Instigator / Pro

Ehyeh

1487

rating

debates

35.48%

won

Topic

#3624

THBT: suffering occurs due to false belief

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06

Tags

Philosophy

Parameters

Publication date: 08.03.2022 12:45PM
Last updated date: 09.04.2022 01:57AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: One week
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Intelligence_06

1737

rating

172

debates

73.26%

won

Description

Pro: suffering occurs due to false belief
Con: suffering doesn't occur due to false belief

Round 1

Ehyeh

08.05.2022 10:02AM

Pro

Distinction between belief and fact

Within the title of this debate, it is not whether it is a fact that suffering occurs due to false facts but whether it occurs due to false belief. This is a very important distinction which must be kept in mind. As a result, my argument is based on a Pascals wager, and how, when faced with uncertainty, my position logically follows to be the more appropriate one, as opposed to whatever CON proposes.

Pain/suffering distinction

Before a discussion can be had on whether suffering is strictly caused by a wrong belief, we must first question what suffering is, where it lies, and where it ends. I argue suffering is a mental condition, not a physical one. I can get a paper cut, but I wouldn't say I was "suffering" but simply in pain. Therefore, suffering is not caused by physical distress but a mental interpretation of physical distress.

Viktor Frankl / mans search for meaning

How do we endure suffering? you can only endure suffering when you believe it has value. In his book /Man’s Search for Meaning/, Viktor Frankl wrote, “in some way, suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning”.

Therefore i will be arguing that Viktor Frankl is right, that suffering only exists, in so-far as we believe its pointless.

"If you can't endure suffering, then you aren't free, you're a slave to whatever will protect you from suffering."- Dostoevsky

The monk

You’re a slave to whatever will protect you from suffering. And why is that the case? Let’s take a closer look at The Worldly Person to find out. The worldly person believes that freedom lies in pleasure and comfort. So they spend their lives acquiring things such as money, status, cars, clothes, romantic partners, good foods, vacations, and so on. They spend their lives creating palaces of comfort. But what happens when they’re deprived of their comforts? What happens when they lose their money, their status, and their fancy food? They start to suffer, and since they have no idea how to suffer, they’ll serve any idea that offers them an escape from their suffering. They’ll serve anyone who promises them comfort and pleasure again. So the worldly person isn’t free because they can’t endure suffering, and because they can’t endure suffering, they’ll be slaves to anything that offers them an escape from it. But how does that compare to the monk?

The Monk believes that freedom lies in our ability to withstand discomfort. So they spend their life mastering discomfort and overcoming the need for pleasure. They create mental castles that allow them to overcome any amount of discomfort, and what happens when they lose their comforts? Their money, status, and fancy foods? Nothing, because they’re not attached to those things. They’re still able to overcome suffering and serve their idea, mission, or purpose, and because of that, the Monk is truly free. But what allows the Monk to endure suffering?

What is the meaning behind suffering?

Is there a reason for the suffering of an innocent child? I can’t prove to you that there is, but I also can’t prove to you that there isn’t. So to me, that means it’s a personal choice that you have to make. You have to choose whether or not to have faith. If you have faith that there’s a reason and meaning for suffering, you’ll be able to endure it, even if you don’t know exactly what that reason is, and by being able to endure suffering, you will not be a slave to pleasure and comfort, an by not being a slave to pleasure and comfort, you’ll retain your freedom, and by retaining your freedom, you’ll be able to serve any idea you want, rather than the idea someone else wants you to serve. But if you believe suffering has no meaning, it makes no sense to endure it, and it makes perfect sense to escape from it through pleasure and comfort, but if you escape from it, when tragedy eventually strikes, when you lose the pleasure and comfort you built for yourself, the only responsible action that remains is suicide.

Fear and suffering

Evidently based on what I have previously said, I have demonstrated that suffering is a mental concept and never a physical one. This means suffering occurs due to a fear of hopelessness. Any sane individual when faced with a pascals wager of this sort will choose to believe their suffering has meaning as opposed to it not, if one wishes to live. Therefore for as long as one is believing you ought to agree with my side, unless you wish to live the life of a hypocrite.

Intelligence_06

08.05.2022 12:58PM

Con

1. What is Suffering?

Argument:

In order for one to have a definition preferable and more reliable than the dictionary one, one must show himself to be more credible than the dictionary.
There has been no evidence listed by Ehyeh or anyone else to show that he is in fact a contributor of any dictionaries, is a scholar on such subjects or similar figures. Ehyeh has shown in no cases that he is more authentic in defining terms than a dictionary. (Please present proof if any, next round)
Therefore, it is preferrable to use the dictionary definition than Ehyeh's presented in this round, for now.

