nihilism

[iambiguous]

How to See Nietzsche’s Nihilism in The Matrix World
Ezgi Al

In passive nihilism, there is a Décadence stage which means decline, alienation, and collapsing of values. We can see this stage both in individuals and communities. The energy is fading in passive nihilism.

But, active nihilism is the exposure of the energy, and Nietzsche says that this is the real existence. There are 3 stages of active nihilism. The first one is the awakening from Décadence. The other one is rebellion and the last one is building new values. Neo achieves all these stages throughout the series.

Fine, that is certainly one way in which to construe options in a No God world. Human existence may well be essentially meaningless and purposeless. It may well end once and for all in oblivion.

On the other hand, a human life can be 75 years or more. And that gives you thousands and thousands of days to think of something interesting to do.

For me, however, the part about activating nihilism really does come down to what "for all practical purposes" someone is actually going to do with it fully charged. Will they activate it from the far right or far left? Will others have to be reeducated, shunned or worse if they don't toe the line?

And, again, in the Matrix, what relevance does Nietzsche really have? Aren't almost all human beings in a programmed virtual world? And in regard to the Architect...Is he/she a nihilist?

On the other hand, it's been many years since I saw The Matrix. And, even then, only the first one. So, sure, Nietzsche and nihilism may be pertinent here. In ways that completely escapes me.

Tell me about it.

[iambiguous]

How to See Nietzsche’s Nihilism in The Matrix World
Ezgi Al

Eternal return (also known as eternal recurrence) is a theory that the universe and all existence and energy has been recurring, and will continue to recur, in a self-similar form an infinite number of times across infinite time or space.

A theory. One of many, many others attempting to make sense of why we are here at all. "Return" and "recurrence" because we need to know that even if we must live the same life over and over and over again that's better than nothing at all. And "eternal" just has a comforting ring to it.

But where does the Matrix fit into this? The humans are contained and the Architect...? Beyond merely subsisting, is there a teleological component to the world as they construe it to be.

“Eternal return of the same” claims that the world is surrounded by nothing. This means that there is no purpose or conclusion. This emptiness is the driving force of this infinite loop.

Eternal return, being an entirely fabricated conjecture regarding life after death...and almost certainly is never going to be anything other than that... what are its implications for any mere mortal? Within the Matrix movies, however, did it ever actually come up?

Yeah, apparently so...

"In other words, the events of the first two films have, it seems, happened before several times; and will, we can imagine, happen again. This is a dramatization in popular-cultural terms of a concept Nietzsche called ‘the Eternal Recurrence’ or ‘the Eternal Return’."

Okay, but it only interest folks of my ilk if there is actual demonstrable evidence that it's a possibility. Even Woody Allen would prefer endless editions of the Ice Capades to oblivion. But wanting to believe something is true doesn't make it true.

The Matrix is a décadent passive nihilist system where everyone is asleep and they accept it unconsciously. At first, as Thomas Anderson, Neo was another insignificant person in the system. But in the end, we saw that Thomas Anderson has died and Neo was born.

Think about that. You accept something...unconsciously? Or is everything that we think, feel, say and do ultimately accepted in the only possible world because there was never any possibility of any other world unfolding. Then we can root for the red pill or the blue pill folks in imagining this as a possible "what if" work of science fiction. What if there is a Matrix and all of this is just a part of it...too.

And, as Neo or not, Thomas Anderson is no less the existential embodiment of dasein once a community sets about the task of prescribing and proscribing "rules of behaviors". Then [and not much ever changes here] it's one or another historical and cultural combination of might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise.

[iambiguous]

How to See Nietzsche’s Nihilism in The Matrix World
Ezgi Al

Th[ere] is a scene where Cypher keeps praising the system; its beauty, appearance, and delusiveness while he is talking with Agent Smith in a restaurant. When he is saying all these nice things, a lady starts to play the harp. Harp is a similar instrument of Apollo’s Lyre. This instrument represents order, harmony, and simplicity like the ideas that we see in the Apollonian worldview.

