Question: What if we're (secret/closet) masochists?
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 11, 2022 at 18:10#6413310 likes
No, no! We're natalists because we're masochists (we get off on pain)
Ohh, I see.
Existential HopeJanuary 11, 2022 at 19:19#6413530 likes
I don't think antinatalism is correct, but I suppose there is a sort of fundamental value in any pain we appreciate. Perhaps one would not even call it a harm in the ultimate sense.
Also, are you really Agent Smith?
Agent SmithJanuary 11, 2022 at 20:41#6413680 likes
I don't think antinatalism is correct, but I suppose there is a sort of fundamental value in any pain we appreciate. Perhaps one would not even call it a harm in the ultimate sense.
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 01:26#6414500 likes
Actually, antinatalism is incorrect. Firstly, most people do seem to value their lives, so I would not say it's a privilege. Secondly, I think one could also say that suffering is an illusion. We are all happy to varying degrees, even if we don't recognise that yet ;)
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
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).
Could you elaborate?
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 06:07#6414910 likes
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 07:30#6415580 likes
Reply to Agent Smith The Buddhist and Hindu belief is similar (mine is latter). For us, transcending superficial desires (and pleasures) is necessary for realising one's unity with the ultimate. However, this isn't just about negating life; it's also about achieving a higher realm. Still, Buddhists also believe that the human birth is probably the best shot one has at transcendence.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 08:02#6415670 likes
However, this isn't just about negating life; it's also about achieving a higher realm.
: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).
Still, Buddhists also believe that the human birth is probably the best shot one has at transcendence.
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 08:15#6415760 likes
Reply to Agent Smith It's a higher form of "being" (in the Hindu context, it's Brahman). It's obviously not biological life, but neither is it absolute nothingness.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 08:22#6415770 likes
Reply to Hermeticus Indeed. People often quote the Buddha's saying regarding life being suffering (or dukkha, more specifically), but neglect to also mention that he also said that there is a way to transcend it, which is following the middle path. Transcendence is often mistaken for negation in the West, which is tragic, but understandable.
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 08:30#6415790 likes
It's a higher form of "being" (in the Hindu context, it's Brahman). It's obviously not biological life, but neither is it absolute nothingness.
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:04#6416170 likes
That would depend on the purpose. I don't think that one would endorse antinatalism in a universal sense because each person has their own journey. Not creating someone is not going to stop their birth (though they could be born in a lower realm of being). It's not just about escaping life; it's also about embracing the ultimate reality. So, the negative is alongside a positive, not for the sake of achieving a void. And even then, the path is fairly individualised.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:13#6416290 likes
That would depend on the purpose. I don't think that one would endorse antinatalism in a universal sense because each person has their own journey. Not creating someone is not going to stop their birth (though they could be born in a lower realm of being). It's not just about escaping life; it's also about embracing the ultimate reality. So, the negative is alongside a positive, not for the sake of achieving a void. And even then, the path is fairly individualised.
You fail to see the point. Happiness is an illusion!
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:19#6416340 likes
Reply to Agent Smith I don't fail to see it. However, everything else is also an illusion, and the way to pass that isn't as simple as one might think!
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:23#6416410 likes
However, everything else is also an illusion, and the way to pass that isn't as simple as one might think!
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:33#6416590 likes
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
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:36#6416650 likes
I don't think that, materialistically speaking, happiness is any more of a illusion than suffering.
