are people more than shadows of themselves ?
Debate Rounds (3)
Thanks to my opponent for suggesting this topic, although I'm not entirely sure how a plausible case can be formulated on either side from the resolution. I'll be taking a purely scientific standpoint on this in advancing my own contentions, but I may respond to my opponent's possible religiously-impelled arguments in kind.
As this is only three rounds, I'd like to basically go over my singular contention.
1. Scientific evidence shows that people are tangible objects, whie shadows are not
The definition of a "shadow," according to Merriam-Webster, is as follows :
A partial darkness or obscurity within a part of space from which rays from a source of light are cut off by an interposed opaque body
A reflected image
Shelter from danger or observation
a : an imperfect and faint representation b : an imitation of something. . .
It goes on, obviously, into more esoteric definitions, but I believe that these are the most plausible definitions of "shadow" in the context of this debate.
I shall endeavour to prove all of these as subpoints.
A) People are not "a partial darkness." In fact, they consist of cells--a gross oversimplification, but adequate enough--which are not intangibles like "a partial darkness" but in fact real, tangible objects. Any High School Biology textbook will tell you this. Going further down in complexity, people are, in their very smallest parts, composed of atoms and subatomic particles. While it is true that people DO consist, in large part, of empty vacuum due to an atom's configurations, they are still tangible objects, unlike shadows in this definition.
B) People, as I have already stated, are tangible objects. Need I provide further evidence why they are not some reflection? The only argument my opponent could make in this case involves string theory, and I'll not delve into the specifics--may as well let my opponent bring them up--but they basically involve a view of reality that I feel contradicts the context of this debate.
But the above points deal mainly with the stringently literal aspects of "shadow." To stick closer to what I believe to be the impetus of my opponent's case, I'll focus on the metaphorical "shadow" that I believe my opponent was referencing.
C) People are hardly shelters from observation, given the amount of digital prying that goes into our lives . The danger aspect is debatable, but what about violent criminals?
D sub a) This will likely be the main issue of contention. I'd like my opponent to respond to this with further clarification before I address it in R2. My opponent also, arguing that people aren't more than shadows, must prove this.
D sub b) My opponent must likewise prove this. With evidence, preferably.
Citations (May add more in next round if necessary):
Thanks to my opponent, again, and good luck!
Sorry my dear opponent I thought it is obvious it is about hypocrisy and shadow side of every human being which sometimes prevail over our mind or you never been that desperate and broken to notice that side of you which your conscious ego does not recognize in itself and any other human being.
But if you want you expand your horizons I advise you to read about hypocrisy on this site:
I must say my dear opponent this isn't about hypocrisy but are people more than shadow of themselves our they not?
So what is Shadow ?
Here is basic Jung's Theory of The Shadow : "The Shadow describes the part of the psyche that an individual would rather not acknowledge. It contains the denied parts of the self. Since the self contains these aspects, they surface in one way or another. Bringing Shadow material into consciousness drains its dark power, and can even recover valuable resources from it. The greatest power, however, comes from having accepted your shadow parts and integrated them as components of your Self."
What I want to say what to do when everything seem like shadow and lie. According to Jung, the shadow, in being instinctive and irrational, is prone to projection: turning a personal inferiority into a perceived moral deficiency in someone else. Jung writes that if these projections are unrecognized "The projection-making factor then has a free hand and can realize its object--if it has one--or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power." These projections insulate and cripple individuals by forming an ever thicker fog of illusion between the ego and the real world.
I will give you example from little story from Plato's most famous book The Republic I advise you to read it to end to understand which comes later:
If you read it you should understand that a shadow is an image produced when “the human being stands between himself and his own light”, producing a limited and skewed projection of the man. The prisoners in Plato’s cave saw only shadows, unaware of the outside light or the objects obstructing its entrance. The restrained men were exposed only to a skewed perspective of reality, ignorant of the potential for an alternate reality or a greater truth. Unless a man investigates the source of the shadows of his mind, his world, and his reality, he may never come to know an absolute truth or find greater meaning in his life.I say that people are just shadows which we fail to notice.
