Gonna run down the thread from Page 1. Oh boy.
It makes perfect sense. But I imagine you're going to make it into a mountain over a mole hill in an attempt to intellectualize the question.
The format of my post is a consequence of how I've gone about writing posts in the DH.
It's essentially brainstorming, exploring the idea as I go. Prior to writing that post, I'd never formalized thoughts on Reasons To Live. So I began from scratch, exploring the implications of the thread topic and seeing what came of it.
I've been enjoying making use of the DH in this way -- taking baby steps in sorting out and putting into words what I might actually think on these various topics and issues. I'm fairly new to this domain of online exchange (i.e. debates and/or discussions on matters of philosophy/theology/science/politics/social issues etc.). Before joining Smashboards, I'd hardly done any of it before.
And it's also why I'm pleased to see that you've offered a thorough critique. I won't be able to check errors and blind spots and so on in a vacuum.
Yes you are correct, two different statement structures have no relation with each other. Much like one might ask:
a) Is there a reason for why the sky is perceived to be blue?
b) If there is no reason for the sky to be blue, should we kill ourselves?
Furthermore making these two statements and noting they are different is incredibly juvenile in the sense that the identity each statement achieves is completely different altogether. Statement A poses a question while Statement B proposes an action if the necessary condition i.e. no reason 4 living is fulfilled.
Now, it's been a few months since I first wrote and posted that first post, but I recalled wanting to be thorough. It's a habit I've ended up acquiring in participating in forums. Leave no stone unturned, and so on.
So while underlining these relations may not have been necessary (stating the obvious, etc.), I was inclined to do so as a result of linear brainstorming. If it's the case that you find this approach sloppy, then I wouldn't disagree. I'm interested in improvement, and know full well that I'm stepping into the ring with negligible training, as it were. But I'm working on it, little by little.
A] Is superfluous.
B] Is superfluous.
C] Is superfluous.
D] Is superfluous.
E] Is superfluous.
The five prompts you just blew up into a paragraph could have simply been requested as a desire for defining the prompt. Again attempting to 'intellectualize' a rather simple topic to give off the impression that it is more than what it is, simply a reflection on what people personally take to be a meaning for life. I feel that this entire prompt schematic is just another method of 'WOW DEBATE HALL SO DEEP' syndrome i.e. pseudo-intellectual syndrome because you probably won't even adhere to your own prompt to make "headway on this question". Actually without even going into looking at the rest of the thread I'm going to bet that you don't even adhere to your own prompt.
It once more seems it's coming down to my approach.
I didn't think about "intellectualizing" things; in fact, this is my first encounter with the concept of "intellectualization". Maybe for future reference, you could provide a definition of the term.
In any case, I simply saw the question -- "What's the Reason to Live?" -- and thought "well, that's rather vague, so I'll cover all the bases I can and see what that yields". It's like approaching a math problem; you take account of all the variables at play, what equations are relevant, and follow things through, wherever they lead.
Discussion on reasons for living need not be so systematic, of course, but that's both how I saw it fit to approach the question, and how I tend to mentally work through these kinds of topics.
I'm not sure one approach is more valid than another, so long as one's goals are clearly expressed. In my case, that first post was an formative hypothesis one how one might
go about trying to address the question. If I failed to make that clear, however, then I'll accept that misstep.
And if it's the case that I didn't try applying this proposed "methodology" myself in subsequent posts, then perhaps I should do so soon. I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't (as you forecast), as my goal for
that post was the proposition of a method, and nothing more.
As for the Debate Hall being deep, I suppose it's only as deep as you care to make it -- as the various posts in this thread illustrate. I don't remember thinking about this being a deep question; I saw a question that I had not previously put applied, on-paper thinking into, so I gave it a shot.
If that makes me a pseudo-intellectual, then so be it. Though the ideal is that in time, I further refine both my cognitive faculties and my writing approach and format -- if not to make better posts in the DH, then certainly to build some foundation for application elsewhere.
No, they don't. The absence of your reasoning for why there needs to be an elaboration of "God" is similar in nature to how someone might provide it as an answer. It being an answer doesn't require any further explanation because there is no deeper standard or judge who validates or denies the reasoning anyone gives for their perception of why they exist. To state that there needs to be a deeper religious context is laughable since religious inquiry at its deepest roots is ultimately a personal question of faith and interpersonal reaction with the forces that exist within the confines of it.