I'm afraid suffering isn't an illusion.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:37#6416660 likes
Reply to Agent Smith And I am happy that neither is happiness. It might feel like it if one doesn't know where to look, but I don't think it is. It's certainly as real as the harms. Selective doubts and fear can sometimes lead us to erroneous conclusions.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:38#6416690 likes
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:40#6416710 likes
"as real as harms"
Either none are real, or both are. I don't think that the contrary view is true.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:41#6416730 likes
Reply to DA671 You've not understood antinatalism well my friend.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:43#6416760 likes
Reply to Agent Smith That's quite possible. However, I do think that I have understood it well enough. If you are referring to the claim that happiness isn't "anything" other than the negation of needs, I disagree with that view, because the needs themselves also result from a loss of some state of satisfaction. I don't find one of them to be more "real" than the other.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:43#6416780 likes
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:45#6416790 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Would you say there was some understanding there pertaining to the claims about needs? I sure do hope so! If not, I would be grateful to know your reasons for thinking so.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:46#6416810 likes
Reply to DA671 Yes, there's understanding, a whole lot of it! :up:
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:47#6416840 likes
Reply to Agent Smith I am not being facetious! Seriously, if I was wrong, I would be indebted for any correction. I know too little, far too little. There's much to know in this enigmatic cosmos of ours. I am not sure if you were being sarcastic. Apologies if I misunderstood you.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:49#6416860 likes
I am not being facetious! Seriously, if I was wrong, I would be indebted for any correction. I know too little, far too little. There's much to know in this enigmatic cosmos of ours.
Let's just say antinatalism isn't as simple as we think it is. I'm also a learner, just like you.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 09:50#6416880 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Neither is natalism or life itself as simple as we might think it is, but I agree. Would you wish to elaborate on any of the complexities you alluded to here?
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 ;)
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 10:38#6417100 likes
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.
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:
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 12:05#6417380 likes
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
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 12:25#6417490 likes
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).
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 12:32#6417530 likes
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".
Oh sorry, that's not right I'm afraid. Try not to overthink it.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 12:37#6417590 likes
Yes, Oh! You need to reexamine antinatalism, carefully this time.
:ok:
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 15:46#6418140 likes
Reply to john27 While "re-examining" antinatalism "carefully, please do remember that good replies to it exist, and it (most probably) is not true in a universal sense
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 ;)
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 15:49#6418190 likes
While "re-examining" antinatalism "carefully, please do remember that good replies to it exist, and it (most probably) is not true in a universal sense
What are these "good" replies? I'm all ears.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 15:50#6418200 likes
Reply to Agent Smith What is your good position that I am supposed to reply to? I am also all eyes.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 15:50#6418210 likes
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 15:52#6418240 likes
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 15:52#6418270 likes
Reply to Agent Smith It certainly is, though I feel that both are necessary for a healthy society. But as I said, elaboration would be much appreciated :)
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
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 15:54#6418290 likes
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 15:59#6418400 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Yes, I am glad for being back to a fundamentally valuable state. I am happy to know about your gladness, and thanks for your magnanimity there.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 15:59#6418410 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Then suffering is also an illusion. I am afraid that you don't understand natalism.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 15:59#6418420 likes
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:05#6418510 likes
Reply to Agent Smith That's the illusion ;)
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:08#6418530 likes
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:10#6418560 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Yeah, I can see that you're probably feeling happy at having convincingly "outclassed" me. You'll probably attempt to deny that you're happy, but that's not particularly pertinent, my friend.
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:10#6418570 likes
I can see that you're probably feeling happy at having convincingly "outclassed" me.
Not my way.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:13#6418620 likes
Reply to Agent Smith I think I perfectly do. Given a range of choices, the alternative that provides a clearer path to fundamental value is generally preferable. Au contraire, I think you did not grasp what I was saying. I think it is your way, yet you are refusing to see it for some inexplicable reason.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:13#6418640 likes
Reply to Agent Smith It can be difficult to see the path we are treading on if we are looking elsewhere ;)
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:14#6418660 likes
It can be difficult to see the path we are treading on if we are looking elsewhere
Suffering? :brow:
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:15#6418670 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Happiness.
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:17#6418700 likes
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:19#6418720 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Flawed perspectives can indeed lead to unnecessary difficulties in achieving happiness.
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:20#6418730 likes
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:24#6418840 likes
Reply to Agent Smith In itself, provided it's true, it is perfect. However, the perfection of rationality entails being open to multiple possibilities. Truly wonderful.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:25#6418850 likes
That's my reaction to antinatalists I debated on reddit who were claiming that AN is "bulletproof".
