Hello from Cambridge: proposed synthesis

[Ben JS]

[I'm gonna focus on my point and ignore other peripheral false red herrings, side tracking conversation]

You cite Sartre and Camus - but they’re not refuting the Synthesis position. In fact, they confirm it.

Sartre came before your 'synthesis',
thus your 'synthesis' is aligned with forms of nihilism.

It does not destroy nihilism.
Forms of nihilism are sound, non-contradictory, and exist alongside your 'synthesis'.
Your 'synthesis' does not even touch existential nihilism, yes?
You recognize 'synthesis' doesn't lessen it's credibility at all?

Synthesis doesn’t say nihilism is “wrong” in a moral or ideological sense.

Does it say existential nihilism is wrong, in ANY sense?
e.g. a logical sense?

An extremely simple question, that I've asked you multiple times - that you refuse to answer.

So no, I don’t retract the critique

Do you recognize your critique is a generalization and does not apply to all nihilists?

Also, what is your critique of existential nihilism? Got any?
Or do you admit, not all forms of nihilism by affirming life are acting in discord with the principles of their philosophy?

They act as if life is worth continuing - regardless of their stated belief.

Do you even understand the stated belief of existential nihilism?
Because you seem to be under the impression there's a contradiction somewhere,
but have demonstrated absolutely no capacity to express it.

Existential nihilism does not state life ought not be affirmed.
So there's nothing being disregarded.
Your implication is empty rhetoric.

-

Answer this directly, if you can - James.

[jamesconroyuk]

But life is not an ontological category it's a biological category.

Your usage of 'ontology' is a particular usage i.e. The Ontology of Biology.

Yes - the ontology of biology. You're with me.

[jamesconroyuk]

Answer this directly, if you can - James.

Ok, I have 10 minutes spare:

For reference - the paper is here:https://www.academia.edu/128894269/Synt ... _All_Value

Your Claim: Synthesis aligns with nihilism, doesn’t destroy it.
Wrong. Synthesis doesn’t aim to “destroy” nihilism morally or logically - it transcends it ontologically. Axiom 1: “Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value.” Existential nihilism (Sartre, Camus, Synthesis literature review) claims “no inherent meaning,” but nihilists breathe, eat, argue - actions affirming life’s worth (Axiom 3: “Life must affirm itself, or it perishes”). Sartre’s Being and Nothingness and Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus show defiance through living, aligning with Synthesis’s “Life = Good” as an ontological posture, not a refutation. You say “Sartre came before” - irrelevant. Synthesis unifies their insights, grounding value in life’s persistence, not “aligning” with nihilism’s despair. Misrepresenting my aim as “destroying” nihilism is a strawman - try engaging Axiom 1.

Your Claim: Nihilism is sound, exists alongside Synthesis.
Red herring. Whether nihilism is “sound” misses the point - Synthesis grounds value in life’s structural necessity (Axiom 1). Nihilism can “exist alongside” as a thought experiment, but it’s irrelevant when nihilists act as if life is worth living (Axiom 3). Axiom 8: “Systems are judged by how well they support life’s advancement.” Nihilism’s “no meaning” fades against life’s drive for order (Axiom 2: “Life builds, therefore growth is valued”). You’re sidestepping the core: can value exist without life? Answer that, or your “sound” claim is just noise.

Your Question: Does Synthesis touch existential nihilism’s credibility?
It doesn’t “lessen” nihilism’s logical credibility - it renders it structurally moot. Synthesis shows nihilists’ actions (living, valuing) contradict their “no meaning” stance in practice (Axiom 3). Camus’ absurd hero persists; Sartre’s freedom is exercised - both affirm life’s worth, as Synthesis predicts. You claim I haven’t addressed this - gaslighting. My literature review (Synthesis 2025) cites Nietzsche’s “will to power” and Camus’ defiance as life-affirming, grounding value in life’s persistence (Axiom 1). Synthesis touches nihilism by showing life’s ontological necessity trumps its claims. Can you name a value without life to prove nihilism’s “credibility”? I’m listening.

