Antinatalism & Masochism
Agent Smith 2022-01-11
@schopenhauer1 I'm on your team (I'm antinatalist), but my arguments are defeasible.
Question: What if we're (secret/closet) masochists?
Question: What if we're (secret/closet) masochists?
Comments (266)
We're as in humanity? or we're as in a select group of individuals? I'd say antinatalism works on a macro view of human implication, so I don't think it would necessarily take into account one dude receiving pleasure from pain.
Yep, we could all be masochists, assuming antinatalism is correct.
I don't have to be masochistic to deal with pain, I wouldn't think.
No, no! We're natalists because we're masochists (we get off on pain).
Ohh, I see.
Also, are you really Agent Smith?
Anitnatalism is correct. You might, if I understand you, point to happiness experienced (by the privileged few), but what if I told you that any and all forms of happiness we know of are merely an illusion! In other words, no one has experienced real joy; the happiest person in the world, assuming she exists, is actually suffering, but she doesn't know that - that's to say she's confused (by it all).
It's time to introduce relativity: Yes, compared to hell, earth is a paradise, but compared to heaven, earth is hell. The former makes you not mind living (simply going through the motions of life), but the latter makes you wanna die (suicide). Note that in both cases, you don't wanna live.
The value of suffering! Something to think about.
Compared to heaven, Earth might be hell, but compared to hell, Earth is indeed heaven. The former inspires us to make the world a better place, and the latter makes us realise that life can certainly be ineffably valuable even in the face of darkness. There is value there, not nothingness.
There's always something to "think" about. That doesn't mean it might be accurate :p
The happiest people in the world tend to be good parents. I have no proof for that, but it would seem more or less correct.
Could you elaborate?
Romanticized accounts of family life, my friend. Read Agatha Christie.
Quoting john27
It follows naturally.
Very Buddhist! The Truth will set you Free!
Siddhartha's religion (Buddhism), though apparently hedonic, treats heaven (rapture) and hell (torment) as both dukkha (unsatisfactory), marks of samsaric existence and the aim of a buddhist is to transcend hedonism itself, enlightened beings are neither happy nor sad.
:ok: However, is this "higher realm" life as we know it, as we recognize it, as we understand it? Remember life in Buddhism is intimately tied to samsara (it's only in samsara that we (really/truly) live).
I can't quite remember which exact scripture it was, but I remember a passage describing how only humans can attain enlightenment and become Buddha. While the Asura and Deva are basically all-powerful, the Asura are addicted to their desires - and while the Deva show more moderation, they're essentially in a divine state of extasic bliss at all times, preventing them from the middle way.
Regarding the maintopic "Antinatalism & Masochism".
As Socrates once said: "That's what philosophy is: a practice for death".
While I don't agree with the ideas of antinatalism at all, I can easily imagine it is an attempt, like many others, to console with death. Suppose you were a true masochist - would you not revel at the suffering that life has to offer? Rather, antinatalism seems to be soothing to the antinatalist: As long as I cling to the believe that everything is terrible, death itself is not so terrible.
That's an interesting idea. I suppose it is possible that some forms of AN are derived from a fear of death, though I think the issue is also an inability to find sufficient value in the positive aspects of life. I am an optimistic person who affirms life, but I don't fear death. Both creation and destruction are eternal. Materialistically, I don't think that nonexistence is better/worse for a person. Additionally, it's also unlikely that the cycle would go on for anybody forever, since they are bound to achieve moksha/niravana sooner or later. In the meantime, all one can do is to appreciate what they have and try to contribute towards making the world a place more conducive to fulfillment.
I suppose there's a difference between existence (life) and being: "it's obviously not biological life, but neither is it absolute nothingness". You do agree though that (biological) life, all that comes with it (happiness & sorrow, everything in between), is a samsara thing, right? Once you exit the cycle (of samsara), fly off at a tangent so to speak, you've freed yourself from the hedonic trap as it were.
Antinatalism then, is correct, no? Life (samsara) is dukkha (both heaven and hell are unsatisfactory) and we must escape from the vicious death-rebirth cycle of life.
You fail to see the point. Happiness is an illusion!
:ok:
Quoting DA671
I never said it was simple, but in fact it is! Logical progression, inference from proposition to proposition, is the simplest imaginable (they even derogatorily call it linear thinking).
I'm intrigued by your claim that everything is an illusion. Antinatalism doesn't make such a claim.
I don't think that, materialistically speaking, happiness is any more of a illusion than suffering. Similarly, the lack of life doesn't seem to have any intrinsic value over its presence. So, as I have said to other people here, if the absence of suffering (an sensation we are averse to) matters, then the lack of satisfaction (an experience we cherish) is also bad. That is what I believe the be logical in the context of this particular framework.
As for simplicity, well, that's a matter of perspective. It's indeed fairly simple to realise that self-realisation leads to transendence. Whether or not it's complex depends upon the path one traverses and how soon they truly see and experience this. I, of course, have much to learn. I am pretty sure that everybody on this forum is a lot more intelligent than I am (then again, do I even have intelligence? Not sure). :P
I'm afraid suffering isn't an illusion.
Quoting DA671
Either none are real, or both are. I don't think that the contrary view is true.
Let's just say antinatalism isn't as simple as we think it is. I'm also a learner, just like you.