In fact, such anecdotal and subjective claims on what a term means is a belief and should not be taken as a fact.

Merriam-Webster

SUFFERING:

1: the state or experience of one that suffers
2: PAIN

Suffer:

intransitive verb: especially : characterized by not having or containing a direct object (Which is how it is used in 1)
1: to endure death, pain, or distress
2: to sustain loss or damage
3: to be subject to disability or handicap

Pain:

1a(1): a localized or generalized unpleasant bodily sensation or complex of sensations that causes mild to severe physical discomfort and emotional distress and typically results from bodily disorder (such as injury or disease)acute shooting painsalso : the state marked by the presence of such sensations
(2): a basic bodily sensation that is induced by a noxious stimulus, is received by naked nerve endings, is associated with actual or potential tissue damage, is characterized by physical discomfort (such as pricking, throbbing, or aching), and typically leads to evasive action
b: mental or emotional distress or suffering : GRIEF

Merriam-Webster is a verified and reliable source, Ehyeh is not.

Suffering means:

Feeling of discomfort physically or mentally
Having damage(unspecified whether physically or mentally)

Debunk this definition if you can.

With this definition, these are suffering without false belief.

Having an arm cut off(painfully and without consent)
Torture based on controlling neurons in the brain such that thoughts of self-acceptance and such are removed and the painful thoughts persist.
Drinking poison unknowingly(while having no disease that renders you unresponsive to pain)
Being hit by a rogue rocketship going 8km/s and having too little time to find meaning before dying

In which all of these are possible. There has been NO restriction on what suffering must be considered so Pro has prove ALL suffering originate from false belief while Con only needs one counterexample.

2. Rebuttal on Justification of Pro

Is there a reason for the suffering of an innocent child? I can’t prove to you that there is, but I also can’t prove to you that there isn’t. So to me, that means it’s a personal choice that you have to make.

Not quite. It has been scientific consensus that babies can feel pain(before they know any better to find peace within, of course). In fact, the fact that fetuses feel pain BEFORE birth has lead to various US states illegalizing abortion. In fact, we can't prove anyone is suffering at all if dig deep enough and question the existence of everything, so there is no point in using this as a supporting proof.

I argue suffering is a mental condition, not a physical one. I can get a paper cut, but I wouldn't say I was "suffering" but simply in pain.

I argue physical pain can lead to suffering. I can get hit by a 18-wheeler, but I would say that is both pain and suffering. Also, anecdotal evidence like this is not reliable.

In his book /Man’s Search for Meaning/, Viktor Frankl wrote, “in some way, suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning”.
Therefore i will be arguing that Viktor Frankl is right, that suffering only exists, in so-far as we believe its pointless.
"If you can't endure suffering, then you aren't free, you're a slave to whatever will protect you from suffering."- Dostoevsky

Without further proof, this is an appeal to authority fallacy.

But what happens when they’re deprived of their comforts? What happens when they lose their money, their status, and their fancy food? They start to suffer, and since they have no idea how to suffer, they’ll serve any idea that offers them an escape from their suffering.

This proof originate from one aspect of existence. Obviously you can be detached from wealth and posessions, but there is one thing you can't reliably lose: Your body, which is a living set of sensors. Please, per my request, justify the reason why being stabbed in the lungs not suffering for any biologically regular person. What about being hit bullseye by a heavy cannon? Being blasted the radioactive shockwaves of an atom bomb? Being Darth Vader in This scene? I would argue that in normal purposes of argumentation, if one is conscious enduring any of these, it is considered suffering.

Or give a way reliably to transfer the mind of a person to separate it from the human body. Without that, it would be admitted that one's mind is pretty much bound to one's body. You cannot detach from your body itself on command, so far.

The Monk believes that freedom lies in our ability to withstand discomfort. So they spend their life mastering discomfort and overcoming the need for pleasure.

If I chop the leg of a monk off on public street without guard up, pretty sure he will be suffering for at least a few moments. The mind is not infinitely speedy and the pain leads to the brain for a shorter amount of time before realizing what this could mean consciously. For example, you complain for a few seconds before calming yourself down when you are paper-cut. It is sign that your consciousness aids you slower than the harm alarms you.

and what happens when they lose their comforts? Their money, status, and fancy foods?

When someone stabs their chest, their lungs, hearts, guts, resulting in lost blood and oxygen supply. If that is not enough, try kicking them around five times or more, might as well cut all four limbs off. How would they reliably still be comfortable?

and by being able to endure suffering, you will not be a slave to pleasure and comfort, an by not being a slave to pleasure and comfort, you’ll retain your freedom

Oh, so having a mind of one's own and finding reasoning in suffering makes yourself not of "false belief"? ...wait, wait a second there. "Endure suffering"? Can these individuals undergo pain or not? What Pro is suggesting is that suffering can still exist even for the perfect mind without false belief(which I mind you, hasn't been clearly defined yet). That goes against his own position volutarily taken in this debate! Drop this argument or the entire case, I am waiting.

