5 ms·
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
by 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.
- PakG1 11y agoI think we're about at the conclusion anyway because roadblocks in our minds are making us go in circles. 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. This is a fundamental thing we can't seem to make each other understand in terms of why we differ. The process is horrifying to me, but the result is a conclusion that does not horrify me. The phrase "rest in peace" comes to mind here, which I posit many people are willing to say about those who have passed away, whether or not the speaker believes in an afterlife or higher power. Yet they cannot think this way for themselves. I have no theory for this except that perhaps those people are unable to make peace with their end and/or themselves, which is unfortunately a circular argument. I'm not saying that's the case for you. I'm simply saying I can't come up with a better answer, and nobody's been able to explain it to me except that they're afraid because they're afraid. So to recap, I am saying yes, the process is horrifying, but the end result (death and actual non-existence, not just senility) is what it is and doesn't have to be horrifying. And I believe you are saying that since the process is horrifying, the end result is also necessarily horrifying. I do not see the If A Then B logical path that necessity necessitates for your statements to become acceptable to me. But if you believe there's a way to break the circle of our discussion, you of course are welcome to email me also. :)