- 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.
the plant that doesn’t exist is not worse off, it’s not anything at all.
Does this not mean that you can't say that being alive is better than being dead?
Only from the position of existence. A reality where things matter is what we have. The reality in which nothing matters doesn’t exist, but that’s not a worse off realitybecause it simply isn’t in existence.(...) My position is that this is only the case because existence is the case. The hypothetical universe wherein there is nothing, doesn’t actually exist.
So can we not compare hypothetical states?
Since it is fundamental, it necessarily is the case.
The reason I believe consciousness to be fundamental to the universe is because a place where nothing has any significance may as well not exist. This is why I think the ability to make significance is transcendentally significant.
Given existence is the case, it is preferable to non-existence.
So, and correct me if I'm wrong, there are better and worse states? Moreover, existence is better than non-existence?
I voted to leave, the EU is becoming a federal superstate and the laws are written by an unelected commission. Sure, we elect the EU parliament, but they cannot write laws, they can only vote on the laws created by the unelected commission. In other words when people claim they want to reform the EU they are actually saying "we will hope that the EU reforms itself". This is because we have no power to elect people that can actually propose legislation.
From my current perspective of existing, yeah that’s worse. But had I never existed, I can’t say I would care.
Existing is better than not existing regardless of whether you are capable of caring about it though. So does this not show that there's something missed in your conceptualization of better and worse states?
On a macro scale, if nothing ever perceived this universe because perceiving entities never existed, it wouldn’t matter.
Nothing at all would matter, and surely a reality where things can matter is better than one where things cannot?
By my view, reality is only in a better or worse state from a given perspective... Nonexistence is only a worse condition from the perspective of existence.
So, and correct me if I'm wrong, if you didn't exist tomorrow that wouldn't be a worse state for you because you wouldn't exist to be able to perceive that things were worse?
There is some degree of pretending to be the hero as escapism but I think it's deeper than that. Dr. Peterson would say that while people are watching these hero stories they are trying to learn how to become heroes themselves. They admire the archetypal hero's struggle and watch it as a target for emulation.
I think the root of our disagreement here is the concept of "transcendental mattering" and so I'll try to explain what I mean. There are better and worse states. Since there are better and worse states we can say that some things transcendentally matter because they can create better or worse states. This is the point that I tried to make with consciousness not existing; if consciousness didn't exist then reality is in a worse state. If nothing is important to anything then everything may as well not exist or act.