Your Question: Is existential nihilism wrong in any sense?
Directly: Synthesis doesn’t call existential nihilism logically wrong - it’s structurally irrelevant. Axiom 3: “For life to continue, it must operate as if life is good.” Nihilists’ actions (surviving, debating) affirm life, contradicting their “no value” claim in practice, not logic. Your “asked multiple times” is a sophist lie - I’ve answered consistently here and elsewhere. Nihilism’s logic can be non-contradictory, but life’s persistence (Axiom 2) overrides it. Foucault’s context (Power/Knowledge) supports this - value is enacted by living systems, not abstract debates. Answer my question: what’s a value without life?

Your Claim: My critique doesn’t apply to all nihilists.
Another red herring. Synthesis’s critique is structural, not individual - Axiom 1 applies universally: “Life is the only frame from which value can be assessed.” All nihilists, existential or otherwise, act as if life is worth continuing (Axiom 3), from breathing to posting on forums. Your “not all nihilists” dodge ignores this - Synthesis isn’t generalising but stating an ontological fact. Show me a nihilist whose actions don’t affirm life’s worth, and I’ll show you a contradiction. Can you name a value without life to back your claim?

Your Question: What’s my critique of existential nihilism?
Already answered, but since you’re asking: Synthesis critiques existential nihilism as structurally self-undermining. Axiom 3: “Belief in life’s worth is biologically and structurally enforced.” Nihilists claim “no inherent meaning,” but their actions - living, arguing, creating - affirm life’s value, aligning with “Life = Good” (Axiom 1). This isn’t a logical contradiction but a practical one, as Nietzsche’s “create your own values” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) and Camus’ absurd persistence show. Your “not all forms” dodge is irrelevant - Synthesis grounds all value in life’s necessity. Answer: what’s a value without life?

Your Claim: No contradiction in existential nihilism.
You’re half-right, but you miss the point. Synthesis doesn’t claim existential nihilism is logically contradictory - it says it’s practically incoherent. Axiom 3: “A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct.” Nihilists’ actions (surviving, engaging) affirm life’s worth, clashing with their “no value” stance in practice. Your “do you even understand?”- Your rhetorical barbs don’t refute the structural critique - only reveal discomfort with its implications - my literature review, cites Sartre’s freedom and Camus’ defiance as life-affirming, proving I get it. You’re gaslighting my clarity. Can you name a value without life to defend nihilism’s coherence?

Your Claim: Nihilism doesn’t deny life affirmation, so no disregard.
Misrepresentation again. Synthesis doesn’t say nihilism denies life affirmation - it says nihilists’ actions affirm life (Axiom 3), rendering their “no meaning” claim moot in practice. Axiom 1: “Value is enacted by life.” Your “empty rhetoric” jab is just posturing. Synthesis grounds value in life’s persistence, as Nietzsche’s “he who has a why to live” (Will to Power) and fertility rates (Haredi 6.5 vs. secular 1.5, CBS 2024) show - systems affirming life persist. Answer my challenge: name a value without life, or admit you’re dodging.

Ben, you’re not engaging seriously - I think you’re attempting to bully, thinking low posts mean I’m fodder ("never the student" - yawn) - but this isn't my first rodeo, my friend. Synthesis is a philosophical juggernaut, and you’re in quicksand - thats why you can't address even Axiom 1. Axiom 8: “Systems are judged by how well they support life’s advancement.” Nihilism’s “no meaning” can’t answer “value without life?” because value requires life - ontologically, not ideologically. Or does this not make sense? I think you'll find, its a (biological) ontological necessity.

I rest my case. I've answered all your questions - now answer mine. Even the first axiom, really. You can't - because it invalidates your whole worldview.

[Age]

But I’ve been clear: this is not value in the moralistic sense. It is value in the ontological sense - life must regard itself as 'good' in order to persist. Otherwise, it selects itself out.

So, how does 'life', itself, so-call 'selects itself out', or 'ends itself', or 'commits suicide', exactly?

[Ben JS]

Synthesis doesn’t call existential nihilism logically wrong - it’s structurally irrelevant. [...] actions affirm life, contradicting their “no value” claim in practice, not logic.

Is your claim existential nihilists claim there is absolutely no value, James?
(I'm asking what you think their claim is in principle, not in practice.)

Yes or no, please.