Also, you clearly know much more than me, so I reject that "just like you" part. Some learners are much more advanced than others. Personally, I would love to get promoted to kindergarten ;)
Objectivity is not the arbiter of our happiness, we are.
Would you not like to be objectively happy as opposed to subjectively so?
I don't think its a matter of if. We can not be more than our own judge.
Can we not form a reasonable opinion about the world and our place in it? There's a lot of real pain/suffering out there and happiness is just another mirage in the scorching desert we call home. I suppose we could use some math here, but I'm too lazy to do it; instead I rely on my common sense, combined with observation; the world isn't pretty to look at, is it?
Plus, see what's happened (to you). You had to abandon objectivity because if you don't, you look foolish.
Abandon? It was never there in the first place! Nor should it be. I feel how I feel, and therefore, on questions on how I feel, I'm always right because it's impossible to be wrong. :cool:
I like your attitude!
:up:
Wha-!? OK, let me give an example.
You walk down the street with your antinatalism thingy and start telling people, objectively, that their perception on life is worse than it seems, their lifes suck, and that they should be sad for that reason.
Thier response? They tell you to bugger off.
You try it again next week. Same thing.
What's going on ? They simply don't feel that way! Which would mean, in a sense, that objectivity can not tell another person how they feel. If they're happy, they happy. If they sad, they sad. Simple as that.
Antinatalism is the belief that bringing a child into the world, to procreate, is morally incorrect, if I understand correctly. It reaches this conclusion via the Asymmetry, and assessment of quality of life. What my little explanation does is show that the assessment of quality of life is misguided, and therefore antinatalism fails to amount due to not being able to percieve life, as "bad" (objectively).
:up:
Oh sorry, that's not right I'm afraid. Try not to overthink it.
Basis: Suffering.
Advice: Don't birth children.
Oh. Well hey, I gave it my best shot.
Yes, Oh! You need to reexamine antinatalism, carefully this time.
Yes, everybody does that! :up:
:ok:
Natalism:
Basis—Ineffably meaningful lives could probably exist
Advice—Do have kids (provided you are capable of giving them a sufficiently valuable life).
A bit of nuance always helps over absolute principles ;)
What are these "good" replies? I'm all ears.
Antinatalism. How could you have good replies if you didn't know what my position is?
I do have good replies because you aren't the only person I've met who defends that position. My statement was obviously a general one, but I would appreciate to know your thoughts, as I had asked you before.
Natalism is not a response to antinatalism.
When I had asked you earlier if I had understood your view correctly, your reply had seemed a bit unclear to me. I apologise if I misinterpreted your thumbs up there :p
No, it isn't. A response would be in the form of a refutation, not a counter-argument.
You didn't misinterpret my :up:
Suffering!
I'm glad you're relieved.
Illusion!
See? You've not grasped antinatalism.
No, suffering is real. Do you pinch yourself to check if something (amazing/terrible) is really happening?
Alternatively, perhaps you could explain what you mean. :P
Can you? How intersting!
Go back to my post. I edited it.
Yes, looks like that's true. Suffering!
I never said that I feel that way, but I think that your perspective would deceive you into thinking that. I couldn't find any substantial changes, btw. Regarding mirages, well, let's just say that there are some smiles too hard to concoct out of thin air.
I can also sense a form of satisfaction within you as you typed out your reply debunking my amateur claims. It seemed to embody, dare I say, happiness!
(Note: I am not a certified clairvoyant.)
I never pinch myself.
Unfortunately, you seem to be missing the point.
Quoting DA671
If it makes you happy, go ahead, wiggle your way out of the corner you painted yourself into.
Quoting DA671
False smiles, yeah. You, above all, should be aware of such things.
Boring life! I see now.
Quoting DA671
I don't think that I missed any points, but I fine with you believing that.
I've seen smiles that hid tears and tears that were derived from indomitable joy. There's much to see.
I don't think you quite understand what you're saying.
Not my way.
Suffering? :brow:
Oh, and in case it's a verb, no, not right now. Too busy maintaining the inherently positive state of joy that harms cannot easily negate.
Quoting DA671
Quoting DA671
Then again, there's a sense of enjoyment in certain difficulties. Reading textbooks was fun. However, I would not consider those difficulties to be an inextricably necessary component.
I think that the first part of that message would, unfortunately, apply to you here.
Red Herring!
By the way, is your perspective flawless/perfect?
You committed the fallacy. Let's just set that aside for now.
Is your perspective flawless/perfect?
However, not perfect, right? Ergo, suffering.
Is your perspective flawless?
:rofl:
Therein lies the rub...it could be false. Are you still happy?
Your happiness is an illusion, my friend.
:ok:
No, I suffer and suffering is real.
Same to you.
Much appreciated!
I'm but a mirror! Thank yourself.
I don't experience satisfaction and even if I do, it's not happiness. If you were to ask me, nobody knows what happiness is.
You've misunderstood.
As always, I don't think I did. You meant to say that you showed me a mirror, and I deliberately changed that into you being my mirror image yourself. A bit of fun goes a long way :p
Your idea of happiness is too expansive.
Quoting DA671
As I said this is not happiness.
Quoting DA671
:ok: But you don't know what happiness is.
It is happiness, but you're in denial here. I suppose one could also say that mental agony is not suffering because I define suffering in an extremely narrow way, but that does not help because it does not accurately reflect reality.