This plot line has been done over and over and over again throughout the sci-fi genre. Think this classic episode of Star Trek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Side ... al_Series)

Basically, the capitalist political economy, while providing us with any number of serious "imperfections" -- tendencies toward violence, greed, selfishness etc., -- it is still far, far better to risk that than to basically become slaves to the state.

In this remarkable scene Morpheus talks about passive nihilism by saying that these people desperately depend on the system. Also, have you noticed the nun who is between all those people?! This is considered one of the most important scenes. In this scene, the nun is passing near Morpheus while he is saying “The Matrix is a System Neo”. She is like everyone else and she is not important at all because in the system no one is important. The church is the most affected institution from Décadence. What Nietzsche meant by “God is dead” can be seen in this scene. The church doesn’t matter in Décadence.

Come on, over and over again we can clearly see how, for many, the whole point of enduring all of the many trials and tribulations that are "out there" waiting to befall us, is that there is a "system". There is -- there better be -- an overarching meaning and purpose that our life is a part of. Most call it God and religion, though for others it's one or another political ideology, or school of philosophy or "natural selection".

Again, however, tell me that our individual reactions to an assessment of this sort won't be embedded by and large in our own personal experiences?

Or, instead, is there a way in which to sustain the best of all possible worlds. If only philosophically up in the intellectual contraption stratosphere?

Most importantly, for others, the Matrix sustaining the global economy today is not some alien machine contraption, it's built right into the political agendas of the amoral flesh and blood crony/state capitalist plutocrats that run the world.

Only there are as many different renditions of the Deep State here as there are those on their very own One True Path.

[iambiguous]

How to See Nietzsche’s Nihilism in The Matrix World
Ezgi Al

Neo was uncomfortable so he started to question the system. Morpheus and The Oracle lead the way. The Matrix owned Thomas Anderson but he freed his mind and became Neo.

Then, I suspect, the objectivists among us would immediately want to introduce Neo to their own system. That's always the crucial distinction for me. Okay, Thomas Anderson is no longer embedded in the AI system. But what happens when "the machines" are defeated and he starts to question Morpheus and the Oracle instead? When he is confronted with the arguments that I propose in regard to conflicting value judgments.

This in particular takes me back to my days as a radical left-wing political activists. We all agreed that ultimately the enemy was capitalism. But the truly heated squabbles we would get into over what exactly should be put in its place. Socialism, sure. But then what?

Throughout the movie series, Neo gathers his power and attacks the system. This is a transition from passive nihilism to active nihilism. He destroys Agent Smith because he needs a clean slate to create new values. In the end, Neo saves Zion, but there will be another fight and another Neo will come and save again since this is an infinite loop!

Yes, employing "active nihilism" in going after what you want to be rid of certainly makes sense. But what of "active nihilism" when Neo and the others liberate human beings from the Matrix? The slate is clean. But what "new values" will prevail?

As for the infinite loop...is this in regard to a wholly determined universe? Or one in which "somehow" human beings acquired free will?

[iambiguous]

Dancing with Absurdity
Fred Leavitt argues that our most cherished beliefs are probably wrong.

Imagine that you’ve developed a new lie detector test and recruit a thousand people to try to beat it. You give them a series of questions and ask them to tell one or more lies among their answers. Your device detects every lie and never calls an honest response a lie.

Then comes subject 1001. Asked a question, he answers “yes” and your device indicates that he’s telling the truth. But you ask virtually the same question immediately afterwards, he says “no,” and the device again registers truthfulness. The man swears that he believes what he said. He submits to a psychiatric evaluation and is found free of any major disorder. He is not delusional. How is this possible?

