"I suggest you avoid trying to use religion in any sort of debate"
Even a debate about metaphysics?
"since you know, some people don't believe in it"
Like me, for instance?
"which makes whatever religious point you make completely irrelevant to them"
They shouldn't be irrelevant, any more than every one of their metaphysical suppositions are irrelevant to everyone who disagrees with them. Anyway, they started it. And if they can make all sorts of assertions, I can ask "what if?"
Let me try that again: I suggest you avoid using religion in any sort of debate that isn't about religion. Possibly not even metaphysics.
It's irrelevant because if you're trying to convince someone with religion by saying something like "God says in my holy book to do this", it's going to fall completely flat because they don't follow your religion.
By the way, I realize they've have more of a history of precipitating violence, but I've never understood the justification of No Religion, No Politics on the grounds that you won't change anyone's mind. That's true of almost everything, especially on the internet. I don't see as how the umpteenth discusion of Edward's creepy stalkerness leaves arguers any less polarized than the afterlife (or lackthereof).
"I suggest you avoid using religion in any sort of debate that isn't about religion"
It may not be about religion persay, but it is about the meaning of life and metaphysics, fields over which religion has a fairly well established, though not monopolistic, claim. i hardly think the reviewer would be surprised to see it come up.
"It's irrelevant because if you're trying to convince someone with religion by saying something like 'God says in my holy book to do this,' it's going to fall completely flat because they don't follow your religion."
That's a pretty poor strawman argument. Religion is something grown up people often discuss without admonishing people to follow them or else. More importantly, it has nothing to do with my posts. It couldn't possibly, because I don't have any religion, so there's no Holy Book for me to follow or prosthelytize about.
You missed the point. This isn't "no religion" on the grounds that you won't convert someone, this is "no religion" on the grounds that religion is irrelevant to the thing that you're trying to convince them about.
Go to a scientific discussion, say "The Earth is 5000 years old because my religion says so". It's flat-out trolling. Say it on a religious forum, and it'll be a valid argument, depending on how extreme the forum is.
"It may not be about religion persay, but it is about the meaning of life and metaphysics, fields over which religion has a fairly well established, though not monopolistic, claim. i hardly think the reviewer would be surprised to see it come up. "
If you ignored the fact that the reviewer is at least partly joking and sarcastic and took his "review" at face value, would you think he was religious, and would be swayed by a religious argument?
"That's a pretty poor strawman argument. Religion is something grown up people often discuss without admonishing people to follow them or else. More importantly, it has nothing to do with my posts. It couldn't possibly, because I don't have any religion, so there's no Holy Book for me to follow or prosthelytize about. "
Religion or no religion, you used a religious reason as a response to one of his points anyways.
Shown below:
"or it won't and their actions are so insignificant against the background of infinity they might as well not matter"
Not if your actions in the finite are significant and do matter in the infinite. Which, rightly or wrongly, is the basis of most religion.
"This isn't 'no religion' on the grounds that you won't convert someone"
Not conversion, no. I said something about changing minds. You brought up irrelevancy, but also said things like "if you're trying to convince someone," which sounds to me like I shouldn't bring up religion because it won't convince anyone.
"his is 'no religion' on the grounds that religion is irrelevant to the thing that you're trying to convince them about."
No, it isn't. The reviewer wasn't talking about carpet samples; it was about infinity, eternity, and the meaning of life. You want to say religion is irrelevant to the reviewer's nihilism. I might buy it if their conclusions were agnostic, but they're not. We have here a positive moral nihilism, along with a (possibly hypothetical) belief in a world beyond the world in infinitude. That is as much a religious belief as the tenets of various organized religions. Or if you don't like the word "religion," call it simply spiritualism or metaphysics or whatever and it comes to the same thing.
"Go to a scientific discussion, say 'The Earth is 5000 years old because my religion says so'. It's flat-out trolling. Say it on a religious forum, and it'll be a valid argument, depending on how extreme the forum is."
Um, okay. What is your point?
By the way again, eveil, I'd like you to notice that we are not at science dot com. We are on an entertainment website where someone posted a review of "Real Life" partly by saying, "The truth is Real Life is finite with finite benefits in a world where it will either all end and none of anyones actions will matter or it won't and their actions are so insignificant against the background of infinity."
To which I responded by saying, "Not if your actions in the finite are significant and do matter in the infinite. Which, rightly or wrongly, is the basis of most religion." A response suddenly somehow out of bounds because...I don't know. I used the dirty word "religion," which apparently brings to your mind protesting Bible-thumpers holding placards outside a natural history museum telling us dinosaurs are a myth.
Let me ask, if one person is allowed to make a bald claim denigrating mankind's actions in relation to infinity, how come I'm not allowed to remind them that maybe it's the opposite, and that many religions think so? Seems a ludicrous double standard to me. Perhaps you should start by chastising the reviewer for bringing up their atheism/nihilism/whatever in the first place.
