of wanting to still be well, you? Even Reincarnation is kind of scary as a concept because even if a non tangible thing like a soul exists, it wouldn't be you anymore.

To think it just ends with a click and theres nothing to even perceive is just horrifying to me.

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#400: Apr 28th 2012 at 3:19:47 PM

As I and many others have stated, we're not all afraid of the end of our existence. It's entirely possible and in my opinion relatively easy to come to terms with it, but that would of course depend on the life you've had and your philosophical approaches and positions.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Total posts: 546
Top