New
Feb 3, 2013 12:05 AM
#151
Bloodcalibur said: Except as stated already, I'm not the one arguing about meaning. That argument belongs to someone else and I will honor their crusade by not interfering. Okay. My bad. |
Feb 3, 2013 12:07 AM
#152
citizeninsane said: The point is that as katsucats said, meaning is intuited necessarily by sentient beings. If said beings cannot comprehend the purely existential concept of "meaning" then it follows that there is no meaning. And if there exists some vague transcendent meaning, it wouldn't even be existentially relevant to our lives since we cannot comprehend it in our lives, lol. katsucats said: We would not be able to make any claims about it, whether X exists or not. Refer to Citizeninsane's post. As usual, he articulates it beautifully. I'm saying that given our understanding of the terms, it logically follows that there can be no imperative without a goal. Just because it is not relevant to our lives, does not mean it does not exist though… There can be an imperative without a goal (unconditional imperative), aka it’s possible for there to be a reason to life. It is even logically possible. Theoretically possible, if you will. This is why I think that saying “there is no meaning to life” is not based on logic. You cannot back that up with logic. Citizeninsane said it himself – “if there exists some vague transcendent meaning, it it wouldn’t be existentially relevant” – the fact here is that it can exist, whether or not it is relevant doesn’t matter regarding katsucat's original statement of "there is no meaning to life" Here is my original argument – what I was saying But what I'm saying is that it is completely possible that there is a reason. it just might not be discernible to the human mind. I wasn’t talking about whether it was relevant to humans – I even mentioned it when I said “discernible to the human mind”. I was just saying that the unconditional imperative [of there being a meaning to life] can (aka has the potential to) exist. |
RandomChampionFeb 3, 2013 12:13 AM
Feb 3, 2013 12:13 AM
#153
RandomChampion said: Just because it is not relevant to our lives, does not mean it does not exist though… But what I'm saying is that it is completely possible that there is a reason. it just might not be discernible to the human mind. If it does exist it is not logically equivalent to how we use the word meaning in this conversation. It is the same with God. 1. We cannot prove that God does not exist necessarily if the being's ontology is defined as outside the bounds of epistemology 2. Therefore we cannot disprove God since it is unfalsifiable. C1. Therefore it is still impossible for the atheist to disprove the Judeo-Christian God (fallacious argument but this is your arguments form) This is your argument except it is in regards to meaning. We can look at the claims that the Christians make and conclude that necessarily the Judeo-Christian God does not exist insofar as if such a being did exist he would not resemble this definition. The Christian wants to have both unfalsifiability and the Judeo-Christian conception of God, which cannot be the case. The same thing can be said about your argument for meaning. |
Feb 3, 2013 12:14 AM
#154
Feb 3, 2013 12:15 AM
#155
Bloodcalibur said: The fact that I'm questioning this when I'm living in the same, more or less, society than everyone else here proves that society cannot neatly groom people to believe certain things. In your second example, if the person agrees to the status of a "little bitch", then you could call him weak, but running away does not necessarily mean he agrees with the person taunting him. Sometimes it takes a bigger man to back away from a fight.katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: Just because a such a view exists in society doesn't mean that's how it should be. Each of us must eventually face death, and I don't think choosing to face it rather than letting it come to you is necessarily a quitter mentality. It might be for some people, but you would only consider this conclusion "obvious" if you view death as the negative state of life in which confronting death is seen as escaping life.katsucats said: While I agree with your initial statement that it is no more of an escape than solving a problem, due to the decision being made by a sentient being with emotions (a human), living and having grown up in a society where the view on suicide is very clearly made into something of weakness, being aware of such, combined with the obvious notion from most suicide attempts (failed or successful) using a "quitting" thought process, there exists an irrefutably obvious reason to view the act as an act based off of a thought process based on weakness and a quitter mentality.Agnostos said: I get that it is seen as escapism, but it is no more escapism as solving a problem 'escapes' the problem. There are a lot of different solutions to most problems, but when someone weighs the factors and comes up with a solution, that cannot be considered "running away".Suicide is seen as a form of escapism; that's why it's seen as a bad thing. It's people who choose to run away from their problems instead of overcome them--it is weakness, a weakness which devastates everyone who invested in them, both emotionally and financially. You misunderstand my post then. It's the fact that the person is aware and has been most likely groomed to agree that suicide is considered as a quitter or negative mentality and still decides to do it. Combine this with the more likely reason behind their thought process during suicide being that of self pity, actual quitting, and actually trying to run away, and what you have is, well, a weak-willed solution. Unless you're going to tell me that people suicide while thinking with a strong sense of self, saying in their minds things like, "I'm the shit, I will beat this problem by conquering it with death!". It's like someone telling you, "You realize you're a little bitch if you run away from this fight right?", you agree to that premise, contemplate, and then decide to run away anyway. That would be the person accepting the status of "little bitch". You would not then debate with me if whether or not that person is a "little bitch" or not because he decided that for himself. Bloodcalibur said: I will concede that something can exist beyond our understanding as long as we understand that because the concepts behind language all refer to logical semantic meanings that are epistemically accessible (whereas X is not), we can't even make any claims about X without contradicting ourselves.katsucats said: I'm not the one arguing you about unconditional imperatives though, nor am I going to bother diving into the topic about whether there is meaning to life or not. I was pointing out something else, and that is: X can exist without us perceiving it. We simply cannot use X in a logical scenario, at least until we can perceive it.We would not be able to make any claims about it, whether X exists or not. Refer to Citizeninsane's post. As usual, he articulates it beautifully. I'm saying that given our understanding of the terms, it logically follows that there can be no imperative without a goal. I think we're on the same page on this, whereas I'm pretty sure RandomChampion is not. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Feb 3, 2013 12:20 AM
#156
