Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:23 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pm If you did not exist, nothing would matter.

But mattering would not matter. So the second part of your sentence does not even mean anyting.
Nothing can follow from "if you did not exist".

In American idiom, "if," does not mean, "so," but, "hypothetically." It's like your boss saying, "if you did not work here it would not matter what you wore," but since you do work there, you are expected to conform to the dress code.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:23 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pm You are given life and the means to preserve and maintain it, but survival is not given. It is the same for all living organisms. Life is given with the means to living, but an organism must sustain its own life by its own action and behavior.

You emerge. You are not "given".

Speak for yourself. I was, "born," with life I did not have to do anything to have. You do have a problem with idiomatic language.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:23 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pm For all organisms the issue is always, "to be or not to be," but unlike all other organisms, you must discover or learn how live and choose to do it.

If you fail to live your life successfully, you have lost all there is worth having.

During life we build meaning and value from our experience, and many people discover that through their own understanding of their relationship with the universe they can easily learn to value other things way beyond their own life, and would gladly give it up in the preservation of a loved one.

Not if they are dead.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:52 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:33 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:11 pm So for example, I may become a billionaire, thoughtlessly polluting the world so that when I'm gone the world becomes less livable for people who follow. My life was great because I was a billionaire and the world was fine while I was alive, however, I left the world in worse shape than when I started and later generations suffer the consequence, however, if it only matters when I am alive, what does it matter to me what I left to following generations?

If you actually believe living as your hypothetical billionaire lived is living successully as a human being, that's your view of human values, not mine.

First of all, no one becomes a billionaire by, "thoughtlessly," doing anything, unless they are a crook, a gangster, or a politician, and they are not living successful human lives but the lives of parasites and predators. (Could you enjoy their kind of life?) Secondly, everything has a cost and a consequence. It is not possible to produce great wealth that benefits millions of people without any disruption of any kind to some things some people who have never produced a thing of value for themselves or anyone else happen to dislike.

Anyone who believes that their own life can benefit from what harms the life of any other human being has a problem with their own values. If that is what you believe, you need to examine your values. If it is not what you believe, what is your question? How can you object to every individual pursuing their own life and values if that cannot possibly harm others and will almost surely benefit them?

OK. What do you mean by there is no value higher than your own life? Are you simply saying that one's life (existence as opposed to non-existence) is their most valuable possession in the sense that nothing else should be more valuable to them than that in itself, including freedom and dignity?

Freedom means freedom to do. You have to be alive to do anything, so in one's hierarchy of values life precedes freedom. The same for dignity. If your life is not of value, what does dignity pertain to? Your freedom and dignity matter because your life matters.

Freedom is necessary to life, just as food and knowledge are, so there is a point at which life as a human being is not possible without freedom. The mere perpetuation of protoplasm is not, "living," as a human being.

But really, are all these questions genuine? Do you really believe that anything can be more valuable to you than your own life? How can anything be a value to you if you are not alive?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pm If you did not exist, nothing would matter.

But if a 'you' does not exist, then there are still things that matter, to "others".

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pmYou are given life and the means to preserve and maintain it, but survival is not given.

1. How could you preserve life and maintain life?
2. What means do you have?
3.How did you obtain that means?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pmIt is the same for all living organisms. Life is given with the means to living, but an organism must sustain its own life by its own action and behavior.

For all organisms the issue is always, "to be or not to be," but unlike all other organisms, you must discover or learn how live and choose to do it.

WHY 'must' you supposedly discover or learn how to live and choose to do it?

Have you discovered or learned how to live?

If yes, then how is that way? And, have you yet chosen to live that way ONLY?

Also, how and why are 'you' different from every other organism?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pmIf you fail to live your life successfully, you have lost all there is worth having.

How does one know when they have been, or are being, successful?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:09 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:59 pm

So what can you mean by that?