"If you ignored the fact that the reviewer is at least partly joking and sarcastic and took his 'review' at face value, would you think he was religious"
They would be religious, in a manner of speaking. Not allied with any orthodoxy with which I'm familiar, but religious nonetheless. I wouldn't go so far as to say every belief carries religious connotations, though I have a feeling that aside from absolute skeptics, everyone, even pure mechanistic materialists, must posses ideals, make metaphysical value-judgements, and believe this or that about the fundamental order of the universe. But that's going too far. Suffice to say this reviewer makes solid enough claims for me to bother demonstrating such things.
"and would be swayed by a religious argument?"
I wouldn't worry myself over that, any more than I worry about whether I can convince a Twilight fangirl that Edward is creepy.
"Religion or no religion, you used a religious reason as a response to one of his points anyways"
Yes, I know. I'm the one who typed the word "religion." I was merely bringing up what many religions say, which is nothing like appealing to the authority of some book, as eveil compared it to.
It occured to me that perhaps in saying "Which...is the basis of most religion," it sounded like I was saying "Religion believes it, so you must too!" Except that I explicitly added "rightly or wrongly," thus tipping off the watchful observer.
It wasn't that. it was my way of saying, "Religions have discussed this endlessly; here's one of their stock answers."
Oh I forgot how nice it is to see people actually thinking about some of the more basic questions :D Cheers guys (even if this did derail into a forum lawyer sort of debate)
@eveil it's the exact opposite of a strawman atheist. Atheist (and not deists like a lot of the famous atheists) need to construct some sort of logic that gives their world view a purpose (if they think about their place, which is something Atheists are good at doing) unless they are uber hardcore atheists and willing to be entirely rational in all their thoughts, including realising that they're going to have to suck it. It's a rationalist argument I would hope more than an atheistic one.
@Tublecane I agree that the existence of any infinite being who would care about someone finite existence (or promote them to an infinite existence) would be able to attach worth to someones actions by being able to be aware of them for eternity. However it's not an argument for the existence of a God and as such isn't quite so directly connected to religion. It's more I guess an argument of "if you could choose their to be a God or not what's would you choose?" but doesn't as such have anything to say about life as it may or may not be.
I'm not sure I agree or follow you on the worth of a persons own goals though. Because all achieving those goals creates is a finite pleasure, generated by yourself for the goals you created. As such the trick isn't to have a worthwhile goal but to have a goal that has no worth but that you can trick yourself into believing has worth. The happiest most successful person would be the person who really believed that inhaling oxygen was his worthy life goal. He would feel satisfied and fulfilled for his whole life and then he would die and nothing would remain. After death, his feelings would cease and there would be no difference between him and a person who had set no goals in life and achieved nothing and felt no moment of happiness.
And you called mine depressing?!? At least if you read between the lines,you can find something more positive and cheery amongst the Darker And Edgier explanations for most things
I can't find anything here at all,except that you can be like The Joker if you really want which lets face it,isn't much of a good thing at all.
@tubercane Fair enough, lets drop this argument.
"@eveil it's the exact opposite of a strawman atheist. Atheist (and not deists like a lot of the famous atheists) need to construct some sort of logic that gives their world view a purpose (if they think about their place, which is something Atheists are good at doing) unless they are uber hardcore atheists and willing to be entirely rational in all their thoughts, including realising that they're going to have to suck it. It's a rationalist argument I would hope more than an atheistic one. "
You know, calling something a strawman implies that it's not totally accurate.
"Without God, life is meaningless" is often an argument religious people use in response to atheists. Your review looks exactly like what a religious person would use to play on the ego and fears of humans.
@ eveil Technically a strawman is an accuracy for a Vocal Minority of any said group,not an outright inaccuracy.
@ tomwithnonumbers But really this does sound sort of like a Strawman Athiest argument to push an agenda,and what the heck do you mean by "@eveil it's the exact opposite of a strawman atheist. Atheist (and not deists like a lot of the famous atheists) need to construct some sort of logic that gives their world view a purpose (if they think about their place, which is something Atheists are good at doing) unless they are uber hardcore atheists and willing to be entirely rational in all their thoughts, including realising that they're going to have to suck it. It's a rationalist argument I would hope more than an atheistic one."?
I mean everyone has to construct some sort of logic,even with faith,you still have to interpret and then figure how far to live by and justify it. Athiests are simply without one dedicated faith to a/a set of higher power(s),that's really the main difference.
@tublecane: You really hit the nail on the head with this topic,I couldn't have said it better
Nietzsche Wannabe sums up the review nicely.
I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.@eveil
You're right, I ignored the word strawman. In that case, I hope that you will take that I recognise that these aren't Atheist views and wasn't intending on presenting them as such. And also that I would never use the "Without God, life is meaningless" as something to convince an atheist because I'm aware and hopefully any atheist is, that wanting something to be true has no bearing on reality.