Citizeninsane said: RandomChampion said: Just because it is not relevant to our lives, does not mean it does not exist though… But what I'm saying is that it is completely possible that there is a reason. it just might not be discernible to the human mind. If it does exist it is not logically equivalent to how we use the word meaning in this conversation. It is the same with God. 1. We cannot prove that God does not exist necessarily if the being's ontology is defined as outside the bounds of epistemology 2. Therefore we cannot disprove God since it is unfalsifiable. C1. Therefore it is still impossible for the atheist to disprove the Judeo-Christian God (fallacious argument but this is your arguments form) This is your argument except it is in regards to meaning. We can look at the claims that the Christians make and conclude that necessarily the Judeo-Christian God does not exist insofar as if such a being did exist he would not resemble this definition. The Christian wants to have both unfalsifiability and the Judeo-Christian conception of God, which cannot be the case. The same thing can be said about your argument for meaning. by meaning, I am talking about an innate meaning to life. Can you outline the train of thought that supports the argument that an innate meaning to life cannot be unfalsifiable? Bloodcalibur said: You guys continue this for now. Imma go to sleep and take on the winner tomorrow because the internet matters <3. lol ive been resistng going to sleep for so long now, it's late. later |
Feb 3, 2013 12:21 AM
#157
RandomChampion said: You cannot use a word outside of its conceived meaning.There can be an imperative without a goal (unconditional imperative), aka it’s possible for there to be a reason to life. It is even logically possible. Theoretically possible, if you will. This is why I think that saying “there is no meaning to life” is not based on logic. You cannot back that up with logic. Citizeninsane said it himself – “if there exists some vague transcendent meaning, it it wouldn’t be existentially relevant” – the fact here is that it can exist, whether or not it is relevant doesn’t matter regarding katsucat's original statement of "there is no meaning to life" RandomChampion said: An agent-dependent concept that's not discernible to the agent is non-existent by definition.Here is my original argument – what I was saying But what I'm saying is that it is completely possible that there is a reason. it just might not be discernible to the human mind. RandomChampion said: Not in any way that you could possibly conceive of the fact.I wasn’t talking about whether it was relevant to humans – I even mentioned it when I said “discernible to the human mind”. I was just saying that the unconditional imperative [of there being a meaning to life] can (aka has the potential to) exist. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Feb 3, 2013 12:28 AM
#158
RandomChampion said: by meaning, I am talking about an innate meaning to life. Can you outline the train of thought that supports the argument that an innate meaning to life cannot be unfalsifiable? 1. We cannot prove that life has no meaning because it is outside our understanding 2. We cannot say with 100% certainty that life has no meaning C1. Therefore it is impossible for us to say that existential innate meaning does not exist. You want to say that there is a logical possibility of there being meaning outside of our understanding. But necessarily we have to understand that meaning in our lives, now, for it to be both relevant and existent if the definition is about innate meaning to life. The purpose of this thread is about suicide, meaning in our lives NOW, not in some afterlife or some other conception for when we come to terms with this "mystical" meaning. Metaphysical claims that aren't bounded by epistemology are pointless. katsucats said: An agent-dependent concept that's not discernible to the agent is non-existent by definition. QFT. |
CitizeninsaneFeb 3, 2013 12:40 AM
Feb 3, 2013 12:46 AM
#159
RandomChampion said: An action that has no goal is either externally caused or random.But even so – even if we forget that fact - I don’t see how you can say that an unconditional imperatives cannot exist (which is the whole basis for your argument). |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Feb 3, 2013 1:09 AM
#160
katsucats said: You cannot use a word outside of its conceived meaning. Which are you talking about? Unconditional imperative? All I am saying is that it has the potential to (logically) exist and be logically conceivable, which is 100% fact. I don’t see any grounds on which I cannot say this 100% logically correct statement. I am not defining a certain unconditional imperative. I’m just merely stating that they have the potential to exist, since it is already defined. It is not like something else which is unable to be logically conceived – ei X=/=X, triangle with 200 degrees, etc. katsucats said: An agent-dependent concept that's not discernible to the agent is non-existent by definition. This is what I do not understand about what you guys are saying. You are saying that the existence of meaning to life is dependent on the agent being able to discern it. Where does this come from? Last time I checked, existence means existence, nothing more and nothing less. Even though cavemen couldn’t see microbes, that doesn’t mean that the microbes did not exist. This only means that the microbes didn’t exist as far as the cavemen were concerned. Your original statement was simply “there is no meaning to life”. This translates to “meaning to life does not exist”. It does not translate to “meaning to life does not exist as far as humans (the agents) are concerned”. If your original statement translated to “exist”, then “exist” means only “exist” the last time I checked. katsucats said: Not in any way that you could possibly conceive of the fact. Well, like I said above A) Humans could in fact possibly conceive of the fact B) even if we couldn’t, it wouldn’t matter since it would still exist. “could possibly conceive” translates to “has the potential to conceive”. We do have the potential to conceive unconditional imperatives if we are enlightened to some kind of universal law/philosophy/what have you. I am talking solely on the words being used. I am not in any way saying that this universal law does exist. But the fact that it could exist is what counts – this is why we do have the potential to conceive unconditional imperative. This would basically be the equivalent of us “getting all the answers”. For example – if some all-knowing entity came to me and told me all the truths, including unconditional imperative, then it would be completely possible AND logical for me to conceive unconditional imperative. Similarly, what if some universal algorithm is discovered with all of the answers? Same thing applies. The point that I’m trying to make is that it is possible to conceive such things, and our logic allows us to understand what is necessary for such to happen. citizeninsane said: 1. We cannot prove that life has no meaning because it is outside our understanding 2. We cannot say with 100% certainty that life has no meaning C1. Therefore it is impossible for us to say that existential innate meaning does not exist. You want to say that there is a logical possibility of there being meaning outside of our understanding. But necessarily we have to understand that meaning in our lives, now, for it to be both relevant and existent if the definition is about innate meaning to life. The purpose of this thread is about suicide, meaning in our lives NOW, not in some afterlife or some other conception for when we come to terms with this "mystical" meaning. Metaphysical claims that aren't bounded by epistemology are pointless. what lol. That isn’t the argument I asked for. I asked for the argument you guys are supporting. Also, why are you trying to put in all this existential stuff lol. The original statement I commented on was simply, “there is no meaning to life.” I was not talking about relevance, I was not even talking about it within the context of the topic. I was merely talking about that statement lol. I wasn’t talking about pointless, not pointless etc. I am talking about straight-up existence of meaning to life, and whether or not it can exist (which it can) Anyways guys, ima hit the sack too. If only it wasnt so late...or early in the morning rather. I'll be back for responses tomorrow sometime |
