Pessimism’s ultimate insight
Some of Schopenhauer's best insights were his ideas about the centrality of boredom. Boredom sits at the heart of the human condition.
If we were in a hand-to-mouth survival situation, that is all we would be consumed with...the means to putting food in our mouth, getting hydrated, and finding comfortable shelter from the elements.
In an industrialized, complex network of production and consumption, this is all atomized into our little "work" and "leisure" pursuits. On the other side of the spectrum, waiting for us is boredom. Boredom lays bare that existence isn't anything BUT striving-after. We strive to survive and be comfortable. Then, if we do not have any entertainment pursuits to occupy our mental space, we may get existential. "Why are we doing this repetitive upkeep, maintenance, and thrashing about?" It becomes apparent about the malignantly useless (as another author has characterized it).
A pretty face, a noble pursuit, a puzzle, an ounce of pleasure.. we all try to submerge in these entertainments to not face the existential boredom straight on. That would be too much to dwell in for too long. We design goals, and virtues and reasons, and entertainments, and standards to meet, and trying to contribute to "something". We cannot fall back on the default of existence- the boredom.
So what is one to do? If suicide isn't a real option, there is only the perpetual cycle. The illusion is that it can be broken. Schopenhauer deigned freedom by asceticism. That was a nice consolation-hope to provide, but it's simply training the mind to live with the existential striving-after more easily. That is all- a mental technique. It is not a metaphysical escape hatch. We are stuck until we are not.
If we were in a hand-to-mouth survival situation, that is all we would be consumed with...the means to putting food in our mouth, getting hydrated, and finding comfortable shelter from the elements.
In an industrialized, complex network of production and consumption, this is all atomized into our little "work" and "leisure" pursuits. On the other side of the spectrum, waiting for us is boredom. Boredom lays bare that existence isn't anything BUT striving-after. We strive to survive and be comfortable. Then, if we do not have any entertainment pursuits to occupy our mental space, we may get existential. "Why are we doing this repetitive upkeep, maintenance, and thrashing about?" It becomes apparent about the malignantly useless (as another author has characterized it).
A pretty face, a noble pursuit, a puzzle, an ounce of pleasure.. we all try to submerge in these entertainments to not face the existential boredom straight on. That would be too much to dwell in for too long. We design goals, and virtues and reasons, and entertainments, and standards to meet, and trying to contribute to "something". We cannot fall back on the default of existence- the boredom.
So what is one to do? If suicide isn't a real option, there is only the perpetual cycle. The illusion is that it can be broken. Schopenhauer deigned freedom by asceticism. That was a nice consolation-hope to provide, but it's simply training the mind to live with the existential striving-after more easily. That is all- a mental technique. It is not a metaphysical escape hatch. We are stuck until we are not.
Comments (557)
Putin? haha
But in a more allegorical sense too, Schopenhauer had a good quote on our own need for "something" besides boredom. We are in a way, always at war with existence:
No, Biden.
Indeed, often, people who claim to only want peace and prosperity don't think their desires through to their logical consequences.
That certainly isn't true of me or most of the people I know. Again, you seem to be projecting your own feelings onto others.
Why are you on here?
I'm excavating the root of the reasons we give.. So give your intermediary reasons first.. I get it.
I said I am never bored, not that I am always busy.
Well normal human cognitive function is often impaired by severe mental conditions, or physical brain alterations like a lobotomy. I doubt those apply to you..so being you’re in the spectrum of average functioning human, I call bullshit.
It has always been clear that you and I have very different understandings of human motivation and behavior. You have always seemed unable to see that many, perhaps most, people find life interesting; worthwhile; and, often, enjoyable. The fact that you can't imagine living without boredom is a case in point.
You're ridiculous. I am not saying they are mutually exclusive. But look at the motivations for what motivates you beyond remedial things (survival, comfort, comforting others in times of need).. These are bandaids that we do, sidetracks of subsisting in life and with others, until we must face ourselves/existence faces us directly. Why do you keep yourself busy? Same as @baker's question.
When you are not working to survive and be comfortable.. I presume you don't just sit.. Something motivates you.. even to sit.
I'm ridiculous because I disagree with you? Because I experience things differently than you do? I don't get it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't keep myself busy. Beyond the required things I do - eating, sleeping, going to the doctor, etc., I do the things I do because I want to. Because I enjoy them, e.g. participating on the forum. It is not unusual for me to do nothing.
Because you think you don't experience boredom, and that we have radically different ways of being in the world. I just call supreme bullshit, I'm sorry. And you don't seem severely autistic or cognitively an impacted human in some way to allow for that kind of evaluation.
Quoting T Clark
Not doing nothing, doesn't mean you are not motivated by a sort of existential boredom. Why do you do things that you like to do rather than do nothing? I don't get it. Why not literally do nothing once you put food in pie hole, and you make sure you have enough money for heat if necessary and a roof over your head, and maintenance things like that. Why don't you just sit in a dark room somewhere and do nothing at all? You can turn yourself off, right? Because you don't get bored, right?
QED, or as Perry Mason used to say, "I rest my case, no further questions."
On what? An underline? Perry mason would indeed lose all his cases with no evidence.
We're not getting anywhere. I say something about myself and you don't believe it. Do you think I'm lying? Deluded? If so, there's nowhere to go from here.
Im not sure cause you haven’t directly answered my last post. I do not believe you go through life without existential awareness at this point and think either you simply don’t really know what I’m asking or you don’t have a prefrontal cortex which by our discussion itself couldn’t be the case.
Again, if you won't accept my own statement about my own experience of my own self, there's nothing more for us to talk about.
And you won’t answer my previous post. Why?
I think Schopenhauer characterizes it best why it's actually a form of suffering:
I bolded his most important proof there. It is not "Oh, I had a good day, and another one there!" It's not about hedonic calculus. Even Schopenhauer's argument is least effective when he tries to tally up the woes and goods and weigh them. It is not to do with this outer drapery. Rather, it is about the necessary suffering of the condition itself; the life of a self-reflective animal. The stress itself of subsisting and the restless-lack (existential boredom) underlying it all.
Thomas Ligotti had used a dark (but effective) turn of phrase for the feeling of existential boredom- MALIGNANTLY USELESS (always capitalized). You get glimpses of this feeling when not "caught up" in the task itself. It is akin to an emotional "broken tool" in Heideggerian terminology. It is the feeling of unease of the non-escape of the restless, "who cares, but I have to care and caught up in a task.. for survival, for maintenance, to occupy my mindspace.. but then, I don't want to do this, but I have no choice, and on, and on" reoccurring nature of living and subsisting itself.
That’s a great quote.
While I agree with Schopenhauer that boredom is a fundamental aspect of life, it seems to me that he is elevating it to the very essence of life itself. This is where I disagree. I see boredom as being on par with (and mutually dependent upon) at least two others aspects of life: “anxiety” and “flow”.
Boredom, anxiety and flow are all related to the encounter (or lack thereof) with novelty. In essence, boredom is what occurs when you don’t have enough novelty in your life, whereas anxiety occurs when you get too much, and flow occurs when you get just the right amount. Looking at it through this lens, I’d say that both boredom and anxiety exist to push us toward flow. All three are constituent elements of a largely unconscious process that attempts (with variable success) to optimize our experience of meaning. In my view, this process is the fundamental form of life, and boredom is just one constituent element of it.
So, I can’t agree with Schopenhauer when he says that the mere existence of boredom proves that life does not possess any positive intrinsic value. That would only be true if boredom were life’s most fundamental expression. But as I explained above, I don’t think that’s true. The fact that there is boredom (and anxiety) proves only that life’s intrinsic positive value is not guaranteed to us, but that it has to be “won”.
Quoting Janus
Shall we test you by placing you on a desert island, alone?
Won how?
Watching television, fantasizing, and such are still under "keeping oneself busy".
Or can you really sit quietly, doing nothing -- not even fantasizing -- for hours, while being fully awake and alert?
Yep, second this. I love how we have gotten to the point in our competitive endeavors where people try to posture about their motivations never coming from boredom. As you said, at the heart of "getting caught up in X" is the boredom of WANTING to get caught up in X. It amazes me that people's wanting to "best" others goes as far as to try to deny, for the sake of argument, a crucial animal/human component of existence. I don't believe one iota of people who claim "I don't experience boredom" and further say shit like, "Cause I have a perfectly serene center.. I AM the BUDDHA!!". As stated, take away the little pursuits to get caught up in, and they'll be bored. Why the fuck are they arguing with me? They should be content in their existential repose, no?
I rarely watch television or movies, or listen to music. Fantasize? Worry maybe sometimes. I do read, fiction and non-fiction. I participate on the forum. I swim. I do my physical therapy exercises.
I don't think you understand how this works, at least works for me. The motivation to do things comes from inside me. I picture a spring bubbling up from under the ground. Just because I do stuff doesn't mean I'm keeping myself busy. Sometimes nothing bubbles up, so I just pay attention and wait. It doesn't usually take long.
I guess you and @schopenhauer1 lack imagination and empathy. You can't imagine other people experiencing things different from what you do. You don't seem to understand that others may feel differently.
So he picks the wrong hobbies, and his main point is thus wrong? C'mon.
Quoting T Clark
Right, you are in stasis and have no thoughts until activated. No, not no empathy, just annoyance of the façade. You are in control of what you do, right? Or are you being controlled by the inner man inside you that activates and deactivates you? I'm really curious at how you are different than all other humanity.
Quoting T Clark
I just think we do feel the same thing, and you are lacking imagination and empathy to understand how what you are feeling is actually coinciding with what I'm describing but instead you become indignant at the words I am using to describe what amounts to the same thing.. Humans are not so far apart as you are attempting to say. We are different, but not different BEINGS. You can drop the, "We are just soo vaaastly different.. chasm of deeeep differences.". Anyways, if what you say about the division of incommensurable understanding of humans to other humans, than bye bye existential similarities of pessimism and hello pessimism of the alone.. Pick your poison, I guess.
I went back and checked all my posts in this thread. In not a single one did I express any indignation. You on the other hand...
Let's leave it there.
Indignant: feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment.
Quoting T Clark
If I am on a desert island I may be frightened; concerned about being able to survive. If there is plenty of food, I doubt I will be bored, but I may well be lonely, which is a different matter altogether. If you posit that lack of people around you produces boredom rather than loneliness then it would seem that you see other people as commodities, providing nothing more than distraction and/ or entertainment, or in other words, diversion. It's a bit sad.
For most of history, our way of life has been such that it was work, work, work (gathering, hunting, farming, etc.) the whole day and then with nightfall, deep, restful sleep. Lather, rinse, repeat.
With the advent of technology, most of the physical labor we used to engage in has bee offloaded onto machines. Suddenly we began to have time off from work. What do we do with this time? This is a question that few have an answer to as this state of affairs is relatively new in human history i.e. we haven't as yet figured out what to do with our spare time. Boredom (time we don't know how to use) sets in.
Pessimistically, time when one has nothing to do (ennui) is like an idling engine (on and that's it), and we all know an idle mind is a devil's workshop. We could, to that extent, blame much of humanity's ills on boredom during which we commune with the beast, and, as it turns out, do his bidding which comes in the form of diabolical ideas, merely suggested to us as passing remarks and small hints (Stephen Norton like).
Why is suicide not a real option? This seems to be where any sense of being ‘stuck’ stems from. There’s a reason why you’ve excluded suicide, whether it’s purely reasonable, aesthetic or ethical (my guess is that for you, it’s ethical - a logical calculation of perceived affect or ‘harm’). FWIW, I don’t think there IS an illusion - the cycle CAN be broken - just not by you, intentionally, owing to your position. I have no issue with your position, of course - but it is a choice you make, and then blame others for having ‘started’ (for their own reasons) what you determine to be unconscionable, yet are unwilling to stop (for your own reasons).
What is one to do? Understand that there may be a broader perspective to this than an ethical one, which is relative to the human condition. Schopenhauer, like Kant, preceded Darwin’s revolutionary decentring of human existence in the temporal development of the universe. In this context, Schopenahuer’s essential striving-after may be far broader than any perpetual and seemingly pointless cycle of life over time.
The way I see it, there is a process to the universe in which we don’t so much serve a predestined purpose as ‘creatively intend’. The variability of this creative intention extends from asceticism (minimising both interaction and harm) not just to the suicide-bomber (maximising harm), but to what Laozi refers to as ‘the sage’: a balance between maximal interaction and minimal harm.
This additional dimensionality to Schopenhauer’s approach comes from recognising a qualitative relativity to both reasonable and ethical descriptions of the human condition. Schopenhauer’s philosophical ideas show no awareness of qualitative variability - this is particularly evident in his colour theory. With a father who supposedly committed suicide and a mother who seemed far from accepting of his personal qualities, I would say this is understandable.
Through meaningful engagement with the world - namely, the voluntary identification and pursuit of goals derived from one's highest ideals (and the intentional cultivation of such ideals), assuming you've had your basic physical needs met.
Of course such experiments are unethical, so we don't do them, but instead have to rely on people's testimony after the fact, which is likely going to be biased, especially if the outcome was positive for the people.
Schopenhauer's idea is that left to themelves -- truly left to themselves -- people are bored. And then to relieve this fundamental boredom, they engage in all manner of activity, mental, verbal, or physical.
Which still doesn't change that you started out as bored.
In other words, keep yourself busy.
Of course. It's like this for most people most of the time anyway. The difference is how deeply one analyzes one's state.
Arthur Schopenahuer's, and Buddhism's, idea is that people can't stand doing nothing (actually doing nothing, not mentally, verbally, physically) and that when they find themselves in circumstances where they can't act in any way, they experience this as suffering.
It's why people hate to wait in line, hate to be ill and tied to a hospital bed, hate to be unable to fall asleep. Why prolonged sensory deprivation has an adverse effect. This is also why they hate many types of meditation because there is so little activity there.
I asked you before -- Can you really sit quietly, doing nothing -- not even fantasizing -- for hours, while being fully awake and alert?
Indeed, this is also called karma, and keeps the round of rebirth going.
All three of your examples (the ascetic, the suicide bomber, and the sage) creatively intend, hence they are bound to the round of rebirth, and thus suffering.
You're missing that the various experessions of this qualitative variability still all function on the same platform, namely that of craving.
I already addressed this.
You and @schopenhauer1 are really pitiful. You resent anyone who isn't as miserable as you are. You can't even imagine there are people satisfied with their lives.
You two are broken and you want, demand, that we all be as broken as you are.
Schopenhauer's more cynical material is intelligible due to its lack of any reference to absolute idealism. This is where it can trigger a defense mechanism for many who claim 'there is no boredom,' because relatively speaking, there isn't. However, if you would see things from Schopenhauer's reference frame you would see a totally different picture. Essential to his reference frame is: the concept of individuality, the holistic validity of an intellectualizing will, and the absence of any factors of this universal intellectualizing will lying external or extraneous to the ideas and concepts of its consciousness.
'Absolute idealism' is a little oxymoronic, and also difficult to swallow; especially at the cusp of the industrial revolution more and more coming to rely on the cynicism of a boundless and unforgiving drive toward capital growth; the "cracking the omelette," so to speak that intrinsically counters this form of idealism. I think his point of view fits in well into this schema. Can a rationalizing spirit also experience pain and boredom without material activity? Of course, but in actuality it will oppose it. Because Schopenhauer affirmed his existence was amongst a will not to oppose, it was reasonable to have taken such a viewpoint for itself.
All instances of suffering are a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion. Karma refers to the quality of our interconnection with the world - it isn’t bound by ethics or this ‘round of rebirth’. The idea of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ karma is a Western notion.
The suicide bomber intends to put an end to his limited awareness of suffering by removing that awareness, along with certain other aspects of the world, by active exclusion. It is a destructive, reductionist intending that unintentionally increases suffering in the world beyond the bomber’s awareness.
The ascetic is bound by an isolated focus on their ‘individual’ round of rebirth, intending to minimise any connection they appear to have with suffering in the world. Any creative intending or karma here is isolated, and cannot extend beyond the individual, isolated from the world.
The sage recognises an underlying universal flow towards interconnection, and creatively intends to minimise suffering by maximising awareness, connection and collaboration. This is karma at work - it is not bound to rebirth, but rather highlights its limitations and extends beyond, and therefore beyond suffering.
No, they don’t - that’s only because you assume all forms of expression are a craving, a dissatisfaction with the world. But have you considered that many expressions of qualitative variability in the human condition don’t reach your attention, specifically because they are not an expression of craving, or not requiring your interaction? Are we aware of human expressions of inclusive collaboration with the world, or are we attune only to suffering?
What attracts our attention is usually tied to our perceived potential - our capacity to interact intentionally with the world. But in moments when we are genuinely doing nothing, fully awake and alert (such as in meditation), we are able to explore a more complete awareness of reality, inclusive of what has no need of our potential to interact. I’m not saying this is an easy state to reach, and there is certainly plenty on our radar to pull our attention back to what society says we ‘should’ be striving for. But both Buddhism and Taoism encourage an intentional stillness or emptiness that enables us to embody the quality and logic of reality, without striving. In this state, we relate to the possibility for energy to flow freely, the possibility of no suffering - and with this develop an awareness of our own creative capacity to intentionally minimise suffering in the way we connect and collaborate. The more we can embody this ‘stillness’, the more we realise that there is nothing we need to be striving-for in any moment in time - only allowing for a free flow of possible energy.
Schopenhauer's view is gloomy, indeed.
No one has a really good solution to this, only good suggestions. And funny thing is, after we're told by Schopenhauer, we turn to other philosophers for a silver lining. A mind can do wonders without altering our surrounding. Just the shift in mind. Although a change in surrounding can temporarily alleviate it. That's why we're all escapist in one form or another. Some bury themselves in art and music, others in paid work, and still other in hobbies.
Excellent points! :up:
Loneliness is simply a specific kind of boredom. It is longing for social connection. But why is there this longing? Schopenhauer would posit a striving-after that has no end. Just more proof of his point that if BEING was something absolutely POSITIVE in itself, we would want for NOTHING, because BEING would be its own satisfaction. The lack at the heart of motivations and "getting caught up in the drama and affairs of this or that person, story, hobby, value".
I think it is telling that we have to "get" to some state by meditative techniques in the FIRST PLACE. Again, this is not countering anything Schopenhauer had said with my original OP quote, especially the part in bold. That is to say: Just more proof of his point that if BEING was something absolutely POSITIVE in itself, we would want for NOTHING, because BEING would be its own satisfaction. The lack at the heart of motivations and "getting caught up in the drama and affairs of this or that person, story, hobby, value".
Well, no, we don’t have to meditate, as such - it’s simply a case of accepting a state of ‘boredom’ instead of feeling like we have to fight against it or avoid it. My own children learned very quickly not to complain of being ‘bored’ as if it were a negative state: I gave them chores. But I don’t think boredom is necessarily positive, either. What I aimed to teach my children was that boredom was simply a neutral state of BEING. I think it’s important to recognise this, and to ask ourselves why we feel or think we need to strive against it.
The reality is that energy flows through everything, so even in this neutral state of BEING there is a relative awareness of affect in potentiality - the valence and arousal of attention and effort - and with it our capacity to choose between awareness or ignorance, connection or isolation, and collaboration or exclusion (ie. will). There’s a lot of variable potentiality in simply BEING. It’s no surprise that some of us would describe it as more of a (determinately) positive condition, and others an unavoidably negative condition in which cognition in service of the will condemns us to a life of ceaseless striving.
In relation to Schopenhauer’s philosophy, then, it is from this neutral state of BEING that we choose to embody either will or representation in relation to the world. In the world as will, my faculty of pure reason is limited in its capacity to interact by my current condition of affect and value perception. In the world as representation, I have no sense of this limited capacity to interact, subjecting any embodiment of will to unpredictable failure - and with that, to suffering.
I could choose to actively or passively ignore, isolate or exclude either aspects of the world as representation (accepting a limitation of reason in service of the will), or aspects of the world as will (idealism, solipsism, etc).
From this neutral state of BEING, however, I could also choose, insofar as I am capable, to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, recognising that this perceived capacity is limited at any one time (and subject to suffering) by an ongoing condition of affect and value perception, but that such capacity expands as I increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world from a genuine sense of compassion, of ‘suffering with’ - and in doing so predictably reduces further instances of suffering, for myself as well as others. It is this striving, insofar as it is a choice determined from a neutral state, that seems a reasonable use of my limited attention and effort, as a POSITIVE net gain across a fleeting and fragile state of BEING. It’s a small gain, but it’s better than asceticism, by my account.
So how come that you have this awareness of qualitative variability, while Arthur Schopenhauer didn't have it?
Were you born with it?
Or did you learn it?
So people who are satisfied with their lives say such things to others as you do here to us?
Interesting this, this "satisfaction with life" ...
That's simply not true. We could take some fruit off a tree and start making paint to color dead tree trunks.
Apparently.
You and ShowpanhourI called me a liar. Fekyez both.
Maybe because he ignores or isolates it - partly as a coping mechanism, partly in favour of rationality. That’s speculation, though. I wouldn’t say that he didn’t have that capacity for awareness (I didn’t meet him in person, but I would suggest that he did to some extent), only that he didn’t recognise it or show it in his philosophical writing.
More existential gaslighting. YOU'RE the problem because YOU were born. It's YOUR choice. [But it wasn't].. So all the "You were created because of X, and now you must do Y because I know the truth about the world".. [Eh no].
Getting caught up in someone else's agenda is somehow "adult" and "connection", and "meaningful". The agenda of subsisting at all. The agenda of the survival. The agenda of the corporation. The agenda of pursuits of entertainment. If you wrap it up in a nice bow of communal dependency, it makes it look not forced..
"You see, your following the agenda will fulfill you because you will be connecting, collaborating, and being more aware. I mean, what else choice do you have? Suicide? Griping? Being a Pessimist? [maniacal laugh]."
Fuck all the established agendas and trying to make life's problem a personal problem, mam.
Quoting T Clark
Substantiate your accusations. Copy paste evidence from out post for all four items.
It's how capitalism works: Get the people to focus on their private lives, and get them to believe that every failure, every problem in their lives is their own fault. This way, they will be avid consumers, they will have little insight into their own needs, and they will have little regard for others (other people, other beings, the planet). While those higher up make a lot of money and the planet turns into hell.
Bhava tanha.
Quoting Possibility
This is New Age stuff. I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don’t know where you got all of that from - it wasn’t from anything I wrote here. Your own assumptions, perhaps?
No, it wasn’t your choice to be born. No, it isn’t the case that ‘you must’ do anything. Yes, you do have alternative choices to awareness, connection and collaboration: you can always choose ignorance, isolation or exclusion - it’s easy enough to do, but always increases suffering. Yes, I do consider suicide or pessimism to be legitimate choices. I wouldn’t personally make either of those choices at this stage, but I would never say never.
I don’t think BEING is supposed to be about survival, subsistence or incorporation at all. That’s the language of consolidation: of an ‘individual’ whose perceived ego appears to be forced into a life they wouldn’t choose for themselves. There’s a sense of attachment to self, here. Bhava Tanha - a craving to be something - comes from a misunderstanding of eternalism/permanence.
Quoting baker
Ignore, isolate, exclude...
Very good points.
Everyone's got an agenda for you, and that is certainly to keep certain wheels churning. No one cares that it is basically a political agenda to keep things going. It can't be that existence itself just has these flaws inherent.. a pessimism at its core. No, it's YOUR fault for not getting in line with the agenda! It used to be "Buck up!" and now it's "Go see a therapist!". In this thread it's, "You aren't connecting! Follow the mission of connecting!"
You are just presenting a false dichotomy here. It's not awareness/connection/collaboration or ignorance. I do have awareness, and that is of having to de facto fall in line, whether I like it or not, lest suicide. That does involve de facto connection and collaboration because of the nature of how we survive and entertain ourselves and that we tend to be social creatures. That isn't anything new.
Quoting Possibility
Fair enough.
Quoting Possibility
Well, yeah, it is. And that's because life can never be not forced. Sorry but it is. You seem to be saying, "You are forced, no get with the program, otherwise SUFFER!!!" (scare quotes and all). I am saying to reject the agenda and not buy into it, whether with sugar (collaborate, therapy) or shit (buck up, STFU and get to working! Stop griping, etc.)!
Quoting Possibility
Yeah yeah, until I start starving and dying of hypothermia and all.. then I have to do things like subsist and survive.. the things you seem to think are a choice. It is, if you want to die a slow death, true.. Not into that either though.. Which is indeed part of the predicament.
I’m not talking about an overall judgement of someone as ‘ignorant’, but the little choices we make everyday to increase awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation AND collaboration/exclusion in every interaction. Let’s take your awareness of suicide - you keep skirting around this subject, as if it’s not a legitimate option, but the fact is that you have chosen to dismiss it for your own reasons - this is not forced. Until you explore the choice and your reasons honestly, recognising them as part of what makes you who you are, you will remain relatively ignorant of this apparent ‘force’ you insist is acting from outside of you.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again you misrepresent me - you’re the one adding scare quotes and exclamation marks here. I’m not telling you to get with the program, I just don’t agree with your interpretation of the program as ‘forced’ from outside of the ‘individual’. It is this consolidation of the ‘individual’, and with it the isolation or exclusion of opportunities to increase awareness, to connect and collaborate, that contributes to this idea of a ‘forced agenda’.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Subsisting and surviving IS a choice. And you’ve chosen NOT to die a slow death - no-one is forcing you to reject this option, but you. Therefore, you are contributing to your own ‘predicament’. I’m not the one buying into anything here...
C'mon proof.. Schop talked about the pendulum swing of survival and boredom.. He never disregarded survival as that is a given. He focused on boredom because the full belly reveals at the end what was always there.. "like a bird of prey" as he says.. You can do better than simply making it about a rich guy who had nothing better to do. If anything, he gets to see the revelation more than others, that's all :).
Oh the "Why don't you pessimists/antinatalists go kill yourself" trope :roll:. You mean being in a position where one has to decide to commit suicide or join the program?
Quoting Possibility
Actually, you can have a community of griping pessimists.. collaborating and connecting about the forced agenda! ;).
Quoting Possibility
It's being forced with the OPTION in the first place of dying a slow fuckn death or outright quicker suicide..both painful to the leadup and scary for most people unless severely strained/depressed... Don't confuse not committing promortalism with pessimism or antinatalism. It is not an inverse relation.. "Your 'decision' to stay alive means you wanted to be in this position in the first place". I mean, how am I NOT wrong that you are existentially gaslighting the hell out of me? (It's not existence, it's you!). You haven't defended anything, but dug yourself deeper as to what I expected. Pessimism does not entail immediate suicide, mam.
Nah, it's more bougeouis, cliche trust-fund bachelor to characterize it as that.. :yawn: , at those kind of ad homs.. If I can find many instances of poor/tribal/non-Western people to prove my point, you would have to concede?
How is Schop wrong about the idea that we have a "striving-ness" to us that when not occupied by "something" is sort of idling and cannot stand its own striving nature.. thus returning to "something" (usually de facto related to survival.. whether through "work in an industrialized economy", "hunting-gather", "subsistence farming", and all the other things we as humans must do to survive, find comfort, and entertain ourselves (lest we idle again and try to banish this emptiness feeling). That is to say, we are striving, struggling, getting "caught up" because we cannot stand existence sui existence, but only in so much as we can distract, plan, flow state, etc.
It's also not just "bored" in the sense that we mean with just "nothing to do".. It's a much more fundamental kind akin to Ecclesiastes..
I mean, it's gotta whole article here: https://iep.utm.edu/boredom/. It has been for thousands of years, and will continue to be a central existential understanding of the human condition/experience.
Quoting 180 Proof
Not at all.. If anything, they're on point the most with that.
Oh I misread what you said.. Zapffe characterized the existential boredom as a sort of exptation-trait that we distract from and try to ignore. Ligotti, had a dark interpretation of the boredom as being "malignantly useless".. when one reflects on the idling/survival...Cioran agreed with the existential boredom but used irony to prove it, Nietzsche was advocating for Sisyphus on steroids.. Camus was more nuanced in that Sisyphus didn't need to try as hard :) (it seems to me at least),
My own addition is that by being born at all we are forced into a socio-culturo-political agenda (lest suicide by slow or fast death). Solution: Griping and self-understanding (consolation through shared Pessimism) and not forcing others into the agenda (antinatalism).
The notion of consent is a socio-political notion. So, yes, it is talked about in the world of philosophers, not just Schopenhauer's. There's actually an argument about the formation of a society, say a first society, where adults gather together to talk about the rules and laws. Well and good. But then, after this society is formed, there'd be babies born into this society without the benefit of providing their consent, so what to do if you're one of those babies who become an adult and find that the society you live in, whose rules you didn't consent to, is disagreeable to you.
