Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Thanks justaman. I appreciate your comments. Could you expand on a few points for me?. Why must we take everything to it's "logical" conclusion? What's wrong with "I pursue it because I pursue it" or "I value it because I value it" or even, my POV "I live because I am alive"?
|
In truth nothing. But I always equate it to someone worshipping pebbles. They aren't wrong to do it, there's little point in arguing, but there also would appear little reason in pursuing it.
I personally believe that while the logic is ultimately 'I value it because I value it', this isn't what we
really believe. No one actually thinks their beliefs are so arbitrary. We think it is virtuous to believe what we do, so we believe there must be some element of importance.
So the reason I say it is by some measure 'wrong' to say 'I value it because I value it is good enough' is because you are sort of deceiving yourself. You actually believe there is a reason for you to value what you value, else you simply wouldn't value it. When we are most logical, then, when we remove emotive bias from our decision making, we cannot be satisfied by valuing for the sake of valuing.
The argument against this, of course, is that much of what we value results in pleasure, which provides this motivation. It is the argument I am most subjected to. It fails, however, because strictly
logically pleasure amounts to the same circular reasoning. "I enjoy it because I enjoy it". So while this again cannot be criticised as being 'wrong' it is still equivalent to a pebble-worshipper. It is not logical, it is emotive.
This has, I think, implications on our ability to criticize the 'accuracy' of belief systems for any other. I really do liken atheists with wills to live on the precise same level as fundamentalist Christians living because God tells them to. (I put myself on this level also, though I'm occasionally dangling from it
)