Your happiness is an illusion, my friend.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:26#6418890 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Certainly. I would finally know the truth and defeat any possibility of lies. It couldn't get better than that. However, after all these years, I am almost certain it isn't.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:27#6418910 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Your idea about happiness being an illusion is itself an illusion, my friend.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:27#6418920 likes
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:29#6418970 likes
Reply to Agent Smith I never said that you didn't (except for a few deliberately flippant comments). However, you also do experience satisfaction. It's just that you're in denial about its existence, which is probably turning this situation into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Happiness is quite real.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:29#6418990 likes
I never said that you didn't (except for a few deliberately flippant comments). However, you also do experience satisfaction. It's just that you're in denial about its existence, which is probably turning this situation into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Happiness is quite real.
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:32#6419030 likes
Too egotistical for me. Thanks for the advice, a slightly misled version of "myself"
You've misunderstood.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:34#6419060 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Your idea of happiness is limited then. As I said, an illusion about illusions. You do experience satisfaction, but you don't take realise that/misunderstand it. Good things are generally complex. There are probably moments when a person is actually happy but mistakenly think they are not. Satisfaction can truly be wonderful, but contributing towards the genesis of a self-fulfilling prophecy isn't useful.
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
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:36#6419070 likes
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:39#6419080 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Satisfaction is happiness, and that's what my lived experience and the experiences of many around me shows.
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:40#6419100 likes
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:41#6419110 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Yes, it is. If you think otherwise, then what you call satisfaction is a rather poor imitation of it. I hope I could suffer for a day if that allowed you to see things differently.
You could, but I don't think you would be right.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:42#6419120 likes
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:43#6419140 likes
Here, however, I was referring to a mirror I just bought
Whatever makes you happy.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:49#6419210 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Another example of the fallacy fallacy without adequate justification. Might be a new record.
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:50#6419220 likes
I hope I could suffer for a day if that allowed you to see things differently.
This shows that you have no idea what suffering is. As I said, you don't quite understand what you're saying.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:51#6419230 likes
Reply to Agent Smith I wasn't saying that you're a sadist or anything. It was more of a fantasy. However, you obfuscate things that don't need be obfuscated.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:52#6419240 likes
Another example of the fallacy fallacy without adequate justification. Might be a new record.
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:55#6419260 likes
Reply to Agent Smith You're the one who committed a fallacy twice which further undermines your already undermined position.
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:56#6419270 likes
Reply to DA671 Big Bad World! Big Bad World! Big Bad World! Third times a charm!
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:57#6419290 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Ultimately good world. The truth doesn't have to be repeated multiple times for its truth value to remain. I hope you would have expanded your wisdom in a decade from now ;)
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 16:59#6419320 likes
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:04#6419370 likes
Reply to DA671 You don't see what I see. Here's a glimpse of the future:
Do you want to have (grand)children now? Their lives would be a curse. Have you looked at suicide rates?
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:08#6419390 likes
Reply to Agent Smith There certainly are risks, and that's why I believe that we should not mindlessly procreate (as many do) without addressing issues such as climate change.
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:08#6419400 likes
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:09#6419420 likes
Reply to DA671 You've missed the point completely. No amount of rationalization is going to have an effect on this runaway train we call civilzation. All people, brace for impact!
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:10#6419430 likes
There certainly are risks, and that's why I believe that we should not mindlessly procreate (as many do) without addressing issues such as climate change.
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.
:rofl:
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:12#6419450 likes
Reply to Agent Smith I wouldn't wish to miss the glorious station due to the mist of doom and gloom. I do expect things to turn bad, but I also believe that they can turn better. You have always underestimated the positives, and your rationalisations pertaining to the value of happiness show that, but there is certainly truth in what you say regarding the need to address harms urgently.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:12#6419460 likes
Reply to DA671 I would've liked to say natalism is idiotic, but now that I think of it, it's infact wicked!
