Psycho-philosophy of whinging

Quoting frank

My theory is that it's the same reason humans can't just sit quietly eating pumpkins. We lust for hardship. We need to risk life and limb. We need poignant wars.

Pascal:All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone

Parenthetical: I don't agree with the quote but was reminded of it.

Quoting frank

The whinger is an armchair warrior. It's a way of feeling a sense of purpose without expending so many calories. If so, then whinging might be the closest we can get to being a peaceful species.

[ ... ]

If I'm right, then socialism will require some sort of dysfunction that will create peaceful angst. I think there's a portion of society that won't be satisfied with that. The best option would be to send them off-world, to Mars maybe.

:clap: :smirk:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting frank

This question is tied to a preoccupation I've developed around neoliberalism, which I think is partly fuelled by a desire to create strife in the same way a video game does.

Can you define neoliberalism as you're using it here. Generally, it means laissez-faire capitalism, free-trade, and globalization.

And in an unrelated note - "whing" is a word I never heard until I came on the forum. The word I've always heard is "whine," which means the same thing. Is it an Australianism?

Reply to tim wood :lol:

"So whatcha whinging about?"
https://youtu.be/h8fem_aVbgI

Quoting frank

The whinger is an armchair warrior. It's a way of feeling a sense of purpose without expending so many calories. If so, then whinging might be the closest we can get to being a peaceful species.

This is true, indeed. And we have around the world villagers and communities existing, living, using their skills passed from generations to create/produce items to be consumed within their communities. There exist skilled potter, basket weaver, ceramicist, furniture maker able to peacefully and quietly pass their time creating works of art and practical, functional objects that could last centuries. In the process of working with their hands -- and what better way to exercise the brain but with dexterity of fingers -- they are focused, in-tune with their being, meditating, and removing themselves daily from other distractions.

But oh, this is a life one needs to learn, to practice and embrace -- you just don't decide to settle in a quiet village, in a house or studio unpainted with synthetic paints (that you buy from home improvements stores) and quietly create. This requires generations. Okay, maybe I'm wrong on this account -- maybe one can actually adapt rapidly without requiring generations handed down to him. But to achieve it, you cannot force this kind of existence.

Theres no escaping your historical contingency. Perhaps preventing future people born into it. What is the purpose of anyone being born to do anything at all in the ways of a society? Work, seek comfort, keep mind occupied, repeat. Who really needs to experience 80 to 100 years of that?

Quoting schopenhauer1

There's no escaping your historical contingency. Perhaps preventing future people born into it. What is the purpose of anyone being born to do anything at all in the ways of a society? Work, seek comfort, keep mind occupied, repeat. Who really needs to experience 80 to 100 years of that?

There's no need to, or as you say, "no escaping your historical contingency". So why are you trying to escape yours? why evangelize that – all the antinatal whinging about how – we all should escape our historical contingencies (i.e. somehow 'delete' or 'reprogram' our fundamental biological-pronatal hardwired software) when you know damn well we as a species cannot? :sweat:

Reply to 180 Proof
We cannot escape it. Prevent others from entering it.

How is this not subtle manipulation? You don't want to work??? Go complain to someone who cares.. now get back to work!!! Fuck ya all then.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Prevent others from entering it.

Same shit, different flies. Those who would "prevent others" would be trying to escape their own, as well as the species', historical contingency of being biological aka "reproductive species", which you admit, no one can escape. 'Existence preceeds essence', no? Well, species-beings are what we are preceeding the individuals who we (can) choose to be; individuals cannot escape being enabled-contrained by belonging to an evolved (i.e. adaptive, therefore reproductive) species. All "antinatal" (or less than pronatal) species are already extinct, schop1 – homo sapien sapiens ain't one of them (with the exception of an insignificant fraction of individuals aka "mutants").

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to frank

I think it’s the other way about: to avoid hardship. If one can occupy himself with the battles in his skull he need not pay attention to the ones that require actual effort.

I think this method is inherent in socialism. It’s a false philanthropy because it seeks to delegate any duty we have to our fellow man to someone else, whether society as a whole or some other group.