RandomChampionFeb 3, 2013 1:14 AM
Feb 3, 2013 1:12 AM
#161
read this one-shot http://myanimelist.net/manga/29749/Koukai_no_Naraku It's only a few pages and you'll see why. |
Feb 3, 2013 1:14 AM
#162
I am not a suicidal person, but I do support the choice of people, who wish to end their life. Why there's no assisted-suicide yet? Shouldn't this be place for people who actually want to live here? What is wrong with permanent solutions? Surely they're superior to mere temporary solutions. I have no interest in guilting anybody into doing a goddamn thing for me. Especially living, when they don't want to live. That's the last thing I put on my "to do things": "Guilt somebody into living". If somebody needs me to say: "I promise, I'll have only good thoughts of your life, of who you were", I'll say those words and goddamn mean it. Because that's more of a tribute, that's more of a sincere relationship than this grieving bullshit. I'm not going to grieve because somebody's in pain and they commit suicide. That is something to celebrate, they're free from a sadistic, idiotic game. People are arguing how life is super-cool. If life was so great then the minimum standard would be that somebody can actually maintain the ability to pull up their hand and say "I want to live". I mean if somebody can't say that then why do you need to change them into somebody else? It's pitiful, you got nothing and yet all you're basically saying is "No, we gotta get this guy readdicted! We gotta get him back in the game!". Why? Obviously my suffering means nothing to them. If somebody is going to grieve that I killed my self, because I was miserable, and they find that unacceptable somehow, somehow the end of my pain is something to grieve. Then I guess they're pretty f- insensitive, they wanted to suffer me some more? "Put in up some more decades son!". I've been in this trench long enough, I deserve a vacation, a "permanent vacation". And if anybody who doesn't understand that - f- them, that's what I say to them "I'm sorry you care for me, because f- you, you suck. If you can't see that I deserve respect, you can't see that? If you can't respect me and respect my decision then f- your love, f- your consideration, f- your friendship, f- any part of you that is connected to me, because if you can't see that's who I am then f- you." People have this weird sense of quality, where you HAVE to live as long as possible, all what matter is years. Doesn't matter how hard it is, doesn't matter that the person would rather rest in peace than continue on. I've never understood the stance of "Johnny, sit in a corner a bit, we'll label you as a depressive, we'll give you some meds so you become a bit like Vegetable, and everyone is happy!", are people enjoying others suffering? They don't even see past their own trespass of giving a birth, which is nothing more but a selfish choice/act, there is no other need except their own. Shouldn't parents be ready for the fact that their child might not appreciate this life. Child didn't have any control over his birth and now he can't even leave this place with sympathy? How can somebody else, living in his happy-pappy delusions, say what the life is and how worth it is to keep crawling, where in the end you'll die anyway. And there's no selfishness in expecting others to live solely for your own convenience, yeah right A cowards way out? You have to squeeze every single second out of your lifespan to not to be a coward. That person being a coward means he is not worthy of contempt and we can ignore the real reasons for this choice. Their cowardice defines them more as people than the anguish and torment they went through that motivated their decision to self-destruct. Cowards way is to take it up the ass, to eat shit just to survive. Is that what you glorify? Being a maggot is now something to glorify? I can imagine standing on an edge and contemplating life, I can imagine the fear. It takes balls to stand there. |
one-more-timeFeb 3, 2013 2:18 AM
LUL |
Feb 3, 2013 1:26 AM
#163
RandomChampion said: This is what I do not understand about what you guys are saying. You are saying that the existence of meaning to life is dependent on the agent being able to discern it. Where does this come from? Last time I checked, existence means existence, nothing more and nothing less. Even though cavemen couldn’t see microbes, that doesn’t mean that the microbes did not exist. This only means that the microbes didn’t exist as far as the cavemen were concerned. Your original statement was simply “there is no meaning to life”. This translates to “meaning to life does not exist”. It does not translate to “meaning to life does not exist as far as humans (the agents) are concerned”. If your original statement translated to “exist”, then “exist” means only “exist” the last time I checked. Microbes are not mind-dependent concepts. Meaning is not an entity. If you can prove that meaning is an entity, I will hear you out, but this we still incur dilemmas. To illustrate. 1. Meaning is an entity 2. No sentient creatures exist within the universe(hypothetical) C1. Meaning persists as an entity Your conclusion becomes incomprehensible. Meaning can only be understood via a sentient being, meaning cannot persist without it or else you get a ridiculous conclusion such as meaning persisting without any sentient beings. Which means in this context meaning has nothing to do with sentient beings since it can persist without their existence. RandomChampion said: what lol. That isn’t the argument I asked for. I asked for the argument you guys are supporting. Also, why are you trying to put in all this existential stuff lol. The original statement I commented on was simply, “there is no meaning to life.” I was not talking about relevance, I was not even talking about it within the context of the topic. I was merely talking about that statement lol. I wasn’t talking about pointless, not pointless etc. I am talking about straight-up existence of meaning to life, and whether or not it can exist (which it can) Misunderstood, my bad. 1. Meaning is an existential mind-dependent concept 2. Meaning either cannot be understood by the human mind or does not exist. C1. Given that meaning is a existential mind-dependent concept, either way there is no meaning to life. How can you possibly have meaning without it being existential? Explain to me that. |
CitizeninsaneFeb 3, 2013 2:08 AM
Feb 3, 2013 1:28 AM
#164
Is RandomChampion trying to squeeze in some magic here? Like we don't know enough about life? Sounds like a religion to me, or not wanting to cope with reality. |
LUL |
Feb 3, 2013 1:56 AM
#165
