Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    I have to say, when it comes to trusting an 'emotional impulse' for an answer regarding life having meaning, seems to me to be very unreliable. Emotions change daily and are subject to the environment.

    Reason can compile objective facts to construct a sustained argument one way or the other. This, if reasoned well, could be a timeless and universal package of evidence that can be appreciated by all. (even if not agreed with)

    Emotions, though a convinsing source information, is too subjective. If that's enough for you, then that's fine by me.

    As for me, I'm going to need a little more before I can believe there is any meaning to life beyond my own ambitions.
    There's no ultimate meaning to life apart from our own individual reasons, unless you invoke God but personally for me that gives it even less reason.

    I know what you mean by emotional reasons not being a good one. I've been through a time when I felt suicidal and the main thing keeping me from killing myself was fear of hell (I was theist at the time). There is one significant person in my life keeping me going right now and if I ever lost them I wouldn't be able to cope and would probably lose my will to live. I'm in a really bad situation regarding this issue but I'm prepared to fight for it.

    I'm sure shamrock would be happy to pick at this reason as it is flawed. The reason is good enough for me however. Everyone else has their own reasons for life and I respect their reasons as I wish they would respect mine. No justification is required, why would there be? We're a scientific accident. I'm going to make the most of it though. It's pointless spending life being miserable over the reasons shamrock is arguing by.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkened Angel)
    There's no ultimate meaning to life apart from our own individual reasons, unless you invoke God but personally for me that gives it even less reason.

    I know what you mean by emotional reasons not being a good one. I've been through a time when I felt suicidal and the main thing keeping me from killing myself was fear of hell (I was theist at the time). There is one significant person in my life keeping me going right now and if I ever lost them I wouldn't be able to cope and would probably lose my will to live. I'm in a really bad situation regarding this issue but I'm prepared to fight for it.

    I'm sure shamrock would be happy to pick at this reason as it is flawed. The reason is good enough for me however. Everyone else has their own reasons for life and I respect their reasons as I wish they would respect mine. No justification is required, why would there be? We're a scientific accident. I'm going to make the most of it though. It's pointless spending life being miserable over the reasons shamrock is arguing by.


    I'd say that's a respectful and quite grey attitude to have, which is fine by me. Scientific accident, seems like the most likely to me as well. I've yet to be presented with any hard evidence or reasoning as to why it is a necessity to even have a point to life. Until that day I'll continue to think that life is all about what you make it, my purpose is to reach my potential, do all I can, experience all I can. Then I think I'll be happy.

    What is Shamrocks' reasoning in short? (feel free to answer this yourself shamrock if you're reading this)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    Enlighten me, then.
    Erm, okay. In naive set theory, anything can be a set, and we have an intuitive concept of "the set consisting of precisely the sets that don't contain themselves". The problem is when answering "does this set contain itself?" - it leads to a contradiction either way.

    Similarly, we have your naive conceptualization of reason, which is basically any argument in terms of language (with similar basic logical axioms to naive set theory, such as the law of non-contradiction). As you may suspect, this naivety leads easily to paradoxes. "This sentence is not true." (Since, naively, you do not define what "true" is.)

    The paradoxes above have one thing in common: the sentences are self-referential. They're paradoxical because they make a statement about themselves, so to speak, such that once they have made that statement, the entire sentence can no longer be true. This suggests that getting rid of the self-reference, in one form or another, gets rid of the paradoxes. That's what I have done in one way or another.

    (Original post by shamrock92)
    What? If you assume X and X leads to a contradiction, then X is false.
    And reason being false, as you keep pointing out, leads to some sort of paradox.

    (Original post by shamrock92)
    I agree with this, except I don't think it works with reason - even the most intense form of skepticism uses reason to create its formulations (such as the anti-Cartesian one above). Thus, reason can't be skepticised without using reason, which is a paradox. Therefore, reason is valid.
    I would think that reason is one of the easiest things to be skeptical about. In our experiences, we have all come up across some dumbass who thinks they understand reason, but in reality are constantly talking ********. (In fact, we may have one in the religion forum right now.) It's very easy to conceptualize that perhaps we're secretly like this and don't realize it; after all, these people already exist, by our standards. Much easier if you consider Descartes' demon trying to fool us into believing all this.

    (Original post by shamrock92)
    Well you're the one that raised the issue by saying that my logical intuition was as dodgy as Darkened Angel's capricious instinct.
    I could actually make a case that they're indistinguishable, but I'm lazy, so I'm just going to say that in principle it doesn't matter; people might adopt her axiom without any emotion.

