Nihilism

=== RESPONSES === "As my own first statement, I should say that Nihilism as I know it is the simple belief that life on earth is a coincidence, and as such it does not need to have any purpose. " >> To expand on my opponents definition; here is the full official meaning: Nihilism is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological, metaphysical or ontological forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible or that contrary to our belief, some aspect of reality does not exist as such. [1] "{story}" >> Please don't doubt me when I say I feel your pain. I used to have the same philosophy and I was gravely depressed to the point of choosing to commit suicide. It's only a fluke accident that stopped it from happening thus giving me enough time to think as to come to a new philosophy that would lead me to the bright, cheery and successful persona I have today, which I'll do my best to share with you. === ARGUMENT === I plan to negate the resolution through four particular philosophies that I subscribe to. Three of them are relatively well-known and the other is the name I coined for my own much more specific personal philosophy. --- 1. Rationalism --- Usually this term is meant to be more broad but for this debate I'm am using it more specifically. Rationalism is defined as: In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive". Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge". [2] This definition clearly allows for the word to be used with more specification. Throughout the course of the debate I will make my specifications more clear. --- 2. Hedonism --- Hedonism is defined as: Hedonism is a school of ethics which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain (i. e. suffering) they produce. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize this net pleasure (pleasure minus pain). [3] --- 3. Consequentionalism --- Consequentionalism is defined as: Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. [4] --- 4. Systemism --- I define Systemism as: An philosophy based on these two tenets: The First Tenant of Systemism is: Every conscious entity with the ability to feel both pleasure and non-pleasure logically has from thence a direct, intrinsic and unalienable purpose to pursue the former. The Second Tenant of Systemism is: The way in which pleasure can be most logically obtained is through an integrated system on an individual's environment which applies the desired outcome of the first tenant universally. That is, a system which causes the most happiness for every individual contained within it is a system and code of ethics which optimizes the potential pleasure acquired by any specific individual. That's a mouth full but basically it's what you get when you mix all the other for-stated philosophies together. --- Argument --- I assert that Nihilism is not a valid moral concept because it completely leaves an individuals subjective experience out of the equation. This is where Rationalism comes in. My brand of Rationalism includes that all things need be recognized for whether we truly know them or not and except them as such for what they are. This is the denial of the concept of faith. Faith being defined as the accepting of something as true, which you do not know. As such, all knowledge can be based on only two things; self-evidents and axioms. A self-evident being something which you intrinsically know to be absolutely true because it is a part of your conscious being, such as the fact that you exist. An axiom being a concept which must be true because in any attempt to dismiss it you actually have to apply it, such as the statement "a thing is itself". You intrinsically know that you can feel pleasure, non-pleasure and displeasure and that pleasure is better than either non-pleasure or displeasure. This is the base for Hedonism. Sure, no thing outside yourself created you for any objective purpose, but the fact that you actually exist at all and have a consciousness with these abilities of pleasure and displeasure create an intrinsic meaning and value to your life. I'll leave it at that for now. I am deeply looking forward to my opponents reply. === SOURCES === 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...