Just what I said to Gary:

The words "your," and "you," refer to any individual. If there is no, "you," (no individual) for things to matter to, nothing matters, and for each individual, it is their own life to which things matter.

But NOTHING more worthy of value than personally surviving -- a thing which all of us are 100% guaranteed not to succeed at doing?

I did not use the word, "surviving." Surviving would imply that life is measured in terms of how long it lasts. Life is doing and the measure of life is how much one does, not how long they make it last. Most people do fail at living their lives as fully as they could, not because they don't live forever, but because they do not choose to live and be all they can. It's an advantage all the other animals have over human beings who do not have to choose to live as their nature requires. Only human beings can choose to be their destroyers.

Of course everyone dies, but the point is, things can only have a value to you so long as you are alive. One does not seek to live so they can have values, they have values because they are alive and their life, while they have it, is the source of all that matters to them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:09 pm I mean, I guess you could imagine that in most cases, each person might generally CARE about it more than other things...but even that doesn't seem right, because some people give up their lives for others.

The value of life is not because people, "care," about it. Most people's, "caring," about life amounts to little more than a fear of death, not a love of life. People, "give up their lives," for all sorts of valueless things every day. Just because lots of people do something stupid does not make it a good choice.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:06 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pm If you did not exist, nothing would matter.

But if a 'you' does not exist, then there are still things that matter, to "others".

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pmYou are given life and the means to preserve and maintain it, but survival is not given.

1. How could you preserve life and maintain life?
2. What means do you have?
3.How did you obtain that means?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pmIt is the same for all living organisms. Life is given with the means to living, but an organism must sustain its own life by its own action and behavior.

For all organisms the issue is always, "to be or not to be," but unlike all other organisms, you must discover or learn how live and choose to do it.

WHY 'must' you supposedly discover or learn how to live and choose to do it?

Have you discovered or learned how to live?

If yes, then how is that way? And, have you yet chosen to live that way ONLY?

Also, how and why are 'you' different from every other organism?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pmIf you fail to live your life successfully, you have lost all there is worth having.

How does one know when they have been, or are being, successful?

Age, I will answer all your questions, either here or perhaps another thread, but will let you know. Until I have done that I'll answer your last question:

How does one know when they have been, or are being, successful?

If you are thoroughly enjoying your life, loving and cherishing every moment of it, without regret, fear, or guilt, and know you have done all you can to be and achieve all you are able to as a human being you are living successfully.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:22 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:06 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pm If you did not exist, nothing would matter.

But if a 'you' does not exist, then there are still things that matter, to "others".

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pmYou are given life and the means to preserve and maintain it, but survival is not given.

1. How could you preserve life and maintain life?
2. What means do you have?
3.How did you obtain that means?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pmIt is the same for all living organisms. Life is given with the means to living, but an organism must sustain its own life by its own action and behavior.

For all organisms the issue is always, "to be or not to be," but unlike all other organisms, you must discover or learn how live and choose to do it.

WHY 'must' you supposedly discover or learn how to live and choose to do it?

Have you discovered or learned how to live?

If yes, then how is that way? And, have you yet chosen to live that way ONLY?

Also, how and why are 'you' different from every other organism?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pmIf you fail to live your life successfully, you have lost all there is worth having.

How does one know when they have been, or are being, successful?

Age, I will answer all your questions, either here or perhaps another thread, but will let you know. Until I have done that I'll answer your last question:

How does one know when they have been, or are being, successful?

If you are thoroughly enjoying your life, loving and cherishing every moment of it, without regret, fear, or guilt, and know you have done all you can to be and achieve all you are able to as a human being you are living successfully.

So, are you living successfully and thus have always lived 'successfully', or have you failed, and thus you have lost ALL there is worth, supposedly, having?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 1:35 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:52 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:33 pm
If you actually believe living as your hypothetical billionaire lived is living successully as a human being, that's your view of human values, not mine.