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:13#6419470 likes
I wouldn't wish to miss the glorious station due to the mist of doom and gloom. I do expect things to turn bad, but I also believe that they can turn better. You have always underestimated the positives, and your rationalisations pertaining to the value of happiness show that, but there is certainly truth in what you say regarding the need to address harms urgently.
I don't think you quite understand what you're saying.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:16#6419500 likes
@DA671 You don't know what suffering is.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:17#6419510 likes
Reply to Agent Smith An amazing ability to describe oneself that's tragically marred by a small grammatical mistake where you is used instead of "me".
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:17#6419520 likes
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:21#6419560 likes
@DA671 You're talking out of your hat here. I'm all out. Good day.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 17:24#6419600 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Mistaking consistency to be change. Strange, but not unexpected.
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!
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 18:22#6419840 likes
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 :)
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 18:50#6420080 likes
If there's a message in my posts, it's this: Happiness is an illusion. With that natalism collapses like a house of cards.
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 18:53#6420110 likes
Reply to Agent Smith An illusory collapse is fun, but not as fun as the actual collapse of the arguments that have been presented here for antinatalism, which remains a flawed ideology. Happiness is real, btw.
Agent SmithJanuary 12, 2022 at 18:56#6420140 likes
Reply to DA671 You will realize it (the truth of antinatalism), the easy way or the hard way. Seems like you've made your choice. Good luck!
Existential HopeJanuary 12, 2022 at 18:57#6420150 likes
Reply to Agent Smith I also hope that you will not spend the rest of your life living a lie. As for me, I would not wish to be myopic enough to let my hardships change the truth. But thanks for your kind words. I made the choice to look beyond my biases a long time ago. Best of luck to you for your future endeavours!
schopenhauer1January 13, 2022 at 15:38#6423690 likes
Question: What if we're (secret/closet) masochists?
Can you clarify this question? Who are masochists and why? Then I can determine if I agree or not.
Existential HopeJanuary 13, 2022 at 16:55#6423850 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 Maybe he meant that the only reason us deluded natalists could fail to see the "illusion of happiness" and the reality of harm is because we feel good about "imposing" it. I've expressed my reasons for disagreeing, so I won't repeat myself here. There are certainly some harms (such as studying hard) necessary for greater goods (like the satisfaction of passing), but I would not say that they always play an indelible role, particularly in things such as meaningful relationships. But I allegedly lack "understanding", so I am sure you will find more compelling explanations.
Btw, my phone still doesn't feel like quoting replies lol.
Agent SmithJanuary 14, 2022 at 10:31#6428240 likes
Can you clarify this question? Who are masochists and why? Then I can determine if I agree or not.
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!
Existential HopeJanuary 14, 2022 at 11:24#6428350 likes
Reply to Agent Smith I suppose the pain in that case wouldn't be a harm in the ultimate sense, since it would lead to a greater good (which isn't illusory) that would outweigh the harm for the person. Some people might indeed crave pain, but I think it is better to avoid it if better alternatives for being happy are available.
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!
Agent SmithJanuary 14, 2022 at 12:10#6428500 likes
Reply to DA671 You haven't really made your position clear, bit if I were to guess, you're endorsing natalism.
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!
Existential HopeJanuary 14, 2022 at 12:14#6428510 likes
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 14, 2022 at 12:19#6428550 likes
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.
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 14, 2022 at 12:22#6428560 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Very "noble" of you to ignore the reality that has defined the lives of billions of people. There is indeed happiness, and you are probably experiencing it in some form right now. Unfortunately, you are not willing to let go of the presuppositions that are holding you back. I wish I could do something to help you see things differently, even if it meant causing harm to myself. I am sorry if I said anything unsavoury in this exchange.
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 14, 2022 at 12:27#6428590 likes
Very "noble" of you to ignore the reality that has defined the lives of billions of people. There is indeed happiness, and you are probably experiencing it in some form right now. Unfortunately, you are not willing to let go of the presuppositions that are holding you back.
