look at all the most important and influential people in human history--people whose names will be remembered for as long as we're still around, and people whose positive contributions to the species will always be extolled

none of them were nihilists

in fact, i'd wager most of them were anti-nihilists

it's almost like some ideas are better at propagating themselves than others, similar to natalism.

cough* religion *cough*

religion and natalism are the two big exceptions to the rule, but those are both very broad and lofty ideas

i'm referring more to concrete ideas that can manifest physically, like a transistor

or, a scientific theory that has massive and groundbreaking implications on the previous model of reality

Quote from: eggsalad on April 18, 2016, 10:25:38 PM

it's almost like some ideas are better at propagating themselves than others, similar to natalism.

they're better at propagating themselves because they generally are better

obviously, there are exceptions, but generally speaking, the best ideas tend to win

No.
Ideas that lead to large political actions or movements and evangelism tend to become more widespread over time. Ideas that appeal to intuition and emotional wew will garner more adherents.

The jump from looking at something as "well it's effective at doing this and this", to "it's better" without properly recognizing that "better" means it serves a purpose or intended function, is asinine. The core of this isn't about the fact that nihilism isn't very good for humans or society, that's never what nihilism was ever about. You have to posit objective reason to contradict nihilism.

No.

yes

but i'm frankly not terribly interested in that debate--just sit with the fact that you're wrong on this one for now

You have to posit objective reason to contradict nihilism.

i already have, countless times

it just so happens that every intelligent person in history wasn't a nihilist, either, and i just thought i'd rub it in

Quote from: eggsalad on April 18, 2016, 10:38:12 PM

You have to posit objective reason to contradict nihilism.

i already have, countless times

i see you have as much substantiation for this as you have for actual reasons

may i see one
i mean if theyre so many and easy to find

The rule is that the best ideas win.

but that's not even remotely similar to what i said though

i don't use words like "tend" for the fuck of it, you know

i posit that suffering does matter, because it's a very real and a very intense sensation that we are capable of preventing and even replacing in favor of a more pleasant sensation

Nothing about the first half of this links to the second half. Why does pain and suffering causing quick and intense neural response mean that it is objectively awful? Unless, gasp, you are extrapolating that because of your experience with it, it is always something to be avoided. Surely you should realize by now that just because something feels some way, does not make it true, or even reasonably arguable. Why does what a living thing feels matter? Why is it imperative to prevent this? Because pain is bad? You're approaching the tail end of your own argument here.

given that system, where good sensations are good and bad sensations are bad and preventable, it follows that we, to the best of our ability, ought to diminish bad sensations

well fortunately this is just a hypothetical system made for the purpose of reducing pain and increasing suffering. unfortunately that's not the point of this conversation. the problem is your premise has no reason to exist outside your emotions towards suffering.

does this refute the central point of nihilism? no--nothing can, which is what makes the philosopy so pervasive and insidious--but what you asked for what a contradiction, and there you have it

Well I mean if you're admitting that you can only conjure up non-sequitars to combat nihilism, maybe it's time to recognize that you oppose nihilism because you're scared of it.

The capacity to feel does not seem to me to establish any moral system. "I am capable of feeling pain". Okay. "I don't like feeling pain". Okay. I really don't see where the bridge is that allows one to cross from "people generally don't want to feel pain" to "we should prevent pain".

WELL MEME'D MY BOY

LE EPIN IS/OUGHT GAP MEME IS THE SPICIEST OF ALL MEMES

You might as well question math. Why does 2+2=4? Why doesn't it equal 6?

This question has no discursive value whatsoever. If you don't see that there is no is/ought gap, then there's no discussion. If you don't know that having a fork in your eye is an objectively worse sensation than eating a cupcake, I don't know what to tell you. It's really something you have to figure out on your own.

Maybe once you've lived life and suffered a little bit yourself, you can develop the empathy required to know that everyone else suffers just as much, if not even more, and that should give you pause. But most people grow out of their nihilistic tendencies by, like, age 6. So I don't know what to tell you.

Plus, the result here just seems to be mass primal hedonism for it's own sake.

Yeah, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. The problem I have with hedonists is that they're selfish. They fail to recognize that their pursuit of happiness has a cost. If happiness had no cost, then I wouldn't have a problem with hedonists.

Aversion to painful sensory input is driven by the same anatomical forces as our urges to fight and fuck.

So what? That just means biology got it right for once. Whoop-dee-doo.

The Bible has one or two good verses in it, too, but I don't follow the Bible. So does the Quran. What is this accusation?

You might as well question math. Why does 2+2=4? Why doesn't it equal 6?

You're more akin to saying that because 2 + 2 = 4, 4 is a better number than 2.

Quote from: Verbatim on April 18, 2016, 11:16:22 PM

You might as well question math. Why does 2+2=4? Why doesn't it equal 6?

You're more akin to saying that because 2 + 2 = 4, 4 is a better number than 2.

If "4" represents the number of orgasms I have per week, then yes, 4 is a better number than 2. Objectively.

There's nothing else I can extrapolate it from, beyond my own experiences and observations.

Then where does your authority to declare that there is an objective truth (required to contradict nihilism) come from?

What does that even mean?

"I feel pain right now, but that might not be true."

I meant that you were trying to justify the notion that pain is objectively bad because it doesn't feel good to you or others.

Yes. State your issue with this logic.

There isn't logic you fuckwit. "Pain is bad because it doesn't feel good!". Why does that matter? "Because it doesn't feel good!!!"

Establish why someone not feeling good matters, without resorting to "b-because it feels bad and my emotions tell me to avoid it!"

There is no emotion in my arguments whatsoever.

Your premise is that pain makes you (and others) feel bad therefor its objectively bad.