>everything has a reason for existing
why is all of modern society is based around debunking this idea?

>>17869116 (OP)
>why is all of modern society is based around debunking this idea?
Example?

>>17869118
this show is a basic bitch example.
this sort of ideology runs deep everywhere though.

>>17869116 (OP)
Because we are in a period where the society is aiming towards inclusion as opposed to consistency. Horizontal growth instead of vertical achievement. Gathering knowledge instead of purifying understanding.
After we've deconstructed enough, the pendulum will swing right back and you will wonder why all of modern society is based around determining reasons within whatever particular paradigm that the zeitgeist will produce.

>>17869116 (OP)
Modern society is mostly based on going to work and stuff. If you mean specifically philosophy it's because the idea is obviously false

>>17869273
>obviously false
How do you observe this?
Also, is it better or worse for the general public to believe that nothing matters?

>>17869292
It's the truth, so believing in it is automatically better because the alternative is to believe in lies. The moment you start advocating for comforting lies in place of truth all morality goes out the window.

>>17869116 (OP)
Authorities like "purpose" and "truth" are perceived as oppressive and bad because the good is "do whatever feels best"

>>17869116 (OP)
Because christianity fears Infinite Regress.

>>17869302
How do you observe whether or not there is a metaphysical (in this case, platonic) reason for things existing?
Can a metaphysical reason be conjured or willed into existence even?
You make the claim that this can be observed, so how do you observe it?

>>17869321
Not really, if you subscribe to the idea that God is his own designer.
>inb4 this is heresy
Well idk but theism on its own doesn’t necessarily imply infinite regress
But most modern explanations for the universe do (I.e. multiversal theories)

>>17869335
Christianity has no incompatibility with infinite regress that anon is just schizoposting

>>17869375
The First Cause is inherently incompatible with an infinite regress, yet only in an infinite regress does everything have a reason. That’s why Christianity can’t answer what the reason for God’s existence is.
>>17869335
> God is his own designer.
That’s a vicious circle, not an infinite regress.

>>17869393
>that’s not an infinite regress
Yeah that was my point

Anyways, metaphysical reason can be derived ex nihilo by consciousness. That is, God may declare
>I Am That I Am
And He Is.
God can “bootstrap” himself.
And other conscious agents can bootstrap “ideas” into being real.
Thus “nothing has any inherent reason for existing” is not necessarily true.

Probably because of modern philosophers like Karl Jaspers.

>>17869116 (OP)
>everything has a reason for existing
>BUT NOT THE FIRST THING THAT EXISTED, IT'S JUST DIFFERENT OKAY??

>>17869878
>BUT NOT THE FIRST THING THAT EXISTED, IT'S JUST DIFFERENT OKAY??
The first thing IS the reason for itself thougheverbeit.
Modern materialists don't just shrug their shoulders and say "the meaning is in the doing of it"
They say even the doing of it is ultimately meaningless. What motivates them?

>>17869273
I remember being 19 too ...

>>17869922
>The first thing IS the reason for itself thougheverbeit.
i-it just is, okay??

>>17869116 (OP)
>Why is all of modern society is based around debunking this idea?

Society™ will never recover from the fact that [human] civilization and specie peaked in the 1960s, with the nuclear duels of extinction.


That's why “we live in a simulation™”, since then.
Since then, we're lingering on the inevitable, at the whims of petty sociopaths & psychopaths getting their dopamine high...

>>17869143

Who decides all of that? Hm?
Aren't you tired of having your life controlled by the secret services and their systemic cheat codes?

>>17869116 (OP)
Because that idea is a dumb cope
Things just exist
They don't need to justify themselves to you

>>17870360
>Who decides all of that? Hm?
Nobody. It's a natural force.

