Topic: Why an atheist materialist would choose to continue to live.
Participants: @TheIllustriousMrCat vs. @ghatzige
Challenge thread
Discussion thread
Good luck to our debaters; @TheIllustriousMrCat, you may proceed.
I feel Philosophy is the human intellectâs reaction to Infinity.
However, some may deny infinityâs existence
Thus, the universal one-size-fits-all gateway to Philosophy, would be the core existential question about why do we choose life? Why not skip the finite and just die?
Whether my opponent denies infinityâs existence or not âŠ
Whether my opponent even agrees that Philosophy is the intellectâs reaction to Infinity âŠ
⊠the core question seems to be: Why choose life?
TL;DR version: Please can you explain to me - straight from the heart - why you choose to live and not die right now?
âwhy do you choose to live?â
This question is inherently linked with the following:
âwhat is the meaning of life?â
So in my view, addressing the second helps in answering the first.
Since you refer to me and my role as materialist, I think I have to cover two aspects in my reply:
How a materialist identifies the meaning of life.
What do I consider personally as the meaning of life.
For the first part: every school of thought (philosophical, religious, spiritual, etc) approaches such deep existential topic in a different way. When considering atheists in general, the spectrum of responses is so vast that I will be unfair to attempt to cover even remotely the totality of opinions. Instead, I will focus on two schools of âmaterialismâ. I put the word in quotes, because Stoicism and Epicureanism I will refer to are ancient philosophies, and it is always problematic to attach modern terms in ancient schools of thought. My choice of these two is deliberate, since I want to demonstrate that non-religious philosophies realized very early the importance of existential questions and the proper handling that they require.
Both Stoicism and Epicureanism were identifying eudaimonia (i.e. happiness) as the main goal for a meaningful life. However, they followed different avenues on how to achieve that.
The Stoics considered virtues as the main goals that humans need to achieve. According to them, there are certain objective criteria for identifying virtues. Caring for the others, for example, was seen as natural and proper virtue.
On the other hand, Epicureans viewed pleasure as the ultimate goal of life. Avoidance of pain and fear is in the core of this philosophy. Epicurus identified three categories of pleasure: natural and necessary, natural but not necessary, and unnatural and unnecessary. Friendship, for example, held a place of outmost importance.
For the second part: As subjectivist myself, I approach this question from a different direction. I do not believe that life has an inherent, predetermined meaning. Instead, each individual should define their own purpose in life. My materialistic orientation drives me to consider happiness as purpose. However, I do not like the term pleasure, I have objections on the simplistic categorizations of Epicureans and I identify differently the criteria to achieve happiness.
Returning to the original question:
As materialist and subjectivist, I consider that regardless of how we try to approach happiness, life retains its value due to its unpredictability. Each day introduces unknown possibilities worth exploring. Or, as Cavafy (Greek poet, 1863-1933) expresses in his poem Ithaka:
âAlways keep Ithaka in your mind.
To arrive there is your final destination.
But do not rush the voyage in the least.
Better it last for many years;
And once youâre old, cast anchor on the isle,
rich with all youâve gained along the way,
expecting not that Ithaka will give you wealth.
Ithaka gave you the wondrous voyage:
Without her youâd never have set out.
But she has nothing to give you any more.
If then you find her poor, Ithaka has not deceived you.
As wise as youâve become, with such experience, by now
you will come to know what Ithakas really mean.â
Postscript: With regard to Infinity: I consider that there is no beginning and end in cosmos (or universe, or multiverse, or however one likes to identify the assemblage of everything). If this is what you refer to as Infinity, then I do not deny it.
CAVEAT A: Disclaimer: Suicide is a sin in my faith (Islam) and is against the law in my nation (UK). I will do my best to make you say itâs the most reasonable choice for a materialist though.
CAVEAT B: And please pardon my questions but l honestly cannot think of better ways to phrase them. Please NOBODY try to censor them, just watch.
CAVEAT C: My scheme of meanings:
You link the question of âwhy liveâ, to âwhat is the meaning of life?â
They are related, but more crucial was my OP was about the implied choice: life or death. The benefit of deliberate continued living vs. deliberate death.
I am naive to most of Greek philosophy, giving a fresh untutored response (lâve only really studied Plato so far, and listened to 50% of an AI video on Epicurus).
You say: Stoicism & Epicureanism identified happiness as the trajectory of life
⊠with virtue as the area under the curve [Stoics]
⊠and pleasure not happiness as the trajectory [Epicureans]
I say: You cite caring as a Stoic virtue, yet it seems to be a moral. [CAVEAT C] Not a big deal really, but lâm just saying.
PLEASURE IS IT:
Pleasure is more correctly a trajectory, than happiness. Happiness is to me, felt in the soul and can imply eternity, both of which are problematic to debate. Pleasure is something a materialist can get on board with.
