I’m not saying this to be provocative. They revert to and attempt to work through authority because they don’t have the capacity (both psychologically and rationally) to mediate through Reason. This is why they mindlessly default to rules, and it’s why they will attempt to continue to enforce a rule that has been shown to be ineffective or highly problematic.

Their personality also likes the feelings of strong closure that they get from wielding rules.

This is not an attack on rules. Rules are necessary, but they need to be rational. This is an attack on a dangerous personality type.

This, a skeptic may struggle to do, because instead of living by a confession of premises, he questions and challenges those premises.

Wisdom, in this context, isn’t necessarily truth, it’s simply an instrumental function, it is a dogmatic commitment to a set of beliefs and rules.

And if they are based on sound reasoning, then you should be able to clearly demonstrate the true premises that validly led to your conclusions.

If you can’t do this, how is your position any different from a theology?

If objective truth is “a widely held position in academic philosophy” then one should be able to clearly state what this widely held truth is.

I have seen this many times. The reason this happens: a person confessing that they believe in truth only to turn around and functionally deny it, is because they are trying to posture out of the ramifications of having to live with the consequences of holding that truth is subjective. But once a person claims that all logic is “constructed” they have reduced all their knowledge to the solipsism of their construction. It’s a matrix they cannot exit.

What’s tragic about this is that it’s actually an ignorant inversion of reality. The truth is that Logic is the matrix we cannot exit when it comes to knowledge.

The problem is that philosophers want it both ways. They want to be able to appeal to truth when it supports the beliefs they desire, and they want to be able to reject it when it refutes the theories they love. (Oh how this reminds us of theology!)

But it’s simple. If the truth exists, you should be able to clearly state what it is and demonstrate that the substance of your statement is true. After all, there is a reason why you believe that truth exists. If you reject the existence of truth, then you shouldn’t be like religious hypocrites, but should realize and accept the fact, based on your subjectivity, that you don’t even have the ground to object to what is being stated here.

This is the logical outworking of an Antinatalist position. Antinatalists should understand that knowledge here is one of the most important forms of knowledge that a human can possess. All Antinatalists should be strong defenders and advocates for dying with dignity.

I don’t know of anything more radical and existentially transcendent than Christianity. It is a command to give up this life and live in service for another, which means to live in Christian love. There is no one who is a real Christian and also a hater, there are only real Christians who suffer for the love of Christ and the Kingdom of God.

Aristotle is on one side,

barbarism is on the other.

But many philosophers fall onto the Aristotelian side, even though their philosophies claim more than they can prove. (Falling onto the Aristotelian side is true of Plato and Christianity, for example).

The dividing line is the difference between rejecting epistemological relativism and ignorantly believing it to be true.

Because of the latter most philosophy is a failure, and it is dangerous.

Before the advent of modern science, it wasn't easily distinguishable from philosophy; in fact, the first scientists were known as natural philosophers. Questions that were once subject to subjective debate, such as the behavior of bodies, became matters of consensus, and accurate predictions could be made about them. Similarly, regarding fields that are philosophical today, such as metaphysics, religion, and so on, are they seeking to cease being so and reach consensus? Or has modern philosophy "demonstrated" that these problems will never cease to be philosophical? And if philosophical problems are always subject to debate, how does philosophy attain knowledge?

Most don’t get it. Most will never get it, they will forever assume that the appearance of the sophistication of philosophical form is proof of substance and profundity.

It is not so with Reasoners, with those who teach you Critical Thinking. Here you are not being offered theories or clever insights, but tools that will empower you toward your own rational freedom.

Nihilism is absolutely powerful. (And here I’m talking about the rational power of its critique against the positive). It would be absolute if it wasn’t for Logic.

A complaint I have against nihilists is that they don’t wield this critique with power. Nihilism has the capacity to take everything! (The only exception is that it can’t breach the fact of Logic). However, most people don’t know anything about the fact of Logic, they hold to logic as a mere human construct, and here the nihilist should pounce like a leopard on weak prey.

Nihilism becomes a kind of assault and revenge on philosophy, and rightfully so. Philosophy deserves to be nihilized!

I align with nihilists, but I am not a nihilist for many reasons, but the chief reason is the fact of Logic.

This is true even within a theological worldview. How can that be? Because God has to be greater and beyond comprehension itself to be the greatest thing/being in existence.

