4 ms·

For what it's worth, part of the reason I find this question hard to answer is not because I find it complicated, but because I find it very simple; it's as if

by PakG1 11y ago

For what it's worth, part of the reason I find this question hard to answer is not because I find it complicated, but because I find it very simple; it's as if you asked "why is 1 > 0?". To which the answer is "because that's how we define 1 and 0". Why is life better than death? Because life is, and death isn't. But if you found that answer convincing, you'd already be convinced; there's a difference in fundamental value systems here. You do a very good job of making me see that it's coming down to a difference in axiomatic statements of belief; there's not much deeper to go in splitting the atom. Once we get to that point, I guess there's not much else to say except make your choice and live with it. You're part of humanity. What are you, personally, doing to solve the problem? Blaming "political will" is one thing, but large-scale apathy is at least as big a roadblock to solving issues on that scale. The first step to solving a problem is to decide it needs solving. And deciding that it can't be solved makes it harder to solve. I don't agree that I have this perspective. However, the method I have in solving these problems are very integrated with my faith. I've personally concluded that we live in a broken and fallen world and are incapable of fixing it, but a higher power exists who can fix us. However, I won't try to have that discussion here. Certainly, I do things within my power to make things better. While I'm not a gamechanger like Elon Musk, I personally volunteer however I can in areas of poverty around the world, broken families, etc. But thank you for the discussion. It was enlightening.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
I had hoped that it wouldn't come down to axioms. I'm still curious to hear your response to the question from my previous comment: It would be as if you'd said "well, the part of a degenerative mental disease where you're forgetting everything you are is horrible, but once you're done forgetting everything you are, and forgetting that there was even something to forget, what's wrong with that?". That's the part I'm most curious about. I realize that you don't personally believe death is a transition to non-existence, but you also acknowledged that others did feel that way, and you wondered how even given that basis one might feel horrified by that non-existence (rather than the process leading to it). Given that, if the above doesn't explain it, I don't think I understand where you're coming from. Or are you saying that that now makes sense, and the remaining axiomatic disagreement is about non-existence itself? > However, the method I have in solving these problems are very integrated with my faith. I've personally concluded that we live in a broken and fallen world and are incapable of fixing it, but a higher power exists who can fix us. However, I won't try to have that discussion here. Neither will I, and I appreciate you separating the discussion from that. However, I would ask that you consider the possibility of the two not being incompatible: believing in an afterlife is not incompatible with trying to make this life as good as possible, and even if you believe it can't be made perfect, that doesn't stop it from getting asymptotically better. The phrase "pray to God but keep rowing to shore" comes to mind, as well as "God helps those who help themselves". I'm not bothered when others have faith; it does bother me, though, when faith in a higher power causes people to give up on humanity. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In any case, I do very much appreciate the opportunity for a discussion with someone who, despite having a very different point of view, was willing to discuss things in reasonable terms and make an effort to understand a differing point of view.
- PakG1 11y ago
  Or are you saying that that now makes sense, and the remaining axiomatic disagreement is about non-existence itself? I'm sorry to say that I have no idea what you're talking about up to this point. But it doesn't seem to matter, as I think we agree that the axiomatic disagreement is about whether non-existence itself is something to fear (at least, I think we agree on what we're disagreeing about). However, I would ask that you consider the possibility of the two not being incompatible: believing in an afterlife is not incompatible with trying to make this life as good as possible, and even if you believe it can't be made perfect, that doesn't stop it from getting asymptotically better. .... I'm not bothered when others have faith; it does bother me, though, when faith in a higher power causes people to give up on humanity. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think you're misunderstanding me still on where I stand on this. I think it's my responsibility to do what I can to improve things here where I am, both in my community and on my entire planet. Admittedly, that's also integrated with my faith, and it's certainly not an ideal I wish to discard (which in turn makes the idea that my faith makes me wish to discard that ideal all the more ludicrous). Let me be clear. I have given up on humanity's ability to fix itself. I have not given up on a higher power's ability to change individual humans into people who can make this world a better place. And that includes everything from being more charitable, empathetic, and forgiving every day to having motive and drive to throw away personal riches and futures for a lifetime of thankless service in the trenches of fighting poverty, corruption, unjust war, and more. Not all of us can be Bill Gates and set up a foundation that can really make a difference. But I do believe that everything starts in the hearts of individual people. Unfortunately many people are too petty, selfish, or jaded to care, despite the rare amazing stories of real selflessness. The higher power I believe gives me back hope for people to change. Sorry for the late reply. :)
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    [This is probably getting a bit deep in the thread for HN; happy to continue via private mail. See my profile.] > I think we agree that the axiomatic disagreement is about whether non-existence itself is something to fear (at least, I think we agree on what we're disagreeing about). While that's something we disagree on, I don't think that's the root of the axiomatic difference; that's why I'm curious. Earlier in the thread, you said: > I can understand the concept of ceasing to exist. I have not had anyone be able to explain to me why that makes that person so afraid, other than the fact that it just does. That's one step removed from any underlying difference in values or axioms. Axiomatically, we clearly disagree on whether death equates to non-existence, but your statement above seems to suggest you're interested in understanding where other people are coming from despite that: why, assuming that premise, someone might find such non-existence horrifying. To which I'd provided an answer in the form of an analogy to degenerative mental diseases, and never got a response to that. That's the part I'm curious about: I don't understand a mindset that can find a degenerative mental disorder horrifying (which I'm assuming you agree with) without finding the end result horrifying as well. I'm genuinely curious to understand that. > Let me be clear. I have given up on humanity's ability to fix itself. I have not given up on a higher power's ability to change individual humans into people who can make this world a better place. [...] Sounds like we're talking about similar things but fundamentally disagreeing over attribution, then. Or possibly definition of terms, because I have no idea what you mean by "humanity" if you don't mean "humans", since you're subsequently talking about "individual humans" / "individual people" making the world a better place.