Just because you can endure suffering doesn't make it non-suffering, or as Pro has never shown with clarity.

Evidently based on what I have previously said, I have demonstrated that suffering is a mental concept and never a physical one. This means suffering occurs due to a fear of hopelessness.

No, you said that suffering is something that can be endured by finding a meaning to it and even eliminating hopelessness. It exists despite a lack of false belief. Also, the torture device that rids you of other thoughts and make painful thoughts endure, MENTALLY, would count as a counterexample. Please debunk this if possible.

Conclusions

Since one cannot reliably detach from one's body, it is incorrect to say that suffering is never physically, ESPECIALLY physical affairs can lead to mental ones(for example, you feel hurt when you are shot by a bullet, or being crushed by an elevator).

Cutting one's limb off before realizing what they can make out of it is suffering even for the perfect monk, even if it only happens for a short amount of time.
Torture devices designed to only imput painful stigmas while removing fear or hopelessness(just pain, you can feel it though) still can induce pain and suffering for a biologically normal person.

What finding meaning in suffering results in for Pro is not adequately justified as it is purely just an appeal to authority.

In fact, suffering is still suffering even if we remove "false belief" and endure it with reason and peace with oneself. Suffering still can take place according to Pro even if there is no false belief.

Pro has never proven that his interpretations are more reliable than the dictionary definition.

Merriam-Webster is verified by other sites.
The definition given by M-W Dictionary states that any physical or mental pain or damage is suffering, which is not only possible but possibly common.

Overall, Pro has failed to prove his position to be correct. Vote CON!

Round 2

Ehyeh

08.10.2022 08:20PM

Pro

Cons case:

Unfortunately, a large portion of Cons's case was spent on an appeal to authority. He states my usage of the word "suffering" is incorrect as it doesn't follow the Merriam-Webster definition, yet offers no justification or philosophical dialogue as to why this definition is better than the one I offered (which did have metaphysical reasoning as to why it is better). He expects you to just believe it because "it's more trustworthy than pro". You must prove there definition more reliable, not assume it is.
If I choose to even admit my usage of the word "suffering" wasn't in alignment with what people generally mean by it, that fact in itself doesn't mean my usage of it isn't more precise or more accurate (based on my philosophical justification as to why). Yes, I believe my definition is more precise than the dictionary's. Now you have to debate it with me, and see if I'm more precise than these scholars or not.
Con spent the majority of the round simply copying and pasting the Merriam-Webster definition of suffering, with no philosophical justification for why this definition is superior to the one I presented. His argument was a complete nonsequiter and added nothing to the discussion nor disproved my interpretation of what suffering should mean and entail.

you can have pain without suffering
you cannot have suffering without pain

It's really that simple. You can appeal to dictionary definitions and not actually debate the topic all you want, yet my point remains uncontested. I think the dictionary definition is reductionist. Show me it isn't.

If I simply said "a sheep is white" to someone who has never seen a sheep, but I have. Should they believe me just because I said it? The obvious answer is no. Listen to me and believe me, just because I said it would simply be an appeal to my authority based on the fact that I've seen a sheep. Con does the exact same thing here, but with definitions and scholars.

Dissecting semantics

Merriam-Webster

SUFFERING:

1: the state or experience of one that suffers
2: PAIN

Suffer:

intransitive verb: especially : characterized by not having or containing a direct object (Which is how it is used in 1)
1: to endure death, pain, or distress
2: to sustain loss or damage
3: to be subject to disability or handicap

Pain and suffering are both the same, except pain is a broader experience than suffering (I understand you might not believe me; English isn't your first language, after all).

In the same sense that justice is part of doing "goodness," goodness is broader than justice.
In this same sense, suffering is part of pain, but I can experience pain without suffering. Just because there is overlap between pain and suffering and dictionaries arbitrarily lump them together doesn't mean they're one and the same.
I claim the dictionary you present simply shows what people can gain a sense of suffering from. Yet they're not suffering in itself, but in pain. Prove me wrong. Let's debate the topic of stipulation and not debate semantics. Please intelligence, please.
to demonstrate that "intelligence" is simply appealing to authority. If I found a dictionary definition that said:

desert definition:

1. desert as in a hot biome filled with sand

2. desert as in to desert the military or leave post

Evidently, this same word has two different meanings in different contexts. Not all dictionaries will include both definitions of this word. A good example would be dictionary.com. This dictionary only cites the definition of a desert being a hot biome. Evidently, this shows dictionaries can have flaws. I hope this has been convincing enough of an example to allow con to show that Merriam Webster's definition is superior to mine, instead of just assuming it is.