But then Pleasure is actually the rate of increase in happiness (l know, canât escape the word âhappinessâ). Thatâs why addicts prefer to inject a euphoriant drug (faster rate of increase in pleasure). It is implicitly going to all come crashing down as we reach death, but the ideal is a quick death.
Epicurus claimed he was still happy reminsicing on debates, during his death from kidney stones - but l believe his death to be, like 99.99% of deaths, abominable, nothing nice about it. But he had to stay true to his philosophy.
I loved the poem you cited; as a child l would play in my backyard with a metal dustbin lid and a heavy spiked rail from an old fence, pretending to be Odysseus, it was a sad time as l mostly had nobody to play with. I hope to eventually reach Ithaka though!
QUESTION:
#1: Imagine you have just graduated university with first class honours and the partner of your dreams has agreed to marry you and the world is at your feet. Why not commit suicide?
#2: Pleasure is so good, but will eventually end. So, why not inject drugs, and while high, empty the bowels in the toilet and drop dead (like a famous rock star)? All in one smooth effortless sequence.
#3: What is wrong with an adult male raping his father, while his father is dying of cancer? The male feels pleasure, the dad is about to die anyway, but even if the dad lives, at least the son feels pleasure.
#4: Why not just commit suicide right now, instead of waiting for pleasure? Pleasure is sentiment, it cannot be explained except with invoking the soul, which is spirituality. The hard logic is you will die and nothing more will occur.
Though the Qurâan does intervene and tell us:
102.006 For ye will behold hell-fire.
102.007 Aye, ye will behold it with sure vision.
102.008 Then, on that day, ye will be asked concerning pleasure.
One of the issues I have when I talk about ancient Greek philosophy is that some terms used in these times do not have the same meaning as today. Also, there is always the question of proper translation.
For Stoics, the virtue corresponds to the Greek word αÏΔÏÎź and was related to objective morality (if I want to use modern terms). I guess it is what you call morals.
Epicureans are more difficult to explain. They used the term pleasure (in Greek Î·ÎŽÎżÎœÎź), but with so many conditions on what constitutes excellent pleasure (natural and necessary), I ended up asking myself if this is similar to monks life in monasteries. For the âacceptableâ pleasures (natural but not necessary, which includes also the sex), they gave several conditions when one should engage on them.
In the way I used the poem, I implied that Ithaka represents the end of life. The voyage is the course you follow as long as you are alive, and at the end what remains is ashes or a tomb (whatever burial choice one makes).
In the choice of âlife or deathâ, every serious philosophy and theology chooses life. Materialism is no exception on this. Those who choose death are not alive to do philosophy.
For materialism the point is simple: afterlife does not exist, you have this as your only life. Thus, enjoy it as much as you can.
Going to the specific questions:
#1: Imagine you have just graduated university with first class honours and the partner of your dreams has agreed to marry you and the world is at your feet. Why not commit suicide?
Since every single day brings something new, you can never be certain that you reached the peak of happiness. And even if you reach it, you can put other targets that can make you happy.
#2: Pleasure is so good, but will eventually end. So, why not inject drugs, and while high, empty the bowels in the toilet and drop dead (like a famous rock star)? All in one smooth effortless sequence.
Choosing drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and generally anything that reduces your mental capacity or/and can potentially harm you physically is not philosophical position. It is personal option completely uncorrelated to philosophical position. All these things can be done by Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, materialists, rationalists, empiricists, humanists, existentialists, etc. How are such choices related to the theological or philosophical orientation?
#3: What is wrong with an adult male raping his father, while his father is dying of cancer? The male feels pleasure, the dad is about to die anyway, but even if the dad lives, at least the son feels pleasure.
For a psychopath, such action may bring joy. For Epicureans, it brings disturbance many times greater than the pleasure. I always enjoy reading from Epicurus ÎÏÏÎčαÎč ÎÏΟαÎč (Principal Doctrines) the 5th:
It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently and honourably and justly, nor again to live a life of prudence, honour and justice without living pleasantly. And the man who does not possess the pleasant life, is not living prudently and honourably and justly, and the man who does not possess the virtuous life, cannot possibly live pleasantly.
#4: Why not just commit suicide right now, instead of waiting for pleasure? Pleasure is sentiment, it cannot be explained except with invoking the soul, which is spirituality. The hard logic is you will die and nothing more will occur.
In a similar way I could ask: Why not commit suicide to reach afterlife and unite with God right now? Many Christians did this at the first centuries as they expected the end of the world (Saint Augustine in the 4th century had to denounce such practices). Also, extremists Muslims go for suicide bombing, âbecoming martyrs for Allahâ.
