Nihilism

Thanks to that1user for taking this debate.This round has essentially two sections. The first begins by addressing my opponent's more semantic arguments. The latter half further disputes along the lines of my round 1 arguments which culminate into a nihilist conclusion. It also rebuts my opponent's less semantic arguments. My opponent’s semantic rebuttals: Me: Nihilism is the most objective philsophical position [...] It appears that everything is, in some way or another, subjective. That1User: Essentially, this claim states that everything is subjective. This claim is ironically an objective claim. Thus there is bound to be some objectivity, at least in language. Allow me to clarify. My claim is not an objective claim. It is a most objective claim. It is as close to objectivity as possible. My statement said: "Nihilism is the most objective philosophical position". It does not claim that Nihilism is the objective philosophical position. My following statement says: "It appears that everything is [..] subjective." I am not arguing that Nihilism is the correct ideology. I am arguing that it is the most correct ideology. It is as close to correct as a philosophical idea can achieve. This is the reason I heavily suggested my opponent bring up and support his own philosophical position since his job would be to show that it is more correct than Nihilism. Otherwise, with a lack of competitors, Nihilism is, "by process of elimination", the most objective philosophical position.(Note that I do not say that Nihilism is an objective philosophical position).My opponent’s rebuttal resorts very heavily to semantics and is exactly the reason I worded the debate the way I did. From Round 1:"I have always held nihilism to be the objectively strongest ideological position, and would very much like to hear an opposing viewpoint.My task would be to establish that nihilism is indeed the objectively strongest philosophical position."Note that I did not say that I hold Nihilism to be objectively correct, which would be an absolute statement. I merely hold Nihilism to be the strongest, meaning that Nihilism is the most objective ideology within minimal intersubjective constraints. This statement is incredibly important for the purposes of this debate, and hopefully will discourage my opponent from further pursuing this particular rebuttal. My opponent decides to construct another semantics argument later in the round based on my use of the word ‘arbitrary’.Here are other definitions of arbitrary:1) based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something[1]2) existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious [1](ironically also from merriam webster) There are several definitions to the word arbitrary, and many ways to use it. What I mean when I say arbitrary is that it is subjectively contrived. I do not mean anything else. Anyway, it is beside the point. I’d like to ask my opponent to not argue too excessively from semantics. Argument from Religion: My original argument sought to find the objective reason to maintain religious values. My opponent's rebuttal says that religion is objectively significant because God is objectively significant, and contends against the reasons I've put forth about pain and pleasure. That is fair: my reasoning is arbitrary, and is merely a hypothetical foray into religion's appeals; to find the core of religion. A problem with the idea that God is objectively significant is that the idea is, by itself, merely an assertion. The argument is basically: (1) God is an objectively significant being who has given objectively significant set of values for humanity to follow (2) Humanity is objectively obligated to follow these tenets There is no objective way for me to conclude the first part of the argument. Does God exist? If so, how is he objectively significant? If so, show me. How do we know the values provided by God is objectively significant? Is it because some preacher or believer says so? How is that objective? My opponent does not provide an objective basis for (1)'s validity. (1) is only objectively significant because my opponent (and other people) tell me so. It is thus contrived by these people (man), and is subjective, questionable and objectively insignificant. It follows then that (2) cannot hold objectively. The Flying Spaghetti Monster controls all!!! "One bold assertion is as good as the next - Hegel" As for (2) alone: why is humanity objectively obligated to follow any tenets at all? Even if the tenets are somehow completely objective, how does that mean that humans must objectively follow? Because someone or something says so? What gives this someone or something the objective credibility? Epistemology I believe my opponent proposes two systems against nihilism. These appear to be math and science. This directly contradicts my statements in round 1 which declared math and science objectively insignificant. Let me clarify this argument in a more structural form. What did I mean when I said that scientific laws are built on empiricism and that metaphysical laws are similarly constructed? I’ve reorganized the argument to run thus: (1) Scientific laws (i.e. gravity) are constructed via empiricism. Metaphysical laws (i.e. math) are constructed via rationalism (or empiricism; this is debatable, but is besides the point).(2) Thus both scientific and metaphysical systems are necessarily contrived by man.(3) Conclusion: both scientific and metaphysical laws are subjective and therefore necessarily not objective. Let me break down each point in more detail. What I’m saying in statement (1) is that the core of all laws is empiricism and/or rationalism. Maybe I should explain what these are. Empiricism is the belief that data derived from the sensory inputs is necessarily the foundation of all knowledge, and that there is no other way to obtain knowledge (i.e. empirical evidence; scientific method, etc.). The system of epistemology which directly contradicts empiricism is rationalism. Rationalism basically states that knowledge can be obtained outside of empirical data (i.e. logic). Statement (2) is saying that both scientific and metaphysical must then be contrived by man. Both rationalism and empiricism are epistemological belief systems. Belief systems are necessarily contrived by man and therefore subjective by definition. Thus (3) because there is no basis by which we hold empiricism, rationalism or any other belief system to be necessary objective truths. Therefore, any system (i.e. math, science, etc.) whose validity is derived from an epistemological system (which are necessarily subjective), cannot ultimately be objective. For something like math to be considered completely objective, the logician must assert assumptively that some system of epistemology (i.e. Rationalism) is objective. The conclusion established above directly negates my opponent’s science and mathematics argument, which blatantly asserts that math and science are objective. I agree that math and science can be objective under certain subjective confines, but these ideas ultimately require intersubjective assertions in order to ignore the non-objective system(s) (i.e. epistemological beliefs) at its core. Thus it remains that everything can be whittled down to a subjective foundation. Nothing has an objective foundation, in other words. Summary:Nihilism thus remains the objectively strongest ideological position. Unless my opponent can show a system to be stronger, I’m afraid Nihilism remains at the top by default. :((Once again, please refrain from arguing semantics outside of clarifications as much as possible. You will very likely end up arguing a point that is barely, if at all, relevant. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...Note: I urge readers who are interested and who do not have any grasp on epistemology look up rationalism vs. empiricism. It's pretty cool stuff.