Is Life Worth the Strife?

"Right" in what sense? We were both enforcing what are no more than bald assertions, and since you've turned the matter into a wager, you seem to be acknowleding that neither of us can claim comprehensive victory on a philosophical level. If you're talking about what assumptions you live your life in accordance with though, of course it would be better to affirm your more 'optimistic' world-view and live as life as if it is worth while. And I do. In case you haven't noticed, I haven't cut my throat, and my somewhat pithy tone - which you identify early on - does sort of suggest that I was merely wearing a literary 'mask'. And this is the very point I'm trying to make: no matter how clearly I stare into the abyss, no matter how unflinchingly I disrobe 'love' and 'pleasure', I still live on, and my elan vital still flows. I only think that it would be better if I couldn't think at all, so that my elan might be allowed to continue its tremulous course unimpeded.

I guess you didn't read my previous post well enough.

I am not turning anything into a wager. I am simply pointing out the error in your line of thinking.

You claim to know that the abyss provides no solutions.

I beg to differ, and I use the metaphor of an engine to prove my point. I may also use a pixel on a screen, or a dot in a painting, or a hair on a dog.

In every circumstance, the very theory of knowledge and how it relates to existence is represented... That is, to understand the greater whole, one must meticulously examine and know each individual morsel, painstainkingly pursuing a blind devotion to inquisition in the hope that like most things in the universe, a plethora of little pieces all eventually lead to a larger whole.

If you state that the abyss is empty and worthless and unnatainable because there is infinite bigness and infinite smallness, well, that's a very closed minded and artificially pessimistic approach.

The truth is with infinite bigness (and therefore an infinite number of questions) we will always understand the things we seek to understand... yet also catch a glimpse of the fact that all these pieces of information and observations are themselves part of a greated body of information.

I do not approach this from a philosophical point of view, nor an opitmistic one.

The fact is that all information leads to new information, for all information provides us with greater possibilities.

To demean what conclusions we have already made because they lead to greater truths is absolutely ridiculous. As I stated much earlier, even with a thousand questions ahead of us we still have answered the five before us.

Hence, an "abyss" is an incorrect metaphor for this phenomenon... for an abyss does not widen exponentially and is most certainly void of light.

A more adequate metaphor would be "heaven"... for it is infinitely above us, infinitely lighted, and most definitely an ascension rather than a descendence.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

"And of course, I am right for I choose no absolute in a realm of probability."

LOL, that was the most retarded thing I've ever heard. In a realm of probability isn't it just as wrong to claim an absolute as to claim no absolute? The fact is YOU DON'T KNOW. Which means YOU AREN'T RIGHT or perhaps aren't right for sure. But what's the worth in an answer that isn't tied to undeniable reason or truth?

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."

No need to post such a splenetic reponse Chris, but you're right. Laplacean probability dictates that we should apply the principle of insufficient reason in a situation like this, assuming that each possibility is equally likely. So to mention probability in that way is to effectively call a truce.
Perhaps that was just a slip though, so I'll ignore it.
The main problem is your idea that "a plethora of little pieces all eventually lead to a larger whole" is patently wrong. The larger whole is NOT forthcoming. You say - how do I know? Why not keep the faith whilst we cannot be sure? Well, I'll have to be honest... I have some philosophical baggage. I don't have time to flesh it out though. The most crucial thing to say is that your Enlightenment idealism (because that's what it is) rests on a misundertanding of the relationship between comprehension and perception. As Kant said, therare are no "percepts without concepts": that is, the way we understand the world is conditioned by the conceptual framworks with which we think in the first place. It is called the "sapir whorf" doctrine and was propounded by my namesake and a Russian called Vygotsky. And the upshot of it is this: understanding is not progressive, but historical. We do, by a process of accretetion, acquire a whole plethora of little bits - our index of inferences grows ever wider - but our apprehension does not, and indeed cannot, approach the "greater whole". The absolute possibility of such a greater whole is not excluded, of course, but only the the notion of us comprehending it. And we cannot even do so in a partial manner. A hostile barrier remains in place between us and the the intricate system of comprehension which underlies and governs our thoughts. And this barrier is precisely what makes us animals - for it places limits on our self-consciousness, and reduces us to a subjugation the kind of which makes us 'things' rather than 'beings', objects rather than subjects.

You're a Hegelian, Decius, whether you know it or not. And this fits neatly for my purposes, because the cultural implications of Hegelianism represent that boorish propensity of modern man to overrate himself, to think he can command his own destiny... and penetrate the depths of 'absolute truth'. EO Wilson, John Gray etc etc have stridently warned against this. We are ANIMALS, and the idea of MAN is a construction borne of the capricious machinations of the 'mind'.
There is much that remians unsaid here, but I don't have the time to hang around at the moment.

