I actually answered her in text, so i can share what I wrote (translated from Hebrew). It’s mostly based on ideas from the sequences, and it was before I heard of Vervaeke (I think before these lectures even came out).
So, similarly to the quote i showed you[1] - If there’s no meaning and nothing is wrong, then there’s nothing bad in believing that there’s meaning and that there are things which are right. So you don’t need a very strong justification to make basic assumptions about morality, like (in general) “Joy is preferable to suffering” or “Life is preferable to death”. But why would you choose these assumptions (or similar)? Why not the opposite? What method can you use to arrive at this assumptions? We cannot decouple what is “moral” or “valuable” to us from our humanity. There isn’t an ultimate moral argument that will convince every intelligent being what is right and what is wrong. And we don’t have a choice but to use our brain to think about morality. It’s true that at the end of the day the reason we prefer joy and pleasure to sadness and pain, that we value love and beauty (and that these things even exist) is the result of a random process of natural selection, and not because these things have inherent value. but if we refuse to take into account what evolution is responsible for, we’ll have to refuse to even use our brain. We can’t choose to be a “Philosophy student of perfect emptiness” that supposedly comes from a completely neutral starting point to examine every argument. A student of perfect emptiness is a stone. There’s a nothing we could say to a stone that would move it. So the preferences of humans are valid arguments for what is valuable. There’s importance to the fact that if a hot iron is pressed to your body you would prefer it not to be. To the fact you you prefer a sweet apple to a soar one. That you enjoy seeing people have fun. That you suffer from seeing people suffer. You are justified in building base assumptions based on these things.
[1] It was this quote from Eric Weinstein: “Don’t be afraid to fool yourself into thinking that life is meaningful and that, against all odds, *you* have an important part to play in the world. If it’s all meaningless you‘ll have done no harm lying to yourself. And if by some chance this matters, you will waste less time.” The principle I distilled from it is that The existence of meaning precedes the importance of truth (I’ll be happy to discuss that one).
To say something is important is to make some value judgement, and it requires that things already have meaning. So if you say “There’s no meaning. Everything is meaningless”, and I ask “and why do you believe that?”, and you say “because it is true”, and I ask, “but if everything is meaningless, why is it important what the truth is?”, how do you answer without assuming some meaning? How can you justify the importance of anything, including truth, without any meaning?
So if everything is meaningless, you can believe otherwise and nothing bad would happen, even though it’s not the truth, because everything is meaningless (and thus nothing, including truth, can’t be important). If things are meaningful, you can believe they are meaningful, because it’s true. And also, if things are meaningful and you believe otherwise, that may be bad, because truth may indeed be important.
So for things to be important to you (including truth), things first have to be meaningful. Therefore the existence of meaning precedes the importance of truth, and if there’s no meaning then nothing can say you shouldn’t believe otherwise.
p.s: Verveake also said something similar: “Before you assess truth, things have to be meaningful to you”.
I actually answered her in text, so i can share what I wrote (translated from Hebrew). It’s mostly based on ideas from the sequences, and it was before I heard of Vervaeke (I think before these lectures even came out).
[1] It was this quote from Eric Weinstein: “Don’t be afraid to fool yourself into thinking that life is meaningful and that, against all odds, *you* have an important part to play in the world. If it’s all meaningless you‘ll have done no harm lying to yourself. And if by some chance this matters, you will waste less time.” The principle I distilled from it is that The existence of meaning precedes the importance of truth (I’ll be happy to discuss that one).
Please. I’m not sure what it means, exactly, but I’m interested.
To say something is important is to make some value judgement, and it requires that things already have meaning. So if you say “There’s no meaning. Everything is meaningless”, and I ask “and why do you believe that?”, and you say “because it is true”, and I ask, “but if everything is meaningless, why is it important what the truth is?”, how do you answer without assuming some meaning? How can you justify the importance of anything, including truth, without any meaning?
So if everything is meaningless, you can believe otherwise and nothing bad would happen, even though it’s not the truth, because everything is meaningless (and thus nothing, including truth, can’t be important). If things are meaningful, you can believe they are meaningful, because it’s true. And also, if things are meaningful and you believe otherwise, that may be bad, because truth may indeed be important.
So for things to be important to you (including truth), things first have to be meaningful. Therefore the existence of meaning precedes the importance of truth, and if there’s no meaning then nothing can say you shouldn’t believe otherwise.
p.s: Verveake also said something similar: “Before you assess truth, things have to be meaningful to you”.
Thank you, I believe I understand