Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Life is Meaningless: True or false?

PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2010 1:36:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2010 1:31:27 PM, adealornodeal wrote:
What do you think? Arguments for and against.:

Well, if you say life is meaningless, then I assume so is that statement. A self-refuting argument.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2010 2:54:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
False.

Addendum: Meaning is relative.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2010 2:55:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
False.

I have intrinsic purpose to be happy. Doesn't mean I came into being with a purpose, but it means that since I am in being I have a purpose. Not saying that life is an ends in of itself, but that life is a means towards achieving my intrinsic purpose which is happiness.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2010 3:07:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2010 3:06:08 PM, theLwerd wrote:
False - we ascribe meaning to our own lives. Death might be meaningless :)

I agree with L, at least for the time being.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2010 3:09:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2010 2:55:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Doesn't mean I came into being with a purpose, but it means that since I am in being I have a purpose.

This.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2010 7:57:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2010 1:31:27 PM, adealornodeal wrote:
True or false?

false dichotomy!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2010 11:25:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2010 1:31:27 PM, adealornodeal wrote:
What do you think? Arguments for and against.

Objectively yes, but then objectively the questioin is meaningless. Subjectively... well it depends obviously.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2010 11:31:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
True. Does life need inherent meaning for it to be important to us though? Of course not. I may not have 'meaning' but I'll try to create as much as possible to have an enjoyable life.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 12:20:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 12:16:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A lack of intrinsic meaning is actually a good thing. It means that you get to set the bar, rather than having to strive to meet some expectation set by a cosmic dictator.

Of course it is! I'd rather create my own meaning then have it 'granted' to me by a higher power.

"Cosmic dictator" is your favorite phrase now isn't it? Lol
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 12:22:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 12:20:39 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:16:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A lack of intrinsic meaning is actually a good thing. It means that you get to set the bar, rather than having to strive to meet some expectation set by a cosmic dictator.

Of course it is! I'd rather create my own meaning then have it 'granted' to me by a higher power.

"Cosmic dictator" is your favorite phrase now isn't it? Lol

I've found that I really like to substitute it for "God". :)
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 12:23:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 12:22:04 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:20:39 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:16:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A lack of intrinsic meaning is actually a good thing. It means that you get to set the bar, rather than having to strive to meet some expectation set by a cosmic dictator.

Of course it is! I'd rather create my own meaning then have it 'granted' to me by a higher power.

"Cosmic dictator" is your favorite phrase now isn't it? Lol

I've found that I really like to substitute it for "God". :)

It works pretty well! :D
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 12:51:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 12:23:04 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:22:04 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:20:39 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:16:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A lack of intrinsic meaning is actually a good thing. It means that you get to set the bar, rather than having to strive to meet some expectation set by a cosmic dictator.

Of course it is! I'd rather create my own meaning then have it 'granted' to me by a higher power.

"Cosmic dictator" is your favorite phrase now isn't it? Lol

I've found that I really like to substitute it for "God". :)

It works pretty well! :D

Ah. Well, then: I take a bow.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 12:57:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 12:51:15 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:23:04 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:22:04 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:20:39 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:16:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A lack of intrinsic meaning is actually a good thing. It means that you get to set the bar, rather than having to strive to meet some expectation set by a cosmic dictator.

Of course it is! I'd rather create my own meaning then have it 'granted' to me by a higher power.

"Cosmic dictator" is your favorite phrase now isn't it? Lol

I've found that I really like to substitute it for "God". :)

It works pretty well! :D

Ah. Well, then: I take a bow.

However, I am slightly biased. I'm sure that some users tomorrow will get on saying life has inherent meaning and that god is a 'benevolent dicatator'. Hopefully they can realize the contradiction in such a statement before they post it.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 1:00:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 12:57:13 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:51:15 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:23:04 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:22:04 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:20:39 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:16:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A lack of intrinsic meaning is actually a good thing. It means that you get to set the bar, rather than having to strive to meet some expectation set by a cosmic dictator.

Of course it is! I'd rather create my own meaning then have it 'granted' to me by a higher power.

"Cosmic dictator" is your favorite phrase now isn't it? Lol

I've found that I really like to substitute it for "God". :)

It works pretty well! :D

Ah. Well, then: I take a bow.

However, I am slightly biased. I'm sure that some users tomorrow will get on saying life has inherent meaning and that god is a 'benevolent dicatator'. Hopefully they can realize the contradiction in such a statement before they post it.

I have noticed one problem with Nihilism in its complete form.

If one is a metaphysical/epistemological Nihilist, and believes that reality may not really exist, and that, if it does, its true form may be unknowable, one cannot easily be a moral Nihilist, since one could not be absolutely sure that moral truths did not exist.