First of all, no one becomes a billionaire by, "thoughtlessly," doing anything, unless they are a crook, a gangster, or a politician, and they are not living successful human lives but the lives of parasites and predators. (Could you enjoy their kind of life?) Secondly, everything has a cost and a consequence. It is not possible to produce great wealth that benefits millions of people without any disruption of any kind to some things some people who have never produced a thing of value for themselves or anyone else happen to dislike.

Anyone who believes that their own life can benefit from what harms the life of any other human being has a problem with their own values. If that is what you believe, you need to examine your values. If it is not what you believe, what is your question? How can you object to every individual pursuing their own life and values if that cannot possibly harm others and will almost surely benefit them?

OK. What do you mean by there is no value higher than your own life? Are you simply saying that one's life (existence as opposed to non-existence) is their most valuable possession in the sense that nothing else should be more valuable to them than that in itself, including freedom and dignity?

Freedom means freedom to do. You have to be alive to do anything, so in one's hierarchy of values life precedes freedom. The same for dignity. If your life is not of value, what does dignity pertain to? Your freedom and dignity matter because your life matters.

Freedom is necessary to life, just as food and knowledge are, so there is a point at which life as a human being is not possible without freedom. The mere perpetuation of protoplasm is not, "living," as a human being.

But really, are all these questions genuine? Do you really believe that anything can be more valuable to you than your own life? How can anything be a value to you if you are not alive?

I'm just trying to get a grasp on what you are saying. For example, Henry (from a discussion I had with him a while back) seems to adamantly think that death is better than living in slavery. Therefore he seems to place freedom or liberty as being the highest value (at least higher than life). However, from the sounds of it, you seem to be saying that living in slavery would be preferable to death (should it ever come down to such a choice).

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:22 am If you are thoroughly enjoying your life, loving and cherishing every moment of it, without regret, fear, or guilt, and know you have done all you can to be and achieve all you are able to as a human being you are living successfully.

That could as easily be the description of somebody who's only smug. He lives up to whatever values he holds himself to...so if he holds himself to low or unworthy standards, then so long as he's self-satisfied, he's "living successfully"?

That doesn't sound right. Isn't it sometimes the case that people live their lives with entire self-satisfaction, but for what we would still regard as unworthy values?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:21 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:22 am If you are thoroughly enjoying your life, loving and cherishing every moment of it, without regret, fear, or guilt, and know you have done all you can to be and achieve all you are able to as a human being you are living successfully.

That could as easily be the description of somebody who's only smug. He lives up to whatever values he holds himself to...so if he holds himself to low or unworthy standards, then so long as he's self-satisfied, he's "living successfully"?

That doesn't sound right. Isn't it sometimes the case that people live their lives with entire self-satisfaction, but for what we would still regard as unworthy values?

Or for example, what about some of the Church saints who lived humble and penitent lives in devotion to God. I remember Mother Theresa of Calcutta once telling a journalist that she is a far greater sinner than anyone else. Are we to say that she didn't live a "successful" life because she perhaps had feelings of guilt over not being a better servant of God? Or what if a person just has an overactive conscience and is always feeling guilt or regret for every single little thing they could have done better. I mean, I know people like that and they are some of the nicest people to be around, however, it would seem that they are not living "successfully."

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:42 pm If you did not exist, nothing would matter.

You are given life and the means to preserve and maintain it, but survival is not given. It is the same for all living organisms. Life is given with the means to living, but an organism must sustain its own life by its own action and behavior.

Given?? by who?

The individual human[s] are an emergent from all-there-is to serve the "purpose" [as inferred] of the species, i.e. to sustain and maintain the preservation of the human species.

From the beginning, the 'inferred' life purpose of humans are merely to 'f_ck' produce and sustain the next generation till they are able f_ck' produce babies.

But the reality is catastrophic threats like those that exterminated the dinosaurs and other had and been there and are ever present and possible to exterminate any living species on Earth.

