The Instigator
Rejuvenation
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Nihilism II

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,176 times Debate No: 12621
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Rejuvenation

Pro

I felt like we weren't finished yet on this subject. So, I made a topic "Nihilism II". I hope you'll finish your statements, since you have another 8000 characters. May I add something I noticed; in the final round of Nihilism, your language was similar to the language Jeff Dunham uses for his shows. Just noticed.
FREEDO

Con

===INTRODUCTION===

I'm very glad my opponent was interested enough to extend the debate.

Not sure what he meant about me sounding like Jeff Dunham.

This debate is going to be recognized as an extension of a previous debate, which as such has 10 total rounds. Everything in the previous debate applies here.

Here is the first part of this debate:
http://www.debate.org...

Do not vote on this debate unless you have read the previous part.

===CONTINUED RESPONSES===

"If you do not feel anything, you cannot feel the positivity or negativity you got in your previous life. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you do in life, as any feeling gotten in life is quickly swept away by death. The ultimate end that exists for all beings in creation doesn't judge. It simply throws our lives away. Everyone, no matter the circumstances, feels the same in death."

>> Like I pointed out before; dieing does not remove any meaning from any positive feeling that happened before. It is not pointless. The only way it could become pointless is if an eternity of negative awaited us, but there's nothing scientific to suggest that. Our consciousness is a construct of chemical reactions within our brain that ceases to function upon death. Death is not a negative, it is a zero on my scale and thus does not subtract from the previous score. We still have complete intrinsic purpose to pursue the positive while we are live. And who knows, it may be possible that in this incredibly modern age we will be the first generation to discover how to entirely negate death.
I find great joy in the realization that I live in a modern age that it is becoming increasingly more easy to have access to positive feeling. We enjoy technology, health, entertainment and an altogether much higher standard of living than at any other time in history before us. Now the only thing that stands in our way of achieving complete bliss is an inadequate attitude towards life.
There are huge negatives in life and it is best that we come to realize them, otherwise we would be unable to fix them. But an attitude which sees the negative and ignores the positive or negates that it has any meaning is even worse than ignoring the bad. It is senseless, useless and will destroy you from the inside-out.
Debate Round No. 1
Rejuvenation

Pro

Not sure what he meant about me sounding like Jeff Dunham.

Watch the Jeff Dunham show, the language he uses is similar to the one you used in your last post.

The claim by yours which I negated was not that some negative turn out can be found but that every turn out is negative. That is what you said. All you've done here is repeat what I have actually said. There are potential negative turnouts and potential positive turnouts. We have an intrinsic purpose to pursue the positive.

Any positive side also has negative marks, so even if the outcome overall is positive, there are flaws.

You're assertion that there is no "pure positivity", whether true or false is pointless because you have stated very clearly here that positivity does exist and have not once refuted that we have an intrinsic purpose to pursue it. This means the Nihilistic philosophy falls apart.

I have stated that all effort of pursueing that positivity is pointless, and as such, I refuted the purpose to pursue it.

Whether that is true or not, we do not always, and neither should we always, do what is natural.

Oh, but we should. It would make us so far "happier" to leave that whole consciousness behind, and just kill at sight, like the good ol' days.

Oh come on. Man up to the facts. You can't blame everyone for your own problems. This is precisely why you have yet to fix the problems; not because they can't be fixed, they certainly can, but because you haven't realized where they all come from. Your family isn't the problem, Nihilism is the problem. You act like Nihilism is the realization of all this despair that can't be avoided, but that couldn't be farther from the truth, it is the SOURCE of the despair itself.

I am not blaming everyone for my problems. I realize that some of my actions are my fault, but that doesn't mean it is all my fault. Nihilism is not the source of despair, it is a way of thinking created by people in despair. Nihilism is, as such, for me the logical answer.