Quoting 180 Proof

Same shit, different flies. Those who would "prevent others" would be trying to escape their own, as well as the species', historical contingency of being biological aka "reproductive species", which you admit, no one can escape. 'Existence preceeds essence', no? Well, species-beings are what we are preceeding the individuals who we (can) choose to be; individuals cannot escape being enabled-contrained by belonging to an evolved (i.e. adaptive, therefore reproductive) species. All "antinatal" (or less than pronatal) species are already extinct, schop1 – homo sapien sapiens ain't one of them (with the exception of an insignificant fraction of individuals aka "mutants").

I just meant I agree essentially that it is too late for the already born. Yet, you can prevent yet another person from the historical contingency. It's prevention on the margins, not necessarily wholesale.

However, you have probably heard my idea of catharsis by now, right? There is a catharsis in antinatalism for us already born who can't escape the existential situation. There is something to the idea that we can communally recognize the negatives, and then are deciding to do something about it on an existential level (not just at the everyday micro level). It's more an aesthetic of understanding.

Pascal:All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone

This reminds me of something I just said in another thread yesterday:

Quoting Pfhorrest

"allows a person to enjoy themselves without a minimum threshold of stimulation that constantly needs to be maintained or increased." — Shawn

I’ve always been the kind of person who never gets bored, because my own mind is full of my own interesting thoughts to entertain me. I’ve also pretty much never even been tempted to do recreational drugs. Most all of my suffering in life has come from negative stimuli, not any absence of positive stimuli.

Most of 2019, I found myself suddenly and inexplicably struck with existential dread the likes of which I had never experienced before. It was only then that I understood what people talked about when they searched for a “meaning of life”. To me that had always seemed like a non-question, but suddenly I understood it, the feeling like there's some bottomless hole in one's soul that needs to be constantly filled by... something. From my perspective, it seemed the usual hedonic order had been flipped around: instead of feeling fine by default as long as nothing awful was happening, I felt awful by default unless some positive stimulus pushed me out of it, temporarily filled that hole inside of me, the hole that had never been there for my entire life before.

The thought that for a lot of people that empty feeling, the worst thing I’ve ever experienced in my life, is their normal, is terrible, and I’d love if something could be done to alleviate it for them.

I’ve also thought before that introversion and extroversion might be related to this, since from my introverted perspective, it seems to me like introverts are people who neither need to dump their excess emotions on others nor charge up on others’ emotions, maintaining emotional homeostasis alone, whereas extroverts need other people to give or take stimulation from them in order to achieve emotional balance.

Quoting schopenhauer1

You can prevent yet another person from the historical contingency. It's [s]prevention[/s] on the margins, not necessarily wholesale.

Only in this sense am I an antinatalist (i.e. a "mutant") too. :up:

Remember: the problem of (gratuitous) suffering is solved only for the living by reducing suffering as much as possible whenever possible and not by eliminating life itself (as if living is nothing but suffering, which it demonstrably is not). To "destroy the village in order to save the village" only saves it for everyone else except the villagers themselves. The Unborn (or Never-To-Be-Born) cannot be "saved" because they don't exist to be "saved" (just as The Dead do not suffer because the CNS by which suffering is experienced has decomposed); only the Already Born can be "saved" (ideally) by 'minimizing suffering while simultaneously maximizing well-being'.

N O N B E I N GegoN O N B E I N G

"So whatcha whinging about?" :death: :flower:

Quoting 180 Proof

minimizing suffering while simultaneously maximizing well-being

:up: :100: :clap:

Quoting Pfhorrest

it seems to me like introverts are people who neither need to dump their excess emotions on others nor charge up on others’ emotions, maintaining emotional homeostasis alone, whereas extroverts need other people to give or take stimulation from them in order to achieve emotional balance.

:ok:

Quoting T Clark

Can you define neoliberalism as you're using it here. Generally, it means laissez-faire capitalism, free-trade, and globalization.

Post WW2, economic policy tended to be about social stability in Europe and the US. Full employment was the goal (for white people) and manufacturing was central to economies in the world.

Neoliberalism started as an ideological reaction to the regulated, pro-labor environment created by this set of values. It had little influence until the late 70s when stagflation seemed to be opening the door to an increased presence of socialism.

