Nathan Metric

1)So then you're admitting your evil. Well at least you're being honest. 2)I value being an individual, but I don't value it for no reason. The reason I value being an individual is because authenticity is a virtue. Authenticity is a virtue because honesty is a virtue. Honesty is a virtue because the TRUTH is a virtue and there is no higher virtue than the truth. Now why exactly do you value being an individual? 3)What meaning are you talking about exactly? Objective or subjective meaning? Saying that virtue has no subjective meaning (to me) in the long run is trivial. I don't care about subjective meaning. I care about objective meaning and my actions have meaning (objectively) even when I am dead. And no, you can't actually know whether death is the end of everything. The phenomenological experience of death is uncertain and why consciousness exists at all is a mystery. 4)But is life is not a simple struggle between the "weak" and the "strong". Both groups are infinitely dividable into smaller groups each with their own interests. Look, if life was merely a struggle between two groups politics would be pretty damn simple wouldn't it? Except it's not that simple. And why would you as an individual want that kind of universe anyway? Why would you want a universe where the masses are 100% egotistical and are okay forcing their whims on everyone including individuals like you? What if the egotistical masses don't value individuality anymore. What if they want to create an Idiocracy? Why the hell would you want that? 5Bribing kids to do good behavior is about as intimate a relationship as paying a hooker to have sex with you.

Well you're just wrong dude. There is no difference between "Thou shall pursue virtue" and "What you should pursue is what you should pursue". Virtue by default means what you ought to pursue without any added qualification or definition. Yes, in the premise ONE the definition of virtue is circular. The argument in its totality however the definition of virtue is not circular. I'll will quote myself one more time. 1)Thou shall pursue virtue 2)Truth is the prime virtue. 3)Therefore, you should pursue the truth. ETC etc etc So no. There is nothing circular about the argument in its totality. I actually do define what Virtue is. I define the most important virtue as the truth and anything that serves the truth is also a virtue. Now if you keep saying I never defined it whatsoever then you're just ignoring what I'm saying and lying. Yes, Saying "An elephant is an elephant" tells you nothing of what an elephant actually is. It's not intended to. It is meant to invoke the Law of Identity. An Elephant is an Elephant. What you should pursue is what you should pursue. A is A. That is just the Law of identity spoken in different words. Now if you want to deny any of those three phrases then you have to deny the Law of Identity. I also did give you a reason to accept Premise 1. You just avoided addressing the argument. The reason you should accept premise 1 is the same reason why the Law of Identity is true. It's axiomatic. You cannot argu against it without either a)tacitly assuming that one should pursue virtue or b)invoking an arbitrary reason. I asked you why do I need to justify "Thou shall pursue virtue" You still haven't answered why I should justify it. Should I justify it because justifying premises is virtuous or should I justify them for an arbitrary reason? If you want me to justify my premises because justifying my premises virtuous then you are completely contradicting yourself. If you want me to justify my premises for an arbitrary reason then you have no business criticizing me for holding onto beliefs for an arbitrary reason. That would be utter hypocrisy.

Premise one is a tautology. "Thou shall pursue virtue" translates to "What you should pursue is what you should pursue". That's just a tautology in and of itself, but it has a point because simply saying "X is a virtue" has no meaning unless you should pursue virtue. I'm not merely highlighting a preference. I am making a moral argument for marriage and a moral argument has to be in relation to what you should do. Premise 1 has nothing to do with the validity of premise 2 but it is related to the validity of premise 3 and onwards. Let's say X is a virtue. You cannot go on an say "You should pursue X" unless one ought to pursue virtue in the first place.

So what if its circular? Premise 2 is not deduced from Premise 1. It's arrived at by a certain understanding of epistemology. For instance, why is the Law of Identity valid? The reason it is valid is because it is axiomatic. It's axiomatic because a)It's a significantly basic proposition (coherent and concise) b)there is no way to mount a logical argument against it. Example Realist: A is A Nihilist: No it's not! Realist: Ah so you're agreeing with me! (the realist is not treating the nihilist's objection (A) as an objection (A). Premise 1 and Premise 2 are axioms for similar reasons. There is no way to mount a logical argument against them without either contradicting yourself or invoking an arbitrary preference.