However I do believe that without a God life is/would be meaningless regardless of the existence of any God. I have never seen any evidence to the contrary and none has been presented here. The only other way would be if it were provable that we could create infinite actions, however all current theories of how the universe exists contradict that. In a big crunch, whether it signifies the end or a rebound, both wipe the slate clean and if there is no big crunch then Entropy is a bitch comes into play.
@terlwyth All I meant is that very few atheists would share the views that I've stated because it takes an incredible amount of depression tablets. Atheist is about the existence of a God and so isn't really related to my argument which would be rationalism applied to the purpose in life. There will of course be complete rationalist atheists just as there are rationalist and irrationalist theists and they have much respect from me for sticking to logic despite what it shows them.
"You're right, I ignored the word strawman. In that case, I hope that you will take that I recognise that these aren't Atheist views and wasn't intending on presenting them as such. And also that I would never use the "Without God, life is meaningless" as something to convince an atheist because I'm aware and hopefully any atheist is, that wanting something to be true has no bearing on reality. "
Oh, good. At least I don't have to worry about an appeal to emotion coming from you.
"However I do believe that without a God life is/would be meaningless regardless of the existence of any God. I have never seen any evidence to the contrary and none has been presented here. The only other way would be if it were provable that we could create infinite actions, however all current theories of how the universe exists contradict that. In a big crunch, whether it signifies the end or a rebound, both wipe the slate clean and if there is no big crunch then Entropy is a bitch comes into play. "
I have no idea what you said in the first sentence, but I'm going to assume it's supposed to mean "I believe in God regardless of whether life would be meaningless with or without one".
If you're going for a "If something has a beginning/end, then there must be a creator" argument, then I hope you realize that God would need a creator too, going by that logic.
@eveil That argument is just as much useless,because even if lets say God had a creator behind him,well someone would've had to create that creator who in turn would've had to have been created,and so on and so on
@tomwithnonumbers So let me get this straight, you say you respect Atheists and that you would never say that "Without God life is meaningless" and then you say,if I read that right "Even if God doesn't actually exist or any Gods for that matter,life would still be meaningless without him anyway". Gee, sounds kind of hypocritical and contradictory to me and then the next part "I have never seen any evidence to the contrary and none has been presented here",that's ad ignorantiam at its worst and doesn't back you up at all.
And I have no idea what you said in the last sentence
So, why don't you just kill yourself? It's funny that people say that life is "nothing" merely because it's not infinity or perfect. People fail to realize how awesome the mere fact of existing is because they always have expectations greater than reality, and will always have. Those expectations of something better are what motivates us to improve, and we have improved a LOT since the beginning of the world. And who said something needs to be eternal to "matter"? Matter to what, exactly? things are supposed to matter to US, sentient beings, and they do matter to most people including myself. So, if you don't have the capacity to be happy, that's YOUR problem, don't try to speak for the rest of existence because you clearly don't have the competence to do so.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."Existing is awesome? Please go ahead and tell the raped and tortured girl that she fails to realize how awesome her existing is... or tell that to anyone else who is highly depressed... and what about that "if you don't have the capacity to be happy, that's YOUR problem" crap? You do realize that there are really good reasons to be unhappy, right? Or do you want to say that people who are unhappy brought it up themselves?
How ignorant can you be...
Life sucks for some people.
And life loses its meaning once you die. Once you're dead, there is no way for you to know if anything you accomplished in life will be of any use to the future generations, and it won't matter then anyway.
Leaving a large sum of money as inheritance to your kids might turn out to be fruitless if the money is lost shortly after your death, or if it is poorly managed. It might have been better to have spent it all while you still could.
@Teraus
That's actually bullshit. The human body reacts naturally to suffering; pain is but a "natural alarm" that is telling the body that it should avoid situations such as those that make it feel pain. The same goes for hunger, disease and etc. The person in question, regardless of knowing what comfort is, would instantly conclude that torture is something that should be avoided.
That's the base for morals. Anything that inflicts pain in your fellow man should not be committed because surely you would not want the same to be inflicted upon you. That goes for both physical and emotional pain, but since we're using as an example a person who has no concept of good or evil, then mostly physical pain would be predominant.
And your example is shitty.
@Teraus So let me get this straight,just because life is Crap Sack World and non-existence would easier,.. we should just kill ourselves?
It may be a terrible place,but that doesn't mean it just be accepted without a fight. We shouldn't kill ourselves when we can make the world a little better,even if that only lasts a second,and we'll ultimately be forgotten eventually unless we were killed by tyranny or tyrants ourselves.