Chris: As you have probably realized by now, your statement is wrong for you failed to understand my statement. I am correct for I choose the most probable truth in a world of probability, yet by definition admit that it could also be wrong. This definition is clarified, clearly, by "a world of probability".

Witt: I begin to understand what it is that you are as I read more that you state... for you are not what I originally thought. You create the need to categorize theologies... and henceforth have categorized me. With a propensity to pigeonhole it is then very probable that you follow the same suit for yourself. This is why, I must unfortunately state, that you are arguing a case that you do not have sufficient information to prove.

This is because your thoughts are not your own, but that of the class of philosopher you have chosen to pigeonhole yourself with. In doing so, although you may absorb as much information as you can from this set group, the thoughts you present are incomplete primarily because you have not discovered these truths yourself.

And this is clear, for you still (as a composite of every single one of your posts in this thread) claim to know that humans are unable to grasp the greater whole, yet provide no references to your conclusion except for the very groups that have provided you with this system of beliefs.

Further, you have admitted that you do carry with you a bias in the form of "philosophical baggage", as you label it. This honesty is quite commendable, but does detract from the validity of your statements.

The primary flaw, I will point out again but rephrase as per your last post, is that you claim to know of a barrier or limitation on humans that detracts from their ability to grasp some form of greater whole. Yet, you do not provide any validity for this knowledge, nor do you provide any actual examples of these limitations save liken humans to animals.

I will provide you with an example of why your group's theory on "barriers" is most likely flawed:

1. Knowledge, in a general sense, grows as one uses their sensories and analytical skills to process these sensory inputs. It is undeniable that one contains within them more knowledge at the age of five than at birth. This is displayed in one's ability to correctly identify and interact with their environment.

2. Every skill, science, or art (in essence the expertise of any given concentrated group of knowledge) is attained in a very specific manner (which I have repeated over and over and will not do again).

3. As one masters one skill, they inevitably find that that skill will relate to another skill. In the mastery of this second skill, they will inevitably find out that the composite mastery of these two skills provides the ability for the mastery of the third skill. A simple example of this definite human phenom is, for instance, the mastery of psychology. This leads to the ability for one to then begin to master genetics (for the master of psychology can now clearly identify the purely genetic influences in psychology). In mastering genetics one will inevitably master mathematics. In mastering psychology, mathematics and then genetics, one can quite adequately begin to understand what it is that makes a specific person operate. With this knowledge, one may then begin to master sociology. And so on and so on.

4. If the above example is true, then one may learn about a person, then people, then countries, then the world, and so on and so on. Each one of these realms constitutes a "whole" leading to a "greater whole".

5. If the above summary is true, where does the "barrier" take place? After you know about a person? Or people? Or the world? Or the universe? Are you stating the mind has a finite amount of information it can intake? If so, where is the line drawn? For an absolute barrier to exist, there must be an abolute point where all learning stops.

---

If your point is that since there are innumerable greater wholes that the human mind cannot ever come to the end and understand everything, well, I'm not claiming we can understand everything. I am claiming, however, that being the animals that we are with the brains that we are, we can most certainly learn and learn and see the picture of a greater whole that makes sense to our limited brains. The exploration of an idea of something greater than what our minds is capable of understanding is moot, for if our minds cannot contemplate it then neither can we theorize about it.

Hence, if that is your point (that the human mind cannot see what "God" sees) then I agree. But I would have to say that this does not matter. This is because we can grasp all we need to to saturate our understanding of "humans" and "God" and the universe.

And I am most definitely an enlightenement idealist. Not because I identify with a group, but because I logically came to the conclusion that this was the most correct method of existence.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Can we agree that everything in this reality we inhabit has infinite properties? You can cut something infinately small, you can continually explore the infinately large. One must ask himself, when do we call it quits? There is no such thing as the best, there is no such thing as the worst. Seriously, when do we just say fuck it? I think the only reason I do anything in this life is to reach some ideal I have in my head. Does everyone do that? Is it because we are all envious of that ideal that we struggle so hard to achieve it?

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."

quote:

---

If your point is that since there are innumerable greater wholes that the human mind cannot ever come to the end and understand everything, well, I'm not claiming we can understand everything. I am claiming, however, that being the animals that we are with the brains that we are, we can most certainly learn and learn and see the picture of a greater whole that makes sense to our limited brains. The exploration of an idea of something greater than what our minds is capable of understanding is moot, for if our minds cannot contemplate it then neither can we theorize about it.

---

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

"Why is it so stimulating to imagine other species? Or a million year old dinasaur bone in your backyard? You don't know it is there but for fuck's sake... you have to look!"

you're exactly right, its in our nature to explore and research shit for as long as we're alive. I don't know what to think about that, but how true it is.

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."

