Truth or Comfort?

[Orias]

Just remember, if a riddle is irrelevant, then so are you.

 

[Orias]

You said, purpose can be created not found.

This is conflictive with you saying that creation can be found.

 

[Orias]

On a final note, to understand magic, is to render all things useful. To not care, is to not be a magician.

Xeper

 

[Karl R]

Seems to me those who pick an answer like "truth" are doing so because holding onto this supposed "truth" is a comfort. No human holds beliefs which cause cognitive dissonance (discomfort) for them, at least not over long periods of time.

I would say that "congative dissonance" is a fairly specific form of discomfort, but not the only form of discomfort.

One of the most common fears is "fear of the unknown." Extending that to the example above, you could make certain statements about the afterlife:
1. There is a heaven. I'm going there with my friends and family.
2. There is nirvana/reincarnation. If I fail to achieve nirvana, I will get another chance.
3. There is a heaven and hell. I'm going to heaven, but some of my friends/family are going to hell.
4. There is no afterlife. This is all there is.
5. I don't know if there is an afterlife, or what it might be like. (Unknown)
6. There is a heaven and hell, and my choices are taking me to hell. (Congative dissonance)

I've tried to arrange these in order from most comfortable (1.) to least comfortable (6.).

I study comparative religions for fun. My studies have led me to conclude that (5.) is true. Everybody has a different opinion about the afterlife. Some of them are mutually exclusive. Nobody has proof. Some of the versions of the afterlife sound more appealing than others, but not more correct.

My belief (that I don't know what the afterlife is like) is true. I would not call it a comforting belief. However, I would say that I've made peace with my belief. It does not cause me cognative dissonance.

 

[Kathryn]

So you are never going to provide and argument for objective purpose, are you. This is not surprising since none would work. That is exactly why I accept it, ever heard of logical inference, process of elimination, etc? Sincr there is no logic behind objective meaning, that is a solid enough argument in itself.

This is precisely my point - there is not an argument for or against it that can convince someone who is going to believe one way or the other. That's because what you're saying is not provable.

Have you noticed yet that I'm not trying to prove anything about the opposite position to you? You're assuming it's because I don't understand what you're trying to get across. What I'm telling you is that I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove otherwise to you, because neither position can be proven or disproven.

As I've stated before, it's simply a matter of opinion.

 

[Penumbra]

I would say that "congative dissonance" is a fairly specific form of discomfort, but not the only form of discomfort.

One of the most common fears is "fear of the unknown." Extending that to the example above, you could make certain statements about the afterlife:
1. There is a heaven. I'm going there with my friends and family.
2. There is nirvana/reincarnation. If I fail to achieve nirvana, I will get another chance.
3. There is a heaven and hell. I'm going to heaven, but some of my friends/family are going to hell.
4. There is no afterlife. This is all there is.
5. I don't know if there is an afterlife, or what it might be like. (Unknown)
6. There is a heaven and hell, and my choices are taking me to hell. (Congative dissonance)

I've tried to arrange these in order from most comfortable (1.) to least comfortable (6.).

I would certainly question the ethical position of anyone who would suggest that having friends and family go to a hell is more comfortable than there not being an afterlife.

 

[Orias]

This type of argument reminds me of why humans chose to exist.

Even those who fall short of understanding, they still exist for reasons of their own.

 

[1137]

You said, purpose can be created not found.

This is conflictive with you saying that creation can be found.

Yes, purpose is created subjectively but not found. Like when someone says they "found their calling", that is just adding unnecessary magical properties to something that does not need such things. For example, I studied philosophy for years before I realized I wanted to go into law. I was not called to law or made to practice law, I simply chose to. There is absolutely nothing conflicting in saying purpose is created and creations can be found.

On a final note, to understand magic, is to render all things useful. To not care, is to not be a magician.

Xeper

Again, what does this have to do with anything? Magic(k) requires subjective reality, which you are apparently denying.

This is precisely my point - there is not an argument for or against it that can convince someone who is going to believe one way or the other. That's because what you're saying is not provable.

Have you noticed yet that I'm not trying to prove anything about the opposite position to you? You're assuming it's because I don't understand what you're trying to get across. What I'm telling you is that I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove otherwise to you, because neither position can be proven or disproven.

As I've stated before, it's simply a matter of opinion.