"debunking definitions"

Debunk this definition if you can.

With this definition, these are suffering without false belief.
Having an arm cut off(painfully and without consent)
Torture based on controlling neurons in the brain such that thoughts of self-acceptance and such are removed and the painful thoughts persist.
Drinking poison unknowingly(while having no disease that renders you unresponsive to pain)
Being hit by a rogue rocketship going 8km/s and having too little time to find meaning before dying

I've already told you my perspective and why I disagree with lumping pain and suffering together in the first round. I would say all of these can only be suffering through some sort of expectation/sense of hopelessness.

Not quite. It has been scientific consensus that babies can feel pain(before they know any better to find peace within, of course). In fact, the fact that fetuses feel pain BEFORE birth has lead to various US states illegalizing abortion. In fact, we can't prove anyone is suffering at all if dig deep enough and question the existence of everything, so there is no point in using this as a supporting proof.

Babies feel pain. We don't disagree.

we can't prove anyone is suffering at all if dig deep enough and question the existence of everything, so there is no point in using this as a supporting proof.

That would be called a kritik, so we're not going to go there.

argue physical pain can lead to suffering. I can get hit by a 18-wheeler, but I would say that is both pain and suffering. Also, anecdotal evidence like this is not reliable.

Why? You can say that all you want, but why is that? The definitions alone aren't good enough evidence. You offered no philosophical justification for those definitions. Give me something to work with. I evidently disagree, and that suffering can only exist through an emotional experience of hopelessness. You can gain that sense of hopelessness through physical pain, but it isn't the physical pain itself that causes that in my mind. Back your statements up with substance instead of simply stating them as fact. I've done it. Now it's your turn.

Without further proof, this is an appeal to authority fallacy.

I gave you my proof for why i support their ideology. Unlike you with Merriam-Webster.

This proof originate from one aspect of existence. Obviously you can be detached from wealth and posessions, but there is one thing you can't reliably lose: Your body, which is a living set of sensors. Please, per my request, justify the reason why being stabbed in the lungs not suffering for any biologically regular person. What about being hit bullseye by a heavy cannon? Being blasted the radioactive shockwaves of an atom bomb? Being Darth Vader in This scene? I would argue that in normal purposes of argumentation, if one is conscious enduring any of these, it is considered suffering.

In my ideology, there is such a thing as people dying with a smile on their faces even while in pain. Stoic philosophers also argue that suffering is in the mind, not the body, and that a truly whole man could be happy while being tortured. A good example of this is the fact that we can breed certain cultures that glorify suicide. These people dont die suffering if they believed they died for a worthwhile cause or believed in a better afterlife. Examples of this are jihadists and suicide bombers (kamikaze pilots). Prove me wrong.

If I chop the leg of a monk off on public street without guard up, pretty sure he will be suffering for at least a few moments. The mind is not infinitely speedy and the pain leads to the brain for a shorter amount of time before realizing what this could mean consciously.

Pain is different but related to suffering. He likely would feel suffering due to the fact that he wouldn't expect that to happen to him. Buddhist philosophy is predicated on the idea that expectation leads to suffering. I support this ideology. Our expectations lead us to hopelessness and then suffering.

When someone stabs their chest, their lungs, hearts, guts, resulting in lost blood and oxygen supply. If that is not enough, try kicking them around five times or more, might as well cut all four limbs off. How would they reliably still be comfortable?

I never said suffering is always avoidable. You will always suffer as we always have expectations. My argument is simply that suffering comes about due to the mind, not the body.

When someone stabs their chest, their lungs, hearts, guts, resulting in lost blood and oxygen supply. If that is not enough, try kicking them around five times or more, might as well cut all four limbs off. How would they reliably still be comfortable?

Yes. Re-read round 1.

Conclusions

Since one cannot reliably detach from one's body, it is incorrect to say that suffering is never physically, ESPECIALLY physical affairs can lead to mental ones(for example, you feel hurt when you are shot by a bullet, or being crushed by an elevator).
Cutting one's limb off before realizing what they can make out of it is suffering even for the perfect monk, even if it only happens for a short amount of time.
Torture devices designed to only imput painful stigmas while removing fear or hopelessness(just pain, you can feel it though) still can induce pain and suffering for a biologically normal person.
What finding meaning in suffering results in for Pro is not adequately justified as it is purely just an appeal to authority.
In fact, suffering is still suffering even if we remove "false belief" and endure it with reason and peace with oneself. Suffering still can take place according to Pro even if there is no false belief.
Pro has never proven that his interpretations are more reliable than the dictionary definition.
Merriam-Webster is verified by other sites.
The definition given by M-W Dictionary states that any physical or mental pain or damage is suffering, which is not only possible but possibly common.
Overall, Pro has failed to prove his position to be correct. Vote CON!