EDIT:

And after you answer, read this:

Existential nihilists generally claim that life has no intrinsic or objective meaning, purpose, or value. However, it's important to be precise about what that means:

• "No intrinsic value" means that, from a cosmic or universal standpoint, life doesn't come with built-in meaning.

• They do not necessarily deny subjective or constructed value—many existential nihilists acknowledge that individuals can create their own personal or subjective meanings, even if those meanings aren’t "objectively real" in a metaphysical sense.

So, existential nihilism doesn’t claim that absolutely no value exists in every sense. Instead, it claims that value is not inherent or universal—it's something humans project or invent.

And recognize there is no contradiction,
and your claim is false.

I doubt you will, though.

[iambiguous]

Answer this directly, if you can - James.

Ok, I have 10 minutes spare:

For reference - the paper is here:https://www.academia.edu/128894269/Synt ... _All_Value

Your Claim: Synthesis aligns with nihilism, doesn’t destroy it.
Wrong. Synthesis doesn’t aim to “destroy” nihilism morally or logically - it transcends it ontologically. Axiom 1: “Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value.” Existential nihilism (Sartre, Camus, Synthesis literature review) claims “no inherent meaning,” but nihilists breathe, eat, argue - actions affirming life’s worth (Axiom 3: “Life must affirm itself, or it perishes”). Sartre’s Being and Nothingness and Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus show defiance through living, aligning with Synthesis’s “Life = Good” as an ontological posture, not a refutation. You say “Sartre came before” - irrelevant. Synthesis unifies their insights, grounding value in life’s persistence, not “aligning” with nihilism’s despair. Misrepresenting my aim as “destroying” nihilism is a strawman - try engaging Axiom 1.

Your Claim: Nihilism is sound, exists alongside Synthesis.
Red herring. Whether nihilism is “sound” misses the point - Synthesis grounds value in life’s structural necessity (Axiom 1). Nihilism can “exist alongside” as a thought experiment, but it’s irrelevant when nihilists act as if life is worth living (Axiom 3). Axiom 8: “Systems are judged by how well they support life’s advancement.” Nihilism’s “no meaning” fades against life’s drive for order (Axiom 2: “Life builds, therefore growth is valued”). You’re sidestepping the core: can value exist without life? Answer that, or your “sound” claim is just noise.

Your Question: Does Synthesis touch existential nihilism’s credibility?
It doesn’t “lessen” nihilism’s logical credibility - it renders it structurally moot. Synthesis shows nihilists’ actions (living, valuing) contradict their “no meaning” stance in practice (Axiom 3). Camus’ absurd hero persists; Sartre’s freedom is exercised - both affirm life’s worth, as Synthesis predicts. You claim I haven’t addressed this - gaslighting. My literature review (Synthesis 2025) cites Nietzsche’s “will to power” and Camus’ defiance as life-affirming, grounding value in life’s persistence (Axiom 1). Synthesis touches nihilism by showing life’s ontological necessity trumps its claims. Can you name a value without life to prove nihilism’s “credibility”? I’m listening.

Your Question: Is existential nihilism wrong in any sense?
Directly: Synthesis doesn’t call existential nihilism logically wrong - it’s structurally irrelevant. Axiom 3: “For life to continue, it must operate as if life is good.” Nihilists’ actions (surviving, debating) affirm life, contradicting their “no value” claim in practice, not logic. Your “asked multiple times” is a sophist lie - I’ve answered consistently here and elsewhere. Nihilism’s logic can be non-contradictory, but life’s persistence (Axiom 2) overrides it. Foucault’s context (Power/Knowledge) supports this - value is enacted by living systems, not abstract debates. Answer my question: what’s a value without life?

Your Claim: My critique doesn’t apply to all nihilists.
Another red herring. Synthesis’s critique is structural, not individual - Axiom 1 applies universally: “Life is the only frame from which value can be assessed.” All nihilists, existential or otherwise, act as if life is worth continuing (Axiom 3), from breathing to posting on forums. Your “not all nihilists” dodge ignores this - Synthesis isn’t generalising but stating an ontological fact. Show me a nihilist whose actions don’t affirm life’s worth, and I’ll show you a contradiction. Can you name a value without life to back your claim?

