Not quite. As l explained in my final entry: most of us won’t suicide because we have a Soul, which is not something Materialism (in any sense of the word) can admit to.
The soul being pure existence. It can’t be explained by matter. The point was, Materialists won’t admit to this despite it being why they are alive.
Moreover, existence for its own sake is absurd from a philosophical POV, if this life were all there was.
By the way, l see how complex Materialism actually is. Evenso, the opponent @ghatzige should have presented more of it, if he wanted me to challenge more of it. It was all down to him to offer up Materialism.
My critique of it will always be, regarding the existential question, still probably be much the same.
( To be clear: If Death is final, Death makes everything it touches, absurd. I don’t believe Death is final. And just to be clear: I don’t believe in God because the finality of this life distresses me, nor did my parents believe in God for that reason, in fact l’ve rarely seen anybody in Islam discuss belief like that - l estimate our belief typically stems 90% from the Prophet, and 10% from own contemplation, of which wondering if this life is all there is, and worrying it might be, is a very small part, if at all a part - we’re already convinced by our Prophet, so our contemplation is around his revelations. )
Smoking has long been known to cause cancer, heart disease. and myriad other health problems.
Cigarettes have been colloquially called “cancer sticks”, it’s common parlance.
Places l have lived have been plagued by tenants smoking. I’m surprised how many people still smoke.
So my point: Don’t people know that we should live for good health?
Honestly, l’d say most people have intellectual faculties intact, enough to save their own lives when threatened. So why do so many smoke? And drink? Even though they know it will likely kill them? Even though there are big warnings on the packaging now?
Answer: they just don’t care. Palliative care is opiates, plus there’s oxygen machines. So they’re happy to throw their lives away. Just so long as it’s not a direct 1:1 relationship between cause and effect, i.e. actual suicide. If the effect (death) is a few years away from the cause (smoking), then it’s fine. Palliative care is definitely a sweetener.
This proves me right, that the inevitability of Death makes this life absurd, all of it. The only way around it is a bizarre counterintuitive desire to exist exist exist. That is the Soul, and it is of a higher reality, beyond the Material plane. Materialism cannot explain it.
I would argue the opposite. Most of us will suicide because we have a soul.
The extent to which you need to be psychologically harmed and suffer internally to end up with the idea that the only way out is to end it all… thats not something a simple sociopath is going to feel.
I am not quite a materialist, but i am an atheist of sorts, and personally i think that even materialists acknowledge the soul, they just make up different terms for it like the human spirit, a heart, self consciousness, the source of creativity, the plethora of problems with abiogenesis… as
Heisenberg said: The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.
There comes a point even with science where you can no longer treat the complexities of matter and nature as simply inanimate chemistry.
There are too many patterns where should be none.
And with that being said, having a soul or acknowledging a soul in and of itself would not prevent you from ending yourself.
As i said, If anything, personally i believe that its the opposite.
Those who live and those who suicide, have a soul.
Our life trajectory is a tie between the realisation of death’s inevitability and subsequent absurdity of death …. and pursuit of pleasure.
Enfranchisement into this life is also thing. It keeps us moderate in the pursuit of pleasure, because we have jobs or are married.
When we become disenfranchised with life e.g. out of a job, broke, or relationship ended, then we reaturn to a stark choice: Pleasure or Death.
And the usual decision is: Pleasure that is soft enough to not cause immediate Death.
And so people turn to smoking when heartbroken in their teens or early 20s. Older people become alcoholic even though they could hold their drink in their teens. Etc etc. Hey it’s not immediate death.
Why does the sociopath not suicide? I don’t know. I think the sociopath lives in order to feed off other souls, to make up having lost their own. Eventually, if there’s nothing left to feed on, maybe they do suicide.
As for your saying people suicide because they have a soul @Nausamedu - that’s a bold assertion. I would reflexively reject it but l think you might be right. However, l would say it’s a diseased soul.
Just as the sociopath hijacks another soul, the suicide may be empathic, yet have their soul hijacked. Very often, a suicide is a victim of a sociopath (not that l have any sympathy for a suicide, my religion forbids it and l have known suicides and yes l do feel sad for them but l am forced to deny this so l deny all empathy for them).