RandomChampion said: That statement was a response to your prior statement that something can exist outside of logic. Since we are now back within the confines of logic (and I've been given ample opportunity to think about how to articulate this most straightforwardly without overstepping my boundaries), I'll concede that unconditional imperatives can exist, but only on the condition that they are completely random... by definition. Consider any imperative and then ask 'Why?'. I should add that even if there is an externally determined 'meaning of life', it is not your meaning of life, assuming that you are a rational agent capable of your own decisions. A description of your circumstance is not a prescription; ironically any attempt to say "I should do X because God/Evolution/nature said so" is conditional.katsucats said: Which are you talking about? Unconditional imperative? All I am saying is that it has the potential to (logically) exist and be logically conceivable, which is 100% fact. I don’t see any grounds on which I cannot say this 100% logically correct statement.You cannot use a word outside of its conceived meaning. RandomChampion said: 'Meaning' cannot exist independent of a rational agent.katsucats said: This is what I do not understand about what you guys are saying. You are saying that the existence of meaning to life is dependent on the agent being able to discern it. Where does this come from? Last time I checked, existence means existence, nothing more and nothing less. Even though cavemen couldn’t see microbes, that doesn’t mean that the microbes did not exist. This only means that the microbes didn’t exist as far as the cavemen were concerned. Your original statement was simply “there is no meaning to life”. This translates to “meaning to life does not exist”. It does not translate to “meaning to life does not exist as far as humans (the agents) are concerned”. If your original statement translated to “exist”, then “exist” means only “exist” the last time I checked.An agent-dependent concept that's not discernible to the agent is non-existent by definition. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Feb 3, 2013 5:11 AM
#166
This is always I heard : "You didn't have the right to kill yourself because God made you and he is the one who will decide to take your life to go in heaven or in hell .." ( I don't know if my sentence is precise because english is not my language ) If I'm the one who will ask suicide is an option of human if they lose in hope or they think of themselves a trash of society..etc ....Suicide is the only thing they think to do to get a peace of mind or runaway in there problems .... Me too. sometimes I want to kill myself because " Why I need to live ...yes there is happiness and loneliness then what?? and sometimes I think we are just a toy ?? Who is God ?? .etc ..I search it in google but they said Human Can't brain can't go deeper to find an answer.... But there's one thing I'm sure My instinct tells me that I/You don't find an answer if you kill youself .(there's always a fear in our heart) |
Feb 3, 2013 5:25 AM
#167
On the original Topic, for most palces its not. Only Modern Judo-Christian Society see's it as such, as it is damnation of the soul. Nevermind early Christians were martyers given a spot for that case. And Soldiers who are proclaimed as Hero's that do things that WILL kill them are defactoly commiting suicide. At the same time most of the Eastern World see it as the one way to region ones honor or to atone for failure. In the case of Islam Sucide is frowned upon, unless its dying for the cause of Allah. And largely in most cultures, suicide out of hopelessness is frowned upon, while that of self scarifice or to regain honor is welcomed. Like most things humans are also two faced with this issue. As to the why's its simple, people inspite of being social do not connect as well as we think, unless we live something we can't understand the other persons stance, or try and force our own views on them. Its like when an Elderly person goes off on a, back in my time rant. The Youth might have it better from a point of view, but at the same time the standards demanded of them, and social preassures are far greater than those of the past. While we call ourselves social creatures, the fact is to a point we are only social up the the point of waging wars and having sex. We dress up the rest in culture, but I'm sure everyone here, has laughed or had a good time with there "best friend ever" then turned when they were gone and talked shit about them. On a level we don't connect. So for a person that doesn't understand how painful life was for the kid in class that hanged themself, while they say life can always get better, on that level they can never agree. Also the culture shapes the views. Having more than one wife in most places is seen as bad. However back not so long ago The Prussian Empire allowed it to rebuild its population numbers which led to them winning the Franco-Prussian War. Its like how eating some animals is seen as bad, yet its shown they were part of the dietary table. So when you have a culture thats optimisitc, sucide is bad. When the times are bad it becomes "my that is so sad, but I understand". Its the rule and judgement of the herd. |
Feb 3, 2013 6:14 AM
#168
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but we humans do not. We move to an area and multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way we can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. |
Feb 3, 2013 7:48 AM
#169
Feb 3, 2013 7:53 AM
#170
almozayaf said: just cuz you life suck now dos not mean there no hope later just keep going in life and things will be better The longer you live, the better things will get. Always. Amen. lol |
LUL |
Feb 3, 2013 8:07 AM
#171
For me it's simple -- if the person wants to end their life then so be it. It's theirs after all and usually I don't have a right to interfere. Sadly this turns into a double standard once it gets personal (i.e. a family member or loved one is involved). In such a situation I will do my utmost to prevent death from happening. And that's all there is to it; at least in my eyes. Others might have a different view on it but that's just normal and understandable. |
The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one. - Albert Einstein |
Feb 3, 2013 10:05 AM
#172
almozayaf said: there to many hopless time in any one life but that can go away with time just cuz you life suck now dos not mean there no hope later just keep going in life and things will be better Except if you are born in the Congo and live your entire life knowing only pain and suffering. But hey, they don't count. |
Feb 3, 2013 10:14 AM
#173
Suicide is considered bad because death is considered bad. If we removed the negative connotation of death from society, then we would effectively also remove the negative connotation of suicide. But then, all hell would break lose because people would just kill each other without a thought. |
Feb 3, 2013 10:29 AM
#174
katsucats said: The fact that I'm questioning this when I'm living in the same, more or less, society than everyone else here proves that society cannot neatly groom people to believe certain things. In your second example, if the person agrees to the status of a "little bitch", then you could call him weak, but running away does not necessarily mean he agrees with the person taunting him. Sometimes it takes a bigger man to back away from a fight. Of course society can't be as effective on every single person in it's influences. But I'm not using that as a sole supporting variable for my argument. You're ignoring the fact that people don't have a positively confident and solid sense of self in their thought process during the decision to commit suicide. That alone is why the decision itself is seen as a weak and pathetic conclusion as a solution than "solving a problem". katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: I will concede that something can exist beyond our understanding as long as we understand that because the concepts behind language all refer to logical semantic meanings that are epistemically accessible (whereas X is not), we can't even make any claims about X without contradicting ourselves.katsucats said: I'm not the one arguing you about unconditional imperatives though, nor am I going to bother diving into the topic about whether there is meaning to life or not. I was pointing out something else, and