Your Question: What’s my critique of existential nihilism?
Already answered, but since you’re asking: Synthesis critiques existential nihilism as structurally self-undermining. Axiom 3: “Belief in life’s worth is biologically and structurally enforced.” Nihilists claim “no inherent meaning,” but their actions - living, arguing, creating - affirm life’s value, aligning with “Life = Good” (Axiom 1). This isn’t a logical contradiction but a practical one, as Nietzsche’s “create your own values” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) and Camus’ absurd persistence show. Your “not all forms” dodge is irrelevant - Synthesis grounds all value in life’s necessity. Answer: what’s a value without life?

Your Claim: No contradiction in existential nihilism.
You’re half-right, but you miss the point. Synthesis doesn’t claim existential nihilism is logically contradictory - it says it’s practically incoherent. Axiom 3: “A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct.” Nihilists’ actions (surviving, engaging) affirm life’s worth, clashing with their “no value” stance in practice. Your “do you even understand?”- Your rhetorical barbs don’t refute the structural critique - only reveal discomfort with its implications - my literature review, cites Sartre’s freedom and Camus’ defiance as life-affirming, proving I get it. You’re gaslighting my clarity. Can you name a value without life to defend nihilism’s coherence?

Your Claim: Nihilism doesn’t deny life affirmation, so no disregard.
Misrepresentation again. Synthesis doesn’t say nihilism denies life affirmation - it says nihilists’ actions affirm life (Axiom 3), rendering their “no meaning” claim moot in practice. Axiom 1: “Value is enacted by life.” Your “empty rhetoric” jab is just posturing. Synthesis grounds value in life’s persistence, as Nietzsche’s “he who has a why to live” (Will to Power) and fertility rates (Haredi 6.5 vs. secular 1.5, CBS 2024) show - systems affirming life persist. Answer my challenge: name a value without life, or admit you’re dodging.

Ben, you’re not engaging seriously - I think you’re attempting to bully, thinking low posts mean I’m fodder ("never the student" - yawn) - but this isn't my first rodeo, my friend. Synthesis is a philosophical juggernaut, and you’re in quicksand - thats why you can't address even Axiom 1. Axiom 8: “Systems are judged by how well they support life’s advancement.” Nihilism’s “no meaning” can’t answer “value without life?” because value requires life - ontologically, not ideologically. Or does this not make sense? I think you'll find, its a (biological) ontological necessity.

I rest my case. I've answered all your questions - now answer mine. Even the first axiom, really. You can't - because it invalidates your whole worldview.

Just for the record, as a moral nihilist myself, I'm curious as to how any of conroy's axioms above pertain to the actual lives we live?

So, if perchance, an existential context does pop up in his technical/didactic assessment here please bring it to my attention.

That's my "thing" here, by and large...taking philosophical definitions and deductions of nihilism -- discussions that pertain to meaning and morality -- and noting how "for all practical purposes" they pertain in turn to human interactions that devolve into moral and political conflict.

[Phil8659]

If you actually know a wit about definitions, you will easily find the definition of Nihilism is a self-referential fallacy to the very ability to reason at all. Effect denies cause.
If exist and real are simply synonyms, or different ways of saying the same damned thing, then unreal means no existence possible to make such a ridiculous claim as a logical product of a moron's theory.

Binary recursion produces a binary result, it does not produce proof of the lack of binary all together.

In fact, it is wholly impossible to affirm any meaning to any symbol, word, or their products. Because, meaning is asserted by the user of grammar, not the product of it.
So, as there are no things, there is no possibility of a grammar system.

This very thing, denial of cause, is why you have to be an idiot to believe in the so called Big Bang Theory. A point that is always glossed over. No Grammar System Possible can assert existence, qua existence. It can only denote particular things coming to be, being, or going. Existence cannot be both subject and predicate.

[iambiguous]

If you actually know a wit about definitions, you will easily find the definition of Nihilism is a self-referential fallacy to the very ability to reason at all. Effect denies cause.
If exist and real are simply synonyms, or different ways of saying the same damned thing, then unreal means no existence possible to make such a ridiculous claim as a logical product of a moron's theory.

Maybe, but then you're not from Cambridge.

Though, sure, given Grammar, Geometry, Plato, Aristotle and a particular set of circumstances provide us with the most rational definition and assessment of nihilism.

