>>734307>I don't think that those concepts have any meaning outside of a human value system. They are just the results of men labeling things as good and bad.this relativism always results in nihilism
value and meaning are real, everyone ultimately believes this since the alternative annihilates all reason for living, and for doing or thinking anything
just on a surface level, everyone actually believes certain ways of being are better and worse than others, and ultimately it is unbelievable to everyone that what they believe is no more true than the opposite belief of someone else
but on a deeper level, there is no way of making sense of the idea of doing or thinking anything for a reason without value, since responding to reasons is itself normative, it's evaluating a reason as good and accepting an "ought"
>Then you'd probably call me a naturalist. Such a statement is unfalsifiable so I'd refrain from making it.if you were correct and anti-naturalism were unfalsifiable, then naturalism would be as well, so if falsifiability is your standard for belief, you can't believe naturalism
but my statement is not "unfalsifiable," it gets falsified if a sound argument is offered against it
you're probably just presuming that such an argument would have to be narrowly empirical
>We only experience reality as what is channelled to our perception.this is either a trivial tautology like "we only experience reality as we experience it" or a baseless extreme skepticism that tends towards nihilism
if you really thought everything we ever think only concerns a reality-as-experienced which we can have no reason to think bears any resemblance to actual reality, then you would have absolutely no reason behind any of the rules of inference you follow, any of the basic logical, epistemic, or metaphysical notions you take for granted
so not only would your argument self-detonate, but you would get a total no-standards relativism, which is as good as nihilism
