Quote from: CoinCube on August 28, 2016, 12:24:49 AM

Quote from: nihilnegativum on August 27, 2016, 08:37:41 AM

...
Ah you mean materialism as in hedonism, this again is the problem for empiricists (they don't have a priori and therefore can't have nice things).

Most likely, but the reasons used would be subject to critique. Even your definition of good is not the infinite creator, but something else. Leibniz defined this world as the best possible world in order for the world to have a good reason to exist, this was god's will as the good itself, that gives the idea of good as perfection, I use the same without the theological conceptual framework .. my definitions are very technical, I'm afraid it would not go far, explaining them here in more detail. Suffice it to say, that the idea of good is one of perfection, that there is an essential duality to it (the a priori idea of perfection as imperative and a necessary relation of its determinations and a posteriori practical perfection as a contingent relation), that this leads to to the specific practical idea of good for a human society as the identity of the good of individual and the good of common (everyhing done in a way not at the same time beneficial to the individual and the society as a whole is bad), etc. but thats not really the nihilist part, nihilism is about ontology, the lack of onlogical ground, the absence of the infinite that would prevent time from having a reality.

It is clear your are not an empiricist and we agree on the problems with that worldview (they don't have a priori and therefore can't have nice things). So lets set that aside and move on to talk of the good.

Leibniz views on good are not that far from my own and you may be surprised to know that I do not necessarily disagree with your concept of good as written above. Such a conceptualization is very similar to the idea of good proposed by Leibniz. It is also very close to the idea of good as proposed by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto who's book the Way of God I linked to a few posts back. I became interested in that book after someone described it to me as the most systematic exposition of monotheism fundamentals ever written. Given your interest in philosophy you might find it interesting. I have copied a few paragraphs from the introduction below so you can get a feeling for the text.

My problem is with the nihilist portion of your worldview for this is the part that forces you to separately a priori define the good which does not naturally follow from the ontology of nihilism. Metaphysics is serious business although few people recognize it as such. Assumptions have consequences.

This is exactly the point, the main distinction of metaphysics (serious buisness as it teaches how to use one's understanding), is the epistemological distinction between a priori and a posteriori that can hold only when this distinction is a pure difference. When one assumes this distinction to be based on some from of positivity, it either assumes a theistic ontology (an ontology where the pure infinite is the ground of everything and time a mere illusion), and thus lose the reality of a posteriori or the opposite, assume there is not pure ground, lose the a priori and be stuck with mere empiricism. My type of nihilism changes the mode of grounding, and grounds a priori on the pure negativity of inexistence. Far from leading to theism as its logical conclusion, this is the stepping stone towards a rational worldview without spiritualism and without inconsitencies that follow.

Quote from: CoinCube on August 28, 2016, 12:24:49 AM

You can choose whatever you want to believe but if you choose to live by the wrong assumptions (especially thinking by them) they can lead to nonsensical and self-refuting outcomes. The original post in this thread can be looked at as an argument that atheism is one such self-refuting belief as indirectly evidenced by the health data cited.

I suspect your a priori concept of the good as perfection would eventually if taken to its logical conclusion lead you to the rejection of nihilism but the road is probably long and tortuous with many opportunities to fall into self-refuting outcomes.

Quote from: Moshe Chaim Luzzatto

Excerpts from the Introduction:

When one knows a number of things, and understands how they are categorized and systematically interrelated, then he has a great advantage over one who has the same knowledge without such distinction. It is very much like the difference between looking at a well-arranged garden, planted in rows and patters, and seeing a wild thicket or a forest growing in confusion.

When an individual is confronted by many details and does not know how they relate to one another or their true place in a general system, then his inquisitive intellect is given nothing more than a difficult unsatisfying burden. He may struggle with it, but he will tire and grow weary long before he attains any gratification. Each detail will arouse his curiosity, but not having access to the concept as a whole, he will remain frustrated.

If one wishes to understand something, it is therefore very important that he be aware of other things associated with it as well as its place among them. Without this, one's longing for truth will be frustrated and he will be pained by his unsatisfied desire.

The exact opposite is true when one knows something in relation to its context. Since he sees it within its framework, he can go on to grasp other concepts associated with it, and his success will bring pleasure and elation.

When one studies a subject, he must therefore be aware of the place of each element within the most general scheme. When one takes into account existence as a whole, including everything imaginable, whether detectable by our senses or conceivable by our minds, then he recognizes that things are not all in the same category and level. The categories are both varied and numerous, and as they vary, so do the rules and principles associated with them. In order to comprehend the true nature of each thing, one must also be able to recognize these distinctions.

There are, however, certain primary elements that must be recognized as part of the essential nature of each concept. Out of all the levels and categories, one should be able to distinguish the following: the whole and the part, the general and the particular, the cause and the effect, and the object itself and its associated qualities.

Thus, when one examines something, he should first determine whether it is a whole or a part, a general category or a detail, a cause or an effect, an object or a property. When he realizes its place in the general scheme, he can then recognize the elements needed to complete his understanding and provide a precise general picture. If it is a part, then he will seek to discover its whole. If it is a particular case, he will seek to find its general category. If it is a cause, he will seek its effect; if an effect, its cause. If he finds something to be a quality, he will seek to discover its subject. He will also strive to ascertain what kind of quality it is, whether it precedes, accompanies or follows its subject, and whether it is intrinsic or accidental, potential or actual. All these are distinctions without which we cannot have a complete picture of any thing's true nature.

Beyond this, one must look into the nature of the thing itself, determining whether it involves an absolute or limited concept. If the concept is limited, he should ascertain its limits, since even when a concept itself is true, its truth is corrupted if it is improperly compared to something, or if it is taken outside its area of validity.

It is also important to realize that the number of individual details is so great that it is beyond the power of the human mind to embrace them and know them all. One's goal should therefore be to attain knowledge of general principles.

By its very nature, every general principle includes many details. As a result, when a person grasps a general principle, automatically he also grasps a large number of details. Although at the outset a person possessing a general principle might not be aware of its specific details or recognize them as elements of the general principle, later, when confronted by them, he will be able to recognize them. Once he is aware of the general principle he will not be at a loss to recognize the details that [fall under it and] cannot exist without it...

Taking all of this into consideration, I have written this small book. My intent was to set forth the general principles of belief and religion, expounding them all in a way that is clearly understood, to provide a complete picture, free of ambiguity and confusion. The roots and branches are presented according to their place in the general scheme, so that each one can be put to heart and be grasped with the greatest possible clarity. This book provides a basis which will make it much easier for you, its readers, to attain knowledge of God

Any arguments found in this are arguments for metaphysics and some necessary framework for understanding, with which I agree, of course the issue then becomes whe whole of what needs to be known for it, if it is the whole of the positivity (all the domains of ontology) the task is futile in the same sense for the empiricist and the theist, if it is the whole of the concept, the task is easy, a conceptual analysis. I am a fan of the latter.