The exercise of thinking about God is not entirely empty. This is because to think about God is to attempt to maximize concepts. This has a Platonic value to it— it has a rational value to it. (And) we are already doing this and have to do it. We don’t just pick our concept of “justice” off a tree of justice, we have to rationally develop the concept. So the device of “God” (in its higher forms) eventually caused humans, who would otherwise not think about rationally maximizing concepts, to rationally think about maximizing concepts like justice, goodness and mercy. (Of course, the God-believer wasn’t aware that this rational process was playing out through this device).

The term God is the most loaded and problematic term I can think of in human society. (I am not dogmatic about this).

Anyone who claims the “existence of God” has taken onto themselves a monstrous and impossible burden of proof. Not only do they have to define what they mean, but they have to substantiate their definition. It’s not enough to merely claim that “Snarks,” for example, are the greatest beings that exist, one must also be able to prove it.

Suppose a philosopher thinks he can trip up a Carl Sagan with his sophistical questions, a Sagan can simply point to the FACT of the Logical Nature of the universe. He doesn’t have to play epistemological or metaphysical games with the philosopher, he can simply get on with doing science.

All our knowledge is determinate (A=A). All of it! Why? Because identity is the Logical Nature of the universe. It is the most fundamental FACT of the universe, of reality. There is no one, not philosopher, formal logician or scientist, who posits non-determinate knowledge. This isn’t a thing. There is no such thing as a non-determinate reality. All that exists is itself (A=A). And all that is known is known only through and because of the determinate nature of reality.

Both philosophers and formal logicians are offended at having to accept the subjective reality of their narrative structure. For these are both modalities that have led to despair. The only reason a philosopher or formal logician doesn’t grasp this fact is because they haven’t followed their foundational premises to their logical conclusions. (Like dialecticians, they exist with an unjustified superiority complex).

Both philosophy and formal logic reduced knowledge to human imagination, to a sovereign solipsism. For that which is constructed by man cannot rationally lord over the constructions of man, it can only make a play for power or manipulation.

If one doesn’t arrive at epistemological despair through philosophy or formal logic, it’s because they are bound in the ignorance of egoism; they don’t comprehend how philosophy and formal logic have shattered necessary objectivity (leaving them unable to even criticize this post or anything else they disagree with); or because they are deluded by a theology they mistake for truth.

The path out of the despair of this modern consciousness is to recognize the Absolute and undeniable Logical Nature of reality. Because of this fact we can say that “meaning is inherent in reality itself”: because what exists is itself as the determinate meaning of itself.

This is merely the foundation. From this we can begin to build upward (not merely dismissing, minimizing or ignoring the despair of philosophy or formal logic) but objectively refuting it! For the Logic that refutes these mere narratives can be demonstrated both evidentially and rationally. For it is an Absolute and Certain Knowledge that structures the very concept of knowledge itself.

How can anything be more fundamentally important when we can’t even make the distinction of what is and is not “important,” of what is and is not “fundamental,” without Logic?

Philosophers should be masters at answering this question. They should indeed be able, not only to tell us, but to demonstrate what is most fundamentally important. But how can they ‘tell’ us or ‘demonstrate’ anything apart from Logic?

If something is more fundamentally important, why would you not focus on that thing, seeing it is of the highest importance?

If Logic is the most fundamentally important thing, then why would you not focus on Logic? Can you explain yourself in this, wise philosopher?

One thing that has been missed in all the emotional, reactionary noise that struggles to come to terms with the fact of Logic, is that the view of Logic I have demonstrated is a Naturalistic grounding of Logic. It is neither theistic or Platonic, but is rooted in the Carl-Sagan-fact of the existence of the universe itself.

The position is simple and flies in the face of all theology and philosophy: the universe exists, and it has a Logical Nature that has nothing to do with the innovations or desires of man. Man has no choice but to conform to this Nature.

One can only become a master of Logic by obeying Logic.

1 - is almost true: all rational thought presupposes identity (A=A, that things must be themselves), NOT idealist, mystical “laws of logic.”

2 - is a loaded premise, as it uses the term “necessary ground,” which must be defined. (And when the theist does define it, he attempts to smuggle in supernaturalism). It is important to note that he uses philosophy (not Reason) to accomplish this smuggling. I point this out to the shame of philosophy.

3 - Is doubly loaded with the terms “God” and “necessary ground.” What, exactly, does one mean by God, and how do they know that it exists? This enormous burden of proof, attached to the specificity of God, destroys the entire attempt to even construct such an argument.