Aside from the author's take on this, there's my own take. That, given a "fractured and fragmented" moral philosophy, one can in all sincerity believe that certain behaviors are neither wholly moral nor immoral. Instead, given one set of assumptions, the behaviors are deemed to be moral while given another set of assumptions they are deemed to be immoral. Or neither one. Something is merely presumed to be moral if one believes that it is or immoral if one believes that. In other words, the way the world around us often is: bursting at the seams with conflicting goods. We're right from our side, they're right from their side. And thus the best of all possible worlds is one in which moderation, negotiation and compromise -- democracy and the rule of law -- prevail. Leaving aside the "deep state" -- the role that wealth and power play in any human community -- most get something because no one is able to get everything.

Here are the two questions:

1. Do you anticipate with near certainty the occurrence of thousands of events: the sun will rise, the alarm will ring, the car will start, food will have a certain taste, and friends and enemies will behave in broadly predictable ways?

Sure, with "near certainty" there are many, many things that all of us believe are in fact true. And true for all of us. Objectively as some say. Just try to imagine living from day to day in a world where no events were ever certain. It's just that some of us then note at least the possibility of an overarching reality that is embedded in dasein, the Benjamin Button Syndrome, in "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule". And then from time-to-time pop culture throws things like The Matrix or Dark City at us. We are prompted to doubt almost everything around us. Then those who argue for solipsism or determinism or sim worlds.

Of course, the bottom line [mine] is that we all go to the grave utterly oblivious as to why there is something instead of nothing. And why this something and not something else. Or wondering which one of these paths...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...comes closest to the Real Deal reality.

If any?

2. Do you believe you can know that the sun will rise, the alarm will ring, the car will start, food will have a certain taste, how friends and enemies will behave; or indeed, know anything with more than the slightest probability of being correct?

Again, there are those things that most of us will bet our lives on as being true. We interact with others in any number of situations and no one doubts what is unfolding. No one questions the reality of what is going on. In a family. In a community. At school. At work. Given any number of social, political and economic transactions. Here we submit posts pertaining to philosophy. What's to doubt about that?

Well, plenty of things once we go beyond the either/or world.

That's where "I" come in in regard to my own "fractured and fragmented" rendition of "identity", "conflicting goods" and "political economy".

Albert Camus wrote that human beings try to convince themselves that their existence is not absurd. What could be more absurd than to be certain of two important beliefs that contradict each other?

And that is because in so many truly concrete ways, the "human condition" is patently not "for all practical purposes" absurd at all. Lots and lots and lots of things can be grasped and communicated objectively to others. Instead, I'm the one who suggests that in regard to moral and political and spiritual value judgments, being drawn and quartered is a perfectly reasonable frame of mind. I merely include my own rooted existentially in dasein assumption that there is No God.

Absurdity for some revolves instead around the assumptions the objectivists among us make that how they understand the human condition really is the one and the only one true path to enlightenment.

And, perhaps, most absurd of all is the belief by some that if you follow -- embody -- their own religious dogmas, you will also attain immortality and salvation.

Unless, of course, it's not absurd at all.

[iambiguous]

Dancing with Absurdity
Fred Leavitt argues that our most cherished beliefs are probably wrong.

Radical Skepticism

Plato wrote that we’re like prisoners in a cave with our backs to a fire which casts shadows on the wall in front of us, and the shadows are all we can know. Other major philosophers have concluded that we can know nothing with certainty – or even with probability. Many have tried to refute this position, called radical skepticism. They have failed. Of course they did: radical skepticism is the correct worldview.

Unless, of course, it's not. In any event, what else is there here but our ever evolving [historical and cultural] attempts to close the gap between what you believe is true "in your head" and what you are actually able to demonstrate is in fact true.

Which, clearly, Plato utterly failed to do. Instead, he "thought up" -- philosophically -- a "formal" reality. An ultimate reality said to exist a priori. A Reality that is "somehow" connected to a God, the God?