And if anything people overrate life,by pointing the little things,...that are finite,or be optimistic,...when doom is always near by,when people force happiness when ya' know what,..it's defined by unhappy. And clearly life as hell is meant to define the next life or the grave as better. And if you don't have the capacity to be angry and in turn make action to makes things better, THATS Your problem. Sit around and be happy then and forget the raped man who isn't taken seriously by the Straw Feminist society,forget people like poor Judith Barsi then,go ahead then. Call the fact that they can't be happy their problem,...instead of trying to figure out how to make them happy. That is the one who is truly too incompetent to speak for the rest of existence
Just forget the fact that the Knight In Sour Armor and Grumpy Bear tropes are in fact based off of Real Life and not entirely out of nowhere then.
And no you don't have to have a perspective of comfort to suffer,you're always gonna suffer no matter what perspective,you could have the perspective of discomfort and ya' know what rape and torture would still be just as bad.
@Scarface675
Actually, the "shitty example" was made by someone else. You clearly misunderstood me.
If you actually thought about it like some people have, you'd realize that "suffering" is not possible without a notion of satisfaction. The physical sensation of pain exists independently, but it's only negative for two reasons:
1. Its meaning. Pain indicates that something has been damaged in your body, and most people like having a whole body.
2. Every person, no matter how miserable, has a notion of comfort. They had a notion of comfort even before they were born. In fact, that's precisely why babies cry when they are born: they leave a (usually) very comfortable place to go to a world full of noise and lights. That's discomfortable.
And that's why pain is bad. I (and many other people) have proven this to myself by attempting to ignore these two factors that make pain bad. In the end, I managed to interpret it as an intense but neutral (or even pleasant) feeling. Obviously, ignoring these notions is not a wise thing to do (unless you are being tortured to death or something). Obviously that doesn't justify crimes (and, if you thought I meant that, you have some serious problem).
Similarly to pain, there can't be ugliness without a model of beauty of some sort. You need to have seen something beautiful to recognize something else as "ugly" by comparison.
My point is that, for every bad thing, there must be a previously existing good thing. Not only that, but the good things exist in a higher quantity: there is obviously more life than devastation and hunger. And most people don't get raped and tortured. Obviously, there should be no "rape and torture" at all, but what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't call the world shitty and meaningless just because your standards will always be higher than reality, and even if the world improved to that point, even if everyone was immortal and beautiful, there would still be cynical people that considered the world a bad place simply because it's not perfect. And that's why I HATE Nihilism and cynicism. Most people who believe in these things are the same people who contribute to the so called "shittiness" of the world.
@terlwyth
I was actually being sarcastic. I am a very positive person and really don't think the world is a Crap Sack World, on the contrary.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system.""Actually, the "shitty example" was made by someone else. You clearly misunderstood me.
If you actually thought about it like some people have, you'd realize that "suffering" is not possible without a notion of satisfaction. The physical sensation of pain exists independently, but it's only negative for two reasons:
1. Its meaning. Pain indicates that something has been damaged in your body, and most people like having a whole body.
2. Every person, no matter how miserable, has a notion of comfort. They had a notion of comfort even before they were born. In fact, that's precisely why babies cry when they are born: they leave a (usually) very comfortable place to go to a world full of noise and lights. That's discomfortable. "
And now we have philosophers pretending to be psychologists. Wonderful.
"And that's why pain is bad. I (and many other people) have proven this to myself by attempting to ignore these two factors that make pain bad. In the end, I managed to interpret it as an intense but neutral (or even pleasant) feeling. Obviously, ignoring these notions is not a wise thing to do (unless you are being tortured to death or something). Obviously that doesn't justify crimes (and, if you thought I meant that, you have some serious problem). "
LOL. Let me guess, you were able to pinch yourself without screaming so you concluded that pain can just be ignored if you forget about the fact that you're damaging yourself and that it's uncomfortable. Thanks for such an insightful comment. Everyone who's ever been tortured could have just ignored getting their fingernails ripped out or having their skin burned off! I'll be sure to tell the next torture victim I meet "Stop whining, you could have just ignored them".
"My point is that, for every bad thing, there must be a previously existing good thing. Not only that, but the good things exist in a higher quantity: there is obviously more life than devastation and hunger. And most people don't get raped and tortured. Obviously, there should be no "rape and torture" at all, but what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't call the world shitty and meaningless just because your standards will always be higher than reality, and even if the world improved to that point, even if everyone was immortal and beautiful, there would still be cynical people that considered the world a bad place simply because it's not perfect. And that's why I HATE Nihilism and cynicism. Most people who believe in these things are the same people who contribute to the so called "shittiness" of the world. "
The world doesn't suck, just some peoples' lives. A lot of peoples' lives, actually. There's probably more people who have lived with shitty lives than people who didn't.
But thanks for simplifying cynicism as "The world isn't perfect so it sucks". They should all just adopt a "my life doesn't suck so the world doesn't suck" viewpoint, right?