There is nothing circular about my argument. Go re-read what I actually said. Premise 1) Thou shall pursue virtue. Premise 2) Truth is the Prime Virtue. The only thing you can say about my argument that is circular is premise 1. Premise 1 is obviously a tautology, but its a tautology in the same manner the Law of Identity (A is A) is a tautology. Are you going to deny the Law of identity now?

If it's not virtuous for me to justify my positions then why are you expecting me to justify them?

Why? Are you saying it is virtuous for me to justify my premises?

1)Well no actually you can't. People who pursue virtue are virtuous. People who do not pursue virtue are not virtuous. 2)Why is individuality a value? Reality is logical and reality transcends the individual. Logic transcends the individual. 3)If happiness loses all meaning in death than why pursue it as your prime goal in life? Wouldn't it make more sense to pursue something (like virtue) that will have meaning in the long run than something you know is going to lose meaning eventually? If the meaning of happiness subjective than the meaning of happiness dies with the subject. If the meaning of something is objective than it will have meaning even if the subject dies. Death is inevitable, uncertain, and absolute. Do you contest this? If not then I see no reason you should sacrifice being logical and moral for being happy. And even if I reject fleeting pleasures there is still reason to live: so that way one can pursue virtue in this world. There are reasons to live for reasons other than pursuing happiness. 4)They had power. I never said you couldn't enforce your preferences if you had power. What I said was that if you don't have power and don't have moral courage then your preferences have no meaning. The weak cannot afford to be nihilists. 5)Children are not going to do what you want them to just because you want them to. I'm an adult. You are trying to correct me right now. You think I am going to change my behavior just because you want me to? No, what I am going to do is change my behavior in relation to logic. In relation to universals. You're not going to have any kind of mutually beneficial relationship without reference to universals. I want my child to do homework. My child does not want to do homework. I want my child to eat healthy. My child does not want to eat healthy. I want my child to do some chores. My child does not want to do the chores. How am I suppose to appeal to my child's self-interest without using verbal abuse, physical abuse, or some kind of threat of coercion? It's not possible dude. This is where child abuse comes from. Even if parents care for their kids they will abuse them if they have no grasp on ethical universals and how to argue for them. You cannot have a valid parent-child relationship under nihilism.

Sigh. Oversimplification. Let's recap all my arguments. 1)My position (be moral) is the logical justified position. You've admitted this. That alone should be enough to convince you but you're so spiritually bankrupt and evil that you question why we should be logical in the first place. 2)"What is good for you" is subjective so anytime you say it is not good for you to submit to logic you're just speaking gibberish. There is nothing about subjective self-interest that is apriori opposed to being logical. Either way you live you are living "by your own design". 3)A life of fleeting pleasures is negated by death so in actually an illogical hedonist lifestyle is not actually any happier than a moral lifestyle. That was the point you missed. On the gradient of happiness both lifestyles end up being at zero in the end. The difference is the latter lifestyle is a moral lifestyle awhile the other one is not. 4)Even if we go all the way with assuming your self-interest is something objective and unalterable you have to be complete fool to not see the benefit of having moral courage. Moral courage is not about "sacrifice". It's about having the willpower to actually stick up for yourself and your preferences. Your preferences have no meaning to anyone else without morality. So preaching nihilism makes no sense even from an egotistical standpoint. 5)There is no way to have any kind of intimacy with your children. You cannot justify your behavior by "well I just want to!". You need morality. You need logic to reason with children otherwise you have to resort to verbal abuse, physical abuse or just outright neglect them because you have to treat all selfish desires equally. If that doesn't convince you then I'm done. You cannot reason with someone who doesn't even value logic in the first place. My argument would be 1)Thou shall pursue virtue. 2)Truth is the prime virtue. 3)Therefore, you should pursue the truth. 4)A Adults accumulate both wisdom and bigotries over time. 4)B) Humans are mortal 5)A Children with given proper care and respect are good at exposing the intellectual bigotries of adults via a series of "why?" questions. 5)B) Children prolong the species. 6)Therefore, propagating children is virtuous. 7)Therefore, marriage is the virtuous. There. Nothing circular. "Meaning is subjective".....and that means......what exactly?

