Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EducatorBig6648 t1_j47ja6m wrote

Reply to comment by FreshEclairs in Life can’t be reduced to a rulebook. But committing to certain moral principles can help us navigate life better. by IAI_Admin

>"Fine, call them inconsistencies."

Then prove to me how I'm inconsistent. Ask yourself, do I seem like I would troll you and not admit when you're making good points?

>"The only reason that's a danger/threat (and not the same thing as two air molecules bumping into one another) is because I want/need my car"

(sigh) How does one "need" a car? 3.4 million years of Stone Age, 6,000 years of Stone Age, 300,000 years of homo sapiens, cars have been around for about a century, I say we humans don't even "need" oxygen in order to breathe oxygen, that that is (for lack of a better term) a self-delusion, and your contribution to a philosophical conversation amounts to "Well, I need my car so NYAH!"

The air molecules bumping into eachother does not involve danger because there would be no consequences. If it was matter and anti-matter on the other hand...

>"and the people on the bus want/need to not be in an accident."

I didn't say there was anyone on the bus since it's irrelevant. My question was about your car having a "need". You say you have "needs", I say you don't, that is the conversation. Danger is a real abstract thing, this planet could have been in danger of a giant asteroid basically splitting it in two before there was any life on it. Does the planet have a "need" to not be split in two? No, just like I do not have a "need" to avoid becoming a drowned corpse if you chain me up and toss me in the ocean. "Need" is just one of our many egomaniac self-delusions to make the universe revolve around us in our minds when it just simply does not.

(Which is okay by the way, life is meaningful regardless.)

>"You're trying to build a philosophical system that has no internal consistency."

So you claim but so far I see no evidence you can back up that claim.

Yeah, gauntlet thrown. Identify my inconsistencies for me, I would (and I swear this on my life) be happy to know them.

1

FreshEclairs t1_j47mahv wrote

I already pointed out an obvious inconsistency: the concept of danger is predicated on some want/need.

An aside: when I was posting that I thought to myself “why even get involved with someone who is going to turn out to be a total crank?”

I don’t think you’re trolling.

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j47qu5t wrote

>"I already pointed out an obvious inconsistency: the concept of danger is predicated on some want/need."

No, you didn't since there is no such predication. You're willfully ignoring my point about the car and the bus and the planet and the asteroid. The planet would be in danger of being split in two, that has absolutely nothing to do with organic life existing on it yet so has nothing to do with any organic life's egomaniac myths about "need/necessity".

The rain forests being in danger of disappearing has nothing to do with being organic or alive or if other lifeforms exist (EDIT: Okay, the latter was really bad phrasing but you get the gist). Latin was in danger of becoming a dead language and then one day it was.

>"An aside: when I was posting that I thought to myself “why even get involved with someone who is going to turn out to be a total crank?”"

Right, I question things so I'm a right up there with "They're abducting cows, man!" and "They shot Kennedy, dude!" (sarcasm) :-)

>"I don’t think you’re trolling."

Good.

1