Conclusion

1. my kamikaze example is a good argument against that.

2. my argument isn't that suffering is avoidable therefore irrelevant.

I've sadly ran out of characters so i cannot answer the rest for this round.

Intelligence_06

08.14.2022 02:31PM

Con

Rebuttal: "Pro used actual logic"

Does it matter? I would argue not.

First, let's go back and dissect, in spectator mode, how "logical" Pro's "proof" is in R1.

Before a discussion can be had on whether suffering is strictly caused by a wrong belief, we must first question what suffering is, where it lies, and where it ends. I argue suffering is a mental condition, not a physical one. I can get a paper cut, but I wouldn't say I was "suffering" but simply in pain. Therefore, suffering is not caused by physical distress but a mental interpretation of physical distress.

This was Pro's "Proof" on why Pain is different from suffering: Anecdotal evidence, in which he used 1 specific example to illustrate why pain differs from suffering, a grand total of 0 scholarly articles or original proof. Pro essentially just used the term "suffering" without drawing a clear enough line of what it actually means, with the involvement of no defintions.

Then, he based the rest of the argument taking this guess as utmost solid justification, despite not giving at all definition(not even by himself) what "suffering" is. Defining what "suffering" based on that would be circular reasoning.

In R1, then again, Pro did not state any method that could remove suffering: Pro merely claimed that suffering can be endured by removing false belief, but they still exist. What this means is that suffering still could occur even with false belief removed.

Words

All the debates on this site appears a set of terms. What are terms? In english, a collection of letters, which in turn are arbitrary symbols with no inherent meaning a priori. All grants to a word definitions are thus arbitrary or subjective. There would be no fixations on what ideas a term encompasses, and one must not confuse any fixed idea with the terms they are bound to, as the terms could encompass many ideas, namely the term "desert".

This topic consists of words, not arbitrary or abstract ideas independent from words, thus we ought to treat them as words and not abstract ideas that could be bound to it. What Pro is doing is assigning attributes and distinctions to a term without defining it, as a result, to a person that has never suffered, he would get as much idea as what "suffering" is as a person who has never seen a white sheep in Pro's example. Pro just stuffs the term upon scenarios without explaining what it is, and that should NOT pass as a definition, as I cheeseburger not define the term "cheeseburger" as the term "would".

Especially since the users of the language determines what a word means, not any given one individual, as of now. Merriam-Webster collects how people have always been using the terms, as given by a source saying it is credible last round, and is still doing now. So far, Pro has listed no evidence other than scholarly quotes supporting his set of ideas projected upon the terms, no surveys on how people use it. On the other hand, I do, with MW dictionary. I am appealing to valid authority here.

This dictionary only cites the definition of a desert being a hot biome.

MW is superior in this specific case. This point holds no weight.

Pain and suffering are both the same, except pain is a broader experience than suffering.

Pro has merely given distinctions and attributes to Pain and Suffering. That is as much a definition as defining “Human" as "something with 2 legs, no feathers and a head”. Neither are. Pro can criticize, it is just his critics does not make his case stronger at all. Why do you think you are correct when a dictionary that collects how people have always been using the terms for years is against you? On a place that argues terms, not ideas?

Basically Concession

Pain is different but related to suffering. He likely would feel suffering due to the fact that he wouldn't expect that to happen to him. Buddhist philosophy is predicated on the idea that expectation leads to suffering. I support this ideology. Our expectations lead us to hopelessness and then suffering.

This quote is basically concession. If someone can feel suffering without expectations or thinking at all, it exists and there is no false belief. That is all it would take to bring down the topic.

Then again, no one would constantly expect themselves to be hurt in a normal circumstance: It would be obvious, that is why you feel surprised when you are unknowingly being hit by a bat or a gun bullet, and scream out in pain when it hurts bad. Most if not all of us do not come with the ability of sense the near future, and when it hurts before we can calm ourselves down, we suffer. To be fair, every time we are in pain so long enough that we can sense it through the nerves but not long enough for you to think about it, there is suffering. While the opposite of "false belief" could probably prevent pain from being suffering long-term, suffering clearly could exist without beliefs at all.

In my ideology, there is such a thing as people dying with a smile on their faces even while in pain.