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. Nevertheless, hope and joy will persist.
now
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!
Agent SmithJanuary 14, 2022 at 12:31#6428600 likes
:broken:
Existential HopeJanuary 14, 2022 at 12:35#6428610 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Another assertion that contradicts reality, I am afraid. There is no such thing as "seeming" to be happy. There are instances when one might be in pain and yet also be happy, but that is a situation of duality, not illusions. And if happiness can seem like an illusion, so can suffering. I have seen many people breaking down in tears over failing to win their favourite video game, all the while they can easily retry and have many material comforts, Yet, if their sadness is "real" to you, then so is happiness. It does seem like there is a fool's hell, and you are dangerously close to it. You deserve better. Avidya leads to suffering, and it is worse when it is deliberate.
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 :)
Existential HopeJanuary 14, 2022 at 12:45#6428630 likes
??
Agent SmithJanuary 14, 2022 at 20:16#6430540 likes
That's the only reasonable defense you have, but do note here that I don't concede the reality/actuality of happiness while the very fact that you bring up duality is proof that you acknowledge the fact that there's suffering. In other words, natalists like yourself will always be on the back foot.
It does seem like there is a fool's hell, and you are dangerously close to it. [...] Avidya
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.
Acknowledging one part of the circle does not make the other "frivolous", but grasping this requires looking at the bigger picture.
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 15, 2022 at 01:32#6432310 likes
Reply to Agent Smith It's one of many.
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 :)
Agent SmithJanuary 15, 2022 at 03:00#6432510 likes
I don't need absolute perfection for life to be worthwhile,
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!
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 15, 2022 at 03:11#6432590 likes
Reply to Agent Smith A child lovingly hugging his mother in an attempt to express the indescribable beauty of love is not tolerance. A soldier feeling immense pride and honour despite of facing pain is transcending mere "tolerance". Innumerable people helping others and finding genuine happiness in it is more significant than one might think. I am not denying that the harms aren't extremely problematic, however. Part of the problem is that most people these days wish to chase superficial pleasures instead of finding deeper contentment, which is easier to find if everybody benefits, not just a few. If the world had more empathetic people like you, we could have resolved our problems sooner. Still, hope remains.
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!
Agent SmithJanuary 15, 2022 at 03:14#6432610 likes
Reply to DA671 Let our children and children's children be the judge. I secretly wish I'm wrong, but the givens are such that any such optimism is ridiculous!
By the way, no instance of happiness you give can make the case for you for the simple reason that happiness is dukkha too.
Existential HopeJanuary 15, 2022 at 03:15#6432620 likes
Reply to Agent Smith It always has been. After all, the achievement of the "ridiculous" is an excellent way to reach the realm of ecstasy. :)
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 15, 2022 at 03:16#6432630 likes
"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.
Agent SmithJanuary 16, 2022 at 08:14#6437110 likes
Reply to universenessMy replies to DA671 apply to you. There's no point in repeating myself.
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 16, 2022 at 08:59#6437150 likes
Reply to universeness In here for the daily reminder that the reality of A does not automatically make B unreal. Dissatisfaction is, by definition, not true satisfaction. However, profound happiness does exist, and one can cherish it in multiple ways, from simple pleasures such as consumption to more complex ones such as love and achievement of knowledge. I would not be making the claim that the reality of happiness makes suffering unreal, however, since I do think that a comprehensive approach is preferable.
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."
"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."
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!
universenessJanuary 16, 2022 at 10:31#6437250 likes
universenessJanuary 16, 2022 at 10:36#6437270 likes
Reply to DA671
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 28, 2022 at 13:07#6486000 likes
I've been staying in a hotel since the 19th of Jan 2022 (just basic services, nothing fancy). So, yesterday I was walking past this room (501) and I heard voices and music through the door. The door opened ever so slightly and I managed to catch a glimpse of what was going on. A small/mini party; no, not a Boris Johnson situation, so don't get your hackles up). I simply walked past. That was that.
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.