So, TL;DR version: Suicides have a soul, yes, but it’s a poisoned, diseased, hijacked, manipulated one. And some recent court cases illustrate this, where a partner gers prosecuted for manslaughter when someone commits suicide in a relationship.
No question about it.
Suicide after all is usually the last expression of an Irreconcilable internal conflict.
I am merely making the assertion that you need (at least) two internal sides for such a conflict to happen. Those who do not possess the “opposite side” will not have this issue. Does not matter which side is missing, but it will leave the individual without the perception of internal opposition.
Of course that would also beg the question: What is normal in the first place?
To know both good and bad, or to not do so?
Indeed. Even if you make the hypothesis that soul exists, it does not explain why there are suicidal people, if soul is one that makes us want to live.
Ancient materialists used the term soul. Modern materialists use substitutes like the ones you mentioned.
In every case though, a materialist will always say that soul, conciousness, etc has physical origin. Is it matter? Is it electrical signals? Is it energy? Is it a quantum phenomenon undiscovered yet? That is irrelevant.
For a materialist (as I defined it in the debate), everything is physical.
For the purposes of the debate, I had two ways to proceed on that:
Following such line of argumentation, I would have used similar terms like proof, undeniable fact etc with @TheIllustriousMrCat
This, though, would have made me inconsistent with everything I said in this forum about subjectivity.
I chose the second approach. Unfortunately, I was forced by the constant questions on this issue from my opponent to repeat my position multiple times. My fault, perhaps I should have stopped it early. Nevertheless, he was leading the discussion since he was the interrogator, I was answering his questions.
I assume you are saying:
The sociopath does not have 2 sides within their soul?
Whereas paradoxically, the Suicide has these 2 sides intact and thus should actually be doing fine - but their soul is diseased.
That is intriguiging and does have much to commend it. May l ask: what do you think the 2 sides are?
I think l may have solved it.
The Solipsist is the archetype of evil, the root of Psychopath / Sociopath.
The Solipsist = “One-sided”
The Suicide has 2 sides: Self + Other (other = manipulative partner, family, world, God).
The Suicide is therefore normal but for one thing: The “Other” has become entirely “Manipulative Partner” or some other threat. To the exclusion of all else that is “Other”. And thus the Suicide is poisoned, they have 2 sides which is fine but 1 of those sides is poisoned.
Perhaps being on drink and drugs and having pre-existent mental issues has poisoned the Self too, hence both sides may be poisoned, not just one.
Maybe socioapths won’t suicide because that’d mean the Universe ends (from their POV).
I would like to add:
When Heart Chakra opens, we go from “Self” to “Self+Other”. I don’t believe that means our Soul is a compound of two parts, it just means the Heart Chakra integrates two worlds (inner and outer) as part of growth from youth (selfishnesses, closedness) to maturity, and the only way to be healthy is for both worlds to harmonise e.g. via marriage, so that Self is melded with Other instead of unresolved conflicts with Other nestling in the Heart Chakra and poisoning it.
Sociopaths remains “Self” i.e. one-sided, because their Qi / Prana / Life-force, cannot even rise up to the Heart Chakra, as it is blocked.
Is this a strength? No, it is loss of functionality. The Sociopath remains in a naive youthful state (which paradoxically is what entices their victims, enchants their victims).
My scheme of development:
Base chakra = baby and infant stage
Sacral chakra = puberty
Solar Plexus = age of apprenticeship, youth can begin to earn money, learn a trade (not these days, but in the past), capability for not just anger, but deadly anger
Heart chakra = Now the person has fully matured. They are fully immersed in the Other (the rest of the world). Conflicts between Self and Other have potential to poison Heart Chakra at this stage, but this can be resolved by a lasting relationship, marriage, such that Spouse and own children become almost all of that “Other” and they love you back.
The rest is the upper body chakras (throat, third eye, crown). I’m not Hindu but l am from the region of old India and besides l take whatever ideas l feel like taking 
Im pretty sure that they can manifest in multiple ways so its not something uniform or specific, but what it will always come down to is self interest vs external expectation, with external expectation being the more fluid of the two since it can come from any sources.
The key part in my opinion is that the individual wants to do good by others.
Whether its a parent, a bully, the world… the individual looks at it and views it through the lens of “i want to satisfy their need and want”.