I do; it's you who don't. Actually, you do. However, your need for satiating detrimental skepticism seems to be unfulfilled, which might be contributing towards your inability to see that which is (probably) obvious.
No, it isn't.
Quoting DA671
I could say the same thing about you.
You could, but I don't think you would be right.
No, it isn't. Happiness isn't going to come this easy.
Yes, it is. I am afraid that your understanding of satisfaction is incomplete, perhaps due to certain actual limitations. Whatever you perceive satisfaction to be, I don't think it's a real representation of what it is.
Reality and ease don't need to be the same.
Then it's difficult. Ergo, suffering!
Referring to yourself?
Here, however, I was referring to a mirror I just bought ;)
Shifting the goalpost. I see you wish to commit every fallacy in the book. At this rate, you might just pull it off. :grin:
Whatever makes you happy.
If believing happiness is an illusion and that satisfaction is not happiness gives you satisfaction that you refuse to acknowledge, so be it. It could be better, but it will suffice.
But I suppose I should address your "fallacies" here:
Red Herring: Replying to quotes that have not been explained is not a distraction.
Shifting the goalposts: Asking for intuitive consistency is not changing the criterion.
This shows that you have no idea what suffering is. As I said, you don't quite understand what you're saying.
You commit a fallacy that undermines your position. Not a fallacy fallacy I'm afraid.
You seem to know very little about the...er...big bad world! Just wait... Lemme contact you in, say, 10 years or so.
Also, I think one could also add the double standards fallacy for treating happiness and suffering differently without really justifying it.
Your understanding of the deepest aspects of existence appears to be lacking. I hope that can change.
Illusion.
Quoting DA671
Repetition signifies importance.
Quoting DA671
Why? Is there going to be a(nother) resurrection?
Repetition can also imply a desperation to defend a view that seems to be flawed. As for truth, well, it would still be true that happiness is as real as suffering, even if many people fell prey to the illusion that it isn't.
Probably not, but I wouldn't want to be too sure.
1. Overpopulation (contagions, cut-throat competition, food shortages, violence, wars,etc.).
2. Global warming (catastrophes, famines, etc.)
.
.
.
The list goes on.
Do you want to have (grand)children now? Their lives would be a curse. Have you looked at suicide rates?
Despite that, people are quite resilient and happiness can often be found even in the face seemingly insuperable odds. Love in relationships, beauty in art, and ectasy in music amongst other things have continued to remain invaluable for many people.
As long as we work together, I am reasonably optimistic that we can overcome our difficulties.
The recent progress in Italy regarding the RTD and pledges by countries to cut emissions are good steps, though we obviously need to do more. I don't have a (new) family, and my life does not matter.
Then why do you use it?
:rofl:
Quoting Agent Smith
"My reaction to Malthus being proven wrong, much like many other historical pessimists" ;)
Quoting Agent Smith
Let's talk about "not understanding".
Your reply was the ROFL emoji.
Definition of ROFL emoji: Rolling on Floor Laughing emoji
Also know as the ROFL emoji, it depicts a smiling face crying tears of joy while leaning to one side, as if rolling over with uncontrollable laughter. It is used to mark anything that is extremely hilarious.
Hilarious things are things that amuse us. Amusing things, in turn, entertain us. Entertainment is usually based upon things that aren't real and are funny. Arguments are generally not funny. Therefore, it would be reasonable to presume that you thought my reply deserved to be treated facetiously even though you did not bother to write an actual refutation.
In light of this, I replied with what I considered to be an apposite response—one that did not have much to do with the topic at hand, but instead had a lot to do with projections. You asked why I keep using the emoji if I found it mysterious. I replied that I find joy in doing so. Apparently that was impossible for you to understand. Putting on a blindfold and then complaining about the lack of sunlight is not a hallmark of comprehensive thinking.
Malthus' predictions were quite pessimistic, something that is relevant to your concerns about overpopulation. However, he was wrong because we did not witness the sort of mass famines that many pessimists had predicted. Your response makes me think that you don't understand what understanding means, just as you don't know happiness even when it is right in front of you.
Changing the subject! Well done!
Quoting Agent Smith
No, you don't. If you did...you wouldn't have said what you said. Happiness is an illusion. Everybody is in the dark about happiness. All they know is pain.
I would have to continue to repeat the truth, irrespective of what others might think about it. You're in (in my view) the dark about reality. It's tragic to live a life permeated by such a humungous lie, but I can only explain the reality to you; I cannot understand it for you. Happiness is real. All you know is your single-minded concern with one side of the coin, which has undoubtedly been ingrained by factors I am not aware of. Still, I am sorry they happened.
Better to use a hat than to talk from a page that does not exist. Thank you for your insightful comments, and I hope you have a wonderful day ahead!
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUK149681263220111102
I missed your claim about natalism being "wicked". Well, I am sorry that you are not able to see the truth. Antinatalism is deeply sad and fundamentally flawed (this conversation has only lent further credence to that idea). However, you're clearly an intelligent and compassionate person, so I would not say that the view is inherently idiotic. It does remain limited. Nevertheless, thank you for sharing your thoughtful perspective.
Mistaking an illusion for the truth. As expected.
Quoting DA671
:ok: I'm sorry to say your view is not the samyak drishti.
Quoting DA671
Yes, life, everyone's, is tragic.