Suicidal persons exist in all forms and shapes. Believing or not in God, religion, reincarnation, or whatever else, does not prevent suicide. What definitely prevents such actions is to understand in sufficient depth the principles of your philosophical or theological reference.
Pleasure is sentiment, indeed. And sentiments are directly linked to the nervous system and the brain, both very physical. A brain dead person cannot feel anything, even if it is still technically alive.
You Say: In the choice of âlife or deathâ, every serious philosophy and theology chooses life.
Iâm sure they do. However, it is not explained why.
If true to itself, Materialism should choose death. Immediate death, dithering is illogical. Run to it, donât even walk.
Regarding my questions:
#1: âBut why bother being happy, if it ends in death?â
Life becomes one big romance, romance being the epitome of illogical. It doesnât matter if youâre at the top of your game or if youâve been hit by a car. Logically you should kill yourself because you will certainly die eventually.
There may be even greater pleasures to come? Equally,there might not. Suicide rates do actually increase these days, after 40. Yet, thereâs hope. Hope for pleasure. Pleasure is not a good thing to pivot oneâs life on. Most people do, but it leads to quite sickening byways of thought, the newspapers are full of it.
#2: âPleasure principle is immediate, good and bad pleasure is abstract, sentimentâ
The point is, pleasure is good so why not gorge on it? And if life is finite, why not combine pleasure with suicide? And if it is illogical because it involves unnecessary steps before death, then note: beyond the lethal overdose, all else is one fluid effortless motion, the bowels emptying, the heart stopping, the body slumping over, dead. There is nothing sentimental and inefficient beyond the moment of injection. I know it is not academically good to suicide on drugs, but very little evil in the world was in the rulebook, and the world is mostly evil.
#3: âHonour is mere sentiment, Tyranny beats it; Sentiment is not objectively real, nor traceable to Materialismâ
You cite Epicurus. A Mexican cartel victim gets beheaded. How much of your Epicurus quote could HE get in before dying? Or would the executioner stop, listen, and cancel execution?
Epicurean arguments about the good life donât matter. Theyâre just sentiment.
Honourable life is great if a person doesnât mind living a simple life. Humanity attests to prizing pleasure above honour.
Psychopaths are immoral? All my life lâve known people that act moral, they are the moral majority, they rile each other up with news stories etc. and act self righteous. But itâs just virtue signalling. Beneath it all, they were all evil people living cruel lives. These moral shortcutters are actually more normal than l first thought. They take the shortcut in life, doing whatever they can get away with, filling their boots. I guess thatâs why we need police?
Platoâs Thrasymachus makes a good case for tyranny, living our best life as autocrats. The cartel boss, the mafia don, gets things done. The petit bourgeoise Mafioso lifestyle has not gone out of style: in the Balkans & Italy itâs a continuation of ancient Roman civilisation, with people clustering around a local potentate, a villa. It is as old as the hills.
Donât they know itâs wrong to be bad?
Donât drug users know drugs are wrong?
Donât smokers know itâs healthy to smoke?
Donât smokers know that asbestos filters are good for you because your lips wonât blister?
Fast forward just a few decades: Donât smokers know itâs wrong to smoke? And asbestos kills?
Donât the British know Kim Jong Un loves all and his ways are best? These things are obvious.
My point is: there is no honourable life, just pleasure, pleasure is obvious, your honour is sentiment. Sentiment is the only distraction from immediate suicide, for the materialist, as per logic. Sentiments change from time to time, location to location, and sometimes objectively evil things are institutions as old as the hills (mafia societies). You cannot turn sentiment into an objective argument, and you cannot make it part of materialism.
#4: âKEY STATEMENT: You say sentiment has a basis in materialismâ
All l am asking is, why not commit suicide right now, regardless of other people. Muslims are not the topic, and as stated, it is against Islam. But thatâs a separate matter.
You go on to say you wonât commit suicide right now because pleasure, and pleasure is sentiment and sentiment has a basis in materialism. I say: Pleasure, sentiment ⊠these things are not material. There is no way to trace them to the material.
IT ALL PIVOTS ON THIS NOW:
[Q #7**. below]** We must prove sentiment has objective reality i.e. that people can acknowledge âgoodâ and âbadâ objectively.
AND: [Q #5**,** #6 & #8**, below]** We must legitimise Materialismâs claim to sentiment, i.e. show how it arises from matter.
OBSERVATIONS & QUESTIONS RELATED TO TRACING SENTIMENT TO MATTER (IN ORDER FOR THE MATERIALIST TO EVEN BEGIN TO ARGUE SENTIMENT, QUALITIES, VIRTUES):
Yours: The braindead feel nothing yet are technically alive. â I think you mean, the consciousness arose from brain activity.
Mine: At the point of death of a conscious being, their chemicals and cells are all in the right place. So why donât they live?