that is: X can exist without us perceiving it. We simply cannot use X in a logical scenario, at least until we can perceive it.We would not be able to make any claims about it, whether X exists or not. Refer to Citizeninsane's post. As usual, he articulates it beautifully. I'm saying that given our understanding of the terms, it logically follows that there can be no imperative without a goal. I think we're on the same page on this, whereas I'm pretty sure RandomChampion is not. You guys are arguing about the existence of "the meaning of life". Now that we've got our debate over with, I can share my observations concerning your argument with each other. You're saying that an agent-dependent concept does not exist if no entity perceives it. This is of course true. Abstract concepts such as, "the meaning of life" can only exist if something defines it's purpose, and even then it would only apply to that agent. On the other hand, RandomChampion is saying that it can exist but what I think you might not be understanding with what he's trying to say is, he's implying that the "meaning of life" does not have to be an agent-dependent phenomena. He's implying it's possible that there might be a systematic, completely scientific, non-agent-dependent, albeit not discovered, reason for life in the multiverse. |
Feb 3, 2013 11:03 AM
#175
Not_Biased said: Not sure if copy/paste, but it's quote an extrapolation. Also, there's tons of plants, aka weeds, that does pretty much the same thing. Taking over a new ecological niche and hogs all the nutrients so the new area explodes with their population while the native population dies.Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but we humans do not. We move to an area and multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way we can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Also, animals themselves do not inherently develop a "natural equilibrium", it's because they are usually part of a food chain or web which is why population is usually limited in nature. It's more like, humans have developed tools that makes us the outside the food chain/web, that our population as of now is not really a function of the immediate environment. Not sure why it's related to suicide. As I've already replied in previous MAL topics on suicide, I'll just say this: I find no problem with assisted suicide for the terminally ill. I think it should be legalized in more countries (if it hasn't already). Now if it's teen suicide, that in most cases is frowned upon. The whole "you always have a choice" ideal common in certain social norms. |
TachiiFeb 3, 2013 11:50 AM
Feb 3, 2013 11:19 AM
#176
Feb 3, 2013 11:33 AM
#177
You're just a depressed teenager. |
Feb 3, 2013 11:39 AM
#178
insanecitizen said: Microbes are not mind-dependent concepts. Meaning is not an entity. If you can prove that meaning is an entity, I will hear you out, but this we still incur dilemmas. To illustrate. 1. Meaning is an entity 2. No sentient creatures exist within the universe(hypothetical) C1. Meaning persists as an entity Your conclusion becomes incomprehensible. Meaning can only be understood via a sentient being, meaning cannot persist without it or else you get a ridiculous conclusion such as meaning persisting without any sentient beings. Which means in this context meaning has nothingto do with sentient beings since it can persist without their existence. Misunderstood, my bad. 1. Meaning is an existential mind-dependent concept 2. Meaning either cannot be understood by the human mind or does not exist. C1. Given that meaning is a existential mind-dependent concept, either way there is no meaning to life. How can you possibly have meaning without it being existential? Explain to me that. Dude – those the last conclusion you made is not based on sound logic. Looks like you are arguing for existentialism, as if it were a full-proof belief. It is nothing more than a belief, and is far from absolute. “Meaning” only has that meaning in the context of existentialism. The mere fact that God (not necessarily Abrahamic God) cannot be falsified makes the whole conclusion, that there is no innate meaning to life, crumble. Once again, the I was not referring to katsucat’s statement in the context of the topic/existentialism. You tell me that the burden of proof is on me - that I need to be able to prove that meaning is an entity for my argument to hold true. That is not the case. The burden of proof is on you to prove that your existential parameters are absolute (which you cannot do). You guys are the ones with the extremely ambitious statement of "there is no meaning to life". This statement only makes sense if you assume the parameters, in this case the parameters of the methods of existentialism. But, your statement was not "there is no meaning of life according to existentialism", the parameters cannot hold true. katsucats said: That statement was a response to your prior statement that something can exist outside of logic. Since we are now back within the confines of logic (and I've been given ample opportunity to think about how to articulate this most straightforwardly without overstepping my boundaries), I'll concede that unconditional imperatives can exist, but only on the condition that they are completely random... by definition. Consider any imperative and then ask 'Why?'. I should add that even if there is an externally determined 'meaning of life', it is notyour meaning of life, assuming that you are a rational agent capable of your own decisions. A description of your circumstance is not a prescription; ironically any attempt to say "I should do X because God/Evolution/nature said so" is conditional. Here is the idea though – the fact that an unconditional imperative can exist means that “I ought to do X” can be claimed. The whole concept of an unconditional imperative is that there really is no asking why. “Ought”, in its meaning, is objective in nature. “Should” is subjective in nature. This is why "I should do X because God/Nature/etc said so" does not apply to unconditional imperative What does us being (or not being) rational agents have to do with anything? I finally understand where you guys are getting your ideas from. You guys are arguing for existentialism…therein, I think, lay the flaws of your arguments as to why you think it is logically sound to say “there is no meaning to life” Remember, I was only arguing that the statement, “there is no meaning to life”, is baseless. Nothing more, nothing less. It seems you have also come to that conclusion since you conceded that unconditional imperatives can exist (which is the whole basis of your statement, “there is no meaning to life”). |
RandomChampionFeb 3, 2013 12:34 PM
Feb 3, 2013 12:00 PM
#179
Trapalicious said: one-more-time said: I'm not going to grieve because somebody's in pain and they commit suicide. That is something to celebrate, they're free from a sadistic, idiotic game. I hope you're aware that makes you sound like a fucking moron. Why? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Feb 3, 2013 12:08 PM
#180
Feb 3, 2013 12:24 PM
#181
Feb 3, 2013 12:44 PM
#182
RandomChampion said: Dude – those the last conclusion you made is not based on sound logic. Looks like you are arguing for existentialism, as if it were a full-proof belief. It is nothing more than a belief, and is far from absolute. “Meaning” only has that meaning in the context of existentialism. The mere fact that God (not necessarily Abrahamic God) cannot be falsified makes the whole conclusion, that there is no innate meaning to life, crumble. Once again, the I was not referring to katsucat’s statement in the context of the topic/existentialism. What the fuck are you talking about lol? existential: a : grounded in existence or the experience of existence : I am not arguing for a philosophy, pay attention to context. Anyway you still have yet to reply why if meaning is not an existential concept why it should be considered an entity or anything else other than an experience to be had by a sentient being. @Tachii That is a quote from The Matrix. |