Quoting DA671
The coin in question has heads on both sides. Again, you've failed to understand antinatalism.
Quoting DA671
:ok: Glad that we can disengage on a positive note.
My ?????? appears to be more ?????? than yours. Samyak gyana is also quite important. It's amusing to use these Jain terminologies, considering they also believe in rebirth, which makes antinatalism utterly pointless (there are other deeds besides a lack of procreation that are necessary in their view). Also:
"Real happiness is a matter of experience, not of speech, not of demonstration. It can be had only by being introvert, cutting ourselves from all the non-self entities and being one with our soul itself. Since the soul is full of happiness, experience of the soul is the experience of happiness. Just as one cannot achieve the soul without experience, in the same manner one cannot get real happiness without the experience of the soul."
—Jainworld.com
Happiness might indeed be real if one has the right perspective.
The inability to look at things that are ineffably meaningful is certainly tragic.
Thankfully, not everyone is carrying counterfeit coins. Again, you failed to understand my viewpoint.
Despite everything, so am I :)
If there's a message in my posts, it's this: Happiness is an illusion. With that natalism collapses like a house of cards.
Can you clarify this question? Who are masochists and why? Then I can determine if I agree or not.
Btw, my phone still doesn't feel like quoting replies lol.
Masochists, last I checked, are people who are, well, mixed up about pain & pleasure. To clarify, what is normally perceived as pain is pleasure to a masochist. If so, antinatalism stops making sense; after all, it's cornerstone is pain/suffering as an undesirable state to be in.
This issue has another interesting corollary: How does God punish an evil masochist? God can't send evil masochists to hell because that's a masochist's heaven! God can't order evil masochists to heaven because they don't deserve heaven. What's left? Earth of course!
I don't believe in hell, but I guess there would be some sort of special section for the evil person where they can hurt themselves or don't achieve satisfaction the way they usually did. It's certainly interesting!
There are times when it's fun, entertaining, and "certainly interesting"; some have even gone to the extent of treating life as an enjoyable game. However, there's in the way you've tried to tackle the problem of suffering (antinatalism), in this thread at least, a deeply disturbing flippancy, an ill-considered and poorly executed attempt to downplay the real and extreme suffering that actual people - young and old - have gone/are going/will go through.
You don't know what suffering is! For people who've committed suicide and for those who can't and yet experience the same, if not more, agony, you're adding insult to injury. Very noble of you!
You do not care about the happiness and the lived experiences of innumerable innocent people who continue to cherish their lives despite having suffered more than you can probably imagine. I am sure that people of all age groups would consider your facetious and unjustifiable remarks about the so-called "illusion of happiness" to be deeply enlightening. I never downplayed suffering; I merely did not restrict my perspective. I doubt you understood them much, my friend. There is a sense of deep-seated prejudice and disdain in the way you have treated the profoundly significant experiences had by people, which is not unexpected, but slightly disappointing.
If only you could have spent some time with those who survived suicide and feel truly grateful for having gained a second chance, but then again, one can only look where they wish to. I will continue to support a liberal right to die since I do think that everybody should have the ability to find a dignified exit if the need ever arises.
As I said, there's no happiness!
Too, guilty pleasure. There's no such thing as guilty sorrow.
Don't try to win the argument; try to comprehend and...feel a little! Our situation is very grave, very grave indeed.
Being sad over someone's happiness might be a good example of "guilty sorrow".
Happiness is real. I do not really need to "argue" for that which is usually self-evident. Our situation is grave indeed, but not for the reasons you think. We do need to comprehend that the world is not defined by our personal viewpoint. Nevertheless, hope and joy will persist.
I'll give you an idea of why happiness is unreal. Happiness can be an illusion, but suffering cannot! You can seem to be happy but you cannot seem to be in pain! There's a fool's paradise, no fool's hell!
I'm done here! From your frivolous treatment of suffering, it becomes crystal clear, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Good day!
Quite regrettable that denial is the path you have chosen. From the very beginning, you seemed inquisitive, yet you have let your biases shape your worldview for too long. Your attempts to diminish happiness are, unfortunately, but ultimately futile. At the end of the day, it is crystalline that you have an extremely narrow knowledge of the world. Acknowledging one part of the circle does not make the other "frivolous", but grasping this requires looking at the bigger picture.
Thanks for everything. Have a wonderful day, and I hope you can have all my happiness :)
Quoting DA671 Yes, vide infra.
Quoting DA671
The Buddha: Life is suffering.
A conclusion he arrived at after nearly 2 decades of continuous hard thinking. He doesn't reserve this judgment only for souls in hell and earth, but also, make of a note of this, the gods themselves, apparently living in a constant state of ecstatic joy. Happiness, then, can only be an illusion. It's all dukkha my friend.
Please don't shoot your mouth off like this. As I said. you don't quite understand what you're saying.
Quoting DA671
I have affirmed the truth of suffering. If I have denied anything, it's the illusion of happiness. That's what we do with illusions.
Quoting DA671
You've again resorted to duality. Try and make a case, like antinatalists, using only one aspect/side of this alleged yin-yang system . You and natalists can't. Antinatalists can and have!
Last but not the least, let's not get all bent out of shape over a matter that actually needs time to be sorted out. Let your children and your children's children be the judge of what you've said here.
Quoting DA671
Thanks. Let's hope I'm wrong!
