Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Scientific — in what sense?
If you are referring to the exact and natural sciences, then they do not have the category “better-worse”. Therefore, your assumption is not scientifically deducible from them.
And if you mean “prove it without contradicting science”, then yes. Can.
Neither science, nor religion, nor esotericism is True.
They are a repressed lack of income, expectations from the father, mother or child in themselves.
The truth exists IN SPITE of it.
YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING TO ANYONE.
Everyone is inside THEIR OWN illusions, limitations, beliefs, and beliefs.
When you get tired of spinning in a circle, get tired of your rake – you will open your eyes, See the simple Truth, and start Creating Yourself and Life.
To live is better than to live as EVERYONE lives, going to death in THEIR programmed way, believing in science, religion, esotericism, and getting only a SHUTDOWN, because even there is no one to erase – they did NOT Live.
LIFE is conceived by a Wise Nature.
This proves what you are looking for – ” living is better than not living.”
Without any atheism or materialism.
Nature has invested in man the love of life – not for nothing and not by chance.
Elementary. In any living organism, the feeling of fear of death, the feeling of pain and other mechanisms aimed at preserving life are genetically embedded. And there are no mechanisms aimed at ending life. Have I convinced you?
Let's simplify the question: is it possible to prove that it is better for a person to live than not to live? Take the living, albeit anonymous, author of this question, put a gun to his head, and ask him what he would prefer-to live or not to live? If he chooses not to live, we'll shoot him. Then we'll take another person, run the survey again, and write down the answer. This way we will also collect statistics with confidence p It doesn't matter if atheism and materialism are true, or solipsism, or agnosticism.
Very strange question. If atheism is true, then a person as an animal has an instinct for self-preservation and procreation, and thoughts about “not to live” are unhealthy. These instincts are supported in many ways. Man is naturally afraid of death. Therefore, it is better to live – not to live terribly. But not to live in atheism in any way. It's no better, no worse. If a person can arrange his life in such a way that he will be satisfied with life without harming others, then living naturally is better than nothing.
Why not? You can measure the total activity of the positive and negative reinforcement centers. Of course, in theory… If a person is mostly satisfied, then life is good. In this era of antidepressants and palliative care, it is quite possible to live.
From a scientific point of view, there are no such concepts as better or worse. It is as it is.
Moreover, it is also impossible to determine what it is to live. It seems that this is obvious. This is alive, and this is not. You can also obviously correctly say that it was alive and died. You can even set the exact (almost) time.
But it is impossible to give a scientific definition of the living as opposed to the inanimate, so that there are no counterexamples. It won't work. It will necessarily be either incomplete, or inanimate objects will fall under the definition. For example, an automatic vacuum cleaner is clearly inanimate, but it will fall under almost any definition of a living being.
Yes, you can. Since life in general and human life in particular emerged as the highest form of matter development, we are the embodiment of this highest form of matter. We should be proud that we were so lucky. We might just be a piece of rock or a cockroach. But we were lucky to be born human. We have the highest manifestation of development in the universe – intelligence. We can know this world. We can develop our powers and abilities to master this entire world, to control planets, stars, and galaxies. But the most important task is to preserve and develop our civilization and extend it to the entire universe.
And of course, we need to create conditions for humanity to live BETTER.
This is about what it means to LIVE. Now let's compare it with what it means NOT to LIVE. Not to live means not to see, not to hear, not to feel, not to think. For example, like a rock or meteorite. You can't even apply the concept of better or worse to it. He doesn't care. The concept of better or worse applies only to a living conscious being-a person.
Can.
Statistics show that out of 1,000 000 people who have received life, 999,999 still make a choice in favor of life.
And only 1 person out of a million (in developed countries and megacities – many times more) vote against.
For the science of statistics, this is proof.
The desire to conform to public opinion is ingrained in many of us.
What will change for you personally if scientists prove or disprove something?
Our scientists are like small children, and their every position can be revised.
The best truth for a person is that he is able to perceive and recognize on his own. It's worth looking in this direction. This will give you a chance to grow. If you rely only on “authorities”, then “write lost” your current life.
Any PARTICULAR PERSON-very little interested in any theoretical ideology – in solving the practical question of living or not living.
The main thing here is a completely different practical one – if practically a person lives well/poorly-hence the practical solution.
This is what your teachers will teach you. Science does not accept freethinking. There are generally accepted science-based laws that you must follow…
Even if they contradict your speculations and reasoning, they are true in the search.
Yes, we'll take any priest and put a gun to his forehead. After that, we will ask whether he prefers to live or not to live? Having collected enough statistics, you can scientifically prove that it is better to live or not to live.
And you don't have to prove it.
DON'T LIVE easier. No problems.There are no obligations. You don't have to earn a living for yourself and your family.