One, people can't tell you to move to another society since not everyone can for various reasons. (Of course you can if you volunteer, but this is not the point).
Two, people shouldn't force you to accept the rules and laws you find objectionable.
Third, so what should those people do? Apparently, you can't blame the first people who formed your society for making those rules since you weren't born yet or weren't of age to consent. When you're born into a fully formed society, the first people are not under obligation to ask for your consent. Your consent isn't on a level of their consent.
Gross misrepresentation of everything that I’ve written. Read it again.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure - I haven’t said that you can’t. But you’re not really going to increase awareness, connection or collaboration beyond those who already agree. From here, all you can do is promote a certain level of ignorance, isolate amongst yourselves and attack or exclude anyone who disagrees with you...
Quoting schopenhauer1
Wow, you really do reduce everything to a false dichotomy, don’t you? But okay...so you’re recognising a fear of death and an avoidance of pain, and acknowledging that you’re not sufficiently strained or depressed to intentionally pull the plug. That’s a start.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well, because that’s not at all what I wrote, and not what I meant. You’re making that interpretation, not me. I agree that your decision to stay alive should not be interpreted as wanting to be in this position. And I agree that pessimism does not entail suicide. What I’m arguing against is the reductionist view of your options here.
It does seem to me that there is a value you attribute to the concept ‘individual’ that is fundamentally absent from any overall measurement you take of BEING. I think that’s a fair assessment from your perspective, and it interestingly has parallels with certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. What makes quantum mechanics work, though (and work more accurately than any empirical method), is that it recognises an interaction between two four-dimensional systems. There is the quantitative measurement of a system, and there is the ‘observer’, which must be qualitatively aligned with the system being measured - that is, it must be attending to a precise four-dimensional location. There simply is no single measurement, description or perspective of a four-dimensional system that will suffice to describe what is in fact a five-dimensional relation. This is because a five-dimensional relation consists of an interaction between two four-dimensional systems, at least. Any four-dimensional system within this interaction can only ever describe the relation in terms of their own qualitative response to another system (eg. Pessimism). Even a reductionist five-dimensional description would consist of a qualitative position (which you’re providing) AND a corresponding quantitative value (which you’re not, although from memory it has to do with ‘harm’?).
What I’m trying to say is that your pessimism as a qualitative position will always correspond to a particular and limited quantitative value, not to some overall or ‘objective’ evaluation of BEING. An accurate five-dimensional (‘individual’) perspective of BEING would need to recognise a qualitative and quantitative relativity to any measurement and/or measurement device. Not to mention that other ‘individuals’ would need to precisely align with either your qualitative position (pessimism) or your precise measurement of BEING first, before they will agree. Not such a surprise that you don’t seem to be making much headway with your arguments, then...
I’m not trying to defend any particular opposing position as negating yours - just the simple validity of disagreeing with your qualitative position. But I don’t appreciate your continued attempts to misrepresent my position, which is not necessarily in opposition to yours at all.
:up:
It could well be argued that having ‘leisure time’ is more than just a time slot for distracting oneself from existential reality as that idea is in itself possibly part of the modern mindset brought about by living in pursuit of distractions from reality.
In acts or artistic expression there is a kind of meditative state that I would call ‘distraction’ in a negative sense (like merely switching off by watching a braindead movie), yet it is more or less a way of becoming unfocused from day-to-day activities and it frees up ones mind to wander and nurture itself. Maybe creating art is just a means of recalibrating our emotional state in order to be more productive in the future. Some people just happen to be more attuned to this than others and so the ‘recalibrating’ becomes a pursuit of improving their ability to attune themselves rather than to do as a means of moving forward in a more concrete sense of production (eating, sleeping and social functioning).
Boredom for me is merely a sign that I am unconsciously avoiding a hard and difficult problem. It is likely a good idea to avoid some problems. I don’t necessarily think this problem is always ‘existential’ though.
Lack of honesty with oneself creates ‘boredom’ and sometimes such states of ‘boredom’ are defence mechanisms that are there to balance our ‘mental wellbeing’.
I can say with age that boredom seems to fade? I’ve not done a survey on this but it has been my observation for those around me. There may be more of a lull in middle age perhaps but generally I believe boredom declines with greater age.
Yes, this is a common objection that I find objectionable. Since there is no person prior to existing for whom consent can be obtained, it is okay to do X which may lead to future outcomes for a person who actually will exist..
You can see the flaw in that right?
Let's say a parent plans to give birth to a child in a pit of a volcano.. They just always wanted to..No consideration matters right, because there isn't a child born yet, so there is no child to ask whether it wanted to be born into a volcano pit, right?
No, I think 99.9% of people would object to this reasoning, and the one in your scenario when looked at it from that vantage point. It is an argument of convenience, not one of soundness.
If someone will be negatively affected by a decision, but consent cannot be had, we would object to any number of scenarios. In every case where we cannot get consent, and we still do something on their behalf, it is a case of amelioration. That is to say, it is trying to prevent a greater harm to that person for a lesser one.. This is not the case in procreation, since there indeed is not a person that needs to be ameliorated.
I read it, and it looks like you are saying, "Hey, you haven't committed suicide, so X, Y, Z about life!". Examine that feeling!"
Quoting Possibility
You are implying that with some sort of dialectic, using your New Age Hegelian approach, I would move "past" antinatalism/pessimism (meaning that this isn't the right view, but I will move to the "right" view).. I will move to the view of the agenda.. that is more people born, more people that must "collaborate". Collaborate (happiness placement holder) damn you! Follow the Possibility self-help plan! Collaborate, connect! By my interactions I will "grow" and "grow out of pessimism" because pessimism is a self-contained thing and not "truth" which is only had by this instrumental process of connecting and collaborating, that leads to awareness.. Yes, yes, this isn't subtlely just asserting that your view is just "right" by using terms like "collaborate, connect". Just hollow buzzwords if said without context. However, what is YOUR agenda with these words? Certainly you think that collaborating and connecting would never lead to Pessimist conclusions.. No, no, so it is MORE than collaborating.. but collaborating towards SOMETHING that YOU HAVE IN MIND. What is that? Oh right, I'm sure if we examine it more it's just a form of (Hegelian-style?) optimism bullshit. You can always just dodge this with more obfuscation around your use of those words or more unnecessary and non-analogous connections with how this algins with physics concepts.. but, go ahead continue.. Or am I isolating you, and thus not ":hearing" you and thus I just won't ever "get it".. again implications that YOU have SOMETHING IN MIND MORE THAN just CONNECTION and COLLABORATION!
Quoting Possibility
A start of what? I always acknowledged that being against procreation and following the agenda that procreation brings does not entail suicide. Nor am I necessarily "suicidal". Nor is this "evidence" that I agree with the agenda of life.. So I think we have established all this...
Quoting Possibility
Ok, well that's a start :).
Quoting Possibility
Oh right, just presenting enough "data" will magically make the argument stronger. That kind of "data" is always with the view that it is promoting a certain thing.. I am not into the whole hedonic "progress" of "humanity" or "civilization" thing.. which reifies concepts above individuals in their micro-actually living experiences. In that sense, Schop was correct in human nature versus simple economic circumstances. Also, "data" based on some survey of "Most people like life!" doesn't negate the negative aspects of life, and the forced agenda argument I am making.
If you harm someone and then say, "Hey I have data that this was in your interest", did that really "prove" anything other than you "thought" it would be in that persons interest? Just a self-justifying X, so you can do Y to someone else.
Rather I am more deontological/axiological in my approach. That is to say, there is a disrespect (I term it indignity), to the person born by forcing the agenda on them. You can't really "get" at that with data... and "data" in the use of this kind of thing. A more thorough analysis of this is given by philosopher Gerald Harrison. A lot of times our normal intuitions elsewhere do not necessarily align with procreation, even though procreation presents the same moral problems. So, even if one usually can trust moral intuitions, they are not always accurate when there is strong pulls for biases in our intuitions to be against it (e.g. evolutionary/cultural pressures for having certain dispositions).
https://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/14444/Antinatalism%20and%20Moral%20Particularism.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
So no, I reject your rejection based on some supposed "lack of quantifiable data" or some shit like that.
I was using the term “meaningless distraction” to refer to something else. I agree that boredom (and ultimately depression) result when a person engages in tasks that they themselves consider to be “meaningless”. I don’t dispute that. I was reacting to Schopenhauer’s claim that any task (indeed, life itself) is ultimately meaningless because it all stems from the avoidance of boredom, and boredom is the essence of life. For Schopenhauer, then, our compulsion to engage in tasks simply reveals our latent antipathy toward life itself. At least, that was my interpretation of his claim, which may have been inaccurate, I don’t know. Anyway, my point was to contrast Schopenhauer’s view of life (i.e. the essence of life is boredom) with an alternative (i.e. the essence of life is the pursuit of meaning, in which boredom plays a role). Perhaps I just didn’t word it very well.
[quote=”I like sushi”]
Freedom is also something to consider. All too often people believe they want more freedom when the real reason they feel bound is that they have too much choice and freedom and so get stuck in perpetual states of distraction. It is extremely common (in my life experience) for the remedy to any given situation to be the exact opposite of what you’d think it would be.
Lack of honesty with oneself creates ‘boredom’ and sometimes such states of ‘boredom’ are defence mechanisms that are there to balance our ‘mental wellbeing’.
[/quote]
I agree.
[quote=”I like sushi”]
I can say with age that boredom seems to fade? I’ve not done a survey on this but it has been my observation for those around me. There may be more of a lull in middle age perhaps but generally I believe boredom declines with greater age.[/quote]
It would be interesting to see statistics on this. Perhaps elderly people do not commonly self-identify as being “bored” because life actually gets harder (i.e. more challenging) as you age. I look at my 87 year old Grandfather and it’s a challenge for him just to make it to the breakfast table every morning. After breakfast he spends the rest of the day in front of the TV before beginning the arduous process of going to bed. Twenty years ago he would have described this life as “hell”, but he has reset his expectations due to the physical limitations that prevent him from being more active in the world. His threshold for boredom has changed significantly over the last 10 years as his nervous system has adapted to his circumstances.
My post is purely out of socio-political reasons. Consent is attached to that notion. But if you want to talk about obligation of parents to unborn children, that's a different issue. Honestly, I can't think of a way to "apologize" to those born into a bad situation. The only thing that I can think of is the liberty of individuals to happiness, which is in the constitution of most, if not all, nations. This right to happiness includes forming a family and bearing children. Now of course we do have laws to protect the children from harm -- which is obvious to everyone. So, I'm not sure what else to say about that.
Yes. Boredom has a bad reputation, and people generally don't think of it in terms of suffering. In fact, it seems perverse to think of boredom as kind of suffering. It seems to be the privilege of the rich and the idle.
Yet anyone can have the same experience:
When lying down with an illness, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
When hungry for a while, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
When cold for a while, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
When doing work that is either far below one's ability and interest, or far above them, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
Good point. Boredom afflicts many people in the low economic status. And yes there is bias that goes on about boredom. If you're poor, you can't complain of boredom because "why don't you go out there and find a job or find a way to enrich yourself just like how the rich people do it."
It's almost like poverty or low income trumps all other attributes of a person: gay and poor (you're poor); single mother and poor (you're poor); stupid and poor (you're poor); intelligent and poor (you're poor). There's an oxymoron that goes on in "intelligent and poor" that some people would argue about.
Whatever management seminar you were at where they teach all that about "awareness, connection, and collaboration" ...
Collaboration can only take place between equals. Most of a person's relationships are not with equals, but are hierarchical, so there is actually very little collaboration possible in life. To say that one is "collaborating" with one's boss, one's employees, or one's children is a gross euphemism at best.
Connection is also very limited -- not everyone wants to connect with just anyone else.
For example, from what I've come to know about you here, I am sure that you wouldn't want to "collaborate" or "connect" with me (however you are "aware" of me), but I am sure that you would blame this on me, that I am the one who refuses to "connect" and "collaborate".
I'm having the impression that Possibility is actually getting at the constructed nature of selfhood/identity, saying things like this:
Quoting Possibility
The idea in this kind of thinking is that we suffer and we are convinced that various unfair things befall us (specifically, having been born) because we construe ourselves as persons, because we take for granted that we really exist, as solid entities (but which are nevertheless subject to birth, aging, illness, and death).
In other words, you gripe about having been born because you see yourself as a person. If you didn't see yourself that way, you'd have nothing to gripe about.
Yet this self-hood is at the heart of being born at all.. The fact that we even need a way out is something to look at first. If a perspective change happens through some Buddhist technique, the fact is, we were in place A (not Enlightened), and we need to get to place B (Enlightened).
Also, I just don't buy it.. The self-hood thing is part of moving through the world. Most people just can't become Enlightened ascetics (if that's even a metaphysical "thing" to become).. I may want to be the best X, but doesn't mean I will achieve that.. Same with this. In a way it is aligned with a radical perspective in anthropology that sees humans very cognition as being radically different. Sapir-Whorf like.. You see, Eskimos understand snow better because they have more words for different snow...
So individuals choose to form an identity.. But that's just not true. Humans function (normally) via enculturation using socio-cultural cues aligning with a whole host of human-traits that we evolved to survive and live in the world. If anything, the desire to shed one's self-hood is simply a recognition of the disappointments of the self that must form as being a functioning human. First comes the identity and then comes the detaching from identity.. There is still a "deal with" situation of moving from attached to not attached.. So now there's that put upon the human born into the world...
Also, there is a sense of gaslighting going on.. This kind of "detachment will set you free" thing just isn't feasible because I would be a sitting Buddha for eternity if it were true.. But "something" needs to pee.. It's a "body" that this is happening to.. What is the thing that "feels" the need to release the bodily fluid? What is the thing that decides that it will go in a white bowl rather than on the carpet? Oh it's not "me"? Call it what you want, but now it is just word play semantics.. The "consolidation" of decisions, feelings, and behavior is traditionally assigned as "self" or an "I".. You can't get away from it the instant anything is experienced, desired, needed, etc.. (like the feeling of having to go to the bathroom, or pain, etc.). You can do some practice and say, "This feeling is not "me".. but when you wet yourself, crap yourself, and then starve to death just sitting there.. well, doubtful "you" will let that happen.. The instant "you" do something, that becomes a self needing/desiring.. I don't care what was said earlier as some mantra of "this is not me" prior. Eventually you get up....
That’s close, and I appreciate you taking another look. As ‘persons’ (and I use these quotes because I don’t assume we’re talking about an identical concept) we experience our selves as no more than this solidness of our entities - the birth, aging, illness and death to which we are subjected (in four dimensions).
But reason tells us that this entity that is capable of perceiving its own birth-change-death must be at least potentially more than this in order to do so. And the variability with which we each perceive this four-dimensional event (even simply as valuable or not) suggests that these entities interact in a broader sense of reality - one differentiated by value.
Now, I assume we understand that most atoms don’t act like billiard balls, but are relational structures of energy that are variably open to restructure from spatial interaction. And we understand that few three-dimensional objects are impervious to change across time, through interaction. A variability between entities at any dimensional level corresponds to an internal variability of each entity as they interact with each other within a broader dimensionality.
So, it stands to reason that we are at least capable of perceiving our birth-change-death not as ‘solid’ but internally variable, interacting with other event structures, and that this broader sense of reality in which we interact is structured by value. In the same way that time/change can be described as an unavoidable ‘force’ subjected onto a three-dimensional existence, so value/potential is this unavoidable ‘force’ subjected onto a four-dimensional existence.
If we extrapolate this rationality again, it also stands to reason that there is potential variability to our internal value structure in relation to other value structures (persons)...
So what we seem to be griping about is that this value we consolidate as a ‘person’ is not impervious to internal variability through interrelation, like literally everything else.
Can I just address this ‘gaslighting’ accusation for a bit...
Gaslighting: “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.” - Merriam-Webster
Quoting Dr Robin Stern
Without offering an interpretation of what I’m apparently implying, are you able to highlight actual quotes where I have refused to listen or consider your perspective, negated your perception, insisted you were wrong or told you that your emotional reaction was in any way dysfunctional. Meanwhile, take a closer look at your own words...
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Now we can look past all the attempts at emotional manipulation, and address your argument.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Buddhism is commonly misinterpreted as moralism. “Detachment will set free” is not meant as an imperative, but an invitation to increase awareness in potentiality. Yes, every time we act, we must consolidate a ‘self’. But what we experience, desire or need - that is, what we assign value to - remains potentially a matter of choice, from which we determine a ‘self’ as a value structure, and this allows us to generate a change in distribution of attention and effort that determines bodily action/inaction. It is this ‘sitting Buddha’ (an awareness in potentiality of stillness and no-self) that enables us to employ reason in the determination of ‘self’ rather than being bound by some externally ‘forced’ value structure.
Ok, so gaslighting is doing or seeing something crazy and then making the other people think they are crazy for thinking what they witnessed was crazy. So, Trump was a master at gaslighting. He constantly pushed the boundaries of decent presidential behavior and then made everyone else look like they are crazy or overblowing what he just did..
So, for example, the human condition comes with a LOT of inherent and contingent forms of suffering and harm. Yet, what you (albeit subtly) try to do is then say, "No, no, it's not existence that is the problem, it is YOUR problem". Thus I call it "existential gaslighting". It is making what actually is crazy (the pessimistic nature of the human condition) into a personal thing (YOUR problem). Thus things like the ethics of procreation, subjects like the objective understanding of having a willful striving nature, even the complaining about such injustices/tragedies cannot be discussed rationally, you see, because it is all in MY head.. and thus relegated to things like therapy and not philosophy. It is a subtle dismissing of what I am saying by RELATIVIZING it..
Quoting Possibility
That is NOT emotional manipulation. That is direct and perhaps "aggressive" in tone. That is right in your face, mam. I did not subtly try to hint at insinuations that you have something else more than "collaboration, connection, awareness" in mind..as that is a process and you dismiss it when used for things you don't find to your taste (like pessimism or antinatalism), and thus you are actually (subtly again) hinting at a NORMATIVE value more than the three-word process you keep listing off. Your process seems to HAVE to lead to a non-pessimist conclusion.. Interesting how that works. It ends up being something like.. "Your distaste for life is something you should reflect upon.. join the connection club that I espouse, and you will join forces with the GREATER awareness of the whole.. etc. etc." How is this not Hegelian in style? All you have to do is add in the Absolute and you're pretty much there. A big behemoth existential process that humans are a part of leading to ultimate growth... Hegel (though his oddly stopped around the Prussian state in the 1800s rather than infinite growth I guess). Anyways, unintentional or not, I'm characterizing it as such as I see the parallels of group-process optimism.
Quoting Possibility
You don't have to go any further..This is all that matters for a self to be a de facto necessity. Anything beyond this is hocus pocus.
Quoting Possibility
But we still MUST make choices.. The choice-maker is the SELF.. This is all subtle gaslighting, again, to try to say that I should seek therapy and join the "collaboration forces" for your Hegelian whatever, optimism thing.. What you are doing is COMPLETELY overlooking all my griping and just saying, "Hey, that's your problem, not existence's.. it's YOUR CHOICE".. I get what you are saying, mam.. But that doesn't resolve the moral problems of procreation, and the inherent suffering of existence.. No THAT isn't a choice as you KEEP insinuating.
Quoting Possibility
The very fact that I am thrown into this situation at all that I am discussing. Anything, including being a "sitting Buddha" is part of this throwness.. You have the values of the middle-class suppressors here.. "It's all in YOUR MIND" is the way to make people complacent with the existential situation. I think we both agree there is no way out... But I am going to be defiant and not this bullshit, where I place the blame on myself for not "seeing" the bigger picture. Fuck that, mam.
No - gaslighting is denying aspects of someone else’s experience when it doesn’t fit with your perspective. It’s falsifying by exclusion.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, you are misrepresenting my position. What I’m saying is that perceiving a ‘problem’ with existence - this pessimistic nature of the human condition - is indicative of a value structure that conceives the ‘individual’ as more important, greater qualitative value, than existence. What is ‘problematic’ is how this value structure relates to the measurable potential of existence (ie. its quantitative value) being greater than that of the individual. Formal logic insists that only one of these value structures can be our ‘true’ value structure - so it seems as if we’re ‘forced’ to choose between the qualitative primacy of the individual (in which case the problem is existence), or the quantitative primacy of existence (in which case the problem is individual, personal).
My argument is that this conflict in value structures or double bind is a relative condition, as in not absolute, which is not the same as dismissing it. Of course it’s relative - it’s a human condition. But I do think there is a rational way of looking at this that effectively renders the problem you’re outlining as an illusion - in much the same way as the earth being flat is an illusion.
I think you’ve demonstrated that it’s possible to have a reasonable discussion about ‘injustices/tragedies’ such as the ethics of procreation and having a wilful striving nature - so long as the participants share this value structure - but I would argue that it isn’t an entirely rational discussion. Take a breath before you respond now, because a rational discussion isn’t twisting my words so that they seem like an attack, an insinuation, or an accusation towards YOU. No-one can be both rational and defiant at the same time. If you’re feeling existentially threatened by what I’m saying, then I ask you to imagine for a moment that there is no person at this end, and examine the words as if they were just ideas in a rational structure, void of intention or feeling. Just try it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No - the process leads to... collaboration, connection and awareness - it’s neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If I choose to be optimistic about it - well, that’s my choice, as I’ve said. Repeatedly.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Right - de facto, which is relative to value structure, and contingent upon action. That’s an illusion of ‘necessity’.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No - the CHOICE is the self, and it exists only in potentiality. I’ve also explained to you before that I don’t consider procreation a necessity nor an obligation, and that reducing suffering is a fundamental aspect of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You’re playing the victim. And you clearly have no idea what my values are, as you can’t get beyond your own. It’s not about either complacency or defiance, nor about finding a way out, but a way through. This is easier to do when you can imagine the situation from a position already beyond it.
Huh? This is more gaslighting. The world I understand is through my mediating self. It was the individual brought into existence and that suffers. You can twist that logic all you want and you ain’t gonna change that point. I might interact from it and learn information that I can process to survive in my environment and entertain, but it’s still the individual who is processing and using this information and outputting it. You can’t just skip over that.
Quoting Possibility
This sounds incoherent. It sounds like you are saying what I already gathered, that it’s the individuals fault for experiencing the sufferings and harms. It also sounds like you think you can take the view from nowhere regarding your own existence. But you can’t. All choices are mediated by a person with a will, values, reasons, goals, etc that de facto are forced upon them as they are born and interacting.
Quoting Possibility
Fine collaborating about pessimism then. Awareness of the forced agenda we are all a part of. Why force people into life? Any answer implicates you mam. It implicates that you too have an agenda for people..
Quoting Possibility
Then tell me your philosophy! Can you actually summarize your argument in a succinct intelligible way? Do you even grasp what I’m arguing? All I’m getting from you is that it’s the pessimists fault for not seeing some truth that I’m sure you think you have access to cause you are seeing it from some quantitative way.
Why boredom, especially? Wasn't he certain about fear or grief or anger or any other among of a host of feelings too?
[quote="schopenhauer1;d12594"Boredom sits at the heart of the human condition.[/quote]
Boredom is just one of the many feelings a human being can be aware of at any time. Most probably Schopenhauer was "bored to death" and boredom dominated all his other feelings! :smile:
If he had lived today, he would maybe have chosen "stress" as the basic element at the heart of human condition in our times ...
But then, we can say of a lot of other things besides feelings to be at the heart of the human condition, i.e. which are more characteristic of the human condition (than boredom): Suffering, love, compassion, communication and understanding, acknowledgment and recognition, ... All these are very important needs --at the heart of the human condition-- that characterize humans, making them different from other species.
Nah on all that. Go back to some posts discussed on here for reference. At the end of the day, besides survival motivations, you are trying to get your attention caught up by something.
Earlier in the thread, a poster was especially displeased by our suggestion that he is at all times, basically, acting out of boredom.
I wondered thene whether to stop posting in this thread or at least send you a note about where it's likely going to head, given the displeasure of this poster (and some others), and that it might be best not to continue.
You're in a similar situation now like the other posters who took a dim view of your suggestion that they're acting out of boredom. Now, another poster is suggesting something that is outside your scope, and you take a dim view of it.
Just like you're at ease enough with the idea that humans act essentially out of boredom (while not all other people are at ease with this idea), some other people are at ease enough with the idea that selfhood is a construct (while you (and many others) are not at ease with said idea). It's why some people can discuss a particular topic without such discussion causing them unease, and others cannot.
There is in some religious/spiritual traditions a warning given that one should not discuss certain religious/spiritual topics with just anyone at just any time in just any setting. This warning is given with good reason, it is intended as a measure to avoid unnecessarily upsetting people, and to avoid wasting one's time.
I haven't seen such consideration emphasized in Western philosophy, but I think it is very much in place.
Not sure what you’re getting at. My view is that self may be constructed but we can’t help but to construct a self. Was there something you wanted to critique or add?
So in your view of Buddhism, is there a goal of deconstruction of self?
Right, but getting to nirvana is a sort of discipline no? I’m saying this is one more burden, one of the do (not do) of Buddhism.
If there’s a delusion of self there’s being non deluded but that takes X thing that one must deal with like everything else from being born at all..hence my pessimism of even Buddhism which ironically is a kind of path forward from its own pessimistic evaluations
I guess there is a view held by some that most of what people do in life is just filling in time until you die. I've never quite understood what boredom actually means because the word seems to be an umbrella term used by people to describe a range of emotional responses that coalesce around a central idea of dissatisfaction. It also seems to be related to anxiety.
One of my favorite quotes is from Blaise Pascal: “All of man’s misfortune comes from one thing, which is not knowing how to sit quietly in a room”
I'm sorry, I didn't. But reading other posts won't change what I think about "boredom" being at the the heart of human condition. It's too dramatic and too shallow. That's why I joked. You shouldn't take it that seriously. Here's another joke, not mine this time:
And here's something showing the unimportance and uselessness of "boredom", from another important philosopher:
"Is life not a thousand times too short for us to bore ourselves?"
(Friedrich Nietzsche)
Listen. I know about boredom as a few know ... Boredom can become pathological, a mental disease. I suffered from it for about two years, during my compulsory military service in the Navy. I had lost my interest for everything. And I was feeling a big pressure inside, like a knot. I hope no one knows ever that feeling! Yet, as serious as that could be, I cannot consider it as a "human condition". It does not characterize human life. It's a disease. And if one is generally sane, it will pass when the causes of its occurance are lifted. As it has passed with me, a little before my service came to its end.
And, as you saw, I can even joke about that! :smile:
Quoting Tom Storm
Right. There's this too.
Quoting Tom Storm
Well, as I wrote to @schopenhauer1 a while ago, I have felt pathological boredom to my bones. I know well what it is. It might be connected to "stress" (I said I was feeling a big pressure inside), but not to anxiety, i.e. worry, nervousness, etc. These feelings are much higher on a "livingess" scale. Boredom --pathological one--is more like apathy. Nothing can interest you or make sense to you. It's close to death. Temporary, transient boredom is of course a totally different thing.
Quoting Tom Storm
Nice! And true. It can be said in a million ways ...
To me that sounds like depression.
You can’t twist logic, but you can ignore it.
Individuals are not ‘brought into existence’ from somewhere else they’d rather be. They are ‘conceived’ in potentiality by mostly unintentional collaboration of existence. This conception manifests life via lots of small and seemingly insignificant choices or ‘willing’ collaboration, until such time as there is sufficient intentional awareness, connection and collaboration among willing aspects to construct a ‘self’ as a local consolidation of choice in potentiality. But this ‘self’ is not identical to the conception from which your life manifest in the first place. Although in language it would make sense to consider them the same ‘individual’ subject, it is this ‘flattening’ of what is a more complex potentiality for the purpose of language that leads to conflicting value structures.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well of course it sounds incoherent - this is the conflict. And I don’t see why experiencing suffering and harm is necessarily someone’s fault. You’re looking to attribute intentionality in a moralistic structure, but you need to reconcile the conflicting value structures first - which is as easy as reconciling quantum physics with general relativity. Your solution is to exclude one in favour of the other - and then fight to deny anyone’s experience which might suggest the reality you’ve decided on might be ignoring aspects of the truth. Hmm... and yet I’m the one accused of gaslighting.
All choices are mediated by a person whose will, values, reasons, goals, etc are continually reconstructing as they are born and interacting. This variability can be mapped, just as Copernicus mapped the solar system without leaving Earth.