Naturally, the propensity for higher consciousness and greater intelligence, wisdom and other functions emerge in time to enable to the humans to realize the reality of such real dangerous threats and to think of how to deal with such threats.
This is to the extent, humans are exploring on various strategies on how to deflect or destroy any very large rogue asteroid/meteors that appear out of the blue and heading toward Earth.
With the increased competences in various functions, humans are had already dealt with and exploring to deal with other potential threats to the human species.

But with increased intelligence and other competences, there is also a threat to humanity itself, thus the emergence of the moral function to manage whatever evil propensity that will arise to balance and maintain optimal productivity.

For all organisms the issue is always, "to be or not to be," but unlike all other organisms, you must discover or learn how live and choose to do it.

If you fail to live your life successfully, you have lost all there is worth having.

All humans are programmed to serve the purpose of the human species even when humans are endowed with the emergence of self-consciousness where despite the freedom to think for one self selfishly, the ultimate ulterior end of self-conscious is to serve the species.

What each individual must discover and learn is to understand how one is merely a spoke in the wheel of the human species and from there live life optimally* within the constraints the individual and groups are endowed with naturally.
* optimality is critical for the individual and the collective.

If you fail to live your life successfully, you have lost all there is worth having.

With human life, it is always a win-lose game without any ultimate success in term of 'living'.

Thus human life emerges within reality [all there is] and with the endowment of self-consciousness and other competences, the individual must strive to understand the whole gamut of what is life and flow with it smoothly and optimally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:40 am Or for example, what about some of the Church saints who lived humble and penitent lives in devotion to God. I remember Mother Theresa of Calcutta once telling a journalist that she is a far greater sinner than anyone else. Are we to say that she didn't live a "successful" life because she perhaps had feelings of guilt over not being a better servant of God? Or what if a person just has an overactive conscience and is always feeling guilt or regret for every single little thing they could have done better. I mean, I know people like that and they are some of the nicest people to be around, however, it would seem that they are not living "successfully."

Right. Good points.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:56 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:22 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:06 am

But if a 'you' does not exist, then there are still things that matter, to "others".



1. How could you preserve life and maintain life?
2. What means do you have?
3.How did you obtain that means?



WHY 'must' you supposedly discover or learn how to live and choose to do it?

Have you discovered or learned how to live?

If yes, then how is that way? And, have you yet chosen to live that way ONLY?

Also, how and why are 'you' different from every other organism?



How does one know when they have been, or are being, successful?

Age, I will answer all your questions, either here or perhaps another thread, but will let you know. Until I have done that I'll answer your last question:

How does one know when they have been, or are being, successful?

If you are thoroughly enjoying your life, loving and cherishing every moment of it, without regret, fear, or guilt, and know you have done all you can to be and achieve all you are able to as a human being you are living successfully.

So, are you living successfully and thus have always lived 'successfully', or have you failed, and thus you have lost ALL there is worth, supposedly, having?

Well. it looks like we both make a mistake. I thought you were asking serious philosophical questions. You wanted to turn the discussion into some kind of personal thing.

Since it was only a mistake on both our parts, no harm done.

If you choose to be less than you can be, if you choose to suffer and die, while I cannot be pleased by anyone else's suffering, I would never interfere in how you choose to live your life.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:10 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 1:35 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:52 pm OK. What do you mean by there is no value higher than your own life? Are you simply saying that one's life (existence as opposed to non-existence) is their most valuable possession in the sense that nothing else should be more valuable to them than that in itself, including freedom and dignity?

Freedom means freedom to do. You have to be alive to do anything, so in one's hierarchy of values life precedes freedom. The same for dignity. If your life is not of value, what does dignity pertain to? Your freedom and dignity matter because your life matters.

Freedom is necessary to life, just as food and knowledge are, so there is a point at which life as a human being is not possible without freedom. The mere perpetuation of protoplasm is not, "living," as a human being.

But really, are all these questions genuine? Do you really believe that anything can be more valuable to you than your own life? How can anything be a value to you if you are not alive?