LIVING is very difficult.It is necessary to fulfill mandatory programs: to preserve yourself, be a son,father, husband, grandfather, friend, neighbor, citizen of your country, and try to join the universal trends, constantly create your own improvement.to keep up with others and many other obligations.
Think for yourself and make a decision.I'm not your adviser.
Peace To All.
Life is certainly better. According to the Holy Scriptures, life is a gift from God, and death is the absence of this gift. According to God's plan, people were to live on earth forever in excellent conditions. But it seems that something went wrong. Would you like to learn from the Bible why people die? Why does God allow suffering? What happens to a person after death and will they live again?
Logically, you can. Each person in life has pleasure and suffering (for him) and benefit and harm (for others). If a particular person has had more pleasure and/or benefit from his actions for other people in his entire life than suffering and/or harm, then, of course, he should have lived. If it was the other way around, it wasn't worth it. But it is impossible to determine this in advance, so living is better than not being born at all. If a person who is already living somehow understands that his life will be filled with these very sufferings and this cannot be changed, he will be able to give it up on his own.
If we are talking about life as a biological, physical concept, then science cannot answer this question, since the question is banal philosophical, and if we start now from materialism, then life is just a variant of the existence of matter, so life is not assigned any sacred meaning and it is equal to any other matter.
If we are talking about the lives of specific people, then this is a question that requires only a subjective assessment, again, it is not applicable to science. Atheism and materialism have no influence on opinion on this issue, because they act only within the framework of their own questions: the existence of God and the primacy of matter.
Not to live means not to appear in public and never to hear this question and not to delve into the essence of the nonsense you voiced.
To live is to be born through an amazing but necessary combination of circumstances.
To materialize in reality, to feel like a part of this world and find your place in it.
A short period of time, which is essentially life, the only and final one for its owner, is essentially a gift of nature. This is an a priori undeserved reward received from the same beings who emerged through billions of years of evolution of the initial form of matter into a form with active reflection (consciousness, mind).
To live in itself is already happiness. Understanding this fact, I hope in the future will protect you from such idiotic questions, which are a game of the mind and nothing more. It is absurd to ask the owners of life about this.
Ask those “souls” who, according to some obscurantists, are in some kind of paradise or nirvana or the ancestral world or Valhalla. When you have a clear answer that not living is better, then try to learn something from others.
Initially, this means accepting a theory as true and using the postulates and conclusions of this theory in your proofs.
Take atheism: There is no life after life. So comparing live and not live will not work because one comparison has disappeared.
We take materialism: the primacy of matter over spirit (idea). To live and Not to live: forms of matter are indestructible and only passes from one quantity to another changing qualities. And this means, in principle, that it is the same for materialism what to live and what not to live (matter remains in both cases).
The question of truth remains. For their time, i.e., the 19th and 20th centuries, these theories claimed to be true, or rather paradigms, among some people. But the truth is only with God because he is everything and everything and he is the truth. Thus, we introduce a third worldview: faith in God. Is it true? Yes. For some people, the truth. So for them, atheism and materialism are false as well as vice versa. What did we get? That all theories are limited and true for some people in some sense. Hence, the evidence of their truth is not absolutely and not for everyone.
So atheists live in every way and better and more fun, at least no one requires them to consider themselves slaves… In my opinion, this is already very, very good.
“To live well, and to live well is even better!”. If you watch this movie, you won't need any scientific evidence.
And God has the truth because God is the Truth.
All ISMS today are an echo of long-obsolete and outdated theories of the 19th century. Look around you! This is the 21st century!
What is in the question fromfor the psychology section, I can not explain. Let's assume. Get paid in full. Comparative analysis assumes comparability of comparison objects. Atheism and materialism deny the undead, according to their characteristics. If an item has no characteristics from their point of view, then it is not possible to compare it with another item of variational indicators. Were you nervous?
First, you should immediately make a reservation that they are not true, but convenient and work. If, of course, you treat them as scientific theories, which they are not, but oh well, it's like trying to prove the validity of logic with the help of logic itself-there will be arguments looped on themselves.
Second, atheism, materialism, and the scientific approach are three slightly different things, but again, not the point.
Third, no, science does not operate in the “better/worse”category. This is purely a matter of your personal values and priorities. But science can help achieve these very values. For example, if you want to live, then science can provide answers on how to extend your life. Smallpox vaccine, for example. If you die , then bury yourself and the rest of humanity as efficiently as possible. An atomic bomb, for example. Science is just an instrument of knowledge. How you use it is up to you.
The concepts of” better “and” worse ” for qualitative assessment are not scientific. Accordingly, we cannot objectively assess the life process from this point of view. We can make arguments in favor of one side or the other, but we will not find the objective truth.