Hi Jason.
Let me start with where I disagree with you (and it’s not because I’m mentally ill.)
You say
If something has real value, it would have that value even if no one could recognize it.
A Monet is still beautiful in a room full of blind men, and a Beethoven piano sonata is still beautiful in a room full of deaf men.
I believe God values things like love, loyalty, and courage because they have intrinsic value.
I don’t believe He could create a hell where all His creatures suffered endless, needless, and purposeless pain, and somehow give it value, because He valued it “in His personal judgment.”
That sounds like pure relativism to me.
That’s what Hilary Greaves (Associate Proffessor of Philosophy at Somervile College in Oxford University) calls “the incoherence argument” against existence comparativism, and there are those who disagree with it.
Is it your personal judgment that Fleurbaey and Voorhoeve are too psychologically confussed to get your point?
I understand what you’re saying Jason, and I disagree with you.
Prof. Greaves herself says that your argument is
Is she psychologically confussed, or mentally ill?
It’s true that since I first pointed out the problems with what you said in some book you wrote (that you recommended to me when I was grieving), you have occasionally said that existence has some value–but you always immediately contradict yourself in some way, deny the contradiction, and then complain about being misunderstood.
Here’s an example:
This is the closest you’ve come to actually saying something meaningful, and I do thank you for that.
But it would be much easier (and clearer) to say your existence has value compared to non-existence, then to throw in extra words like “the non-value of non-existence,” and then to try to argue that the “non-value” isn’t equivalent to the numerical concept of zero.
Why isn’t “non-value” zero value?
You contradict yourself Jason, and I don’t misunderstand you.
I know what you’re saying, and I disagree with you.
And so do others.
I agree with Holtug.
The questions I asked you were not nonsense, and you’re the only one confused here (unless you’re confusing others, as you did me once, and I hope to prevent that.)
**The things we’re discussing would be meaningless if there were no God, no possible worlds for God to evaluate, and no possible people He could bring into existence–but than we wouldn’t be here having this discussion.
But the fact that we are here having this discussion is sufficient proof that there are possible worlds for God to evaluate, possible people He can create, and meaningful comparisons that can be made.
It is either better or worse for you to exist than not to exist, and God knows whether it’s better or worse for you.
As long as there’s some quality to your life–or the possibility of some quality of life here or hereafter–it’s better for you to exist than it is for you not to exist.
And if God is good, He must know it’s better for you to exist than it is for you not to exist–even if you’re suffeing now.
That’s the reason to go on when you’re suffering.
That’s the reason not to take the easy way out by committing suicide.**
I’m overwelmed by your charity here Jason.
But suicide is not what I want,
Do I sound suicidal?
No, that’s not the reason I disagree with you Jason (and never was, even when I was at my lowest, and struggling, and you were of no help.)
It may suite your pride to think that’s the only reason someone could disagree with your position here, or see any flaws in your logic, but do Fleurbaey, Voorhoeve, Holtug, and Greaves disagree with you because they’re suicidal?
Are they mentally ill?
Here’s what I find interesting.
After arguing that “A” would be no worse off in Dante’s Inferno than he would be if he were never created, you seemingly contradict yourself by saying that creating him would be an act of cruelty if that destiny were intended by his creator–but instead of explaining why you see no contradiction (as you might be expected to do here), you go on to make some comments about annihilationism.
This whole discussion between us started because you used an argument like that against annihilationism in a book you recommended to me
(Sword to the Heart, I think) at a time when I was greiving–and when I disagreed with the way you worded your argument all you seemed concerned about was defending yourself.
I felt betrayed then, and I do now.
I was vulnerable at the time, and if not for the Grace of God, some of the things you said could have been extremely harmful.
It had to be by the Grace of God because I don’t think my Bachelor’s degree in Behavioral Science, the Psychology and Sociology courses I took in college, or the schools of therapy I studied (Freud, Jung Adler, Erickson, Frome, Rogers, etc.) really helped at all.
But as someone who has a Bachelor’s in Behavioral Science, and who was working on a Master’s when my world fell apart, I can tell you again (as I’ve told you before):
**For someone grieving, and facing the ultimate questions in life, it’s actually very important to believe there are states of existence that can be better or worse than non-existence.
Without that belief, hell (whether regarded as eternal or temporary, punitive or remedial) offers no deterent to suicide, and heaven offers no incentive to carry on here.
Nothing could be more dangerous than to convince yourself, or someone else, that existence has no real value when compared to non-existence.
If someone is considering euthanasia, convince him that there are reasons not to put people out of their misery in the same way we shoot horses–but don’t try to convince him that there’s no cruelty in allowing an animal to go on existing in needless pain.
If he’s grieving the loss of a loved one, and considering suicide himself, convince him that the hope of being reunited with his loved one in heaven is worth hanging in here for–but don’t try to tell him that he and his loved one will be no better off in heaven than they would be if God had never created them.
I write this mainly for the benefit of those who may be reading along, and may be struggling with grief themselves.
Hang on through the pain, and trust that God brought you into existence as an act of love–and that He knows you’re better off existing than not existing.**
And I again thank Geoffrey, for writting
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6837&p=97298#p97298
Thank you Geoffrey.
I think even Jason would agree with that.
I even think he’d agree that if people could have some conception of the joys of heaven, and if they knew that any suffering they experience here (or in some temporary hell hereafter) would lead to heaven, they’d all choose existence over non-existence.
But I’m afraid that to defend a specious argument he used in “Sword of Justice,” he would find it necessary to add something totally irrelevant about people not being able to make that choice if they didn’t already exist.
That’s true of course, but what difference does it make?
Particularly to someone who’s suffering, and in grief?
It only means that if they didn’t exist, they wouldn’t be able to recognize the value of what God’s made possible for them by bringing them into existence–not that existence doesn’t have such things to offer.