I'm just trying to get a grasp on what you are saying.

No you're not. You know perfectly well what I'm saying (unless you are a moron). It couldn't be simpler.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:10 am For example, Henry (from a discussion I had with him a while back) seems to adamantly think that death is better than living in slavery. Therefore he seems to place freedom or liberty as being the highest value (at least higher than life). However, from the sounds of it, you seem to be saying that living in slavery would be preferable to death (should it ever come down to such a choice).

How Henry or anyone else chooses to live their life is first, no one else's business, and second, not a basis for determine any principle. Henry's life is his to live as he chooses and only he can determine what is in the best interest of his life and what living it means. I happen to agree with Henry that one cannot live successfully as a human being if they are not free to choose how they live. Living is not a matter of perpetuating protoplasm, but of doing, achieveing, and being what one chooses to be.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:59 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:10 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 1:35 am
Freedom means freedom to do. You have to be alive to do anything, so in one's hierarchy of values life precedes freedom. The same for dignity. If your life is not of value, what does dignity pertain to? Your freedom and dignity matter because your life matters.

Freedom is necessary to life, just as food and knowledge are, so there is a point at which life as a human being is not possible without freedom. The mere perpetuation of protoplasm is not, "living," as a human being.

But really, are all these questions genuine? Do you really believe that anything can be more valuable to you than your own life? How can anything be a value to you if you are not alive?

I'm just trying to get a grasp on what you are saying.

No you're not. You know perfectly well what I'm saying (unless you are a moron). It couldn't be simpler.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:10 am For example, Henry (from a discussion I had with him a while back) seems to adamantly think that death is better than living in slavery. Therefore he seems to place freedom or liberty as being the highest value (at least higher than life). However, from the sounds of it, you seem to be saying that living in slavery would be preferable to death (should it ever come down to such a choice).

How Henry or anyone else chooses to live their life is first, no one else's business, and second, not a basis for determine any principle. Henry's life is his to live as he chooses and only he can determine what is in the best interest of his life and what living it means. I happen to agree with Henry that one cannot live successfully as a human being if they are not free to choose how they live. Living is not a matter of perpetuating protoplasm, but of doing, achieveing, and being what one chooses to be.

Now you're just getting ridiculous. There doesn't seem to be much point in asking for further clarification so I'll leave you to your prejudices.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:21 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:22 am If you are thoroughly enjoying your life, loving and cherishing every moment of it, without regret, fear, or guilt, and know you have done all you can to be and achieve all you are able to as a human being you are living successfully.

That could as easily be the description of somebody who's only smug. He lives up to whatever values he holds himself to...so if he holds himself to low or unworthy standards, then so long as he's self-satisfied, he's "living successfully"?

That doesn't sound right.

It isn't right. It comes from you own view that a human being can live successfully in defiance of reality, that one's values can be, "low or unworthy," and living by them will actually achieve a life that is fulfilling and worth living.

What really gals you is not that some people fail to live successfully and may give the impression of self-righteousness, but the fact that there are individuals with values and standards much higher than yours, who refuse to seek or desire anything they have not earned, who do not want anything, "given," to them, and would be horrified by the idea that they could gain anything from anyone else's suffering or sacrifice. Those who live by standards so high they do not care what anyone else thinks or says about them, because they know what they are and what they have made of themselves, and do not need the agreement or approval of anyone else.

Of course the great mass of failing human beings, who barely managed to stay alive, consider the successful smug, because, as Mencken said, "they are terrified that someone somewhere is actually enjoying their life," and what terrifies them and they hate is their own inescapable knowledge that their own failed lives are their own fault.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:22 am Isn't it sometimes the case that people live their lives with entire self-satisfaction, but for what we would still regard as unworthy values?

I don't think so. There is no shortage of people who are self-deluded about most things, but I would not call it, "self-satified," even if they and you would.