Wat do?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 1:15:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 1:00:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:57:13 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:51:15 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:23:04 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:22:04 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:20:39 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:16:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A lack of intrinsic meaning is actually a good thing. It means that you get to set the bar, rather than having to strive to meet some expectation set by a cosmic dictator.

Of course it is! I'd rather create my own meaning then have it 'granted' to me by a higher power.

"Cosmic dictator" is your favorite phrase now isn't it? Lol

I've found that I really like to substitute it for "God". :)

It works pretty well! :D

Ah. Well, then: I take a bow.

However, I am slightly biased. I'm sure that some users tomorrow will get on saying life has inherent meaning and that god is a 'benevolent dicatator'. Hopefully they can realize the contradiction in such a statement before they post it.

I have noticed one problem with Nihilism in its complete form.

Not suprising... Each 'theory' has it's flaws. Nihilism and Skepticism seems to have the least though... ;)

If one is a metaphysical/epistemological Nihilist, and believes that reality may not really exist, and that, if it does, its true form may be unknowable, one cannot easily be a moral Nihilist, since one could not be absolutely sure that moral truths did not exist.

Wat do?

Epistemological nihilists believe that our existence cannot be proved to exist, since non-existence and existence both have no objective qualities... and if you cannot tell existence from non-existence, then it has no real 'meaning'. I think that you could inculde morality as 'meaning' since, without meaning, what is the use of right and wrong?

The very fact that you cannot discern existence from non-existence in objective terms, is seen as proof to the non-existence of morality. Why? Well, think of it this way. As a person, our meaning and even our very existence cannot be proven with certainty. Regardless, we have created these terms 'right' and 'wrong' to govern our lives. What is the point of that? Also, without any inherent meaning - how could there be inherent wrongs and rights? Truth is, there is no 'right' and 'wrong'. Just man-made fallacies in hope that we can CREATE meaning through control. And what better way to control, then by spreading the idea of morality?

You could believe in epistemological nihilism and still believe there are no morals... Most would argue that epistemological nihilism is just an extreme form of skepticism which in no way precludes epistemological nihilism from co-existing with it. Nihilism and skepticism should work together anyways... :D
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 3:02:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 1:15:21 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 1:00:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:57:13 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:51:15 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:23:04 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:22:04 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:20:39 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/9/2010 12:16:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A lack of intrinsic meaning is actually a good thing. It means that you get to set the bar, rather than having to strive to meet some expectation set by a cosmic dictator.

Of course it is! I'd rather create my own meaning then have it 'granted' to me by a higher power.

"Cosmic dictator" is your favorite phrase now isn't it? Lol

I've found that I really like to substitute it for "God". :)

It works pretty well! :D

Ah. Well, then: I take a bow.

However, I am slightly biased. I'm sure that some users tomorrow will get on saying life has inherent meaning and that god is a 'benevolent dicatator'. Hopefully they can realize the contradiction in such a statement before they post it.

I have noticed one problem with Nihilism in its complete form.

Not suprising... Each 'theory' has it's flaws. Nihilism and Skepticism seems to have the least though... ;)

If one is a metaphysical/epistemological Nihilist, and believes that reality may not really exist, and that, if it does, its true form may be unknowable, one cannot easily be a moral Nihilist, since one could not be absolutely sure that moral truths did not exist.

Wat do?

Epistemological nihilists believe that our existence cannot be proved to exist, since non-existence and existence both have no objective qualities... and if you cannot tell existence from non-existence, then it has no real 'meaning'. I think that you could inculde morality as 'meaning' since, without meaning, what is the use of right and wrong?

The very fact that you cannot discern existence from non-existence in objective terms, is seen as proof to the non-existence of morality. Why? Well, think of it this way. As a person, our meaning and even our very existence cannot be proven with certainty. Regardless, we have created these terms 'right' and 'wrong' to govern our lives. What is the point of that? Also, without any inherent meaning - how could there be inherent wrongs and rights? Truth is, there is no 'right' and 'wrong'. Just man-made fallacies in hope that we can CREATE meaning through control. And what better way to control, then by spreading the idea of morality?

You could believe in epistemological nihilism and still believe there are no morals... Most would argue that epistemological nihilism is just an extreme form of skepticism which in no way precludes epistemological nihilism from co-existing with it. Nihilism and skepticism should work together anyways... :D

I'm working on an argument (or set of arguments) which might let me validate the notion of objective reality and of our capability to gain knowledge. I don't know if it will work, but the whole "you can know nothing, and may not exist" bit is quite problematic, seeming like more of a fun mental exercise than a way to live in a world which we can make pretty good sense of.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 6:26:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2010 11:25:22 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/8/2010 1:31:27 PM, adealornodeal wrote:
What do you think? Arguments for and against.