I agree that nutrition is virtuous, but we need to make a distinction things that are merely virtuous with things that should be violently enforced. Being courageous is a virtue, but it shouldn't be violently enforced. Verbal abuse is a vice, but it shouldn't be violently opposed. You attack vices with virtues and you attack aggression with retaliation (unless it's something very powerful like the government which you cannot reasonably retaliate against)

This is my last comment. Transcendent does not mean "divine". It just means "higher than" something else. "Logic" is NOT a mental construct. Logic is the system of transcendent, abstract, non-conceptual laws that apply to everything and nothing. Nothing is higher than logic. Not even reality and definitely not self-interest. Marriage is a drag PERIOD. If everyone determined the value of marriage from an egotistical standpoint (which is happening right now in the native population of Western countries) marriage would decline. Marriage makes absolutely no sense from an egotistical standpoint especially if you're a man. To marry as Schopenhauer is to "halve one's liberties and to double one's duties". You get less sex. You now have to share your bed with a partner. You have buy a bigger house. You have more bills to pay for. You have to deal with kids. You got more yard work to do. There is the looming threat of divorce, You can't turn your guitar amps as loud anymore. You get less time for your hobbies. Etc. All that is a huge drag. There is however one good reason to marry even despite the fact that it is drag: because it's virtuous. Marriage is the foundation of society. Children are necessary in order to keep the human race going, to preserve one's good genes, and to counter the irrationality of older people who albeit accumulate a lot of wisdom they also accumulate a lot of bigotries. Children when given proper respect and care are good at exposing the intellectual bigotries of adults. Universal morality eliminates conflicts of interest. If you have two people who value something non-rivalrous like logic or the truth there is not going to be any conflicts of interest between them. If however you base morality on something subjective like "self-interest" you are pretty much guaranteed to have conflicts of interests. Max Stirner was wrong. There cannot be a "union of egoists". You can only have a union between the rational. It doesn't matter how many pleasures you experience in life for the more pleasurable your life is the more meaningless and painful death becomes. Death negates all fleeting pleasures. Only a person motivated to pursue virtue can find meaning in death. A person who pursues virtue lives a painful existence by volition and only experiences happiness as an accident. Death than becomes meaningful for death takes away all the pain, all the uncertainties and questions that come with old age, and the dilemma of having to make responsible choices. I think it is safe to say that you and I have completely opposite philosophies on life and death. To you life is about doing what you want to do. To me, life is about doing what you should do and what you should do is live as though the truth matters. To you, life is only about life. To me, life is about finding meaning in death. Trying to find meaning in that which is is inevitable, uncertain, and absolute. Life is fleeting. Only death is real. Of course, I don't expect any what I just said to convince you because you only value logic when it serves your self-interest. Something of which I find completely incomprehensible because there is nothing fixed and unalterable about "self-interest". Self-interest by definition is subjective. Not objective. (the word "self" is synonymous with subjective) Your self-interest is only in opposition to logic if you want it to be. Not because it is by nature opposed to logic. So anytime you say you don't value logic when it comes to choosing your goals because that goes against you "self-interest" you are just spouting gibberish. There is no reason apriori for your self-interest to be in opposition to that. There is no reason why you can't make it your self-interest to apply logic to your choice of goals. You're just inventing a barrier that doesn't exist. But I'll just assume for a moment that self-interest is objective so that way I can get to the last thing I want to respond to. You say you do not want moral courage. That is completely incomprehensible to me. Without appealing to morality your preferences have no meaning to anyone else. If my self-interest contradicts your self-interest and I am more powerful than you are then my self-interest supercedes your self-interest in matters of public policy. Everything just reduces to might makes right and if you have no might you are completely screwed. Without moral courage you have no ability protect your self-interest against those that are more powerful than you are. You have no way to rally a handful of troops against a massive foe. You have no way to argue people out of doing something you despise which benefits them. You affectingly have no rights or dignity at all. That alone is should be enough of a reason why one should reject nihilism. If nihilists understood the value of moral courage they wouldn't go around preaching nihilism. Unless of course they are sadistic/masochist and like making already small and fragile human beings feel even more insignificant.

2)Wrong. There is no such thing as "self-interest" without reality and reality is transcended only by logic. 3) Associating with someone because they serve your mere self-interest both a)is not actual love and b)it is not a good basis for marriage. True love is the attraction to virtue and a valid marriage is based on duty. Not self-interest. Morality allows for a society with no conflicts of interests. Conflicts of interest lead to chaos and destruction. So it's not true that you can live a non-destructive life without living morally. Oh really? You think you are such a noble individual pursuing this illogical immoral self-interest of yours? What about your self-esteem? What about the ability for other people to recognize your virtue? By "transcendence" I mean the societal evolution that results when you have a society that is free from destructive conflicts of interest and is free to grow unabated. Has nothing to do with an afterlife. But the possibility of an afterlife is another good reason to be moral. Death is certain and unknowable. Only death is real so you might as well live virtuously rather than chase fleeting pleasures that you will lose in the end. Oh also, are you admitting that you can find meaning in pain, sadness and death by living morally? Are you also admitting that possessing morality allows one to have moral courage in face of evil? Even if morality was complete nonsense going around spreading nihilism and publicly expressing your nihilism would be pointless because there is no capacity for moral courage in nihilism. There is also no way to be honest with one's children as a nihilist. You can't just teach children that morality is nonsense. You HAVE to impose moral absolutes on them awhile at the same time getting them to believe you actually believe in those moral absolutes. With nihilism there is no capacity for intimacy with children. You are forced to live a double life. 4)Okay, so basically you cannot pinpoint what you are actually a slave to. Does that not trouble you? I at least know what I am serving (logic). You clearly do not (otherwise you would be able to pinpoint exactly what part of causes you to act in such illogical and immoralistic manners). So what you are serving is more alien and abstract than what I am serving.

And that is supposed to mean.....what exactly? 1)You're admitting that my argument is logical. 2)You expect my answers to serve your self-interest for no good reason. There is no way you can justify pursuing this illogical (immoral) self-interest of yours so you're objection has no meaning whatsoever. 3)It's a laughable strawman argument to say that the only benefit to acting morally is being logical. What about the possibility of love? What about all the benefits that come from not destroying things? What about all the benefits that come from having moral courage? What about the ability to live as a beautiful rather than an ugly individual (and how that affects happiness and your ability to express yourself artistically)? What about the possibility of transcendence? What about the reduction of fear you have for the afterlife if there is one? What about the ability to find meaning in sadness, pain, and death? 4)What is a "crappy" and "not crappy" is whatever the hell you want it to be! You make it sound like this is some kind of unalterable absolute truth that being moral in order to be logical is some "crappy" deal. You know I can just say "Well it is a great reward for me!" and there is no way you can argue against that. You cannot invoke self-interest to debunk logic dude, Self-interest can be molded into anything including a reverence for logic. So the real question you ought to be asking is why can't you make it your self-interest to be logical? What are you really a slave to? Whatever it is it's not your Ego.

You disagree? Okay then show us how you can justify acting immorally with a logical argument. Please amuse everyone. 1)Logic is obviously better than illogic. 2)Acting in a matter that is logical is better than acting in a manner that is illogical. 3)Pursuing virtue can be logically justified and pursuing vice cannot be logically justified. C)Therefore, you ought to act morally.

Yes, but we need to understand what it actually means to apply logic to one's goals. Simply having goals and fulfilling those goals by logical means is not in and of itself acting logically. It is only when you apply logic to your choice of goals that you get to claim you are truly logical. Acting morally is a logical goal because one cannot logically argue against a decision to act morally. Acting immorally is not a logical goal because there is no way to logically justify acting immorally.