There is a difference between logical inference and proof. Same as we cannot prove whether God exists or not we can decide based on logic and evidence. Logic and evidence point to there being no objective meaning, and the fact that nobody can argue for it just is more evidence. However, since it is based on logical inference, refusing to show your point at all is, of course, going to point out to me that you have no such argument and therefore believe in objective meaning fideistically.

This type of argument reminds me of why humans chose to exist.

Even those who fall short of understanding, they still exist for reasons of their own.

Hahaha, why humans chose to exist? You did not choose to exist, although you choose to keep existing rather than commit suicide. That is a matter of personal preference. The last part that I have highlighted is supporting a meaningless existence. We do continue to exist for personal reasons.

 

[Kathryn]

How do you know you weren't called and that you aren't responding to something that only appears to be something that you're controlling?

I didn't say I believe that - just asking the question. How would you ever know? No human being in history has been able to prove or disprove the concept of destiny OR a meaningless existence. For every speculative argument in one direction, there's one in the opposite direction. It's all conjecture, opinion, and the musings of limited human minds.

There is a difference between logical inference and proof. Same as we cannot prove whether God exists or not we can decide based on logic and evidence. Logic and evidence point to there being no objective meaning, and the fact that nobody can argue for it just is more evidence.

You keep saying this as if it's a fact, but you haven't provided any compelling argument or proof that this is a fact at all. Don't you see the irony in this?

However, since it is based on logical inference, refusing to show your point at all is, of course, going to point out to me that you have no such argument and therefore believe in objective meaning fideistically.

I've clearly given you my argument - which is that neither "side" of the equation is provable - that both are merely opinions.

Guess we'll all find out someday - or maybe not. Meanwhile, neither belief can be proven to be in error, or proven to be correct.

 

[1137]

How do you know you weren't called and that you aren't responding to something that only appears to be something that you're controlling?

Again, through logical inference. Since there is no intelligent and controlling power that created us and reigns over my life it follows that it was not my destiny. I have already said we cannot know, but not having the ability to not know something 100% for sure does not give me the right to just abandon logic and believe any magical silliness that makes me feel comfortable. Many do this, of course, but I personally cannot allow myself too. You cannot prove that unicorns and fairies do not exist either, but look at the (lack of) evidence and the logic.

I didn't say I believe that - just asking the question. How would you ever know? No human being in history has been able to prove or disprove the concept of destiny OR a meaningless existence. For every speculative argument in one direction, there's one in the opposite direction. It's all conjecture, opinion, and the musings of limited human minds.

Just because there are opposing arguments does not make both equally likely. Neither does how many people believe either way. The logic and evidence make one or the other more likely. Many do not seem to be aware of this, but logic and evidence are objective, personal opinion cannot influence them.

You keep saying this as if it's a fact, but you haven't provided any compelling argument or proof that this is a fact at all. Don't you see the irony in this?

Really? I would love for you to show me where I said it was a fact, especially since I blatantly stated it is simply most likely.

I've clearly given you my argument - which is that neither "side" of the equation is provable - that both are merely opinions.

Guess we'll all find out someday - or maybe not. Meanwhile, neither belief can be proven to be in error, or proven to be correct.

Well, I explained above why just because there are opposing sides does not make them equal. Some people do believe in unicorns, so I suppose they are equally likely to exist as likely no to exist? Some people do not believe dinosaurs existed, some do not believe in gravity, some think the earth is flat, you expect me to respect these positions? You see, this is what happens when we shun logic, we come to ridiculous conclusions. Opinion does not influence objective facts.

 

[Kathryn]

Again, through logical inference. Since there is no intelligent and controlling power that created us and reigns over my life it follows that it was not my destiny. I have already said we cannot know, but not having the ability to not know something 100% for sure does not give me the right to just abandon logic and believe any magical silliness that makes me feel comfortable. Many do this, of course, but I personally cannot allow myself too. You cannot prove that unicorns and fairies do not exist either, but look at the (lack of) evidence and the logic.



Just because there are opposing arguments does not make both equally likely. Neither does how many people believe either way. The logic and evidence make one or the other more likely. Many do not seem to be aware of this, but logic and evidence are objective, personal opinion cannot influence them.



Really? I would love for you to show me where I said it was a fact, especially since I blatantly stated it is simply most likely.



