Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: A philosophical doodle.  (Read 2865 times)

TSTwizby

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
A philosophical doodle.
« on: October 07, 2012, 05:02:59 pm »

I apologize in advance for the wordiness and vagueness exhibited below. The latter is something which I believe is unavoidable given the topic, and the former something which I slip into when I talk about this stuff in an effort to be more precise.



So I was thinking.

I assume for the moment that the universe exists, and I know that I exist by Descartes.

Now consider the fairly abstract question of whether or not anything 'matters', or is 'important' in a general sense. I'm not sure how to elaborate on this really, except through example. Maybe it's important that everyone eat at least one cookie a week. Maybe some religion or other is correct, and therefore its tenets matter. For the purposes of this post, 'good' can be identified with 'doing the things that matter' where as 'bad' can be 'not doing the things that matter', for suitably general definitions of 'doing'.

Now some people, often referred to as nihilists, would say that nothing matters, or else that we can't empirically prove whether or not any particular thing matters, so we should act as though nothing matters. They generally do not put this into practice, as evidenced by the fact that some of them are still alive. The reason usually given for this is that biological urges act independently of any possible general 'meaning' (though I prefer not to use that term due to its connotation of having one who means, I cannot think of a suitable replacement) and that we are all essentially naturally arising non-conscious robots. I have a problem with this interpretation, namely that I exist, but that is irrelevant to this question for now.

To consider the question of whether or not anything matters, consider the form of Pascal's wager. There are very flawed implicit assumptions Pascal's original formulation, the most obvious being that he failed to take into account the possibility of multiple religions. But the logic behind the wager is in and of itself, to the best of my knowledge and reasoning, valid. If I assume that the set of all things which could matter is non-empty, I must consider the following two possibilities.

1. something matters

2. nothing matters.

(note here that I make no mention of what it is that matters in the case that something matters. That this is empirically indeterminable is assumed for the purpose of this post)

In the latter case, it doesn't matter what I do, so there is no difference whether or not I act as though something matters.
In the former case, something matters, so in almost every case if I act as though something matters I might be right while if I act as though nothing matters I am guaranteed to be wrong*. In every case, acting as though something matters is at least as good as acting as though nothing matters.

So assuming you agree with me up until now, that still leaves the question of what I should believe matters, since 'nothing matters' is out of the question. But since I am assuming that whether or not any particular thing matters is empirically indeterminable, the odds of any particular thing being what matters should be the same as of any other particular thing mattering. So whatever thing actually matters, or even if anything does, should not affect my decision to act as though some particular thing matters. The end result of all this is that it doesn't matter what I act as though matters, so long as I act as though something matters.

Now consider what happens if knowledge that something does not matter is empirically determinable, but not innately known. So I can find stuff out, but I start with nothing. In the beginning the same logic as above applies. But now I can find out over time somehow that I am wrong about thinking some particular thing matters, and change my beliefs accordingly. However, as noted in the asterisk below, the only case in which acting as though something matters is not preferable to acting as though nothing matters is the case in which an infinite number of things might matter. So it is impossible to empirically determine that I should act as though nothing matters under any circumstances (except those where I assume that the set of things which can matter is empty).

In the case where I don't assume that the set of all things which can matter is non-empty, I have to also consider the case where the set of things which can matter is empty. But that case is equivalent to the 'nothing matters' case I considered initially, so I get the same result, that acting as though something matters is just as good as acting as though nothing matters. So even in the case where that nothing matters is empirically determinable to be true it is not better to act as though nothing matters.

So the moral of all this I guess is... don't be a nihilist, unless the possibilities for what matters are infinite? Otherwise do whatever you want.



*There is a slight complication to the problem in the case where what matters is 'acting as though nothing matters'. However, the odds of this case occurring, being indeterminable, can be considered equal to the odds of the case where what matters is 'acting as though something matters'. This renders both sides equally desirable in exactly the case where there are infinitely many possibilities for what things matter, and 'acting as though something matters' more desirable in all other cases. So if I want 'acting as though nothing matters' to be the best action, then you must accept that there are infinitely many things that could matter, but not if you want some particular thing to be what matters. Logic is weird.
Logged
I got a female and male dragon on my embark. I got cagetraps on the exits but im struggling to find a way to make them path into it.
Live bait.
3 dwarfs out of 7 dead so far

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2012, 05:17:39 pm »

I think you've ignored an important aspect of the subject: objective worth/importance versus subjective worth/importance. Take the myth of Sisyphus as an example; his eternal labor might be objectively meaningless, but if he were to derive meaning from rolling boulders up hills, it would be meaningful. Stating that nothing matters, objectively speaking, is itself meaningless if you take an existentialist (or similar) view of the universe, holding that meaning is derived from the individual.

