Upon seeing the vastness or transquility of a rainforest or the ocean or the starry sky, it is common for people who focus on the experience to feel one of two things: they likely either feel very important as the only kind of being they know of that appreciates the natural world as they do or they feel small or perhaps meaningless in the face of the universe. These feelings could be rather powerful and might even spur some people on to contemplate the nature of perception, absolute certainty, scientific phenomena, and more foundational metaphysics like the laws of logic or God, shaking them out of the apathy or superficiality that characterizes most non-rationalists. Both of these feelings, though, are nothing but emotional reactions, having nothing to do with whether humans have value or with proving or disproving such a thing.
Not only do a person's feelings not dictate the existence or nonexistence of objective values, but it is also the case that the entirety of the universe in all of its perceived splendor does not dictate the existence or nonexistence of values. If an ant or a tree or a human has value, it is neither because of the physical phenomena in the cosmos nor the subjective awe or appeal it inspires in some who observe or think about it. It would not matter how large or small the universe is or how much of it humans are able to perceive. Moreover, it could be the case that not killing every living thing one comes across is evil because destruction is morally good, and neither the universe nor the feelings within a human consciousness that perceives it would be relevant. That would be how reality is regardless of the pragmatic consequences or how much or little comfort someone experiences towards this.
Of course, no one is forced to believe that the universe or humanity or a sense of wonder is objectively good or objectively meaningless because they feel a certain way. Still, emotionalism and assumptions are normal parts of non-rationalistic philosophical errors. What further makes non-rationalists idiotic beyond making assumptions (and then often resisting correction when someone else explains the truth so they do not have to initially think of it on their own) and looking to emotional persuasion rather than logical necessity is that they are almost never even consistent in living out their asinine worldviews. Almost every person who foolishly looks at an image of a galaxy and thinks that humanity must be meaningless in light of an enormous universe (not that most things perceived with the senses can be known to exist, galaxies included) probably believes that humans should still be treated as if they are valuable--or at least when it is convenient for them to want this to be true.
It does not logically follow from the universe being of any particular size or appearance that humans do or do not have value; that is dependent on the nature of the uncaused cause that precedes the cosmos [1]. If the uncaused cause does not have a moral nature, then the universe and humanity alike are meaningless because there would only be subjective preferences for values, as well as logical truths about what follows from ideas about values. There would not be anything that truly is meaningful or morally obligatory or objectively valuable. If the uncaused cause has a moral nature, then whatever that nature is dictates what things in existence have value and how beings like humans should live. The uncaused cause having a moral nature so that caring for the environment or not committing rape is obligatory means humans should fulfill these obligations even if it puts them in danger. Inversely, if the uncaused cause has a moral nature so that killing or even torturing every living thing is obligatory, then this is what humans should do regardless of how they feel.
In no way is the universe itself or the emotional reactions that specific people have to it relevant to the existence or nature of values. Logic dictates possibility and what does or does not follow from truths and ideas, while the moral nature or lack of it in the uncaused cause is what grounds the existence or nonexistence of objective morality, beauty, and meaning, though of course even this is constrained by the necessary truths of reason. Observing and dwelling on nature and the extended universe--not that it is possible to even know what the universe really looks like or if there is more to the universe than the miniscule physical substance that can actually be proven to exist [2]--can indeed stir up deep existential feelings that provoke, accompany, or celebrate philosophical truths. Only someone too stupid to avoid believing in contradictions or assumptions is not able to grasp this. It truly is not very difficult to realize when one does not settle for assumptions, though this is so very foundational to the nature of many things.
No comments:
Post a Comment