Question #5: Do you know for sure that consciousness ends with physical death?
Question #6: Can you show how consciousness arose from matter?
Question #7: How does evil pleasure physically differ from good pleasure? Where is the objective criterion?
Question #8: My synthesis: Consciousness became associated with physical matter, and then left it at brain death. But thereâs no word of its origin. All we can really say is it miraculously appeared, then flew away with brain death and certainly with physical death. Prove me wrong.
If you disagree, then why? Note: we cannot entertain âmiraculouslyâ as materialists.
Letâs start by the term logic: when was logic firstly defined? Who gave the basic rules of logic?
Answer: Greek philosophy. A philosophy who has no reference to religion. Aristotle, the âfather of logicâ in a sense, made no reference in religious scriptures because these did not exist in ancient Greece in the same spirit as the Bible or the Quran. The poems talking about Gods had no impact in philosophy.
Thus, you cannot make references to logic without invoking philosophy. Religion is about faith, not logic. When you refer to Quran (as you did in your second round) you are not making logical arguments, you are making arguments based on faith.
So, when you say that in materialism dithering from immediate death is illogical, you should justify it philosophically. You have to demonstrate it using the philosophy of materialism, not an arbitrary statement, and certainly not religious scriptures which are founded in faith.
If you want to be true in your assertions about logic, you should play the philosophical game: you should make claims using the literature of materialism, not arbitrary emotional statements, unfounded in materialism.
With regard to your statements:
Question 1: Life becomes one big romance, romance being the epitome of illogical.
Which materialistic philosopher makes a claim that life becomes romance? Life has plenty of suffering. Both Stoicism and Epicureanism were developed primarily to address peopleâs fears and troubles, as well as how to find comfort at difficult times.
Question 1: Pleasure is not a good thing to pivot oneâs life on
This is an axiomatic statement. Some materialistic schools accept it, some not.
Question 2: pleasure is good so why not gorge on it?
Because every pleasure in overdose turns eventually to pain, which, according to Epicurean philosophy, it should be avoided. Do you want to take drugs? You will be addicted and you will suffer from pain when the drugs fade. Plus, it puts in danger your health, causing additional pain and suffering. No pleasure in large quantities remains pleasure. That is what logic dictates.
Question 3: You cite Epicurus. A Mexican cartel victim gets beheaded. How much of your Epicurus quote could HE get in before dying? Or would the executioner stop, listen, and cancel execution?
No, the execution will not stop by an Epicurus quote. And it will not also stop by any quote from philosophies or religions. What is the point on that and how is it related to materialistic philosophy? I do not understand what you mean by âHow much of your Epicurus quote could HE get in before dying?â
You cannot turn sentiment into an objective argument, and you cannot make it part of materialism.
For Epicurean materialism happiness is scope of life, so who decides that it cannot be part of it? You forgot that I am subjectivist too. Objectivity is not something I consider achievable in human discussions, so this argument is your personal opinion and I am not obliged to accept it.
Anything you state about objectivity is rejected for the same reasons.
The braindead feel nothing yet are technically alive. â I think you mean, the consciousness arose from brain activity.
No, I mean the sensations. Without brain activity there are no sensations.
At the point of death of a conscious being, their chemicals and cells are all in the right place. So why donât they live?
Which chemicals and cells are in the right place? The process of death is well described in biology, so I do not understand the question.
Question #5: Do you know for sure that consciousness ends with physical death?
I am subjectivist, so I cannot prove or disprove anything without reference to myself. Materialistically, I do not see a reason why human consciousness should continue after death.
Question #6: Can you show how consciousness arose from matter?
As long as I cannot show that consciousness appears in non-living beings, anything related to the 0.00000âŠ001% of the Universe has no reason to arise from something non-physical. That is what materialistic logic dictates.
Question #7: How does evil pleasure physically differ from good pleasure? Where is the objective criterion?
Again, anything related to objectivity is rejected.
Question #8: My synthesis: Consciousness became associated with physical matter, and then left it at brain death. But thereâs no word of its origin. All we can really say is it miraculously appeared, then flew away with brain death and certainly with physical death. Prove me wrong.
âMiraculously appearedâ is statement by faith, thus axiomatic. Axiomatic statements cannot be proven or disproven. I reject your axiom and use the axiom from materialism, which considers that everything is physical.
Conclusion: Until now, you have not provided any reference from materialistic texts that justify your claim âI should choose deathâ. It seems more an argument from faith than from logic.
I cited Qurâan just as you cited Ithaka: not as an argument. It was expiation for my subsequent dark ethical questions on the Pleasure Principle..