Quoting schopenhauer1
How about collaborating between pessimism and optimism? Or awareness of a broader agenda that is not forcing a consolidated ‘individual’ into a quantitatively limited, temporal existence, but rather opportunity for a potentially constructed ‘self’ to manifest actual collaboration with existence? You may choose to limit your collaboration to increasing pessimism, but your comments here have been denying my capacity to choose optimism, or to move freely between the two, simply because it doesn’t fit with your own limited perspective. So stop trying to accuse me of gaslighting.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You don’t want to hear my philosophy - you want me to tell you who I think is to blame for this situation we’re in. But I’m not laying blame. If you were interested in my philosophy at all, you would have been reading what I actually wrote, instead of reducing all my words to some moralistic stance you can argue against. If you genuinely want to hear my philosophy, then go back and re-read my posts, and then discuss those words, rather than what your mediating self feels that I’m saying.
I appreciate your open-minded approach. I think this warning is often along the lines of ‘when the student is ready, the teacher appears’. I agree that some people are not ready to explore beyond their event horizon - it’s an unsettling and often terrifying process. Far less risky to step away from the apparent precipice. But I also think we have this faculty of imagination for a reason, and it isn’t really to avoid getting bored or to talk ‘hocus pocus’. Philosophy is about enabling the interaction of logic, affect and value structures in a way that challenges the structures themselves to improve their accuracy and effectiveness. That means we need to be prepared to dismantle them to understand why they’re not working.
Quoting schopenhauer1
As I said before, Buddhism is commonly misinterpreted as a practice to self-improvement, but the path to enlightenment is not a one-time deal. There’s no consolidation at the end known as ‘enlightened’ - Buddha’s ultimate achievement was non-existence. We’re not obligated to follow this or reject it, but invited to explore the path in order to understand, and from there make choices in genuinely reducing suffering (not just our own experience or observation of it), as far as our awareness, connection and collaboration allows.
I’m inviting you to connect and collaborate to increase awareness - not because I think I know better, but because the very fact that we’re not on the same page indicates there is an aspect of awareness that we don’t share. You can choose what you want to do with that. No one is forcing you to respond. But when you do, I will be trying to find a position from which I can understand yours without denying my own experience - knowing I may need to imagine the possibility that such a position exists. You don’t have to join me there, but I’ll try to describe it, just the same.
Depression is a "higher" state on a livingness scale. It is a feeling of loss of hope or courage, and often being guilty and inadequate or useless. Enter the depression pills. In apathy, you have no feelings --except apathy itself, which can be barely called a feeling. (Actually, the word "apathy" comes from Greek "a-" (privative) + "pathos" (passion, feeling) => no feeling. There are no pills for that!
Some would say there are no pills for depression. As someone who works with people who are living with depression, both treated and untreated, what you describes sounds exactly like what many of them describe.
I assume that you mean that (the existing) depression pills are useless --hence "treated and untreated". I not only agree with that but Ialso believe that they even do more harm than good.
I don't know exactly what is your relation with depressed people ... I have worked on a couple of these cases and I know that depression can be treated with no medicine or any physical means whatsoever, and in a relatively short time, depending on how severe it is, how long it has lasted and, of course, the person him/herself. A depressed person can become a healthy and happy person in a relatively short time. And never regress.
, who has offered us the opportunity to discuss about all these things --Thanks!-- talks about a subject, "boredom", about which, as I can see, has very little knowledge. And unfortunately, he doesn't seem to want to learn more ...
I manage psychosocial services in the area of mental health, suicide prevention and substance use - medication works for many people and it works well. But it's not for everyone.
This is very good! :up: (Hard job, too!)
Quoting Tom Storm
OK. Yes, of course, it's not for everyone.
Nirvana then is the frantic wish, a desperate effort to terminate a process that gets you nowhere.
That said, people have tremendous fun riding a merry-go-round and many dances have a circular format. I don't get it. Samsara, carousels, same thing! One is enjoyable, the other tedious and even painful.
A Sisyphusean nightmare!
Bin der. Dun dat. Under totally different circumstances
A bit of a difference between boredom and depression: the overall feeling is SOMEWHAT similar, but not totally. They say boredom is the forerunner to depression.
A healthy person deals with boredom much like he deals with any other displeasure: he seeks to avoid it or else to replace it. Much the same way as with hunger, sleepiness, etc. A person who can't avoid boredom is diseased, precisely how you wrote it. But much of the time the inability to avoid boredom or to replace it is not due to inner difficulties, but to outer ones, such as being in jail or in the arm or navy. To some males the pervasive absence of female company can trigger this. Hence, the aversion to Muslim lifestyle for a western type man.
Where in my above statements that you have quoted --or even the whole post to which they belong-- do I talk about "depression"?
Anyway, I know well the difference between the two, and have talked about that a little earlier ...
Your quote is from me, alright, but your comments seem to be addressed to someone else. (@Tom Storm maybe?)
I don't know if I addressed anyone with my post as a response. My post was rather a reflection of my thoughts starting from the point of the quote.
I talked about depression not because you mentioned it but out of my free will (so to speak). I am sorry for having thoughts and imagination. I'll try to curb them next time. :-)
Hey, I just don't need to engage in unnecessary tangents that don't understand what I mean by, boredom. Here is a quote that encapsulates it:
[quote=Schopenhauer]The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us—an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest—when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon—an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature—shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious.[/quote]
That is to say, we would feel no need for ANYTHING as mere BEING would satisfy us. But it doesn't. Survival and boredom rule our world. We need goals to achieve, things to occupy our minds.
I never said that! This is a straw man.. I said they were simply brought into existence. I didn't say that to imply that they existed prior to their birth, so stop.
Completely disagree. This is not what is going on. An agent is making a choice to procreate or at the least, engage in activities that lead to procreation. Nothing more is needed here in your model. I don't have to look at neurons or quantum physics to make this claim. It has to do at the level of human behavior. To start making it otherwise, is to obfuscate. Why are you doing that? What is the point? To be clever? Do you think because it is so simple, it can't be right, that we can actually talk at the level of agents making choices in regards to procreation and evaluating whether it is good to make a decision to bring someone else into the world?
Experiencing suffering and harm isn't "someone's fault", but procreating people where it is known that suffering and harm occur can be construed as a choice that an agent takes. The universe did not breed me (unless you mean in the non-useful-here evolutionary sense of the term). Humans have agency and can decide not to produce more people that can and will suffer and are forced into X, Y, Z situations as a result. What I mean by that is that the situatedness of the world is already such that people have to follow this socio-culutral-physical agenda of human suvival/thriving in order to not die, despite the fact that we might want things differently. The only thing you can do to counter this is say that "It's YOUR fault for not learning to go along with the program" OR to simply say, "None of this is real, so you aren't really suffering". Both of these are false.. and yes I will say, existentially gaslighting answers to the problem I am presenting.
Also, I am waiting to hear the profoundness of this "truth" you hold. Collaboration makes all this go away, is that it? Like procreating more people who suffer isn't bad because Collaboration? Procreating more people who suffer isn't bad because, "it's only my reality and not real"? That it too? Just a yes or no would be fine... and then a SHORT summary of why or why not in a COHERENT fashion that isn't self-referential.
All choices are mediated by a person whose will, values, reasons, goals, etc are continually reconstructing as they are born and interacting. This variability can be mapped, just as Copernicus mapped the solar system without leaving Earth.
Fine collaborating about pessimism then. Awareness of the forced agenda we are all a part of. Why force people into life? Any answer implicates you mam. It implicates that you too have an agenda for people..
— schopenhauer1
So I believe the bolded is your main premise if we take all the other distractors away. My point to this is that this has an implicit "political" goal in mind. Political not in the idea of government per se, but a sort of social agenda that other people must follow. I would say that it's find to hold a view on this or that social arrangement.. However, once procreation enters the picture, it becomes a political agenda on behalf of someone else. See, YOU want X (in this case collaboration with existence), and the individual, who is an agent, has to experience existence and thus will suffer. They not only suffer, they are forced to follow the agenda of being alive at all.. That is to say, if let's say an industrialized economy.. it more or less follows a rather predictable fashion of work for money for survival and consume stuff, get more comfortable with environment, and entertain oneself in that economic framework. Things. like that. There is obviously a lot more to say on it, but I am giving you the rudimentary here. The antinatalist/pessimist doesn't want to set agendas for others to follow. We may be alive ourselves, but we don't continue the chain. You can try to obfuscate and say that somehow "existence collaborates its way anyway", but as an agent we can individually not participate in procreating that suffering and agenda onto another person who experiences it and must follow it. I choose and promote not choosing for others to put them in these situations. Not existing hurts no one, and deprives no one. Existing hurts someone, and the collateral damage of suffering will take place.
Besides which, as is the theme of this thread, boredom I believe to be a powerful understanding of the standard human condition. That is to say, we cannot generally, sit too long and meditate on nothingness all day. We have to get up. The agenda of survival and our own dissatisfied minds makes it the case. You can try to distract from this point by bringing up some "higher truth" of "attachment" versus the action itself, but I think my point still remains. Not sure if you will make that move (usually attached to Buddhist concept of suffering) but just addressing it now in case.
All I get from your philosophy is we are in the great "collaboration" scheme. That doesn't tell me much. It's like saying, "The world is made of fluctuating X". That doesn't tell me much as far as what I am discussing. String theory, for example, doesn't really tell me anything other than perhaps some scientific points about how we can interpret the makeup of the universe given the evidence and math that we have at the moment and through our historical development.
You are right. You weren't addressing to someone in particular. I was misled by your quoting me.
So, getting back to your previous post ...
Quoting god must be atheist
The distance from boredom to depression is very long. There are a lot of emotional states in between. The main of them, in order of decreasing "livingness" are: antagonism, hostility, anger, hate, anxiety, fear and grief. Next come depression and apathy, about which I talked earlier in this thread. This is not a theory. I have seen them occurring a lot of times when I was working on the subject of emotions and helping persons getting up these states.
Quoting god must be atheist
This is right and it is very important as a remark for this particular topic, which treats boredom as something special. All emotions are part of the human condition! Only that the lower you are on the emotional scale, the more difficult is to work out things and esp. getting up. I'm sure you have seen that a lot of times in your environment. It has to do though with the ability and mental state of the individual. Some can regain their regular mood easier than others after this has been dropped for various reasons.
So,based on the above statement of yours, my extension of it, as well as other things that have been said in this thread, we can say that no particular emotion or emotional state can be considered to be "at the heart of the human condition"!
OK, since you look for a serious confrontation on the subject, I will point out the weaknesses and unsound points in your long quote of Schopenhauer. I do that, and put extra time on this, only because it's your topic. Otherwise, I don't even see the need for it ...
I hope that my time is not wasted!
1) "man is a compound of needs and necessities": This is an absurd notion. Man does not consist of needs, he is not needs. He has needs.
2) "even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness": Too vague, an "empty" statement. What needs are (to be) satisfied? Some of them in particular? The more important ones? All of them (which is just impossible)?
3) "nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom": A totally arbitrary, skewed, biased conclusion. And more importantly, it does not reflect what actually happens in life. How often can you see such an ending, a course of action, a result? But most importantly, can anyone satisfy all his needs? Almost impossible, I think.
4) "This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself": Well, nothing has been proved based on the above. Then, the belief that "existence has no real value in itself" is shared by a lot of people --including myself, I am "the first" to tell that life has no purpose in itself-- but this has nothing to do with any kind of emotion. You don't have to reach despair to realize that! It' a rational conclusion, reachable by simple logic.
5) etc.
Well, I don't have so much time to spend to take on more points ... You see, when one's basic assumption or (pro)position is false, based on a fallacy or otherwise, then one statement-argument after another that are used to support it just fall apart.
Then, all that is mentioned in Schopenhauer's quote, are based mainly on concepts and not life itself. Actual experience is missing. I could dare say that rational thinking is missing or faulty too, as I have shown out in these 4 points of mine.
Instead, I have talked about my experience on the subject of emotions, what has happened to me, but mainly to people I have worked with and help them in handling their emotions. The data from all this, paired always with critical reasoning, are more valuable than just an analysis based mainly on concepts and very little on experience.
Because I have an idea that you missed most of my posts in this thread, I will only mention here that I have shown that all the human feelings/emotions are equally offered for handling. Boredom is just one of them, as I said in the beginning. There's no special feeling/emotion that dominates. Some are more easy to handle than other, and some individuals can handle them more easily than other.
So, the final conclusion, based on a host of things that I --and others-- have written in your thread, and which is worth mentioning it again, is that "no particular emotion or emotional state can be considered to be "at the heart of the human condition".
(I hope that this time you'll take more seriously what I have to say than the first time! :smile:)
Oh boy, I get to discuss things with you :roll:, the almighty Alkis who's gonna really show me how it is!
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes, you show how you don't know much about Schopenhauer. Look up his idea of Will. But also, you might not want to take his statements as "literal". He is describing the condition of being a human with needs and wants.. It is an essential part of the conscious person living in the world.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Well yes, because you can put any need or you want in there and it results in the same thing. Once you obtained a goal, filled your belly, gotten your pleasure, etc. then what? Well, he claims..a restless dissatisfaction (i.e. his view of boredom).
Quoting Alkis Piskas
You REALLY don't understand Schopenhauer so I might stop it right here but.. Schop thinks that behind everything is a striving Will. However, one doesn't need to buy his metaphysics to understand his epistemology. We as humans experience a wide range of preferences we'd like satisfied.. We get hungry, we generally like not being too cold or hot, etc.. we work towards goals in our society to get that. In an industrial society that might look like work and consumption for goods and services. But then we aren't just robots that work and that's it.. We have a dissatisfaction with just BEING, we must DO SOMETHING.. ANYTHING AT ALL. So you do X, Y, Z. He is interested why we need to do any activity, any goal, and thing at all in the first place.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
No it's not just that. He's saying that BEING isn't enough for us. We are dissatisfied with just BEING. We must do "something". This dissatisfaction with just being is akin to what he means by boredom. It is an existential type of boredom that he is discussing, not just being "bored" as an emotional state of being temporarily not interested in something. It is a general dissatisfaction.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yeah and none of it gets at what he's talking about. Your idea of boredom and how he is using it (in a more existential way) are just different. You are trying to conflate the two, or diffuse it into your idea of "one emotion of many" and he is talking about the restless/dissatisfied animal/human nature that is at the heart of motivations. There is something missing that we are always needing to fulfill, otherwise we would have no need for need or want.
Or maybe the widely held and tabooed assumption that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry, is not justified.
I don't think that's it. Personally I don't drink, am indifferent to food and rarely go out.
It's an idiom.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/eat-drink-and-be-merry
The afore-mentioned assumption is that people should do things that they enjoy, that they are "passionate" about, and that one's whole life can and should be filled with such things as much as possible.
And secondly, that in a normal person, this constant pursuit of pleasure (here pleasure is understood in a broad sense, it can mean eating, drinking, partying, or listening to classical music, bungee-jumping, or volunteering, etc. etc.) is 1. possible, and 2. inherently satisfying. Some (such as Schopenhauer and Early Buddhism) would say that these two points are not true.
If by "discipline", you mean something like a 'systematic effort', then yes.
A burden only the willing shoulder. It's kind of silly to sit next to the "burden" and gripe about it.
I don't know how to help you any longer. It seems like you're at a crossroads and decisive action is required on your part ...
Right, but that's just the thing. My gripe is that why is decisive action even needed? There is putting people in a place they are.. and then they have to deal with getting to a different place (even if it is all attachment or delusion or whatever). It is this scheme I am examining.
I think of this:
You're conjecturing about topics that fall into the category of "the origin of the world", and you're quite predictably, vexed by doing so.
Perhaps you're not quite vexed enough yet ...
Ha, I get it. But I am not a Buddhist, and actually think that Schop's attempt to point to asceticism is too optimistic, believe it or not. There is no escape.. And even if there was, my grip remains.. We are at X place, and we need to be at Y place (Enlightenment), that in itself is a situation I find troubling.. The origin I place squarely on being a human born into the world as humans develop "selves" by mere fact of our species relation with language and the environment.
I know it's an idiom. I simply thought the idiom didn't sit right. People can be content or cheerful when you think they should be miserable.
Quoting baker
As opposed to the assumption that people should do things they hate and are indifferent to. I get it. Many people would tick these boxes.
Lives are tough and people suffer. No surprise there.
Bring: Cause (someone or something) to come to a place. Cause someone or something to BE in a particular state or condition.
The implication in this verb is that they were in a different state or condition prior to birth. So to ‘bring into existence’ is to imply that non-existence of something is a state or condition. can you explain that?
Quoting schopenhauer1
You can’t isolate ‘human behaviour’ and expect to render an accurate or objective model of ‘activities that lead to procreation’. And when you talk about ‘making a choice to engage’, what are those activities, and to what extent are they intentionally engaged? And I’ve already repeatedly explained that I’m not arguing FOR procreation as necessarily a good thing. I think there needs to be considerably more awareness of what one’s intentional engagement sets in motion, before evaluating the decision. If that occurred, then far less people would choose to procreate, and those who do would be more intentionally engaged in the process.
Quoting schopenhauer1
There is much more to procreating people than the occurrence of suffering and harm - this is your reductionist evaluation, and that’s fine, but you have no right to impose this on others as some objective morality. I’m not laying blame, and I’m not denying your experience. I’m simply saying that there is more to a conscious existence than you are describing here, and choosing not to follow a particular socio-cultural agenda does not necessarily entail premature death, pessimism or antinatalism.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, no, and no.
Maximising awareness, connection and collaboration, in theory, makes the problem not so much ‘go away’ as cease to be considered a ‘problem’. Procreating more people (while neither good nor bad necessarily) is not an efficient way to collaborate at all, given our capacity for collaborative understanding in potentiality. The more we learn to collaborate, the less we will perceive a ‘need’ to procreate.
What is harmful is the notion that any child I bring into the world is perceived as a property of myself - to become only as aware, connected and collaborative as I find valuable or rewarding to me; or as an extension of myself - their individual value rendering my own potentially insignificant or redundant. This is how most people raise their children, despite stated intentions to ‘make the world a better place’ or ‘give them the opportunities I didn’t have’. They very soon find themselves in a power struggle with an alternative value structure (rather like you assume is going on between us). The sooner we learn, as a parent or anyone, that it’s not about power but about increasing awareness, connection and collaboration beyond our own value structures, the greater and more variable our capacity to reduce suffering overall for the child, for ourselves, and for any future interactions.
Again with the implicit... Let me reiterate once again that I am NOT arguing FOR procreation, and I am NOT saying that we should procreate because we should collaborate. So STOP misrepresenting my position - I am getting sick of repeating myself on this point. Can you honestly not see that collaboration does not necessitate procreation? I will not condemn procreation itself as immoral, because I don’t believe it is, but nor do I advocate it as a necessarily moral act. This is a false dichotomy, an illusion limited by value structure.
In considering procreation we need to recognise that it is the extent of our own ignorance, isolation and exclusion - of which we cannot be more than vaguely aware - that WILL contribute to the suffering of a child if we choose to go ahead. I get that you consider this to be a morality issue, but here’s the thing: in the event that we choose NOT to procreate, we have not taken any step towards reducing any overall contribution to suffering in our own life. We will continue to interact in the world, distributing the same effort and attention with the same level of ignorance, isolation and exclusion as we would have had we directed it towards a child. Preventing one person in the world doesn’t reduce suffering on its own - it’s like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Antinatalism isolates and excludes a consolidated potential for suffering, which is not the same thing.
Existence even prior to the Big Bang does tend weakly towards awareness, connection and collaboration overall, but this tendency is qualitative - fundamentally unquantifiable. Every experience of suffering is a result of some ignorance, isolation or exclusion, and yet it is through this quantitative consolidation that existence is able to eventually develop an understanding of itself. Non-existence isn’t the only way to keep from hurting others. One existence intentionally maximising awareness, connection and collaboration with experiences of suffering has the potential to reduce suffering beyond what is prevented by one individual non-existence. This is the fundamentally misunderstood truth of both Buddha and Jesus.
Quoting schopenhauer1
A dissatisfied mind cannot force us to get up. Neither can this so-called agenda of survival. We choose to prioritise values such as survival, but the reality is that ‘survival’ for us is only ever a temporary achievement, as is a ‘satisfied’ mind. Which means they aren’t really values at all. So, what do we gain by this illusory value structure, except a sense of the ‘individual’ as infinitely valuable? Intentionally experiencing this state of ‘boredom’ without feeling that we must ‘reject some forced agenda’ to do so is precisely what Buddhist meditation is showing us about the human condition. The point is to get past this feeling that we have to get up, we have to survive - and in that state realise our own capacity to not follow any so-called ‘set agendas’. To recognise them as illusion, and seek a more accurate value structure - rationally developing a self from an understanding of the energy of affect in relation to the quality of ideas.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It’s not just collaboration - it’s maximising awareness, connection and collaboration which brings all of existence towards an absolute, infinite interconnectedness. But that’s effectively in paradoxical relation with absolute non-existence. This is why I persist in these frustrating discussions with you, because in many ways I find we are in a similar philosophical position - except that one of us is focused on a meta-philosophy, while the other is focused on an ethical framework. I guess I’m curious as to why it seems to you like I’m somehow denying your experience when I argue for a broader perspective.
I think that definition works just fine. The parent causes a new person to BE in a particular state when they procreate them. So they are "bringing" them into existence. But even if you don't agree with that definition, use whatever verb you want for that phenomenon. This tangent is unnecessary, and seems like an odd red herring. Use the word "cause to exist" if you want. What's the point of wasting time on this pedantic debate though? Was it really unclear what I mean that parents are agents that cause a new person to exist by their actions?
Well, last I checked, sex under certain conditions or artificial means are the two main ways that "lead to procreation". How is that not something you can isolate?
As far as intentional awareness, all the best intentions and upbringing cannot prevent suffering, harm, and certainly still does not overcome the direct violation of dignity in causing someone to follow an agenda (i.e. the socio-culutral-physical agenda of human suvival/thriving in order to not die, despite the fact that we might want things differently.)
Oh, this is rich.. So, no, that is not what I am doing. I am forcing, literally NOTHING onto ANYONE. Not procreating forces nothing on no one. Nor am I advocating my philosophy through force. HOWEVER, this isn't the case for the other side of the equation. For the pro-procreators, this definitely IS forcing someone into a situation.. In fact that's one of my major points.. Someone is always harmed in procreation and is always caused to follow the agenda, and can never have been consented de facto (I just say "forced" but you will probably be pedantic about it as a red herring). However, in the pro-procreator camp, there is always collateral damage. There is always some kind of "force" going on. Someone who is caused to deal with this or that (I'll just say the socio-cultural-survival agenda).
Eh, okay.. that is sort of what I am advocating so maybe we can agree..
I agree a lot in the first part there, but you turn vague when you say "increasing awareness, connection, and collaboration beyond our own value structures". What has led you to those three words/concepts? Did you read it somewhere? Did it come to you in an epiphany? What is your influence there if at all?
And more importantly, what does that even mean in the context that we are discussing? I am simply saying that harm and suffering exists. So does the fact that we cannot escape the forced agenda, lest suicide. Collaborating does not take away this fact. I am not against it.. I like to read about scientific discoveries.. I like to read history. I like to listen to music.. I can talk with others about these things. I can discuss philosophy on this forum.. None of this is relevant to "dissolving" the problems away that I am discussing. You can't outwit this.
I can see collaboration doesn't necessitate procreation. I do not agree obviously with all you said. But I still don't get what you are going on about with this collaboration.. What's the point of saying we should collaborate? Is that like your idiosyncratic way of working together to produce something? Clearly you are making a normative statement.. And it really just sounds like the middle-class idea of entrepeneurship and so-called "constructive projects"... I mean.. Achievement by working with others.. I mean this is pretty pedestrian stuff.. It's one of many parts of existence.. I don't get your trying to reify it. People tend to allay their boredom by "connecting" with other people. Some people use this "connection" to "collaborate" on projects. And by doing so, they become more "aware" about how something works, or make something new that other people become "aware" of.. Okie dokie.. Moving on....
You mine as well say to just be a productive citizen and look to Dudley Dooright.. Celebrate the moments of our lives.. and all the other slogans... Every day we go to work or try to survive with other humans were are doing these things.. So, the fuck, what?? It's just how we survive. Cultural knowledge gathered through humans interacting over time...
You have no idea what happened before the Big Bang, any more than most scientists.. and certainly has nothing to do with the qualitative aspects of connection, awareness, or collaboration.. all things that can and should only be attributed to sentient beings of a certain type and complexity.
What do you mean by "awareness, connection and collaboration with experiences of suffering".. you are always speaking in vague notions.
Well, if we don't get up and survive, we die.. So fine.. Let's all die by passively doing nothing and sitting. This is pretty much all this amounts to. Seeking any value structure is still DOING SOMETHING. Your philosophy does not somehow negate what I am saying about the dissatisfaction. The SEEKING is the dissatisfaction.
I have no idea.. you seem to be saying to me that my perspective is wrong because it doesn't take into account your (really vague) ideas of collaboration, connection, and awareness. What do you MEAN? I still don't have any concrete examples. Collaborate, connection, and be aware of WHAT!! It all sounds like there is no "there" there. And somehow you will then say, "Yes that's the point.. it's very Buddhist, cause there's no there there"... and we will talk in circles.. and then to make it more concrete you will bring in some non-analogous physics terminology that is not helpful.. So really, just give me a succinct understanding of your worldview using concrete examples. You know that pretty much whatever it is you will say, I will just counter with the fact that X goal/event is the result of our dissatisfaction... If we are to stick with the premise of this thread. BEING itself would be enough! What's the POINT to keep saying collaborate, etc..? You are trying to provide this spiritual dimension.. There is no "WE" just "bits of collaboration" that want to "collaborate" to be "fulfilled".. Perhaps it's your just-so inevitability towards "collaboration".. Your view that "collaboration" is some underlying principle that I just don't get.. Maybe because there are NO CONCRETE EXAMPLES whereby I can even look at it critically. It's a value structure YOU have simply asserted... a normative goal you have placed (COLLABORATE!).. But why?
I’m trying to draw your attention to the qualitative structural difference between actual and potential. It’s not that I don’t agree with the definition - I think it’s fine, too - I’m just trying to point out that this definition has more to it than you realise. Because a ‘person’ must potentially exist prior to procreation - just NOT in a particular state. And there is no definition of procreation that can avoid this distinction.
Existence is commonly assumed to be four-dimensional only - that’s the structure of language use, of the universe, of this particular state we’re in. Yet we can only be aware of this state and this language-use if our existence extends beyond four-dimensional structure. This is a fundamental logic of qualitative geometry. So it is rational to assume that a person, a consciousness, is a five-dimensional (potential) relation to BEING. And this faculty by which we render or describe a four-dimensional structure must at least logically structure this five-dimensional potentiality, from the possible existence of a six-dimensional relation.
Regardless of what we can prove empirically, the logical structure of possible existence extends, at least qualitatively, to six dimensions. It’s easy enough to ignore, but the logic is undeniable. This is the foundation of my philosophy.
So when we talk about what we ‘bring into existence’ or ‘cause to be in a particular state’, I would argue that we’re not bringing it from non-existence, or causing existence, per se. We’re manifesting a four-dimensional state of existence - from five-dimensional potentiality that includes but is not limited to our own potential existence. I don’t mind if you say ‘bring’ or ‘cause’ - so long as you recognise that what you mean by ‘existence’ in this sense is four-dimensional actuality.
Quoting schopenhauer1
‘Sex under certain conditions’ isolates human behaviour from these ‘conditions’ under which it occurs. I’m saying that when you isolate it like this, you don’t have an accurate or objective model, because both ‘sex’ and ‘certain conditions’ are highly variable in relation to each other. There is much more complexity to ‘sex under certain conditions’ than this description suggests.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Intentional engagement with potential may not prevent all suffering and harm, but its capacity to reduce suffering and harm extends well beyond that of intentionally isolating potential. The dignity of someone’s potential is not violated by actualising it. We may ‘cause’ a potentiality to BE in a particular state of ‘following an agenda’, but once they are aware of an agenda as such (which as a parent should be our aim), we are no longer the ‘cause’ of them following it. And in case you were wondering - this is not to say that we SHOULD actualise someone’s potential - only that we are not necessarily violating someone’s dignity by doing so - so long as it is their potential we intend them to realise, not our own. Their potential remains intact, whether we engage with it or not. The only difference is in our perception of it.
Having said that, I do get what you’re saying: the potential of an individual seems infinite in relation to the sum of any random actualisation. But the potential of an individual also varies in relation to any randomly perceived potentiality. So an individual is then a relative value, which seems less infinite in itself, but only if you consider value to be linear (one-dimensional) in structure, and infinity to be quantitative. Which I obviously don’t.