Existential HopeJanuary 28, 2022 at 13:10#6486030 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Music are certainly be too loud, just as it can be pleasant.
I think I stayed in room 501 once, but thankfully we didn't have any noisy neighbours then :p
Agent SmithJanuary 28, 2022 at 13:34#6486120 likes
Better a false diamond than no diamond. I completely forgot how human minds work. Better a fool's paradise than no paradise at all. Better an illusion than nothing! So on and so forth...
Existential HopeJanuary 28, 2022 at 13:59#6486190 likes
Talks about "falsehoods" can reveal intuitions about reality. Fool's paradise and ignorant's hell: they can be equally illusory. Diamonds are hidden, but not absent. Then again, they aren't always necessary for the ubiquitous gems that can be found in seemingly unlikely places, provided one is willing to look. ;)
Agent SmithJanuary 28, 2022 at 14:29#6486250 likes
Reply to DA671 You really want children to be born, huh? Are you sure you can guarantee their wellbeing and not just any wellbeing mind you, wellbeing that ensures their total happiness from womb to tomb? If you can't, and I know you can't unless you're a billionaire and even then there's a significant level of uncertainty, you should concede and embrace antinatalism. There really is no point arguing against a philosophy viz. antinatalism that makes so much sense given how things are.
Agent SmithJanuary 28, 2022 at 14:32#6486270 likes
To drive home the point :point: Kali Yuga. Not really a world you want your children to live in.
Existential HopeJanuary 28, 2022 at 14:33#6486280 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Billionaires might not always be happy, and my experiences with many "rich" people have shown me that the so-called "poor" people have a wealth of joy that is the envy of the elites. Since people cannot say with absolute certainty that the person's life would be bad, I don't think that an absolute level of well-being is necessary for a sufficiently valuable life. I do think that this varies depending upon the individual.
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.
Agent SmithJanuary 28, 2022 at 14:35#6486290 likes
Billionaires might not always be happy, and my experiences with many "rich" people have shown me that the so-called "poor" people have a wealth of joy that is the envy of the elites. Since people cannot say with absolute certainty that the person's life would be bad, I don't think that an absolute level of well-being is necessary for a sufficiently valuable life. I do think that this varies depending upon the individual.
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.
:up: I can live with that!
Existential HopeJanuary 28, 2022 at 14:37#6486300 likes
Reply to Agent Smith The ??? are eternal in their formation. But they all never forgo hope and the need to follow a balanced approach.
Reply to DA671
"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.
Existential HopeMarch 12, 2023 at 16:27#7884460 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui My point was about preferring one's existence to never having been there. It is also possible for people to value some aspects of their lives while also believing that it is mostly negative (the opposite is also possible). I was not referring to this group of people. Of course, if life can be seen as a gift, it can also be seen as something that is mostly negative. Any worldview concerning existence should not impose a universal prohibition against creating or never doing so, since both of them can fail to consider a significant aspect of existence.
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.
Existential HopeMarch 12, 2023 at 17:24#7884550 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui 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. Cases like the following are a part of the empirical domain, I think:
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.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 02:16#7885530 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui This is also about the value of life and making decisions on the basis of what one does know.
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.
Reply to DA671
I'm curious, are you aware of the axiological asymmetry?
"There are also moments of fulfilment even when we don't care."
How patronizing.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 08:37#7885950 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui I am, and I disagree with it. I don't think that the absence of suffering can be "good" or better for non-existent beings if the lack of happiness is not bad for those who don't exist. It is usually argued that those who don't exist are not deprived of any positives, but it is also true that non-existence doesn't provide any value either. If the absence of suffering can be good irrespective of whether or not there is an actual benefit for a person, then the absence of happiness is also bad. However, one should have a realistic framework that doesn't foist moral obligations that end up causing more harm than good.
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.
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?
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 08:54#7886040 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui That is good. But many people (by which I mean almost all antinatalists I have talked to) agree with his assessments. After a particular point, one starts to presume certain things so that time is not unnecessarily wasted.
