Nihilism

" 'If...then why...' That is the question Nihilists faced in the first stage of 'conversion'. 'If...then that can't be...' That is the second stage question. 'If...then it is meaningless.' That is the final outcome. " >> That entirely does not follow. Questioning everything is a extremely necessary procedure but it's proper application certainly doesn't lead to meaninglessness. May I remind you that you have the burden of proof here to show why, not just make the statement that it is. " All questioning answers in either meaninglessness or violence and unhappiness over not finding the right answer. It is simple logic. If you ask me where to buy some soda, I'd answer either not to buy soda at all, since it is bad for your health, or not to buy soda, as it will be expensive. The reason you'd buy a soda is to attain a nice feeling in drinking it, since it tastes better then water. But regardless, it is less healthy, packed with sugar and calories and will kill you if you drink too much of it, both mentally and physically. Anyone can give these kinds of answers to any question. That is what I meant, and being a Nihilist, it is far easier to get to this answer than to get to any other answer. "The ability to feel pleasure lies within the ability to create a pleasurable environment. If something or someone disrupts that environment, then there will be no pleasure or joy. There will be pain because you were hoping so dearly for something and it didn't come true." >> Firstly, the ability to feel pleasure does indeed lie within the opportunity of having a pleasurable environment but it does not solely rest upon that. The majority of one's happiness is a choice, an attitude. To be optimistic, positive, enthusiastic, cool-headed, calm, and rational is to live a much more fulfilling life. Secondly, the fact that there is suffering in the world does not eliminate the fact there there is also joy and pleasure. They are both here. And we intrinsically have a purpose to pursue the joy and avoid the suffering, you failed to deny this. " The choice to be joyful, to be cheerful does not entirely lie with the person at hand. It lies within that person's nature, his or hers genetics. If a person's parents have been miserable for their entire lives, then that person will grow up miserable, too. If that person's great-great-great grandparents have lived miserably and died miserably, then it will still be visible in the next generations. It is as simple as that. Secondly, I never denied there being some sort of pleasure in this world. I only said that whatever pleasure one may feel, there will always be some tiny bit of them that wants it even better, or is completely unsatisfied. There is no such thing as true happinness. That is what I tried to say. "If you ask a psychopath why he killed something, he'll answer that either he does not know, or that he simply loved the feeling. Wrong. People are violent, aggressive animals. That is our nature. Whether you kill someone or see someone die, there is always that little spark lighting up in you that is loving all the violence and bloodshed." >> Firstly, you are 100% correct to say that basic human nature is violent, that is how we survived to get where we are today. But you are very wrong to say that everyone receives a spark of pleasure from watching suffering. What you miss is that there's a difference between the entirety of human nature and basic human nature, for there is more to it than just the basic. I like to call it "the short-circuit of human nature", it is that thing which defies common sense and natural feelings which we evolved to better our survival, it is higher intelligence. I call it a short-circuit because we evolved it to help with survival but it's implications can actually cancel-out other parts of our nature which I refer to as "basic nature". This higher intelligence is responsible for things like empathy and compassion and many things which aren't necessarily survival based. Instead, it is not based on any intrinsic motive, it self-generates one. This creates one of the defining features about humans, the flexibility of our psyches which allows for the immense diversity between us unlike anything seen in the rest of the animal kingdom. Traits like racism, sexism and violence are all apart of our basic nature but can be phased out by our higher-intelligence for the sake of happiness and a loving, compassionate, peaceful environment. " I fail to see the problem in my reasoning. It is true that we have something called a "common sense" these days, but that does not mean that no man has ever wanted to kill or fight. It just means that we are surpressing urges in order to not make a complete fool out of ourselves in front of our so-called "friends". If one person asks another to marry him or her, then that person wants an answer. That person wants to either use the person he or she has asked to marry for something, or wants to be together with that person, no matter the cost. It is either instinct, or underlying reasoning. Love does not exist. "As for your Systemism, even though it sounds logical, if a being has once pursued happiness in one way and failed miserably, then that same person will need to be persuaded to try that same thing again. It isn't going to try again after having such a bad experience the first time. That much is simple instinct. As such, this theory is incomplete." >> This refutation is ridiculous. Firstly, it is impossible to fail at achieving the happiness generated through changing your attitude, it may be made less affective by a coincidental increase of displeasure in the environment but it will always make a change for the better because you perceive problems differently. Secondly, after changing your attitude to be more positive and cool-headed all problems you encounter will become considerably easier to solve thus maximizing pleasure even further which in-turn improves your attitude and causes a domino effect of success. Thirdly, there is an innumerable amount of ways to obtain joy, not just one. Fourthly, after failing once at something you learn valuable lessons about it that considerably improve your chances of succeeding during the next try. " You cannot stay happy forever. Something will happen to change your attitude towards people. Bad things don't just lurk around the corner. They jump right at you. As for your second answer, the same occurs when you just don't care. You become able to solve the problems at hand, then get disappointed again, and then fall back into despair. Thirdly, as there are more ways to enjoy things, there are also a number of requirements, which are even more limited because of our laws and regulations. And I agree with you on the fourth one, it's just that people become afraid of trying after a while. === ARGUMENT === "My opponent never refuted any of my philosophies." I disagree with you on that. I think I answered accordingly. "The moral: Sometimes we have to take the bad with the good. I used to absolutely hate my life, every waking moment was pure unbearable agony and I used to cry myself to sleep every night completely void of hope. But now looking back, as horrible as it was, I'm very glad it all happened. I learned all of life's most important lessons during that period. It pushed me to question and to discover. Now instead of being a sheep, I actually have a solid philosophy that I developed on my own which gives me perfect and logical reason to be moral, to be happy and to have purpose instead of having to take anything on faith. " I know some people just can't bear being unhappy, and they seek happinness in false theories and such and thus, get loose footholds. You can't stay happy forever. That is impossible. If you commit suicide, you'll die and never have felt regret over commiting suicide. You'll never suffer again. You'll never be afraid again. Perfect, right?