>>17869324
He claimed that the claim was false, not that the opposite was true.
"Raindrops are sentient and are the souls of ants" is a false claim.
>How do you observe whether raindrops are sentient?
>How do you observe whether something is the soul of an ant or not?
These are rhetorical death cries from a gullible mystic, not a legitimate philosophical counter to the dismissal of a baseless, arbitrary metaphysical claim about things none of us have access to the information of. To claim that they are "false" is semantically arguable; if you see "true" and "false" as meaning "whatever happens to be the nature of the universe, regardless of whether it is ever known to humans" then it could not be said to be false but just a serious claim to engage with. If you see "true" and "false" as meaning "whatever the tools we currently have (dialectics, technology, our senses) point us towards most convincingly" then it can be off-handedly said to be false. Growing up is going to be a difficult journey for you, if it ever happens.

>>17869116 (OP)
Quotes by Greek statues about destiny and shit sounds really cool until you realize that not everyone is a main character and then you're left wondering the grand, epic purpose behind some 3 year old getting brain parasites.

>>17870964
It’s not so much that you can’t observe whether or not raindrops are sentient, but rather that you simply refuse to ask why things happen to be so.
Evidenced by the fact that you say that the nature of the universe merely happens to be a certain way without any underlying meaning.
I also noticed a sort of fallacious generalization about incongruous concepts; because raindrops are not sentient, you seem to think this implies that for example the sentence of an ant could never relate to such a thing as a metaphysical soul. Your presupposition is that everything is both materialistic and inherently purposeless at a metaphysical level. If there were to arise some revolutionary painter, whose works of art were unlike anything ever seen before, you would simply say that whatsoever naturalistic processes in that particular individual were the sole cause… for no reason.

>>17869116 (OP)
>existence presupposes essence
It's a retarded idea that requires a god to work. The only ones who gave serious thought to it were thomists using a misinterpretation of aristotle, and plato.
>>17869302
>How do you observe whether or not there is a metaphysical (in this case, platonic) reason for things existing?
You can't, that's the problem

>>17871148
>you simply refuse to ask why things happen to be so
Things are the way they are because of their existence, not because of prior abstract state

>Evidenced by the fact that you say that the nature of the universe merely happens to be a certain way without any underlying
meaning
This is going to devolve into a christian post isn't it ?

>>17871218
Would you dismiss out out of hand the idea that metaphysical processes may perhaps emerge from physical processes?
Let us take, for example, the phenomenon of the color magenta.
Magenta does not physically exist yet magenta is perceived by a large portion of the human race as a phenomenon. Would you simply say the magenta is still not real even though it has a real effect on the physical world?
>things are the way they are because of their existence
And yet magenta does not exist, or…?
Truly, I’d like to hear hear your position as I have heard materialists claim that color itself is not real and that perception isn’t real, whilst somehow not understanding the contradiction and what they’re saying (if unreal things affect real things then are there two types of things?).

>>17869116 (OP)
>everything has a reason for existing
But not for a goid reason and not for you.
For example the suffering is used to entertain demons, or maybe even feed them.
But you recive out of suffering absolutely nothing.

>>17871264
Yeah that’s fine, and confirms my suspicions that most objections to metaphysical reality are out of a dislike for what that may be.
Though I personally disagree with your thesis.

>>17869128
>a cartoon about a pickle rick I'm picking rick!!!!

Wow, very compelling evidence

>>17871276
Would you say that modern materialism stands in opposition to the themes of “Rick and Morty” or that they are broadly congruent?
You would be hard pressed to prove that that show was in any way controversial or challenging to the zeitgeist. It’s a good example of modern culture. Or maybe that bazinga show.

>>17869128
>>17869116 (OP)
Nihilism that comes from the result of lack of God as the foundational anchor. Atleast for the modern west it is. And its correct analysis, but its incomplete. The grounds/foundational reason for existence has been God for most of history for most people and with modern science taking away God's rights/responsibility little by little, God has become God of the Gaps, nothing more than decorative. In its wake, you're left with scientific explanation of the world. The default is "the big bang" as the replacement for God, but that is a meaningless beginning by scientific reasoning. So the conclusion without God, with big bang, is a meaningless existence.