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.
Reply to DA671 I agree with the asymmetry don't get me wrong. I think it's correct. Benatar just formalized something I already thought.
If you could be terribly wrong please let it rest for goodness sake.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 09:00#7886060 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui Well, I don't think that it is correct to say that the absence of suffering is good even though there is no satisfaction resulting from it, but somehow the absence of happiness is not bad because there is no deprivation.
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.
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?
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 09:11#7886080 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui Again, I was not trying to make this about you. The point was a broader one that I felt was relevant in the context of the value of life. I am sorry if anything I said was patronising. As I said, I was not trying to condescendingly tell you how wrong you are. It was more akin to a suggestion a friend might give (although I don't have many of them) about an idea and how they see it.
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?
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 09:33#7886120 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui I do hope that your week will go well. Apart from this, you can write whatever you wish to. I have expressed my reasons for disagreeing with the asymmetry before.
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.
Does this justify procreation tho?
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 09:46#7886160 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui I think that the immensely meaningful relationships, aesthetic value, resilience, and the other numerous positive experiences of life (love, accomplishment, pursuing knowledge) can certainly justify procreation.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 09:50#7886180 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui Against harms. There are people, such as Erik Weihenmayer, who have figuratively and literally climbed mountains despite facing seemingly insurmountable odds. It is not the case that the negatives of life will necessarily crush us without any hope for a better tomorrow remaining.
But you're surely not suggesting creating blind people so that they can learn to be resilient?
That's perverse. Or I'm insane.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 09:55#7886200 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui No, but if people like Helen Keller can find the "faith that leads to achievement", then the durability of the individual is not a mere dream. Before creating, one can only act on the basis of what they know. Obviously, intentionally creating a life having mostly negative experiences would be problematic. However, if there are positives that do matter, then it can be justifiable (and good) to do so (assuming that it is not almost certain that the outcome will primarily be a bad one). This is why this is an issue that can transform depending upon the situation and a blanket ban on either option (creation and non-creation) can ignore one aspect of reality.
However, if there are positives that do matter, then it can be justifiable (and good) to do so
Only to those who exist. Not to prospective beings.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:01#7886230 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui She was referring to optimism here. I am sure that Camus was not a theist when he wrote about the invincible summer within him.
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.
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.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:10#7886250 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui I am aware of that. But that doesn't mean that everything good she experienced was a result of her faith. Others, like Camus or even many Buddhists, are not theists.
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.
The fact that everyone will definitely go through at least some good moments is a good state of affairs.
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.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:19#7886280 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui Not about everything (and it would not be apt to oppose a patronising attitude while doubting/discarding his analysis of his own life).
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).
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
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.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:29#7886300 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui And that would be neither good nor bad. In my view, life can matter for us. But if the absence of harms would be good in some way, then the lack of happiness will certainly be an issue. The silence would only be a haunting reminder of the immorality that has occurred.
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.
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
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?
Discarding the possibility of a myriad of good experiences for sentient beings is bad.
Bad for whom? No one suffers the loss.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:44#7886350 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui Possibly, but then the prevention of suffering will only be good for those who would actually benefit from it in terms of their overall well-being.
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.
Neither is it good/better for anybody. Nobody experiences a profit prior to existence.
The answer is no one will be harmed by this. The non existent don't suffer.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:47#7886390 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui Your use of the word "root" (primarily used in the context of plants) with cause to effectively explain your point was quite beautiful to me.
Existing beings can already be satisfied with what they have and therefore don't need endless interventions for happiness that may involve unnecessary risks
If this is true no one would procreate.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:48#7886420 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui And the second fact is that nobody benefits from this. The non-existent are not happy.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:48#7886430 likes
However, non-existent beings are not in some blissful state that would be jeopardised by our act of creation
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?