In other words, there is no contradiction between saying "Everything is essentially meaningless." and "Everything is potentially meaningful." so long as one recognizes the distinction between inherent meaning and applied meaning.
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2012, 05:21:48 pm »

So, uh. What do you mean when you say something matters? What are you construing "matters" to mean, or "is important"?

It's entirely possible for nothing to matter in any substantiative sense without interfering with individual's capability to act; they simply use a different heuristic for motivation. Softer forms of nihilism are along those lines; they deny the existence of objective (substantiative) value but not subjective value. Though the latter is largely (perhaps entirely) arbitrary and illusory, they find it sufficient for motivation on a personal level, while denying it metaphysical "weight" so to speak, or prescriptive power.

Latter bit ninja'd a bit, yeah.

Could probably get into some other things, but my first bit up there would frame any potentially meaningful response.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

TSTwizby

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2012, 05:39:22 pm »

I'm assuming that I'm the only person who necessarily exists, and am endeavoring to show that I ought to act as though something 'matters' objectively. As for defining 'matters', that is something which I'm not sure how to do. I don't mean 'matters for the sake of achieving some objective', as that would necessarily be a subjective definition. The closest easily accessible parallel I can find is religion, but something like 'don't be a jerk, because you shouldn't be a jerk' as opposed to 'don't be a jerk, because being a jerk makes other less inclined to act in your favor when given the opportunity and therefore increase your chances of survival' would  also count. I'm not really sure how to put it.
Logged
I got a female and male dragon on my embark. I got cagetraps on the exits but im struggling to find a way to make them path into it.
Live bait.
3 dwarfs out of 7 dead so far

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2012, 06:08:57 pm »

Ah. If you're the only person that necessarily exists, then you're the sole arbiter of value, unless there's some other, non-human (or at least non-self) entity capable of prescribing worth -- and it's very easily argued that any such entity is a self-delusion you're using to avoid taking responsibility for said arbitration. Everything in that situation is pretty much subjective. Descartes copped out by assuming the existence of God.

As for the second bit, increasing your chances of survival etc., etc., that's still subjective, but it's of a different sort of subjectivity. It's subjective related to the system it exists within*; within the context of survival, to use the example, there will be a strict set or sets of actions which increase the chance of survivability (the increase actually depends on two factors, but getting into that would take a lot more text and hopping on a different computer, heh), one of said sets which "don't be a jerk" will exist within. "Don't be a jerk" has no value outside that system related to survival (well, barring other systems in which "don't be a jerk" has a positive or negative influence); which is to say, on some level, it does not matter and certainly it is not of objective (i.e. existing outside of all systems) importance. Even within the system re: survivability, it may have differing degrees of value depending on other factors, so it's not necessarily a positive thing (regarding survivability) -- it can vary in worth depending on environmental factors (such as society), desired time frame of survival, and many other things.

I guess what it'd boil down to, from my direction, at least, is that if you're looking for objective worth, you're not going to find it, period. You can find the most effective and efficient course of action or influence (though there may be several entities occupying that "spot", so to speak) within a particular system, but that's the best you're going to get. You can get logical necessity based on a set of assumed axioms, (which is subjective, because those axioms are fundamentally invented, generally for the purpose of making something comprehensible to human minds) but you can't get logical necessity for the axioms themselves, in other words**. That's also quite entirely sufficient for just about any sort of project you want to accomplish, I've found, and considerably more reliable than arbitrary assertions of objectivity.

*It's possible that this sort of subjectivity is as close to objective as it gets, though...
**You would seem to be looking for the latter sort; reason to believe that the axioms exist and have prescriptive value outside of your own creation. I'd posit that they don't.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

TSTwizby

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2012, 06:20:34 pm »

So you're saying that not only is any objective value indeterminable, but also that it cannot exist?
Logged
I got a female and male dragon on my embark. I got cagetraps on the exits but im struggling to find a way to make them path into it.
Live bait.
3 dwarfs out of 7 dead so far

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2012, 06:31:28 pm »

And is unnecessary, yeah. More or less -- there's a degree of "insofar as it's determinable by humans" in there. Not so much that it cannot exist as it is we cannot determine if it exists, which, as far as we're concerned, means it might as well not.

It's also well given to note that just because objective value either does not exist or cannot be determined, does not mean that proper or best action does not exist. There's still an act or set of acts that is most effective and efficient within a particular system, and that act or acts does have prescriptive power so long as you're dealing with others who utilize the same system and desire the same goal. There's also various things that have cross-system importance, and approach objective or universal values (existence itself, ferex, which is a necessary condition for many things).