However, that is a wrong understanding of the existence. The first cause being big bang/god idea comes from invalid understanding of causality, particularly it comes from an understand that causation is linear, causations are independent from effects, that somehow cause-effect magically transform from one state to another where both are independent existence prior. Without independent existence, you have no causation, but with causation, you have independent existence that leads to non-efficacy of causation. Who was it, Hume or Kant or someone doing the Billiard ball explanation about there being no cause-effect? There's lot more to this problem and it goes deeper on every level about our existence. That philosophers have thought out but are not fully thought out/accepted by wider public. The wider general public only get the cream topping, the shallow takes that most who repeat do not fully understand where those idioms/ideas come from.

>>17871276
> most-watched comedy among millennials in the U.S. in 2017
> not compelling evidence of the zeitgeist

Most modern ideologies are scientific and materialist but these offer no reason why anything exists at all, due to ockham's razor "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" there is no reason why the universe should exist with these specific laws of physics, the 3 dimensions, 4 forces, this amount of matter and energy and so forth, if it were purely materialist, thus they must devote effort to deboonking it lest people pull this string and unravel the whole system.

>>17871148
>because raindrops are not sentient, you seem to think this implies that for example the sentence of an ant could never relate to such a thing as a metaphysical soul.
No, you're inferring wide sweeping generalisations. I am talking about specific metaphysical claims and i use the idea of an ant's soul as an example of an obviously false one. I am also not saying that 'it could never be so'. Just that there is no reason to take it as a serious claim. Recognising our ignorance about (spurious and arbitrary) metaphysical concepts is not sufficient reason to take claims like these seriously.

Why not study Dianetics with the same seriousness that you study Summa Theologica? Because you're gullible and pretentious, unable to epistemologically differentiate between claims with critical thinking - defaulting to historical significance, artistic reverence, and cultural status instead.

>>17871353
You can use language to ask "why is this so" about whatever you want, it doesn't necessarily make it a good question. Even for the people who think it's a good question and think they have a good answer (usually grandiose superstition mind you) why wouldn't the question just continue; infinitely regressing to ask "why is [the reason why x is so] so?".

>>17871493
>Why not study Dianetics with the same seriousness that you study Summa Theologica?
I've never studied either. Only Plato. Aquinas reeks of pseud t b q h

>>17871263
>Magenta does not physically exist
It exists as a color, as an attribute of an object.

>And yet magenta does not exist
By itself ? No it doesn't. If I tell you there is 1 apple laying on the ground, the apple exists but not the number, who merely serves to describe the real. It only exists in our brain.

>Truly, I’d like to hear hear your position
Reality is perceived through our senses, which gives form and shape to the world through our interpretation of these sensory inputs. Through this interpretation, we divide reality into objects, and then further divide them to analyze them. We use tools like numbers, logic, abstraction etc to interpret and reason on the real.
To take the example of an apple : an apple is a concept made up by our mind to describe certain fruits presenting certain characteristics. To account for their physical differences in between apple, we further divide it in accordance with our sensory perceptions : the apple has a smell, a color and size, can make a sound, has a certain feeling etc.

>>17871287
>Who was it, Hume or Kant or someone doing the Billiard ball explanation about there being no cause-effect?
Hume posits that causality is only real in that it is a structure created by the brain to understand repeating patterns and assign logic to it.

>>17871502
How do you determine whether something is a good question? How is asking "why are there rainbows" any different from asking "why does anything exist at all"? Why has your materialist ideology of choice declared certain questions verboten?

There is a difference. Rainbows are part of the physical world and can be investigated within the strictures of the physical world. However why the physical world itself exists and exists in the way it does cannot be answered the same way without circular logic "it exists because.. it exists". The problem is not that it is a bad question, it is that it is unsolvable through science.

I already explained it with Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor does not mean "simpler is better", it means if something has no influence on the outcome then it is unnecessary. For example if the color of a snooker ball has virtually no effect on how fast it travels when hit by a pendulum you leave it out of the equation. Likewise nothing within materialism tells us why the material world exists.