Citing peer literature wasnât a precondition of debate. This would be APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - arbitrary enforcement of other peopleâs views in closed debate
MY SAYING âMATERIALISM IS IMMEDIATE DEATH, DITHERING IS ILLOGICALâ:
Life is finite, you will die. Hence the Absurdists. They, however, reject nihilism / suicide and embrace passion, rebellion. This works in affluent society but the poor know the horrors of passion & rebellion (psychopathic crackhead gangs etc).
If you will die eventually, then why not die now?
Your answers seem to be:
Honour (Virtue, nomoi)
Helping others (Moral acts)
Pleasure
Specifically âgood pleasureâ
But:
A stronger argument is: Suicide.
Please explain where l was arbitary?
Further:
#1: YOU SAY: Which materialistic philosopher makes a claim that life becomes romance?
MY ANSWER: I have reasoned it.
#1: You dislike me saying pleasure is a bad pivot for life
MY ANSWER: I have given two very bad cases of the Pleasure Principle, itâs daily news
#2: YOU SAY: Every pleasure in overdose turns eventually to pain, citing examples of drug use.
You then state: Logic dictates no pleasure in large amounts remains pleasure
MY ANSWER: Drug overdose is a subset of drug use. Heavy drug use doesnât have to become any greater pain than anything else in life.
Also, it seems NON SEQUITUR that pleasure must fade when in large quantity.
#3: You correctly state nothing will stop the executioner. Not Epicurus, not religion.
MY ANSWER: IF A MEXICAN CARTEL EXECUTIONER WERE ABOUT TO BEHEAD YOU, WHICH WOULD YOU OFFER?
Surely (4). The rest is sentiment, without material basis. In this moment of absolute physical peril to physical existence, you WILL offer physical money to ransom your life.
Thus: sentiment is nullified by death.
YOU SAY: Youâre a subjectivist.
I SAY: You acknowledge there is no objective Criterion.
Schizophrenic: kills a schoolboy because aliens Soros triumvirate Kallergyi Plan
Psychiatrist: Recommends whole life hospitalisation.
Schizophrenic: Psychiatrists are tools of elites
^^^ Moral subjectivism.
YOU SAY: Regarding my inferring âconsciousness arose from brain activityâ: you actually meant âWithout brain activity there are no sensations.â
I SAY: You correct what was actually a good argument. Maybe you meant the same thing? Sensations = consciousness? However, a braindead person can have sensations if you refer to physical reactions i.e. unconscious sensation, nociception.
YOU SAY: Regarding my saying at death everythingâs in place, so why does life end? You say: âThe process of death is well described in biologyâ
I SAY: Wrong, l think. Death seems poorly understood. Otherwise we could prevent it. We know what happens after death, not at the precise moment of death (?).
#5: I SAY: You see no proof either way of consciousness post mortem.
I SAY: Tacitly it makes a materialist theory of consciousness unfalsifiable and thus fiat. (Religion too, but beyond this debate)
#6: I SAY: I donât understand your response. Maybe you just admitted that you cannot show consciousness can arise from matter. I am talking about biological matter by the way.
This admission would make a materialist theory of consciousness baseless, because matter must be its base.
#7: YOU ADMIT thereâs no material basis of consciousness because good or evil pleasure lack physical correlates. BUT you earlier argued sentiment has basis in biological matter, thus the difference between good and evil must be rooted in matter. Instead, you categorically reject that good and evil can be matter-based. You have contradicted yourself and reaffirmed that materialist morality is subjective, seemingly arbitrary.
#8: I SAY: Consciousness miraculously appeared. You rightly say lâm jumping to conclusions, but then do the same: You admit you cannot show consciousness arose from matter. Yet you have faith that it does.
Calling it a miracle OR natural is unfalsifiable.
Choosing either unfalsifiable option ill befits a materialist, you must be rooted in hard data even if you feel the outcome of consciousness (moral deeds done by a subjective individual) is subjective.
You even categorically state: âeverything is physical.â, but youâve not evidenced this, only something about brain death, which you explained incorrectly (saying: brain death means âno sensationsâ).
YOU CONCLUDE: My arguments are faith not logic
I SAY: List which? The one about consciousness being miraculous was bait, the ripened argument is given in Question #8 above and itâs reasoned.
Iâve demonstrated, by logic, reason, or as statement of fact:
(I) There is no objective morality
(II) Sentiment has no basis in matter
(III) Good and evil have no corresponding material form, let alone a dimorphism
(IV) Your views on consciousness / sentiment arising from matter, are unfalisifiable, thus a matter of faith
(V) The finality of death trumps all these deniable uncertainties and subjective views - death is undeniable.
You agree with (I)
For (II & III) You have self-contradicted by saying sentiment has basis in matter; cognition of good and evil are sentiment - but you reject that they have physical correlates in matter.
For (IV) You implicitly have faith in consciousness arising from matter.
