Lakefingers said:

What is that energy that is not broken down? Energy remains in the same amount...

And if we consider energy as separate from what you call reality, and consider what energy is, one can wonder what exactly reality is, if not energy, that is things working. Just like reality, energy does not exist as a substance, but as an action.

---

RationalEgo said:

Lakefingers said:

RationalEgo said:

andrewss said:

And I think there isnt anything lying in wait for we humans, nothing will set us free during our lives or future human lives, death is our only respite.

---

I have seen nothing but a defeatist attitude take precedent in all of your posts, especially those mocking rationality and reason.

Rationality is demonstrated throughout human history to be a high virtue, so when you mock rationality (as you have done several times since I came here, and probably before) and have a defeatist attitude towards life, know that those two are closely related.
If you base life on a standard of suffering and death then there is no basis for achieving happiness in ones life.

Life should be judged on its own standard.

---

What standard is that? Are suffering and death not fundamental, or at least part of life, and if that is true, shouldn't you partially concede to what you say his assessment is?

---

Life is the standard by which all values have meaning. Life IS the standard. Suffering and death are not standards by which one can judge values. I do not partially concede at all to his assessment.

BTW congrats on your modship.

---

You wont respond to me?

Just a lil dogmatic, well this guys unhappy and his value judgement lacks the standard of life as its scope... HUH? Give me more dammit! I dont know what you are talking about except some unexplained reference to "objectivism" - but anyway... it seems to me, obviously, that Rand did not SOLVE the is-ought problem at all... she only "solves" it because she refuses to see it as a problem in the first place. Though I would say its not that big of a deal anyway, admittebly. Lets just say she, by-passes it for the sake of her so-called objective value; life. But in the light of this train of though I would very much to replace life with POWER (but even then some organisms will die themselves to further the power of their species, so it seems... some humans will die themselves to preserve a comrade or two, its just the truth, apart from conceptual reasons one can assume that the moment holds and not everyone is going to hold to that randian absolute will to life in the individual, the "ought" in any for is still slayable at times imo!)

Quote:

Suffering and death are not standards by which one can judge values.

---

hmmmm cant say more on that?

Lakefingers said:

RationalEgo said:

Life is the standard by which all values have meaning. Life IS the standard. Suffering and death are not standards by which one can judge values. I do not partially concede at all to his assessment.

---

Why do you think life is the standard by which all values have meaning? How's that work for you?

---