    (Original post by shamrock92)
    Were you? I don't think you were; you were focusing on comparing me to Darkened Angel and talking about how reason was inadequate.
    I've repeatedly pointed out that, without firm foundations, all talk is meaningless, merely words that sounds good to the intuition. Because intuition varies, the talk leads no where. My other major problem with this is your "moving of the goal posts", so to speak; when you have no firm conceptualization of "truth", you can simply demand a higher standard of evidence for it, again and again and again. This is what you've been doing in all your posts about nihilism.

    (Original post by shamrock92)
    Circle or paradox? Your choice.
    I will take the presumption that these are not well-defined; that they are just meaningless words that sound good to our intuition, but underneath which no structure is possible, and indeed no common ground in conversation is possible.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    I'd say that's a respectful and quite grey attitude to have, which is fine by me. Scientific accident, seems like the most likely to me as well. I've yet to be presented with any hard evidence or reasoning as to why it is a necessity to even have a point to life. Until that day I'll continue to think that life is all about what you make it, my purpose is to reach my potential, do all I can, experience all I can. Then I think I'll be happy.
    The necessity of having a point to life is to help stop you from wallowing in the deep depths of depressive nihilism which isn't a pretty situation. There are better things to do tbh.
    What is Shamrocks' reasoning in short? (feel free to answer this yourself shamrock if you're reading this)
    He's a nihilist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkened Angel)
    The necessity of having a point to life is to help stop you from wallowing in the deep depths of depressive nihilism which isn't a pretty situation. There are better things to do tbh.
    I'd hardly describe that as a necessity, rather a logical advantage. Advantagous because you're ignorant almost to your impending doom, which allows you to hold a tunnel view of your own lives, which allows you to just get on with it.
    Saying that, where would we be if every single person was a Nihilist.

    He's a nihilist.
    Fair enough.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    I'd hardly describe that as a necessity, rather a logical advantage. Advantagous because you're ignorant almost to your impending doom, which allows you to hold a tunnel view of your own lives, which allows you to just get on with it.
    Saying that, where would we be if every single person was a Nihilist.
    It's neccasary to survive. You have a point though but I prefer to live than be a nihilist. I'm not ignorant of my impending doom however, I've acknowledged it and it never bothers me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Same, I think as I sit here now I'd HATE to die because I have so much to do. However, when the time comes, I think I'll be ready providing I'm old and grey
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    Same, I think as I sit here now I'd HATE to die because I have so much to do. However, when the time comes, I think I'll be ready providing I'm old and grey
    it's also pretty instinctive to want to not die.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    it's also pretty instinctive to want to not die.
    of course it is, probably the most basic primal instinct we have. What's your point?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    of course it is, probably the most basic primal instinct we have. What's your point?
    that I doubt how much you have left to do is all that relevant unless you're referring to baby making.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    that I doubt how much you have left to do is all that relevant unless you're referring to baby making.
    The brain has come along much sinse the primal instincts were created and selected via 'natural selection'. Now we're able to think of things which are known as 'Apparent Goods' according to natural moral law theory.

    Surely you can appreciate that the brain is of ultimate complexity, and understand I have much more ambition in life than to survive and keep the species going.


    If that's how you think, well I pity you.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    The brain has come along much sinse the primal instincts were created and selected via 'natural selection'. Now we're able to think of things which are known as 'Apparent Goods' according to natural moral law theory.

    Surely you can appreciate that the brain is of ultimate complexity, and understand I have much more ambition in life than to survive and keep the species going.


    If that's how you think, well I pity you.
    I'm not saying that you're only ambition is to keep your genes going, I'm saying that even if you didn't have other ambitions that would still be an ambition due to your instinct.

    oh no, some random guy off the internet is pitying me OMG!!!1!!!!111!!!11:shifty: :no: :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I'm not saying that you're only ambition is to keep your genes going, I'm saying that even if you didn't have other ambitions that would still be an ambition due to your instinct.

    oh no, some random guy off the internet is pitying me OMG!!!1!!!!111!!!11:shifty: :no: :rolleyes:
    okay, okay I'm misunderstanding what your overall point is?

    You just barged in with

    Originally Posted by Hypnotic_Me
    Same, I think as I sit here now I'd HATE to die because I have so much to do. However, when the time comes, I think I'll be ready providing I'm old and grey

    it's also pretty instinctive to want to not die.