I am not asking you to appeal to authority, I am asking you to present positions of materialism and from them to make your case. Afterall, you interrogate materialism, not Platonic philosophy or agnosticism.
You brought Plato into the discussion. How is Plato related to materialism? It is as if, while interrogating Islam, I bring the Vedas as an argument.
So far I have not seen positions that materialism accepts. You are talking about miracles and consciousness having non-physical base. What kind of argumentation do you expect me to do with such prerequisites? It is as if I ask you to defend Islam by pre-supposing that God does not exist. This is illogical.
âEverything is physicalâ is the axiomatic (what you call âfaithâ) position of materialism. Agnosticism does not have axioms, materialism does. If you want to build your case on âdeath being a logical choice for materialismâ, you should not make claims that deviate from the axiomatic position, otherwise you are not talking about materialism.
The same thing about subjectivism and objectivism. As I told you from the beginning that I do not believe in objective claims, what is the point of bringing objectivity into this? How is objectivity related to the topic of this debate?
Moving to your points:
#1: I have reasoned it
From where? Definitely not from materialism, because materialism does not claim such thing.
#1: I have given two very bad cases of the Pleasure Principle, itâs daily news
And you missed the point that Epicurean materialism has categorizations on which pleasures one should pursue or avoid. It is as if I try to build a case about Islam by stating that the only thing a Muslim should do is pray.
#2: Drug overdose is a subset of drug use. Heavy drug use doesnât have to become any greater pain than anything else in life.
And I have already mentioned that a key idea in Epicurean materialism is to try avoiding pain and suffering. Every pain and suffering should be avoided if possible. So adding drug overdose is incompatible with that goal.
#3: The sentiment is nullified by death
Thanks for helping me to build my case. That is exactly the reason why Epicurean materialism supports life. Because death is the opposite of happiness, which is the goal of life. So this philosophy does not lead you to suicide.
#4: I SAY: Wrong, l think. Death seems poorly understood. Otherwise we could prevent it. We know what happens after death, not at the precise moment of death (?).
Death as a mechanism is understood in sufficient depth. Doctors can identify with good accuracy the moment of death. But again, what this has to do with the question of the debate?
#5: Tacitly it makes a materialist theory of consciousness unfalsifiable and thus fiat. (Religion too, but beyond this debate)
The question if consciousness has physical base or not is out of topic. Still, if you want to interrogate materialism, you should build an argument in which the physical origin of consciousness is not questioned.
I have my own line of thought how to build an argumentation on the physical origin of consciousness, but it is beyond the scope of this debate and it will take me more than 1000 words to explain.
#6: Maybe you just admitted that you cannot show consciousness can arise from matter.
See my response on #5
#7: YOU ADMIT thereâs no material basis of consciousness
When did I do that? I said that a property (consciousness) that concerns species which occupy an insignificant part of the Universe has no materialistic basis to be treated as something special and out of physical process. How is this admission of no material basis of consciousness?
How many times should I repeat it? Materialism claims axiomatically that everything is physical.
Also, please avoid using the term matter because science uses it as a part of the Universe, not as the total. Materialism used the term âmatterâ before that scientific distinction. I prefer the term physical, to include also energy related quantities (which now are considered non-matter).
#8: I SAY: Consciousness miraculously appeared. You rightly say lâm jumping to conclusions, but then do the same: You admit you cannot show consciousness arose from matter. Yet you have faith that it does.
I hate this religious terminology of faith. Philosophy works with axioms. I said it many times in this forum, philosophical schools have some axioms (impossible to be proven or disproven) that are considered as their basis. Using these axioms one can then proceed to further logical developments.
Look how maths work. You start by some definitions and axioms and from those you have your theorems, lemmas etc. Philosophy works with the same way. The difference between maths and philosophy is that the mathematical axioms become easily acceptable from all the scientific community, while in philosophy each school of thought has its own axioms. And this is reasonable, because talking about numbers is much much easier to agree, than talking about life, existence, etc.
But again, how is this related to the topic?
#9: For (II & III) You have self-contradicted by saying sentiment has basis in matter; cognition of good and evil are sentiment - but you reject that they have physical correlates in matter.
Can you please point out in which part of the discussion I rejected the physical base of sentiments? Are you participating in different debate?
About the point (IV): I have the impression that you have mixed agnosticism with materialism. Agnostics avoid to use axioms (what you call faith). Materialism has axioms. Do not mix the two schools of thought.
And again, how any of those you mentioned are related to the topic of the dabate?
Conclusion: This round was almost all off-topic. Please remain on-topic.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY = celebrityâs opinions arbitrarily valued. My arguments donât need them. Philosophy isnât tech-driven, expertise is generalised to all people.
Platoâs Thrasymachus is self-explanatory: he justified tyranny with materialistic reasoning, making Materialism absurd, and Absurdism agrees.