^That's not idealism. An idealist would see the problems and try to fix them rather than pretend that the world is fine the way it is. I don't know what the word for "someone who would rather set their expectations lower instead of trying to make things better" is.
And now it sounds like he's ranting against idealists rather than cynics.
An idealist is someone who thinks the world can be fixed by one way of thinking,one mindset,and that that philosophy and demeanor will never be sacrificed when pushed comes to shove,most of these idealists are Pollyana's though which only makes things more frustrating.
A Knight In Sour Armor is an idealist with very negative views due to horrible trials their ideals did not withstand the test,so they are usually pessimistic but they still cling to their ideals,only they're more pragmatic about it.
And actually Teraus,more people have been burned,tortured,worked to death in sweatshops,raped,corrupted and scandalized than anything else. If anything something bad is more likely to happen than anything good. And no a cynic/nihilist is not someone who contributes... (necessarily),a cynic/nihilist is simply someone who knows that the world sucks because more people's lives suck than rock and knows no one ideal will ever work. If there was more good than bad,the good wouldn't be worth so much anyway,sure the good is worth more,but it's still outnumbered. I want to agree with eveil,but well considering how the land is becoming more like Mordor than Ghibli Hills by the second and of course all the terrible lives because of other amoral people,I can't agree. That still doesn't mean we should just give up though. The world may be a Crap Sack World but hey so was Gotham City,yet Batman still tries,so so should we.
I'll agree with Teraus that a cynic isn't necessarily a realist,but they are almost never the perpetrators of all the crap going on,usually they are the victims. A realist is not someone "who lowers their expectations instead of trying to make things better", a realist is one who knows that ideals do come in handy at times,but shouldn't be taken at face value all the time.
Oh why do I bother,eveil hit the nail on the head on this one (mostly),that troper is clearly more articulate than I am.
I am NOT a conformist. I never SAID we are supposed to lower our expectations and just accept things, in fact, I'm an extreme perfectionist in some aspects.
"LOL. Let me guess, you were able to pinch yourself without screaming so you concluded that pain can just be ignored if you forget about the fact that you're damaging yourself and that it's uncomfortable. Thanks for such an insightful comment. Everyone who's ever been tortured could have just ignored getting their fingernails ripped out or having their skin burned off! I'll be sure to tell the next torture victim I meet "Stop whining, you could have just ignored them". "
No, you moron. I was trying to prove my point that, in order to perceive something as BAD, you NEED to have experienced something good before. I am not saying that people being tortured can just shrug it off.
"And actually Teraus,more people have been burned,tortured,worked to death in sweatshops,raped,corrupted and scandalized than anything else."
OF COURSE bad things have happened.
"If anything something bad is more likely to happen than anything good."
NO. Have you actually counted the ratio of moments when people are tortured and killed to the moments when these things are not happening? Obviously, people hear about these incidents more often in television, but who would want to hear news about people getting married, born, or about anything else that isn't a shitty moment in someone's life?
My central point is that what mostly contributes to our perception of the world as a bad place is our perspective. I am not saying that we should stop trying to make the world better, I am specifically attacking people that say that the world is an absolutely hopeless place with very little good left. This is stupid, and NOT true. Maybe some people have bad lives, but most people only notice the good aspects of their lives once they've lost it. And yes, many poeple ARE whiny. The fact that you compare our world to Mordor (something which only applies to very few places) only illustrates my point: people ignore the good things around them when bad things are happening.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."I think what is being said is this: the problem is that the bad things are being blown out of logic. Nasty stuff happens but only a minority of the population gets tortured. Good things occure but since bad news sells better that all we mainly hear about.
I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.Err... once again it should be pointed out that the bad things and good things are getting ballanced. In fact we are improving health wise...
Also: which people say it is hopeless? Those that suffered or angsy teenagers in the West? I like to know... because suffering is not the only thing in the world. Hope is emerging via the Arab Spring anyway...
I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.But people who spent the majority of their lives suffering probably don't care about the good things they once experienced nor do they care when other people are mostly happy and they also don't care that maybe one day they themself will be happy. The current situation they are in is the only thing that matters to them and if the current situtation is a bad one then they probably won't want to hear that there's balance or that things will get better, because sometimes things won't get better at all... just worse.
So you say "angsty teenagers" in the West don't suffer? And like I said earlier... people who experience bad things don't give a crap that "hope is emerging".
And finally... sure there's a balance between good and bad, but the bad things simply make more of an impression to you than the good things.
Teraus I actually see and understand your view, but don't throw a fit at people just because you described your point in a way that was very easy to perceive, well, in the way that everyone who commented perceived it. We aren't people that know you or your way of thinking, so you have to take that into account when speaking in public discussions.