The prerequisite is that the individual puts a priority on other people and not themselves.
Meanwhile someone who lacks the drive to “give” to “satisfy the demands of others” (i.e. a sociopath) will simply react to these demands with violence, denial, rejection and shrug off the external expectations. Their reaction usually follows the route of ”who do you think you are to impose upon me?”
Now. With that being said:
Yes, having a soul does not simply mean having an excess of empathy and lots of emotions, but if a quality exists for a soul, then i do think that the lower spectrum is the self centered, the animal like, the ego driven souls which are closer to the materialistic realm, while higher quality souls have more potential to “give” to look past their own needs, wants and existence.
So ultimately i cant simply say that a sociopath has no soul. I think all living beings have spark of sorts. But their quality is different, and lower quality souls usually do not bother with crucifying themselves into a prezel because other people have expectations towards them.
Meanwhile higher quality souls absolutely do have that feature. That selflessness which is so backwards that it can tear itself apart when it cant meet the external demand and pressure.
Yes. This is the gist of what i was inferring. Indeed.
A selfish person is more “one-sided” and self focused. They have way less potential for tearing themselves apart and sink into depression.
Meanwhile the “suicidal” individuals usually have the opposite problem: They prioritize other people’s opinions, wants, needs and expectations over their own, and when they are unable to meet those standards, they start to tear themselves apart.
Addiction or “pleasure” is usually a displacement activity or more widely known as a “coping mechanism”.
Its a way to silence the internal conflict.
To pull away one’s attention. To “drown your sorrow” as they say.
Yes. In a way its the poisoning of both sides. An “indirect”, prolonged suicide, so to speak.
Hi there, pardon the lengthy post - and thank you for your ideas:
How l’ve integrated it into my scheme is:
Soul’s relationship to Chakra system = unknown, but Chakra system cannot exist without Soul.
A focal point of the study of the Soul = the Heart Chakra, unsure why, but “Heart” and “Soul” are often used interchangeably in common speech.
You say: a person with too much Soul can commit suicide, rather than what l claimed: that “the Suicide has lost their soul (meaning: the soul is dirtied, the Heart Chakra is blocked at least at the lower end, preventing upward progress of life force from the Solar Plexus).”
Too much Soul = a bipartite Soul, which is to say: they have a concept of Self and “Other”
This can lead to suicide when they are harmed by a sociopath. The sociopath too has a soul, but it is unipartite, it has one axis: the Self
I’ve revised my views:
Soul = the territory of occupied Chakras (so we activate each of the 7 chakras in sequence, the cumulative “territory” occupied by the Chakras grows node by node. The Soul thus grows as we progress through life, which isn’t a concept l’m happy with but l’m floating it for now)
Spirit = the actual flow of life force through these Chakras i.e. weak flow, turbulent flow etc.
As we attain the Heart Chakra, as the Heart “opens”, we truly awaken to the “Other”, we see the world through new eyes. This is the first love and hopefully it lasts!
Thus, while the Soul is still one (satisfying my original opinion), once it reaches maturity, once the Heart Chakra opens, it becomes “at one with the Other”, so a new Unity occurs (Solipsism being an extreme example of the original Unity), it’s a Unity via plurality, rather than a Unity of One (Singularity?). This way, the Soul still remains One.
The Sociopath: Remains a Unity of One, archetypally this is the Solipsist. Their lifeforce stops at the Heart Chakra, it cannot proceed because God has placed a seal on the Heart due to unrepented bad deeds. The Heart Chakra is a poorly kept house which God has condemned and boarded up.
Because the socipath’s lifeforce only goes as far as the Solar Plexus, they appear to be at an early phase of development, which can appeal to certain instincts in their victims e.g. motherly instinct, daddy instinct. In fact, the sociopath will be a lower-body being, a being of vices such as greed and aggression (Solar Plexus), sexual manipulation (Sacral Chakra) and l’m unsure how it would manifest in the Base Chakra, perhaps it would be overeating, or even anorexia, as these disorders concern the exit of food or lack thereof - but l’m grasping at straws with the Base Chakra really.
The point l guess is: the sociopath looks naive and thus full of potential if only they had the right shepherd. A lost sheep. Yet the truth of the matter implies they are wolves, they have bags of experience but remain held back in emotional development due to precisely the experience, their experience being evil acts which they never repented for.