It's a terribly useful rhetorical tool, though, and a very pretty idea. Not to mention an easy shorthand for "most effective and efficient within a given system" even though using objective for that is a bit misleading, heh.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

TSTwizby

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2012, 06:53:25 pm »

So then, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that because it is impossible to determine whether a kind of objective value exists, we ought to act as though it does not exist? I can just as easily say that because it is impossible to determine whether a kind of objective value doesn't exist, we ought to act like it does (in fact, that is the gist of my original post, though I tried to go a bit farther than that). Value as used as a metric to determine the most useful action towards a specific goal as described in your second paragraph is very definitely not what I'm talking about, as it presupposes the importance of the goal in the first place.

Why should I get a job? To get money.
Why should I get money? To buy food.
Why should I buy food? To eat it.
Why should I eat food? To stay alive.
Why should I stay alive? Go away.

and so on.
Logged
I got a female and male dragon on my embark. I got cagetraps on the exits but im struggling to find a way to make them path into it.
Live bait.
3 dwarfs out of 7 dead so far

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2012, 07:15:42 pm »

"Why should I stay alive? Because I want to.
Why do I want to? <Personal reason>."

At which point it breaks from "why should" to "why do", and you go from metaphysics/ethics to aesthetics. Which is a bit fuzzier, if even more fundamental.

As for this:
Quote
I can just as easily say that because it is impossible to determine whether a kind of objective value doesn't exist, we ought to act like it does (in fact, that is the gist of my original post, though I tried to go a bit farther than that).
Basically, nope. You can check the atheism/theology thread that was back a bit for the latest round on why that doesn't work. It's in there... somewhere. I actually forget the specifics of it (and have forgotten them like a dozen dozen times, bleh), but that line of reasoning's been functionally thrown out of philosophy for a long, long while now.

And... well, yeah. The goal is presupposed by the system itself (and to an extent, vice-versa). Its existence relies on the system, which is (one of the reasons) why it (and values relating to it) is not objective.

But, again, if that's not what you're talking about... then what are you talking about?

If you're looking for an objective base for personal desirability (i.e. "What goals should I have"), I'll probably just wave vaguely toward the existentialists and their denouncement of attempting to absolve oneself of personal responsibility (via appeal to the objective). What's important to oneself is subjective in relation to what one desires and what systems one participates in. As for determining what one desires, well, if there's anything less objective than that I'm not quite sure what it is, y'know?
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

TSTwizby

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2012, 07:39:03 pm »

Now I'm confused. I'll look through those 50 pages if you force me, but I'd appreciate it if you could summarize the argument. I think perhaps you are misunderstanding me as well. What I'm saying has nothing intrinsically to do with religion. Also, you seem to be taking potential important things, goals, and then thinking how to work towards them, which as I said before, is entirely subjective simply by the construction. And when you talk about which goals I should pick, in that last paragraph, you make reference to personal responsibility, which seems nonsensical given that responsibility itself certainly would qualify as either something that either matters or does not, however you define responsibility, and responsibility as the term is typically used is almost entirely subjective anyway.

I think that I'm talking about something slightly more fundamental than you're talking about here, and that what you're referencing in the religion thread would resolve it (or show that the problem runs deeper). But I'm not entirely certain.
Logged
I got a female and male dragon on my embark. I got cagetraps on the exits but im struggling to find a way to make them path into it.
Live bait.
3 dwarfs out of 7 dead so far

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2012, 08:15:46 pm »

Obviously there is no objective meaning to anything. Meaning is a human judgement, and is thus an inherently subjective thing. Objectivity is what exists outside the interpretations of a thinking agent.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

TSTwizby

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2012, 08:26:17 pm »

Okay, now you've used the word 'obviously'. Can you back that up?
Logged
I got a female and male dragon on my embark. I got cagetraps on the exits but im struggling to find a way to make them path into it.
Live bait.
3 dwarfs out of 7 dead so far

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2012, 08:28:25 pm »

It is obvious because nothing concerning human judgements is objective, as I stated objectivity is what exists outside of an observer's interpretation.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2012, 08:31:42 pm »

One could argue there's an authority on the subject, and that would make it objective. You'd need God or similar for that, though, so any atheist/agnostic/otherwise deity-less view is going to require subjective value.
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

TSTwizby

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A philosophical doodle.
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2012, 08:35:38 pm »

It is obvious because nothing concerning human judgements is objective, as I stated objectivity is what exists outside of an observer's interpretation.

I think that you're missing my point, probably due to my poor choice of words. When Frumple started using 'value' rather than 'importance' or things 'mattering', I think that captures the idea of what I mean better.

What I am proposing is that I should act, for the reasons given, as though some sort of objective value exists. You appear to be assuming that no kind of objective value can exist.

Also, I don't see how having an authority on something renders it objective. Who decides what counts as an authority?
Logged
I got a female and male dragon on my embark. I got cagetraps on the exits but im struggling to find a way to make them path into it.
Live bait.
3 dwarfs out of 7 dead so far
Pages: [1] 2 3