Nostr Web Client

It's very hard to entertain the statement: "There is no objective purpose in the world" as true, because the statement is self contradictory.

Which part of the statement is objectively true? The part which denies objective purpose, or the part which affirms it?

This is why earlier I mentioned that without objective value, nothing makes sense.

Descriptions of the world don't make sense.

Judgements don't make sense.

Actions don't make sense.

Statements of any kind don't make sense.

You're probably wondering which part of the statement I think "affirms" objective value, so here it is:

First off, the statement is an action, and therefore it is inherently an expression of value (even according to subjective value theory).

In order to generate that statement, (let's call it a description of the world), you had to value certain perceptions, concepts, thoughts, ideas, words, the English language itself, over others. These values are baked into the truth-value of the statement.

The truth-value of a statement depends partially on the context-dependant objective value of the means by which the statement was generated and conveyed.

Moreover, you're attempting to adhere to a logical framework that under subjective value theory only exists subjectively, not objectively. This is because logic itself is a framework of value.

I want to be able to assume the premise is true, then explain my reasoning from there, but because they premise is self contradictory, anything following will be incoherent.

6e70253f... 2y ago

I think we have found our point of fundamental disagreement. You mention a lot about moral decisions, what are right and wrong actions, which indicate to me you see some overall purpose to what us little humans are trying to do on this planet.

Without seeing that purpose is relative to the individual you will always see subjective value theory as lacking in some way. I think we can forget about using this as a premise for further discussion, and focus on the validity of the statement "there is no objective purpose in the world" itself.

I'll again read through your reply and attempt to address some of the points directly. In the mean time maybe you could answer the following (which may help me understand why you see my statement as a contradiction): What is the purpose of one's life? What is the purpose of society?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Curtis 2y ago

Sure, here goes:

Q: "What is the purpose of one's life?"

A: I do not know

Q: "What is the purpose of society?

A: I do not know

My central claim is that there is a purpose, not that I know what that purpose is.

I think understanding how something can be context dependent, but still objective is going to be important here.

I use the phrase "Context-dependant objective value" for a reason.

Objectivity ≠ Absolutism.

For something to be objective doesn't necessarily mean it's also absolute.

6e70253f... 2y ago

Okay, that answers the question, that the purpose of society is something that exists and may be knowable.