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:50#7886470 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui I was referring to the hypothetical case of being offered to break one's leg for the joy. Procreation, something that is linked to family and community, can have a lot more value (the loss of which would not be acceptable to many, which is different from intentionally risking their limbs for a good that they may not require for living a sufficiently good life).
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
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.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:52#7886490 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui My view is that there is no absolute need to create people or to not do so as non-existent beings don't lose or benefit from either of these. In this case, procreation becomes a more of an individual matter that can differ from person to person. But if we need to celebrate all the harms we prevented for non-existent beings, then we do have to worry about the absence of the positive experiences. Nobody in the realm of nothingness is pleased about our decision to not procreate.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:54#7886510 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui I do see it, but I also see something else. There is nobody to feel good/satisfied as a result of not experiencing suffering in nothingness.
In this case, procreation becomes a more of an individual matter that can differ from person to person.
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.
There is nobody to feel good/satisfied as a result of not experiencing suffering in nothingness.
Correct! Which is neutral! Nothing immoral has happened.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:57#7886550 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui I was trying to explain the balance for me. If it was about breaking your leg, I don't think that it would be good for you (which is what matters when we are talking about personal value). A society in which people are casually breaking people's legs will likely descend into anarchy, so I would not agree with it (especially because it isn't as if I could not live a decently happy life without the act). I don't think that the concept of consent applies to a case in which no prior interest is being ignored. But if life can be seen as an imposition, it can be seen as an authentic gift that allows people to experience love, beauty, and knowledge (none of which they could have asked for before existing).
A society in which people are casually breaking people's legs will likely descend into anarchy, so I would not agree with it
So why is it okay give people age related disease and loss of ability?
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 10:59#7886580 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui I was talking about the overall nature of procreation and saying that it may not be always bad or always good.
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.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 11:01#7886610 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui Neutrality is inferior to that which is good. And, if the absence of suffering is good (as opposed to being merely neutral), then the lack of happiness is also bad.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 11:02#7886640 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui I never said it was. It is, however, good to create good experiences that promote beauty, the dynamic power of love, and the ability to learn about the enthralling reality.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 11:03#7886660 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui I said "all the harms we prevented". What I meant was saying that the absence of harms is good, which is something that many say.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 11:04#7886670 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui For the person for whom it is "better" to not suffer even though they don't even exist.
What I meant was saying that the absence of harms is good, which is something that many say.
Including me. For existing people!
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 11:07#7886700 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui If we say that it is "better" for them to not exist, we are effectively saying that it is good in some way. States that are not good have no value, which is why we have no obligation to choose them. If creating harms is bad (and not doing so is good), then creating happiness is good (and not doing so is ethically dubious).
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 11:08#7886720 likes
Reply to Sumyung Gui If the absence of harms is only good for existing people, then there is no reason to say that not creating them is an obligation. Once again, a state that is not good in any way has no value and therefore doesn't give us any reason to prefer it or to call it better. If we are saying that non-existence is good because there is no suffering involved, then one can also say that it is bad as there is no good present. Finally, if the view is that non-existence is "neutral" and is better than a negative state (suffering), then it is also true that a neutral state is worse than a positive state (happiness). If we don't need someone to feel satisfied/happy for us to say that the prevention of suffering is good, we don't need someone to feel deprived for us to understand that the prevention of joy is bad.
Actually, antinatalism is incorrect. Firstly, most people do seem to value their lives, so I would not say it's a privilege. Secondly, I think one could also say that suffering is an illusion. We are all happy to varying degrees, even if we don't recognise that yet
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?
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 14:24#7887300 likes
Reply to Cobra If you were to go through the entire conversation, you would see that I was merely making a parallel claim to the idea that the incalculable joy that many people claim to have experienced through love, through triumphing over diseases such as polio, through feeling the gale of freedom from the extensive slavery that once existed, and from even allegedly trivial things such as admiring the beauty of the world around us is actually an illusion (which is what my interlocutor was saying).
I am sorry for causing any confusion concerning this.
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.
[quote=Grace]Don't thank me yet.[/quote]
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.