Carlo Rovelli once described the universe as consisting not of objects in time, but of ‘interacting events’, or relative temporal structures. Time, he says, is not linear except in our localised experience of it. We can consider potentiality in the same way: the universe consisting not of events or living systems interacting along a single linear structure of value or potential, but rather of interacting potentialities or relative value structures.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You are evaluating every act in relation to the apparently infinite value of a consolidated, individual potential against any attempt to actualise it as a living system, and rejecting all other possible value structures. When I describe an alternative perspective, you simply impose your own value structure on what I’ve written, and argue that “this is what you’re really saying, and it’s immoral”. Yes, impose - not necessarily on me, but on what I’ve written. You might consider it to be an equation with only two sides (yours and the wrong one), but my point is that there is more to this supposed ‘force’ than you seem willing to consider - more to causation, more to value, and more to the individual.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The notions of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion come from an exploration of ‘will’ - as the faculty by which all actions are determined and initiated - as well as the structural relations between atomic, molecular, chemical, biological, conscious and self-conscious systems. What distinguishes each of these systems from each other is directly related to qualitative dimensional geometry and these three ‘gates’ of interaction. The carbon atom, for example, demonstrates the most ideal balance between consolidated atomic stability and variable molecular awareness, connection and collaboration among all the elements. The part it plays in the evolution of the universe is no accident.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I agree that harm and suffering exist. But I disagree that we cannot escape this apparently ‘forced’ agenda - there are many other options besides self-ignorant compliance or self-excluding suicide. The three gates I’ve proposed provide us with those options.
Reading and listening to music is increasing awareness. Talking with others and most discussions of philosophy are connection. Collaboration is maximising a collective efficiency of limited resources. It takes the focus off the individual and risks non-existence to build on this vague, qualitative sense of a higher dimensional level of existence. This is how atoms developed into molecules, how molecules developed into chemical systems, then into biological systems, how biological systems developed consciousness, and how conscious systems developed a self.
Mere asceticism doesn't solve the problem, indeed.
Need, need, need, must, must, must. You have such a compulsion around all this.
Birth is compulsory, making an effort is compulsory, compulsion is compulsory ... A fullblown compulsory compulsion.
You could, perhaps, cut all this compulsory compulsion short, and conclude that existence itself is burdensome. Much like Early Buddhism or Ecclesiastes.
Which is a potential indicator that happiness cannot be found "outside".
No, no such opposition. The idea is that doing things that one finds pleasurable (in the broadest sense of the word) cannot actually make one happy. Ie. that it's in the nature of doing worldly things that they cannot satisfy. (This is also the theme in Ecclesiastes, so it's not some "esoteric Eastern" notion.)
You'll need to spell this out. What other options are there?
In specific terms, please, not just anything that might fall under "awareness, connection, collaboration".
Quoting Possibility
All this is still firmly in the realm of craving, tanha. The craving for sensual pleasures, the craving for becoming, and the craving for non-becoming.
(Your project is based on what is sometimes termed "the third-and-a-half noble truth: suffering is manageable".)
I think you underestimate craving, tanha.
That's not "meditation", that's zoning out.
Early Buddhism isn't interested in merely minimizing suffering. It proposes a complete cessation of suffering. This makes it a whole other category than what many other paths teach.
That's not Early Buddhism, just to be clear, and not to misuse terminology.
I've known too many people who are, for want of a better term, 'happy' doing things they find pleasurable to agree with this in its entirety. I think it's true that some people find that do not attain happiness this way, but there are some people who are always unhappy. In my view, a person is more likely to find happiness doing what they enjoy than doing what they hate doing. This is certainly my personal experience. The term 'happiness' is a problem I think because it sounds a bit trivial and Californian to me. 'Contentment' may be a better word and preferable from where I sit.
I have not said that we should collaborate, although if reducing suffering is your priority, then yes, I think increasing collaboration is the most efficient method - but not at the expense of awareness or connection. This is not a normative statement, but a rational one. I’m not talking about collaborating on isolated projects, but simply a general decision to collaborate rather than exclude whenever the opportunity presents - because one option never presents without the other, despite appearances. It’s invariably painful, humbling, risky and seemingly impossible, but it’s always ultimately worthwhile (just maybe not for any particular individual).
Quoting schopenhauer1
But that’s not what I’m saying. Why bother to survive? What does that achieve? No one survives, in the end. Stop trying to survive or be socio-culturally productive, and instead find a way to make an incremental difference in the bigger picture. Fuck the agenda - don’t try to avoid suffering (in most cases it won’t actually harm you) - stare it down and use it to change the game. Don’t just gather knowledge, but strive to understand beyond what you can know with objective certainty. Take risks - you’re going to die anyway. Find out what you’re capable of. Intentionally do nothing - stare boredom in the face and discover what motivates you at your core: is it fear or something else? So many choices, so little time...
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, I don’t know, but I do have ideas. And you can’t be certain that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing, because you don’t know, either.
Awareness is not reserved for sentient beings - that’s consciousness. The simplest quality of awareness is the vaguest indication of ‘other’. Connection, too, is not reserved for sentient beings. It’s just a relative arrangement. Molecules connect with other molecules based on their qualitative structure and energy. Lego blocks connect when you press them together in a particular arrangement. And collaboration is simply an arrangement that enables the pooling of resources. Ants collaborate, so do genetic structures. No sentience required.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure, eventually you will die. But do you have any idea how long you can sit there, doing nothing, before you do die? It’s at least a couple of days. And this feeling you get that is motivating you to get up after only a few minutes - what is that? It isn’t you dying, that’s for sure. That space between you wanting to get up and you dying because you didn’t - there is a lot to learn in there.
I’m not trying to negate anything - just suggesting a broader perspective. Seeking an alternative value structure doesn’t require us to get up. It’s not about dissatisfaction with life, but recognising inaccuracies with the help of reason.
Quoting schopenhauer1
In the end it doesn’t matter if I think your perspective is wrong - it’s a valid perspective - but the fact that it requires you to reject valid information from others’ experiences indicates logical inaccuracies, or at least limitations. I do mean awareness, connection and collaboration of everything - supplying concrete examples only gives you permission to ignore, isolate and exclude what is not concrete. This is what unsettles you - that I’m not fitting my philosophy into your conceptual worldview. Yes, our individual conceptualisation of BEING (which excludes qualitative or aesthetic ideas) could be consolidated into a linear structure (by isolating the quality of the individual), and then reduced (by ignoring qualitative structure) to a binary: satisfaction or dissatisfaction. But what’s the point of this reduction? How useful is it for any life that we manifest, given the inaccuracies? Or is it simply an attempt to attain satisfaction at a moralistic level?
And why should this concept of BEING be enough? Even Kant recognised the qualitative variability of our conceptual BEING in an affected relation to the aesthetic idea. Our process of conceptualisation does not accurately concretise the reality of our experience - there IS an existential dimension beyond it - whether you call it ‘spiritual’ or something else. And it is a choice you make to ignore or increase awareness of it, to isolate it as ‘spiritual’ or simply seek connection, and to exclude it as non-conceptual (no concrete examples) or find ways to collaborate with what is effectively a qualitative possibility of ‘oneness’.
Collaboration is not a goal - it’s a possibility: the absolute, paradoxical quality and energy of pure logic. I’m not saying the term is a perfect summary - it obviously loses something when isolated from its paradoxical relation, from ‘exclusion’, and from awareness/ignorance and connection/isolation, but these are the most accurate terms and relations I have found.
Quoting baker
Oh, so many. But you’re only looking for actions so you can reduce them (in your worldview) to ‘following the socio-cultural agenda’.
There is a tendency here to isolate the ‘individual’ as some concrete concept, and then reduce everything else to a binary relation. But the individual cannot act on a singular binary relation - all it can do is embody one side or the other of a moralistic view. So apparently we’re either dissatisfied with our worldview as an individual, or we’re completely taken in by it.
Both the individual and this worldview are five-dimensional conceptualisations that vary in relation to each other - and you know that your conceptual structures are far from identical to schopenhauer1’s, even if an evaluative relation reduces to the same side of the binary. But you’re not meant to look at the concepts, just trust that the word is the same, so it must represent the same consolidation of value.
The reduction being imposed here is: x>y
That’s it. Either you’re x or you’re y, and we can quibble about the variables later. Pick a side.
What’s missing from this model, though, is the distinction between quantitative (effort) and qualitative (attention) value. If only one or the other mattered, then there would be no problem here. But the equation is true for this conceptual structure in two incongruous ways:
1. The world is more powerful than the individual.
2. The individual is more valuable than the world.
I’m not very good at logic, but even I can see that there’s something amiss here.
I’m not saying that suffering is ‘manageable’. You’re grasping for criticisms, here. Reducing suffering is not the same as avoiding it.
Nor am I saying that awareness is just reading and listening to music. My point here was that reading and listening to music was not considered ‘collaboration’.
It’s easy enough to translate every action into craving. We cannot act without translating reason into affect, so I’m not going to deny this. But you’re just avoiding what I’m actually referring to. What do you think it is about listening to music that increases awareness? The sensual pleasure is nice, but there’s a reason that certain music resonates with higher intelligence, and why we often need to ‘develop an ear’ for more complex music. And why do you think merely listening to music is not an example of collaboration?
Quoting baker
Fully awake and alert is not ‘zoning out’. Come on, Baker!
Quoting baker
Buddhism explores the possibility of a complete cessation of suffering - this is not the same as saying we all should follow that path to the end. I think that would be a misinterpretation.
Quoting baker
Never claimed it was.
Ok, I wouldn't have a problem with the idea that for every possible coupling of two procreative people, there is a potential for a person to exist as a result. I don't think that's really a metaphysical epiphany or anything.. It should be noted that this "potential" can be talked about intelligibly in regards to antinatalism and procreation.
I have no idea how you are using the word "dimension" here.
Yep, still no clue. This sounds like neologistic uses of the word dimension... What is "qualatitive geometry"? What field is that from? Is that your own thing? What are your inspirations for such things? Just reading physics and then trying to make physics qualitative? Trying to square the circle? Have you solved the mind/body problem! Well, shit, they should stop writing books and just look at your posts! This sounds vaugely Whiteheadian. Have you read any Whitehead by chance? If not, you should.
Wait, so are you just trying to say that potential things "exist" in some way? Okay, sort of get it now.. I just wasn't understanding the use of "dimension". Seems an odd metaphysical choice of words. Yes, for every set of relations, there could be contingencies that go one way or another based on circumstances. What we should NOT do (and not sure if you are yet) is anthropomorphosize this "potential" as if it has a mind and we are "Its" pawns. In other words, it seems you want the Potential.. to be Inevitable or a Story that is written by Conneting/Collaborating/Awareness.. And we are part of this.. It's all too Woo for me. and it is also too much like a modern form of Natural Reason.. We are just following the dictates of Potential writing its Story.. Thus the problems I mention (which you think are just a scheme and not really "real", but just my dichotomy), are dissolved in your steamrolling Potential. Look how that works out in your favor. Nothing is "real" except this Steamrolling Potential, that must Potentiate No Matter What!! Humans be damned! Fuck humans and their suffering and forced agenda to join the program? Steamrolling Potential needs to use us! Maybe you are closer to Schopenhauer's conception of Will.. We are manifestations of Will and can't help but be its pawn in its striving-for-nothing game! Schop may not have been a true antinatalist BECAUSE of his views of the inevitiability of Will, but that is debatable. He might have shrugged efforts of antinatalism off by saying, "The Will is going to Will despite your efforts!" But not sure.. Anyways, clearly my view is we CAN REBEL against the dictates of Will/Potential or whatever metaphysical phrase happens to fit your model for overriding principle.
Not sure what you're getting at. Is this Steamrolling Potential again, getting its way? No matter what human agents decide Potential will get its human participants in its Story? Is that it? Please...
Absolutely false. The kid's awareness of the agenda doesn't make the parent's awareness not a factor anymore. The parents KNOWS that the child will X, Y, Z.. If you think otherwise, explain that.. But it's not.. We live in the situatedness of a socio-culturo-physical reality and humans must abide by that lest slow death by X, or suicide.. Stop playing me here... You can't outwit this fact, sorry. You would REALLY have to explain, in detail how awareness of the agenda by the kid, negates the parent's putting the child in the forced dictates of the agenda (lest suicide)? My claim stands, procreation is a POLITICAL move made on behalf of said child.
False again. You could never have consented to that "potential child" before you actualized them. In almost every other realm, making such a profound decision for someone of this magnitude would not result in a positive (yes go ahead and do it) action on that potential person (who would exist due to your action..) otherwise. Also, it IS forcing an agenda onto someone and all the harms and sufferings of life. That is an indignity indeed. It is not a "gift". Gifts do not come with such strings. Gifts don't come with such profound collateral damage.
Okay, so what does this matter to anything about procreation? You are trying to square the circle again by talking in circles around the problem.. If we can just discuss "potentiality" enough, maybe procreation can be seen as "good" or at least "not bad" because [place dimension talk here and potential talk there, etc. etc.]. To me, it's this game of Steamrolling Potentiality is going to have it's way! Next, usually you move to the idea that see.. "There is no suffering, just potential, so stop talking about suffering!" Stop it.
Well I'm sorry, I don't speak your jargon.. and it is a lot of self-referential jargon.. You have to admit that.. You define very little and speak in pseudo-science talk for philosophical discourse which muddies the waters.. So if I'm "imposing" something, it is the ordinary language game as it applies to the problems presented in my thread (mainly around pessimism). I am "imposing" the language of usual phenomeonological experience.. A human that is born into the world and MUST do X, Y, Z, and experiences a relatively standard Human Condition (I speak of this dissatisfaction..), and who is FORCED to follow an agenda (as there is LITERALLY no other alternative). Of the fact that humans KNOW we can want something different that is CONTRARY to the dictates of our SITUATEDNESS of the socio-culutral-physical environment that are the boundary conditions mapped out for us. I speak of people not actualizing the potential of more people, even though it's possible to not create more collateral damage that those people experience.. Things like this. I don't know how your self-referential potential steamrolling metaphysics really plays into it other than to obfuscate these very immediate points of the human experience.
I know that Schopenhauer does this himself, but curious to know why you would make atoms, molecules, etc. have words used by an agent (something that chooses)? It sounds again like Woo here. Even if we take into account the randomness of quantum physics, it would be a category error to say atoms "choose" this or that". They do not "collaborate", they simply follow internal forces that are part of their essential characteristic.. Carbon atoms with valence electrons match with that hydrogen valence electron due to how atomic physics works, not because they made a choice to "collaborate". Only complex agents do that. Even ants or bees don't "collaborate".. They work together, but aren't choosing to do so.. It is part of their instinct. I see collaboration as a sort of "choosing" to work together. Certainly atoms aren't "aware", though I guess you can say they are "connecting" in a physical proximity kind of way and due to the force that accompanies electrons and their structure.
Finally, I think we are getting to what you really are trying to say.. But it's what I expected.. Just more of this kind of therapy.. But you don't give concrete examples, so still can't even say much on it, cause you aren't saying much.. It seems my critique still applies.. This is the middle-class therapy for following the agenda, but with enthusiasm because COLLABORATE!! :D :D!! Artistic, physical, business, achievements.. This is the con of the Nietzsche and his ubermensch.. Have you read of the Eternal Return? You mine as well just say that.. It's the same thing.. This Potential talk is basically warmed-over Nietzsche in a pseudo-scientific context.. But I still say Hegel is in there too with the whole Steamrolling Potential.. that HAS to have its way.. Humans being vessels to work with Steamrolling Potential to make things HAPPEN!!! (What we don't know.. cause you are going to be vague and there is no "there" there and Buddhist talk so you don't have to to be concrete because BUDDHISM!! There is no SELF!!).. And somehow you will evade concrete answers as that is the philosophy of the people who just don't GET IT..
This is all bullshit to me.. You are JUSTIFYING putting more forced agendas by REITERATING a FORCED AGENDA..that is to say.. WORK TOGETHER FOR A CAUSE! So it is the warmed-over middle class philosophy that I thought it was when taking away all the obfuscation.
Indeed it is.. Existence is a burden, hence efforts to prevent it for others. Meanwhile, we just have to "deal with it" in the ways that we do. Once born, we are "stuck" in the position of making a choice at all, once we reach an age where we can self-consciously make these decisions. These are the problems Existentialists describe.. Absurdity, isolation, doing something but with no inherent reason other than taking on arbitrary reasons (e.g. it's my role, it's what is expected, it's what everyone else seems to do, etc.). This is often called "authenticity" in behavior. What choice to make when faced with life's dictates (the situatedness we are presented?).
Despite your protestations, you ARE making a normative statement.. X is wortwhile.. THIS is valuable not THAT. So you are making normative statements contra yourself.
But your normative statement is odd because there is no "there" there, yet again. WHAT is ultimately worthwhile, if not for the individual? Is it like some universal game? You get X collaboration points? Is it the contributing to some grand metanarrative?
Ok, so it is warmed-over middle-class values again. You can't say Fuck the Agenda and then say, "Do the Dew!" "Be all you can be!" and all that :lol:.
Me not being certain doesn't thus make you certain. I'm sure someone can use symbolic logic to show that.
As I stated earlier, this is redefining collaborate to non-agent objects and things.
The feeling is dissatisfaction. The whole point of my thread. Some people can learn to calm this for a few hours/days.. so what.. Then they have to survive. Only very rarely do you find the ascetic who dies of voluntary starvation.. I guess it could happen, but rarely. And that being said.. there's a reason most choose not to do this! Hunger is a bitch. Restlessness too.
This doesn't mean anything to me as this is stated.
You already have a normative view by saying "How useful is it?".. You are already assuming something we MUST do (that is be useful, do something useful).. Hmm, what could this "useful" be? Is that to be more satisfied? Haha.. To create more "satisfactory" situations for others? Anyways, it doesn't matter.. That's not where I'm getting at. Rather, dissatisfaction is more of a restless feeling that one must DO anything.. Get "caught up" in something. Thus like Schopenhauer's pendulum, survival and boredom kind of do describe a large part of what is going on with human motivations.
Not sure what you are saying. Rather, Schopenhauer was saying that we are dissatisfied and that just "being" would be enough to prevent our NEED to move from X to Y.. To need to survive, to need to be caught up in this or that game, pleasure, pursuit, goal, etc.
Don't know what you mean here. Energy of pure logic? What?? Again, obfuscation. Rather, it sounds as I described earlier.. The Steamrolling Collaboration wants its way!!
Why "tabooed"? It's not a forbidden subject. Most people believe they are here to enjoy all that and that this is the purpose of life! And it's not an "assumption"; it's a belief and way of life.
So you don't have that "taboo", as @Baker says. :smile: Well, I don't have it either, but although I enjoy all that, I certainly don't believe that this is why we are here. In fact, I can't find any reason why we are here! :grin:
The pursuit of pleasure is in the nature of every living being, together with its opposite, avoiding pain. In Man, however it has a broader sense, as you say, and it includes happiness, among other things. Many philosophers suggested that experiencing pleasure and happiness meant allowing yourself to indulge and enjoy things to excess. Epicurus, however, the first philosopher --from what I know-- talking about pleasure (hedonism, from Greek "hedoné"), suggested that pleasure was found in simple living. Did he know better?
So what conclusion do you draw from this?
And what implications does your stance have here for the possibility of philosophically approaching the topic?
This is trivially true, and nobody suggested otherwise.
You know what I mean. "Happiness" is a good enough word for the purpose of this discussion. Unless you have a further point to make and, perhaps, qualify your earlier statement (quoted in this post at the top)?
That's like saying that the operation was successful, and who cares if the patient died!
A.k.a. bhava tanha.
"Just like you, we also don't actually know whether God exists or not, but we'll burn you in his name anyway!"
While you reject valid information from others. Why don't you see that as a matter of logical inaccuracies or at least limitations on your part?
Quoting Possibility
Despite repeated requests, you provide no examples.
While you reduce whatever I (or some other posters) say in such a way that you can dismiss it.
Talk about ignorance and exclusion!
Really, I do that? Thank heavens I have you to tell me that!
Then you should be more careful in how you use the term.
Interesting. What if we're already where we wanna be? We're at X, we wanna be at X.
On second thought, ignore the remark.
Well mainly this - if this is what you consider to be a philosophical approach -
Quoting baker
- the idea that it 'cannot actually make one happy' is not really a defensible posture. It might have been closer to being trivially true if you phrased this like so - 'doing things that one finds pleasurable may not make one happy.' However, from what I've seen, it's a hell of a good start.
"Suffering is manageable" is a phrase that I expect you to be familiar with, given the terminology you use.
You keep talking about "reducing" suffering, "minimizing" suffering, but not once have you advocated the complete cessation of suffering. Reducing and minimizing fall under "managing".
Actually, it looks more like there's quite a bit of terminology you didn't learn, even though you're using some of it from a certain field.
You're working on the premise that your worldview (which you probably don't consider a worldview but The Truth) is greater than mine, that it contextualizes, encompasses mine. That you can explain me, but that I cannot explain you.
In the same way that the beggar in a Mumbai street selling paper handkerchiefs cannot be meaningfully said to "collaborate with the world's economy".
It's the "genuinely doing nothing" that gives you away.
You don't seem to understand just how egregious it is what you're doing. It's standard fare for New Agers, to be sure. You're basically telling me I should settle for cold pizza.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Early Buddhism distinguishes between two types of desire: tanha and chanda.
Tanha is the craving we're all familiar with; we tend to imagine it in the form of hunger, or sexual lust, then in the vile craving of the heroin addict seeking his next fix, or the greedy capitalist ammassing more and more wealth. But also comes in much more subtle and sophisticated forms, like insisting the walls of your dining room be painted in taupe.
Chanda is the desire to overcome this mess of craving and suffering.
It's instructive to make this conceptual difference, so as not to be unduly pessimistic.
It is tabooed to suggest that the assumption (that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry) is not justified.
Like you say, we usually take for granted and we are expected to take for granted that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry. We're not supposed to question this. We're supposed to go with this program. And if we ever feel dissatisfied by this program, then we are expected to conclude that the fault is with us, not the program.
Indeed, what I said earlier is not empirically defensible, on account that it would be unethical to perform experiments with which we could test the hypotheses necessary for this (as I noted earlier in the thread).
So we're left with whatever each person has in terms of personal insight and what they're willing to share with others.
While psychologists/psychiatrists play Procrustes.
The operation is a choice the ‘patient’ makes freely, with an understanding of the risks. A failed operation is an opportunity to improve on the next attempt. Or not. And I’m not saying ‘who cares’ at all. I’m just saying that those who consider it worth the risk have often taken more into consideration than you might be aware of yourself in judging them.
Quoting baker
Notice I didn’t say a significant or noticeable difference. Making an incremental difference is not about anyone acknowledging your existence but the ‘self’ you construct to engage with the world. But this is only what I choose from my experience. I see it as an example of creatively re-arranging this supposedly ‘forced agenda’ you two keep harping on about as some ‘big bad’ we’re supposed to try and ‘win’ against. But it’s not about winning, it’s about understanding how the agenda is constructed - and then changing it. This has nothing to do with ‘craving’, but selecting freely from options that include suicide, asceticism and griping. But you will continue to insist that I must be craving something, because you seem unable (or unwilling) to understand it any other way.
Quoting baker
Strawman
Quoting baker
Oh, I’m aware there are inaccuracies in my perspective - I encounter them every day. I’d ask you to point them out, but you’d have to imagine a possible reference point beyond both our value structures to do this. At this stage you’re simply explaining to me how my perspective differs from yours. But I already realise that. What I’ve been trying to articulate (obviously unsuccessfully) is the possibility that we’re both approaching the same truth from different positions of perceived value structure. I’m exploring the possibility that we could both be correct and incorrect to some extent, and using this interaction to improve the accuracy of my own position (and potentially yours, but you don’t seem willing to even consider that).
Quoting baker
What have I dismissed? Certainly not pessimism, or antinatalism, or suicide, or even the apparent force of some fuzzy agenda. I’m not applying reductionism to what you’re saying - quite the opposite. It is interesting how small or insignificant something appears when viewed from a broader vantage point. You can call this ‘reducing’ if it makes you feel better, but I think you’ll find that all your concepts and ideas remain intact.
Quoting baker
Um... what is it that I’m apparently saying you do here?
Let me get that straight. Because the negation and the justification part ("not justified") somewhat perplexes me. Do you mean that we should absolutely believe that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry without questioning it? And that not believing that is forbidden?
If it's something like that, it reminds of "Have faith and doubt not", which of course is related to God and what the Christan religion teaches. So, is this "eating and drinking" belief about life a kind of new religion? Because taboos refer mainly to religion and by extension to social customs.
Well, I can't imagine even the hardcore "materislists" claiming such a thing. And if they indeed are, they would certainly not talk about taboos! :smile:
Quoting baker
I didn't say that. I said "Most people believe they are here to enjoy all that and that this is the purpose of life!". It's quite different. People don't assume or take for granted any truth here. People are not taught in their families or at school that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry, and believe it without questioning it. People arrive at that conclusion based on their personal experience of and thoughts about life, which then of course they naturally believe.
So, in my opinion, nothing is taken for granted nor is tabooed.
There’s no need for me to advocate the complete cessation of suffering - it stands to reason, all on its own. It is only for me to understand what that entails in as broad a sense as I can imagine, and then relate with the world according to the logic, quality and energy of this possibility. The reality is that I cannot effect a complete cessation of suffering as an individual, nor will any moralistic judgements here be of much use except to advocate suffering for those who inflict suffering on others. But what I can do is ‘manage’ all of my relations with the world - by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, to counteract the ignorance, isolation and exclusion that brings suffering.
Quoting baker
Well, you could help, instead of just judging. I am still here to learn.
Quoting baker
No, I’m working on articulating a possible position that encompasses yours as well as mine. You could collaborate with me, but you don’t seem interested. You keep trying to consolidate your position.
Quoting baker
Actually, your Mumbai street beggar CAN be meaningfully said to ‘collaborate with the world’s economy’ - it’s just not significant enough to have value in your system.
Listening to music is a one-way connection to the world. The music is unaltered by our interaction with it - not even in the smallest, most insignificant way.
Quoting baker
Oh, no! Am I not using the precise terminology again?
Quoting baker
I’m not saying you should do anything, and neither is Buddhism. People will follow the path towards the cessation of suffering only as far as they perceive themselves willing and capable - regardless of what anyone says they should do. According to Buddhism, that’s as much as we can expect of others. What we can expect of ourselves is another story.
Fair enough, and I think Schopenhauer would have a similar view. One point I am trying to make, that you criticized (it seemed) by saying I was overemphasizing, is that we are ALREADY put in a position that we will have those two types of craving AT ALL. This is my ethical stance against procreation, but also informs my overall pessimism. The fact that we are already PUT in a stance to HAVE to move forward with burdens, overcoming burdens, overcoming the burden of all burdens (chanda, let's say), the burden of having to look at things in a more Zen-like way.. The burden of not "getting" the Zen-like thing.. The do WITHOUT doing.. action WITHOUT action, etc. etc. or whatever Eastern principle you can think of that I (or anyone) am just not GETTING!! It's all part of a STANCE one HAS to take in the FIRST PLACE because one is ALREADY in the situation to begin with. And this, you may call "unduly pessimistic" but it is the reality, and a reality that cannot be contested, as even the very act of contesting proves the point!
So I brought up the idea of gaslighting with @Possibility. In a way, Buddhist (and other Eastern religions) are doing the same thing as what (it seems if I can understand her jargon) she is doing. That is to say, it tries to make the suffering inwards (it is YOU who must change your view or right way of thinking to overcome suffering). Possibility does it a little differently.. She says instead, "In order to reduce suffering you must X, Y, Z (connect/collaborate/aware)". So she oddly collapses the individual perspective in some web-like fashion as to try to negate it.. But the SELF is persistent because of its basic reality as phenomenon. Being part of an almighty "Steamrolling Collaboration" principle does not make the sufferings of being a SELF/individual go away. All the problems remain, and these exercises in restating pretty conventional behaviors (working with other people and things to construct stuff etc.) in poetic terms. But just rephrasing things in more flowery terms doesn't get at the problems.
