The Instigator
Harlan
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Lacan
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

You can't reasobly be 100% sure that you are reading/engaging in this debate, but you R fairly sure.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,464 times Debate No: 915
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (13)

 

Harlan

Pro

You to be sure of absolutely nothing, it is flat-out impossible for you to be 100% sure that anything perceived by any of you're five senses, or conclusions you make, from external influences or internal influences are correct. The world you live in is solely composed of signals received by the brain. You can not be sure that you are reading this debate.

For the sake of pondering, I will present a hypothetical...You are actually having a dream. The dream actually started 2 minutes ago, no matter at what time you are reading this debate. All memories of past events, including memories of reading this debate previously, are simply memories made up by the dream, but never actually happened. You can't prove me wrong, because they only exist in you're head. In the real world, you are actually a lamp post…in the real world, lampposts can think, it is only in this nightmare that lampposts are soulless tools used by humans. In the real world, the night sky is white, while the stars are specks of black, and all of lamppost life exists on a giant…giant...errr…um…it is very different than any thing you could comprehend, I can assure you, as it is so different from the pretend rules of reality in you're silly dream, the language "English" to which you made up as a figment of you're imagination in you're dream, has unfortunately, made no word for this "place" to which the lampposts live. None of this is really happened.

In fact, I, too, am simply a figment of you're imagination…you're brain is actually controlling me…I am part of the dream.

Can you "prove" me wrong? You cannot. You never really read the previous part of this argument, which is just a made-up memory, as parts of you're dream. You did not really read that last sentence.

-a figment of you're imagination, Harlan

PS. you should all se the movie "waking life, which I suddenly remembered when typing the last part.
Lacan

Con

"Jean Baudrillard never existed and has chosen this moment to disappear"

Not quite the same as what you saying, but its the closest thing to an intelligent argument I can make from you dangerous dialects. I've read your other debates, and it's seemed to be that you have stuck to a Lacanian/Platonic style of logic, this however is not supported by that logic.

First,
This type of dialectics is dangerous because if we allow ourself to slip from direct awareness, that is the belief that the world around us is as perceives, into partial awareness we lose self to self ethics. These ethics are the only things that prevent rational people from becoming Hitler equivalents.

"You can't reasobly be 100% sure that you are reading/engaging in this debate,"

No, I am sure I am debating this. I can't be sure I am awake, and i can't be sure I am not in a matrix. What I can be sure is that in some way or form this debate is occurring and is therefore real.

The "Desert of the Real" in the matrix was in fact in side the matrix. This quote shows that even when something is fictional by standards of Truth (note the capital T)it is made real by the fact that it is being pervived by the human mind. The idea that reality must only be the waking, uncontrolled mind is flawed in that it choses to define reality by an arbitrary standard.A dream I have is no less real that a movie i watch. Both occur in the same plane of existance, and the human brain stores the two things much the same. So long as my brain is giving me signals, I will defend that this debate is real.

originality is the other reason your ideas are flawed. The human brain is unable to produce original thought in dreams, it recycles things that it thought while awake.If this was a dream, you would be quoting Zizek. I have never heard of that movie, and would never have dreamed it, not that dreams arent real.

Also he makes a number of arguments that can be different advocasys, you are voting on only
"You can't reasonably be 100% sure that you are reading/engaging in this debate,"As that is the line he is affirming.

Harlen - Read Revolutions Reloaded on Lacan.com (under zizek)
Debate Round No. 1
Harlan

Pro

Lacan, I must start off by saying that you have a very firm grip on logic and philosophy.

"This type of dialectics is dangerous because if we allow yourself to slip from direct awareness, that is the belief that the world around us is as perceives, into partial awareness we lose self to self ethics. These ethics are the only things that prevent rational people from becoming Hitler equivalents."

