- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
No, I'd rather live short periods of time, and then die for a while. Yea. it'd be like a feature made of short psychedelic student films.
Living forever is too difficult, and I have a really short memory, knowing people for more than two years is confusing, and I know too many.
Excluding physical pain, suffering can be felt as many things, existential suffering, boredom, emotional, etc. These aspects of suffering are not physical, at least - we do not accept them as physical as physical pain, which too is not as physical as matter, then we may say that any suffering is quite metaphysical, don't we?
"feel on your skin" is a figure of speech in Hebrew, i wonder how i missed that.. What I meant by that paragraph was that you may say that evolution (the process, the thing which that idea points at) brought us greed and anger, and you may otherwise say that evolution (the theory, the volume of knowledge and its' memes) had us to believe that greed and anger are a nature, as if it is a fact beyond and outside of the theory of evolution.
That doesn't depict an encounter with your nature, what say is "I hurt my self, I feel the pain, every time I did something forceful and indelicate in some measure to my skin, I saw blood and felt pain, thus, I may extend it to a Rule by which I shall live, this and that causes this and that".
Just because you see a pattern doesn't make you a genius, or connected to some universal nature of things, actually, if enough people see the conclusion of your pattern as wrong or unsettling, as empirical as it may be - you are suddenly the official nut-case.
I'm not playing dumb, I can see that your example has some (if not much) Truthiness. But that is exactly the point, you Want to understand the nature of things and you draw your lines of how you are going to do that, you use logic, a scientific approach, but you fail to see that to say something like that about the nature of pain you will have to monitor it constantly, because you cannot ascribe something like that to the future, although you believe the nature of things will always stay as is always was.
Thus, competition is a major one in our surroundings, yes.
A quick review of (inevitably) written history tells that competition has been since the dawn of man, yes.
But to declare it as a part of our nature is to say "I'm not going to change that because I believe it OUGHT to be that way".
"Direct and clear" as in "There's a smaller chance of error"?
I didn't say your examples of the origin of suffering are false, I said it isn't AUTOMATICALLY transformed to suffering. There is a process there, in which a person realizes he is better off in some other condition, other surroundings, other mindset, other way - He says NO to his condition, his fate, what have you.. And only then there is suffering.
One may suffer from pretty much everything, a walk the park while dreaming of sex, a trip to the forest while dreaming of the desert, a visit at the clinic while dreaming of a video game, dreaming of a better world, anything..
And here's the point - one may stop these sufferings if he only accepts instead of strives.
I think that what most eastern philosophy is trying to tell you is "What is is just what is, you may want to change it, you may want to logically reconstruct it, you may want to save it, but all of these are new things, different from the subject that IS, new things that take you away from the what is, into what is not, and there, as all things there, is missing - the way home."
Suffering could be a synonymous to pain only if you refer to 'pain' as more than just physical pain, as in a broken bone, to the metaphysical, as in a broken heart, which you use easily in your arguments without being a philosopher, apparently.
Metaphysical is not Supernatural, you may want to look it up on wikipedia. Both, for that matter.
The problem with talking about our Nature in conceptual terms, or maybe talking about nature altogether is this, that you may ask yourself if Greed and Anger are manifestations of Evolution or it is the theory that built the ground-works for those feeling as you feel them on your skin, and explain them to yourself as "your nature", and "there is no way around it".
In order to use a word as "nature" in an argument, to prove a point, you need it to be treated with some science, is should be empirical, in a sense, and a man does not have any access to his nature, nor to his god, his unconscience, his fate, the metaphysical and all that, why? Because we practically made those things up! In some part of history, there wasn't such a notion, and then - there was, you might as well say that Evolution had a sociological and cultural effect on the so-called Nature of men?!
Prove evolution had nothing to with cigarettes and that cigarettes have nothing to do with evolution.
Where would seek the connection in hopes of not finding any? Within your Mindset or Wikipedia?
This may seem priggish, but it is quite important when we speak of Buddhist's suffering. I believe that in the Eightfold's view, the suffering is the attitude toward reality, surrounding, the happening, however you want to call it.
Suffering of a broken arm is the will to stop pain. Pain in it self is not harmful. And more important - pain doesn't automatically produce suffering, it is the sufferer and his will to go back, to a time which he didn't feel that pain, or toward a time the pain will be no longer. Pain itself is enjoyable, look at BDSM, hard scratching, biting your girlfriend's neck, etc. It is a great experience, wait till you break an arm, lie down, forget about your language, and concentrate in the pain, forget it's p a i n, try to address the thing that the word is pointing at, research the differences of this pain and any other you remember, etc.
Loneliness is not automatically translated as suffering, many people enjoy solitude, they may even say that the state of loneliness is a nature.