I don't need absolute perfection for life to be worthwhile, just as one doesn't require absolute suffering for some lives to be negative. You are free to consider anybody to be on "backfoot", but that doesn't mean much. It's merely a recognition of reality.
Happiness isn't any less real than suffering. Not much to see when one has not removed the curtain ;)
And Buddha didn't believe that happiness was an illusion. Mitigating unnecessary desires does lead to positive contentment.
You don't understand the Buddha, because he was never as limited in his scope as you have made yourself. Quite strange it is to think that the reality of one thing automatically makes the other an illusion. You never understood what the Buddha said, because you have single-mindedly focused on one aspect of reality. Happiness is real. Dukkha exists, but so does
sukkha (happiness). ???? and ??? are both relevant. I don't think that you understand what understanding means. Broadening one's horizons before reaching any conclusions is important lest one arrives at one that is fundamentally flawed. It's better to not annihilate one's keyboard before it happens.
"When the Buddha said he taught suffering and the end of suffering, rather than being pessimistic, he was being optimistic. When the Buddha explained dukkha (Pali. suffering, discontent), he explicated its cause, how to eradicate its cause, and the method of practice leading to its eradication. He taught us the way to avoid suffering.
Happy will he be who knows how to bring an end to suffering. Sukha may be translated as pleasant, pleasurable, happy, happiness, contentment, satisfaction, or even as joy and bliss."
—Buddhistdoor.net
The presence of discomfort doesn't automatically imply that good isn't real, but you need to look beyond your biases in order to see that.
You have denied the truth of happiness, which is the same as affirming a lie, my friend.
I have no obligation to work under your framework. Making the "case" doesn't mean ignoring the truth, as you and many other antinatalists choose to do. Happiness is what makes life worth it, just as extreme suffering might lead to some not have adequate value. Yet, that doesn't mean that the ineffably meaningful experiences of people dont matter. You can certainly say many things, but that doesn't make them real or substantial. They certainly will be the judge of the sort of things that you and I have said. Hopefully, they would have a better understanding of what reality and illusions mean than the one that has been displayed here.
Hope will not be necessary here. No problem :)
A child dying of starvation, an infant succumbing to a painful infection, a person being (slowly) tortured to death, a person who's unemployed and homeless because he didn't have it in him to make the cut, basically people enduring the most horrrific of circumstances aren't looking for perfection! They're simply asking/begging for the bare necessities that make life [s]enjoyable[/s] tolerable!
Your distorted view of reality is showing with every word that you write. I don't blame you though. Our opinions are shaped by our circumstances. You'll come around in time; it isn't a question of if, only when!
Quoting DA671
Realistic is the apt word/concept here!
As I said, let your children and children's children be the judge. We probably won't live long enough to see our descendants suffer in the most horrible of ways, but mark my words, this will come to pass.
We all are distorted to various degrees, my friend. Some mitigate that, others exacerbate it. Even though you have engaged with one side of reality quite well, you have grossly neglected the other. That ignorance continues to shape and reflect your words. Some people live their entire lives living a lie, but I hope your destiny is different.
Pseudo-realism ;)
"We" is a broad term :p We shall certainly see. I have marked your words, but I think that the only use they would have (ultimately, not immediately) would be as an example of how wrong some worldviews and predictions can get. Until then, please have a good life ahead!
By the way, no instance of happiness you give can make the case for you for the simple reason that happiness is dukkha too.
We will, mate. I am not an oracle, but I would be far more worried if there weren't people like you who cared. That's why I said before, thanks for "everything".
Also, sukha is not dukkha.
:ok: Good luck!
"A child dying of starvation"
If you were there perhaps you could have fed the child. I take that you do a lot of charity work and contribute to food banks and such, regularly.
"an infant succumbing to a painful infection"
Perhaps you could have provided the medication to save this infant or you could have phoned a medical professional or held them and whispered beautiful words into their ear or sang them a beautiful, peaceful song as they died. Had you been able to, would you have done so?
"A person being (slowly) tortured to death."
Maybe you could have killed the torturer or maybe the victim had slaughtered the person's family earlier and this was an act of vengeance. waddyafink?
"A person who's unemployed and homeless because he didn't have it in him to make the cut"
Maybe you could give this person a job or help him find one.
Maybe this person was a fraudster, caught, jailed, released, now rejected by friends, family, now on the street homeless, Do you feel still feel empathy or pity for this fraudster or would you 'offer another chance?'
"Basically people enduring the most horrrific of circumstances aren't looking for perfection! They're simply asking/begging for the bare necessities that make life enjoyable tolerable!"
Then why don't you do what you can to help them?
Instead, you sit inside your misanthropic bubble wearing your badge with 'I also suffer, boo hoo for me' on the label. But you wear it with pride. You like your christ crucified stance.
Your internal watcher is trying to tell you, you are too obsessed with the concept of suffering.
DA671 has gone to great lengths to do the same.
If you won't listen and learn then let us optimists get on with trying to 'intervene' on the behalf of the sufferers while you continue to bleat about suffering whilst doing nothing to help.
Why don't you think about becoming part of the solution instead of remaining part of the problem?
"Your distorted view of reality is showing with every word that you write. I don't blame you though. Our opinions are shaped by our circumstances. You'll come around in time; it isn't a question of if, only when!