Decius, I want to appalud you for being able to present an argument with polish and clarity. Why this is anything more than the most elementary of skills I don't know, but next to some of the semi-literate garbage you see on this site, it is a virtue indeed. For my part, I admit that the suggestive murk of my posts hasn't really helped my case. Yes - mostly, they are more posture than poise, ponderous, image-mad, teeming with archaisms, slaked over in churning prolixity, emotional in a way that bespeaks an unquiet mind, packed to the brim with pasty metaphors: in short, the result of unerring fingers and a wonky brain. Here - mental stability permitting - I will do my best to use my words with economy.

quote:

---

Chris: As you have probably realized by now, your statement is wrong for you failed to understand my statement. I am correct for I choose the most probable truth in a world of probability, yet by definition admit that it could also be wrong. This definition is clarified, clearly, by "a world of probability".

---

quote:

---

I begin to understand what it is that you are as I read more that you state... for you are not what I originally thought.

---

quote:

---

...your thoughts are not your own, but that of the class of philosopher you have chosen to pigeonhole yourself with.

---

quote:

---

Further, you have admitted that you do carry with you a bias in the form of "philosophical baggage", as you label it. This honesty is quite commendable, but does detract from the validity of your statements.

---

quote:

---

In doing so, although you may absorb as much information as you can from this set group, the thoughts you present are incomplete primarily because you have not discovered these truths yourself.

---

[  Edited by wittgensteins at   ]

Compliments about my method of speech do not mean much if you do not absorb the information of that communication, which you most certainly have not.

If your argument is entirely based upon the truth that we can never know anything definitively... well... okay. Everyone can accept that, and most of us accept this and move on to the next best thing... probability. Lingering on the philosophy of us knowing nothing difinitively because the very existence of probability is an entirely different beast... this is because you are merging the philosophy of the purpose of life to whether it is worth it or not.

And probability most definitely has its place in philosophy. Probability has its place in any line of thought, for as humans we are slaves to logic, and logic is slave to probability. If your argument is that logic has no place in philosophy, then you are a lost child and most certainly should not be engaging in discussion on this site. However, I do not think you perceive yourself as illogical... hence, you, like me, are a slave to the very probability you seem to dismiss. Which, in itself, is another contradiction.

Yet, it still remains that you, in yet another lenghty post, decide to avoid the same question I have repeated and reworded (for your benefit and those reading) and rather focus on defending yourself from the psychological analysis I have made of you.

Of course, pigeonholing is extremely different from making logical assertions about one's personality based on historical evidence. To liken what I am doing to what you are doing is quite different, for not only that reason, but also the fact that whatever categories I may loosely place you in are my own creations... whereas the categories you place me (and yourself) in are adopted from 3rd parties. Hence, your line of thinking will undoubtedly be enclosed within a chasm that is formed by your own self-identity... not logical probability.

But again, this is all digressing from the point at hand.

You claim life is not worth the strife because you have emotional baggage which gives you a pessimistic tone, and you also claim to KNOW that there is no purpose to discovering the wholes in life that lead to greater wholes.

I argue that there is fulfillment in discovering wholes that lead to greater wholes and that one may do so their whole lives and reach "enlightened" states that provide their sub-conscious minds with a glimpse of the grand picture... at least a grand picture knowable by logical humans and their limited minds.

Both of us may be correct, yet my belief system is paralelled by the most powerful directive in the universe: information. In fact, information which scientifically and philosophically leads to the very creation of atoms in our bodies (which are themselves the result of the probability of information) forms for us an entire universe that is based on the formation of probable information making greater wholes.

Up to now, your contradicting belief system, which encompasses in essence the assertion that there is no purpose to discovery, has been dilluted with many words and statements let at the base have no logical theory to back them up.

Should this digress to the simple psychological question of whether or not discovery pleases humans?

If so, then I would state that discovery is a natural human desire and the minds that we have inevitably gravitate towards expansion. This expansion can only occur through investigation and exploration.

And I will re-state my first post in this thread: I theorize that the reason for your "angst" is the fact that you are amidst quite a difficult and lenghty investigation of a greater whole, and in anticipation and frustration of not finding it yet begin to desire the want to believe that there is indeed no goal to find.

But there is... and although you may try and try to convince yourself and those around you with references and an imp's wit, someone like me will only be convinced with logical rebuttals... none of which you have given.

This will, of course, be my final post in this thread for I am certain at this point that you are far too closed minded to actually absorb the possibility that there is purpose to exploration. Doing so would break the very foundation of assumption you have readily seated yourself upon and open the floodgates to questioning many assertions you have long assumed to be true.

However, I must state that I definitely do not pigeohole you with the likeness of other conformist drones. You most certainly have an inquisitive mind, and although i respect that I also realize that you will always be at a disadvantage because you can not fine tune that wonderful brain of yours without opening it to other possibilities.