Now my kind opponent I eagerly awaits your reply.
Much thanks to my opponent for clarifying the resolution somewhat, although my opponent's spelling and grammar hinders my understanding of his case. However, I'll highlight what I plan to respond to, and then respond to it:
"Jung's Theory of The Shadow"
My opponent clarifies that his arguments deal with Jung's "Shadow Theory." However, I'd like to point out his blatant, unsourced plagiarism. Let me quote my opponent:
"According to Jung, the shadow, in being instinctive and irrational, is prone to projection: turning a personal inferiority into a perceived moral deficiency in someone else. Jung writes that if these projections are unrecognized "The projection-making factor then has a free hand and can realize its object--if it has one--or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power." These projections insulate and cripple individuals by forming an ever thicker fog of illusion between the ego and the real world."
Let's take a look at the Wikipedia page on "Shadow (psychology)"--
"According to Jung, the shadow, in being instinctive and irrational, is prone to projection: turning a personal inferiority into a perceived moral deficiency in someone else. Jung writes that if these projections are unrecognized "The projection-making factor (the Shadow archetype) then has a free hand and can realize its object--if it has one--or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power."  These projections insulate and cripple individuals by forming an ever thicker fog of illusion between the ego and the real world."
This is almost, if not entirely identical to the Wikipedia page. On the revision history, I failed to see my opponent's handle's presence, and so I challenge my opponent to either prove that he actually wrote the section in the first place, or admit to plagiarism--which is a serious faux pas, need I remind you. This tactic is dishonest, and should be taken into consideration.
Now, I'm wasting response characters--and taking inordinate amounts of time--calling out my opponent's dishonesty, so I won't quote any more examples, but I advise the audience to check out the Wikipedia pages relating to Jungian psychology, as other potential plagiarisms could very well exist, and I'll call any ones that I can see easily out.
But on to the bulk of my response:
In order to prove this resolution Con--to argue that people are not, in fact, "more than shadows of themselves"--my opponent must provide some coherent, rational logic that proves--or at least inductively shows--that people aren't more than imperfect representations of themselves.
I ask my opponent provide some reasoning as to why humans do not, to quote my opponent, "find greater meaning in his life."
Now, in logic, it takes only one counterexample to disprove a statement, and here is mine:
Mother Teresa. She certainly seems to have found "greater meaning" in her life through helping the poor. I challenge my opponent to prove why humans do not have the capacity--or are unwilling--to receive this "greater meaning."
Furthermore, I dispute the principles on which my opponent based his argument. The Jungian philosophy holds, to paraphrase the Wikipedia page my opponent holds in such high esteem as to plagiarise it, that a "shadow" is a part--or all--of the unconscious self. For the "shadow" to take control, it must suborn or otherwise incapacitate the conscious self. Does my opponent mean to suggest that all humans are merely products of their unconsciousness?
This is simply impossible, as our society would collapse if that were true. To put this into perspective, I ask the audience to consider:
When have you felt mad at someone, and grumbled that you would want to inflict some harm against them without actually meaning that?
Now, if your unconscious were in control, then your baser instincts would actually cause you to inflict that harm, but the vast majority of us don't. Now, the resolution doesn't qualify exactly how much of society we call as "people"--whether my opponent means me to prove that every human alive and ever to be alive will be more than their unconsciousness, which would be abusive, or whether he wishes me simply to prove that the majority of people are like this--but I'll go with the assumption that he means simply "most" of society. Now, are the number of criminals (as a possible estimate for those who've succumbed to their unconsciousness) larger than the number of non-criminals? No. My opponent's argument is wrong, plain and simple.
I entreat my opponent, furthermore, to improve the coherence of his case, as it has seriously hampered any effort on my--and probably the audience's--part to actually comprehend his argumentation.
Thanks to my opponent for clarifying what he did, however, and I await my opponent's reply.
genos forfeited this round.
FF. Extend arguments.
Thanks to my opponent for this debate!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.