Why do humans cling to the delusion of "purpose"?
-
matt_shade — 6 years ago(July 21, 2019 01:18 PM)
It is completely random.
No, it is not.
You have not even begun to sketch out the theoretical outlines that would justify any of the silly garbage you post here.
It's not theory, it's fact.
Then prove it. Concepts exist only in minds. Period. You won't be able to provide a single example that contradicts this.
I wasn't talking about the concepts of danger, utility and language, I was talking about them themselves since they are more than concept as opposed to myths like "purpose".
Bullshit. "Should" means "The way the world works, if you want to achieve Goal X, then the following activities will help you achieve X". If mankind wants to have a high tech civilization providing a comfortable existence for the majority of its members, then it SHOULD dramatically reduce its carbon emissions.
No. Desire does not make "should" non-imaginary. There is nothing I or mankind "should" ever do, no matter what my or mankind's desires may be. That is an unalterable fact of existence. In fact, your stance makes as little sense as saying that a serial killer "should" have pursued his victims because he desired to know what it felt like to kill them. "Well, a man ought to do what he ought to do and you did what you ought to do based on your desires so you're free to go, Mr. Serial Killer."
You haven't provided evidence of anything, ever. You obviously don't even understand what the word "evidence" means.
As I've said on earlier occasions I've given more than evidence, I've given what I'm so confident I call proof with logic.
There isn't a single mainstream philosopher who has ever espoused anything that even resembles the bullshit you post in this forum–that's my evidence that you are completely out of touch with what professional thinkers believe is reasonable and sound.
I don't care about mainstream or non-mainstream.
Prove me wrong. For in the first time in your entire life, start reading what philosophers actually write about these subjects. Then find a single one who is respected by his peers who even partially agrees with you.
I just mentioned David Hume who partially agrees with me on "You can't get an ought from an is" and Plato who partially agrees with me on concepts being indestructible:
"The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
You won't be able to. Ever.
LOL. Barn door closed but horse right over there, pal.
'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings' -
MagneticMonopole — 6 years ago(July 22, 2019 03:08 PM)
It's not theory, it's fact.
If these claims are facts then you'd see them routinely cited in mainstream sources on a routine basis.
In reality, these are just baseless theoretical assertions you make which you cannot support.
I wasn't talking about the concepts of danger, utility and language, I was talking about them themselves since they are more than concept as opposed to myths like "purpose".
Danger, utility, and language are all concepts, no more or less so than "purpose" or "should".
There is nothing I or mankind "should" ever do, no matter what my or mankind's desires may be.
In other words, you are utterly clueless about how language works. One has to wonder how you even feed and clothe yourself, assuming you actually can.
As I've said on earlier occasions I've given more than evidence, I've given what I'm so confident I call proof with logic.
You haven't done anything of the sort, as you manifestly don't understand what either "evidence" or "logic" mean.
I don't care about mainstream or non-mainstream.
Of course you don't–this is one of the primary characteristics of all crackpots. You are right up there with flat Earthers, young Earth creationists, and anti-vaxxers. These are your people.
I just mentioned David Hume who partially agrees with me on "You can't get an ought from an is". . .
Which has nothing to do with any of the bullshit you post.
. . .and Plato who partially agrees with me on concepts being indestructible
Congratulations, you found a Pagan philosopher from a time before science whose out of date and rejected views share a tiny Venn diagram space with your own bullshit. -
matt_shade — 6 years ago(July 22, 2019 09:52 PM)
If these claims are facts then you'd see them routinely cited in mainstream sources on a routine basis.
No, because that would mean humans aren't egotistical and self-deluded and they are.
In reality, these are just baseless theoretical assertions you make which you cannot support.
I have supported them. Your trolling me doesn't change that.
Danger, utility, and language are all concepts, no more or less so than "purpose" or "should".
Wrong. A hammer has utility, that is more than concept, it is not imaginary. A loaded gun is dangerous, that is more than concept, it is not imaginary. You and I are using language to communicate, that is more than concept, it is not imaginary. "Purpose" directly affects nothing outside the imagination because only the concept of it is real, it is imaginary. "Should" directly affects nothing outside the imagination because only the concept of it is real, it is imaginary.
"There is nothing I or mankind "should" ever do, no matter what my or mankind's desires may be."
In other words, you are utterly clueless about how language works. One has to wonder how you even feed and clothe yourself, assuming you actually can.
More trolling without making an actual argument.
"As I've said on earlier occasions I've given more than evidence, I've given what I'm so confident I call proof with logic."
You haven't done anything of the sort, as you manifestly don't understand what either "evidence" or "logic" mean.
More trolling without making an actual argument.
"I don't care about mainstream or non-mainstream."
Of course you don't–this is one of the primary characteristics of all crackpots. You are right up there with flat Earthers, young Earth creationists, and anti-vaxxers. These are your people.
Where you group me in your mind is none of my concern.
"I just mentioned David Hume who partially agrees with me on "You can't get an ought from an is". . ."
Which has nothing to do with any of the bullshit you post.
That is laughable and you show you are the one ignorant in philosophy if you actually believe it.
". . .and Plato who partially agrees with me on concepts being indestructible"
Congratulations, you found a Pagan philosopher from a time before science whose out of date and rejected views share a tiny Venn diagram space with your own bullshit.
I didn't find him, I just picked someone recognizable to anyone reading this to make my point.
'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings' -
Angel Face — 6 years ago(July 20, 2019 02:18 AM)
because it provides them money, shelter, and sex
we're owned by the government. We gotta confirm. It isn't like we're animals living in the wild, and we can do what we want, sleep where we want. We are all tagged. We have no freedom! We need money to do things! We need money to eat! To get money we need to work! Hence, purpose! -
MovieManCin2 — 6 years ago(July 20, 2019 02:22 AM)
Actually it's
not
a delusion. It's real, and it gives people's lives meaning. Of course I doubt that you will be able to understand that, because you're very cynical.
MAGA! FAFO!
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. Dumbocraps: evil people who celebrate murder. 
-
-
matt_shade — 6 years ago(July 23, 2019 11:38 AM)
Since we create our own purpose in life it becomes a subjective truth, not a delusion.
And there's the delusion; that "purpose" can exist outside the imagination because you can claim it does.
'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings' -
matt_shade — 6 years ago(July 23, 2019 10:05 PM)
A hammer has no "purpose", it has utility. It can be used to slam nails into wood, to scratch that hard to reach spot on your back or put on the floor to hold a door open or to hold loose papers down in case of wind. Utility is abstract but objectively real.
"Purpose" is neither objective or subjective, it is imaginary. It affects nothing outside the imagination. It is as unsupported as me claiming that the "purpose" of the Sun is to keep Mercury warm.
That bit of logic is my evidence.
I can make myself useful, I cannot make "purpose" non-imaginary. It is egotistical to believe otherwise and most days I loathe our species for the hubris of it.
'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings' -
matt_shade — 6 years ago(July 26, 2019 09:17 AM)
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, it doesn't exist to others, it remains entirely imaginary, meaning it is an objective truth that it affects nothing except the imagination i.e. only the concept of it exists i.e. only the concept of it is real.
You can also take certain things from your imagination and turn it into a reality depending on what it is, this is including what you believe your purpose is.
There are imaginary things that can be made reality, yes, but "purpose" is not one of them.
You can believe your "purpose" is to be the best gardener in your town but objective truth is the universe does not reflect your human ego that way, you were and are free to be a poor gardener and be a decent painter instead.
'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings'