On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Bryan C wrote:
> I fail to see how any action, local or grand, can be considered to
> have value without fundamental principles. Why should I create myself?
> There is no answer.
isn't the idea of having "fundamental principles" akin to the notion of
"universal laws" that tend toward at least probabilistically determined
outcomes? i mean, aren't "fundamental principles" just as deterministic
as anything else? especially if we come to see these principles as
natural, inevitable, or "the way it is?"
if we tried to adhere (or couldn't help but adhere) to those universal
principles, then there is no freedom,... is there?
> I agree that positivist logic is self destructive. I simply cannot bring
> myself to reject it for the alternative is the horror of absolute nihil-
> ism. I simply choose to have faith in non-contradiction and build from
> there. But I also see no other theory that describes situations. I have
> never been given an example of when a proposition is both true and false.
this opposition is kind of false. i mean, positivism makes certain
assumptions about the "nature" of the world, so that it can study them --
such that the world _is_ rational, orderly, law-abiding, etc. then
nihilism assumes, that there is no meaning,...??? but what if there is
meaning, although the world is not _universaly_ law abiding. what if, just
like in our daily life, we live on assumptions that we cannot prove, we
interpret meanings within that framework, and then act according to them.
thus, the assumptions ("the world") may be non-logical, but they still
have consequences that are meaningful.
besides, nihilism can be fun. if nothing has any meaning, then suddenly
the world is tremendously funny. why take meaninglessness so "seriously?"
pmk