What followed was a global backlash. Manufacturing was replaced by finance. The power of labor was demolished. Regulations of all kinds diminished. Finally a new elite came into being as a result of what was supposed to be a return to freedom.

Read David Harvey's book on it. It's good. One of things it will tell you is why there are 5000 orphans on our southern border.

Disturbingly, I do understand what freedom has to do with it. Thus the OP.

Quoting Caldwell

There exist skilled potter, basket weaver, ceramicist, furniture maker able to peacefully and quietly pass their time creating works of art and practical, functional objects that could last centuries.

True.

Quoting NOS4A2

If one can occupy himself with the battles in his skull he need not pay attention to the ones that require actual effor

I agree.

Quoting NOS4A2

I think this method is inherent in socialism. It’s a false philanthropy because it seeks to delegate any duty we have to our fellow man to someone else, whether society as a whole or some other group.

There aren't many cases of legit socialism, but maybe we could say that the aim of socialists is to relieve you of your patron status. You won't have to help the poor and downtrodden because we're all helping each other.

My hypothesis is that socialism will always lead to stagnation.

Quoting frank

What followed was a global backlash. Manufacturing was replaced by finance. The power of labor was demolished. Regulations of all kinds diminished. Finally a new elite came into being as a result of what was supposed to be a return to freedom.

Read David Harvey's book on it. It's good. One of things it will tell you is why there are 5000 orphans on our southern border.

Yes and Tony Judt's book 'Ill Fares the Land'.

Reply to frank Reply to NOS4A2 Quoting NOS4A2

If one can occupy himself with the battles in his skull he need not pay attention to the ones that require actual effort.

I sometimes wonder if that’s what everyone here is doing.... Philosophy as an escape from reality. A socially acceptable form of daydreaming perhaps.

Reply to 180 Proof Quoting 180 Proof

The Unborn (or Never-To-Be-Born) cannot be "saved" because they don't exist to be "saved"

Don’t want this to turn into another AN thread but the point of AN isn’t “saving the unborn”, it’s “Not doing something that results in harming someone when a (supposedly) safer alternative is available (not having children)”. It's a commonplace premise.

Quoting frank

Neoliberalism started as an ideological reaction to the regulated, pro-labor environment created by this set of values. It had little influence until the late 70s when stagflation seemed to be opening the door to an increased presence of socialism.

Thanks for the information.

Reply to khaled "Safer" for whom?

Quoting khaled

I sometimes wonder if that’s what everyone here is doing.... Philosophy as an escape from reality. A socially acceptable form of daydreaming perhaps.

Or perhaps a substitute for doing anything practical.

Reply to 180 Proof The person that would otherwise be harmed. The premise is clear "Do not do something that will harm someone if there is a safer alternative available". It's not a crazy premise at all. And it doesn't need that the person who is harmed be existing right now.

For example: Say I knew that if I planted a mine at coordinates X,Y,Z, that Jeff will step on it 200 years from now and there is 0 chance it harms anyone other than Jeff. But surely we can agree that it is ridiculous to say "No one exists to be harmed so placing the mine is fine". The premise only requires that there will exist someone that will be harmed.

So in this case safer for whom? Safer for Jeff of course. Though Jeff doesn't exist right now. But then people dismiss it as "bad metaphysics" to say that something is safer for Jeff. Well how else do you want me to say it? For what other reason is placing the mine wrong? You know what I mean when I say "safer for Jeff" even though no Jeff exists.

Quoting schopenhauer1

However, you have probably heard my idea of catharsis by now, right? There is a catharsis in antinatalism for us already born who can't escape the existential situation. There is something to the idea that we can communally recognize the negatives, and then are deciding to do something about it on an existential level (not just at the everyday micro level). It's more an aesthetic of understanding.

Aww, you mean other people should sacrifice themselves for you?

Reply to frank I agree with you, I've always held that theoretically perfect systems are impossible because of a human flaw, that wars were sort of a communal orgasm of pent up energy/angst for societies and that no society would ever do away with war. We're like deer drinking bitter water, we take a sip, rave about how horrible it is, wait a few moments(years) and then go back to sip again.

Quoting khaled

sometimes wonder if that’s what everyone here is doing.... Philosophy as an escape from reality. A socially acceptable form of daydreaming perhaps.

