Existence as an objective metric of purpose and morality

[Anonymous No.20014891]

>The concept of existence is the most fundamental concept as of now, after all there is something rather than nothing. But what if its quality changes, or perhaps there are subtle patterns that can lead to its destruction in the long term. A conscious being has a higher quality of existence than an unconscious one because he is granted with the power of knowledge or agency that can further increase it. Therefore being as reasonable as possible would be the best action we can undertake since that will help us reach a state of the highest understanding as of now and any other action would be a denial of doing the most correct thing we can strive for because we still lack the absolute truth. That’s also proven by progressive evolution too, the better quality of life individuals get, the better cognitive abilities that the they acquire. Higher reasoning will also help us with morality since doing what’s right is fundamentally the most moral thing. For an example, impulsive emotions like aggression are primitive, extrovert and are caused by lower quality of life and evolution thus lacking reasoning while reflective emotions like empathy are considerate, introvert and are caused by higher quality of live and evolution. The first can achieve short term success but in the long term turns into destruction since it can’t internalize what’s actually right while the second fails short term but has success long term because it’s considerate and helps all achieve the best state they can be.

Easier to read here:https://newmanleary.wordpress.com/2022/02/26/existence-as-an-objective-metric-of-purpose-and-morality/

[Bombard !FNtGEvNJ8M No.20015559]

An entirely ignorant babble from an incredibly cloudy and confused mind.

1. The author (who I am assuming is also OP) has made no attempt to define his terms (“reasonable”, “lower quality of life” etc).
2. Going by the common meanings of aforementioned terms, which is a hazy business in itself, leads to an even more hazy picture being produced, where concepts are thrown around carelessly without a care for justification or logical argument.

It was awful. I can only hope that Mr Leary develops some kindling of sentience, hopefully pushing from his futile ramblings and into something more suited for his abilities.

[Bombard !FNtGEvNJ8M No.20015576]

I will continue.

Mr Leary makes no attempt at connecting his concepts. They are thrown together, in an entirely solipsistic manner, resulting in a mindless mash of nonsense, which is totally unworthy of being treated as an “argument” for anything at all.

[Anonymous No.20016441]

>>20014891
>>20014891
>>A conscious being has a higher quality of existence than an unconscious one because he is granted with the power of knowledge or agency that can further increase it
This is where it just decended into incoherent babbaling. The start bit about existance being the most tundamental concept is funnily enough the road block I hit recently in trying to figure out the meaning of it all, and I'm pretty sure it was discussed by Aquinas or some other early church philosopher but I thought it was a stupid idea at the time.
The bit about needing to gain more knowledge so you can figure out the question of meaning is Elon Musk's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20016974]

>>20015559
>>20015576
But I did explain them, it seems like you just skimmed the text.
>>20016441
Please read Spinoza and Hegel then come again. It's ironic that both of you're thinking that you're above me yet you have no idea what the text is about.