This is said a lot in fantasy stories, so a lot of people don't know it's a true premise (possibly), that as long as there's darkness there'll be light and vice versa. There is currently no way to measure the good or bad of the world, and for that matter, knowing which one outweighs the other, specially if viewed on a historic scale.
- Pain is inevitable, Suffering is optional
- M. Kathleen Casey.
On a more idealistic view, it means that you have some control of the level of how bad things can be, people tent to focus on the bad things, you remember more bad days than good ones, so you just try to move on and enjoy the good things more.
- The sun shines and warms and lights us and we have no curiosity to know why this is so; but we ask the reason of all evil, of pain, and hunger, and mosquitoes and silly people.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson.
On a more cynical view, suffering is also a psychological effect, you wish to move on and sometimes even forget all about it but can't, so it's not "always" optional. In a way Karma is flawed because it doesn't take into account the individuality of people, you can go your whole life living like a saint and still be suggested to a lot of bad things, from being taken advantage of, be unfairly treated, discriminated, abused, etc.
- Most men live lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.
- Henry David Thoreau.
And for realism, I leave you with.
- If you're in a bad situation, don't worry it'll change. If you're in a good situation, don't worry it'll change.
- John A. Simone, Sr.
"No, you moron. I was trying to prove my point that, in order to perceive something as BAD, you NEED to have experienced something good before. I am not saying that people being tortured can just shrug it off. "
What an odd way to prove your point, considering that you've already perceived both good and bad at the time you pinched yourself.
Amateur Philosophers.
Since I'm tired of this back and forth argument between the cynics (Admittedly this is where I myself fit in) and the idealists and the realists (which seem to be few) I think I'll make my last post here a little more ambiguous
Emerson was wrong,we ask about anything and everything when we can at some point.
@marcellx
"Teraus I actually see and understand your view, but don't throw a fit at people just because you described your point in a way that was very easy to perceive, well, in the way that everyone who commented perceived it. We aren't people that know you or your way of thinking, so you have to take that into account when speaking in public discussions. "
In that case, maybe these people should make a certain effort to actually understand my point instead of distorting it, interpreting it in the worst possible way and being obnoxious.
My view, in the end, is simply this: I'd rather see the world as what it actually is, a good place with many flaws that CAN be improved and has improved greatly in the course of history, instead of a horrible place just because bad things happen. Obviously, when some people are unhappy, they tend to think that the whole world is a bad place. Actually, just because that one person killed a puppy doesn't mean that the whole world is "turning into Mordor". It just means that he is a bad person.
@eveil:
"What an odd way to prove your point, considering that you've already perceived both good and bad at the time you pinched yourself.
Amateur Philosophers. "
It's stupid to make so many assumptions about someone you don't know. First of all, the "pinching" was something you invented. You have no idea what I've been through, and I can't prove anything on that aspect in an internet forum. Anyway, maybe suffering heavy food poisoning (more than once) and vomitting for hours, being beaten the crap out of several times, falling from a 5 meter height with your head directly into a brick, getting nails extracted due to infection and a few other not-so-pleasant things don't count as "torture" but, hey, I guess I KNOW what pain feels like.
Also, about the "Amateur Philosophers" bit: you should make a minimal effort to understand what I'm trying to say before being an asshole. Try to imagine a bad thing that doesn't rely on the previous existence of something good, I dare you.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system.""So you say people should ignore the bad things when good things happen? "
No. See? You are distorting my words. I'm just saying that bad events do not justify calling the world a horrible place, just like good events do not justify calling the world a perfect place. The fact remains that a bad thing requires a previous good thing, and as such it is logically impossible for bad events to happen more often than good ones. For devastation to exist, there must be life. Ugliness cannot exist without a model of beauty, and so on.
It's just that good ones are overlooked. When you hear about someone being killed or tortured, you don't care about all the other events that happened in their lives.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system.""It's stupid to make so many assumptions about someone you don't know. First of all, the "pinching" was something you invented. You have no idea what I've been through, and I can't prove anything on that aspect in an internet forum. Anyway, maybe suffering heavy food poisoning (more than once) and vomitting for hours, being beaten the crap out of several times, falling from a 5 meter height with your head directly into a brick, getting nails extracted due to infection and a few other not-so-pleasant things don't count as "torture" but, hey, I guess I KNOW what pain feels like."
And you interpreted this as a neutral or possibly pleasant feeling. Maybe you should check yourself out for "congenital analgesia". Or you're possibly just a masochist.
How does this prove your point anyways? Unless getting nails shoved into you was the first sensation you felt or something, you already have good experiences to compare it to. All this might prove is that you're developing pain resistance.
"Also, about the "Amateur Philosophers" bit: you should make a minimal effort to understand what I'm trying to say before being an asshole. Try to imagine a bad thing that doesn't rely on the previous existence of something good, I dare you. "
Wanting to avert pain is a natural response, you moron. I don't need to imagine it; my body already hates it.