Because you expect yourself to be hurt and die. Normal cases involve people expecting normal things, and being killed on the spot is usually not one of them. Therefore, you would have a limited(or even unlimited) period of suffering before making up your mind of what it is and how it could benefit you(if any). For Kamikaze pilots, they just have already made up their mind for it and expected themselves to die, which ironically prevented most part of suffering in the scenario. As dying in many common ways is painful(and pain could induce suffering due to physical damages make you feel bad by nerves), such as cardiac arrest or lung cancer, we rather should not consider the cases of people dying with a smile the default, rather, the average death is painful and suffering could still exist before making up your mind amidst the pain.

"False" belief

Can we just agree on the definition of "false"? It means something like "not true" or similarly.

Pro has given no justification on why the "false beliefs" mentioned are actually false. In fact, Pro barely mentioned what "false beliefs" are. He again has assigned no elements to the set of false beliefs, thus no juxtaposition with such as "true beliefs". Pro has not even fulfilled his BoP.

I really don't have another way of interpreting this, but "false beliefs" would probably be illusions of beliefs when in reality they don't believe in so. For example, a hypocrite would say they believe in X(which is something) while not actually preaching X in action, which renders X a false belief for said hypocrite.

Fearing something and being hopeless about something, on the other hand, could be believed genuinely. For example, according to Pro, the worldly person would cling on to posessions and are afraid of losing them, and that is believable. In fact, fight-or-flight responses are an evolutionary part of humans and can be explained scientifically. As a result, they are true, natural, organic, non-artificial, and they are essential for guiding us in surviving in nature, which fits NONE of the descriptions for "false". Most animals could hoard belongings, fight-or-flight in responses, and cry out in agony when you cut their limb in half. Suffering is as real as humans are, as well as what "fear" is. They are true, not false.

I never said suffering is always avoidable. You will always suffer as we always have expectations. My argument is simply that suffering comes about due to the mind, not the body.

Exactly. expectations which lead to suffering is true, not false, for reasons explained directly above.

Conclusion

1. my kamikaze example is a good argument against that.
2. my argument isn't that suffering is avoidable therefore irrelevant.

Pro has never actually defined what "suffering" is, he merely brought distinctions and attributes, which is not enough for definitions.

I have presented proof of MW dictionary being an authentic source by people, including that their defintions collect how people use terms like "suffering".

Pro has never defined what "false beliefs" are or what is "false" about anything.

Every kind of "belief" Pro has brought up can be argued to be true, not false, because they exist in humans and rightfully so from evolution, satisfying none of the descriptions by the term "false".

Suffering can exist without beliefs.

People can go expecting nothing, and an assasination attempt on anyone would come as surprise, mostly. If the pain collected by the nerves reaches our brain faster than our brain can calm ourselves with it, that is where suffering exists, without the need of expectation or belief.
Obviously, Kamikaze pilots are just ready beforehand and expect themselves to die before they actually do. Most deaths are painful and unexpected, and they induce suffering before we can think about it.

Not all suffering occur due to false belief. Vote Con.

Round 3

Ehyeh

08.20.2022 04:25PM

Pro

This is a philosophical discussion. It's wholly impossible to prove we all experience things the same way. I have no idea if you actually experience the taste of a pizza the same way I do (i assume you do). In this same manner, I would assume you're being dishonest if you don't believe there's a difference between suffering and pain (unless English isn't your first language).

I've lost interest in continuing this discussion, in part because it seems like you will just play the ultimate skeptic. That or we just have fundamentally different biology which processes things differently (I think you're being dishonest if you said that were the case).

Intelligence_06

08.21.2022 01:57AM

Con

This is a philosophical discussion. It's wholly impossible to prove we all experience things the same way. I have no idea if you actually experience the taste of a pizza the same way I do (i assume you do).

Not only did PRO not demonstrate what "false belief" is or what is false about it(or anything really), this is almost a concession due to Pro admitting that experience can be in subjective lights. Since Pro's argument are either anecdotal or from supposed real-life scenarios, this simply makes most of the evidence that Pro has brought up to be ineffective if not outright nullified.

As for "this is a philosophical discussion":

Whatever "philosophical discussion" actually means in this exact location, this phrase or any phrase in similarity was absent from the description. Or, in short terms, I did not sign up for this.
As a result, I will(and I have) treat(ed) this this topic as any other: a topic written in words and shall be interpreted in words, as opposed to arbitrary ideas of clarivoyance. My argument reflect this as they clearly stress on what some key words mean, given the grammatics and context.
We do not have to "discuss" what "suffering" or even "pain" means during this debate due to that both terms are already in circulation with commonality commonly among the communities. Highly-organized constructs/organizations such as Merriam-Webster Dictionary have collected definitions and interpretations of terms like this for ages among the citizens within the world. In this case, people do in fact use the two terms possibly interchangeably, as a noun, in its correct place. Ehyeh is not a more qualified scholar on words than those hired at Merriam-Websters, at least not with any proof here.
Thus, this sentence amounts to basically nothing here.