The Buddhist model is more like, "You are not a real 'self', but a constructed reality that can change that construct through mindfulness practices.. Thus, in reality the world 'out there' is just your construction that you can deconstruct and overcome suffering through this deconstruction".. This again is just poetic license to me. It doesn't actually get at or overcome the problems. Here are some reasons:
1) First off, I don't think the metaphysics is true. I DON'T think that the world is SIMPLY a construction. Rather, I think that there are SOME necessities (i.e. situatedness) of reality that one CAN NEVER change. These processes are the reasons we have desires and wants in the the first place. They are basically originated from evolutionary means, and what it means to be an animal in a physical environment.. (hunger, boredom, language, working together to accomplish goals, and the self-awareness).. it's all part of a sort of necessity of what it means to be "born" at all. I think it is a long con game to pretend that, "No we are not born, we only THINK we are born".. I think Descartes pretty much took care of that kind of thinking. Buddhism INSISTS there is no THERE there but there is a THERE. If there wasn't you wouldn't need things like Chanda or Buddhism at all! It's a pseudo-problem, really. But you can always gaslight and say, "No no, that is just what you would say because you are too deluded or you don't have the right understanding". All our actions, INCLUDING the move towards Buddhism itself, says otherwise.. That there is a THERE there, trying to alleviate. I certainly agree with Buddhism on its conclusions (mainly the idea of dissatisfaction), but perhaps not its metaphysics, of the No Self or the No There there. The very fact that we are ALREADY in a place that moves towards trying to understand the self as not a self, means there is a THERE there we are trying to get away from..
2) Second, I notice that Buddhism is basically about the Middle Way.. This allows for things like having families, working tirelessly at your job, or whatever. Why is that? Well, you can say that you can do any activity without actually DOING it.. You can do it in a more Zen-like fashion...But to me that is like Buddhism-lite.. If I was a business owner or wanted society to run a certain way, I would LOVE for my citizens to take on this mindset.. They can pretend to Zombie out whilst doing my bidding... I don't even have to manipulate them with rewards! So it just becomes an exercise in trying to DEAL with situations MORE EASILY.. and thus just becomes a self-help tool..
But then you will say, "No No, that is Western appropriation of deeper ideas for the sake of modern world"... Fine, but we still have the problem of the world being ALREADY there with its problems to overcome.. Survival, dissatisfaction, etc.. It can never get past this factuality of things, no matter how hard it poetically alludes this very fact through poetic ideas of No THERE there..
Thus, my answer is griping. I know that sounds oddly pedestrian, but it is more than just complaining.. It is the communal realization of our predicament.. It is Sisyphus realizing itself by discussing it with other Sisyphuses and holding our feet to the fire.. Instead of blowing smoke up metaphorical asses with poetic No THERE there or the Ubermensch/Eternal Return or even Sisyphus happy, we realize the situation for what it is, a FORCED situation. There is an agenda of life and society and we were FORCED to deal with it.. Recognize the injustice FIRST and then proceed. Once the injustice is recognized, start realizing what this means.. Existence becomes a POLITICAL problem of being forced into an agenda at all to begin with. We solve it through concerted efforts of antinatalism and recognizing that though once born we must work together in capacities as we do to survive, it was regrettable we were forced into this situation of following the agenda and suffering at all.
To sum it up:
Buddhism: Seek within yourself to try to overcome suffering..
My view: The suffering will ALWAYS be there. There is a factuality that Buddhism tries to overstep that it just cannot and that this factuality presents a very THERE there and a very real REALITY based on evolutionary principles that originated self-reflective creatures as ourselves. With our self-awareness, we can recognize the situation we were forced into and the suffering entailed with it.. We can communally console each other, be empathetic that we are stuck in this situation at all in the first place, gripe as much as we can about our existential situation, and not force others into this situation.
The common response might be, "But no Schopy... that is not CONSTRUCTIVE!".. This already assumes the stance of the AGENDA. It assumes we MUST be doing something to produce X!! We must have a GOAL so we can PRODUCE something.. ACHIEVE something.. Noo.. that is simply taking on the stance of the agenda to reinforce it. In a way @Possibility is positing the ultimate "Follow the Agenda" scheme with her Collaboration jargon.. The Agenda MUST have its way, and to be fulfilled, one MUST follow the dictates of the agenda.. In that fashion, Schopenhauer is right.. We NEED goals to get wrapped up in.. Flow states to zone-out in, things like this.. Because we are dissatisfied creatures that cannot just BE. BEING itself would be all that was needed if there wasn't this inherent dissatisfaction. THUS, if we gripe.. we must write a book that is an end result of the project.. If we gripe, we must gripe so we can get into a flow-state.. The agenda is thus reinforced.. See.. it isn't THAT BAD.. We have CONSOLATIONS of flow-states and achievements to tide you over! And thus doing you contribute to the OVERALL agenda..
Why do I use the word AGENDA? Because it is the socio-cultural-physical reality of the ALREADY existing that one is thrown into. One can never have their own version of how things should be. One is always forced into the realities of the survival dissatisfaction operation that we are born into and MUST deal and take a stance towards in the first place. We are forced into situations of DEALING with. This is part of the factuality of being born at all. It cannot be overcome through X practices. The very fact that one is trying to overcome it (e.g. chanda) is part of the problem in the first place. I recommend we see the tragedy for what it is. Do not create Dealing with situations in the first place for people. It's just one thing, and another, and another.. Whether physical ailments, small pains, large harms, survival related activities, or the general dissatisfaction behind much of what we do.
Quoting schopenhauer1
As an analogy, what if this was the mindset of every person born into actual slavery? How do you think slavery was abolished? Not just by griping. It was the efforts of people focused on the possibility of a complete cessation of slavery, despite the reality of their experience. And they developed an understanding of their oppressors, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with this so-called forced agenda, until it no longer appeared to be ‘forced’, but was a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But you DO have your own version of how things SHOULD be - hence your dissatisfaction with how things ARE. You’re just unable to construct it because it has no logical relation to reality, and you’re not prepared to acknowledge that your concept of ‘individual’ value lacks any logical structure.
FWIW, I don’t consider chanda to be ‘overcoming’ suffering, per se. It refers to intention - a desire to interact; to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with this potential for suffering. Tanha, on the other hand, is a desire to ignore, isolate or exclude (ie. rebel) against the potential for suffering. Neither are inherently good nor bad in themselves, until we relate these structures of affect to a particular manifestation of BEING.
An idea proposed by Buddhism is our potential to transform tanha into chanda - without asserting that we should. It does seem to me a logically effective potential. This is not an outright rejection of tanha, though. Because without tanha, chanda is beyond us. Although without chanda, tanha will destroy all of existence.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Once again, I am NOT saying that you MUST. I’m saying that the alternative (ignorance/isolation/exclusion) is ultimately less effective in reducing suffering, IF reducing or eliminating suffering is genuinely what you want. The individual perspective has MORE structure in reality than this symbolic value you’re making it out to be. I’m not negating it, but rather describing it in context. The SELF is the continuous potential construct of a variable individual perspective. It has an ongoing relation to suffering as affect, but this relation is four-dimensional, not binary. And any reduction of this relation ignores the variable logical structure by which an individual determines and initiates action.
Collaboration is not a ‘flowery’ term. It refers to the particular quality of a logical relation in any aspect of reality. It’s not just about human behaviour at all, but it’s difficult to see this from your narrow perspective. A reductionist description of a symbolic force acting upon or being resisted by a symbolic value is completely oblivious to any complexity in the relation. This is not reality.
Why do you speak in such abstractions? WHAT is the "variable logical structure".. and same here:
Quoting Possibility
WHAT do you mean by symbolic value is oblivious to any complexity in the relation? Can you just speak in ordinary language speak? Do you just mean that life is more than suffering? Well, my point isn't exactly that. It is that there is an inherent dissatisfaction where our being is oriented to take any action because of this dissatisfaction. I call this a kind of "inherent suffering". This is in contrast to what I deem as "contingent suffering" which is apart from just the inherent suffering, there are many harms that befall us that vary to individual based on circumstances of cause/effect and environment.
It's like this... If I set up a society.. and set it up to my standards, how I want it, but not the way you would set it up if you were to be a self-reflective adult.. and I gave you some hobbies to pursue or people you can freely try to form relationships with as a consolation.. But it is still setup in MY way of doing things in this society.. including the hobbies and the ways in which we form relationships.. all spokes that go back to my hub that I created for you.. And you (by default of this existence) can NEVER have a say in it.. That is more what is going on.. Now I can say to you, "Hey, don't be so sad.. you can COLLABORATE in my world that I created (not the way you would set it up, mind you, but MY world), and that will make things better".. well that injustice is still there. it is not a consolation and doesn't solve the problem.
As I have stated many times, there is a POLITICAL AGENDA that the parent has., that THIS WORLD is somehow setup in a way that other people should have to go through its "gauntlet" and as you say, COLLABORATE in it.. But this isn't the way an adult-version of that child might have set it up if they had a choice... It was a forced outcome.. so what to do? Get the pitchforks and symbolically kill the rebel (get them to FOLLOW THE AGENDA and COLLABORATE).. maybe force them into some kind of therapy? I don't know, hey how about hey just go commit suicide and leave well enough alone?? That's where I'm getting at.. No amount of flowery language about universal collaboration to reduce suffering gets rid of this.. You can try to discount the "SELF" so you can gaslight and keep saying it's YOU who are not complying good enough..but this actually reiterates what I am saying by being an exemplar.. So keep doing it, so I can be right :D.
Reducing suffering and eliminating suffering are two categorically different things.
I'll get back to this thread in the next few days, provided the country I live in will still exist.
Ukraine?
Probably because your language is so affected, and I’m trying to get you to see past that.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It’s your claim that this dissatisfaction is inherent that I disagree with. Suffering - what we consider to be experiences of pain, humiliation and loss - these are inherent, sure. But what we term ‘suffering’ is inherent at EVERY level of existence. It is an awareness of variability, and the allocation of energy needed to maintain that awareness. So what makes humans so special, that we shouldn’t have this? That we should exist at some level that precludes us from the logical structure of existence? This is what I mean by ‘symbolic value’ - the idea that our perceived value has no relation to our existence. Like a mathematical symbol.
That's STILL not an answer! That is like if someone asked.. "What is General Tsao's Chicken?" and I just said, "Well, you wouldn't know because you don't eat anything but burgers." That is just unhelpful if they legitimately asked in good faith.
Quoting Possibility
Um, still don't get you. In fact, this just reinforced my arguments of why bring more people into suffering if it is part of the equation, and always will be? See my last post for more!
Ok, you still don’t understand what I mean by collaboration. Within a system, there are basically four ways individuals can ‘work together’:
Communication: The exchange of ideas and information.
Cooperation: Independent goals with agreements not to interfere with each other.
Coordination: Actions of individuals directed by a coordinator to achieve a common goal.
Collaboration: The process of shared creation; collectively creating something new that could not have been created by the individuals alone.
So what you’re talking about here is more like coordination - someone sets up the system, assigns everyone a role in it, and everyone works to achieve a pre-arranged, external common goal.
When I refer to open-ended collaboration, let’s just say that the process is the shared creation of a new system, a new ‘agenda’ that’s more satisfactory for all. There’s room in this collaboration for the pessimist, the rebel and the antinatalist, even if all you’re going to do is gripe. We need to understand where we ARE in order to structure a path beyond it. Evolution is driven by variation beyond consolidation.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You’re saying that an individual has value, but this perceived value is contingent upon an awareness of their existence - whether actual or potential - which entails suffering.
Value = existence = suffering.
No existence = no suffering = no value.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No - the question I was answering was ‘why is your language so abstract?’ That’s not a ‘what is’ question. A parallel question would be ‘Why are you talking about this General Tsao’s Chicken? What kind of burger even IS that?’
You are making several assumptions, that I can't let stand here:
1) The very fact that I am forced in this collaboration schema is what I am talking about. That is the "forced", in the "forced agenda". You cannot make a consolation by saying, "We accommodate for you", because the very fact we are forced into the collaboration scheme at all, is the very problem at hand! So if there is any collaboration, it would be how to collaborate to end the injustice of (the) forced agendas. So, my analogy still applies. Here is this world that YOU could not, by laws of nature, be able to setup yourself the way you wanted.. But then you are saying, COLLABORATE.. See that is YOUR (society's) agenda, not the individuals. Your arguments can never over step this, as you are trying so hard to do rhetorically here.
2) You are falling into the naturalistic fallacy. Who cares if evolution is driven by X. This is simply descriptive of evolution, and not WHAT humans MUST do. Once you cross from unthinking mechanisms to a self-reflective being, you cannot mix "evolution" for what humans should do without making category errors and making the naturalistic fallacy.
Quoting Possibility
No, this inevitability logic you've made isn't the case. Rather, no person = no collateral damage. Period. Person = collateral damage. So collateral damage or no collateral damage? You pick collateral damage and then justify if by naturalistic fallacies and all sort of rhetorical summersaults.
Quoting Possibility
No, it applies. I was trying to ask you to EXPLAIN your abstractions.. and then you seemed to dismiss me as stuck in some point of view so wouldn't understand. It seems like a dodge to not make it concrete. The more concrete it is, the more I can actually argue against it.. You probably don't want that. I don't know the motivation, other than you prefer self-referential language to collaborating :D.
Let me ask you - are YOU willing to collaborate with people who choose (for whatever reason) to procreate? You think that collaborate means ‘follow my agenda’, and you refuse to accept any other explanation on the grounds that it isn’t ‘concrete’. Collaboration in its fullest sense is NOT concrete. That is the whole point. It disregards any existing sense of ‘agenda’ in favour of the possibility of working together, because two groups pulling in opposite directions achieves nothing overall except more suffering.
I do everyday.. It is literally what you have to do to survive unless you are a complete hermit in the woods.. but even then if you are a fully functioning adult, you had to interact as a child with a parent figure and society before you decided to become a hermit.. so your mind is already shaped thusly.
Quoting Possibility
I am not against collaboration. It's almost a necessity for humans to live... In other words, before your long posts reifying it as a universal Principle par Excellance.. I knew of the importance of collaboration.. It doesn't have to be made into a universal metaphysical principle though as you are doing.. I've already stated that you are committing several fallacies but will reiterate:
1) Collaboration is something that PEOPLE/MINDS do NOT natural phenomena.
2) Just because collaboration might bring better results, doesn't prove anything about its morality.. At best it's a management tool, which obliquely, is what @baker was trying to say.. (reducing harm instead of getting rid of it completely)..
3) It is the naturalistic fallacy even if it WAS some sort of natural principle to think that it applies to self-reflective minds that can CHOOSE various options.. All it would be (going back to point 2) is a way for some hypothetical imperatives related to outcomes to be obtained.. and even so, one would have to value that which one is working towards. which itself would still beg the question of WHAT is to be obtained? There is ALWAYS an agenda here.. even if it is just to make more people who collaborate itself!
At the end of the day, being born at all, was a POLITICAL AGENDA because the someone else decided THIS LIFE is something ANOTHER PERSON must navigate through.. Collaboration is simply a way people get by to live.. And any common sense says, "Yes better to collaborate than isolate".. But that isn't solving the problem.. That is simply a better way to manage the AGENDA that has been chosen for us.. In fact, it by praising "collaboration" to this level, one is doubling down on the AGENDA.
It's akin to me creating a game for you and then me saying to you.. "Hey, if you double down on collaborating on the game I created for you, you at least won't suffer as much!"..You are essentially saying to buy into the agenda even more.. Poor consolation, my friend. You shouldn't have forced people to play the game in the first place. THAT was the immoral thing. Not the, "But you could collaborate!" hypothetical imperative.
I'm not that close to where it's happening. But the government of the country I live in decided it would be a good idea to get "more actively involved" in the war, so ...
I am quite certain that we are _not_ "approaching the same truth from different positions of perceived value structure".
Anything that is less than the complete cessation of suffering is not relevant to my theme. You seem to be saying that the complete cessation of suffering is not possible. On this account, I'm interested in seeing what you have to offer, hence why I'm still discussing this.
I used the theme of the successful operation but with a dead patient to comment on your lack of concern for the people involved, and instead your prefrence for some "bigger picture".
"You two". Blegh.
Schopenhauer1 and I do not have the same stance, and I'm not "griping" about the agenda.
It is craving, it's textbook craving. You bring in Buddhist references, so I assume this is the language we can use here.
No, a reflection of your supreme self-confidence.
Buddhism, for one, despite making references to it and using its terminology.
I'm not a Buddhist; I'm familiar with the doctrine, though. When I see someone making egregious claims to the effect of "Early Buddhism is wrong", this catches my attention and I want to see what said person has to say, how they hold up in discussion. Whether they can offer something that is superior to what the Buddha of the suttas taught.
Thems fightin words :angry: :lol:
I think that at the core of your predicament is that you're too passive, you wait for too long, wait for others to tell you things. This has many consequences, one of them being a general sense of being-thrown-in-at-the-deep-end.
There are aspects to your pessimism that are the product of inaction. Perhaps also products of laziness, indolence, convenience.
Specifically in reference to Buddhism: Ideally, in a Buddhist context, a person doesn't wait to be preached to, to be taught. The normal way to go about learning the doctrine is to study it yourself, or not bother with it at all. If one leaves oneself to the mercy of others, they will teach what they think one needs, which, however, might not be be relevant to one's needs, interests, and concerns.
There is one stance that I do expect you to take, and that is "What you do matters".
So?
It's important to note, though, that ideally, you wouldn't hear anything about Buddhism (or most other "Eastern religions") unless you made the effort yourself.
Instead, what has happened is that some Westerners have spread "Eastern religions" in the West, using the model of religion as they devised it based on Christianity. Unlike Christianity, "Eastern religions" generally do not proselytize, they are closed circles intended only for those with sufficient personal interest and who are willing and able to make the required effort.
And not having heard anything about Buddhism, you wouldn't be griping about this.
I think the cure for all this is to actually study Buddhist doctrine, or else, drop all talk of it.
Again, I advise to take up a serious study of Buddhist doctrine, in order to clarify all issues, or drop the whole thing altogether. Such a populistic level of understanding is a waste of time.
Clearly, it's not all that communal, given that not everyone shares it.
In part, I agree with pessmism -- in the sense that this world is an endless round of suffering. Where the pessimism of your variety and I part ways is the "communal consolation" aspect and the passivity. Both griping and passivity should be beneath one's dignity, simply as a matter of principle. This doesn't equate to advocating optimism etc. It's just about common decency.
You do realize that the implicit motivation for ending slavery wasn't some kind of enlightened "But blacks are people too!", but the capitalist motivation to produce an easily indentifiable category of workers that could be exploited even more easily than the white trash. Remember, owning slaves is rather expensive: the owner has to provide for them housing, food, vocational training, various other practical matters. By "freeing" the slaves, all those costs are now on their own shoulders.
But that you MUST do, has already been forced unto you at all.
Quoting baker
The move from unenlightened to enlightened is what I am talking about.. This move itself is a burden that is put upon someone and I am against putting burdens onto others unnecessarily.
Quoting baker
Ok, doesn't really negate my point that one must do X to get out of Y.. This is a burden to overcome in the first place and this "first place" is where my problem lies.
Quoting baker
Eh, I don't care for this "First rule of Fight Club is don't talk about Fight Club". Like if you want to discuss it fine.. You I believe were the one bringing up ideas of the no self and Buddhism etc.. So I am accommodating.. I couldn't give a shit really about ideas of the "no real self self" thing.. cause I don't believe it to have much relevance or truth.. We are constructed but only because evolutionarily, the we are animals that do this, not because of a metaphysical no "there" there principle or anything.
Quoting baker
Communal doesn't mean everyone has to believe it, just people who kind of "get it". Some people don't mind being forced into games. Some people don't mind that being born presents with it the collateral damage of suffering. I present why it is an injustice, I can't force others to see it or not. Some people thought slavery was a part of life.. It takes time for people to catch up sometimes to things that at first seem counterintuitive.. Procreation, despite good intentions is bad for the one who is procreated.
Quoting baker
That's just the middle-class perspective of the Managers telling their workers to "Stop fuckin complaining.. you are just a wimp.. You know a better way to handle this is to put more effort into the work..you fuckn degenerate" you know.. things like this.. Again, I take the stance of rebellion not compliance.. That is the harder path as is proven by thoughts such as "Complaining is beneath dignity".. fuck that, I'm COMPLAINING!!! The situation is FUCKED and there is NOTHING besides NOT SPREADING IT TO OTHERS one can do about it..
Quoting baker
What the fuck matters about common decency when one is thrown into a situation one would not ask for and given the option of suicide or comply as a way out? Sitting and trying to rid the self of self or any Buddhist thing you want to think of is just one coping mechanism.. It doesn't mean that the peaceful looking monk is any more dignified than the smug asshole statue of some Roman Stoic philosopher.. Both just coping mechanisms my man.
Your limited acceptance of collaboration reflects your general perspective. You are literally pulling in the opposite direction to those you label ‘pro-procreaters’ - that is NOT collaboration. For the record, I have never claimed that collaboration was THE universal principle - if it was to be considered a principle, it would stand in necessary relation to the principle of consolidation.
I’m not just talking about collaboration to survive individually, but to dismantle the agenda that says we should be trying to survive in the first place, and determine a more satisfying way to interact with the world, together. Part of that collaboration is to increase awareness of more efficient alternatives to individual procreation, survival-at-all-cost or simply avoiding boredom. Efficiency requires pooling individual resources of time, effort and attention to develop, but it ultimately reduces pain, humility and lack/loss - the main instances of suffering.
But it seems you’re not really interested in reducing or eliminating suffering on the whole - only your own awareness of it, as an individual par excellence.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You are only describing collaboration as an intentional act. There is no intentionality required for collaboration: when an atom shares its electron with another, they collaborate. When a sperm fertilises an egg, they collaborate. Language structure may imply conscious intentionality, but it’s present in none of these events. The process of collaboration is a shift in dimensional awareness, whereby multiple entities are able to converge towards the possibility of a more complex level of consolidation, owing simply to the variability of their individual structures.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I have not made any assertions regarding the supposed morality of collaboration. At most, I have only expressed my personal preference at this level. Morality assumes that an individual’s correct actions are all that’s required to solve the problem, but I don’t agree with this. Suffering cannot be eliminated single-handedly. What you’re trying to push for is an elimination of your perceived potential for harm, rather than eliminating harm or suffering itself.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I’ve never asserted collaboration as a principle or an imperative - ALWAYS as an option. As for what can be obtained: how about a more satisfactory agenda? Just because it doesn’t appear to have been achieved before, does not render it impossible.
Quoting Possibility
What is a more satisfactory agenda? Survival is necessary if you don't want to die. But I don't want to die, Survival always takes precedence unless slow suicide.. and so the agenda is followed. How can you ever get beyond that? Survival in a different way? The only thing tried like that is Communism, dictatorship/fascisms and that is just working for different masters. Communes always take place in a broader context of the bigger society (in the West's case a globalized industrialized economy). It's rearranging the chairs on the Titanic sort of thinking.
Besides which, as this whole thread is about, we are at root, always dissatisfied. Thus, changing economic arrangements doesn't negate the fact that BEING is never enough for us. In other words, it's too late for us, the already born. We can simply recognize the situation for what it is. Maybe we can be less of assholes to each other.. but we still have to be assholes to an extent because, as per your "wonderful notion" we need to "collaborate" in order so we don't die. But that means you have to do the shit that the agenda has for you to do.. The necessary things your social arrangement has provided for you to participate in....
THE AGENDA takes many political-cultural arrangements.. Tribal-Hunter-gatherer, pastoral, industrial post-modern, what have you... It doesn't matter.. The dissatisfied self-reflective human must survive yet is doomed to know it must do so, even if it doesn't like the various tasks necessary to do so.. But like a bird of prey.. our dissatisfied minds can't just be satisfied with subsisting, we must set goals that when reached only satisfy for a short time for yet more goals. And sure, pipe dreams of enlightened monks or what not aside, it's inescapable.
Just don't put more people in this inescapable/unjust situation in the first place.
I’m not saying it’s not possible - I’m saying that it’s not something an individual can achieve. It’s going to take more than navel-gazing or moral imperatives.
Quoting baker
And I’ve disputed your assumption that my discussion of a bigger picture indicates any lack of concern. I certainly wouldn’t consider a ‘successful operation’ with a dead patient to be a case of ‘preference for some bigger picture’. Rather, it’s a narrow perspective that excludes the life of the patient as an aspect of the operation.
Quoting baker
I’ve merely responded to what I consider to be a misapplication of Buddhist language. You’ve yet to provide an argument that might change my position on this.
Quoting baker
I never claimed that Early Buddhism is wrong, only that misinterpretations abound, as in any religion that is based on a living exemplar. The truth of Buddhism is not from interpreting doctrine or written texts, but based on the path taken by Buddha himself, and what it teaches us about ourselves. I would make the same comment of Christianity. The truth of the Tao Te Ching, by comparison, is based on self-reflective interaction with the written text itself (from which subjective translations are misinterpreted).
Why don’t you want to die? What is so important about survival that we must strive for it? You do know that it’s ultimately a lost cause - nobody survives for very long. Take away the existing agenda, and what is it that we really achieve in surviving as long as we can? From the moment we could procreate we had a legitimate alternative to mere survival. And from the moment we could communicate abstract ideas, we had a legitimate alternative to procreation.
Back when survival or death appeared the only options, people would use it as a reason to gain compliance from others: If you don’t do this, you’ll die. Being was of the utmost importance. Then we recognised that procreation allowed us to transcend what was ultimately a limited BEING - to collaborate beyond our own BEING and achieve something together that we couldn’t manage alone: potential or value beyond our capacity to survive.
We eventually realised that BEING isn’t enough - this individual potential we perceived before us in our creation, which we strived to protect as the most important aspect of our existence, appeared to be limited by the very act of BEING.
So, is it even possible to actualise this individual’s potential within a limited capacity of BEING? Do we try to maximise BEING? ie. go back to prioritising survival, or create more variations on BEING? Or do we forget about trying to survive or to BE, and instead find a way to maximise awareness of this value and potential, without necessitating BEING any of it? And how does that even work?
Now, bear with me here - language doesn’t lend itself well to this type of discussion...
So let’s imagine for a moment that survival is NOT important. What matters is not how long we can stay alive, or even how many variations on BEING we can create. What matters is how we make use of the potential we have, within this limited BEING, to express our potentiality - not just as individuals, but as humanity. To do that, we have to let go of this supposed importance of BEING in itself.
Being is just a variable, temporal iteration of our full potentiality, as a means to increase the diverse expression of potentiality in the world. We have variable, limited resources of time, effort and attention available to us - what we do with that is ultimately not up to anyone else, despite what they might say about what we SHOULD do, or how they might treat us less valuably if we don’t. Our value is not diminished by a perception of us by others based on a current observation of being - only ignored.
This AGENDA is then just an attempt to structure potential and value as a set of norms to keep this variability of being to a minimum. Otherwise, anything goes, and chaos reigns. So long as there is only one ‘correct’ or ‘moral’ set of behaviours able to maximise our perceived potential as a human being, we will focus on this rather than on the uniqueness of our own potentiality. The problem is that the only way to minimise this variability is by prioritising inefficient aspects of BEING such as procreation, self and survival - which limit individual potential. This takes the focus off our capacity to maximise awareness of the diverse potentiality behind any iteration of being.
MJ!
Fear of pain and unknown. Stop falling for cliched anti antinatalists arguments if “If you don’t kill your self, life must be good or you must be holding onto something”.. Antinatalism doesn’t entail promortalism. You’re better than that. I don’t deny that it is natural for people to fear death. But don’t mistake that for proof that life is thus good. Hope you aren’t making that vapid claim that even a Five year old can break apart.
Quoting Possibility
Poetic way of origin story. People liked to fuck and made abstract reasonings after, but yeah prolonging the tribal lineage and family lineage was one of the stories.
Quoting Possibility
Right, just because it’s in the name of survival doesn’t take away the injustice of using the child. It again is a political move on behalf of the child.
Quoting Possibility
Ugh you sound like a New Age version of Apokrisis bullshit about constraint and degrees of freedom..just say Peircean triadic form, and I’ll say BINGO!
Just because a system is created for people to individually pursue their interests whilst maximally collaborating in the market place for survival, doesn’t solve the problems I discuss. The dissatisfaction behind human motivation..this CANNOT be minimized. Buddhism attempts to at most which is why Schops affinity for it. But not important, it doesn’t negate the deep injustice of assuming other people should join the system or ;even more presumptuous and messianic) MUST join the system. THAT is the original sin placed upon each humans head. The idea that we must value constraints because they are necessary to prevent chaos and maximize freedom is lukewarm utilitarian optimism thinking. It literally is just doubling down on the current form of the agenda..giving an extra holiday for your worker or one less ready reason to fire them, or having a nicer HR dept doesn’t solve anything. Either does more freedom to pursue this or that whilst contributing to the group. It’s like you want to manage the intractable existential situation with a management symposium. Or on the other side, having the worker find a better self-help book to cope with managing the system... C'mon.. Management as philosophy now :roll:
So what to do as individuals already born into the system. As I said we are already fucked, but I say take the Stance of Rebellion. The rebellion is not Sisyphus happy or Eternal Return or anything like that. It’s recognizing the situation for what it is and having always at the forefront of what one does or say, in a way it’s being authentic about the pessimistic situation. We can’t do anything, we are fucked but make it KNOWN. Don’t be afraid to piss off those who want to keep spreading the agenda. Climb every mountain and travel the world and help the poor are all fine and dandy but nothing more than “Just Do It” optimism slogans that fit right into the agendas need for you to feel this agenda is good enough. It’s all subsumed in the greater tragedy that these individuals thriving and dying were thrown into the agenda. Collateral damage and coercive de facto forced agenda rules this world. Your utility maximizing schemes just reinforce it, so keep at it so I can just continue to critique it. Cause it will never resolve the problems brought up here. Rebel, be pissed at the injustice, and discontinue.