First of all, what "maximizes your own gain" is whatever the hell you want it be. Even when I am acting the way I morally should act I am also acting the way I want act, Second, since egoism is basically just pursuing whatever goal you want you can either a)do what you want and do what is morally good b)do what you want and do what is morally bad. Either way you are a acting in an egotistical manner. The choice comes down to whether you want to be moral (apply logic to one's goals) or not be moral (not apply logic to one's goals). You have to be retarded to choose the latter

Why benefit yourself? Why do some things "benefit" you and other things don't "benefit" you? What determines what "benefit" is in the first place?

1)Please watch for Molyneux's video "How Not to Fight Evil" for a reason as to why simply outlining what is virtue is not enough. Believe it or not there are actually some people in this world that don't even know why you should pursue virtue in the first place. The caller in that show agreed there was such a thing as objective virtues and vices, but he didn't understand WHY you should pursue virtue. 2)"Truth is virtuous" is axiomatic because any argument against it involves either a)the person tacitly accepting that truth is something to be pursued or b)it involves them invoking arbitrary preferences. It's the same reason Molyneux believes UPB exists. UPB exists because any argument against UPB either a)requires invoking standards of UPB or b)expecting Stefan to adhere to X or Y standard for an arbitrary reason. 3)If pursuing your self-interest is illogical then the argument that involves invoking that preference is illogical as well. That which invokes something illogical is by definition illogical. 4)The logical misstep is you are expecting us who believe in objective morality to logically justify our beliefs when you have no logical justification for your own beliefs and values. That is hypocrisy. That is irrational. That is illogical. 5)"Arbitrary" and "illogical" are two words for the same thing. 6)But you weren't talking about egotism. You were talking about pursuing physical and psychology health. Two completely different things. Why do you mean by "egoistic" reasons to commit suicide or take on big risks? Are you talking about egoism in the sense that they are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure or do you mean egoistic in the sense that they are pursuing their own goals? If you mean egoistic in the former sense that wouldn't be an instinct. Not everyone is motivated to pursue pleasure above all else. Some of us wish to pursue the truth even if the truth might not give us pleasure. If you mean egoistic in the latter sense that would be a rather lame justification because the fact is you can make anything your own goal. Saying that humans are instinctively bound to pursue their own goals is a trivial claim that doesn't actually justify any particular goals or set of behaviors. I am not against people pursuing self-interest either. Self-interest by itself isn't bad. It is acting without thinking that is wrong. 7)Let's recap the first three premises of my moral theory 1)Thou shall pursue virtue (Virtue Axiom) 2)Truth is the prime virtue (Truth Axiom) 3)Therefore, you should pursue the truth, Let's say I nihilist accepts the validity of the Virtue Axiom but not the validity of the Truth Axiom. That is an absurd position. The only reason a nihilist would accept the validity of the Virtue Axiom is if they cares about being logical and avoiding contradictions. If they care about being logical then there is no good reason to oppose the Truth axiom because the Truth Axiom is an axiom for the same reason the Virtue axiom is an axiom: because a)it's a basic (coherent and concise) proposition and b)there is no way to mount a logical argument against it. I agree that the Virtue Axiom is a tautology by itself but it is not true that it leads nowhere. The Law of Identity for instance is a tautology but it does lead to Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle even despite the fact it is a tautology.