So, we have a setup like Cygnus X-1, a binary system with a blue supergiant star (the Suicide, Unity via Plurality) orbiting a black hole (the Sociopath, Unity of One, a Singularity is literally at the core of the black hole). The black hole is cannibalising the blue supergiant. The X-rays given off by the accretion disc are the crown of the black hole, making it look red hot, alluring. In fact those X-rays are other people’s interest poured into the sociopath, often the victim’s own psychic energy.
Going back to the quoted section in this post:
Unfortunately l have to avoid sympathising with the Suicide. I hope l can make exceptions in extreme cases e.g. l read about a family where the children and at least one parent had a seal limb deformity and thus their arms were deformed, looking like seal flippers. The children were severely bullied at school and one or both committed suicide. It’s too tragic for me to even Google, l’m sure you agree. Perhaps in a case like this, l could say: the children’s minds weren’t fully developed and / or they had become mentally ill. Insanity is a sinless state in my religion, though the insane person’s prayers are not valid and also the Prophet strongly disliked insane people. At least, l hope, an insane plea could exonerate a suicide.
That said, there’s obvious culpability when a sane person enters into a relationship eyes wide open, with a sociopath. Same as if a person smokes crack and only then commits crimes while psychotic after 6 days no sleep. It’s insanity but culpable, blameworthy. So, l cannot pity that Suicide. They overlooked good possible partners. They didn’t want marriage, they didn’t get a parent involved in approaching the other person to arrange courtship. They swiped right right right then thought oh hello, and swiped left. They were part of cancel culture and very superficially minded. They got the demon they secretly wanted.
Thank you, that’s why for now, l’m making “Soul” = the entire territory / map of Chakras that have become inhabited, out of the 7 available chakras. The cumulative list of inhabited chakras in a person = the level of their Soul.
I would explain this as: Satan gets us through Vice and Virtue. In fact, l sometimes feel Virtue is a greater trap than Vice. I’ve seen people claim to love God. They stop fearing God (we should both Love and Fear God). They start treating God as an ordinary friend, even shouting at him to make things right. That’s all very well, but without fear, it’s unrealistic. If anything should be feared, it’s God. So, the result is self-righteousness. It can become deadly when people decided that non-believers must die, because they don’t love God, at least they don’t love the True God, and so they are enemies of Love and so they must be hated, and so they must be exterminated.
So, the higher a soul attains, the greater the stakes, the greater the tests, the greater the fall possible.
So, with the Suicide, the Soul is not the problem actually, it’s just mismanagement, which is the Suicide’s own fault. Sure, the Suicide’s soul was poisoned. By the relationship with the Sociopath. But we are ultimately responsible for our own souls, and our mismanagement is our own. A wolf may ruin a person’s house, but why did the person let the wolf in the house?
And so: the Soul can still be, as per my original idea: “exist exist exist” i.e. pure Existence.
But in the Suicide, the Soul has been poisoned, and thus it’s like a tooth that says “eat eat eat”, but with decay and a nerve problem, it can become “omg don’t let any food touch this tooth”.
The poison is mismanagement, which is more catastrophic the more developed a Soul is.
And so, l can still blame the Suicide as per my original idea, l mean: as per my religion’s beliefs on Suicide being one of the greatest evils.
You are welcome to propose a continuation formal debate. This time you can make it within the sphere of a branch of Materialism, so that it’s not compared to Death, because Death makes everything absurd, even religion (if there is nothing beyond death).
If you can, please make a presentation on New Materialism, as it seems to be bleeding edge.
P.S. by the way, l agreed when you said elsewhere in the forum that we must not dismiss Trump as schizo and leave it at that. Even if he is (l seriously doubt it, seems like market manipulation) it’s what keeps him afloat that is the problem, not his illnesses which bring him down.
P.P.S.: Plato (“Socrates” in the dialogue) destroys Thrasymachus, he doesn’t side with him. He sets Thrasymachus up for a fall, though l am unhappy with that and l think Thrasymachus’s drive for tyranny is today’s reality. He was never formally a materialist but he effectively was (despite being a fictional character).
We can talk about morality (secular vs religious view).