I'm afraid I'm having trouble following this bit. I'll try to reword it, to see if I understand:
Asking that one clearly define their conception of God is futile, because when it comes to matters of faith, there's a level of subjectivity at play. As a result, you can't demand objective definitions for something that, for most, is a highly personal, intuitive affair.
Is this anywhere in the ballpark? If not, could you clarify?
In other words, this post is garbage. The question is straight-forward. Pretending that the question isn't incredibly linear is like pretending that the most real answers to the meaning of life could simply be someone believing there is no meaning because they just got mugged on the street or fired from employment or some of the other actually valid answers that don't try to actually answer a basic prompt.
My response to the thread topic was "how might I, or anyone else, go about addressing this question?". Is the post then a failure because I didn't address the question proper in that same post? Would it be your view that, at least in the SWF Debate Hall, one should strive to address thread topics directly (or at least, come prepared with a case to present)? I can certainly concede to that, since it would be more efficient. It would required some tinkering on the approach I've grown used to, though.
I recall that, after musing on
how I'd go about addressing questions of living, I wasn't sure what I thought myself by the time I reached the end of writing the post. So I figured that first post was sufficient as an initial contribution to the discussion. As you noted previously, I might not have followed through in subsequent posts; in fact, I'm inclined to believe that's the case (I intend to scour through the thread again once I've finished this post, just to see what I actually wrote back in September or whatever).
No. He understands that people ask this question for reasons other than looking for the answer of finding a meaning. People do this b.s. when they're really looking for something else. It's disgusting how you intentionally act ignorant in order to coax out pseudo-intellectualism from the most basic statements.
My reaction was basicallty "while UltraDeino may be making a plausible inference about the OP (re: suicidal tendencies), I'm not sure this can be assumed outright, either". So I said as much.
Perhaps my wording as a bit callous in that regard, since their concerns about the OP's intent are certainly not invalid. Is it in this respect that I was being ignorant?
And once more, I agree; I approached this topic in a roundabout way. It's because I'd rather say more than I need, than to not say enough or to risk leaving out something important. These are extremes that I often struggle to compromise between, though I wouldn't disagree that I usually lean toward the former (to my detriment).
If you are able to ascertain the question itself as having the qualities of being 'valid' and a 'philosophical inquiry' then why did you state: "I'm not sure this question is makes much sense." You cannot evaluate a statement that you do not understand, you cannot appraise it as being 'valid' or a 'philosophical inquiry.'
Because I figured that the question does have merit in its pursuit. Surely, thinking about why it's worth living is a valid thing to contemplate. Seemed a reasonable assertion to me, at the time.
Yet, as per my "working through the math" approach, my first step was in examining the question as-is. I thought the question was valid to think about, but I wanted to explore the implications from scratch.
I think the issue may be because I divorced the question from all context, so that I could perform that examination. Hence my subsequent (and perhaps needless) deconstruction of the question. Perhaps the question didn't make immediate sense
precisely because I stripped it of all of its context. But I wanted to do a ground-up approach, which led to a disjointed (and thus inconsistent) post structure.
It just seems like this subforum is now half troll posts and the other half being complete Sophistry b.s. where people are attempting to turn the simplest discussion topics into a crappy philosophy 101 paper. I guess to some people who have the privilege, life is just a waste of time to kill for them.
Well, I can't speak to how the DH was before I started posting here more or less regularly (i.e. August-September, or thereabouts). It does seem like it was more active and robust in the times before I joined this site. It's certainly what a couple of users have said since I've started hanging out here.
I can see how the sophistry thing could have come about (i.e. talking much yet saying nothing, faux-ignorance, etc.). Though after having outlined how I opted to write my post, would you say that it still constitutes as sophistry? I'm sure we can both agree that this is something worth avoiding.
And I'm fully aware of my privilege. I do have a lot of time on my hands, though so far as the DH is concerned, I've elected to use it to stretch my wings, as it were. To start building a philosophical foundation for myself. For while I have always been a contemplative guy, I haven't tried to structure my thoughts into coherent frameworks.
But it's never too late to start, or so I'd think.