Do not worry, I have never "acted" on these types of beliefs. I am, for the most part, a Taoist, and, though my intuitive "knowledge" may "know" certain things, I act on my instincts, as much as I can, and live in the present, and believe in my surroundings that I can sense. It is useless to try to defy the natural sets of our minds.

"The idea that reality must only be the waking, uncontrolled mind is flawed in that it choses to define reality by an arbitrary standard"

I, hereby, concede, that my perception and definition of reality is flawed, for the mean time. I will, however, think about this, for a while, and possibly start this debate again, if I come back to my original conclusion. Thank you, for sharing this logic. And, sorry for abruptly ending the debate.

-Harlan
Lacan

Con

I feel the outcome of the debate at this point is rather clear.

I'm glad you've had an open mind, and see that you have a keen interest in philosophy. Read Baudrillard he does support you claim, but I'll admit, hes very difficult to understand and I have a limited knowledge of his work.
Debate Round No. 2
Harlan

Pro

Harlan forfeited this round.
Lacan

Con

This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
Voting.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
I have a new perception of reality.

Last weekend I had an amazing experience. I stumbled upon (compeltely on accident) a lucid dream. I regarded the concept (having watched the movie waking life) as merely interesting but not of much value, and only attainable by experts, impossible to pursue. But I say now that it was absolutely amazing. (I was even able to exert a limited amount of control over mydream environment. If QANYONE here has any experience with lucid dreams, I would like to hear some suggewstions to ahve another). So anyways, it has made me look at reality more perplexedly. And I know that I should not be slep walking in my waking life, butI can not help spend alot of my day lustfully imagining what I could be doing if only I was in a lucid dream.
Posted by SirJDKnightCroix 8 years ago
SirJDKnightCroix
Reality is irrelevent.
The Taoist appeared in the first round to hold an all knowing philosophy based on uncertainty and mystique unknown.

Truth is, everything's absurd, and the very essence of even judging whether something is real or not, is absurd.

HAHA Camus trumps any philosophy.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Being "100% sure" is a personal choice and opinion. Like Lacan said- "I can't be sure I am awake, and i can't be sure I am not in a matrix. What I can be sure is that in some way or form this debate is occurring and is therefore real." I believe this argument is logically infallible as since like Harlan says- "The world you live in is solely composed of signals received by the brain." The five senses are the most basic functions of the brain, and the signals are processed through logic as with a computer. Even if the logic is flawed, being "sure" is a basic affirmation of that logic.
Posted by Dapperdan2007 8 years ago
Dapperdan2007
I'm dissapointed that harlan gave up this debate. Whether or not you feel you were defeated, there were still aways to hold your position in this debate. I'm not sure of which side I believe, but I certainly feel I could debate on either side of it. I also find this a fascinating topic.
Posted by Anonymous 8 years ago
Anonymous
What?.....WHAT?! What are you guys talking about...
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
I always find this topic fascinating. In reality, what do we know beyond our five basic senses? Is there really anything behind us? For all we know, anything beyond out approximate 170 degrees of vision could simply be blackness. Then what is black, but a recognition of a a few light waves that our eyes are able to comprehend? Is that even right, as some animals can only see in black and white, or pastels? Who's body truly is lying? We may not have a body at all, but a neurological representation. We may not even have brains or minds, but something far more complex that has imagined it all in order to produce something that makes sense to itself. In essence, I could very well be "god", and everything else does not exist. So interesting, and yet impossible to prove or otherwise. Once again, like so many other human concepts, it all comes down to faith.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
What you say makes sense to me, and I think I must re-form my perception of what reality is.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
you've given me a bit to think about.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mattresses 8 years ago
mattresses
HarlanLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
HarlanLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
HarlanLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 8 years ago
griffinisright
HarlanLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
HarlanLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
HarlanLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by jwebb893 8 years ago
jwebb893
HarlanLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by TheMasterBrask 8 years ago
TheMasterBrask
HarlanLacanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by righty10294 8 years ago
righty10294
HarlanLacanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
HarlanLacanTied
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