You tell me. Only discuss it in regard to an actual context in which there are clear disagreements regarding not only what is said to be unfolding on the cave walls but can also vary considerably among "philosophical realists" regarding the "thing in itself" part. Or, for moral nihilists such as myself, the "thing for itself" part in turn?

Says who? About what?

What those like Plato succeeded in doing in my view is to imprison themselves in a "world of words".

Even most cynics believe some things more than others: they trust analytic chemistry more than weather forecasting. They know that the outcome of a single toss of a fair coin is uncertain, but would gladly bet against heads turning up one hundred times in a row, and be sure of chicanery if it did.

That's how it works, alright. Some things we can be almost certain regarding while other things only considerably less so. The either/or world is no less subsumed in the "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule". We just don't grasp the existence of existence itself. So, whatever we might ourselves be entirely certain of is still embedded in all that we do not -- cannot? -- know about the reality of reality itself. On the other hand, the objectivists among us not only delude themselves about the either/or world but even go so far as to convince themselves that the is/ought world is no less accessible if you happen to be on the One True Path.

Radical skeptics sneer at these cynics for being too trusting. They see no difference between analytic chemistry and ouija boards. They deny the possibility of any knowledge – except for the indisputable conclusion that we can’t know anything. They contend that a coin is no more likely to turn up heads than become a Rembrandt painting or Tucson, Arizona.

Right, like they actually go about the business of interacting with others from day to day believing this. Okay, we don't grasp the ontological nature of existence, and we're not sure if there is a teleological component at all. But, come on, there are any number of things and relationships in our lives that few will doubt the objective truth regarding.

Camus opened his Myth of Sisyphus with the sentence, “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.” Radical skeptics reserve judgment about the certainty of death, or that someone named Camus ever existed.

Then those [like me] who suggests further that even the reality of me typing these words and you reading them exist only because they were never able not to exist other than as they must exist.

So, it's not how radical your own skepticism is but, even in regard to the either/or world, what little you can do to demonstrate to others that they are obligated to be skeptical as well.

About what?

[iambiguous]

Dancing with Absurdity
Fred Leavitt argues that our most cherished beliefs are probably wrong.

The Four Pillars

Four separate pillars (seemingly) support our understanding of the world. That is, everything we think we know comes from one of four sources. Immanuel Kant proposed one source. He argued that we are born with certain innate knowledge. Religious revelation is a second pillar. People of faith are told who created the world, when He did it, and what will happen when we die. Reason is a third pillar. Humans discern patterns, and use mathematics and logic to make deductions. The fourth pillar is sensory data. We interact with the world through the five senses, and then we combine this with logic to advance from simple observations to complex inferences. The naïve view is that we observe, and then we know. Seeing is believing. Ha!

There must be many, many more renditions of this. Pick a denomination and you'll find one. Only the number of pillars changes. Or those here who speak of their own rendition of the Intrinsic Self. The intuitive "I just know" font that renders arguments like mine moot.

As for Reason and Sense perception, when has there ever been a community in which everyone was all in agreement regarding which behaviors were the most rational...made the most sense?

I'll tell you: in those communities where right makes might prevail. Then it just comes down to how those who own and operate it tolerate those who refuse to toe the line. Just go back to the history books in order to explore this.

Innate Knowledge

Kant claimed that certain key beliefs, such as ‘Every event has a cause’, precede all experience, because they are preconditions for human thinking. Experiments have shown that even six-month old babies act as though they understand connections between causes and effects.

Perhaps because they are everywhere? Only those like David Hume made the distinction between what appear to be endless correlations in the lives that we live, and our being able to insist this amounts to a one size fits all cause and effect.

I merely make a further distinction here between them in the either/or world and in the is/ought world. It seems certain that biologically if John and Mary [both fertile] have sex an unwanted pregnancy may be the result. But where is the same certainty when it it comes to establishing that aborting the unborn baby is either rational or irrational, moral or immoral?

What is the philosophical equivalent of this in regard to the ethics of abortion? A moral assessment that precedes all of our vast and varied individual experiences?