I find predictors of doom boring and somewhat amusing.
A sandwich board with 'The end is nigh' on it is their usual fate or they join something like the 'rapture' crowd.
Happiness is either an illusion or, no matter what, is still dukkha (unsatisfactory). With that all arguments that depend on happiness as also a part of life (natalism one of 'em) go out the window.
Just to inject something new to my thesis: the overall trend in science (biology/medicine) hasn't been to increase pleasure, but to reduce pain. To drive home the point, have you checked the sales figures for painkillers? I'm certain the relevant statistics aren't going to help natalists make their case.
Just from some data available online:
Markets
Pleasure (not exactly, but let's give natalists something to work on)
Iillicit drugs: $32 billion
Fun fact: Morphine (highly addictive) is an analgesic.
Pain
Antidepressants: $20 billion
Analgesics: $25 billion
Some people do take substances that make them happier, though it might not be good to use those things which lead to a loss of happiness in the long run. However, removing pain does not mean that one does not experience happiness. Part of the reason why one seeks to avoid pain is that they wish to return to the state that is permeated with more fulfillment. The sales do show that there is an increase in our need to be happy than there was before ;)
Edit: Although I do not consider the usage of drugs to be the pinnacle of happiness (which is real), here are a few interesting statistics:
"In 2007 and 2008, cocaine was used by some 16 to 17 million people worldwide, similar to the number of global opiate users. North America accounted for more than 40 per cent of global cocaine consumption (the total was estimated at around 470 tons), while the 27 European Union and four European Free Trade Association countries accounted for more than a quarter of total consumption. These two regions account for more than 80 per cent of the total value of the global cocaine market, which was estimated at $88 billion in 2008."
Source: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/drug-trafficking/index.html
"According to the report published by Allied Market Research,the antidepressant drugs market accounted for $13.75 billion in 2016, and is estimated to reach $15.98 billion by 2023, registering a CAGR of 2.1% from 2017 to 2023."
Source: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/08/06/2074356/0/en/Antidepressant-Drugs-Market-to-Grow-Valuation-of-15-98-Billion-by-2023.html
"The global analgesics market reached a value of US$ 48.2 Billion in 2020."
Source: https://www.imarcgroup.com/analgesics-market#:~:text=Market%20Overview%3A,moderate%20growth%20during%202021%2D2026.
Therefore, the value of the "pleasure" (using just a single substance) appears to be greater. However, I do not think that one requires drugs in order to appreciate a valuable relationship or enjoy the beauty of art. I think it would be extremely difficult to put a monetary value on the effulgent smile a child has on his face when his mother after a long time. It would also be pertinent to mention that it could be possible that one is throwing away the opportunity to recognise happiness either by dismissing it as an "illusion" or by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that sucks all joy from one's life, which will lead one to an inexorable descent into an irrational position. One does do many things in order to prevent/reduce harm and regain contentment.
The upshot of all this is that universal antinatalism remains indefensible. I have already expressed my other views, so I shall refrain from repeating them here. Hope everybody here has an amazing day!
I will look out for your sandwich board....
I support your general views on this issue.
I leave Agent Smith to fight his own internal battle between antinatalism and masochism instead of his attempt to subject his own internal psychology to the scrutiny of others here.
Around 20 minutes later, I caught the elevator and took it to the ground floor, hungry. To my surprise I saw the man in room 501 having an argument, a friendly one with the receptionist. "You were making too much noise, sir" said the girl receptionist. "Last time we had the police in here because of loud music" she continued. The man from 501 took it well, said it won't happen next time, but he made it a point to convey his side of the story - the music and the conversation wasn't loud.
Now, I know what "loud" means and the guests in 501 definitely did nothing that was loud (enough) to deserve a reprimand.
I think I stayed in room 501 once, but thankfully we didn't have any noisy neighbours then :p
I don't think that people need to create beings right now. If anything, I agree with much of what you say about the need to address the issues we face (such as climate change) before we start thinking about creating people. Concrete steps are obviously important, which is why I don't support mindless procreation.
One of the signs of ?????? would be the tendency to fall prey to absolutist views, which wouldn't be a wise idea. Plus, there's https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Yuga.
:up: I can live with that!
I agree! Let's hope that things do get better.
"Firstly, most people do seem to value their lives"
One can value one's life and because of that come to the conclusion of antinatalism. "I value my life" does not mean I think life itself is good. It rather puts one in a vise, where you want to preserve your existence aka the thing you value but reality has different plans.
Reality having other plans is quite true. But I think that the statement can also apply to experiences that are unexpectedly good. I and many of those I know received a myriad of such positives when all hope seemed lost. In such cases, life can often feel like a sturdy fortress that, despite facing multiple attacks, stands firm and acts as a potent source of happiness.
https://www.wect.com/2020/11/17/it-was-instant-regret-golden-gate-bridge-suicide-survivor-share-story-virtual-event-wilmington/
A more than trivial amount of suffering has been eradicated as a consequence of the end/reduction of issues such as smallpox, polio, widespread slavery, unopposed patriarchy, etc. Pragmatic use of technology can also help alleviate the suffering of sentient beings beyond humans (Pearce would be interested here). Although progress is hard (we do have to look into addressing afflictions like the rapidly rising inequality and climate change), I do not believe that it is impossible.