So you have modern materialist ideologies that try to base themselves on science, yet science does not give you every answer, neither does it pretend it can. It is not going to give you the answer to ethical questions or questions about consciousness. These ideologies are inherently flawed, they will claim "transwomen are real women" or "everyone is equal, black people would have the same crime rates and IQs as white people were it not for racial microaggressions according to critical race theory". It is why we end up with shit like this and no one questions it, because to actually care about the truth as a principle is itself superstitious. In the materialist view we are a bundle of psychology and neurology to be manipulated for some purpose, a demographic, statistics in a spreadsheet. What matters is that we believe we are all equal and don't get upset by dropping standards of living, rising crime or vote for any "extremists" in reaction.

>>17871684
>How do you determine whether something is a good question?
You generally infer the outcome and think logically whether or not it's worth your time.

>[...] cannot be answered the same way without circular logic "it exists because.. it exists".
It can actually. There's no need to attach fundamental meaning to everything. Why do you presuppose that everything needs to have a meaning ?

>It is not going to give you the answer to ethical questions or questions about consciousness
lol now you're going to go on a tangent about how we can't have morality without god ?

>These ideologies are inherently flawed
>they're flawed because...
>because transwomen and niggers
truly an exquisite reasoning. right wingers will always amaze me in their profound intellectual prowess.

>What matters is that we believe we are all equal
This actually comes from christianity fyi

>>17871637
Magenta is only ever a perceived attribute thoughbeit.
There is nothing which IS magenta on its own, from a purely materialist perspective. Magenta is how our brain perceives red and blue signals at the same time. This is unlike, say, green, which while between blue and yellow, still corresponds to a single concrete wavelength.
There is no such thing as magenta light… if we say that purely abstract perceptions are not “real.”
Saying
>reality is perceived through the senses
Is mostly true, but a good deal of perception is “hallucination” (I speak materialistically) - it has no true correspondence. Magenta is not a physical thing whatsoever. I reiterate, there is no magenta wavelength.
It is a hallucinated color which nonetheless affects reality.

>>17871757
>There is nothing which IS magenta on its own, from a purely materialist perspective. >Magenta is how our brain perceives red and blue signals at the same time
Your statements are contradictory. If magenta was "nothing", then it wouldn't be the red and blue signals percieved at the same time.

>It is a hallucinated color which nonetheless affects reality
Then it's something that our sense hallucinate if you say so. How does that defeat materialism in any way ?

>>17871796
My above post seems contradictory as I am rhetorically speaking as a materialist.

The physical body takes the physical signal and creates something non physical out of it (the quality of “magenta”). The quality of magenta can not be demonstrated to exist physically in any way. As a nonphysical quality however, of course it exists.
Technically, all “color” is arbitrary qualia emergent from our perception of physical wavelengths of light, which, prior to you, materialists have told me do not actually exist (only wavelengths “exist” so they say).

>>17871684
>yet science does not give you every answer, neither does it pretend it can. It is not going to give you the answer to ethical questions or questions about consciousness.
Yes, science doesn't pretend to have the answer to questions that NO one currently has an answer to - only metaphysics grifters do.
Ethical questions: science has little part in, and it doesn't claim to. Ethics are inherently and absolutely subjective, science is objective (read: "objective" not true or false). Completely separate fields, just like how ethics will not have the answers to dental surgery technique. What is your point? That you're retarded? and got one-shotted by the r/atheism backlash before you could have your first thought?

>>17871757
>>17871796
>>17871824
When a wavelength is sensed by a human, there is a physical, measurable reaction in the human body. These, say, fired neurons are a materially real thing. In this way, functionally, colour perception is materially real.
The CONCEPT of colour is only materially real WHEN it is being actively thought about - because "thoughts" are a measurable, physical reaction in the human body.
If there were no living things in the universe, then the concept of colour perception would remain real AS A CONCEPT - but as a material thing it would cease to exist materially.

What is confusing you both?

>>17871824
>The quality of magenta can not be demonstrated to exist physically in any way.
Yes it can. We see "something" (a priori a color), this thing becomes a perception. We interpret this perception as "color magenta". The trouble is determining what is being seen as magenta, not whether it exists or not. Read Kant's noumenon.
Btw, how does all this tie to essence preceding existence ?

>>17871875
His argument is that materialism is false because we don't know what magenta is irl