I say embrace the CHAOS - throw out the agenda and value the full diversity of potentiality regardless of being - it’s the only way to maximise freedom. It’s what I’ve been saying all along, and yet you just won’t see it. No imagination is my guess.
You think your griping is a ‘stance of rebellion’, but it’s a victim stance and nothing more. Minimising the variability of perceived potential through moralism is the main agent of the agenda, and you’re only contributing to it with your ‘injustice of using the child’ argument. You’re not making any impact, you’re deep in it and looking for someone else to blame for your debilitating fear of what’s beyond this agenda. And then you reframe your perspective of everyone else’s position as either on your side or opposing you in some narrow moralistic stance as if the truth according to Schop1 is all there is.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Enough with the strawmen - I asked you why you don’t want to die, NOT to construct some argument for the value of being, but because it is your fear of pain and the unknown that keeps you from simply throwing out this crappy agenda - one that values BEING as the constraints of our ultimate potentiality - and finding your own way without it. The agenda plays on your fears, and you let it.
You know that there’s more to your potential than your limited being alone will ever realise. But what you don’t seem to recognise is that every time you take a chance and choose other than this agenda in interacting with others - because you can - you draw attention to everyone’s capacity to do the same. The agenda says avoid boredom at all cost - but it is in choosing to embrace boredom that we learn more about our potential regardless of productive action. The agenda says procreate - but it is in choosing not to create another limited being who must develop awareness of potentiality all over again, that we are left to focus on increasing awareness of this potentiality we already perceive as valuable beyond its limited capacity to BE.
So, what use does this unrealised value or potentiality have, if we can’t BE all of that value ourselves? We can use it to increase others’ awareness of their own potentiality and value, which ultimately increases their awareness of ours. We can refrain from judging others by their current state of being, and instead perceive their far greater potentiality as their real, valuable existence, despite how they might appear.
And this leads me to the issue I have with what you’ve been doing here. You can perceive your own individual potentiality, and lament its limitations in being, but you seem unable (or unwilling) to perceive the potentiality of others here beyond their current state of being - ie. what they’ve said. You are judging others by the being indicated in their words, and you feel justified in doing so because it satisfies your worldview that we’re all limited to being - even though you know by your own experience that you are merely limited BY being, and that your perceivable value is so much more.
So we can talk about potentiality and value, and even how it relates to antinatalism and pessimism - but if you continue to reduce your perception of my potentiality to mere being while upholding your own perspective as the highest moral value, then we are done here, because your self-righteous attitude is wearing thin...
There is nothing "beyond the agenda". Survival, dissatisfaction_____Contingent suffering.
Quoting Possibility
Don't even know what you mean. Too much vague abstraction.. So the agenda is the decision that someone else must live in the socio-cultural-economic-political, historically-derived (situatedness) way of life needed for survival and satisfying dissatisfaction (boredom). There are no creative solutions around it.. Already discussed communes, tribal societies, and all the other arrangements.. And Buddhism, the "internal" arrangement of the mind, if you will. I explained how there are no escape hatches. Your vagueness surrounding the idea of "Potentiality" with no real concrete examples, just speaks to the fact that there are indeed no real solutions. Prevention rather than escape is all I'm saying.
Quoting Possibility
So this is all convoluted language that says nothing. Concrete examples or this is talking in circles to look like there's a there there. The more concrete though, the more I will show you there is nothing, so perhaps you are afraid to?
Quoting Possibility
But again, WHAT does "potentiality" mean in this case? It usually leads back to a) Productive achievements b) Capacity for some metaphysical Enlightenment
Productive achievements can be economic production, mastery of hobbies, starting charity, contributing to the tribe, whatever..
Enlightenment can be some sort of spiritual awakening, aka Buddhist Nirvana..
I mean the third common one is relationship-building.. that might be the one you're going to use.. Friendship, connection, yadayada.. That's the one, right? There's nothing you are going to say that's going to shatter my foundation and realize what a silly person I was.. Especially not convoluted, abstract talk about potentiality and connections..
Quoting Possibility
Perceivable value?? Huh??
Quoting Possibility
Yeah same to you? I mean, I can't talk to you because you choose to use self-referential, vague language like potential and value.. without any context or definition.
What do you mean IN CONCRETE TERMS of "Perception of my potentiality to mere being".. What the hell?
Again, WHAT is the potentiality?? For WHAT? It's all circular talk and no actual meaning conveyed. It's like the soda water of philosophy.. there is a hint of a flavor of something there, but there is no real flavor beyond that hint. It's words bereft of sense. In Wittgenstein-speak, you are playing a language game I am not privy to and thus we are not speaking the same language.. You are not translating so we will be at crossroads until you explain your language game.
If you are just re-creating Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and (middle-class trope) of "Self-actualization", just say it. We can also read 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and What Color is Your Parachute?, afterwards (please read sarcasm there).
No, it's not fine.
My point is that you're confusing yourself with low-grade sources about Buddhism, and this leads you astray on many aimless tangents. Thus causing yourself suffering, and unnecessarily so.
There is no need to insist in those low-grade sources about Buddhism. If you'd study up on Buddhism, you'd see that many of your ideas about it are wrong, even though you apparently get emotional satisfaction from them, which is why you insist in them and refuse to eliminate them. Your wrong ideas about Buddhism are a great source of pleasure for you, and you apparently don't want to jeopardize that by educating yourself or dropping the whole thing altogether.
Indeed, as I was trying to explain another poster's points.
Not at all. It is closer to the upper class' "stiff upper lip".
Talk about limiting beliefs.
You're high-maintenance ...
For that, you'd have to study the suttas yourself. But this appears to be out of the question for you, you don't see the texts as authoritative.
"Misinterpretations".
Suit yourself.
Haha.
I used to think that people who are successful in their careers and who have "made it" in life had first figured out the Big Metaphysical Questions, the Meaning of Life Problem, and then, with the solution firmly in their pocket, went on to succeed, one sure step after another.
Turns out one doesn't need any of this in order to succeed in life. People's minds can be utterly barbaric, yet they can still do well in life. And be happy!!!!!
How can you prove this assertion? The agenda is a fundamentally illogical framework. A strawman and a scapegoat.
And then there is the concept of ‘someone’ you claim is constrained by a forced agenda into being. Is it not your argument that this someone as not-being is more valuable than being? How so, if they are not ‘beyond the agenda’?
Quoting schopenhauer1
But isn’t this ‘someone else’ you value above the agenda just another vague abstraction? How does this ‘someone else’ have so much value unactualised? Where are your concrete examples of this ‘someone else prevented’?
Potentiality is not productive achievements - it’s a perception of energy, capacity, knowledge, skills, education, wealth, connections, relationships, access to resources, morality, respect, value, etc. Productive achievements, people at your party or an increasing bank account are actual, narrowly defined iterations of potentiality - just as procreation is an actual, narrowly defined iteration of this value/potential concept you refer to as ‘someone else’. We reduce more than just ‘individuals’ to actualisation, making them appear easier to define, control, destroy, etc. There’s no proof of potentiality as such - we can only infer and agree potentiality exists, or else actualise it in some way - but then we find a way to reduce our perception to that particular actuality, through ignorance, isolation or exclusion. Like we do to people.
Economic production, for instance, is evidence of economic productivity, a potential. That’s obvious. But economic productivity is a capacity to combine a knowledge of what, out of everything one might produce, would be economically valuable in this current climate, with the right combination of skills and resources to produce it. There’s nothing concrete about this. It’s a structure of potentiality, and is arguably very valuable as such - regardless of whether it is perceived in someone’s mind as manager, or on paper as a business plan. It would be naive to assume that a mere iteration of this potentiality - ie. a currently profiting production team - is the secret to continued success.
But you’ll just judge all of this productivity as ‘following the agenda’... I know. I’m not suggesting we all become economically productive. It’s just one small example of what I mean by potentiality.
What I’m saying is that we can perceive potentiality everywhere - and we have no need to actualise the large majority of it - including more people - in order to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. We just need to stop trying to reduce our perception of reality to concreteness, as if that’s all reality can be.
Quoting Possibility
No, rather you are strawmanning my argument. There is no person being "prevented" before procreation. I didn't talk about a "not-being" that is more valuable than being. I didn't say that where you quoted me, but you implied it.. So you are just bringing up the old "non-identity" argument of a metaphysics I have not proclaimed.. Rather it is thus:
You, the already alive person, can not cause (aka can prevent) collateral damage. You can also not cause a profound life decision of a forced political agenda onto someone. That is it. There is no "someone else" involved here. It is all about already existing people not doing something.
Quoting Possibility
You are correct, I am going to judge it as thus, as I expected the whole time.. You were going to use production, family/friends, and some metaphysical enlightenment as your examples of value and potential.
Quoting Possibility
Again, elusive nothingness phrases like "reduce perception of reality to concreteness if that's all reality can be".. You still don't make any real claims.. It's almost like talking to a bot that was programmed to output "potentiality" and "value" in various philosophically-seeming ways, but on closer inspection means nothing.
No one needs to collaborate, connection, or be aware. Again, if I make a game and I tell you, "If you don't like, it just become more immersed in its various ways to collaborate".. .You can definitely call me an asshole for gaslighting you.. That is the crux of what's wrong with your argument.. You are simply (very slighly and discreetly) reiterating the forced agenda with a kinder machine gun hand.. if you will. Peaceful forced collaboration is still forced collaboration.. It need not be violent or even disharmonious.
Damage to what or to whom? People cause collateral damage all the time. But it’s only immoral when said ‘damage’ is caused to someone...
Quoting schopenhauer1
Onto who now?
Once a person is created, it is that someone I am referring to.
Hang on...I thought forcing the agenda is identical to intentionally creating a person - you’re saying they are two different events? How are they differentiated?
Don't get your question. Forcing the agenda is creating a someone who is procreated. By their procreation, one is creating a state of affairs where that person must comply or die.
I’m trying to understand. You seemed to be differentiating temporally between the agenda being forced and someone being created. But here you are metaphorically asserting that these events are identical. I’m asking you to be clearer in your relational structure here. Try a different predicate than your vague use of IS.
If that person CANNOT choose other than to comply with the agenda, then they CANNOT choose other than to procreate, etc - or die. But then you’re saying that WE CAN (and should) choose not to procreate (ie. to die), which would follow that they, too, CAN choose not to comply. Which would demonstrate that the agenda is not forced. So... excluding any other awareness of potential... what are you arguing again?
Procreation by de facto definition is forcing an agenda, because entailed in a human life is the agenda of comply or die. However, it is true that prior to this, on the parents part, the parent is choosing that this forced agenda will happen, and thus making a misguided choice, as it will result in the forced agenda actually happening.
Quoting Possibility
Huh? This has no logical sense. The agenda is survival (in sociopolitical-economic-historical situatedness) and general dissatisfaction overcoming (boredom/discomfort things like that).
Quoting Possibility
No, not procreating is not "to die", so not sure why you are inserting that.
Quoting Possibility
Because I am not defining the agenda as procreation, but survival in a sociopolitical-economic-historical situatdness and general dissatisfaction overcoming.. Call it the game of life if you will. It's a forced agenda because the parent deemed this "way-of-life" as something another person must go through.
So, by ‘de facto’, you mean that it ISN’T, it’s only perceived to be, and is assumed to be so... by you.
How does anyone know that ‘entailed in a human life is the agenda of comply or die’? How are they expected to piece this information together, if all they’re doing is complying with... hang on, how does the agenda consist of complying with the agenda? That seems circular.
So, prior to actually procreating, or actually ‘forcing an agenda’, non-parents are able to choose based on awareness of... what?
Quoting schopenhauer1
So NOT procreating is complying with the agenda? Aren’t they the only two choices?
Quoting schopenhauer1
But you ARE defining any and all instances of procreation as ‘forcing the agenda’, and you assume that a parent in so choosing, lives by their belief that the agenda must be complied with. So, is procreation something ‘beyond the agenda’ or are you standing by your assertion that:
Quoting schopenhauer1
You know what, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that you wanted me to clarify the "agenda" versus the things like "survival/boredom".. Let me clarify as I think I have too closely mixed them in these posts..
The parents are forcing AN AGENDA by having a child, because they feel that the various dictates/dealing withs of life SHOULD BE gone through/experienced by ANOTHER person.
Once born the child must follow the dictates of socioculturalpoliticaleconomic living or die (kill themselves). This is part of the agenda that parent had in mind.. some "way of life" the child would (by necessity of living as a human who must survive through sociocultural means) have to do.
So you would classify living as limiting then?
That's a loaded question because there was no one to limit or not limit previously. Rather, living means X, Y, Z for a person. Don't force X, Y, Z.. Limiting sounds like there was someone prior.
If there's nothing prior then how can you justify the state of living as negative?
So I have been on this forum for many years (and its previous incarnations).. I have answered this question numerous times.. I am not trying to argue out of bad faith or be an asshole, but before I repeat myself infinitum, can you think of ways I might answer this question or completely drawing blanks?
I mean it's your thread and what you said and it's on-topic so I don't really see how that's an out-of-the-ordinary question for someone to ask. It's not on me if that's the topic.
I would say as a self-evident truth but I'd re-word my point to ask whether it's a self-evident truth that living is limiting compared to suicide or whatever manner you compare it to as greater or even necessary.
No rather, there is nothing prior to compare it to. It is, "Do you (the parent) want to create this situation for the child or don't you". If you procreate, you do. The child is born, the child has to comply with agenda (or commit suicide).
This is why I call procreation a political move.. You have an agenda that this socio-cultural-political-economic-physical arrangement of society/existence is something another person must go through.
I still think you are assuming this ‘agenda’ as a package deal of limited potential, which parents have in mind prior to having a child, and buy into in full recognition of what their child can and cannot do across the course of their life. But that’s a big assumption, given that you’re probably not a parent yourself.
From what I’ve learned over the years, someone often decides to procreate in order to reach beyond their own agenda. They’re not buying into a package deal, but an opportunity to interact beyond the dictates of socio-cultural, political and economic living that appear to constrain their own life. In the past, the extent to which they perceived variability in ‘the agenda’ was dependent on the diversity of their mating partnership - in much the same way as genetics work. These days, we recognise so much variability in these dictates, that parents can almost construct the details of their child’s agenda from scratch.
Procreation, combined with child-rearing, is an attempt to vary the agenda - to provide a more satisfying ‘way of life’ for future individuals. And yes, in the course of varying this agenda, parents impose upon a child certain experiences they consider to be important, and strive to protect them from others they believe to be damaging. Their best intention is to adjust and improve on the agenda they experienced themselves, and possibly even to develop in the child a capacity to be aware of and not be bound by the same agenda that binds them.
This is a primitive and ignorant solution to the problem of how to ‘vary the agenda’, but it does nevertheless make localised improvements in terms of socio-cultural, political and economic living.
I know that there is always a ‘way of life’ to DO. But if we can choose not to procreate, and we can choose the details of our child’s agenda, then we can choose many more variations to the agenda imposed on ourselves. So, while certain aspects of the agenda might appear ‘forced’, they are more accurately chosen for us, albeit in ignorance, isolation and exclusion of certain potentiality.
All this talk about ‘survival’ and ‘boredom’ are event horizons, beyond which we’re unable to observe or measure evidence of individual potential, let alone identity. And yet we can piece together our own experiences and those of others to develop an insight into the structure of potential as it approaches these lower thresholds, as well as what might happen beyond (besides inevitable death).
This is just the lower threshold of potentiality. There is an upper threshold, too. But your aim appears to be to simply negate ALL potentiality - and with it ANY capacity to choose. Hence my question: do you consider this choice whether or not to have a child - given that you believe it to be based on knowledge of an agenda as such - to be part of or beyond the agenda as imposed upon the parent?
So this way of looking at one's progeny as a system one can control and adjust is exactly the kind of thinking that I think is misguided and ultimately, unethical. It is folk genetics taken to the extreme. Children might have some tendencies and dispositions based on genetics, but the child is NOT an extension of the parent in any meaningful way. They are their own person.. every internalization from the environment, every interaction is from a point of view of a "someone" that is NOT the parent, but a separate being. You haven't here, but I am predicting you are going to try to confuse interactions with environment with the idea that no one is a separate contained "person" or identity.. thus trying to weasel your way out of the recognition that the parent has created another being/person with their own thoughts, feelings, sufferings, and pains about the world that is fully felt as their own. It is selfish on the part of the parent to try to play tinkerer.. trying to direct here, and adjust there, and protect hither and think that by just doing the right inputs, they will create a child that will be a self-actualizing/society contributing blah blah blah. It is disrespecting the dignity of the person created for your selfish means to create a being in your likeness (even if that likeness is a dynamic independent blah blah.. it is still trying to direct another being into a direction one had in mind, even if it the parameters of the direction are wider). At the end of the day, the child will encounter the sufferings of the dissatisfactions of living, and the contingent harms that come with the everyday. It is wanting to see another being go through the gauntlet of life, and thus making the political decision for that child that they must comply (or die), as the will of the parent has thus created for them.
People are not systems to try to tinker with to try to find a "more satisfying 'way of life'". That is using the child and thus disrespecting the fact that they will be harmed in the process with no escape but the harmful prospect (to any self-reflecting animal) of death and pain of death. In short, all your excuses are just excuses to do something to another person for one's own edification for seeing another person play the life game on their behalf. The child is not the parent, can never be, and should not be created to be forced into the parent's political agenda (of going through the gauntlet of life). It's controlling, not paying attention to the collateral damage, and disrespecting in general. It's a political agenda forcing others into submission of the dictates of life.. the necessary and contingent forms of suffering. It is nothing more.
You make assumptions about the intentionality of every parent based on how they tend to describe their own sense of satisfaction. But of course this will appear selfish. They’re only describing the positive experiences they get out of the interaction themselves because they disagree with your claim that life sucks and that’s all there is to it. They can’t answer for the child, or for the agenda, and neither can you. And they’re not going to tell you about all the little decisions they made everyday between respecting and prioritising an open agenda for the child, and making sure the child is aware of the potential for harm that also comes with that freedom - because the agony of that experience is almost impossible to put into words, and only a parent could understand it. There is so much more to this interaction that you’re not acknowledging because it cannot been conceptualised or quantified for you. You clearly haven’t been a parent, and show no consideration for your own parents’ attempts to raise you.
I’m not here to argue for procreation - I absolutely think the ignorance of prospective parents needs to be addressed, and that the potential for alternatives to procreation should be prioritised. Because I also think that your moral indignation here is based on ignorance that is much more deliberate and harmful than that of any parent, and your pessimistic call to simply ‘gripe’ against a supposedly ‘forced agenda’ actually undermines antinatalism more than anything else.
That you are ignoring how much your awareness of individual potentiality and value factors into your arguments here continues to astound me. You switch from past to future tense as if it’s nothing, without recognising that you’re switching between actual and potential structures of a person. The potentiality of a person is NOT what you or I or their parents perceive it to be. Nor is it what the agenda or society dictates. It is what the person themselves perceives it to be - and it is more valuable as such than any iteration of being or ‘self’ that might be actualised and then judged by you according to some impossible moralistic stance of ‘zero potential harm’.
But the agenda are the dictates of life (sociocultural economic way of surviving and overcoming dissatisfaction). So no, there aren't these magical variables, just contingencies in a situatedness of the ways of living that were forced upon a new person.
Quoting Possibility
This is laughable. You are trying to sugar coat the fact that the parent's edification is coming from someone else carrying burdens of life and harms, etc.
Quoting Possibility
Assertion with no evidence examples to back it up or give any reasoning for the premise.
Quoting Possibility
Doesn't undermine anything. People who already exist gripe.
Quoting Possibility
You simply don't have an answer for why it is justified to make someone else go through the gauntlet of life.
I’m NOT claiming that it’s justified and I’m not arguing FOR procreation. My position is non-moralistic. It is YOUR narrow view that all harm (intentional, ignorant and self-inflicted) is inherently immoral. I’m only saying the intention is NOT to force an agenda, as you claim, but to open it up to variation.
Quoting schopenhauer1
‘Survival’ may be a dictate of life, but it is NOT a principle of conscious (potential) existence. At this level of awareness, the concept of ‘survival’ is only a limitation on actuality, not on perceived potential. A conscious existence is more than capable of acting in opposition to ‘survival’ - even as their potential for survival approaches a perceived upper OR lower limit - without necessarily resulting in death. Death is only actual at the moment a potential for survival reaches that limit of actuality.
That leaves a lot of room for contingency. If I take action that prevents me from being economically productive, I can sustain this action for weeks or months, and I won’t necessarily starve to death. I can live for years hand-to-mouth on a desert island or give all my time and money to the poor and depend entirely on charity. I can sit in meditation for hours on end without even coming close to death, or I can deliberately end my own life in any number of ways. I can practise raising my heart rate to its maximum and keeping it there, or holding my breath for several minutes, without necessarily compromising my survival. The more we understand about our upper and lower limits of potential and how they relate to possibility, the more varied our choices that are at least temporarily opposed to this so-called ‘agenda’.
And I can raise a child to recognise that their potential and value in relation to possibility varies well beyond any limited actuality, to the point where there is no ‘forced agenda’ to be concerned with, only upper and lower limits in actualising potential to be conscious of - apart from their own fears and desires, and the moralising judgements of onlookers or society in general. But it is FAR more efficient to simply recognise this in ourselves, and make use of what limited actuality we have in maximising our collaborative potential to reduce suffering in the world, not just minimise our own.
Quoting schopenhauer1
NOT an assertion - read it again. Every example of potentiality I provide you claim not to understand and dismiss as ‘saying nothing’ because you see no ‘concrete evidence’. Even though your moral judgement of parents is based on an assumption that they evidently decide to enforce a potential agenda upon a potential child - none of which you will admit even exists prior to actualisation, let alone a prior decision or any thoughts towards it. Where is the concrete evidence of a parent’s prior knowledge of either agenda or child on which to base the supposed culpability of their decision?
You would need to admit this evident potential prior to actuality in order to accuse parents of moral culpability in procreation. In acknowledging this potential as evident, you would have to also acknowledge evident potential to choose actions against the agenda (as described above), rendering it ‘not forced’.
So as your arguments become more concrete, and less obfuscating, I notice they look pretty much like all the usual ones that I have encountered many times before. I have addressed this type of idea that there is so much "variation" (in hopes to justify the broader limiting factors) in whole threads, such as https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10842/willy-wonkas-forced-game/p1
My point in that thread was that parent's often give the excuse that they are giving "opportunities" for "so many choices" and thus they could not be held responsible for forcing an agenda, because life's dictates can have such variation to choose (and thus are not really dictates). This is not true in theory, nor de facto. It is not true in theory because there are still the limiting factors of having to survive itself, getting comfortable, and overcoming dissatisfaction. In fact, my whole thread here started with recognizing the human condition as comprising this limiting factors. A different way to go about surviving, doesn't overcome this fact. It is just another excusatory argument to justify the fact of the broader limiting factors of dissatisfaction/survival. It is not true de facto either, because though there are extreme "thresholds" one can choose, it is untenable for most individuals. This doesn't mean, "AHA! This shows the average activities of X lifestyle is thus correct", simply that most character-types (or personalities with a set of preferences) tend to limit their encounters with extremes. That there are extreme variations along with more common variation lifestyle choice, are still confined factors in the broader limiting factors of life. yawn..
Quoting Possibility
Right, pretty much addressed this above and with my Willy Wonka thread (just read the OP at least). However, I will add that I never meant that the socio-cultural-economic agenda is X variation. A hermit living in the woods on a handful of grubs and a bohemian-type living on a mixture of dumpster diving, restaurant leftovers or whatever, are all accounted for.. I already addressed this in my last post (and you seemed to ignore it):
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting Possibility
Yep, already addressed this in my above quote. Variation doesn't negate the limiting factors of dissatisfaction/survival. Your whole "we have so many choices" thing is not justification for the broader limiting factor.. Willy Wonka's Forced Game.. Read it..
Quoting Possibility
Right so you are doing what I said in the beginning of my response.. Just demonstrating that people will tend towards the averages, doesn't mean that THUS we have proved anything about the dictates.. It is still forcing dictates on someone. This is besides the point that once born, people will tend towards the middle of the extreme versions of lifestyle to minimize stress on themselves. Also, this whole "collabortie potential to reduce suffering" was already predicted and addressed earlier when I said:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Basically, you have failed to overcome my objections raised in that earlier post a couple pages ago. You are just sounding like people need to be born so they can self-actualize and follow Maslow's Hierarchy (as predicted).. You can obfuscate by talking about limits and potential..but it amounts to about the same. Maslow also never defined what self-actualizing is.. but it amounts to what you are saying and I object to yours as his reasons for the excuse to give people "opportunities". The illusion of choices does not excuse the collateral damage and dissatisfaction/survival dictates (that tends to averages within those boundaries anyways).
Quoting Possibility
Oh for fuck's sake.. We all know that children can be born when one does X.. If one allows this to happen, one is agreeing that this life is appropriate for that child to live.. It doesn't even have to take much thought (which is clearly evident in many parents' choices). But it is enough that they think this life is "good enough" for someone else to live.. That their choice is something that should profoundly affect another. You know this though.
Quoting Possibility
I don't know what you are saying here. What I do know is this is all gaslighting.. At the end of the day your ideas represent a manager giving his workers more work and then saying "I am giving you opportunities to grow".. I spit on this shit. I call it middle class, not because it has to do with Western culture-office spaces.. I just broadly label that mentality to those who make others work and in paternalistic arrogance that this is "necessary".. But of course none of it was necessary prior to birth itself.. It's just a reflection of the agendas and goals of the parents willful nature.
Once we are already born, yeah we have to "grow" and " collaborate" and shit like that, but it is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS in the fact that we were forced into this scheme of inherent suffering and collateral damage. This "growth through adversity" scheme is just PC MIDDLE CLASS, high grade, transparently manipulative excusatory bullshit. The same as the manipulative manager giving you opportunities to grow..
It does negate the limitation as ‘forced’ - the limiting factors apply to life, not to our capacity to act against these factors. Dissatisfaction and survival factors can influence and obscure but not eliminate choices we are able to make that take us beyond these limits.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That’s not what I’m saying here at all. I’m saying that raising a child is neither as efficient nor as effective as pushing against the extremes of your own life to reduce suffering for others.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, people don’t need to be born - why do you keep bringing this up? People, once born, are wasting valuable resources if all they’re going to do is avoid dissatisfaction and survive. The fact that you didn’t choose to be born does not excuse your decision to continue wasting precious energy on complaining about it with no intention of changing your part in the system. This has NOTHING to do with self-actualisation. If you don’t consider your own life to consist of opportunities, then the MORAL action would be to give all of your resources and potential to those who will use it to its fullest, not continue to piss it away on yourself. Because it’s honestly not about your ‘self’. There is no moral value to an individual who cannot or will not choose to exist in relation to the world.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What life?
Huh? Our capacities and choices are all in relation to the dissatisfaction/survival. There is no metaphysical leap beyond it as you imply here.
Quoting Possibility
Are you kidding? This is EXACTLY the type of thing I mean by self-actualization (your version). In fact I predicted your pretty common middle-class response earlier (and you ignored to quote)
Quoting schopenhauer1
Here you are finally showing all your cards. You are literally just saying in your own words here to comply with the agenda or kill yourself (at least "go away" in some fashion). It's the mentality of Willy Wonka's Forced Game.. Did you read it? "I made this world for you. If you don't like it, you should double down on playing my game even more and learn to play my game better.. Or you can just kill yourself and stop complaining!!".
