>"All thoughts and feelings are a result of chemical reactions and atoms interacting with one another, there is no intrinsic value to anything."
>"My dear friend, if that is the case, then your ability to make such a claim is a result of atoms and chemical reactions and there can be no value or truth to your statements either! You have failed yet again!"
HOW WILL STEMTARDS EVER RECOVER?
STEMTARDS COULDNT REPLY
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>p-please respond
NO REPLY AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
>materialism undermines materialism because it doesn't imply idealism
Might as well bang your head against a brick wall desu
value in the sense it is being used here is an undefinable subjective term that has no bearing on anything. Additionally
>or truth to your statements either!
this is where the philosophyfag went full retard and supposed that truth is somehow tied to this non-concept of value.
/thread
>implying that something coming forom chemical reactions has inherently no value.
>being a philotard unable to think simply and clearly without intellevtual masturbation.
All thoughts and feelings ARE the result of chemical reactions and atoms interacting with one another
That, however doesn't impact their value or the truth
I thought it affected the meaning by ridding one's thoughts of free will, as these processes are deterministic/random
Value =/= truth
Also, there is truth behind the chemical reactions that happen in our brain. You can acknowledge that our perception is entirely a byproduct of chemical reactions in our brain and at the same time not rule out everything that these chemical reactions show us.
When I punch 2+2 into a calculator it finds the answer through atoms and electrical signals, does that mean we can't trust the answer that it gives us?
I don't think free will to be anything else than the name we put on the unknown causes of our actions. It however doesn't deprive those action from their meaning or value.
>>materialism undermines materialism because it doesn't imply idealism
Wrong, brainlet, read again.
Your justification for 1+1=2 is purely linguistically based and has no inherent basis.
Whatever philosotard, you completely missed the point. Not to mention I said 2+2 you dumbshit.
How do you know it is the 'right' answer beyond the definition? :^)
>le we can't know nuffin argument
No one said that, friend. Just admit that your axioms rely on assumptions :^)
Do you know even know what an axiom is? By definition an axiom *is* an assumption.
>By definition an axiom *is* an assumption.
"no"
Holy shit I need to stop taking the bait.
But since I'm sufficiently triggered, look up the definition of axiom on Wikipedia and tell me what the very first sentence says.
>chemicals telling you they are chemicals doesn't make them chemicals
Except that's not how it works