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 intellect’s reaction to Infinity.
However, some may deny infinity’s 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 infinity’s existence or not …
Whether my opponent even agrees that Philosophy is the intellect’s reaction to Infinity …
… 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?
“why do you choose to live?”
This question is inherently linked with the following:
“what is the meaning of life?”
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 “materialism”. 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:
“Always 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 you’re old, cast anchor on the isle,
rich with all you’ve gained along the way,
expecting not that Ithaka will give you wealth.
Ithaka gave you the wondrous voyage:
Without her you’d 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 you’ve become, with such experience, by now
you will come to know what Ithakas really mean.”
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 it’s 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 “why live”, to “what is the meaning of life?”
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 (l’ve 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 l’m 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, can’t escape the word “happiness”). That’s 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 Qur’an 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.