Besides the paradox of a Nihilist believing in sins, this is precisely one of the reasons you are so depressed. You OBVIOUSLY DO want things or else you would have already killed yourself. There is nothing wrong or immoral about selfishness, my friend. Why are you doing this debate? Because you wanted to. Why do you eat? Because you want to. Why do you associate with others? Because you want to. Why do you do ANYTHING AT ALL? Because you want to. Why do you want to? Because it makes you...happy? YES, happy! Fulfilling these desires makes you HAPPY! To not fulfill them means more misery. You are an individual conscious entity who intrinsically knows in of his own being that some feelings are good and some are bad. You pursue the good! But your philosophy is holding you back from doing this because it denies that the pursuit is even valid, a proclamation for which it has a complete absence of reason and refuses to even address. You want happiness, correct? To say no is insanity. To say yes but call yourself immoral for it is incredible ignorance.

Dude, I tried. Knives aren't as sharp as people say they are. Went through six years of therapy for that, thank you very much. And I do not want happiness. I threw that away years ago. All I want now is to age and die quietly. And, if possible, the aging isn't really necessary.

Guess what man! You actually can solve those dissatisfactions! And without the need for any baseless religious beliefs. You DO NOT need religion to have morality. Morality is implied by reason. It is implied by self-evidences and axioms. I used to be on the edge of suicide, now I am the happiest person I know! And I am not stretching that to sound better for the debate! Ask around on this site, I'm Mr.Happypants.

You can't solve everything by looking at it happily. Guess what, morality comes from reason, and reason comes from habit. As such, since habit is the base, if someone has a habit of killing people, then that person's morality will have some line that says "It's OK to kill people."

Woe, woe woe. To want things to be better no matter the consequences?? You don't see the paradox of that? You can never want things to be better IN SPITE of consequences because wanting them to be better at all is IN LIGHT of the consequences. What you said makes no sense. Better consequences is the bottom line, period.

Let's say, you go to the grocery store. In front of you is an old lady who takes the last apple. Let's say you really wanted that apple. You kill the old lady, get the apple, pay for it and walk home with the apple. No matter the consequences, since YOU just got BUSTED for murder.

That is completely baseless!! There IS this actuall thing that exists called EMPATHY. It DOES have people place others BEFORE themselves. THIS HAPPENS. And this is a very good thing. Because embracing empathy creates a much happier and stable person, not only biologically but environmentally as well.

When people place others before themselves, it either means that that person needs this person for something, or that that person wants to look good in front of the other people. No such thing as true empathy.

Oh? You stated it? I'm so sorry, excuse me. I didn't realize you were God and everything you say correct...IT IS BASELESS. Whatever you mean by "true love" is semantical but love DOES exist, it IS good and having a life filled with it DOES create a more fulfilled life. So what you say here in no way refutes the point I was making.

Love is a drug. Drugs manipulate people. Drugs have the same effects on anyone. Everyone has been in love once, and it doesn't matter who you ask, they will always state love to be the same feeling. No matter who you love, it is all just the same. They might make you "happy" but it makes you lose grip on reality.

Oh wow, I can't tell you how strange this is for me. This is EXACTLY what I would tell myself before. It is sad and wrong.
First off, you just flat-out said we have a purpose which refutes your entire stance on this debate. Second, you're wrong; saying the we have a purpose to survive because that's how things work in nature to create higher life-forms and that's what are basic nature is would again be committing the naturalistic fallacy. Nature IS based off of survival and reproduction but IS NOT based off of reason. The goal of nature is not to create the most reasonable life-form, even though it's possible that may occur do to that life-form having the best survival and reproduction odds. HOWEVER, morality IS based off of reason and IS NOT based off of survival and reproductions. What is right and wrong is not based on what is natural, it is based on what is reasonable. Nature and morality MAY coincide but do not ALWAYS. Many times nature is moral, such as in the case of empathy. Many times it is not, such as in the case of violence.

Already gave a comment on empathy. Don't believe in it. And we are the simple products of years of development. It means we are just one end of the line. There is no such thing as normal reason, because in the end, it is all nature's doing. We do not really have a say in this.
Language was created for the sake of survival. With that language, our ways of thinking became more complex, which is a natural occurence. And our thoughts always lead back to nature.