I am not saying that this is true for all. This is why I am a staunch supporter of allowing people to find a graceful exit if they cannot discover any good in their lives. It is also incontrovertible that procreation should not be treated frivolously. In my view, both universal antinatalism and absolute pro-natalism are flawed. I hope that you will have an excellent week!
"There is no empirical evidence that most people don't value their lives or that there aren't good moments that we did not expect."
Well cool, because I never claimed that. I won't take a your suicide link as generalisable. Not to mention this isn't about suicide it's about sparing people the harms of life.
"A more than trivial amount of suffering has been eradicated..."
And new diseases related to longer life etc. Improvements and betterment do not equate to good.
"I am not saying that this is true for all. This is why I am a staunch supporter of allowing people to find a graceful exit if they cannot discover any good in their lives."
You're making this about suicide again and not about the ethics of procreation. Two different things.
"In my view, both universal antinatalism and absolute pro-natalism are flawed."
Universal antinatalism doesn't exist and probably never will but doesn't stop the stance being correct.
Absolute pro-natalism is the status quo.
"I hope that you will have an excellent week! " I'll have a week whether I want it or not.
Improvements are good because they help people live better lives and also enjoy the things they have. Just as there are new problems, there can also be new solutions. Unrestricted pessimism is not generalisable either. Additionally, this was about reaction to the attempt, not necessarily the act itself.
I am not going to disconnect them both entirely because the ethics of procreation is also linked with the benefits/harms of life. Being able to avoid the unnecessary suffering that could come with being forced to continue a mostly negative existence is good and does have an effect on the nature of reproduction. If the harms are important, then so are the positive experiences.
Absolute pro-natalism does not exist for most people (as that would mean that it is always good to create as many people as one can regardless of the impact this would have). Universal antinatalism does not exist, and, considering its shortcomings, I hope it will not.
You certainly will have a week. There are also moments of fulfilment even when we don't care.
I'm curious, are you aware of the axiological asymmetry?
"There are also moments of fulfilment even when we don't care."
How patronizing.
I did not intend to be patronising. I have often felt that there are moments that are better than how they might appear to during reflection as a result of my mind having certain expectations or preoccupations. I am sorry if I said anything offensive; I did not intend do so.
Okay I guess that's the impasse then.
Telling people they're not perceiving things right and that their feelings are invalid is patronizing.
Professor Benatar and many antinatalists talk about how good experiences are not as good as they might seem (the so-called positivity bias). I think that this is patronising. I am not saying that your feelings are invalid or your experiences are unreal. However, considering that this is an issue that resolves a lot around our perspectives, I found it worthwhile to mention that there are those (like myself) who can find greater joy in their lives by focusing on the immediate experiences rather than the needs we might have for certain valuable things. If you were to tell me something that would help me live a better life than the one I am living now as a result of my less than optimal way of looking at my life, then, personally, I would be immensely grateful for that suggestion. But I acknowledge that I am probably much less intelligent than most people (including yourself) here, so my requirements could be greater than most. Once again, I apologise for saying anything that appeared to be dismissive.
Well I don't judge my experiences of the world by what Benatar tells me.
I suppose you have the correct perspective then?
I could, and I could also be terribly wrong. This can vary greatly from one person to another. In general, I do think that there is a tendency (and I am not exactly above it) to emphasise what we don't have while paying little attention to the countless "little" sources of happiness around us. This can range from the beauty of one's surroundings to appreciating the food one consumes. I noticed that it wasn't necessarily that such things did not give me joy. Instead, I almost did not even consider them significant because of my prior desires for some specific things, ideas, etc. Some people close to me have experienced something similar. Nevertheless, I am not going to deny that this could be different for other people. This diversity of lives is the primary reason why I don't think that universal antinatalism or absolute pro-natalism are, even theoretically, correct ways to look at the world.
If you could be terribly wrong please let it rest for goodness sake.
I don't want to pointlessly wake anyone up. I only shared my view as I think that I could also be right about this and help give a glimpse of an alternative that doesn't require believing that all that is good is not worth it (a view that doesn't cause me much comfort). Ultimately, views are bound to diverge when it comes to intricate topics such as this one.
Have a wonderful day!
We're trying to walk two paths here. 1) the asymmetry we could talk about that. 2) you talking about my perceptions of my life.
1) is fine to talk about.
2) is not, is patronizing and I wish you'd stop.
Who said the truth had to give comfort?
Did you know it's true you'll probably die of cancer?
I have already shared why I disagree with the asymmetry.
It's particularly painful when (in my opinion) it is not even true.
Sure, it is possible (though I don't think that most people in all areas die of cancer). It's also true that I will no longer die of smallpox. Similarly, as someone who has suffered from multiple illnesses that essentially confined me to my house for years, I have also found that seemingly insignificant things (reading, family, art, etc.) can have indescribable value that can outweigh moments of great pain. For now, I can only appreciate what I have and hopefully do some good for others in this fascinating universe of ours.
Okay so we're talking about the asymmetry now? Or my week?
XD
Does this justify procreation tho?
Resilience? Wait why is that in the list?
But you're surely not suggesting creating blind people so that they can learn to be resilient?
That's perverse. Or I'm insane.
Ah religion. Can't really go much further with that.
Quoting DA671
Only to those who exist. Not to prospective beings.