In Don Marquis’s Tales of Archy and Mehitabel, Archy the cockroach pities humans because they are born ignorant and must struggle to learn the ways of the world. Archy says that insects are born knowing all they need to know. Archy would have approved of Kant.

In other words, not many moral nihilists among cockroaches, are there? Deontology for them is entirely embedded in biological imperatives. Whereas any number of moral objectivists among our own species insist that morality must be subsumed in their own political prejudices. Here for example: https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

But radical skeptics question the correctness of beliefs, not their origins. Newly hatched ducklings ‘know’ that the first moving object they see will be their mother, so they follow it. But when nasty biologists substitute objects like shiny balls or shoes, the ducklings follow those too. Their ‘knowledge’ is incorrect.

Me, I attempt to connect the dots between value judgments and their origins. Out in particular worlds understood in particular ways historically, culturally and in terms of your own accumulation of personal experiences.

We're not ducklings. We don't just follow the first thing that moves. Instead, we are thoroughly indoctrinated to follow our parents and our families out in a particular community out in a particular culture out in a particular historical context.

Only unlike ants who are hard-wired biologically to do only what they were programmed genetically to do [from birth to death] our own species may have "somehow" acquired autonomy such that as adults we may well be able to actually reject all of that and acquire our own entirely different value judgments.

The part I then root in dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome.

[iambiguous]

Dancing with Absurdity
Fred Leavitt argues that our most cherished beliefs are probably wrong.

Religious Revelation

Imagine a science fiction scenario in which extraterrestrial beings assemble the leaders of today’s more than 730 world religions. Eager to know which is correct, they give each leader two days to make his or her case. What evidence might the leaders give? Typical arguments might include, “God told me this” or “On Easter Sunday I bought a bushel of potatoes, and one of them was the spitting image of the Virgin Mary.”

Yeah, what about that?!

Actually, this is just another rendition of me bringing up these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

Then asking, "why your God"?

On the other hand, there are those like Kierkegaard and Pascal who I suspect struggled with this deeply. And were either able to take that existential leap of faith to the Christian God or place a bet on Him "in the end".

Faith is clearly a tricky thing when immortality and salvation themselves are on the line. Who really knows [in a free will world] how human psychology evolved to deal with death itself. There aren't lots and lot of "psychological defense mechanisms" for nothing. Religion, however, being [by far] the most effective.

Besides, just reflect on all of the truly ridiculous things that some argue here. Again, in my view, as long as everything revolves around dueling definitions and deductions, hell, you can believe almost anything.

Though I can't help but suspect that we are also dealing with "conditions". The Ecmandu Syndrome let's call it.

Would a Christian’s argument that the Son of God rose from the dead play better to the aliens than the Hindu idea that each soul undergoes many reincarnations until united with the universal soul? Maybe the major religions would expect their large numbers of devotees to count in their favor; but large numbers of believers do not constitute proof of a belief. Furthermore, no religion attracts a majority of the world’s people. ET would end up shaking her three heads in dismay.

Okay, probably. But the first thing I would want to know is how on her planet they go about grappling with morality and mortality. If nothing else, we might be able to pin down hundreds or thousands or millions of additional One True Paths spread out across the Cosmos. And one of them really may have absolute proof that a God, the God, their God is the Real Deal.

Well, unless there is more than one of them.

Moreover, if religious beliefs were culturally independent, religious preferences would be independent of time and place of upbringing. They are, of course, not. More Baptists live in Biloxi than Bombay, more Jews in Jerusalem than Jakarta, and more Muslims in Malaysia than Mississippi. This reflects the obvious fact that people living within a broad general region are exposed to the same influences, and are therefore influenced to have the same beliefs.

Dasein!

Only in the modern world, thanks to some truly extraordinary communications technology, millions upon millions of men and women have access to things like smart phones and the internet. Suddenly, they are exposed to many very, very different spiritual and moral and political narratives.