Objectively yes, but then objectively the questioin is meaningless. Subjectively... well it depends obviously.:

Exactly. There is no known objective moral or objective meaning in life, but of the meanings and morals we choose to subscribe to. Meaning is individualistic. What has meaning for me, may have no meaning to you, and vice versa. But it doesn't invalidate my meaning, nor yours.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 7:00:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The very fact that you cannot discern existence from non-existence in objective terms, is seen as proof to the non-existence of morality.:

A lack of positive proof does not automatically assume the opposite. A lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack.

If you looked for water on the moon and didn't find any, is that therefore proof that there is no water on the moon? Or could it mean that even though you didn't find any, it doesn't negate the possibility of its existence?

we have created these terms 'right' and 'wrong' to govern our lives. What is the point of that?:

It serves a utilitarian and practical function, much like emotions. After all, emotions are physical indicators of meaning. If you begin to cry over someone's death, that;s a pretty good indication that the death of that person had meaning to you. Just because the whole world doesn't mourn with you does not invalidate that it had meaning to you.

Also, without any inherent meaning - how could there be inherent wrongs and rights? Truth is, there is no 'right' and 'wrong'.:

Well, you're committing yourself to logical error by offering an absolute to debunk absolutes, which is a contradiction in terms.

Argument: There is no such thing as absolutes. Absolutes do not exist.
Counter-argument: Then by there being no absolutes, you have invalidated your own statement. If there are NO absolutes, then your own statement we can therefore conclude the opposite -- that absolutes do exist.

Just man-made fallacies in hope that we can CREATE meaning through control. And what better way to control, then by spreading the idea of morality?:

After honest introspection, are you not guilty of the same perpetuation? Using words like "control," you tacitly give it negative connotation; i.e. wrong. But describing "survival" as having inherent value, you tacitly recognize it as "good."

We all utilize values (meanings) and morals (a self-standard of ethics). Just because we cannot identify an objective meaning or moral does not invalidate subjective meanings and morals, or their value to our lives.

Dimebag Darrell's murder was a tragedy of the highest order to many fans of metal. His life and death had a significance to me, but many others had no idea who he even was, and so they were indifferent. It had no meaning to them. So while no objective meaning was found in his death, it had subjective meaning to many others.

You could believe in epistemological nihilism and still believe there are no morals.:

Nihilism is more like a non-philosophy than it is a philosophy.

We can't objectively prove anything, so therefore assume nothing. It's just an epistemologically lazy, default position.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 2:53:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 7:00:42 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The very fact that you cannot discern existence from non-existence in objective terms, is seen as proof to the non-existence of morality.:

A lack of positive proof does not automatically assume the opposite. A lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack.

That's circular logic. First of all, I do not ascribe to epistemological nihilism. However, to state that the lack of evidence does not prove evidence of lack is a fallacy in itself. No one is claiming that, from no evidence, we can be sure there is no existence of maorals in general. HOWEVER, since there are no evidence of objective morals and no need for them, I live under the assumption that they do not exist. Remember, I'm a sketpic. Can you seriously fault Nihilists though? If there is no evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and no need for it to exist, why should I pray to it or follow its word? Same with morals...

If you looked for water on the moon and didn't find any, is that therefore proof that there is no water on the moon? Or could it mean that even though you didn't find any, it doesn't negate the possibility of its existence?

Morality is not like water so this comparison is useless. You COULD discover water and find proof of it's existence. You can't find any objective morals, though. Though some claim to have 'objective' morals, they have as much evidence as everyone else, and as much truth to their statements as a moral relativist.

we have created these terms 'right' and 'wrong' to govern our lives. What is the point of that?:

It serves a utilitarian and practical function, much like emotions. After all, emotions are physical indicators of meaning. If you begin to cry over someone's death, that;s a pretty good indication that the death of that person had meaning to you. Just because the whole world doesn't mourn with you does not invalidate that it had meaning to you.

Are you serious? Morals are not intrinsic like emotions. They are taught to you from a young age and have to be IMPLEMENTED to have meaning. However, a baby from the first day outside the womb, shows emotions. They might not have cognative realizations of what the emotion is, and what it means, but it's obviously inherent right?

Also, without any inherent meaning - how could there be inherent wrongs and rights? Truth is, there is no 'right' and 'wrong'.:

Well, you're committing yourself to logical error by offering an absolute to debunk absolutes, which is a contradiction in terms.

There is no absolute truth. Is that an objective? No, because it comes from my perspective. I do not claim it to be the truth for all mankind, since that would be a fallacy from the very start. I offer my view on truths to show others what I believe but not to re-write the social views of our age.

Argument: There is no such thing as absolutes. Absolutes do not exist.
Counter-argument: Then by there being no absolutes, you have invalidated your own statement. If there are NO absolutes, then your own statement we can therefore conclude the opposite -- that absolutes do exist.

Did I say that it was an objective statement? No. But you assume that is what I mean to try and show 'error' in my thinking.... See above for that.