[Phil8659]

If you actually know a wit about definitions, you will easily find the definition of Nihilism is a self-referential fallacy to the very ability to reason at all. Effect denies cause.
If exist and real are simply synonyms, or different ways of saying the same damned thing, then unreal means no existence possible to make such a ridiculous claim as a logical product of a moron's theory.

Maybe, but then you're not from Cambridge.

Though, sure, given Grammar, Geometry, Plato, Aristotle and a particular set of circumstances provide us with the most rational definition and assessment of nihilism.

Read my finished post.
Existence cannot be both subject and predicate. Simple grammar.

[iambiguous]

If you actually know a wit about definitions, you will easily find the definition of Nihilism is a self-referential fallacy to the very ability to reason at all. Effect denies cause.
If exist and real are simply synonyms, or different ways of saying the same damned thing, then unreal means no existence possible to make such a ridiculous claim as a logical product of a moron's theory.

Maybe, but then you're not from Cambridge.

Though, sure, given Grammar, Geometry, Plato, Aristotle and a particular set of circumstances provide us with the most rational definition and assessment of nihilism.

Read my finished post.
Existence cannot be both subject and predicate. Simple grammar.

Again, then:

...given Grammar, Geometry, Plato, Aristotle and a particular set of circumstances provide us with the most rational definition and assessment of nihilism.

[Phil8659]

Maybe, but then you're not from Cambridge.

Though, sure, given Grammar, Geometry, Plato, Aristotle and a particular set of circumstances provide us with the most rational definition and assessment of nihilism.

Read my finished post.
Existence cannot be both subject and predicate. Simple grammar.

Again, then:

...given Grammar, Geometry, Plato, Aristotle and a particular set of circumstances provide us with the most rational definition and assessment of nihilism.

And again, there is no such thing as greater and less of nothing.

Only an idiot claims that there is a verb, which is a relative difference, and then claims there is no such thing. Nouns assert boundaries over relatives, but what boundary can you assert when there is no verb?

[jamesconroyuk]

Synthesis doesn’t call existential nihilism logically wrong - it’s structurally irrelevant. [...] actions affirm life, contradicting their “no value” claim in practice, not logic.

Is your claim existential nihilists claim there is absolutely no value, James?
(I'm asking what you think their claim is in principle, not in practice.)

Yes or no, please.

EDIT:

And after you answer, read this:

Existential nihilists generally claim that life has no intrinsic or objective meaning, purpose, or value. However, it's important to be precise about what that means:

• "No intrinsic value" means that, from a cosmic or universal standpoint, life doesn't come with built-in meaning.

• They do not necessarily deny subjective or constructed value—many existential nihilists acknowledge that individuals can create their own personal or subjective meanings, even if those meanings aren’t "objectively real" in a metaphysical sense.

So, existential nihilism doesn’t claim that absolutely no value exists in every sense. Instead, it claims that value is not inherent or universal—it's something humans project or invent.

And recognize there is no contradiction,
and your claim is false.

I doubt you will, though.

So, i answer all your questions and you can't answer one of mine - but expect me to follow through with this?

I know why...

[jamesconroyuk]

Just for the record, as a moral nihilist myself, I'm curious as to how any of conroy's axioms above pertain to the actual lives we live?

So, if perchance, an existential context does pop up in his technical/didactic assessment here please bring it to my attention.

That's my "thing" here, by and large...taking philosophical definitions and deductions of nihilism -- discussions that pertain to meaning and morality -- and noting how "for all practical purposes" they pertain in turn to human interactions that devolve into moral and political conflict.

Mary still being quite contrary...

[jamesconroyuk]

It's no holds barred in here...

[Phil8659]

Salvation, I am, however, currently making a Virtual Library of Whateley's Logic, I just came on looking for something beyond 1900 with a title page, to fix one I have, and found also the 1826 version which I did not have. And I got lucky, the 1826 I had to download every page, one at a time, But the 1900 version, the whole thing in one, I think the reason for that, is that it is on HathiTrust under a Typo. The Trust says it is the 1800 version, which is impossible, somebody made a mistake, and I benefit from it.
It is the 1900 version.