Nihilism

"That's not what I meant. What I meant was that, if you buy and drink it, it will be bad for your health, and you will have to undergo the consequences in time. If you do not buy it, you will always have a feeling saying "what if I bought it, and...", and if you stop drinking altogether, you'll die. It doesn't matter what you do, in the end, the consequences will be negative." >> False. A negative ends is not insured in every, or even most, scenarios. This is evident. In this particular scenario there are both a negative AND a positive effect each way. It just comes down to weighing which direction gives more positive. If you're really in the mood for a soda than having one might be more positive, but if you have too much soda or unhealthy food as it is than it may be more beneficial not to. "Again, misunderstanding. What I meant was that a person always gets something from his or her grandparents. If your grandparents have been raised in a certain manner, then that way of doing things will be passed down on them, then on your parents, and finally on you. It is completely logical. A human being will never be able to be completely satisfied, because a human being will always strive for more, always specifically looking for flaws." >>First, there's two completely unconnected statements there. Secondly, on the first one, it depends what you mean. I got genes from my grandparents, other than that I haven't inherited much else. I'm the complete opposite of my family. They are hard-core conservative Christians, I am a completely anti-religious Socialist. Thirdly, on the first one, why does it even matter? What does this have to do with your resolution? Fourthly, on the second statement, what is wrong with wanting more? That is a very, very good thing! It would reeeeally suck if we didn't have the desire to always make things better. You're completely missing the other side of the coin. "You missed my point here. I said that either they are completely unsatisfied, OR there is some tiny bit of them that wants it better. People put on faces in order not to get hurt, but in the end, those faces just cause them to be hurt far more badly." >> Of course there's a part of them that wants it to be better! I can tell you right now that I am the happiest person I know but I also have the most passionate dreams about making things better. Some say my dreams are a little too idealist, a little too large. But my dreams don't depress me, pursuing my dreams plays a large part in my happiness. "If a person sees a slaughter, no matter at what time, when, or where, they will always awaken some primal instinct to either run because of danger or join the fight to eliminate the source of the danger. It's instinct, not something we can help." >> If someone sees a slaughter? They want might want to stop it, you say? I was not under the impression that this is a bad thing. Again, it is the desire for positivity. You have yet to dismiss how this could actually constitute a not only viable but essential construct for both morality and purpose. "About love; what I meant was that love is a chemical reaction in the brains, that makes you look at things more positively. As such, there is no such thing as "true love", because if the chemical process is replicated, that feeling can be felt for anyone. That's why I said love doesn't exist." >> Don't you see the error you make here? ALL things we think and feel are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less real! Rather, it confirms that it is. You say "that makes you look at things more positively", you not only acknowledge positivity here but you show precisely why it is a good thing. A life style centered largely around love is a MUCH happier one. And happiness is your intrinsic purpose, which you have yet to dismiss. "You are partially right. Firstly, morals don't have to be rational. Things like "Oh, the ship is sinking, women and kids first to the rescue boats!" are completely irrational. The person with the highest survival chance should go first, but because women and children are (IN THEORY) weaker, they can go first. If it would have been rationally thought through, then men would've been the first to be saved, because a man's body is genetically stronger then a woman's. Irrational thinking has also lead to strange morality. As such, it can not be applied in any situation, but rather only in some." >> The mistake that you are making here is to base morality off of survival. That would be committing the naturalistic fallacy. I contend that a society that would save the weaker is actually more reasonable, and as such more moral, because it is a society that can obviously be seen to sustain more happiness within it's populus. "I never even stated we can't pursue it, I did state we can never achieve a state of true happiness." >> Your measure of "true happiness" seems to be a world in which we don't want anything. I think this is sadly mistaken. It's my wanting of things that plays a large part in my happiness. "It doesn't matter if you want to pursue it or not. If you are dead, you'll never feel anything again. Not happiness, not reason, and not sadness. Death is a morally superior state to life. As for my claim that we can't be happy forever, please look through the concept of biorhythm. At one point, every so many days, a person will be utterly unhappy, and only able to set up a fake mask of happiness. It's like holding back your tears; you don't want to look weak, but everyone can see your eyes turn red." >> This makes absolutely no sense. Death is not morally superior, it is AMORAL. It has nothing to did with morals because, like you said, you feel nothing. Feeling is upon what I base my morality and purpose. I pursue things based on positive feeling. Consider this a score. A positive feeling gives you a +1 or something higher. A negative gives you a -1 or something lower. According to the moral system which I came to through reason which has not been refuted, morality and pleasure lies in having the highest score at any given time. Dieing is amoral and gives a score of 0. Now you may be thinking that we are all going to reach zero anyway because we all die, so what's the point? But death does not take away from any of the points you had before, it just means that it stops getting added to. So you still have an intrinsic purpose to pursue positive and avoid negative. The rational base for morality and purpose is upon this.