    So explain to me firstly, what you think I mean, what you're criticism is and then we can go from there.

    Sorry, I didn't mean to (nearly) offend you. It just seemed like you were being arrogant. :jumphug:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I'm just pointing out that having "so much to do" is most likely to be a very small factor in whether you want to stay alive a lot and it probably goes down to things like instinct more than none instinctive decisions with regards to being ready to die or not. I don't really think that's arrogant, personally I prefer to say "I mean nothing, I'm meaningless, I'm not special, I'm like everybody else and that's just fine". I don't see a need to try and set myself apart from everyone by pretending that I'm special in some way. I think instinct still effects all of my decisions and feelings in life.

    You seem to be trying to say that instinct doesn't come into whether you're ready to die. I happen to disagree. why do I think you don't think it comes into it (or come into it much), your reaction to my comment. I was just trying to bring it to your attention in case you wise to refine your argument.

    And don't feel I'm saying this in a bad tone of voice, it's pretty neutral (but I'm not always great with getting tone across on forums).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I'm just pointing out that having "so much to do" is most likely to be a very small factor in whether you want to stay alive a lot and it probably goes down to things like instinct more than none instinctive decisions with regards to being ready to die or not. I don't really think that's arrogant, personally I prefer to say "I mean nothing, I'm meaningless, I'm not special, I'm like everybody else and that's just fine". I don't see a need to try and set myself apart from everyone by pretending that I'm special in some way. I think instinct still effects all of my decisions and feelings in life.

    You seem to be trying to say that instinct doesn't come into whether you're ready to die. I happen to disagree. why do I think you don't think it comes into it (or come into it much), your reaction to my comment. I was just trying to bring it to your attention in case you wise to refine your argument.

    And don't feel I'm saying this in a bad tone of voice, it's pretty neutral (but I'm not always great with getting tone across on forums).

    Of course instinct plays its party (a significant one) in how we think and choices we make. It's the base of our own existence, but there are times in which our instincts are overridden. Think about a terminally ill person, they generally as whole don't wish to live, but instinct in the black and white way says

    Live - Good
    Death - Bad.

    Or saving someone from a burning building and putting yourself at risk, you don't have to. You don't see that much in the animal kingdom at all.

    By this all I'm saying is, instinct isn't the only factor, but certainly is one. But if I'm old, i've done all I set out to do, I know I'm about to die. I thnk I'd be ready to die, as ready as you ever could be.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    Of course instinct plays its party (a significant one) in how we think and choices we make. It's the base of our own existence, but there are times in which our instincts are overridden. Think about a terminally ill person, they generally as whole don't wish to live, but instinct in the black and white way says

    Live - Good
    Death - Bad.

    Or saving someone from a burning building and putting yourself at risk, you don't have to. You don't see that much in the animal kingdom at all.

    By this all I'm saying is, instinct isn't the only factor, but certainly is one. But if I'm old, i've done all I set out to do, I know I'm about to die. I thnk I'd be ready to die, as ready as you ever could be.
    being ready to die and as ready as you'll ever be to die are different things though. I haven't been trying to criticise your point, just try to give you something to play around with because to me, it looked as if it was being ignored.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I appreciate it Feed back is always useful, I WILL be proven wrong on my stances on these sorts of things.

    The day I am, I'll adopt the right view and continue from there. (Y) I'll stick to my guns like a mofo though.

    the basic difference here is:

    You hold instincts to play a much greater part in day to day life than I do.

    This is a difficult one to even think about, I'm sure if it was to be vastly studied it would produce interesting findings.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    I appreciate it Feed back is always useful, I WILL be proven wrong on my stances on these sorts of things.

    The day I am, I'll adopt the right view and continue from there. (Y) I'll stick to my guns like a mofo though.

    the basic difference here is:

    You hold instincts to play a much greater part in day to day life than I do.

    This is a difficult one to even think about, I'm sure if it was to be vastly studied it would produce interesting findings.
    well I think instincts are the building blocks, the basis of, everything we have.
    This is a great time to talk about nothingnesses in Sartre's point of view (I think it was you who said, don't talk about Sartre, if it was, whoops)

    We can imagine the duke of Wellington meeting us in a cafe on all fours, but it isn't realistic, it is a nothingness. Sarter believes that this pulls apart from the rest of the animal kingdom (I disagree because I think every animal, and every species is different, special in it's own way, the same in it's own way, thus this is just another difference, not a special difference, between us and say, kangaroo's, who we can't tell if they think nothingnesses or not).