Your implications are exactly the amoral/immoral idea of the individual I thought you would bring up too. For you it's "Fuck the individual.. you are part of the collaborative game (insert maniacal laugh here).. Go play your part because who gives a fuck that it's the individual that bears the brunt of living his whole life".. You are also doing EXACTLY as I predicted earlier by trying to weasel out of the fact that an individual is the locus of the interactions with the world, even though they OF COURSE have to interact with the world de facto by living. In other words, you overshoot the individual to try to pretend like its all a system of interactions and you don't recognize the great harms and suffering of the individuals. It is not the system that feels the harms and sufferings, it is the individual EVEN THOUGH, people's collaboration (OBVIOUSLY) is necessary to keep the individuals alive and comfortable. Your only advice is to double down on the "lovingly" created game for you (the individual) to have to interact with or die. Great. Great. Keep the apologetics going for the collaboration game. Fuck individual. Long live the game? Is that it? If you can't beat em, join em. In other words, comply or die with the agenda, is that it? As I thought.
I noticed no response. I guess my points landed.
On the contrary.
I think you vastly underestimate just how alien your -- and Schopenhauer's -- ideas are to most people.
No - I just have better things to do with my time than arguing with someone who so aggressively rejects open-mindedness and charitable discussion. I’m done here.
I’ve taken your scheme into consideration and have found it at the end of the day, just another (convoluted, obfuscated) version of comply or die.
No I’m aware on a daily basis. The average workaday folk can’t understand how life can be inherently suffering. They only understand folk-harm, that of the workaday contingent variety. If you ask them on a good day, they even forget how much of plain old fashioned contingent harm exists, as built in, iterative, Pollyannaism mechanisms rear their ugly head. And they certainly can’t fathom the idea that procreating is a political agenda, forcing the dictates and burdens on another, because they feel they are messiahs spreading some goodness onto a new person or some way of life they think other people need to live out. It’s all just forcing comply or die burdens on another person and then blaming them if they don’t embrace it.
Ligotti, Thomas. The Conspiracy against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror (pp. 172-174). Hippocampus Press. Kindle Edition.
Then why this thread?
:up:
Thank you :D.
Because I am aware of the ignorance and bringing it to light? These are core to my philosophical viewpoints, so why wouldn't I discuss them at length with those willing to engage in dialogue?
You seem unsure of your purpose.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But there is noone willing to engage in dialogue. Exactly like Ligotti says above. Seems ironic then to pursue the matter.
Anyway, I sometimes have the impression (but it could be just me) that you're still trying to find an alternative to existential pessimism. That perhaps you're looking for the folks who comply with the Agenda to convince you that it's worth it after all. I mean, I have my doubts about existential pessimism, and I couldn't profess it with the certainty you do.
Any different than any other project one does continually? Fuck life itself is just that. It’s just that this has no set resolution, but again, life itself.
Quoting baker
Certainly not looking for convincing otherwise.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11569/unpopular-opinion-nihilism-still-doesnt-reflect-reality-philosophical-pessimism-is-more-honest/p1
Yep, good stuff like here:
Quoting niki wonoto
Just a couple things I would add here for a more complete picture.. Basically what is on my profile:
Life has necessary and contingent suffering. Necessary suffering is often considered "Eastern", similar to how Buddhism defines it. That is to say it is a general dissatisfaction stemming from a general lack in what is present. Relief is temporary and unstable. If life was fully positive without this lack, it would be satisfactory without any needs or wants.
Contingent harms are the classic ones people think of. It is the physical harms, the emotional anguish, the annoyances great and small. It is the pandemics, the disasters, the daily grind of a tedious work day. It is the hunger we feel, and the pain of a stubbed toe. It is any negative harm. It is contingent as it is contextual in time/place, and situation. It is based on historical trajectories and situatedness. It is based on the "throwness" (in Existentialism terminology). It varies in individuals in varying amounts and intensity, but happens to everyone nonetheless.
Philosophical pessimism deals with the fact that life has negative value and thus examines the human condition understanding these features. It is similar to atheistic Gnosticism. We are exiled in a way. Antinatalism is often an ethical response to philosophical pessimism, but is not the same thing. Philosophical pessimism often goes with pessimistic dispositions but is also not the same thing. Technically, you can have an optimistic disposition hold claims of a philosophical pessimistic nature such that there is much suffering inherent in life, and can generally agree with such philosophers as Arthur Schopenhauer and their works regarding the striving of human existence and the struggles of negative experiences.
And same time these people (I´m not saying Possibility is one of them) find very odd when I tell, or have told elsewhere that people who present suicide as an option; that usually people under age of ten or even fifteen don´t have capabilities doing suicide.
The potential to suffer?
Then you’re reading it through a lens. A fourteen year old certainly has this capability. Someone under the age of ten usually lacks a sufficient self-concept to make such a decision based on a preference for non-being. Either way, it wouldn’t be an intellectual decision based on awareness of an individual self - the kind you’re claiming we should be entitled to before we’re even born.
So, when it arises as an option, what prevents you from taking it? It is this question I’d like an honest answer to. Instead, I’m accused of gaslighting, while my position is misrepresented and distorted. I support antinatalism, but not this opinion that existence sucks.
My attitude is not ‘go kill yourself then’ - I think there is a gap in understanding (or just blatant ignorance) when someone argues so strongly for non-being as a preferred option, but not for actual beings. And then denies the existence of potential structures that enable actual, self-conscious beings to choose beyond a reductionist binary structure of ‘comply or die’, even as they claim to make a third choice of ‘rebellion by griping’.
Quoting Agent Smith
Sure, but there’s more to potentiality in relation to being than a binary value, or even a linear continuum. Intentionality is an integrated, four-dimensional relation of effort and attention. You can’t reduce that accurately to ‘the potential to suffer’ - not without ignoring or excluding a whole lot of information. This is what is happening here.
:roll:
1. In life there's potential for suffering and joy.
2. It's impossible, at the moment, to ensure the actualization of joy sans suffering.
3. On the whole, suffering > joy. Ask a person whether s/he wants their pain taken away from, or more joy be added to, their life? I bet they'd want the former (pain taken away).
Ergo,
4. Antinatalism.
Some do, I agree.
Quoting Possibility
I will borrow my text from another thread:
[i]The possibility of suicide of course exists. Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfil it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide.
One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible. And most importantly, not even suicide guarantees that the individual will achieve the state or non-state where s/he “was” before the decision of having a child was made. (Be it complete non-existence, for example.)[/i]
This is what I mean by reducing potentiality to a binary value, eg. Suffering = bad; joy = good. Being is not a matter of simply choosing between suffering or joy as good or bad. If it were, then we wouldn’t be having this argument.
What is suffering?
There is a tendency to describe suffering as ‘anything that feels bad’, but it’s more complex than that.
Suffering refers to experiences of pain, humility and loss/lack. Objectively speaking, pain is what we feel when an event requires more/less attention and effort than we’ve allocated. When we touch a hot stove and burn our hand, the pain tells the body that the attention and effort we predicted did not account for the repair work to our skin that we now require. And when we run until our legs hurt, the pain tells the body that effort and attention needs to be directed to these muscles at a faster rate.
Loss/lack is what we feel when an action requires more/less time and attention than we’ve allocated. And humility is what we feel when an action requires more/less time and effort than we’ve allocated.
So, the body needs to be informed of these prediction errors, so that we make the necessary changes in future predictions, in order to prevent further suffering. If we don’t find a way to make these changes, we’ll continue to suffer.
1. In life, there is potential for good suffering and bad suffering, as well as good joy and bad joy.
When a driver has been aggressively tailgating, dangerously overtaking and speeding past you on the road, and then further along you pass him/her pulled over by the police, is that a case of bad joy or good suffering?
If we’re honest with ourselves, sometimes we feel joy in perceiving another’s suffering, other times we suffer in perceiving another’s joy. Sometimes we’re prepared to endure short-term suffering for long-term joy, other times we pursue short-term joy despite long-term suffering. When you try to reduce suffering-joy to one value, your conclusion is necessarily subjective and temporally defined.
2. It is impossible to actualise any event, good or bad, without a sufficient distribution of attention, effort and time.
When we get this distribution correct, we minimise suffering. Understanding our own limitations and building awareness, connection and collaboration with other sources of time, effort and attention increases the potential to reduce suffering overall.
3. On the whole, the relationship between suffering and joy is irreducilble to a linear relation, except subjectively and in the moment. It would be highly inaccurate to make a moral judgement of all potential being based on this.
4. I believe that antinatalism IS the objective answer to so many issues in the world. But I also understand that the same subjective, in the moment evaluation of potential being as ‘mostly suffering’ can, in another set of circumstances, evaluate potential being as ‘mostly joy’. So I disagree with arguing antinatalism on moral grounds. It achieves nothing except more suffering.
What is this state of non-existence that you value higher than being? And in what way is it more valuable in this non-state? What you seem to be referring to is the idea of unrealised human potential. But I could be mistaken.
However, ever since we humans grew a brain, we've come to the realization that we maybe able to delink the unpleasantness of suffering from its purpose/function. Have we not done that with tobacco? We've elminated the risk of cancers by extracting the active ingredient (nicotine) and putting it in less hazardous delivery systems like dermal patches and gum? This idea is probably a component of the Transhumanism manifesto, the movement being, by and large, focused on the abolishment of suffering.
More can be said, but I'll leave it at that.
I’ll admit I’m a little sceptical of transhumanism - mainly because I recognise the essential structure of what we call ‘suffering’ in every aspect of existence and cosmic evolution, including atomic structure, abiogenesis, etc. The idea of abolishment of suffering, while it appears noble and compassionate towards humanity, presents a narrow understanding of what suffering is and how it contributes to cosmic evolution as a whole. I have a feeling the aim is to eliminate the human experience of suffering, and that it is prepared to compromise actual abolishment for an illusion. I’ll reserve my judgement at this stage, but if that’s the case, then I’m not okay with that.
Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be the purpose/function of nicotine in the human body?
:up: Leprosy has long been considered a divine punishment and people seem to be certain that it's an illness in need of a cure. Congenital Insensitivty to Pain (CIP) is also classified as a malady. However, I'm sure there's a comic out there that lists CIP as a superpower, to be used by the so-afflicted for good.
Quoting Possibility
Nictoine, to my knowledge, is a neurochemical with effects on our in-built reward system and hence the physical dependence that characterizes addiction to nicotine.
I read a YA novel a few years back called ‘Carve the Mark’ by Veronica Roth, which explores the notion of suffering in a fantasy world where each character has a ‘currentgift’ - a unique aspect of their character, or ‘superpower’, if you will. I’ll drop in here some notes I’d made at the time:
The rise in depression, anxiety and even ASD in our youth can be seen as an indication of neural evolution - towards a more variable system of mind or conceptual configuration. From a medical perspective, these are ‘disorders’, but I think there might be method in the madness, as it were.
Quoting Agent Smith
Hmm - an analogy for transhumanism....? Just a thought...
Perhaps we shouldn't be aiming for the abolishment of pain/suffering. Instead, let's try to reduce their intensity, their unpleasantness, their foolifying power - like how syringe needles are small, sharp and bevelled to make them less painful, not painless.
Quoting Possibility
I believe that "being" who does not exist, does not suffer.
But that is not the only reason for my antinatalism.
The other one is this; when you reproduce you are deciding for someone´s life in a situation when you really don´t have to.
:up:
What is that ‘being’ who does not exist, if they do not exist? If they do not suffer, what is their significance for you? How are they ‘real’ enough for you to talk about in this way?
Quoting Antinatalist
I recognise that procreation is to deliberately create a life that isn’t necessary. I do think the motivation behind that decision is usually and to a large extent self-serving, and based on an ignorant notion that it gives their own existence ‘purpose’ to determine the course of someone else’s life when they are most vulnerable, with little regard for the purpose of that life in itself. So I’m with you there. It’s not ‘purpose’ they’re drawn to, but power, and a vicarious sense of potential/value. Most people fail so dismally at parenting because the reality doesn’t reach their expectations in this sense. To be a parent is to gradually relinquish any control you thought you had over to someone else, and to watch your best efforts take on a life of their own, rendering you effectively redundant. Once this realisation kicks in, most will either fight to dominate, or give up early and abandon the child to school and society.
But this is ignorance, not immorality. We’re still pushing this ancient cultural myth that our purpose is to survive, dominate and procreate collectively, and to strive for independence, autonomy and influence individually - it’s no wonder we’re so disappointed with life! We’ve been shooting ourselves in the foot all this time.
You can’t just say ‘don’t do it’, though. And it certainly doesn’t help to say ‘don’t exist’. I think there is an alternative to procreation in recognising the variability of our own potential, and focusing on that, instead of creating a new set of limitations in being. It starts with dismantling this cultural myth.
— Possibility
— Antinatalist
Quoting Possibility
Basicly: it is bad when there is somebody suffering, and when there is no one suffering, it is not bad. Quite simple.
[quote]But that is not the only reason for my antinatalism.
The other one is this; when you reproduce you are deciding for someone´s life in a situation when you really don´t have to.
— Antinatalist
Quoting Possibility
So, are you against procreation?
By procreating the parent is creating collateral damage. Antinatalists don’t want to create unnecessary collateral damage for other people. This not procreating does not create this collateral damage.
Also making a decision as profound as the comply or die agenda for someone else is a political move that violates or disrespect to the dignity of the person who will this have to follow these dictates as a result.
Allright, I try not to be.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I have to agree.
What is bad or not bad? You seem to be talking about your subjective experience as if it’s some objective moral position.
I appreciate you parsing your position in this way, because this aspect of antinatalism is the part I’m having trouble with. I don’t think the event of somebody suffering is necessarily ‘bad’ - and I’ve discussed this in more detail here with Agent Smith.
Quoting Antinatalist
I do support antinatalism as a practical, socially and environmentally conscious choice - but I’m not going to take a moral stand against procreation, for two reasons. Firstly, I’m a parent myself, so I can relate to both the ignorance that leads to it, and the understanding that comes from the experience. I don’t regret my choice, and I know that without the experience, I would not have understood how naive I was. But I’ve been careful to ensure that my children are aware of better alternatives. We need a cultural paradigm shift away from the myth of ‘human purpose’ and towards creative collaboration, rather than moral judgement with an impossible alternative. Read my responses to Agent Smith for more details on this.
Secondly, I’m not against life, being or suffering, while it appears that most antinatalists are. So I’m reluctant to throw my lot in with the movement while the aim is non-being in general because of suffering (despite continuing to be, themselves). There seems, to me, something very misguided about this.
Don’t worry - he was referring to me, there.
The aim is not non being but not creating situations of unnecessary suffering and comply or die burdens onto another. Non being would be a result. Your steamrolling Collaboration scheme is misguided as much as it is Messianic. That is to say, you feel new people must enter into the (political) scheme such that they interact with the world, probably (definitely) suffer, and learn to overcome suffering. That would be misguided to burden others because you have a notion about people needing to join a steamrolling Collaboration scheme.
Some things that are considered bad things at first glance are often considered later otherwise, when the situation is different and we/me/somebody can estimate that so called bad thing for instrumentally good thing. That bad thing prevented some more bad thing to happen or was essential for something good to happen (some might say what this got to do with antinatalism?).
But all those things belongs to life, and are only valuable inside this life, are they instrumentally good things or maybe something, which someone seems a purpose of life. (Of course somebody could say life has a ultimate value over non-life. That is a question of an another topic).
The complexity of this bad/not bad -issue is so huge, that it would be a quite big sidestep, so I try to crystallize for you my point of view of that bad I referred for:
When there is human life, is possible at least (more realistic is to say it is almost inevitable) that there is genocides, rapes, mass murders, child abuse and so on.
Even when we could think that something so called "bad" is actually good, I can not considered any of those aforementioned things any way good.
So, are you against procreation?
— Antinatalist
Quoting Possibility
Do you think that antinatalists would be somehow more convincing if they will make more suicides?
Okay, I didn´t get it at first.
No - I think antinatalists would be more convincing if they recognised that it is their valuing life’s potentiality in itself that causes them to despair at such limited actualisation.
Quoting Antinatalist
This is fear and naive helplessness. There is potential for these to occur, sure, but the idea that they are ‘inevitable’ is not an objective view. The more we are aware of how this potential develops and the alternative paths, the more we can counteract the circumstances that contribute to it. The more we fear this human potential, especially in ourselves, the less capacity we have to prevent its actualisation.
So when these do occur, it doesn’t help to label the perpetrators ‘inhuman’ and exclude their being from the value of ‘human’ potential. Nor does it help to focus only on the suffering caused, and refuse to understand the structures and patterns of reduced perceptions of potential that would lead to it. It is ignorance, isolation and exclusion that lead to suffering, and we counteract and prevent suffering with increased awareness, connection and collaboration. That’s my view.
Now Schop1 would have you believe that I am pushing some ‘agenda’ of blind collaboration, but the first step is always to increase awareness of potential.
I wouldn't call that naive. In human history, just the encounter of two tribes has often led to irrational violence. That is so sad. And now there are billions of people, are you really saying that there will be a time in the human future without violence, for example? Of course there could be ideas, innovations and practices that will reduce violence, epidemics and suffering which derives from such phenomenons. But I don't see that misery totally disappear.
Quoting Possibility
I don't want to be rude, but for me that sounds naive. But of course it is a good thing to try to reduce suffering (but not by any so called utilitarian way, though).
As I’ve said, I think it may get worse before it gets better, but I do think there will be a time in the future of humanity with far less violence than we have now, let alone have had in the past. I mentioned in my discussion with Agent Smith that I don’t imagine a total elimination of what we call ‘suffering’. But then I think it’s an important aspect of cosmic evolution - it’s how life learns. As humans I think we have the collaborative potential to transcend this aspect to a large extent, but we keep following the ancient cultural myth of ‘survive, dominate and procreate’, along with the individual self-actualisation myth of ‘power, fame and fortune’ (independence, autonomy and influence). We’re collectively selling ourselves short, increasing suffering in the process, and then focusing on the suffering rather than looking for alternatives.
Quoting Antinatalist
I don’t think it’s rude - it’s a valid perspective. It sounds that way for two main reasons. Firstly, stated in this way, it seems too simple to be effective. But I never said it would be easy. It’s probably one of the hardest things to do to admit the role our own ignorance plays in perpetuating suffering, and seek to remedy it. Where do you even start? Secondly, the cultural myth or ‘agenda’ keeps telling us that our survival is important - but you and I both know that no-one’s life is more important than reducing suffering across the board. This is the real test of antinatalism - what usually keeps us from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration is this fear for our own survival and sense of dominance. If we’re going to rebel against the ‘agenda’, then we need to be prepared to act against our own best interests for the sake of reducing suffering. I’m not suggesting we commit suicide - that’s a waste of this potential we’ve developed so far - but to put the rebellion before our own survival, get creative and make full use of our temporary and otherwise useless BEING to effect an ongoing reduction in suffering, long after our life ends.
So, given the prevailing antinatalist view that simply BEING currently increases suffering, what is it that prevents us from increasing awareness of our potential to BE different, in a way that potentially reduces suffering?
Gaslighting at its finest. So you think that fear of death is equivalent to THUS thinking it is okay to start life? Oh please try to justify that one.. Fear of death, your justification for life must be worth starting :lol:.Doesn't logically entail.
Also, this is COMPLETELY buying into the comply or die scenario.. You are LITERALLY saying, "If you don't like the agenda, then go kill yourself!". And then when we don't you say, "HA! SEE Life must be good!" Hogwash.
Quoting Possibility
Right, so keep experimenting with more people till we "get it right" :roll:. But we won't get it right because behind all our actions is the "comply or die" gun to our heads. Keep surviving, and overcoming dissatisfaction.. Because STEAMROLLER COLLABORATION SCHEME THAT POSSIBILITY WANTS TO SEE CARRIED OUT!!!
Quoting Possibility
Yes, indeed it is. Awareness of YOUR potential maybe, but not forcing other people's. I mean you fit into the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs model.. What you forget to include in your little scheme is that we are already put into a scheme where we have to collaborate. This is much of my point. You focus on the collaboration to meet goals (like a manager at a business, but for any aspect of life) and not the forced aspect of this collaboration.
Quoting Possibility
You don't give a concrete example of what "transcend" means.. It's all bullshit hope-vision-imagery with no real "there" there. The only thing I can imagine in your imagined utopia is "collaboration" schemes of people somehow magically "conforming" to the group. This is to take away people's autonomy. If I do work and I think ALL work is meaningless, you're just going to give me some "collaboration" rhetoric.. And try to convince me that I am being a "rogue individual".. Again by focusing so much on collaboration you miss the "forced" aspect of this collaboration. We ALL know that we need to collaborate.. But a lot of times, IT JUST SUCKS!!!
Quoting Possibility
I've given my examples besides the obvious of not procreating. In all aspects of being, there is a comply aspect to it.. So the question itself is always IN LIGHT OF THIS FACT. But you keep missing my point and trying to jump over it to simply "collaborate" without acknowledging background radiation (because we were forced into this situation and can't get out without overcoming fear of death). Unless you acknowledge that blindspot, your philosophy can't get beyond antinatalism. You have not integrated it.
The conviction that merely reducing suffering is not enough.
She's managing it like an HR person would :D, replete with slogans of "collaboration". You are a individualistic rogue if you think the whole scheme of comply or dying sucks. I gave the example of Willy Wonka's "lovingly" forced game and through analogy what is wrong with the scheme of life in general.
How much misery can a person take ...
Can you elaborate? Or just riffing on the HR thing?
Even if you were right, that things will get better and there would be more collaboration among humans, we don´t need those things in the first place if there weren't life at all.
Procreation is forcing somebody to this life, and that is no way necessary. Forcing someone to live is deciding for someone else´s life, which this someone has not even any kind of veto, any kind of way to prevent this thing from happening.
I actually envy the antinatalists. They seem like really tough folks, or relatively well off socioeconomically, or both.
I'm down with a back injury. I haven't properly slept in days because of the pain. In a state like this, to think how meaningless existence is requires more stamina than I have.
None of this is an accurate interpretation of my position. I am NOT arguing that it is okay to start life, and I have REPEATEDLY pointed this out to you, yet you keep throwing in this strawman. I have also NEVER suggested that anyone kill themselves, only that they recognise suicide as a potential, and have honest answers for why they won’t go there. Part of this process is to get over our fear of death - which is just buying into the agenda of survive, dominate and procreate. But you can’t see that. It’s like you cannot fathom an antinatalist who perceives the potential of life.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, NOT arguing for procreation...
Quoting schopenhauer1
Because I disagree that it’s forced. I’ve already explained this, and you’ve just demonstrated your ignorance of the anything but ‘collaboration’, as if that’s all I’ve said...
Quoting schopenhauer1
You’re not even reading what I’ve written, just making shit up to argue against, and claiming that’s what I’d say...
Quoting schopenhauer1
Part of increasing awareness is acknowledging the sense that we were forced into this situation, but that we have the potential to ‘get out’ in a variety of ways. We don’t have to comply, but everyone dies eventually. Overcoming the fear of death is not as impossible as you might think. But you won’t achieve it by a passive, verbal rebellion against all aspects of being. Neither will you reduce suffering much this way. If this is your antinatalism, then count me out.
But there IS life, and it’s ours to do with what we will, regardless of what anyone says. If you want to waste it on griping, like Schop1, that’s your choice, as it is his. I’m only suggesting an alternative that I think fits with what you want to achieve: reduced suffering.
Quoting Antinatalist
No argument with you there.
"Potential of life" doesn't mean anything in the context of "fear of death". However, if you mean the "experiences of life that one may benefit from", I do not deny people can get benefit out of experiences. That doesn't mean THUS life... which supposedly you agree with.
Quoting Possibility
How do you disagree that it's forced? In fact, you just agreed with Antinatalist here:
Quoting Possibility
And my point is indeed that you can't go along and start praising the collaboration "reduction suffering scheme" without recognizing the forced aspect of its very existence. So no, I won't let you get away with moving forward with the new age talk until you recognize this.
Quoting Possibility
I can't decipher your neologisms, but the gist seems about right, whether you recognize it here or not. The collaboration awareness, whatever game to reduce suffering that doesn't recognized the forced nature of this scheme. You could make up any scheme you want.. Aristotle's virtue, Kant's CI, Mill's utilitarianism, Maslow's self-actualizing, communitarianism, objectivism, whatever political agenda/scheme you want. All forced. And THAT is where we must start in our ethics. No moving forward until that is properly put into the equation and context. That we are living out someone else's forced agenda, and the implications of this on everything, including reducing suffering.
Quoting Possibility
"Getting out" is a conceit.. Heaven, utopia, fan fiction.. whatever.
Quoting Possibility
This coming from someone who has no concrete examples of anything other than "collaboration and awareness". You want to manage like a business your way out.. The most middling of middle class answers to suffering. Suffering doesn't go away because we work as a "team" to get goals done. The fact that we have to work on anything, is the very point I'm pointing to!!
I believe that Schopenhauer1 has something to say about this "waste it on griping". But I agree with that, people here living on this globe could reduce suffering. But the first thing for that is not to reproduce - although that is preventing the suffering, not reducing it.
@Possibility
I mean, the griping can be akin I guess to the "connection" and "awareness". It is collective recognition of the forced agenda, and being compassionate about the shared situation we all find ourselves in (connection). It is trying to not burden too much other people if at all possible, and doing things to alleviate other's burdens.. So there are ideas of reducing suffering, but in this context of the very fact of the burdens in the first place. It is the recognition that we are on a constantly leaking ship that needs to be fixed.. and yes, helping fix the holes, but WITH THE RECOGNITION that it is indeed a never-ending leaking ship that we are all forced onto, that others thought fit to bring more passengers onto to keep fixing the holes, and now burdening them with something to overcome. And with the recognition that this ship has a "maintenance routine" that no one asked for, and cannot accord to any individual's idea of how to run it. The ship (life) has a "situatedness" of physical/social reality that no passenger can alter, but must (even if unintentionally) contribute to. Only within that context is it getting at what is going on.
I already predicted that it would mean nothing to you. Death is inevitable, so limiting your life further based on a fear of death is a waste of resources. It’s not necessarily about what benefit you might get out of life’s experiences, but about the benefit your life has on the overall value of existence.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I agree with Antinatalist that the initial situation is forced, but everything after that realisation is ours to determine. You just can’t get past your sense of entitlement - that you somehow deserve more than this. This is an awareness of the unrealised potential and value in your current existence - it’s NOT yours by right, but by your allocation of effort, attention and time. You don’t think that’s fair, and so you’re complaining - to anyone who will listen - that you expected the full value of existence delivered on arrival, and you deserve your money back. But this ‘money’, this value/potential, was never yours in the first place. It’s been gathered up, partially invested in your existence, in the naive and misguided hope that you’ll do more with it than they ever could, and your reply is ‘You invested it wrong - if you’d only left it all under the mattress, it’d be worth more.’
This idea that any unrealised value we perceive has no relation to existence is false.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I’m not denying the initial situation as forced, but I disagree that any scheme - whatever we do immediately after our awareness of this initial situation - can be forced. Only our ignorance, isolation and exclusion keeps us in compliance.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, I want people to increase awareness and share it before presuming any goals should get done. Stay ignorant, and you are bound by someone else’s agenda, and contributing to suffering.
Agreed. But we need to recognise that we can only control ourselves. We can’t force others not to reproduce - that just adds to suffering, and then we’re compromising our efforts. Increasing awareness and connection brings others the information they need to recognise the inefficiency of procreation, given the potential of life. And collaboration brings this diverse potentiality together, with a reduction of suffering as our common focus of attention, effort and time we each have available.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don’t see it as a leaking ship. It’s a flawed system of perceived potential/capacity, sure - but it’s the only one in existence, it’s the best those before us could manage, and we’re here - so we can improve on it OR deal with it as it is (ie. maintenance), AND eventually die either way.
In a way, each of us is a leaking ship, loaded with precious cargo. What we do with that cargo is more important than the ship that carries it. Once we recognise that, it’s a matter of pooling our resources and building a better system that can hold ALL the cargo, not just what you can salvage of yours and your significant other’s. So, why are you all sitting there complaining about the current state of your ship?
This seems to arise with age more readily. In youth everything is fresh and new, the horizons seem limitless and our potential to develop and learn in growing exponentially. It is no wonder that an ‘existential crisis’ hits at some point because we ‘slow down’ - or rather seem to.
The key is to recapture our inner child and see how fascinating the world IS (not can be!).
As children we did not really ask why we were asking why. I think it is at that threshold when the ‘existential crisis’ rears its head. The ‘why’ is approachable, but the ‘why of the why’ leaves us feeling adrift rather fascinated.
From a personal perspective something that I have become more and more aware of with age is how a life of leisure is no leisure at all. I seem to have an inbuilt code that does not allow me to ‘enjoy’ leisure unless I have earned it. It can be something simple like washing the dishes or making my bed. Once this is done I can relax and do something I consider ‘leisure’.