"My view, in the end, is simply this: I'd rather see the world as what it actually is, a good place with many flaws that CAN be improved and has improved greatly in the course of history, instead of a horrible place just because bad things happen. Obviously, when some people are unhappy, they tend to think that the whole world is a bad place. Actually, just because that one person killed a puppy doesn't mean that the whole world is "turning into Mordor". It just means that he is a bad person. "
I'm pretty sure the only reason this argument is happening is because of your "just existing is awesome" comment.
"And you interpreted this as a neutral or possibly pleasant feeling. Maybe you should check yourself out for "congenital analgesia". Or you're possibly just a masochist.
How does this prove your point anyways? Unless getting nails shoved into you was the first sensation you felt or something, you already have good experiences to compare it to. All this might prove is that you're developing pain resistance."
I did not refer to these sensations when I said about that thought experiment. I try to ignore pain sometimes when I have no choice, but I can't always do it.
I will try this again: I wanted to say that pain is a bad thing only because we compare it to good references we have in our mind. I said I tried to do it before only to show that I had some concrete evidence for this, meaning it's not just a thought experiment. Wow, I can't believe I could have been that misleading.
"Wanting to avert pain is a natural response, you moron. I don't need to imagine it; my body already hates it."
You must be incredibly retarded if you think that this statement answers the quote above it. I mean, you didn't answer "Try to imagine a bad thing that doesn't rely on the previous existence of something good, I dare you. " I am no moron. Calling me one just because I called you one before doesn't really mean anything, it just makes you look stupider.
"I'm pretty sure the only reason this argument is happening is because of your "just existing is awesome" comment. "
I guess I could have explained this better. It is possible to appreciate existence like this when you try to look at it from beyond your problems. Life would be incredibly dull if problems didn't exist: nothing would motivate us to improve, we wouldn't really appreciate the good things. That's what I meant. No matter how many problems there are, it will always be better than nonexistence.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."@Teraus
"I wanted to say that pain is a bad thing only because we compare it to good references we have in our mind."
But a person who experiences pain probably won't give a crap about this.
Maybe you should look at my comment above marcellX's. I think I did a good job explaining myself there...
"No matter how many problems there are, it will always be better than nonexistence."
Says who? I'm pretty sure there are many people out there who'd prefer nonexistence.
"But a person who experiences pain probably won't give a crap about this."
You're missing the point, and this is not the first time. The fact that they don't care is irrelevant to what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that people need to be happy all the time no matter what... God, I've said my point a thousand times already, it's tiring. It's an analysis from a neutral point: bad things require good things.
"Says who? I'm pretty sure there are many people out there who'd prefer nonexistence. "
It doesn't make it any less stupid. People are not exactly rational when depressed, on the contrary. Just because they'd prefer it, doesn't mean it's the best option. I know that they must be suffering a lot, but I'm pretty sure it's possible for them to experience something that can change their minds about nonexistence.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."In that case, maybe these people should make a certain effort to actually understand my point instead of distorting it, interpreting it in the worst possible way and being obnoxious.
Isn't that blaming everyone else for your mistake? Like I said, you presented your point badly, I said that I figured out what your end goal was but I didn't say that the things you said weren't badly expressed with some Unfortunate Implications, you did come out as an insensitive idealist with a rather masochistic view even if that wasn't your intention. And for your quarrel with eveil you seem to forget that you were the one who snapped first.
My view, in the end, is simply this: I'd rather see the world as what it actually is, a good place with many flaws that CAN be improved and has improved greatly in the course of history, instead of a horrible place just because bad things happen. Obviously, when some people are unhappy, they tend to think that the whole world is a bad place. Actually, just because that one person killed a puppy doesn't mean that the whole world is "turning into Mordor". It just means that he is a bad person.
You started well but then you went and diminished pain and suffering again. Sure there are people who are martyrs and focus every little negative thing on their lives but through history the world has suffered major catastrophes, people who are remembered for how evil an act/s he committed, not to mention all the sickness, hunger, child abuse, rape, mass murder, etc. that there is, the majority of people who have a cynical view of the world don't have it just because someone killed their puppy once, but because of the sum of personal bad experiences and sometimes outside knowledge that out weights the positive ones.
I wanted to say that pain is a bad thing only because we compare it to good references we have in our mind
Actually no, pain is a bodily reaction, you don't need to experience something for comparison, it's the ability of basic self preservation, which you know since you already pointed out up there, but this is a clear example of how you are bad at expressing your ideas, and that is not necessarily other's fault that they interpret it the way they do.
Emerson was wrong,we ask about anything and everything when we can at some point.
The scientific principle is to question everything, however what Emerson was pointing out is how good things happen around us but we rarely ever notice them and take them for granted, but we dwell on the timeless question of why bad things happen.