Wrong, I'll use the point system again. Not wanting anything means you always have a 0. Wanting things and fulfilling them means you will have a +1 or higher.

Then I'll say it again, too. If you want those points, if you want to be hapy, you'll pursue it. If you do not want to be happy, and do not want those points, then you arehappy as a result of not wanting to be happy.

NO! Did everything I say there phase right through you? Death doesn't take away from the score because it isn't negative, it is 0. I'd reply more but I have ran out room.

If everyone feels the same in death, then it takes away the score.
FREEDO

Con

"Watch the Jeff Dunham show, the language he uses is similar to the one you used in your last post."

>> Lol, ok.

"Any positive side also has negative marks, so even if the outcome overall is positive, there are flaws."

>> Not ALL positive results are accompanied by negative. Many are though, but we have an instrinstic purpose to obtain as much positive with the least negative as possible. Bottom-line is that it is possible to obtain more positive than negative, which makes my philosophy valid.

"I have stated that all effort of pursueing that positivity is pointless, and as such, I refuted the purpose to pursue it."

>> A baseless remark. You have made no logical case to support this. You have merely stated it. So it stands as null.

"Oh, but we should. It would make us so far "happier" to leave that whole consciousness behind, and just kill at sight, like the good ol' days."

>> No...no it would not. We enjoy a immeasurably better standard of living when we are not trying to kill each other. World peace is what we should seek to obtain more happiness.

"I am not blaming everyone for my problems. I realize that some of my actions are my fault, but that doesn't mean it is all my fault. Nihilism is not the source of despair, it is a way of thinking created by people in despair. Nihilism is, as such, for me the logical answer."

>> I never said you were the source of ALL of your problems. Neither did I say Nihilism is the source of ALL of your problems. But Nihilism is a huge part of the problem. It is illogical and causes needless despair. You would be far happier with the more logical rationalist/hedonist/consequentionalist philosophy. Not only because you would then have a happier attitude of the world but the effects of the philosophy would have more potential for causing a positive environment.

"Dude, I tried. Knives aren't as sharp as people say they are. Went through six years of therapy for that, thank you very much. And I do not want happiness. I threw that away years ago. All I want now is to age and die quietly. And, if possible, the aging isn't really necessary."

>> First off, you're really lucky you got therapy. I had nothing, no help, I never told anyone, I was completely alone. Yet I pulled through. Second, no no no no...by definition it is impossible to not want happiness. You do want happiness, there is no escaping this. It's paradoxical to say you don't want it since happiness itself is whatever you DO want. Getting the most happiness possible is just a matter of changing what it is you want. Instead of wanting to die you could want to live which would result in much more happiness. It's impossible to have any more happiness when you're dead.

"You can't solve everything by looking at it happily."

>> Actually a matter of fact if you were always happy then by definition you no longer have any problems. But don't confuse this with simply being content with everything. Seeking better scenarios and innovation is part of the path to achieving that happiness.

"Guess what, morality comes from reason, and reason comes from habit. As such, since habit is the base, if someone has a habit of killing people, then that person's morality will have some line that says "It's OK to kill people."

>> Reason comes from habit? No, no, no. You are confusing one's ABILITY to reason with what is ACTUALLY reasonable or not. The latter is what I am referring to by reason; which can also be called objective law. It does not come from habit. It is axiomatic so it doesn't particularly come from anything; it just is because it is impossible for it not to be. We do not create truth. Truth exists whether we know of it or not. Thankfully there are some truths we can know with certainty; I proved this. They are self-evidences and axioms. And from the self-evidences and axioms which we know we can conclude a morality and purpose which are irrefutable because they are the direct implication of certainties.

"Let's say, you go to the grocery store. In front of you is an old lady who takes the last apple. Let's say you really wanted that apple. You kill the old lady, get the apple, pay for it and walk home with the apple. No matter the consequences, since YOU just got BUSTED for murder."