Just man-made fallacies in hope that we can CREATE meaning through control. And what better way to control, then by spreading the idea of morality?:

After honest introspection, are you not guilty of the same perpetuation? Using words like "control," you tacitly give it negative connotation; i.e. wrong. But describing "survival" as having inherent value, you tacitly recognize it as "good."

What I believe to be 'good' is not automatically good and vice versa. And yes, I give 'control' a negative connontation because it has never been advantageous in my life. And from that, I will view it has 'bad'. Does that mean I believe it to be bad itself? Of course not. I would prefer freedom over control/oppression regardless.

We all utilize values (meanings) and morals (a self-standard of ethics). Just because we cannot identify an objective meaning or moral does not invalidate subjective meanings and morals, or their value to our lives.

Morals themselves attribute the idea of wrong or right to an action, yes? If you do not know it is indeed right or wrong, then why attribute such a propostion? Why must something be 'immoral' when you have no proof to prove such an allegation? I prefer to stick to logic, and if I know something to be logically corrupt, I won't let it guide my life or perspective.

Look at it this way. I see morals as a code to control. For example, if my friend tells me and my other friends that he wants to kill his ex-girlfriend, the first thing they'll do is say, 'Dude, that's wrong! Are you fvcking stupid?" and I know that some would say, "Do you have any morals, man? Come on!" Now, why is claiming something to be 'immoral' more useful than saying, 'Don't do it, man'?

Now, you're probably going to ask why would I say "don't do it" if it wasn't wrong? Well, first of all - it's not advantageous. He'd be too emotionally unstable afterwards and would most likely regret it, for whatever dumb reason. He would be ostracized from society and thrown in jail, which isn't a very fun place to be. Now, at least I have logic on my side when I tell him to abstain from killing! Appeal to emotion through morality is a corrupt practice.

The idea that he'd be breaking a moral code that is universal is idiotic. No one can claim to have an objective moral, or even use morals, with credibility. Because everytime you claim something to be moral or immoral, you're using your opinion as fact. You're using what you BELIEVE to be wrong, in an attempt to control other people's actions. Why not use logic instead of manipulating emotions?

Dimebag Darrell's murder was a tragedy of the highest order to many fans of metal. His life and death had a significance to me, but many others had no idea who he even was, and so they were indifferent. It had no meaning to them. So while no objective meaning was found in his death, it had subjective meaning to many others.

That's an emotional reponse. And even though emotions are fickle, unstable, usually unfounded and unreliable, I also had a response to Dimebag's death. And I have a memorial poster on my wall to honor is musical achievements and profound effect on my life. But that's my perspective on things... The fact that some mourn means that some found him to be aspiring, cool, talented, amazing, etc. while also showing the subjectivness in emotions. But that doesn't have anything to do with subjective morals. You're an emotivist so you probably don't understand...

You could believe in epistemological nihilism and still believe there are no morals.:

Nihilism is more like a non-philosophy than it is a philosophy.

It's a philosophy. '

We can't objectively prove anything, so therefore assume nothing. It's just an epistemologically lazy, default position.

Believe me, it isn't a lazy philosophy. Do you notice who has to work hardest to prove their postions in regards to morality? Nihilists. For some reason, the claim of the non-existence or immense skepticism, puts everyones panties in a twist. So the philosophy may seem lacking to you, but I'd just tell you to think harder.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
JimProfit
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 2:30:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I believe that question cannot be answered. As it's under the impression that a meaning is nesscarally a GOOD meaning.

It could be an absurd, or outright illogical meaning. It could and most likely is a self made meaning. So does life have meaning? For some people maybe, for others highly doubtful. All in all, if life, objectively... were to defined to have meaning. And we stripped humans of their egos, desires, and dreams. Then yes. The meaning of life would be to live. To make life continue to thrive and not give into entropy.

Other animals seem to do that well enough. Don't need all that complicated arethmatic or opposable thumbs to have meaning. Ofcourse because of that, their meaning does not ascend beyond eating, sleeping, and having sex. But then... neither does most humans.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 3:46:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wheres pooka with that Nietzsche quote I like?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 3:47:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/11/2010 8:11:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was the highest and most mendacious minute of 'world history'—yet only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, and the clever animals had to die...One might invent such a fable and still not have illustrated sufficiently how wretched, how shadowy and flighty, how aimless and arbitrary, the human intellect appears in nature. There have been eternities when it did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no further mission that would lead beyond human life...There is nothing in nature so despicable or insignificant that it cannot immediately be blown up like a bag by a slight breath of this power of knowledge; and just as every porter wants an admirer, the proudest human being, the philosopher, thinks that he sees the eyes of the universe telescopically focused from all sides on his actions and thoughts."

-- Nietzsche

Hmm....

Here it is.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...