"You're missing the point. You are giving too much importance on what people "care" about or not, and are forgetting the fact that many people are stupid."
What are you talking about? That people "care" is the most important thing. Pain is a horrible thing and can't just be downplayed with "things will get better" or "not everything sucks", because sometimes things won't get better and sometimes everything really sucks for people. And what does "many people are stupid" have to do with anything?
"It doesn't make it any less stupid. Just because they'd prefer it, doesn't mean it's the best option. I know that they must be suffering a lot, but I'm pretty sure it's possible for them to experience something that can change their minds about nonexistence."
People like that don't care that their lives might get better. They're suffering deeply right now. Maybe things would get better, but maybe things would get worse too...
kay4today:
Ugh... I edited those quotes you answered and explained them better before you finished your answer.
"People like that don't care that their lives might get better. They're suffering deeply right now. Maybe things would get better, but maybe things would get worse too... "
Well, what am I supposed to say, then? Go ahead and tell them that they're right and stimulate their suffering even more?
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system.""Isn't that blaming everyone else for your mistake? Like I said, you presented your point badly, I said that I figured out what your end goal was but I didn't say that the things you said weren't badly expressed with some Unfortunate Implications, you did come out as an insensitive idealist with a rather masochistic view even if that wasn't your intention. And for your quarrel with eveil you seem to forget that you were the one who snapped first."
Maybe I wasn't completely clear. It's just that I am a minority that doesn't believe the world is a Crap Sack World, and this is infuriating.
I snapped first? Well, he wasn't exactly nice in his first reply.
I'll reply to the rest later, I have to go now.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."I think it's a confusion of argumentative goals. Teraus is trying to say the world is not a Crap Sack World which is a worldwide scale but using examples and descriptions that apply to individuals, while eveil and kay4today are trying to say how is understandable that individuals given their different experiences view it this way. In the end realism is a hard point to reach on this subject, there are numerous components, outcomes, thesis, views, ideas, ideals, points, etc. to view to come close to it. (that's why I wanted teraus who have a more idealistic view to express your opinions better, to move the point further and not get hold back on some misinterpretations and corrections)
"You're missing the point, and this is not the first time. The fact that they don't care is irrelevant to what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that people need to be happy all the time no matter what... God, I've said my point a thousand times already, it's tiring. It's an analysis from a neutral point: bad things require good things."
Did I ever say that you were wrong? No, I only said that people who suffer probably don't want to hear things like "Existing is awesome by itself. Everybody should prefer it over nonexistence and you're stupid for thinking otherwise." or "You're feeling pain? Well this pain requires good things beforehand so screw you and stop whining."... thats all I said and I understand these people.
"Well, what am I supposed to say, then? Go ahead and tell them that they're right and stimulate their suffering even more?"
Offer them help... talk to them with understanding and don't say things like: "Your opinion of the world infuriates me. The world isn't so bad so stop whining around."
"It's just that I am a minority that doesn't believe the world is a Crap Sack World, and this is infuriating."
Ever thought about that people actually have a reason to think this way? And by the way... there are actually a lot of countries who fit the description of Crap Sack World pretty well.
There seems to be a mass confusion over the differences between idealism and optimism, and cynicism and pessimism.
"Maybe I wasn't completely clear. It's just that I am a minority that doesn't believe the world is a Crap Sack World, and this is infuriating. "
No one here believes the world is a crap sack world. Even the reviewer was being partially sarcastic.
Here's an idea: Why don't we quit trying to generalize the world?
@eveil
I'm fine with that. Also, sorry for insulting you, I really was a jerk.
@kay4today
I wouldn't speak to a person who is incredibly depressed like that. I'm not that insensitive. But my biggest issue is not with the people who have legitimate reasons to feel bad: it's with the people who overstate everything that's bad about the world and say "I hate this fucking world, blah blah blah". Like I said, some people are whiny. Not everyone, but some people definitely are.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."Leave a Comment:

Empty and pointless
Luckily most people manage to hide from Real Life. They overwhelm themselves in the now, chasing cheap short term ultimately unsatisfying thrills, cleverly managing to drive away any thoughts about the context of their lives.
The truth is Real Life is finite with finite benefits in a world where it will either all end and none of anyones actions will matter or it won't and their actions are so insignificant against the background of infinity they might as well not matter. Any feeling, love, attachment, possession or value in real life will be forgotten, die, fade, disintegrate or turn out never to have been there.
People talk about setting their own goals in life but fail to realise that they aren't important enough to do that. Any goal they set can only have the worth the person himself has, none. And as such goals are a comforting illusion with which we drive back the eternal uncontrollable nothing of real life.
To end this cheery spirit filling message, what can you do to fight real life? Nothing. Even if you were to try to file for a divorce from real life, it wouldn't really change anything in the scheme of things.
Better hope for something greater :D