Didn't help. The thoughts and feelings of depression still happened.

Because "science" doesn't offer anything in this regard. I asked in this thread what the value of a human life is? I don't think I got a clear answer. There was certainly no clear method of placing a value of one's own life.

Like what type of answer is that? It is totally meaningless.

Again no science behind any of these statements. Told that I'm not necessarily wrong. Were is science with a method to the fundamental question to the value of life?

Here I'm told that it's not even an important question to ask?

And here I'm told its about emotions.

But we just established in this thread that emotions and feelings happen all by themselves. So while it may be true that emotions shape my world it does nothing to say on how to change them.

Then told in this thread to observer them, which leads to inaction because like I said the love of something sparks action. If I observer the feeling no action takes place.

Here is it purely a money value. Is that what your life is worth? That I could possible buy your life? Or is there more to your life?

It is about faith, faith in myself.


HIGHER POWER:

If there is no "I" to be depressed then there is no "I" to fall in love. So the feelings happen all by themselves and these are observed. What action is there? There isn't any. Nothing. Empty. Void.

Stuff still happens. There hasnt ever been any "I"'s anywhere, and stuff still happens.

You are still searching for meaning. Both meaningful and meaningless are thoughts, concepts.

Is there any meaning to that sentence?

only what we give it....

If I understand correctly there is nothing "I" can do and there is also nothing to do.

If I understand correctly there is no "I" to control stuff that happens. And there is no stuff that happens to me.

There is no "I" to tell someone "I" love them. There is no "I" to say "I" care about them.

Sorry who is the "we"?

ah ok, so you were trolling the whole time ? damn, I took it seriously.

Sorry I thought we had established that there was no "I" just an observer. I assumed that if there was no "I" then how can there be a "we" (which is two "I's")

If you want me to replace the word "I" with "this organism here" or "this one" or "thought says that " or some other combination of words, fine. I dont think it helps at all. Seeing that there is no I, does not in any way mean that the words "I" or "we" cant be used.

right! okay. I'll get back to the thread then. I have more to write about the subject. busy at the moment.

There isnt an observer either. Saying theres an observer is basically the same as saying there is an I.

Okay right sorry. If you want me to replace the word "observer" with "this organism here" or "this one" or "thought says that " or some other combination of words, fine. I dont think it helps at all. Seeing that there is no observer, does not in any way mean that the words "observer" can't be used.

Just to throw some more confusion into this cocktail of ancient philosophy:

There is an 'I'. Its all there is and its all I can be certain of. Since subjective experiences are private and ineffable, another being's experience can be known only by inference or analogy. Likewise with the external world. We make the assumption that it exists outside of our subjective experience.

"Within this fathom long body is the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world and the path leading to the cessation of the world" - The Buddha.

Ye, pretty sure your trolling now. You believe in an observer. I was just pointing out there wasnt one. Im done anyway.

I said I was agreeing with you.

It being wrong to kill babies for pleasure isn't just a 'concept', most people have a visceral reaction to it and consider it 'wrong', it's clearly more than just a generally agreed upon idea. How does your model of there being no 'real' morals explain that?


No. Do you subscribe to the philosophy that there is some weird other dimension?

How do you decide how to treat other people? How to behave?

This seems redundant in light of your claim that you don't believe in morals at all. Or perhaps you consider yourself a moral relativist?

I thought nothing brought you enjoyment. Be a poker pro?

just because we all agree on it, doesnt mean it exists as a real thing. "america" doesnt exist as a real thing, but we all agree about what it is, and talk about it.

How does my model explain what? That lots of people agree that killing babies for pleasure is wrong? I am just stating that there are no such things as morals. They are just concepts.

I have a visceral reaction to eating sprouts at christmas. Does that mean that eating sprouts at christmas is morally wrong? Humans are built to react certain ways to certain things.

Show me an actual moral that isnt an idea inside someones head.




so where are these morals if they are real? what are they? how do you know they are there?


Thats a good question. I mean, there are so many ways to approach that question.

On one level, I act according to what I am believing at the time the decision was made. I have beliefs about what I need, what I want, and weigh up the chances of having those needs and wants met, versus the chances of getting into trouble if I attempt to have those needs and wants met.

On another level, I act according to how I have been programmed by society and my upbringing and family. I know what society considers good and bad, and I know it is desirable( or seen as desirable, anyway) to be seen as good, so end up acting in accordance with that .

On another level, I am a pretty relaxed laid back person. Luckily I dont usually want to go around killing babies for pleasure or stealing 50 inch plasma TVs or whatever. So quite often my choices may be seen as good, or moral ( although thats likely to be due to the societal influences, rather than because I am a good person). I also have a deep emotional response to other peoples suffering, and hate to see someone upset, or hurt, and hate to think that I am the cause of that hurt. But I can also see that this response is partially innate, partially programmed by society and family, and partially due to thoughts and beliefs that are flying around my head at any particular time.

On another level, my decisions are the result of the processing of memories, thoughts, feelings, environmental influences , that are happening at the decision moment. All of these result in a decision being output, rather than there being a "me" who makes the decision.


So I dont subscribe to any moral system, but do what feels to be right at the time, while still realising that there is no such thing as right or wrong.

I don't think you answered the question that I asked, you just repeated your previous objection.

Killing babies isn't something we simply agree is a bad idea without any emotional element, it's not a cold logical decision, we feel it intuitively, it's just 'wrong' and we have a strong negative reaction to it. How does your model of 'no morals' explain this level of apparent certainty?

I don't know if 'where are morals' is the right question. My question is 'what are the right morals?' or 'what is a good moral theory?' and the answer I'm working with at the moment is 'whatever there are the best reasons for doing'.


When I was getting into this (which is not to imply that I'm now 'into' the Philosophy of morality in any serious, knowledgeable way, I'm still in the 101 class) Zumby recommended this book The Elements of Moral Philosophy, I'm on my third reading. If this sort of thing interests you, I recommend it too, it really helped me to start understanding the issues involved.

Neeeel even though you talked about thoughts being 'false', I'm assuming you don't really believe that anything is more true or false just like how you dismiss the good/bad labels right? I'm assuming that you ultimately don't buy into the idea of self development even though you talk about the practice of 'witnessing' that you do. I'm guessing you see the contradiction in those types of activities from your overall philosophy and worldview but do them anyway. Is that right?

If I dont believe in right and wrong( and I dont) then I dont see how I can answer your question in any other way. Sure, we can agree on what right and wrong means, but that still doesnt mean they exist in any meaningful way.



Either morals are made up, by us, or they are existing outside of us( eg given to us by god, or existing in some wierd dimension). I dont see any other options. If they are made up by us, then yes, we can all debate what are the right morals, and thats not a problem. It still doesnt mean there is such a thing as right and wrong.




there are no issues. Right and wrong dont exist, except in our heads.

Self development is false, yes. Its not possible to develop a self.

I would say that all thoughts are false, but "all thoughts are false" is a thought, which immediately means that I have just disproved myself.....