In this same manner, I would assume you're being dishonest if you don't believe there's a difference between suffering and pain (unless English isn't your first language).

I don't make the rules, the people do, and the people say they are used interchangeably. You don't make the rules either, so the cry of outrage will unfortunately be ignored as personal feelings are not nearly as strong as, for example, a verifiably authentic dictionary complex defining a word due to how people use it.

That being said, English being my second language sure does help a lot with my intuition by having an easier time interpreting words as grammatical and semantical constructs. ;)

In this case, Pro's failure of a clear definition would clearly enable both terms to be used interchangeably as long as they stay being nouns.

I've lost interest in continuing this discussion, in part because it seems like you will just play the ultimate skeptic. That or we just have fundamentally different biology which processes things differently (I think you're being dishonest if you said that were the case).

One loses a topic when his argument does not stand when upon scrutiny. If playing the ultimate skeptic makes me the winner, I will do it. All Pro's "proof" of me being dishonest was that he feels so, which keep in mind 2 sentences away from that Pro himself claimed that senses are subjective, so, of course, none of these should be counted as valid justification.

I am not sure, maybe we process things differently, however, I have shown to process words as words with definitions within this debate topic, so of course this is not and should not be the incorrect approach. Of course, I could just argue that the different perception(for example, if we process pizza differently) could lead to us interpreting words differently, but I actually don't need that, because my view of the words is among the majority surveyed and recorded by M-W Dictionary.

Conclusion: extend:

Pro has yet to clearly establish what "false belief" exactly is, making so that Pro did not actually fulfill his BoP.
Assasinations are examples: You don't have to expect anything to suffer, just as you would suffer when you get suprisingly stabbed from the back before you make up your mind about what it is. You would be hurt and you would sense it before your thought catches up. In this timeframe at least, you suffer without the need of any belief at all.
False beliefs are nonexistent due to tautology. Based on Con's source from M-W Dictionary, the topic is essentially impossible to prove.
M-W is a more authentic source on what a word means than Ehyeh, and M-W states that "pain" and "suffering" can be used interchangeably, which pain is obviously common.
Pro admits that suffering can be felt without the clear inteference of any belief at all.
Kamikaze pilots are special cases where they do know what they are doing. For people being assasinated, they would absolutely suffer before knowing what has been done to them.
As a result, Pro's proposition is not proven true but proven to be untrue by Con as of this point. Vote CON if you find my argument to be the more convincing out of the two.

Thank you for reading this hunk of text.

Ehyeh

09.01.2022 08:42AM

#12

If you truly think the pain from an amputation is the cause of suffering itself (at best all that can be said is the pain from an amputation necessarily always leads to suffering). Then that's honestly why humanity is lost. No wonder everyone has mental health issues and possess a lack of empathy etc. Philosophers came to the conclusion I did thousands of years ago. There was no moving of any goalposts. When did i claim (anywhere in the description or title) that we can always avoid false beliefs? strawman. If its true what causes suffering is subjective (if its caused by the mind and a sense of lack, and expectation) no suffering would occur even in "facts of the matter".

Merriam webster is not a better source than philosophers. Merrian webster simply follows popular usage (most people dont dissect their language as much as philosophers). Scientism.

K_Michael

09.01.2022 12:57AM

#11

Sorry for the long vote. I had a lot to say.

Ehyeh

08.05.2022 01:16PM

#10

-->

@Intelligence_06

There's nothing needed to support the philosophy ( in terms of definitions). I gave you an argument for the logical distinction between suffering and pain. I put this despite what any authority figure says. Yet then, showing me a definition where they're considered the same doesn't prove anything, as I directly disagree with them if they think they're the exact same. You must argue with the logic I present for the separation (instead of offering a definition which disagrees but doesn't state why, as there's nothing there that debunks my philosophy). Suffering is part of pain, but suffering is much broader than pain, but I'll shut up and just make my argument.

Intelligence_06

08.05.2022 01:10PM

-->

@Ehyeh

Also, you have sourced basically nothing except two which does not exactly support your view

Intelligence_06

08.05.2022 01:08PM

-->

@Ehyeh

You have time to say this & justification in arguments soon. The comment section does not matter. If you think I am wrong, go for it.

Ehyeh

08.05.2022 01:08PM

pain and suffering are connected but very distinct words. No amount of definitions where you show them overlapping disproves the clear distinction I used with logic. But you will find that out next round.