>>HA! What is the point you are trying to make here? Obviously killing the old lady is not rational by the standards I provided. The negative of being convicted for murder,as well as the guilt of murder, is higher than the positive of getting the apple. Again, consequences are the bottom line.

"When people place others before themselves, it either means that that person needs this person for something, or that that person wants to look good in front of the other people. No such thing as true empathy."

>> Again, not only BASELESS but WRONG. Ask a psychologist, a neurologist, take a college class. The brain is full of chemicals which have many different effects such as this. This is medical fact. Your brain "rewards" you for doing kind things to others with a shot of dopamine, which is one of the chemicals directly related to happiness.

"Love is a drug. Drugs manipulate people. Drugs have the same effects on anyone. Everyone has been in love once, and it doesn't matter who you ask, they will always state love to be the same feeling. No matter who you love, it is all just the same. They might make you "happy" but it makes you lose grip on reality."

>> It's true that love can make us do silly things. But it's all for the ultimate prize of satisfaction it gives us. You still maintain your basic rationality within philosophy so you can measure the positive effects of the relationship along with the any negatives of the relationship and reach the highest amount of profit. Generally I would say being in a good relationship has far more benefit than risks, so it is something to pursue with a passion.

"Already gave a comment on empathy. Don't believe in it. And we are the simple products of years of development. It means we are just one end of the line. There is no such thing as normal reason, because in the end, it is all nature's doing. We do not really have a say in this.
Language was created for the sake of survival. With that language, our ways of thinking became more complex, which is a natural occurence. And our thoughts always lead back to nature."

>> Guess what.. I actually don't believe in free-will either. Everything which is going to happen was bound to happen due to the certain series of events which led up to it. But you are over-looking a huge detail. You still have a consciousness! There is no refuting that! And I showed clearly how having a consciousness has direct moral implications.

"Then I'll say it again, too. If you want those points, if you want to be hapy, you'll pursue it. If you do not want to be happy, and do not want those points, then you arehappy as a result of not wanting to be happy."

>> FAIL.

"If everyone feels the same in death, then it takes away the score."

Again, what I said phased right through you. It would have to be a negative to take away from the score.
Debate Round No. 2
Rejuvenation

Pro

I don't have a lot of time, so I'll keep it short.

>> Not ALL positive results are accompanied by negative. Many are though, but we have an instrinstic purpose to obtain as much positive with the least negative as possible. Bottom-line is that it is possible to obtain more positive than negative, which makes my philosophy valid.

Any negative result, even if accompanied by more or stronger positive results, will be marked by the person getting that result. As such, there will be more of a focus on the negative remarks then on the positive ones.

>> A baseless remark. You have made no logical case to support this. You have merely stated it. So it stands as null.

This leads back to the issue of death; as such, we are already discussing it. So it doesn't stand as null unless I lose that discussion.

>> No...no it would not. We enjoy a immeasurably better standard of living when we are not trying to kill each other. World peace is what we should seek to obtain more happiness.

If we didn't have a conscience, then we wouldn't have needed that better standard of living because we would've never known we could live like that. The less you have grown up with, the less you are content with.

>> I never said you were the source of ALL of your problems. Neither did I say Nihilism is the source of ALL of your problems. But Nihilism is a huge part of the problem. It is illogical and causes needless despair. You would be far happier with the more logical rationalist/hedonist/consequentionalist philosophy. Not only because you would then have a happier attitude of the world but the effects of the philosophy would have more potential for causing a positive environment

I understand that Nihilism is one of the ten aspects of death. However, for me it was the solution I came up with while thinking of how to spend the little bit rest of my life. I don't need a happier attitude - It won't matter in the end, anyways.

>> First off, you're really lucky you got therapy. I had nothing, no help, I never told anyone, I was completely alone. Yet I pulled through. Second, no no no no...by definition it is impossible to not want happiness. You do want happiness, there is no escaping this. It's paradoxical to say you don't want it since happiness itself is whatever you DO want. Getting the most happiness possible is just a matter of changing what it is you want. Instead of wanting to die you could want to live which would result in much more happiness. It's impossible to have any more happiness when you're dead.