4 - Yes, it is true that Atheism cannot “ground logic” because Atheism is largely a lack of belief in God. Perhaps this theist meant to say, “naturalism cannot ground logic.” (We must first point out that theism doesn’t “ground logic” simply because it claims that it is grounded in a specific concept of God). This mere assertion is not an act of “grounding,” it is not a proof of the ground of logic, it is simply a theological claim. So what exactly does it mean to “ground logic?” It cannot mean to make a theological or philosophical assertion. One either needs evidence or a deductive proof. As I have exemplified many times through evidence and rational proof: Logic is a fact of the universe. Contrary to philosophy, it is not something we merely construct. A theist can attempt to argue that the universe has this fact “because of their God,” but this is an impossible burden of proof, because we can’t examine a God or Gods, we can only examine the universe. (And) it is an impossible burden of proof because God is the most problematic loaded term in all of existence.

5 - There is an argument to be made for absurdity. Here philosophy has left naturalism in a very impoverished state indeed. If one rejects Logic, or holds that it’s merely “a human construct,” then their position does indeed collapse into absurdity. Further, one can push an argument like the one the theist is pushing here. (Very important): the theist must meet the same burden of proof he is demanding of his opponent, and merely saying, “well, logic is grounded in my worldview because I believe it is grounded in my concept of God” — doesn’t actually ground Logic! However, philosophy f;cked naturalism, because it did reduce the world to a clash or arbitrary worldviews. And because of this, the theist can contrast his worldview (not because it’s true) but because philosophy’s methodological irrationalism did reduce Reason to absurdity, to subjective preference and might makes right. Without Logical Realism everything collapses into nihilism. And Reason is well within its rights to inquire into the ground of this realism. Indeed, it would seem necessary to the consistency of Reason itself.

6 - There is indeed an argument here, but the problem with it is that the theist hasn’t “grounded” or explained Logic simply by saying, “my God did it.” So he is in the exact same bind. Within a narrative (make-believe context, which is what philosophy reduces truth to) the theist can make this claim. It doesn’t make it true, but philosophy destroys all truth, so the theist can make this claim.

7 - Ridiculous non-sequitur. (The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise). It also smuggles in the concept of “the impossibility of of the contrary,” and a concept of God. This argument can be made for Logic, but a theist would be very hard pressed indeed to soundly make it for his concept of God. He wouldn’t even make it past the first stage of defining and then justifying his definition.

I've been thinking about how extraordinarily complicated human existence has become compared to that of other animals, and whether any of that added complexity actually makes our lives fundamentally more significant.

Humans have developed civilizations, economies, governments, religions, technology, philosophy, and elaborate ideas about success and purpose.

But when we break much of this down to its basic functions, we're still organisms navigating our environments, pursuing interests, forming relationships, acquiring resources, avoiding threats, reproducing, and eventually dying.

Other animals do many of these things as well, sometimes through surprisingly sophisticated behaviors of their own.

I'm not suggesting that human intelligence and civilization are meaningless, or that our differences from other animals are insignificant. Those differences are real, and some are enormous. I'm questioning whether greater sophistication actually establishes greater fundamental worth, rather than simply producing different and more elaborate ways of living.

Consider a hypothetical alien civilization.

Imagine discovering beings millions of years ahead of humanity. Their intelligence, technology, culture, and understanding of existence surpass ours to an extent we can barely comprehend.

Would their existence be fundamentally more important or valuable than ours simply because they're more advanced?

If not, why would our greater sophistication establish that our existence is fundamentally more important than that of other animals?

And if the answer is yes, what exactly makes greater intelligence or complexity translate into greater intrinsic worth?

I'm also interested in distinguishing between things mattering to a living being, things mattering to others, and the stronger claim that a life possesses greater worth independently of anyone's evaluations.

My suspicion is that humans may be mistaking the extraordinary complexity of our lives for evidence of some greater fundamental significance. But I'm interested in whether there's a defensible philosophical argument connecting the two.

What, if anything, justifies moving from "this being is more sophisticated" to "this being's existence is fundamentally more significant"?

I simply follow Reason. I look at what Reason shows me through its determinate nature, which is, functionally, simply the laws of logic.

I do not have to construct anything myself when it comes to stating the truth, because Reason, the laws of logic, do it for me. I simply need to see the claims that are being made, and have the ability to walk the razor’s edge of Reason as it slices through those claims. I defer to Reason to show me (reveal to me) the logical nature of claims. I simply report the rational calculation of Reason.