But this time it should not be interrogation of one on another. First round we both present our positions and the next rounds we should debate each other’s position.
I am not sure how this can work practically.
Perhaps each round can have four stages: I ask, you respond. Then you ask and I respond.
Whatever you decide, this should happen after some weeks. I am quite busy with work this period.
I am not familiar with the new materialism positions. The most “recent” I know is Marxism, which I have no interest to defend.
P. S. I do not recall writting something on this forum about Trump. In which topic did I call him schizo?
And “dismiss” in what sense?
Except if you are talking on how we should treat opposite opinions in politics, even if we strongly disagree with them. This has to do with what works better for politics and it is subjective political opinion. Materialism and death have nothing to do with that. And Trump is not the best example to talk about non-religious materialism, the majority of his voters are religious.
If Trump or whoever is schizo, it is irrelevant to philosophical position. Schizophrenia is a mental illness. Mentally ill people commiting suicide is not addressed by either philosophy or religion. It is a psychiatric issue.
P.P.S. Thrasymachus was sophist, not philosopher. And Plato presents arguments of Thrasymachus the way it is convenient for him to address them. It is not a real debate.
This was typical practice in antiquity. Even Epicureans presented “positions” of opposite schools and addressed them.
If I mention how many times religious scholars in the medieval times have “debanked” ancient philosophy from their comfort that the philosophers’ original texts have been “mysteriously” vanished, I will need an encyclopedia’s volume, not a forum’s thread.
If I was writting a text presenting your position, do you think I would have presented the way you would have argued? If I am writting the text for both parties, I can give you the best counter-arguments.
OK well think of a specific topic. I think Marxism is a big lie when the details emerge, seems to me an Inner Party will always be dealing with global capitalists to export products from USSR to the World. Anything that touches nothingness, must become nothingness, so too with interfacing with Communism / Capitalism, if they deal with each other peacefully then they become each other.
Just by a quick look on new materialism I do not see anything interesting. Plus, the majority of modern materialists I think are determinists, which I am against.
I do not recall this discussion, if you find it I can see what was the context.
In the first Q&A I wanted to focus on fundamental claims for Islam. Now we can talk about controversial issues, depending on how the discussion will go.
I believe that a good topic could be along the lines of objective vs subjective. What about: Are there objectively good and evil actions?
I argue for no.
Think also what format you prefer. I proposed one, but now that I recheck it, it will be quite long with 4 stages per round.
Anyhow, as I said, this can happen after a few weeks (2 or 3).
Re: determinism, l am against it too. One of the earliest “materialist” texts appears to have been “Hayy ibn Yaqzan”(“Living Son of the Awake”) by Ibn Tufayl, which l read ages ago. In Latin it’s called Philosophus Autodidactus, understandable because the book is about a boy on a desert island who deduces everything via his natural environment, to conclude God exists. It’s presented as materialism or materialism is discussed therein, according to Wikipedia. I can’t recall that, but l’d say it’s a very deterministic text. Determinism is probably the correct position for Materialism, what do you replace it with in your Materialism?
I think we can deduce nomoi from nature. However it will be tinged with materialism, and thus we will end up with contradictory views e.g. we are living by grace such that things we can eat, are available to us to eat, and they even taste good. But also if someone weaker than us annoys us, the Law of the Jungle is absolutely fair because animals do it.
P.S. If you are going l may as well quit again for a bit as l only revisited it to have that debate. I can return, say, late May?
Edit: i forgot: you integrate “Swerve” into your Materialism, a la Lucretius, to replace Determinism.
My problem with this - perhaps bringing the entire house of cards down - is that “Swerve” is quantum effects (or whatever is downstream from the quantum world) taken for granted. It is, effectively, handwaving the Mind of God away. [Though in this regard you could say God = handwaving quantum effects away]
I wanted New Materialism because there’d be greater likelihood of new developments but it’s cool, stick to something contra Theism or contra Islam, or just about objective morality. I just feel objective right and wrong is too obvious but maybe you have some strong arguments …
I’ve run out of free time for now. I’ll be back late May, God-willing. Ask @Carleas to close previous debate and set up a new one please. I will certainly take part. Unsure if anybody else wants to try too. Speak soon! Peace.