Welcome to yet another episodee of “Why is this post scored so low?”. I’m your host ;)
This kind of reads like word association, which people here are probably not fond of. I certainly find it unconvincing. This is kind of like slam poetry, but people here prefer an essay. I think you could actually clear this post up a bit by doing 2 things: add a section header at every topic change and make sure every section is self contained. This would make sure you’re making an argument instead of a narrative.
Secondly, I have no real clue what you are writing about. This is kind of like a dialogue with yourself, and much of the argument is left implicit. Make some of that explicit.
Also, cut down on statements given with no argument behind them (ex: “If everything has the same utility, then there’s no difference between being alive and dead.”). If a statement is trivial, it’s usually either uninteresting or a rhetorical trick, neither of which makes a fun to read essay.
There’s no essay to write because the argument is simple: reductio ad absurdum & proof by contradiction. Saying it in this form makes it more entertaining, and it’s pointless to add more jargon on top of it. If you wish to appropriate it, here it is but written in an even shorter form:
If two choices have the same utility (nihilism is objective) then you are stuck with the current one, i.e., since you are alive, then Spinozian conatus is the objective meaning of life
The triviality of the statement that you had pointed out is the core of the issue: interpreting meaning as a preference relation.
Welcome to yet another episodee of “Why is this post scored so low?”. I’m your host ;)
This kind of reads like word association, which people here are probably not fond of. I certainly find it unconvincing. This is kind of like slam poetry, but people here prefer an essay. I think you could actually clear this post up a bit by doing 2 things: add a section header at every topic change and make sure every section is self contained. This would make sure you’re making an argument instead of a narrative.
Secondly, I have no real clue what you are writing about. This is kind of like a dialogue with yourself, and much of the argument is left implicit. Make some of that explicit.
Also, cut down on statements given with no argument behind them (ex: “If everything has the same utility, then there’s no difference between being alive and dead.”). If a statement is trivial, it’s usually either uninteresting or a rhetorical trick, neither of which makes a fun to read essay.
There’s no essay to write because the argument is simple: reductio ad absurdum & proof by contradiction. Saying it in this form makes it more entertaining, and it’s pointless to add more jargon on top of it. If you wish to appropriate it, here it is but written in an even shorter form:
If two choices have the same utility (nihilism is objective) then you are stuck with the current one, i.e., since you are alive, then Spinozian conatus is the objective meaning of life
The triviality of the statement that you had pointed out is the core of the issue: interpreting meaning as a preference relation.