After all, not many of us reside in North Korea. Or China? Or, down the road, if MAGA prevails, America?

[iambiguous]

Dancing with Absurdity
Fred Leavitt argues that our most cherished beliefs are probably wrong.

Reasoning

Many philosophers believe that the only path to certain knowledge is through reason. But reasoning abilities are greatly overrated (which presents us with a paradox, since this article attempts to persuade through reasoning).

On the other hand, if you presume that some aspects of the human condition are in sync with reasoning while others are not, we can then focus in on particular circumstances and try to pin down this distinction. After all, do mathematicians and physicists and chemists and biologists etc., "dance with absurdity" in their fields?

The skeptic philosopher Agrippa contended that all arguments claiming to establish anything with certainty must commit at least one of three fallacies:

1. Infinite regress. The claim that a statement is true needs evidence to support it. But the evidence must also be supported, and that evidence too, and on and on, ad infinitum.

In the other words, the parts that I suggest revolve around "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule". The parts we grapple to understand given the staggering mystery embedded in coming to grips with the existence of existence itself.

2. Uncertain assumptions. Foundationalists claim that some beliefs are self-evident, so can be used as starting points for complex arguments. For some foundationalists, mathematics and logic provide such basic beliefs: ‘2+2=4’; ‘If X is true, then X cannot be false’. Other foundationalists insist that basic beliefs come from direct sensory experience: ‘That cat is black’. Internal feeling is another candidate: a person who claims to have a headache may be lying, but it is hard to see how he or she could be mistaken. Nevertheless, none of these basic belief candidates lead to the enormous number of complex, detailed beliefs that are part of everyone’s worldview.

In other words, the part I focus in on in differentiating the either/or world from the is/ought world. Though even here we make the assumption that we are in possession of free will.

And, if we do possess it, the part where I argue that believing something is true "in your head" is one thing, while being able to demonstrate that it is true for all rational men and women is often another thing all together. There is a cat that is black purring in my lap or there isn't. On the other hand, what about killing, cooking and then eating a black cat?

3. Circularity. The argument involves a vicious circle. Coherentists assert that statements can be considered provisionally true if they fit into a coherent system of beliefs. But coherentism is circular: A explains B, B explains C, and C explains A. Circular arguments are invalid. Furthermore, statements may cohere with many others, some of which are false. So it is possible to develop a belief system that is both coherent and entirely untrue.

The classic circular argument that I often come back to this one:

1] God does exist because it says so in the Bible
2] the Bible is true because it is the word of God

That constitutes a "coherent" frame of mind for many.

[phyllo]

There is a cat that is black purring in my lap or there isn't.

I bet that you can't demonstrate it to be true for all rational men and women.

[iambiguous]

There is a cat that is black purring in my lap or there isn't.

I bet that you can't demonstrate it to be true for all rational men and women.

So, what are you suggesting, that folks here -- https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=5 ... =610&dpr=1 -- would by unable to demonstrate to others that there is a black cat on their lap? That any number of rational men and women would insist that there is no such cat at all?

Well, unless, of course they attempted to demonstrate that to Stevie Wonder?

And I suspect that if they stroked the cat, it would start to purr. Well, unless, of course, they attempted to demonstrate this to Marlee Matlin?

On the other hand, suppose someone killed a house cat, cooked it and ate it.

Let's run that by these folks...
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-39577557

...and then these folks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... hts_groups

...and see if we can reach an agreement regarding the morality of this.

[phyllo]

I'm suggesting that YOU can't demonstrate that there was a cat on your lap at a particular point in time.

Once the cat moves, if there even was a cat, what have you got?

You have a personal claim.

If you have eye witnesses, they would not count as a demonstration. And they may be lying.

If you have photographs and/or videos, those can be disputed as fake or taken at another time.


You don't have anything that all rational men and women are obligated to believe.