by PakG1 11y ago

JoshTriplett 11y ago

I had hoped that it wouldn't come down to axioms. I'm still curious to hear your response to the question from my previous comment: It would be as if you'd said "well, the part of a degenerative mental disease where you're forgetting everything you are is horrible, but once you're done forgetting everything you are, and forgetting that there was even something to forget, what's wrong with that?". That's the part I'm most curious about. I realize that you don't personally believe death is a transition to non-existence, but you also acknowledged that others did feel that way, and you wondered how even given that basis one might feel horrified by that non-existence (rather than the process leading to it). Given that, if the above doesn't explain it, I don't think I understand where you're coming from. Or are you saying that that now makes sense, and the remaining axiomatic disagreement is about non-existence itself? > However, the method I have in solving these problems are very integrated with my faith. I've personally concluded that we live in a broken and fallen world and are incapable of fixing it, but a higher power exists who can fix us. However, I won't try to have that discussion here. Neither will I, and I appreciate you separating the discussion from that. However, I would ask that you consider the possibility of the two not being incompatible: believing in an afterlife is not incompatible with trying to make this life as good as possible, and even if you believe it can't be made perfect, that doesn't stop it from getting asymptotically better. The phrase "pray to God but keep rowing to shore" comes to mind, as well as "God helps those who help themselves". I'm not bothered when others have faith; it does bother me, though, when faith in a higher power causes people to give up on humanity. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In any case, I do very much appreciate the opportunity for a discussion with someone who, despite having a very different point of view, was willing to discuss things in reasonable terms and make an effort to understand a differing point of view.

PakG1 11y ago
Or are you saying that that now makes sense, and the remaining axiomatic disagreement is about non-existence itself? I'm sorry to say that I have no idea what you're talking about up to this point. But it doesn't seem to matter, as I think we agree that the axiomatic disagreement is about whether non-existence itself is something to fear (at least, I think we agree on what we're disagreeing about). However, I would ask that you consider the possibility of the two not being incompatible: believing in an afterlife is not incompatible with trying to make this life as good as possible, and even if you believe it can't be made perfect, that doesn't stop it from getting asymptotically better. .... I'm not bothered when others have faith; it does bother me, though, when faith in a higher power causes people to give up on humanity. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think you're misunderstanding me still on where I stand on this. I think it's my responsibility to do what I can to improve things here where I am, both in my community and on my entire planet. Admittedly, that's also integrated with my faith, and it's certainly not an ideal I wish to discard (which in turn makes the idea that my faith makes me wish to discard that ideal all the more ludicrous). Let me be clear. I have given up on humanity's ability to fix itself. I have not given up on a higher power's ability to change individual humans into people who can make this world a better place. And that includes everything from being more charitable, empathetic, and forgiving every day to having motive and drive to throw away personal riches and futures for a lifetime of thankless service in the trenches of fighting poverty, corruption, unjust war, and more. Not all of us can be Bill Gates and set up a foundation that can really make a difference. But I do believe that everything starts in the hearts of individual people. Unfortunately many people are too petty, selfish, or jaded to care, despite the rare amazing stories of real selflessness. The higher power I believe gives me back hope for people to change. Sorry for the late reply. :)
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  [This is probably getting a bit deep in the thread for HN; happy to continue via private mail. See my profile.] > I think we agree that the axiomatic disagreement is about whether non-existence itself is something to fear (at least, I think we agree on what we're disagreeing about). While that's something we disagree on, I don't think that's the root of the axiomatic difference; that's why I'm curious. Earlier in the thread, you said: > I can understand the concept of ceasing to exist. I have not had anyone be able to explain to me why that makes that person so afraid, other than the fact that it just does. That's one step removed from any underlying difference in values or axioms. Axiomatically, we clearly disagree on whether death equates to non-existence, but your statement above seems to suggest you're interested in understanding where other people are coming from despite that: why, assuming that premise, someone might find such non-existence horrifying. To which I'd provided an answer in the form of an analogy to degenerative mental diseases, and never got a response to that. That's the part I'm curious about: I don't understand a mindset that can find a degenerative mental disorder horrifying (which I'm assuming you agree with) without finding the end result horrifying as well. I'm genuinely curious to understand that. > Let me be clear. I have given up on humanity's ability to fix itself. I have not given up on a higher power's ability to change individual humans into people who can make this world a better place. [...] Sounds like we're talking about similar things but fundamentally disagreeing over attribution, then. Or possibly definition of terms, because I have no idea what you mean by "humanity" if you don't mean "humans", since you're subsequently talking about "individual humans" / "individual people" making the world a better place.