Name: divagations 2009-02-15 9:36
If no goal for existence is known to us, or if there is no goal to existence, then we are unable to define what is best to do, hence :
Limits we are trying to impose to our behavior (by moral, justice, faith, etc..) have worth only, if they serves to fill a mean.
Usage of comparisons to make choices (“this is better than that”, “this way of doing is worse”, etc..) are worthless, because, those comparisons only have a value if they are used to accomplish something.
We can distinguish two cases for existence, the case where existence have a goal, and the case where existence have no goal.
In the case, where existence, does not have a goal, since nothing have to be accomplished by our actions, every behavior is justified. In simpler terms, murder, pity, willing to do sports, stealing, praying, are all having the same worth.
Effectively, in a world, where there is no particular goal, we have no reason whatsoever to privilege good to evil, happiness to sadness, because neither happiness nor sadness are goals. In that case, we have no way to define what is being better or being worse.
In the case, where existence, have a goal.
There are two cases to be distinguished, the case where everything in existence is made to accomplish this goal, and the case, where existence could be flawed (hence, the goal could “not be reached”).
In the case where existence is perfect and where the goal is to be accomplished. Then whatever our actions are, they won't change anything to the outcome, the goal will be reached. Consequently we do not need, to choose a certain kind of behavior regarding the existence. Which imply that happiness has no reason to be chosen against sadness, and love is not more suitable than hate in regard to this goal (simply put, the goal will be carried on whatever we are doing). So we have no way to define what could be better or worse, since the outcome of our acts are already chosen.
In the case where existence is not perfect, it is to say, its goal could “not be reached”, then whatever our actions are, we have no way to detect what the flaw could be because, the method used to find this flaw, could be flawed itself. So, we cannot define what behavior we should have. In this case as well, thinking that love and justice are better than scrupulous notions, has as much chance to be true as the opposite. As well as the notions of better/worse could be wrong.
Consequently, whether, we are living in a world without a goal, or in a world with a goal that can't be known, or even with an unavoidable goal, nothing has value and nothing could be preferred to anything else, because every notions of better/worse are worthless.
So, since this explanation can't be better than another one, we can conclude that:
“This explanation has meant nothing, it's worthless”
And, asking people not to follow a certain behavior, is already asking for a certain kind of behavior, so it's useless too.
I only hope, that it could be considered as “true”, even thought it's also a logical state backed up by nothing.
More thought are to be added :
http://my-divagations.blogspot.com/
Limits we are trying to impose to our behavior (by moral, justice, faith, etc..) have worth only, if they serves to fill a mean.
Usage of comparisons to make choices (“this is better than that”, “this way of doing is worse”, etc..) are worthless, because, those comparisons only have a value if they are used to accomplish something.
We can distinguish two cases for existence, the case where existence have a goal, and the case where existence have no goal.
In the case, where existence, does not have a goal, since nothing have to be accomplished by our actions, every behavior is justified. In simpler terms, murder, pity, willing to do sports, stealing, praying, are all having the same worth.
Effectively, in a world, where there is no particular goal, we have no reason whatsoever to privilege good to evil, happiness to sadness, because neither happiness nor sadness are goals. In that case, we have no way to define what is being better or being worse.
In the case, where existence, have a goal.
There are two cases to be distinguished, the case where everything in existence is made to accomplish this goal, and the case, where existence could be flawed (hence, the goal could “not be reached”).
In the case where existence is perfect and where the goal is to be accomplished. Then whatever our actions are, they won't change anything to the outcome, the goal will be reached. Consequently we do not need, to choose a certain kind of behavior regarding the existence. Which imply that happiness has no reason to be chosen against sadness, and love is not more suitable than hate in regard to this goal (simply put, the goal will be carried on whatever we are doing). So we have no way to define what could be better or worse, since the outcome of our acts are already chosen.
In the case where existence is not perfect, it is to say, its goal could “not be reached”, then whatever our actions are, we have no way to detect what the flaw could be because, the method used to find this flaw, could be flawed itself. So, we cannot define what behavior we should have. In this case as well, thinking that love and justice are better than scrupulous notions, has as much chance to be true as the opposite. As well as the notions of better/worse could be wrong.
Consequently, whether, we are living in a world without a goal, or in a world with a goal that can't be known, or even with an unavoidable goal, nothing has value and nothing could be preferred to anything else, because every notions of better/worse are worthless.
So, since this explanation can't be better than another one, we can conclude that:
“This explanation has meant nothing, it's worthless”
And, asking people not to follow a certain behavior, is already asking for a certain kind of behavior, so it's useless too.
I only hope, that it could be considered as “true”, even thought it's also a logical state backed up by nothing.
More thought are to be added :
http://my-divagations.blogspot.com/