Ehyeh

08.05.2022 01:05PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

Definitions tend to reduce truth to confine them to general knowledge, within philosophy the definitions of words is broadened and if they cannot be broadened we make new words. Its funny to me you used these definitions despite me showing wreckage is wrong in his definitions.

Ehyeh

08.05.2022 10:05AM

"Evidently based on what I have previously said, I have demonstrated that suffering is a mental concept and never a physical one. This means suffering occurs due to a fear of hopelessness. Any sane individual when faced with a pascals wager of this sort will choose to believe their suffering has meaning as opposed to it not, if one wishes to live. Therefore for as long as one is believing you ought to agree with my side, unless you wish to live the life of a hypocrite."

for as long as one is living is what i meant to say here, not believing.

Ehyeh

08.04.2022 03:52PM

ONEEE KISS IS ALL IT TAKKKKES

RationalMadman

08.03.2022 12:49PM

You are welcome

Ehyeh

08.03.2022 12:48PM

thank you. Actually no, my description was more correct than my title.

RationalMadman

08.03.2022 12:47PM

-->

@Ehyeh

Why does your description leave out the word 'all'?

K_Michael

09.01.2022 12:56AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Arguments: Once again I seem to have found a debate where at least one participant seems to be arguing a different claim than the title of the debate states. It would be really nice if this was clarified in the description so that it is absolutely clear beforehand what is in question. I will be rating this debate in terms of the title claim, "suffering occurs due to false belief" rather than any posited afterwards. This bodes badly for Pro because he manages to use the phrase "false belief(s)" exactly once in all of his arguments.
R1. Pro starts by making points to the effect that " suffering is a mental concept and never a physical one," and "If you have faith that there’s a reason and meaning for suffering, you’ll be able to endure it, even if you don’t know exactly what that reason is, and by being able to endure suffering, you will not be a slave to pleasure and comfort, an by not being a slave to pleasure and comfort, you’ll retain your freedom, and by retaining your freedom, you’ll be able to serve any idea you want, rather than the idea someone else wants you to serve." (this run-on sentence will be addressed in the S&G section as well.)
Con contends this by giving examples of suffering that are independent of beliefs, e.g., amputation. He also brings up the point that "[j]ust because you can endure suffering doesn't make it non-suffering" in rebuttal to the run-on sentence above.
R2 I will be ignoring the arguments surrounding definition in this portion, as they have little bearing on the claims being made, despite the amount of time Pro spends contending them. The main rebuttals Pro makes here is 1. that kamikazes don't suffer and 2. the statement "I never said suffering is always avoidable. You will always suffer as we always have expectations."
Con refutes the second argument by pointing out the moved goalposts, arguing that these "expectations" do not have to be false to induce suffering, and in fact are often true.
The first argument I honestly couldn't follow, but as far as I can tell a single example of belief decreasing or eliminating suffering isn't a knockdown argument.
R3: "I've lost interest in continuing this discussion" I hesitate to call this a concession, but it does weaken Pro's position, and he fails to rebut R2's arguments.
Points to Con

Sources: As a philosophical argument, statements of fact don't play into this debate too much. However, the sources used by Pro consists of two quotes, one by Victor Frankl, a psychiatrist, and Dostoevsky, a Russian fiction writer. On the other hand, Con's sources include the eminent Merriam-Webster Dictionary in his contention of Pro's definitions, cites multiple articles to support his points on human physiology and psychology, and has a nice pop culture reference in the form of Star Wars. While the last counts for little in terms of debate, the overview points to Con for professional rigor. Points to Con.

Spelling and Grammar: In terms of formatting, it WAS slightly annoying that the entirety of Pro's R1 argument was italicised, but the tipping point for me was this behemoth of a run-on sentence. "If you have faith that there’s a reason and meaning for suffering, you’ll be able to endure it, even if you don’t know exactly what that reason is, and by being able to endure suffering, you will not be a slave to pleasure and comfort, an by not being a slave to pleasure and comfort, you’ll retain your freedom, and by retaining your freedom, you’ll be able to serve any idea you want, rather than the idea someone else wants you to serve." Points to Con

Conduct: Pro pulls the "English isn't your first language" card. "I understand you might not believe me; English isn't your first language, after all" I honestly didn't know that Con was from China until today because his English on this site has been impeccable, and even his formatting is well above average, so not only was this a "dick move" as I like to call it, but completely groundless. The ad hominem attack inherent in dismissing Con's definitions (which are sourced from one of the most reputable English dictionaries around, mind you)on these grounds is inexcusable. Additionally, Pro basically concedes in R3. Points to Con.