Well, I explained above why just because there are opposing sides does not make them equal. Some people do believe in unicorns, so I suppose they are equally likely to exist as likely no to exist? Some people do not believe dinosaurs existed, some do not believe in gravity, some think the earth is flat, you expect me to respect these positions? You see, this is what happens when you shun logic, when come to ridiculous conclutions. Opinion does not influence objective facts.

I don't expect you to respect anything other than your own belief system.

I'm not shunning logic, by the way. What I'm saying is that your opinion, and my opinion, does not alter truth in any way.

Nice segue by the way back to the topic at hand - truth vs comfort.

I prefer truth to comfort, as I've said before, because I can do more to accomplish long term comfort with a full set of facts than I can with fewer facts.

I also accept that there are some things I may never have the answers to - this is PROBABLY a fact, and certainly a belief I'm fine with. Here's how I usually approach such scenarios:

I have a full and interesting life to lead. Every day I make choices which affect reality around me. I believe I have a moral obligation to make choices which better the reality in which I live, rather than choices which cause hurt or degrade the reality in which I live. I believe it's my obligation to make informed choices - TO A POINT. I draw the line at sitting around staring at my navel, musing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether God can create something He can't pick up, or whether or not a tree makes a sound when it falls in a forest and no one hears it - or for that matter, whether I'd choose to save the elderly doctor or the seven year old in an overcrowded lifeboat.

In other words, my question is always, "So what's the application?" If the application of a particular belief system leads to an endless black chasm of nothingness, and nothing really matters at all in the long run...then my daily choices don't really have any meaning.

This simply doesn't line up with the reality that I live every single day, so I've pretty much thrown that idea out. Not because it's uncomfortable - but because it's just not edifying and doesn't positively impact my life or the reality around me.

 

[blackout]

No. Without intelligent life there would be no knives. So that means we have a purpose???

Perhaps it is our purpose to create knives.

Perhaps the quest for survival is our *primary natural born purpose?
(*as in first, and most basic or fundamental)

And to this end-- survival -- we have become the creators
of our own objective world,
a world that includes knives and torches,
cups and coins.....

Perhaps it is our purpose to be the Gods of our own domain.

Perhaps that purpose is found within--
in our DNA.
Why must our 'code' come from somewhere/someone outside us?
(or... beyond... who -and what- we are)

Perhaps our purpose/s evolve(s) as we do.

 

[blackout]

Yes, purpose is created subjectively but not found.

Human beings have found purpose, and also meaning...
'hard', 'soft', 'warm', 'edible', 'waterproof', 'sharp', 'heavy', 'cyclical' etc etc etc
in just about every natural element there is.

 

[blackout]

The people who are claiming that life is not meaningless, may I ask if you believe in God(s)?

Here's a question for you Doors,

What is the purpose of a God?

(assume for the sake of the discussion,
that God/s are real)

 

[blackout]

Human beings have found purpose, and also meaning...
'hard', 'soft', 'warm', 'edible', 'waterproof', 'sharp', 'heavy', 'cyclical' etc etc etc
in just about every natural element there is.

And as well in (the nature of) our own biology and being.
(as fashioned by the DNA that has given us form)

... stand, walk, run, dance, rest, eat, talk, sing, draw, craft, write, figure, experiment, design, cast, create, reason.....
argue....

 

[Orias]

Yes, purpose is created subjectively but not found. Like when someone says they "found their calling", that is just adding unnecessary magical properties to something that does not need such things. For example, I studied philosophy for years before I realized I wanted to go into law. I was not called to law or made to practice law, I simply chose to. There is absolutely nothing conflicting in saying purpose is created and creations can be found.

Exactly, how can creation be found if there is no purpose?

After all, creation is merely the reconstruction of what already is.

Again, what does this have to do with anything? Magic(k) requires subjective reality, which you are apparently denying.

Magic extends beyond any describable reality, subjective and objective, lets call it intersubjective. And, it requires nothing, besides a push.

Hahaha, why humans chose to exist? You did not choose to exist, although you choose to keep existing rather than commit suicide. That is a matter of personal preference. The last part that I have highlighted is supporting a meaningless existence. We do continue to exist for personal reasons.

Perhaps as a gene passed down through the aeons I truly did will to exist.

But I doubt it, and you speak of irrelevance.

You need a sharper eye mate