To achieve this, you must first remove identifying yourself with the belief systems of those you may admire. A good start would be an alias that suits your unique thoughts and not of Wittgenstein.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

I'll try to be austere. You may not read this and almost certainly won't reply, but it just strikes me that bad communication from both of us is creating an unnecessary impasse.

First of all, this idea that probability has a place in philosophy is very mysterious. Could you give an example of one philosophical field which utlises probabilistic thought? Assuredly, it is a vital mathematical tool, but it doesn't sit with what we might call the 'philosophical ethos'. Philosophy stays silent on what it cannot say - it is a sort of logical atomism, which explains why it links well with certain mathematical studies.

Secondly, yes, I do think life's worth the strife, and yes, I am expressing in a roundabout way a certain amount of post-adolescent angst.

It is my conviction that philosophy springs from such reflections on the absurdity and meaninglessness of life. It is only when we strip life of its everyday 'meaning' that a myriad of arresting abstractions come into view.

Lastly - although it doesn't very much to say it - I think you would find me utterly pig-headed and independent-minded as a person. My problem in life is not narrowmindedness, but rather the opposite: I have none of those mental landmarks by which other people direct their thoughts. Why do you think I chose to write in such a showy, aphoristic style? They aren't my opinions, because I have none. Maybe I was being too provocative, but I personally enjoy thought for its own sake. I am plagued at all times by a superabundance of my own thoughts.

quote:

---

You claim life is not worth the strife because you have emotional baggage which gives you a pessimistic tone, and you also claim to KNOW that there is no purpose to discovering the wholes in life that lead to greater wholes.

---

I've read every post in this thread so far and I believe it is you Decius who is closed minded. Wittgenstien tries to show you the flaws in your beliefs and then you just make up more bullshit that supposedly backs it up. Philosophical forums are useless I see... the only true philosophical discussion can be done in person, I'm sure Socrates would agree. It's impossible to continually show someone's flaws in thier view through posts as it just takes too much god damn time. What is it called? logical deduction?

To your view of attempting to answers these questions, decius, as well as see the 'greater picture' I want to refer to WizardsLogic's theory or whatever you wanna call it to the definition of this reality. He, step by step, broke down each dimension mathematically. The 3rd dimension can only be defined as 'expansion'. Expansion never ends. Once you find those pistons of the car and figure out we're just a small part of this greater reality, then what does that reality make up? lol. It goes on forever my friend, at least in your view. We of course live in 4 dimensions, adding the dimension of time but that's irrelevant. We're stuck, we don't have full understanding of time or how it works. So go ahead and don't reply, don't painstakingly try to rip apart anyone elses posts because you're 'right' and we're 'wrong'. I hope it's nice having the one true view of this world, God.

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."

ok think about this..... your mind is all that you have and all that you ever have... assume that there's nothing bigger than what's right here on Earth.... if you look at it that way, the human mind is the most powerful and important thing in the known universe... if this life is all that exists... then might as well make the most use of it as possible, before you are rotting in the ground and being eaten by worms.... you quote those philosophers, but they are doing the same thing that criminals are right now... there just decayed..... there worth nothing at the moment, but they made the most of what they could do..... what i've found is that life is pointless.... but it is also worth everything.... ITS ALL THATS HERE!.... suicide is just cutting short the little time you have that you are a conscious being... the only thing that i've found that is truly worth living for is close relationships with other people.... all these thoughts that plaugue your mind.... there's lots and lots of other people out there who have the same thoughts plaguing there mind.... i realized that the world becomes a very manageable and even a happy place when you share whats deep in your mind....

I'm sick of this thread now. All I'll say is that Chris is absolutely right (of course I would say that) when he points out the absurdity of trying to have a philosophical discussion on an internet forum! It's so frustratingly difficult to say what you want to say! The reason why I keep returning is my suspicion that I might be wrong... is that why you do it Decius? I know I have spoken some certified crap in this thread, but I was actually having a joke. Largely, I was expressing my frustration at the shallowness of discussions on this site. When I actually get serious and try to lay the ground work for proper discussion, you tell me to think for myself! Pal, the 'information' is the meat of the discussion! You repeatedly ignored my serious posts and referred to my more glib ones, one of which you erroneously paraphrased as asserting that "there is no picture forming the greater whole". I won't say that this didn't appear to be the case - maybe it was badly expressed. But that it is certainly not what I meant!

no it's not impossible to have philosophical discussions on this site, I can vouch for that-but if you try to bring in each other's personalities as is the case in this site, then indeed it is not only useless but stupid. How can you guyz just make ridiculous assumptions about each other when u havn't even met each other.

Nyway, dun see the problem here, everybody agrees that there is a greater whole right?

"I'll heal ur woundz I'll set u free, I m jesus christ on xtacy"