Yeah, hurray for therapy. Being looked at like a moron for six years, not being able to bond with anyone or even speak to anyone normally and getting beat up every week for being different. Hurray. I'd have liked it better if they'd just left me alone. And about this happiness paradox - well, I believe we're discussing that as well, already.

>> Actually a matter of fact if you were always happy then by definition you no longer have any problems. But don't confuse this with simply being content with everything. Seeking better scenarios and innovation is part of the path to achieving that happiness.

It isn't rational, or even logical to always be happy. But again - we were already discussing this. Time to really cut a few things off of this conversation.

>> Reason comes from habit? No, no, no. You are confusing one's ABILITY to reason with what is ACTUALLY reasonable or not. The latter is what I am referring to by reason; which can also be called objective law. It does not come from habit. It is axiomatic so it doesn't particularly come from anything; it just is because it is impossible for it not to be. We do not create truth. Truth exists whether we know of it or not. Thankfully there are some truths we can know with certainty; I proved this. They are self-evidences and axioms. And from the self-evidences and axioms which we know we can conclude a morality and purpose which are irrefutable because they are the direct implication of certainties.

Anything is reasonable. Everything has a certain logic behind it to be thought up by the mind - the basis of psychology. Truth doesn't exist. And neither do lies. In anything we say or do, there is always something to refute what we said or did. No matter how well you try to explain things.

>>HA! What is the point you are trying to make here? Obviously killing the old lady is not rational by the standards I provided. The negative of being convicted for murder,as well as the guilt of murder, is higher than the positive of getting the apple. Again, consequences are the bottom line.

Yes, well, that's why I said the apple would make you REALLY happy. And I mean "oh my god I'm so happy happy"-happy.

>> Again, not only BASELESS but WRONG. Ask a psychologist, a neurologist, take a college class. The brain is full of chemicals which have many different effects such as this. This is medical fact. Your brain "rewards" you for doing kind things to others with a shot of dopamine, which is one of the chemicals directly related to happiness.

Wrong. The brain doesn't reward you for doing nice things, the brain rewards you for getting a better chance at survival by having people "like" you.

>> It's true that love can make us do silly things. But it's all for the ultimate prize of satisfaction it gives us. You still maintain your basic rationality within philosophy so you can measure the positive effects of the relationship along with the any negatives of the relationship and reach the highest amount of profit. Generally I would say being in a good relationship has far more benefit than risks, so it is something to pursue with a passion.

I've been in love only once, and all it gave me was trouble. People these days - it's like they agree with me subconsciously. They throw away their "partners" for others who, they think, are better "suited". "Love" is a horrible misunderstanding of nature.

>> Guess what.. I actually don't believe in free-will either. Everything which is going to happen was bound to happen due to the certain series of events which led up to it. But you are over-looking a huge detail. You still have a consciousness! There is no refuting that! And I showed clearly how having a consciousness has direct moral implications.

Consciousness leads back to nature. As such, all actions can be predicted and can't be changed.

>> FAIL.

True. But this is that happiness-paradox we were talking about. I guess there is no real answer.

Again, what I said phased right through you. It would have to be a negative to take away from the score.

If everyone feels the same, then it doesn't matter what you did in life. If you had a "positive score" in life, then death is negative. If you had a negative score in life, then death is positive.
I think I don't really understand you here, and you don't really understand me here.

No time left.
FREEDO

Con

FREEDO forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Rejuvenation

Pro

Rejuvenation forfeited this round.
FREEDO

Con

FREEDO forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Rejuvenation

Pro

Rejuvenation forfeited this round.
FREEDO

Con

FREEDO forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Rejuvenation 6 years ago
Rejuvenation
Ive ran out of room. Next time, I'll try to fill it in.
No votes have been placed for this debate.