I've already mentioned BDSM, enslavement goes the same direction, some people are glad to be enslaved, look at white and blue collar.
I think we should do something about some sort of a protocol, "How to ask a question of dummies", I mean, wouldn't "Would you clone yourself?" or "Your newborn son?", "Would you buy a bunker in alaska to keep all your relative's insurence-clones?", you know - or even "What's the worst thing that can happen?"
Before I begin, I'd like to state, as it was apparently misunderstood, that my argument was about the legal issue, why the norms will now legalize such a notion without adding to it a landfill of paperwork to insure the person that is about to commit suicide and asks for a final help in.. whatever.
Sounds absurd, yea, but not the world record.
Yes. I understand that whatever comes near to goals and values and logic of a private human being, stayed pretty much there, that even the judgment of his best friend may be a subject of debate. Yes, in an utopia, every man acts as he pleases, whether it's building a pacifistic complex bolo'bolo style or scavenging of half eaten peers. In such a state moral codes are practical codes, that do not need to debated nor to be written down for future generations. But that's not the issue, the issue is a legal one, and I don't believe there is any room in Legal for Should, and that's why I try to explain, quite sarcastically why it is not possible, at the current paradigm to have government-approved suicide.
I don't even see what your take on sanity has to do with anything, but let me ask you this, according to your definition of it, what is the difference between sane reasoning and insane reasoning? I don't know, when I look deep into the western values, I see rotten, ROTTEN insanity, the idea of law with the help of god to extinct criminals once and for all, is right next to kukuland.
You try to draw a line between justified cause and unjustified with a sane crayon, but where exactly would you draw the line? Could you describe a law like that? Should it be: "Beyond 7.3 on Dr. Shtainzivaigen's scale of pain, it is legal for a patient to try and sign the appropriate paperwork with the signatures of two hospital directors, in order for the hospital to legally, and mercifully kill him"? should psychological tests be put upon a near-death experiencer to ensure a proper state of mind?
I couldn't articulate it better. The foundation beneath self-preservation couldn't get any more subjective and per-case than that.
I see you mainly point at dying people that are better off, pretty much who ever you ask, but.. what about.. just... depressed people? How about schizophrenic suicidals? Nihilists? Plain disappointed solipsists?
How about an age limit? Could a sixteen year old goth girl get the pill? Should she get her parents' signature as well?
What about the dude that comes into the die-lab and says he doesn't have a good reason, that he's just curious. Or that guy that has a urgent thing to say to god, and he wouldn't tell you nothing about it..
Maybe it should be a free-for-all-who-call-spell-k.i.l.l.m.e?
Maybe it's not such a bad idea..
I don't say it's ridiculous to have mercy on a friend that got bit by a giant weird-looking snake, I say it's ridiculous to suggest the institutionalization of assisted-suicide. Somethings are beyond law and order, war, love and death - are such things.
My argument won't be opposed to joe's, or at least that's how I figure the picture. If the question was "should I assist a friend o commit suicide" - things would be different, as to my answer, but since Legal issues are t present, I have to put moral aside, and look at the normative, the codes, functions, and so on.
What I see is this - since self-preservation is the ultimate goal, above all values and morals, since only insane lovers would sacrifice themselves to save their loved one or sacrifice themselves for any other cause except of self-mutilation or suicide as in a suicide mision in Iraq.
Thus, any man or woman that will to injure their body or commit suicide have some phychological issue (which may be true and still doesn't justify locking joe up in a mental hospital, but we're talking legal, not moral) thus legalizing assist for murder would be rediculus. Except for those who search for a creative way to get away with murder.
If by opium you mean the revolving appearance of the unnecessary journey of self, the spectacle of "All is Known", the apparentness lack of terra-incognita, the notion of expertness being opposed to dis-interest, the feelings of inferiority when an issue arises that suggests that some mental investment is to be taken to action in a form of guesswork, the irrelevant attachment of Hobbyistic to Experimental, then YES.
I do think that so-called open-minded people, before looking beyond a crack in the system, believe that the system has it's trustworthy tentacles gripped around the infrastructures of the existence and the universe altogether, while any investigation of the truth in every theory gives those people a "headache" and a retreat to consumerism (the existential ideology, not the shop-wise attitude.)
And if by Religion the mediums that provide such messages that suggest external, out-of-medium meaning to the differentiated subject, that by-default are controlling the paradigm that is mostly referred to as "common sense" and probably were the ones that created it in the first place. If by Religion you mean those things that are concluded by the show of such mediums as the television, the microscope and mathematical equations, then YES.
I do think that Religion is the (necessary) opium of the (inner party) people.