CitizeninsaneFeb 4, 2013 12:16 AM
Feb 3, 2013 12:51 PM
#183
Tachii said: Not_Biased said: Not sure if copy/paste, but it's quote an extrapolation.Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but we humans do not. We move to an area and multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way we can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. It's a quote from Agent Smith from The Matrix. PoyoIsAvatar said: You're just a depressed teenager. He was simply imposing the question to promote a philosophical discussion. Use of critical thinking would be nice. |
Feb 3, 2013 12:52 PM
#184
Yes Tachii, that is a quote from the Matrix and I've put "There is no spoon" because it's also from the Matrix. Both our responses had nothing to do with the topic. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Feb 3, 2013 1:54 PM
#185
It doesn't matter who it hurts. It only matters if the person hurting can get rid of the hurt for himself. Yes, people that commit suicide should be free to do so. Not everyone wants to live in this world. I don't find the point in trying to even live if one doesn't want to live simply due to the fact that in that person's mind, we're all dying anyway. You can say that by living is winning, but that doesn't matter since we're all gonna die some day and by that we're still losing. |
Feb 3, 2013 1:56 PM
#186
Not_Biased said: Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but we humans do not. We move to an area and multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way we can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Rabbits don't understand the concept of equilibrium. |
“Suppose, gentlemen, that man is not stupid.” |
Feb 3, 2013 3:00 PM
#187
Bloodcalibur said: That's a generalization. Plus, there is no ideal state of mind so that could be said about any decision.katsucats said: Of course society can't be as effective on every single person in it's influences. But I'm not using that as a sole supporting variable for my argument. You're ignoring the fact that people don't have a positively confident and solid sense of self in their thought process during the decision to commit suicide. That alone is why the decision itself is seen as a weak and pathetic conclusion as a solution than "solving a problem".The fact that I'm questioning this when I'm living in the same, more or less, society than everyone else here proves that society cannot neatly groom people to believe certain things. In your second example, if the person agrees to the status of a "little bitch", then you could call him weak, but running away does not necessarily mean he agrees with the person taunting him. Sometimes it takes a bigger man to back away from a fight. Bloodcalibur said: I believe I've already addressed that. Unless he believes he is an automaton that lacks any kind of agency and free thought, any 'reason' that's imposed on him by an external party is meaningless. It's like if I build a computer to do homework. Then the computer gets zapped by lightning and gains consciousness and free will. Does it keep doing homework because that's "what he's created for"? No, that defeats the whole purpose of its own agency.On the other hand, RandomChampion is saying that it can exist but what I think you might not be understanding with what he's trying to say is, he's implying that the "meaning of life" does not have to be an agent-dependent phenomena. He's implying it's possible that there might be a systematic, completely scientific, non-agent-dependent, albeit not discovered, reason for life in the multiverse. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Feb 3, 2013 3:09 PM
#188
RandomChampion said: Argument from semantics: 'Ought' and 'should' have the exact same meaning, they describe imperatives. If you ought to do something because X said so, then your imperative is conditional on X.katsucats said: Here is the idea though – the fact that an unconditional imperative can exist means that “I ought to do X” can be claimed. The whole concept of an unconditional imperative is that there really is no asking why. “Ought”, in its meaning, is objective in nature. “Should” is subjective in nature. This is why "I should do X because God/Nature/etc said so" does not apply to unconditional imperative.That statement was a response to your prior statement that something can exist outside of logic. Since we are now back within the confines of logic (and I've been given ample opportunity to think about how to articulate this most straightforwardly without overstepping my boundaries), I'll concede that unconditional imperatives can exist, but only on the condition that they are completely random... by definition. Consider any imperative and then ask 'Why?'. I should add that even if there is an externally determined 'meaning of life', it is notyour meaning of life, assuming that you are a rational agent capable of your own decisions. A description of your circumstance is not a prescription; ironically any attempt to say "I should do X because God/Evolution/nature said so" is conditional. RandomChampion said: I am not an Existentialist. The relevance of rational agents are self-evident: A rational agent has the capacity to act rationally; an irrational agent cannot determine its own purpose. A causal agent (speaking from a compatibilist perspective) does not have free agency and lacks the capacity to think.What does us being (or not being) rational agents have to do with anything? I finally understand where you guys are getting your ideas from. You guys are arguing for existentialism…therein, I think, lay the flaws of your arguments as to why you think it is logically sound to say “there is no meaning to life”. RandomChampion said: Are you serious? If the point you wanted to make was that the meaning to life is random, I think we're right back where we started.Remember, I was only arguing that the statement, “there is no meaning to life”, is baseless. Nothing more, nothing less. It seems you have also come to that conclusion since you conceded that unconditional imperatives can exist (which is the whole basis of your statement, “there is no meaning to life”). |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Feb 3, 2013 9:07 PM
#189
katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: That's a generalization. Plus, there is no ideal state of mind so that could be said about any decision.katsucats said: Of course society can't be as effective on every single person in it's influences. But I'm not using that as a sole supporting variable for my argument. You're ignoring the fact that people don't have a positively confident and solid sense of self in their thought process during the decision to commit suicide. That alone is why the decision itself is seen as a weak and pathetic conclusion as a solution than "solving a problem".The fact that I'm questioning this when I'm living in the same, more or less, society than everyone else here proves that society cannot neatly groom people to believe certain things. In your second example, if the person agrees to the status of a "little bitch", then you could call him weak, but running away does not necessarily mean he agrees with the person taunting him. Sometimes it takes a bigger man to back away from a fight. That's it? That's your logical rebuttal? The whole reason they even resort to something as dramatic as self destruction is because they can't find it within themselves to fix whatever their problems in life are and instead choose to go against nature by killing themselves. It's common knowledge that humans will normally have an extremely hard time on committing suicide. To be able to go against the defensive mechanisms in your body would require a profound sense of giving up. This is why this thread's topic question was never that intellectual to begin with. Bloodcalibur said: I believe I've already addressed that. Unless he believes he is an automaton that lacks any kind of agency and free thought, any 'reason' that's imposed on him by an external party is meaningless. It's like if I build a computer to do homework. Then the computer gets zapped by lightning and gains consciousness and free will. Does it keep doing homework because that's "what he's created for"? No, that defeats the whole purpose of its own agency.On the other hand, RandomChampion is saying that it can exist but what I think you might not be understanding with what he's trying to say is, he's implying that the "meaning of life" does not have to be an agent-dependent phenomena. He's implying it's possible that there might be a systematic, completely scientific, non-agent-dependent, albeit not discovered, reason for life in the multiverse. It seems you misunderstood my post again. I'll try to talk as primitive as I can then. The "meaning of life" does not have to be an agent-dependent concept. |
Feb 3, 2013 9:11 PM
#190
Suicide is never the correct answer. It is giving up on family and friends, whom have to carry the burden of a lost life they couldn't comfort. A life is always more than the individual, it also a collection of every memory, friendship, and relationship experienced in life. To end that life by ones own hands is a spit in the face of everyone that individual spent even a fraction of their life with. At least by some accident or even homicide, loved ones can find solace in the fact that they were there for them rather than a detriment. If an unfortunate individual has fallen to such a "solution", they have neglected to seek help from what matters most. |
Feb 3, 2013 9:45 PM
#191
Bloodcalibur said: Yes. Yes it is.katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: That's a generalization. Plus, there is no ideal state of mind so that could be said about any decision.katsucats said: Of course society can't be as effective on every single person in it's influences. But I'm not using that as a sole supporting variable for my argument. You're ignoring the fact that people don't have a positively confident and solid sense of self in their thought process during the decision to commit suicide. That alone is why the decision itself is seen as a weak and pathetic conclusion as a solution than "solving a problem".The fact that I'm questioning this when I'm living in the same, more or less, society than everyone else here proves that society cannot neatly groom people to believe certain things. In your second example, if the person agrees to the status of a "little bitch", then you could call him weak, but running away does not necessarily mean he agrees with the person taunting him. Sometimes it takes a bigger man to back away from a fight. Bloodcalibur said: The whole reason they even resort to something as dramatic as self destruction is because they can't find it within themselves to fix whatever their problems in life are and instead choose to go against nature by killing themselves.
Bloodcalibur said: Common sense fallacy.It's common knowledge that humans will normally have an extremely hard time on committing suicide. To be able to go against the defensive mechanisms in your body would require a profound sense of giving up. This is why this thread's topic question was never that intellectual to begin with. Bloodcalibur said: No, I understand it, and repeating yourself does not change the meaning. The 'meaning of life' must be agent-dependent.katsucats said: It seems you misunderstood my post again. I'll try to talk as primitive as I can then.Bloodcalibur said: I believe I've already addressed that. Unless he believes he is an automaton that lacks any kind of agency and free thought, any 'reason' that's imposed on him by an external party is meaningless. It's like if I build a computer to do homework. Then the computer gets zapped by lightning and gains consciousness and free will. Does it keep doing homework because that's "what he's created for"? No, that defeats the whole purpose of its own agency.On the other hand, RandomChampion is saying that it can exist but what I think you might not be understanding with what he's trying to say is, he's implying that the "meaning of life" does not have to be an agent-dependent phenomena. He's implying it's possible that there might be a systematic, completely scientific, non-agent-dependent, albeit not discovered, reason for life in the multiverse. The "meaning of life" does not have to be an agent-dependent concept. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Feb 3, 2013 9:54 PM
#192
katsucats said: Really? No, I understand it, and repeating yourself does not change the meaning. The 'meaning of life' must be agent-dependent. I mean, if you assume that everything was created by some absolute creator-god mofo or other and life had a specific meaning according to it's designs, then there would be a objective meaning of life, even if people have free will to loaf around and do their own thing. Anyway, carry on kids. |
Feb 3, 2013 10:09 PM
#193
Se7en360 said: What a ridiculous perspective it is to think that choosing to leave the world personally insults everyone that you've met. By that logic, you must think choosing to move to a new town is a spit in the face to everyone you've known in the old town. It's also puzzling logic to assume a person must be supportive of their families if they were killed by someone else, whereas if they killed themselves they become a detriment?!Suicide is never the correct answer. It is giving up on family and friends, whom have to carry the burden of a lost life they couldn't comfort. A life is always more than the individual, it also a collection of every memory, friendship, and relationship experienced in life. To end that life by ones own hands is a spit in the face of everyone that individual spent even a fraction of their life with. At least by some accident or even homicide, loved ones can find solace in the fact that they were there for them rather than a detriment. If an unfortunate individual has fallen to such a "solution", they have neglected to seek help from what matters most. I don't know "what matters most", but surely it isn't to live the longest. I wonder how you feel about intentionally taking part in risky activities, like sports, or joining the army, where a hypothetical 1% death rate must mean by game theory that you've spit in the face of 1 out of every 100 people you know just by signing up. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Feb 3, 2013 10:12 PM
#194
Baman said: No there wouldn't as I've explained before:katsucats said: Really? No, I understand it, and repeating yourself does not change the meaning. The 'meaning of life' must be agent-dependent. I mean, if you assume that everything was created by some absolute creator-god mofo or other and life had a specific meaning according to it's designs, then there would be a objective meaning of life, even if people have free will to loaf around and do their own thing. Anyway, carry on kids. katsucats said: An externally assigned 'meaning' is not an imperative that you must follow, by your own admission.It's like if I build a computer to do homework. Then the computer gets zapped by lightning and gains consciousness and free will. Does it keep doing homework because that's "what he's created for"? No, that defeats the whole purpose of its own agency. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Feb 3, 2013 10:15 PM