In which case, the harms also only matter to those who exist. If their absence is still somehow "good" or "better" for those who never come into being (despite the fact that this doesn't cause any benefits for an actual person), then the lack happiness is also bad, even if nobody is consciously feeling deprived as a result of not having any good experiences.
She was an ardent Christian.
Quoting DA671
Died at 47. Hard to know how authentic he was.
Quoting DA671
No because no one is deprived of the happiness. No one suffers. No one loses. There is no one. But when you create someone they will most certainly be harmed and that's a bad state of affairs.
Being almost half a century old is not immature. We should also be careful lest we become patronising towards those whose experiences differ from our own
No one is consciously left in a happier state due to the absence of suffering either. If the prevention of pain can be an abstract good, then the prevention of pleasure can be an abstract harm (even if there is nobody who is feeling deprived). Not losing is good if something positive is gained or preserved (neither of which occurs for those who don't exist). If creation can contain harms (which are bad), then there are also positive experiences (which are good). The fact that everyone will definitely go through at least some good moments is a good state of affairs.
Quoting DA671
Religious Buddhists believe something as unverifiable and irrationally optimistic as Christians.
Quoting DA671
But they're not necessary. And then you have to contend with the negative nature of acquiring so called goods within this reality (Schopenhauer). The asymmetry tells one there is no duty to create new sentient beings.
Many don't believe in God and mostly focus on meditation/living a simple but surprisingly positive life.
Non-existent beings are not begging for not being created. If it is still "necessary" to prevent the future harms, I would say that the positives are also good/necessary to create good experiences. I am not denying that one has to contend with the negatives, but, if the positives do matter and the prevention of suffering is good, then never giving birth would cause a reality in which we would also have to contend with the ethically problematic state of affairs of very few positives (which could be far more bad than good). I do think that standards should be realistic so that there isn't greater damage in the long term. In this world, in which there are already plenty of people, there isn't an immediate need to mindlessly start creating people. However, if the situation were to change, then it would be moral to create individuals (unless doing so causes more problems than benefits).
They're not tho. We've no duty to create them. If the universe went silent there'd be no issue.
Quoting DA671
Only to existing people.
Quoting DA671
Only for those who exist in such a world. But if no one existed in such a world there'd be no ethical concern. Rocks floating around in the void is neither bad nor good. But sparing sentient beings harms is good.
The absence of suffering also only matters to existing people as it allows them to live happier lives. If we are saying that it is good/better even for those who don't exist, then the only consistent view would be that the prevention of happiness is problematic.
This also applies to the value of preventing suffering. Rocks would not be "better off" because of all the suffering they would not experience if we decided to not make them sentient (assuming we had that technology). If they would be, then they would also be worse off as a result of not experiencing any of the good journeys they could have had. Discarding the possibility of a myriad of good experiences for sentient beings is bad.
Only for people who exist to be deprived of goods.
Quoting DA671
No it wouldn't lol. There'd be no one there to be haunted! Please tell me you can recognise that?
Quoting DA671
If I told you could feel 2.5 x better(happier) for 4 years but you had to break my leg. Would you do it?
Quoting DA671
Bad for whom? No one suffers the loss.
I would hope that metaphorical/poetic language has not been relegated to the sidelines by all. And if the absence of suffering would be good even if nobody experiences that state, then it can also be bad, even if nobody is being haunted.
That would depend. Existing beings can already be satisfied with what they have and therefore don't need endless interventions for happiness that may involve exorbitant risks. However, non-existent beings are not in some blissful state that would be jeopardised by our act of creation. As for me, I think that, assuming that this really is twice as much happiness, I don't think that breaking my leg would be that bad. Of course, this also depends on the impact this would have and whether the pain of breaking it would last longer.
Neither is it good/better for anybody. Nobody experiences a profit prior to existence.
It's complete unacceptable to me, has been the root cause of so much ugliness.
The answer is no one will be harmed by this. The non existent don't suffer.
Bad for whom?
If this is true no one would procreate.
Absolutely you're kind of getting it. I don't think we need to worry then about creating people no one gets hurt because of our needs if we choose not to create them.
There is nobody to be miss those goods. How come you can't see that?
My leg not yours! You will give your kids the gift of disease and decay for your needs without the possibility of consent. That's what my thought experiment is supposed to be about but you missed it.
Procreation is intrinsically NOT a personal matter. Firstly you need two people to do it and a third or even more persons are created who have no say in the matter.
Quoting DA671
Wait. Who is celebrating harms?
Quoting DA671
For whom?! Deprivation of pleasures is only for the existing not the non existing.
Correct! Which is neutral! Nothing immoral has happened.
So why is it okay give people age related disease and loss of ability?
By "celebrating", I meant saying that it is good.
Similarly, the benefits of not suffering are only for those who exist, not for nothingness.
It's not okay to give diseases to existing people who could enjoy the state of being healthy. When we are creating individuals, however, we have to take both positive and negative elements into account.
You said celebrating harms. Did you not? No one is doing that.
I'll just keep asking; for whom is it bad?
They don't exist nothing can be good or bad for them. Only existing people can suffer or enjoy harms and benefits.
Including me. For existing people!
Explain?
How can we say that suffering is an illusion? Are cancers, chronic painful medical conditions "illusions"? Was the Holocaust "not real"? Did black slaves "ask for it" by not putting up more resistance?
I am sorry for causing any confusion concerning this.