REDUCTION AD ABSURDUM or CIRCULAR LOGIC: You assume Plato is pointless despite my explaining, then you compare it to pointless Vedas in a pointless polemic against Islam - but you havenât shown why Vedas are pointless. Reducing my argument with absurdity is when Reductio becomes a fallacy.
#1: YOU SAY: Pleasure Principle being bad misses the point of Epicureanismâs refined categorisations of pleasures.
I SAY: I am your interlocutor, not a Muslim for now.
Remember, you said: âI have objections on the simplistic categorizations of Epicureans and I identify differently the criteria to achieve happinessâ plus l agree that Epicurusâs refinements are irrelevant against the hard reality of Death.
#2: I SAY: Your point about drug use is nullified as itâs not a special case, life is pain regardless. Drug overdose is not a pained life, it can be a pleasant END of life (suicide clinics, rock star dying on toilet).
#3: YOU ARGUE: Epicurus wants a prolonged life, âdeath nullifies sentimentâ supports this.
I SAY: That makes life an end to itself and thus meaningless.
The deliberate ending of life (1) brings forth the inevitable and (2) returns to zero an unjustified deviation from zero (aka life)
#4: I SAY: In my academic studies (neuroscience dual honours graduate) lâve never seen an account of what precisely causes death that was different 1ÎŒs before or after. Matterâs form at point of death, seems no different to its form just before and just after.
You may say yes, reasons for life are mere sentiment but sentiment is matter. BUT: How does life come from matter? At precise moment of death, nothing physical changes.
#5: I SAY: You tacitly accept Materialism is unfalsifiable and fiat. My point is, death is not a matter of faith, so suicide, as a means to death, has greater merit than all other arguments including religion - if this life is all there is.
You say you can explain consciousness but not right now. **This is handwaving (and frankly suicidal in debate)**. In my neuroscience degree l saw no such thing.
#7: I SAY: You admit thereâs no material basis of consciousness because you admit that good or evil pleasure (the driving force of life) lack physical correlates. My usage of âmatterâ is fine.
#8: I SAY: There is no axiom if the opposite idea also exists as an axiom, it becomes an unresolved matter; if unfalsifiable then it is faith. You say my arguments are faith not logic. My arguments are unrefuted, your Materialism is essentially faith and it stumbles when confronted with suicide. Suicide trumps Materialism because Death is absolute, not fiat.
#9: I SAY: Q7 asked how good and evil pleasures differ.
Your reply was: âanything related to objectivity is rejected.â
I say: Pleasure is the driving force of life and you cannot show its dipole - good / evil pleasure - to have material basis. Objective good and evil donât exist to you. Regardless, thereâs still no material difference in the person experiencing good vs. evil pleasure. Thus thereâs no correlate between sentiment and matter.
Materialist claim to sentiment is thus effectively nullified.
CONCLUSION:
Suicide (1) brings forth the inevitable and (2) returns to zero the unjustifiable, absurd (ref: Absurdism), deviation from zero that life is
Suicide is justifiable, Materialist life philosophy is not.
It is seen:
AS AN ASIDES, TAKE OR LEAVE, LARGELY UN-ARGUED:
I feel Religion works better because it resonates with the Soul, it doesnât entrain denial of the Soul. The Soul is the inner criterion we are all born with (good feeling preferable to evil). Religious scripture is the outer criterion (law), which is revealed through Messenger Prophets, whose character and deeds compel the Believer to believe, and the scripture itself will have compelling proofs.
You wonât immediately suicide because you have a soul, defined as pure existence, in turn defined as Infinite Actual. Rather, your soul is an infinitesimally small fraction of a degree of that Infinite Actual. It is Real, pure existence, it wants to exist, just as God âjust isâ (I am That I am).
Whether you are theist or atheist, good or evil, you pay homage to God via honouring your soulâs will to exist. Even the pursuit of good or evil pleasure is derived from the soul because happiness is the unit of pleasure, and hapinessâs work surface is the Soul.
Logical derivation: Emotions can only be explained by the soul, because they are non physical, and thus non material, and thus not of the finite reality, thus of the Inifnite True Reality. The infinite true reality is pure existence because infinity is complete, it needs nothing more, it has no change. Thus God just is (âI Am That I Amâ) - and the Soul, which comes from God, âjust isâ.
Observation: Emotions may be modulated by chemistry but thereâs absolutely zero basis for attributing emotions to chemistry.
A dead body at precise moment of death has all chemicals in place yet it aint fine, nor is a jar of serotonin.
