Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Pursuit of knowledge as purpose of life

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
princepandaxvii
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: March 13th, 2018, 6:04 pm

Pursuit of knowledge as purpose of life

Post by princepandaxvii » March 13th, 2018, 6:05 pm

Feel free to critique.

Observation: Sentient being exists.

Def 1 Sentient defined to mean aware of one’s own existence.

P1 Sentient being is necessarily making the choice to either exist or not to (assuming capacity for suicide).

Def 2 An ethical system is defined to mean a set of guiding principles which allow a sentient being to make rational, i.e. not arbitrary/random choices.

Def 3 Basis for comparison defined to mean knowledge of given choices relative to one another.

P2 A rational choice requires an evaluation of choices by definition, and such an evaluation requires a basis for comparison.

P3 In order to make a rational choice regarding whether to exist or not to, one needs a basis for comparison between existence and non-existence.

Def 4 Existence is defined to mean all that one knows.

P4 One has no knowledge of non-existence.

P5 One has no basis for comparison between existence and non-existence.

C1 Therefore one cannot rationally choose to either exist or not to.

P6 A presumed outcome of ending one’s existence is the incapacity to reverse that choice.

P7 One can reverse the choice to exist.

P8 Since one’s inability to make a rational choice regarding one’s existence stems from one’s ignorance of a basis for comparison, in order to retain the possibility to make such a rational choice one needs to have the possibility of reversing one’s current choice.

C2 Therefore choosing non-existence prohibits making a rational choice.

P9 While choosing to exist, one necessarily makes further choices.

P10 None of these choices can be rational, as the choice to exist in the first place is not rational.

P11 The only possibility for rational choice then is to make choices while existing that may lead to the creation of a basis for comparison regarding the original choice to exist or not to.

P12 Referring to the definition of basis for comparison, one needs knowledge of the choices, existence and non-existence.

C3 Therefore any ethical system must be founded on the acquisition of knowledge.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Pursuit of knowledge as purpose of life

Post by Namelesss » March 18th, 2018, 8:32 pm

princepandaxvii wrote:
March 13th, 2018, 6:05 pm
Pursuit of knowledge as purpose of life
Knowledge = experience, perception, Here! Now!

To 'pursue Knowledge' is like the fish swimming all around pursuing 'water'.
Every moment of existence is no more than a single unique moment of Knowledge.
Pursuing is akin to 'trying', expending energy to do no-thing..
C3 Therefore any ethical system must be founded on the acquisition of knowledge.
No, ethics is;
"Do NOT do to others what you don't want done to you!"
Ethics is unconditional and is derived from ("founded on the acquisition of") unconditional Love, not the conditional ego/thoughts, like (sinful) 'morality'!

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Pursuit of knowledge as purpose of life

Post by Atreyu » March 19th, 2018, 4:05 pm

princepandaxvii wrote:
March 13th, 2018, 6:05 pm
Def 1 Sentient defined to mean aware of one’s own existence.
That's not the accepted definition.

1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

"Sentient" merely means to have awareness. It does not imply self-awareness or self-consciousness.
P1 Sentient being is necessarily making the choice to either exist or not to (assuming capacity for suicide).
Yes, but that assumption is false. In reality, people cannot choose to commit suicide. Your instincts will not let you. If you don't believe, go ahead and try it (just kidding, of course).

When people do commit suicide it is never a true "choice". They have no choice but to end things. They cannot go on living anymore.
Def 2 An ethical system is defined to mean a set of guiding principles which allow a sentient being to make rational, i.e. not arbitrary/random choices.
No, an ethical system is more specific than that. It's guiding principles which allow a sentient being to make an ethical choice. Not necessarily a rational choice, but an ethical one. The ethical choice might not be very rational from a hedonistic pov.
Def 3 Basis for comparison defined to mean knowledge of given choices relative to one another.

P2 A rational choice requires an evaluation of choices by definition, and such an evaluation requires a basis for comparison.

P3 In order to make a rational choice regarding whether to exist or not to, one needs a basis for comparison between existence and non-existence.
No problems here.
Def 4 Existence is defined to mean all that one knows.
Well, no, it isn't. But all we know is a part of our existence.
P4 One has no knowledge of non-existence.

P5 One has no basis for comparison between existence and non-existence.

C1 Therefore one cannot rationally choose to either exist or not to.
Agreed, but one could not actually choose not to exist, rationally or otherwise. We have to go on existing, rational or not. And eventually, we have to die, again, rational or not. There is no choice when it comes to existing or not existing, period.
P6 A presumed outcome of ending one’s existence is the incapacity to reverse that choice.

P7 One can reverse the choice to exist.
P6 is correct, but P7 is not. It's only true "in theory", but not in practice.
P8 Since one’s inability to make a rational choice regarding one’s existence stems from one’s ignorance of a basis for comparison, in order to retain the possibility to make such a rational choice one needs to have the possibility of reversing one’s current choice.
No, one would just need the power to be able to do it. And, under ordinary circumstances, we don't have that power. It has nothing to do with any rational considerations or arguments. It has to do with our inability to have full control over all our bodily functions, i.e. our inability to be able to override our instincts at will.
C2 Therefore choosing non-existence prohibits making a rational choice.
Yes, but the circumstances of daily life also prohibit us from making rational choices. Choosing non-existence prohibits everything (i.e. continued existence).
P9 While choosing to exist, one necessarily makes further choices.
No, there is no choice to exist or not, and any "choices" are merely those that we talk to ourselves about. In practice, we only react.
P10 None of these choices can be rational, as the choice to exist in the first place is not rational.
Well, there is no choice, really, rational or otherwise. But regardless, I agree that in any event, to chose to exist or not would both not be fully rational, since as you say we don't have enough information to make a rational choice in the first place.
P11 The only possibility for rational choice then is to make choices while existing that may lead to the creation of a basis for comparison regarding the original choice to exist or not to.
That's circular logic. If there is no possibility for rational choices, then there is no possibility for rational choices. There are no exceptions to this rule.
P12 Referring to the definition of basis for comparison, one needs knowledge of the choices, existence and non-existence.
Yes, assuming we could override our instincts and choose non-existence. But we cannot.

Not to mention that it's impossible to have any knowledge of non-existence anyways. Such a state might not even "exist".
C3 Therefore any ethical system must be founded on the acquisition of knowledge.
Ideally, ethical systems would be founded on conscience, if men had it. So, since they do not, ethical systems should be founded on the acquisition of conscience, i.e. founded on the knowledge of how to acquire and maintain it.

Any ethical system which is not based on conscience or its acquisition must necessarily be arbitrary and subjective, which is precisely why all known ones do not absolutely agree with each other.

Post Reply