To some extent yes. Especially discussions where people continuously misconstrue one another. War substitute.

Reply to New2K2 :up:

Maybe it's the nature of consciousness that we're only awake when there's some measure of struggle.

Reply to khaled The "someone" doesn't exist, is merely hypothetical. They can no more be harmed, or saved from harm, than Santa Claus can.

Reply to 180 Proof Quoting 180 Proof

The "someone" doesn't exist, is merely hypothetical. They can no more be harmed, or saved from harm, than Santa Claus can.

Sure. Now why is placing the mine wrong? Or do you think it isn't?

Reply to khaled ???

Reply to 180 Proof Quoting khaled

For example: Say I knew that if I planted a mine at coordinates X,Y,Z, that Jeff will step on it 200 years from now and there is 0 chance it harms anyone other than Jeff.

Is placing the mine morally wrong? If so why?

Reply to khaled It's wrong – vicious – only in so far as your intention is to place the mine in order to kill regardless of whether or not "Jeff" (or anyone) ever steps on it.

Reply to 180 Proof So do you only care about intent? And not about consequences? What if I placed the mine there as decoration with no intent to kill anybody?

And besides, if I KNEW Jeff would be harmed, wouldn't placing the mine anyways count as "intent to kill" regardless of my reasoning for placing it? Is it possible for my intent to be "to decorate the park" while I know that Jeff will die because of it 200 years from now?

Reply to khaled Intent is the only relevant factor in your scenario because, as I pointed already, khaled, you can't harm or save from harm a fiction, or hypothetical person. And as decoration the mine only morally problematic if you intentionally or negligently left it armed to explode when stepped on (i.e. without disarming it).

Reply to 180 Proof Quoting 180 Proof

And as decoration the mine only morally problematic if you intentionally or negligently left it armed to explode when stepped on

But this is not an issue for anyone. You know this. No one will be harmed by the mine (since Jeff is a fiction). So what's the problem in that case? What is it about armed mines that will never harm anyone (again, since Jeff is a fiction) that is problematic?

It's just harmless decoration....

Reply to khaled Depraved indifference. The armed mine is placed where any actual person can step on it.

Reply to 180 Proof But in this case you know no one will step on it. No one that exists right now anyways. And that's all that matters right?

And parents saving money for their children's college education before the children are born are also committing "bad metaphysics" I guess....

I just don't understand why people pretend that we cannot consider harm done to a person who doesn't exist yet. We do make considerations like those all the damn time. Another example: The common saying of "Let's not leave a terrible world for our grandchildren" when talking about climate change. It's almost as if doing something that will harm someone in the future is bad even if the person to be harmed doesn't exist right now.

It's just not true that the reason placing the mine there is wrong is that someone "might" step on it. Because in the example you know as a matter of fact no one will, except Jeff of course. But Jeff is a fiction so we don't care about him....

Reply to khaled It make no sense to talk about harming or saving from harm nonexistent persons. However, one can presently increase the probability conditions of a harmful occurence that will last into the future. Intentional or negligent endangerment, even without a victim, is vicious because it deliberately makes probable a harm where there once was no risk of such harm.

Reply to 180 Proof
Right, so now apply that to the act of procreation. But one major difference is that procreation will lead to someone getting harmed (or being forced into a way of life, society, laboring person, etc..which pertains to other forms of de facto, unavoidable coersion that goes with being a self-aware person born into the world that has to survive in a social setting, etc.).

Reply to 180 Proof Quoting 180 Proof

However, one can presently increase the probabilty conditions of a harmful occurence that will last into the future.

I’ll take that. And this is wrong correct? Yet having children is an example of presently increasing the probability conditions of a harmful occurrence that will last into the future (this is literally the exact premise I gave but reworded) no? So what makes having children fine but placing the mine not?

Oh and the original premise was:

Quoting khaled

Do not do something that will harm someone if there is a safer alternative available

Which is PRECISELY what you’re saying.

Quoting 180 Proof

Intentional or negligent endangerment, even without a victim, is vicious because it deliberately makes probable a harm where there once was no risk of such harm.

Don’t think any AN could have said it better!