If you can't demonstrate something as simple as a cat on a lap, then how can you expect demonstrations of the events in the New Testament, or gods or morality or value judgements? Or any of the things which you dismiss as "only in their heads"?

[iambiguous]

I'm suggesting that YOU can't demonstrate that there was a cat on your lap at a particular point in time.

Once the cat moves, if there even was a cat, what have you got?

You have a personal claim.

If you have eye witnesses, they would not count as a demonstration. And they may be lying.

If you have photographs and/or videos, those can be disputed as fake or taken at another time.


You don't have anything that all rational men and women are obligated to believe.

If you can't demonstrate something as simple as a cat on a lap, then how can you expect demonstrations of the events in the New Testament, or gods or morality or value judgements? Or any of the things which you dismiss as "only in their heads"?

Indeed, given "the gap", "Rummy's Rule" and at least the possibility that this may well all be just a dream world, a sim world, solipsism or an episode from the Matrix, nothing that we think, feel, say or do may actually be other than...than what?

The difference between, say, a black cat on Thomas A. Anderson's lap and a black cat on Neo's lap?

On the other hand, imagine living your life from day to day convinced that everything about it is actually futile to communicate to others. And that only unless you can demonstrate to everyone you meet that it is the real deal can you count on it being anything other than...than what?

My point above [given free will] revolves around differentiating those things about our lives that unfold in the either/or world and those things that unfold in the is/ought world. It's just that, unlike you, I'm no longer able to convince myself that both worlds are actually interchangeable because objective morality does exist and that "somehow" embodying it will result in immortality and salvation?

[phyllo]

Indeed, given "the gap", "Rummy's Rule" and at least the possibility that this may well all be just a dream world, a sim world, solipsism or an episode from the Matrix, nothing that we think, feel, say or do may actually be other than...than what?

Nothing to do with that.

The difference between, say, a black cat on Thomas A. Anderson's lap and a black cat on Neo's lap?

Or that.

On the other hand, imagine living your life from day to day convinced that everything about it is actually futile to communicate to others. And that only unless you can demonstrate to everyone you meet that it is the real deal can you count on it being anything other than...than what?

Or that.

My point above [given free will] revolves around differentiating those things about our lives that unfold in the either/or world and those things that unfold in the is/ought world.

Yeah, that!

Your differentiation doesn't work. At least the part where you can demonstrate the one and not the other, doesn't work. As can easily be seen by the cat example.

The question is ... what are you going to do about it? Adapt or stay the course?

[iambiguous]

Indeed, given "the gap", "Rummy's Rule" and at least the possibility that this may well all be just a dream world, a sim world, solipsism or an episode from the Matrix, nothing that we think, feel, say or do may actually be other than...than what?

Nothing to do with that.

The difference between, say, a black cat on Thomas A. Anderson's lap and a black cat on Neo's lap?

Or that.

On the other hand, imagine living your life from day to day convinced that everything about it is actually futile to communicate to others. And that only unless you can demonstrate to everyone you meet that it is the real deal can you count on it being anything other than...than what?

Or that.

Unless, of course, he's wrong.

My point above [given free will] revolves around differentiating those things about our lives that unfold in the either/or world and those things that unfold in the is/ought world.

Yeah, that!

Your differentiation doesn't work. At least the part where you can demonstrate the one and not the other, doesn't work. As can easily be seen by the cat example.

The question is ... what are you going to do about it? Adapt or stay the course?

Note to others:

You have a cat on your lap. Do you believe that you could demonstrate this to someone from PETA??

You have a cat cooking on the stove. It's dinner. Do you believe that you could demonstrate to someone from PETA that eating it is entirely moral?

Also, please attempt to explain to me what on Earth you think he is arguing above. What am I going to do about...what? About having a cat on my lap? About cooking and eating it?

That distinction is actually a very important one to some folks.



Or, perhaps, he's just putting me on?

Or, sadly, a "condition"?