The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
drafterman
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Every view ends in meaninglessness

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
drafterman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,217 times Debate No: 35308
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

shakuntala

Pro

This MA in philosophy argues all views end in meaninglessness ie existentialism nihilism etc all ologies all isms every view
Contentless-Thought-A-Case-Study-in-the-Meaninglessness-of-all-Views

http://www.scribd.com...

quote
" all our categories, all our ideas, all theses, all antitheses, all philosophies, all epistemologies, all ethics, all ontologies, and all metaphysics, in other words all our views are meaningless. They all collapse into absurdity, or meaninglessness via a dialectical reductio ad absurdum form of argumentation... Absurdities (i.e. self-contradiction, infinite regress, paradox, circularities and dilemmas) exist within a word, image, concept, or anything else as a yet to be discovered statue exists within the block of marble."
drafterman

Con

1. Suppose "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is true. (Hypothesis)
2. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is a view. (Given)
3. Meaningless views are neither true nor false. (Given)
4. Meaningless views are not true. (From 3)
5. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is meaningless. (From 1,2)
6. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is not true. (From 4,5)

The resolution is disproven. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

you say
"1. Suppose "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is true. (Hypothesis)
2. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is a view. (Given)
3. Meaningless views are neither true nor false. (Given)
4. Meaningless views are not true. (From 3)
5. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is meaningless. (From 1,2)
6. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is not true. (From 4,5)"

the notion "true" ends in meaninglessness

the notion "meaninglessness" ends in meaninglessness
drafterman

Con

This is barely a refutation. Pro invokes concepts such as logical absurdities, reductio ad absurdum, paradoxes and contradictions, then denies the meaning of truth. Pro can't have it both ways. Either those things mean something, in which case my argument stands, or they don't, in which case Pro refutes his initial argument.
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

you say
"his is barely a refutation. Pro invokes concepts such as logical absurdities, reductio ad absurdum, paradoxes and contradictions, then denies the meaning of truth. Pro can't have it both ways. Either those things mean something, in which case my argument stands, or they don't, in which case Pro refutes his initial argument."

Con offered a rebuttal
starting with the premiss
1. Suppose "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is true
you see he uses the notion "true" but if every view ends in meaninglessness- as his premise states - then based on his premise the notion/view "true"" ends in meaninglessness as well
so he cannot go on with the rest of his syllogism

so in effect con did not offer a rebuttal

also his premiss
1. Suppose "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is true is impredicative ie is a view thus referring to itself thus even the premiss ends in meaninglessness

so again

so in effect con did not offer a rebuttal
drafterman

Con

I can barely comprehend Pros response. Regardless, the debate isn't that words don't have meaning, just that world views are all ultimately meaningless. The fact that Pro is engaging in a debate using the abstract concept of language is an implicit concession that words DO have meaning, including the word "true."

Furthermore, Pro can't hope to defend a debate premise without the concept of truth.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
shakuntaladraftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: To quote pro "I can barely comprehend Pros response." I however had this to both sides at times in the debate.
Vote Placed by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
shakuntaladraftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Drafterman refuted Pro in a concise, easy-to-follow syllogism. If we assume Pro's resolution is a given, it is self-refuting (as all claims of this kind are). Pro offered little cogent refutation.