#195
katsucats said: Doesn't matter whether you follow it or not. If a absolute, omnipotent god has decided on one meaning for his creation, then that's that, anything his creations do contrary to that meaning would simply be wrong, just like your computer would be the moment it stopped doing your homework. The real meaning of life then would still be set in stone, even if people chose not to follow it.An externally assigned 'meaning' is not an imperative that you must follow, by your own admission. |
Feb 3, 2013 10:22 PM
#196
Baman said: That's not the meaning of 'meaning'. Meaning is always agent-dependent/subjective, even if the subject is God.katsucats said: Doesn't matter whether you follow it or not. If a absolute, omnipotent god has decided on one meaning for his creation, then that's that, anything his creations do contrary to that meaning would simply be wrong, just like your computer would be the moment it stopped doing your homework. The real meaning of life then would still be set in stone, even if people chose not to follow it.An externally assigned 'meaning' is not an imperative that you must follow, by your own admission. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Feb 3, 2013 10:32 PM
#197
katsucats said: Se7en360 said: What a ridiculous perspective it is to think that choosing to leave the world personally insults everyone that you've met. By that logic, you must think choosing to move to a new town is a spit in the face to everyone you've known in the old town. It's also puzzling logic to assume a person must be supportive of their families if they were killed by someone else, whereas if they killed themselves they become a detriment?!Suicide is never the correct answer. It is giving up on family and friends, whom have to carry the burden of a lost life they couldn't comfort. A life is always more than the individual, it also a collection of every memory, friendship, and relationship experienced in life. To end that life by ones own hands is a spit in the face of everyone that individual spent even a fraction of their life with. At least by some accident or even homicide, loved ones can find solace in the fact that they were there for them rather than a detriment. If an unfortunate individual has fallen to such a "solution", they have neglected to seek help from what matters most. I don't know "what matters most", but surely it isn't to live the longest. I wonder how you feel about intentionally taking part in risky activities, like sports, or joining the army, where a hypothetical 1% death rate must mean by game theory that you've spit in the face of 1 out of every 100 people you know just by signing up. Did you really just equate suicide to moving? I have never met someone so filled with hate and self-loathing. And "what matters most" is family, friends, and home, and if you are too blind to realize that I feel sorry for the friends and family you choose to neglect. And the difference between suicide and accidental death or murder is you are the one that made the decision to leave your family and friends behind. Open your eyes you fool. |
Feb 3, 2013 10:39 PM
#198
katsucats said: Eeer, nope. Check a dictionary. Or would you argue the "meaning" of, say, a number, is subjective? That's not the meaning of 'meaning'. Meaning is always agent-dependent/subjective, even if the subject is God. Just drop this man, you're only rowing your boat into the deep seas of pointless semantic japery.And that's where the krakens of Off-topic prowl. |
Feb 3, 2013 10:52 PM
#199
Se7en360 said: I equated moving on from people is spitting in their faces to... moving on from people is spitting in their faces. The point of an analogy is to establish to relationship between two terms; it does not say the two terms are equal. When someone says "she is as quiet as a mouse", it doesn't mean "she is a mouse".katsucats said: Did you really just equate suicide to moving? Se7en360 said: What a ridiculous perspective it is to think that choosing to leave the world personally insults everyone that you've met. By that logic, you must think choosing to move to a new town is a spit in the face to everyone you've known in the old town. It's also puzzling logic to assume a person must be supportive of their families if they were killed by someone else, whereas if they killed themselves they become a detriment?!Suicide is never the correct answer. It is giving up on family and friends, whom have to carry the burden of a lost life they couldn't comfort. A life is always more than the individual, it also a collection of every memory, friendship, and relationship experienced in life. To end that life by ones own hands is a spit in the face of everyone that individual spent even a fraction of their life with. At least by some accident or even homicide, loved ones can find solace in the fact that they were there for them rather than a detriment. If an unfortunate individual has fallen to such a "solution", they have neglected to seek help from what matters most. I don't know "what matters most", but surely it isn't to live the longest. I wonder how you feel about intentionally taking part in risky activities, like sports, or joining the army, where a hypothetical 1% death rate must mean by game theory that you've spit in the face of 1 out of every 100 people you know just by signing up. Se7en360 said: So you assume if I point out some flaw in your logic that I must hate myself. I assume you hate yourself because you run away from logic.I have never met someone so filled with hate and self-loathing. Se7en360 said: My friends don't really have a problem with critical thinking.And "what matters most" is family, friends, and home, and if you are too blind to realize that I feel sorry for the friends and family you choose to neglect. Se7en360 said: And that decision makes you "detrimental" to other people? Ridiculous.And the difference between suicide and accidental death or murder is you are the one that made the decision to leave your family and friends behind. Open your eyes you fool. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Feb 3, 2013 10:56 PM
#200
Baman said: Do you mean the 'definition' of a number? The 'meaning' of life refers to a different semantic concept than the 'definition' of life. You are conflating two different definitions of the same word -- a semantic fallacy.katsucats said: Eeer, nope. Check a dictionary. Or would you argue the "meaning" of, say, a number, is subjective? That's not the meaning of 'meaning'. Meaning is always agent-dependent/subjective, even if the subject is God. Baman said: You're the one that entered my thread. The boat is yours and I'm the gatekeeper.Just drop this man, you're only rowing your boat into the deep seas of pointless semantic japery.And that's where the krakens of Off-topic prowl. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
» School, Careers and Jobs are stupid and a waste of timeAllAlone8 - 12 minutes ago |
0 |
by AllAlone8
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
» Are You Dressing Up For Halloween? What Would/Will Be Your Halloween Costume?PeripheralVision - Oct 13 |
7 |
by XMGA030
»»
31 minutes ago |
|
» china crossdresser are so cute omg!!! ( 1 2 )Ymir_The_Viking - Oct 12 |
52 |
by Retro8bit
»»
50 minutes ago |
|
» Have you ever voted in a municipal election, or do you just not care much about who your mayor is?fleurbleue - Oct 13 |
28 |
by Retro8bit
»»
51 minutes ago |
|
» Hottest Halloween costume someone can dress up as ?VabbingSips - Oct 13 |
8 |
by Retro8bit
»»
51 minutes ago |