Reply to schopenhauer1 Again, you're confusing the fact of being alive with the occurence of suffering; the latter correlates to, but is not caused by, the former. Also, 'not procreating' causes the vast majority of the Already Born to suffer, so the balance between addressing actual and hypothetical suffering favors preventing, or reducing, actual suffering. 'Preventing life' does not prevent, or reduce, suffering; relieving (ideally, as much as possible) the experience of harm to living (i.e. already born) persons prevents, or reduces, suffering.

Quoting khaled

So what makes having children fine but placing the mine not?

Read my reply above.

Besides, biology hardwires the ever-present risk of harm correlated with offspring whereas planting an armed mine arbitrarily introduces an additional risk. Not planting armed mines is painless (unless they're psychopaths) but, for all who feel compelled to do so, not having children is persistently painful.

Quoting 180 Proof

correlates to, but is not caused by, the former.

Last I checked, being alive is a prerequisite for suffering. It's just not the direct cause of an instance of suffering, but the necessary background for which it (by empirical observation of what happens in life) definitely will occur.

Quoting 180 Proof

Also, 'not procreating' causes the vast majority of the Already Born to suffer, so the balance between addressing actual and hypothetical suffering favors preventing, or reducing, actual suffering. 'Preventing life' does not prevent, or reduce, suffering; relieving (ideally, as much as possible) the experience of harm to living (i.e. already born) persons prevents, or reduces, suffering.

Why are you assuming I'm some sort of "totalizing utilitarian" whereby I must add up everyone's suffering and use people as pawns to get the greatest good? That isn't what I am proposing.

Reply to schopenhauer1 :up:

Reply to 180 Proof Quoting 180 Proof

Read my reply above.

Quoting 180 Proof

Again, you're confusing the fact of being alive with the occurence of suffering; the latter correlates to, but is not caused by, the former.

Ah well you see, stepping on a mine is only correlated to blowing up to bits, but doesn’t necessarily cause it. There is always a chance the mine randomly doesn’t go off! It’s only a perquisite see!?

Yea I don’t think this one flies.... Being born causes suffering in the same way that a mine causes suffering. The chances it doesn’t are abysmally low (the chances someone has a “suffering free life”). And the chances someone has a life they consider not worthwhile are pretty low, but still existent. It would be like placing an old dysfunctional mine instead. Still an arbitrary risk, for which you need something to counteract the risk. Which you do provide:

Quoting 180 Proof

Also, 'not procreating' causes the vast majority of the Already Born to suffer

I like this one. That’s the one I use. Because it works off the same principle of minimizing suffering, no need for extra premises like “Mankind must go on”.

Quoting khaled

Being born causes suffering in the same way that a mine causes suffering.

Ok. We're just gonna differ here.

Reply to khaled Also, 'not procreating' causes the vast majority of the Already Born to suffer

Seems like this itself works as a justification for having children

Quoting frank

I think there's a portion of society that won't be satisfied with that. The best option would be to send them off-world, to Mars maybe.

They day we send people off-world because of bigotry, I'll hold you accountable.

Quoting TaySan

They day we send people off-world because of bigotry, I'll hold you accountable.

We wouldn't send them for bigotry but for not being able to settle down.

Would that work?

Reply to frank my family survived prison camps and an exodus, so no, not for me. Perhaps for someone else

Reply to frank
People naturally recognise hierarchies and think in hierarchical terms and fail to agree to a non-hierarchical structure. It's not just about actually ranking high on hierarchies but acting in a manner that creates the impression of superiority. Whinging on the internet is aggressive, condescending, patronising and almost always reinforces or constructs a hierarchical outlook. I mean, your OP is actually a pretty good example of this isn't it? You constructed a group of "whingers" who are kind of useless and destructive, doesn't it at least feel a little good to feel these people are less useful or whatever else than you?

I think that's just how humans are, nothing can be done about it.

Uhmmm... Is there a meaningful difference between whining and whinging?

Quoting Benkei

Is there a meaningful difference between whining and whinging?

I would say that whinging is self-righteous whining - give or take. Dogs whine, but they don't whinge.

Reply to Benkei
I'm with you Benkei, haven't heard of the term until now.