No, because a nihilist can just ask "Why should I pursue virtue at all?" and simply saying something is a virtue doesn't actually answer the question. Let's say I claim proposition X is an axiom. The way to prove it is not an axiom is to mount a logical argument against it. Example: Moralist: "Survival is the virtue" is an axiom. Anti-Moralist: No it's not. I only have to conditionally value my survival in order to argue against it. I don't have to make survival my most important goal in life in order to argue against the proposition. So therefore, what you're saying is not an axiom. Counter-Example Realist: A is A Nihilist: No it's not. Realist: Ah, so you're agreeing with me! (the realist is not treating the nihilist's argument (A) as an argument (A). Now, I have asserted that pursuing virtue is axiomatic and pursuing the truth is axiomatic. So that means you have to mount a logical argument against it. You could for instance say that "I contest the axiom because it goes against my self-interest" which presupposes that pursuing your self-interest is a logical goal. However, there is nothing logical about egotism whatsoever. If you ask an egotist why one should be egotist he will not be able to justify their egotist lifestyle logically. So therefore, their objections against these axioms are arbitrary and illogical. I don't even know what it even means to have preferences "based on real things". There are only two categories: preferences that can be justified with logic or preferences that cannot be justified with logic. Your preferences are either in one category or the other. There is no in between. It is not true that everyone pursues physical and psychological wellness because of instinct. That doesn't explain why people commit suicide. That doesn't explain why people risk going to prison. That which can negated by choice can't be an instinct. And even if it was an instinct then why would you be a moral nihilist then? If there are preferences that exist because of instinct and you had no choice but to follow those instincts then any moral maxim (if this then this) involving those preferences would be functionally no different than an objective moral rule. Because acting consistent with an axiom is acting in a logical (non-arbitrary) manner.

I also remember you quoting Stefan and saying something in response to what he said. "Fundamentally, the laws of logic are derived from the behavior of matter and energy, at least at the perceptual level." Aligned with =/= derived from. Two completely different things.

You cannot use inductive reasoning to come to absolute truth. Only probable truths. So either Aristotle believes the logical "laws" are merely probable rather than absolute or the laws of logic are not derived from observation at all.

The government does not have any rights. It's only its individual subjects that have rights. What you ought to asking is whether we have a right to influence the government to limit immigration. Not whether the government has a right to limit immigration. I think Stefan has made a complete case as to why we can't have open borders in a society that a) Has a welfare state b) has a corruptible political system (no universal requirement to check voter ID) and c) has civil rights laws that limit freedom of association. Now, in the case where the only issue is natives losing their jobs to foreigners there still might be a reason to limit immigration because as long as a democratic government exists the threat of the welfare state and the threat of the statist political party rising to power if there is a growth in the underclass.

What logical paradoxes?

Couple of criticisms. 1)That which is axiomatic = what is logical. The claim in the video that logic is non-axiomatic is backwards. An axiom =/= a "basic assumption" as the author claims. An axiom is a proposition that is fundamental to understanding AND impervious to critique. 2) Figuring out how to do what you want to do is not philosophy. It's amoralism. Philosophy is about virtue. 3) Just because humans have goals as a result of their intrinsic nature does not mean they should achieve them. That is a naturalistic fallacy. Trying to get an ought from an is. A valid proof for objective morality does not commit the naturalistic fallacy. For example, one can prove "truth is virtuous" without committing a naturalistic fallacy (in fact the very idea of calling things fallacies is based on the fact that reality is non-contradictory and that one ought to adhere to reality. Otherwise calling such and such a "fallacy" would have no meaning)

Stefan published his theory a long time ago. Perhaps you should consult his current opinions on epistemology. My theory of logic is this: logic is a system of transcendent, abstract, non-conceptual rules that apply to everything and nothing. The validity for any logical absolute or any logical proposition is its axiomatic status. An axiom is that which is coherent, concise, and impervious to critique. The Law of Identity is an axiom because there is no way one can argue against it without invoking the Law of Identity Realist: A is A Nihilist: No it's not! Realist: Ah so you agreeing with me! (the realist is not treating the nihilist's objection (A) as an objection (A)) The Law of Non-Contradiction is a logical extension of the law of identity. If the law of identity is axiomatic then reality must have a definite nature. That which has a definite nature cannot be contradictory (lack an identity) The Law of the Excluded Middle follows from the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity and the axiom that Existence Exists. Existence Exists is an axiom because of the fact we have subjective experience at all. Sensation implies existence and all arguments against the axiom presuppose that the listener exists in a reality that exists. "Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously." is at best a half-truth. The full version of the Law of Non-Contradiction is Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. So if two statements are true in two completely different senses that would not be a violation of the 2nd law.