All discussion is pointless. Discuss.

[Curtana]

With the exception of that which is clearly provable, arguments are just retrospective conscious justifications for what, deep down, is subconscious belief. Discuss.






It is made of iron, but is it irony?

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

There's a major gramatical error in that first paragraph. Faulty sentence construction, I'd say.

[Tom Paine]

All is clearly provable in the end, if people are willing to listen; discussion is predicated on the existence of that will.

[Yosemite]

We should pull out the clubs and fight to death, then discuss betwen winners.

[Curtana]

grampus n. sea-animal (Grampus griseus) resembling the dolphin and famous for blowing.

[Juggernaut]

Ultimately it is totally pointless, since there isn't even a way to prove your existence.
The life as we know it is based on the unconditional belief in your own existence.
It's all about enjoying that illusion.

[Tom Paine]

I can prove I exist - its a self-evidential statement. Its the problem of proving anything beyond myself that becomes hard.

[Juggernaut]

I can prove I exist - its a self-evidential statement. Its the problem of proving anything beyond myself that becomes hard.

Huh?
I don't think that works.
Can you prove that this world is not my dream and you are simply a illusion?
Or that you are a having a dream and you are actually totally different person?
Or someone in the 24st century is "playbacking" a memory of someone from the 21st century while his conscience is temporary cut off?

[enoch]

Solipsist

[Tom Paine]

"I think, I exist is true ... at least for as long as I think [it]." - Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy, Meditation 2. If i can think, I must exist, in order to be able to think - nothing can counterfeit my thoughts. However, what "I" am and whether I do in fact persist in time is another matter; what is undeniable is that something I call I exists.

[Juggernaut]

"I think, I exist is true ... at least for as long as I think [it]." - Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy, Meditation 2. If i can think, I must exist, in order to be able to think - nothing can counterfeit my thoughts. However, what "I" am and whether I do in fact persist in time is another matter; what is undeniable is that something I call I exists.

Don't be a Descartes.
I'm puzzled as to why you can believe Cogito Ergo Sum so easily.

[Tom Paine]

Actually to pick words to get the best effect, you need to.

That is not necessary to teaching though.

Don't be a Descartes.
I'm puzzled as to why you can believe Cogito Ergo Sum so easily.

Self-verifying. The problem is, what is "I"...

[Juggernaut]

Self-verifying. The problem is, what is "I"...

How is it self-verifying?
If you think about "it's impossible for someone/thing to completely fabricate my thought"
you'll realize the question itself won't make sense if the someone/thing is the one who makes will and decision(i.e. dream).
Because in that case, "I" do not have the will and decision but it's the someone/thing.
So your argument cannot counter-argue the possibility of this world being someone else's dream.
It all could be that I thinking in my dream that someone called Ozymandias thinks "I exists".

[Ummon]

Discussion isn't pointless for you if you discuss to learn.

[turtle]

I agree with Ummon.

All discussion boils down to is this: It is a process to help us better understand our premiss and it's conclusion. Or, in other words, to learn. We descuss for the pure want of knowledge.

All discussion is not pointless, in my opinion; it is more pointfull than no descussion. For without discussion we would have no conclusions, and with no conclusions we would have no presumptions to work with because there would be no conclusion to presume from, and with no presumptions to work with and against, we would have no understanding of anything.

So, I would have to disagree with the thread starter. If it were pointless then how, as you said in your first post, could it be for the purpose of gratifying subliminal belief; for if this was the case and only this, would that not be a point of some kind?

EDIT: Something doesn't have to be made of iron to be ironic. If iron were ironic, it would be in such a way: This wooden boat is made of iron... or something like that. I'm not sure why you brought that up, unless you were trying to be pointless... to make a point.

[LSJ]

It depends on what you consider pointless, or what "meaningful" is. If you are referring to your life, it achieves something; it makes your life better, helps you understand something, entertains you... If you mean beyond your lifetime, then it is pointless for you, but still not pointless for humanity (if the subject is something of value).
However, discussion can be pointless: something like discussing the greyness of a grey sky when it adds nothing to knowledge, helps no one, and has no entertainment value... But even that may have a point, if the purpose is simply to pass time.

And no, I refuse to discuss. Oh, too late...

[Tom Paine]

Discussion isn't pointless for you if you discuss to learn.

Or to teach, surely.

[Ummon]

Well, in truth, the two are indistinguishable...

[Tom Paine]

Hardly. To teach and to learn are not even inseparable.

[Ummon]

You see, any human communication is bidirectional. Any time you communicate, by necessity, you learn. If you aren't busy trying not to, of course...