    Instincts over ride reason to keep us alive, to keep us from harm, it happens all the time, it is very rare that we can over come that instinct, and even rare that we can overcome all of our instincts, because they're the embedded into us. This is why I think instinct plays a bigger role than reasoning when it comes to being ready to die.

    Just take a look around us, we have crazy concepts, like the term life after death. Well by the definition of death you can not be alive after it. Death is the lack of existence of a being after a being was.And if you don't exist (in that context) then you can not be alive. You get the idea. We even base reason upon that (not necessarily well thought out reason though). We use our instincts to look for whatever is comfortable most of the time (at least in the west). Partly even because we're told to, this kind of leads onto consumerism, advertising, being told what to buy what not to buy etc. The idea of material wealth being important for happiness...


    ...my oh my, what a lot of crazy stuff in this post, I'm not going to read it back, I'll just cross my fingers and hope that it makes sense (I stopped where I did because it was going off on what looked to be too much of a tangent).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    well I think instincts are the building blocks, the basis of, everything we have.
    This is a great time to talk about nothingnesses in Sartre's point of view (I think it was you who said, don't talk about Sartre, if it was, whoops)

    We can imagine the duke of Wellington meeting us in a cafe on all fours, but it isn't realistic, it is a nothingness. Sarter believes that this pulls apart from the rest of the animal kingdom (I disagree because I think every animal, and every species is different, special in it's own way, the same in it's own way, thus this is just another difference, not a special difference, between us and say, kangaroo's, who we can't tell if they think nothingnesses or not).

    Instincts over ride reason to keep us alive, to keep us from harm, it happens all the time, it is very rare that we can over come that instinct, and even rare that we can overcome all of our instincts, because they're the embedded into us. This is why I think instinct plays a bigger role than reasoning when it comes to being ready to die.

    Just take a look around us, we have crazy concepts, like the term life after death. Well by the definition of death you can not be alive after it. Death is the lack of existence of a being after a being was.And if you don't exist (in that context) then you can not be alive. You get the idea. We even base reason upon that (not necessarily well thought out reason though). We use our instincts to look for whatever is comfortable most of the time (at least in the west). Partly even because we're told to, this kind of leads onto consumerism, advertising, being told what to buy what not to buy etc. The idea of material wealth being important for happiness...


    ...my oh my, what a lot of crazy stuff in this post, I'm not going to read it back, I'll just cross my fingers and hope that it makes sense (I stopped where I did because it was going off on what looked to be too much of a tangent).

    Okay, that's fine. I certainly agree with the notion of 'building blocks'. It seems fairly logical.

    What about people who desiger Euthanasia though? Reason here is overriding intinct because of the sheer inability to do anything, and the slow deterioration of a dignifying life. The person has found they're unhappy with life, and then reasoned that it is best to die.

    Or again you could say to save someone from a building that's one fire is instinctive, and yet this outs the individual at a greater risk.

    Is it not possible that our instincts have evolved? According to Aristotle, our main characteristic (and for him - what made us human) is our ability to reason. This is present within every healthy human on at least some scale, rational thinking obviously takes place within the brain, and so do instinctive actions.

    Is it an impossibility that evolution has shifted the balance between instinct and reason in reasons favour.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypnotic_Me)
    Okay, that's fine. I certainly agree with the notion of 'building blocks'. It seems fairly logical.

    What about people who desiger Euthanasia though? Reason here is overriding intinct because of the sheer inability to do anything, and the slow deterioration of a dignifying life. The person has found they're unhappy with life, and then reasoned that it is best to die.

    Or again you could say to save someone from a building that's one fire is instinctive, and yet this outs the individual at a greater risk.

    Is it not possible that our instincts have evolved? According to Aristotle, our main characteristic (and for him - what made us human) is our ability to reason. This is present within every healthy human on at least some scale, rational thinking obviously takes place within the brain, and so do instinctive actions.

    Is it an impossibility that evolution has shifted the balance between instinct and reason in reasons favour.
    I said it is possible to override instinct, but pretty rare when compared to instinct over riding reason.

    I think our instincts can evolve, but I'm not sure if they have or haven't, I don't think there's anyway to tell what our instincts used to be like.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.