Closing Remark: Our physical selves, our finite lives are pointless, because they sum to zero. The soul, via our emotions, directs us to another reality other than physical. We only have meaning via God. i.e. in our worship. Materialism cannot say better. (@promethean75 should note)
You assume Plato is pointless despite my explaining
Your explaining in the second round:
Platoâs Thrasymachus makes a good case for tyranny, living our best life as autocrats.
and then you listed plenty of things that some bad guys are doing. And you are mentioning smokers, drug users, etc. and their habits (what are all these? Materialists? Christians? Muslims? Agnostics? noone knows).
How are tyranny and materialism related? No explanation.
And this, somehow, explains and represents materialism⊠I leave it at that.
#1 Remember, you said: âI have objections on the simplistic categorizations of Epicureans and I identify differently the criteria to achieve happinessâ plus l agree that Epicurusâs refinements are irrelevant against the hard reality of Death.
I also said âHowever, I do not like the term pleasure,â but you kept using it. Since you discussed the pleasure the way you liked, I was forced to use Epicurus categorizations. According to you, all this is irrelevant, because of the hard reality of Death. Why is it hard reality though?
You never asked my opinion about death. So now, in the closing, you will get the ONLY argument you could potentially use against my Epicurean orientation. But since there is no additional round, you cannot use it as you like. Instead, it will be used to address the ⊠hard reality of Death.
Epicurus, Letter for Menoeceus:
Line 125: So death, the most terrifying of ills, is nothing to us, since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist.
This is my position on death. It is not a hard reality, it is nothing when I do not exist.
To complete this line of thought, two more things need to be added:
Lines 126-127 from the same letter: And he, who counsels the young man to live well, but the old man to make a good end, is foolish, not merely because of the desirability of life, but also because it is the same training which teaches to live well and to die well.
Comments from Bailey on this letter: The wise man neither wishes to escape from life nor fears death: he does not ask for the longest but for the most pleasant life.
The logic that death is hard is what keeps people in theism. You are afraid of death and you seek afterlife. Once you realize that death is not to be feared, simply because there is nothing to fear about, life has better meaning and you enjoy it to the fullest. No theist can understand this, every materialist gets it.
#2: Drug overdose is not a pained life, it can be a pleasant END of life.
For who?
#3: That makes life an end to itself and thus meaningless. The deliberate ending of life (1) brings forth the inevitable and (2) returns to zero an unjustified deviation from zero (aka life)
That is a statement, not a proof and not a logical conclusion. I get it, for every theist, without afterlife, this life is meaningless. Yet, no materialist sees it that way.
#4 In my academic studies (neuroscience dual honours graduate) âŠ. Matterâs form at point of death, seems no different to its form just before and just after.
So, since it âseemsâ, this is proof for you that there is no difference. If science had addressed every question, we wouldnât need to still do research. But since what âseemsâ today is an explanation for the metaphysical, letâs stop every research. Religion has the answerâŠ
#4 How does life come from matter?
In the neuroscience classrooms, they teach you that a human life comes from where?
#5: My point is, death is not a matter of faith, so suicide, as a means to death, has greater merit than all other arguments including religion - if this life is all there is.
You value death more than life. Good for you. No materialist does that.
For the consciousness:
Our Universe is like a big box. You and I are living inside this box, we operate in this box and we only have access to this box. You claim that there is something outside of this box (God, afterlife, whatever), I claim that there is nothing outside the box. You claim that consciousness is something that comes outside of the box and enters in, I claim that consciousness has not entered from anywhere â it belongs to the box. Who proves what here? What logical arguments can be made that one can negate the claim of the other? Unless we exit the box, this question remains unanswered. Does neuroscience say otherwise?
#7: I SAY: You admit thereâs no material basis of consciousness because you admit that good or evil pleasure (the driving force of life) lack physical correlates.
When did I make such admission? When did I even speak about good and evil? Are you responding to someone else?
Suicide (1) brings forth the inevitable and (2) returns to zero the unjustifiable, absurd (ref: Absurdism), deviation from zero that life is
According to who? According to you, because this is your opinion about materialism. You make an objective claim at this point, which is rejected for the reasons I explained before.
You wonât immediately suicide because you have a soul
With your logic, the suicidals do not have a soul.
Observation: Emotions may be modulated by chemistry but thereâs absolutely zero basis for attributing emotions to chemistry.
From ChatGPT: Emotions arenât just âfeelingsâ in your mindâtheyâre coordinated biological processes involving your brain, nervous system, hormones, and even your immune system. Think of them as rapid-response programs your body runs to help you survive, decide, and connect with others.
Conclusion: We discussed your distorted perception of materialism and what you assume that it states. You failed to make a case, because you came unprepared, with predefined arguments uncorrelated to materialism.
The debate is concluded, thank you to the debaters, @ghatzige and @TheIllustriousMrCat.
Thereâs a poll in the discussion thread where you can vote on who âwonâ, and discussion of the subject matter will continue there.