Is this an ‘illusion’ to feel that I have ‘achieved’ something that warrants me time to pursue more apparently frivolous activities? I am not convinced it is an illusion because if it is then what is not an illusion? Does ‘illusion’ mean anything if everything we experience is called an ‘illusion’? If ‘illusion’ is all we know then said ‘illusion’ is nothing more than our lived reality.
The pessimist exists merely because of optimism not in spire of it.
I genuinely believe life is fine. The burdens are the meat of life. Without burdens we have nothing. The time to reflect between basic sustenance can be viewed with pessimism or optimism. At some point in everyone’s life they will feel both, but some will feel one side more strongly than the other.
Work hard and play hard seems like a simple and effective life rule. Life feels good when at the end of the day I can lay back and know I have achieved something.
Boredom is certainly a window into the existential crisis. Boredom is just something inside telling you to reassess your life in some way. Avoiding problems is also something people do a lot. Bad combination! The key is to embrace the so-called ‘suffering’ and surprise surprise, it practically always turns out for the overall betterment.
To strive and to overcome. Little holds more ‘joy’ in life.
To be ‘happy’ is probably the most mundane and shitty term I have come to realise as utter nonsense over time. No one is ‘happy’ because ‘happy’ is nothing. It is a weird ‘after the matter of fact’ judgement imposed on us. Yet it is nebulous enough to carry the core of the experience/feeling that makes us feel like we can say ‘we are happy’. It is drivel though :D
Quoting I like sushi
Why is it nonsense?
Quoting I like sushi
What means this? Elaborate, please.
As a species it seems we cannot help but bifurcate everything we come across then clumsily categorise as this or that kind of antonym.
When there is a genuine paradigm shift what seems to happen is the usual ‘black and white’ attitudes come into conflict with a fresh perspective. From them arises a new term that is just as quickly cut in two, because it seems we just feel more comfortable with yes/no answers/views rather than having to deal with nuances.
Nothing wrong with this, it is just what humans do and it has been damn effective - even with the problems it carries along.
As for ‘happy’ it something we say but it is such a general term that if you try to get to the bottom of what it means there is little to no conclusive substance to it. Many people will say they want to be happy, but they ignore everything but the idea of this false goal. To be happy is more for children, and it is a fleeting and pointless feeling compared to everything else that happens to us before and after some insignificant little ‘inner glow’ we get (or however else you care to define ‘being happy’).
Happy is not something you do, not something you feel, it is an after thought to glimpse of something that touches us in a way we cannot really articulate.
Note: I admit I was fishing to see if you were curious, but I cannot explain something like this well because I experienced something that made me realise how the idea of being ‘sad’ makes no sense whatsoever and is more or less a delusion of sorts. I don’t mean this as a positive or negative point, it just is what it is and human emotions seem to me to be a confused bundle of issues covering up … words fail :D
So, a mind-generated illusion it all is? Sounds plausible; only it seems to deny reality as it appears to us. Do we have a good reason to reject/doubt reality (as it presents itself). Pain isn't pain, happiness isn't happiness; they're both something else or nothing at all.
Such a viewpoint has been popular (enough) since the dawn of philosophy; I suppose it's skepticism in full bloom or on all thrusters. I would like to be a skeptic, I was and probably still am one, subconsciously; thus my earnest queries to your, prima facie, "wild" statements (utter nonsense, happy is nothing, and the like).
Quoting I like sushi
This is a textbook case of the mind critiquing/reprimanding/denouncing itself. This brings to the fore the issue of trust - how can a mind that's been declared flawed be entrusted with the task of discovering truths (about itself first, and about the world, second).
Hence, my suspicions that great Buddhist masters have been trying their best to eliminate the mind from the equation (google for more). We have to, in truth, leave our minds behind in this quest whose objective(s) is/are, as of yet, hidden to a great many people, including so-called Buddhist gurus themselves.
Quoting I like sushi
That would depend on what one means by "substance". Plus, such an inquiry seems misguided for some reason I can't quite put my finger on at the moment. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick here.
Happiness, in the simplest sense, is a state of mind that one either prefers or doesn't mind (because it's pleasant, think of it as likeable "person" you would want as company). I'm sure this is a reasonable definition of happiness that we could work with, oui?
Quoting I like sushi
We must try...oui?
Happiness, in one sense, could be an addiction and if that's delusion in your book, amen to that. Even so, the addiction seems pro-life and anti-death. We do get mixed up sometimes and therein lies the rub I suppose. Appearances can be deceptive. Agent Smith, in search for hidden order.
Please excuse the haphazard response. I'm freewheeling.
Remind me to clone your "inbuilt code" and inject it in my minions when I devise an existence that requires workers to work to maintain my empire. Oh wait, that's just this existence.
What better way to motivate workers than to ensure that they internalize incentives through things like "guilt at not working for it" and "no pain/no gain". In Willy Wonka's "loving world" this is the motto! Now go out there tiger, and go get 'em! They're greeeatt!
You can be the manager at Life Corp Enterprises making sure the workers are internalizing guilt for not "getting things done".
@Possibility can be your HR head, making sure that the minions have slogans like "Awareness through collaboration!"..
Then you two can have a torrid love affair.. And you can smoke a cigarette with your Burt Reynolds mustache as she curls up next to you in bed, sheets strewn about.. and with Ayn Rand on your bedstand and Nietzsche on the dresser.. She can say, "What a great team we are..We have made such connections and collaborate so well!" And you can say, "Damn right.. Look what we have built.. If I didn't do anything I would be beside myself with angst and guilt"..
Anyways, the point of the OP was exactly this problem.. The fact that you cannot "be" is not "doing nothing". In other words, there wouldn't be "guilt of having to do something". Rather, LITERALLY, existing itself would be enough.. with no desire for needing to feel satisfied via work projects, or any other dissatisfaction one is feeling that motivates you to overcome it by doing X.
Projecting that into the modern world and humans I don’t quite understand your tone or what your reply means/says?
My point was just that a life of luxury and abundance seems hard to enjoy for anyone who does not believe they deserve it. Granted, many people exist that feel like they deserve everything for nothing … they usually grow up at some point though or turn to crime. Generally a price is paid no matter what.
I still view ‘boredom’ as psychological warning. Sometimes we react to it in the wrong manner. During lockdown a great many have felt the mental strain because they come to realise that they have been ‘working’ from day-to-day without thinking (maybe that is your ‘guilty’ group?), and having to face up to what they consider important underneath causes existential angst.
I do believe the whole existential question is one that comes more easily to some than others. It may even be better for some to ignore it best they can because they might simply end up miserable overall? Hard to impossible to say?
So Schopenhauer's idea is not about "boredom" in the sense that, "Boy I got nuthin' t'do today.. Shucks g-golly".. Look at his quote again:
Regarding ‘happiness’ I can only say I managed to get into a certain state of consciousness (by fluke) and realised that to be ‘happy’ (as a goal) was kind of besides the point. It was like looking down on emotions as some weird facade but I don’t mean this in a non-feeling way (detached), I mean it in a ‘being happy is not important’ way because there is WAY more.
I’ll have to look into what neuroscience has to offer about boredom and the brain one day.
I am not convinced ‘boredom’ is our natural state. I think humans, and most life as far as I can see, are at base about exploration of a sort. I think boredom hits when we have been exposed to too many or to few options.
Starting from the beginning of a human life we are inundated with sensory data and our neurons start to fade away in order to shape the brain into an efficient machine rather than waste maintenance on unused neurons. Maybe homeostasis as a regulatory device is where ‘boredom’ stems from? But homeostasis is not static obviously!
So how is this not using people for a scheme again? This is again, LITERALLY defining an/the agenda, that is my whole theme in our discussion. You are doubling down on the fact that procreating is forcing others into a (political) agenda.. and you have thus defined it "benefit ..to existence".. Which has not justification other than STEAMROLLING COLLABORATION MUST BE HAD! But you don't care that this forced agenda violates and disrespects the dignity of the individual that must "benefit the value of existence".. Again, the political agenda.
Quoting Possibility
Ah right, so more follow the agenda.. All that protestations earlier that it's not about the agenda goes out the window.. You are full blown HR defending the Boss now.
Quoting Possibility
Am I in 1984? How is anything not comply or die? Again, have you read my thread on Willy Wonka's Forced Game? Limited choices are still limited choices.. And somehow, the "AWARENESS THROUGH COLLABORATION" is a the big consolation prize.. See, look how you contributed to the AGENDA.. Isn't that nice?? All it is, is lipstick on a pig.. the pig is "comply or die".. You're here.. you have to do X, Y, Z or die.
Quoting Possibility
Utopianism. Why do people need to be on the ship? All this amounts to is more of the same.. Work to survive, maintain comfort, and entertainment pursuits.. You're just talking the best processes to do this..That isn't addressing the very problem of being on the ship in the first place. Don't think about the ship.. think about fixing the holes better! But Schop's point is that the holes are inherent.. Dissatisfaction-game is inherent.
This stuff doesn't matter.. As self-conscious animals, our POV is not neurons regulating, but an agent who must grapple with the everyday of surviving, finding comfort, finding entertainment. We are also an animal that can dislike what they are doing yet do it anyway, KNOWING they don't like doing it, and then having to find little strategies to tolerate it. What an inefficient way of surviving.. But hey, we got music, art, and poetry (sarcasm there)..
We can force people to fight in wars they didn´t start (and to die there). But however, I don't consider it realistic that there would be a law against procreation.
It is possible (to transcend the hedonism trap); so, why not? People do it, at a much smaller scale, in the form of sacrificing short-term pleasure for long-term well-being. Whether it's a step in the right direction or not remains to be seen. However, it appears that we're kinda stuck with the way our brain's wired, the reward system and all that. It looks like our brain is, in a way, seeing through the ruse as it were or...not! This ain't cure against poison, it's poison against poison. No matter how we slice this cake, we're not gonna be able to, well, liberate ourselves. Then again, we got this far..recognizing that there's a problem is half the solution or thereabouts. :smile:
How the brain adapts to the environment in vitro and when exposed to the world may actually provide us with some insights into how we arrive at ‘boredom’ and whether it is viable to state that ‘boredom’ is the baseline for conscious beings.
Note: I don’t think we strive to be comfortable at all.
Ok, next time you shiver and try to stay warm or get cooler, adjust your chair, try to regulate any comfort, let me know.
Meaning, I think we are naturally inclined to explore and that ‘comfort’ (in too large an amount) can prevent this. Comfort and boredom have some thing some common - neither appears to be an initial state.
Good question? Clinically depressed individuals (Buddha may have been one) probably swing to the other extreme - from unbearable suffering to an unqenchable thirst for moksha. It's just the way it is although from a certain angle it makes absolutely no sense at all.
Quoting I like sushi
Indeed, although I must say how holocaust survivors keep their faith in a (benevolent) god is quite beyond me.
You miss my meaning. I mean “getting comfortable”. You sit, stand, itch, open window, clean your environment, etc to get more comfortable.
I honestly see it that we do this simply to create a semblance of balance in order to measure from.
When someone creates a home and places certain things in certain places I see this as acting as a creator in order to knock it off balance and learn how regulation in one area can be transferred into life in general. A tidy home leads us to understand something about limited control.
At base it appears to all be about learning or, in mechanical terms, about collecting and regulating information in order to facilitate more of the same.
In terms of pure psychology I absolutely wish to get uncomfortable sometimes because the relief of comfort afterwards is quite nice to say the least.
Dissatisfaction.
Quoting I like sushi
Dissatisfaction.
No political agenda, just a perspective that I’m sharing. Take it or leave it, but stop representing it falsely as some political scheme or forced agenda. Ignorance or awareness - it’s all a choice, as is acting to benefit existence as a whole. If you only want to benefit yourself, go ahead, but don’t complain to me about suffering as if there’s nothing you can do about it. There is no dignity in complaining about what everyone is experiencing.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What Boss? Make your own choices, and stop pretending there’s some ‘Boss’ you can be pissed at for your situation. It’s all part of your little dystopian fantasy...
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again with the misrepresentation...no, awareness first. But, then you’d prefer if I was arguing for ‘blind collaboration leads to awareness’, because it fits in with your fantasy...
Quoting schopenhauer1
They don’t need to be on the ship - they ARE the ship, or they are the cargo and the ship is theirs to do with what they will. And I very clearly have NOT been arguing for survival, comfort or entertainment, so stop bringing them up. Of course think about the ship, but it’s basically scrap, so there’s no point wishing it wasn’t, because everybody’s is scrap. Instead, think about what you can do to look after the cargo (which, in case you were wondering, is the ‘dignity’ - value/potential - of the individual).
Neither do I. I guess I was talking more about this moral judgement against procreation. People are going to continue procreating, no matter what we say about it. To them it still appears to be their best option, whether in compliance with the myth or in defiance of it. If we’re going to genuinely reduce suffering, then we need to account for this, and not ignore, isolate or exclude those who choose to procreate, for whatever reason.
Completely unnecessary - sexist character attacks with zero substance are not welcome here.
You want to write fiction - do it somewhere else, and leave me the fuck out of it!
Ok, sorry sorry.. I was poking fun at the optimisms of you and I like sushi.. He with his, "Guilt complex to do work", and your "collaborate awareness" scheme..
But notice, the indignity you felt, even of just your forum persona being a character in someone else's agenda (fiction). That indignity and disrespect, is like the indignity and disrespect of forcing (causing) someone into the world to comply with the dictates of life.. You can pretend moralize to me that it's different because life provides "options".. But AGAIN, it's the Willy Wonka's Forced Game again.. The options are not really options on closer inspections....
Your namesake presumably comes from metaphysics like Whiteheads.. His idea of universal possibilities for each event.. But those possibilities were finite.. The possibilities of a human animal in a physical world with certain laws and historical developments is finite.. I cannot just be a bird cause I wish it... One must only use the gauntlet allowed by circumstances of reality (both social and physical). Thus, telling someone to "collaborate more awareness and you'll be better off" is like saying to someone, "I'm forcing you into the game and you are going to double down on it if you don't like it". Because the possibilities are there, but they are again, finite. At the end of the day you sound like Nietzsche's super-coked up Ubermensch philosophy which tries to embrace the absurdity through trying to be the most extreme version of the possibility.. It's all the same game.. I'm sorry, there is no "pat" answer that lets you escape the fact of the situatedness of reality.. No Eternal Return superheroes.. No Mother Teresea gods of charity and kindness.. It's just forced game of dissatisfaction overcoming..
So for ethics, what do we do now that we are here? Surely, not much other than live out our life course. We can take away some understanding like "don't burden others" and "community recognition that we are in a forced game/leaky boat". There is some consolation in communal understanding of our situation. There is trying to alleviate undo suffering when one can. Okie dokie.. That doesn't mean thus life good.
Your fiction is pretend - the fact that life provides options aside from compliance is not. I have already agreed that ‘forcing someone into the world’ is worth arguing against. But I disagree with your argument that the limitations of an actual life in relation to perceived potential is a case of forcing them to ‘comply with the dictates of life’, let alone any specific agenda. What you want is the maximum value - the dignity and respect - without the life, but that’s not how value exists.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not Whitehead - don’t presume. I’m well aware that the possibility for an event is finite, but human capacity for awareness is not. What you will BE is limited - but it’s also highly variable. If you don’t like it, you can look for ways to change it. You cannot BE a bird, but with awareness, connection and collaboration, you can fly or perform pretty much any other action that a bird is capable of, if you choose.
Nietzsche’s Ubermensch is not a proposed actuality, but the conceptualisation of an idea - rather like your notion of maximum value apparently owed to the individual upon existence. It’s a way of thinking about the relational structure between human being/actuality and human value/potentiality. There is a common misconception that it’s linear - much like we assumed the relation between space and time to be linear. It isn’t.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What life course? How you interpret ‘don’t burden others’ is not as straight-forward as you seem to think, and your description of this situatedness as ‘a forced game/leaky boat’ is highly subjective and charged with affect. It doesn’t mean life is good OR bad, except that you choose to interpret it this way. Life is diverse and ever-changing, and so is our potential relation to it.
When we evaluate life, we reduce this perceived relation to a linear equation, with our (temporal) being on one side and our (eternal) value on the other. What is not acknowledged in this equation is that our temporal being is a four-dimensional existence, while our eternal value is a five-dimensional existence. They will never be equal, and any argument that they should be is illogical.
Huh? You're making no sense with your jargon again..
Once you violate dignity of X time (birthing that new person), THAT is the violation.. That person doesn't have to exist prior to that to violate the dignity.
And yes, once a person born, it very much is a limited choice of physical and social realities.. Of life contingencies of place, circumstance, time, genetics.. Having possibilities doesn't mean all of them are actually available. And what if we don't want ANY of those possibilities.. well then fuck.. rot in place and death...But then there are just generic realities..Ones that are contingent on being human at all.. In order for X, Y must happen or you die. If you deny it, then go test it out.. For example, not wanting to do the whole survival thing is off the table, lest death, depredation in the wilderness or homeless or free riding etc.. Utopia is off the table because there is no utopia. Some people aren't going to be X because they simply want X. Willy Wonka's Forced game is a forced game of limited choices. And you simply want to deny it because it doesn't fit your brand of optimism. Sorry but that is reality lady!
You are just an apologist for the situation.. You complained about being a character in a fictional story that pretty much did you no harm.. But you did not want to be in this fictional story. Yet, here you are defending to the hilt, as much as you possibly can, a life, something which is not fictional, and cannot be escaped by simply turning a page, that is forced into survival and the rest.. And then have the audacity to say, "but there are options!"". So if I put you in a "choose your own adventure story" that means that you would be fine with it? You cannot have the option of not wanting any of the options though (lest death). And you know this. If you said, "I don't want to be in this story.. with options are not.. And I said, you cannot escape it, unless you kill yourself or embrace the story and think of the choices..
Look again at Willy Wonka's Forced Game;
Quoting Possibility
That's just wrong prima facie.. We are not aware of what we are not aware of. We are not all knowing (infinite awareness). Lay off the stuff.
Quoting Possibility
Ugh, I knew you were going to say something like that :lol:. No, I literally mean, I cannot become a bird.. Meaning, I cannot change certain physical and social realities of life. They are off the table.
Quoting Possibility
I noticed here that you didn't even deny my comparison to Nietzsche's coked out model.
Quoting Possibility
Charged with affect just means I am making an evaluation.. Values have value judgements!!
Yeah that's right, life is a leaky boat of survival and dissatisfaction that has to be overcome. The whole point of the thread is that if being were positive in itself there would be no need for anything.
Quoting Possibility
Don't know, don't care.. Doesn't mean anything as this is written.
Your sentence makes no sense. Something has to exist in order to violate a pre-existing dignity.
Violate: 1. Break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement). 2. treat (something sacred) with irreverence or disrespect.
Dignity: the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect.
Explain to me what this ‘rule or formal agreement’ is that is broken, or what this ‘something sacred’ is that is treated with disrespect. Because I get that the violation is the birthing, the actual existing, but it’s unclear what an unviolated ‘new person’ is. Seems to me like this violation is committed against an unrealised concept, a perception of value.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Do you even understand what ‘the whole survival thing’ is? Survival was never on the table - it was always a false goal, doomed to failure. Nobody survives. Someone sold you a bill of goods, buddy! Let me make it clear: you will NOT survive, no matter how hard you try. Death is not something you can avoid. Survival, Utopia, Ubermensch, the individual dignity of non-existence - all ways of thinking about human potentiality. They’re not promised actualities at all, just ideas to which we attribute value based on quality and feeling, and then conceptualise.
Any promises made regarding life are falsely stated, and what makes procreation so unconscionable to you is that you interpret the act itself as a promissory note, made apparently without the means or inclination to fulfil it. But your interpretation is constructed according to this ‘agenda’ that you’re trying to subvert. I’m arguing that the entire agenda, these ideals we’ve convinced ourselves to strive towards, are a false construct. Which is not to say the potential is non-existent, only that it’s been constructed to give the illusion of definitive goals, when the reality is far more open-ended.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ignorance is not a permanent condition. Human awareness is a process.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Is that what your problem is? Would you rather be a bird? What is it about literally being a bird that is so valuable and so unattainable? Seriously, though - physical or social realities don’t determine your dignity or respect unless you buy into the agenda. They can be taken off the table, and all it changes is the distribution of time, attention and effort.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Why bother? It’s as similar to my philosophy as it is to your own. The fact that you refer to it as ‘coked out’ is just your subjective view, and bears no reflection on my philosophy at all - only your subjective view of it, stubbornly held. I don’t consider my position to be better than yours (which is an option), but I do think it deserves due consideration and respect, which you stubbornly refuse to give, presumably because you think there can only be two moralistic ways to view reality (the right way and wrong way)...
Quoting schopenhauer1
Subjective opinion, again. Life is neither positive or negative. The fact that you NEED it to be inherently positive goes back to your sense of entitlement, and this desire for a definitive goal. ‘I never get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day’...
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ignorance is bliss...
Right…so if I somehow plot and plan a person to materialize so I can punch him in the face, the second that person materializes, and I punch him, is the violation. Non identity no more. Also, as I’ve been stating the whole time, the parent is creating collateral damage when they could have not created this for someone else.
Another example I give often is that if a parent chooses to birth a child into a volcano, surely they can’t be doing wrong to that child that will be born in the volcano :roll:.
Quoting Possibility
While I agree in a sense that humans conceptualize their survival as they do it, that doesn’t negate the survival. In fact it may make the situation worse. Instead of instinctual programs we must conceptualize. We can even be aware of a negative value of a task and realize it must be done despite not preferring it if we want to achieve X. We are aware of our shitty options.
Quoting Possibility
But it’s not. Try not eating for a couple weeks. Try living in extreme cold or heat over long periods of time. Not to mention that “where” you put yourself is determined by outside principles like property arrangements. There are quite a few things that de facto happen due to physical, social, and historical situatedness.
Quoting Possibility
But they do. Every possibility of action is one whereby I need to figure out how to maintain my being. Willy Wonkas Forced Game is really a limited one, and you can piecemeal it further if you want but they fall under the categories listed..if I want none of that? Death. Comply or die.
Quoting Possibility
Cause he’s peddling bullshit. It’s doubling down on the agenda..it’s not bypassing it cause you are doing it with more conviction or extremely.
Quoting Possibility
Right, yet you don’t mind literally forcing people into a “choose your own adventure story” that can’t be escaped and is actually limited in options. Then you blame the person forced that how dare they question the situation. Willy Wonka lovingly forced this game for which you can comply or die. You still haven’t addressed Willy Wonka scenario..you, who got indignant at being even mentioned in a silly tertiary way as a fictional character gaslights the fact that people are literally forced into a real situation of inescapable, non-trivial, suffering and an agenda of comply or die.
You’re not answering my question. You can plan anything you want - that’s potential, not actual. Punching is a violation against an already materialised person. Whether you were the one to materialise them or not is relevant only in the sense that the punching was premeditated. Materialising them violates nothing, because nothing exists to violate. They could just as easily have materialised them and then changed their mind about punching them. Two separate actions.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You’re using an example where the risk to both child and parent is obvious and immediate - that’s not the case with life.
It is your opinion that the chance of someone’s life being less than their potential is sufficient enough to warrant non-being. Plenty of people disagree with this evaluation, and you claim they’re wrong, but all they’re doing is evaluating life differently to you. You have no way of proving your own evaluation to be objective - it will always be relative to the affect of your limited experience. For most people, this evaluation will vary across their lifetime, and is far more complex than a binary reduction.
I have no issue with accusing parents of violating the dignity of their child, and even reference to collateral damage based on their methods of parenting. But it’s a separate issue to procreation. You cannot automatically assume their intention to violate based only on the act of procreation. That assumption is determined by your personal evaluation of life.
I’m not arguing for procreation here, only arguing against your blanket moral judgement. A parent is usually ignorant, commonly naive, and often selfish in choosing to procreate, but they are not violating any existing dignity at this point. This is simply false. But if you want to acknowledge potential existence, then we can go there.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Conceptualisation instead of instinctual programs enables MORE options. What you’re referring to here is awareness of a conflict between value systems. It allows us to question the accuracy of our value systems, and choose a conceptual structure that minimises overall prediction error (suffering). Why do we want to achieve X? Is this really more important than avoiding Y right now? Would it be better to avoid Y at this time and delay achieving X, or is this the only opportunity for us to achieve X? How are these shittier options than a single instinctual program based on the experience of previous generations?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, there are more options to think about, so more to be aware of, to adjust and to get wrong. This increases the chances of prediction error (suffering) if we lack awareness, but if we maximise awareness then it increases the chances of reducing suffering overall. Humans do choose to live in extreme cold or heat over long periods of time - usually because they prefer it to their perceived alternatives, or because it brings them value/potential in other ways they consider worth the effort. We simply change our distribution of effort and attention over time.
There are limits to how we can live, sure - but no-one is forcing us to live, except our own preferences which are open to negotiation, so long as we’re aware of alternatives. You can go on a hunger strike for several weeks if you believe it will achieve something you consider more important than your own life. These are choices we’re free to make, against survival, towards a value we decide is greater. It doesn’t make death any more inevitable.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, you don’t need to maintain your being, you’re choosing to. Death is inevitable. You can bring it closer or try to delay it, but it’s coming for you either way. Doesn’t change your value one iota.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You personally disagree with his perspective. That’s all this says to me.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is not my view at all. Every situation is limited in options, especially non-being. I would encourage everyone to increase their own awareness of and question the unique situation they’re in, and to recognise and develop their own unique capacity to effect changes.
Your Willy Wonka forces existing characters into his game. You attempt to violate the respect and dignity of my existing identity, and I feel entitled to object, as one human being to another. But in procreation there is no existing character/identity to violate.
Prior to self-awareness, a person’s potential/value exists in the minds of anyone interacting with a developing being (especially the parents), and their actualisation is subject to countless conflicts of ignorance/awareness, isolation/connection and exclusion/collaboration. The temptation for parents to align ourselves with the agenda can be overwhelming. I cannot hope to maximise my child’s potential for awareness, for instance, until they’re aware of my own ignorance. To the extent that I seek to avoid suffering humiliation in this, and maintain an illusion of dominance, I am multiplying their potential for future suffering. But no-one explains this beforehand, and reducing to it ‘procreation = forced suffering = bad’ is obviously inaccurate, as is ‘parenting = self-sacrifice = love’. It’s much more complex and irreducible than that.
A person gradually develops self-awareness of the situation they’re in, questions its suitability in accordance with their conceptual structures, and seeks to make changes (either to their situation OR to their conceptual structures) which they consider important.
A person’s immediate situatedness is predetermined, but highly variable and ultimately as temporary as they determine it to be. To observe this situatedness as ‘constrained’ is to recognise one’s unrealised potential/value at that point in time. To judge it ‘inescapable’ is to reduce this actualising relation with potential/value to a binary (potential = good, actual = bad), even though both are continually subject to change, and subject to our conscious determination.
This is all I need to know you are arguing in bad faith or that you don't know what you are talking about. Have you read any of my other threads? These type of non-identity arguments are ridiculous. You can justify procreating a child into any situation with this mentality. Of course you will say no, they shouldn't but then you would have no recourse because your own "no existing character" argument refuted itself. But of course, we know it would be wrong to procreate in a terrible situation. But I am saying this applies not to X1 situation but all of life, as that child will be forced to comply with the dictates of life and the contingent harms intendent within it. They will be forced into the character of a "choose your own (actually very limited) adventures. Also, I rephrase it for precious people as yourself so that you can't get around it... "The parent is causing collateral damage but can prevent it..".
But even without rephrasing it.. "The parent is violating dignity of the child.." it works. If a parent procreated a child into a really bad circumstance (think of anything) you would object.. But then you will say life is not always a bad circumstance.. and of course based on the my OP I indeed think it is.. even under the best of contingent circumstances due to the dissatisfaction part. But yes, the violation happens because the child has something PROFOUNDLY done to it, that affects it and it's inescapable and unnecessary to do and will always have inherent and contingent harms. That is a fact. once someone is born, THIS is the violation.. If you can't see that.. then you are just spitting sophistry. You can't do anything you want on behalf of what will affect SOMEONE ELSE because at point X they are technically not born yet, but in point Y they are.. Your actions matter at point Y as much as X, because X led to Y. This is common sense.. Don't try to weasel your way out of it.. Sorry, you can't.
Quoting Possibility
False.. I cannot change all of world history and physical laws to suit me.. And no, people can't change things in such easy fashion as you say... If they could.. we'd have a lot more people changing things to suit them and their preferences. And your double-entry weaseling of 'Well people just have to be aware and they'd know they can move things along collectively".. yeah just stop. You know you can't say much.. You know it's the game, and the 'awareness" is nothing more than an HR person reiterating the benefits of the policy or that the company only works well when we work as a team to achieve our goal..
Quoting Possibility
What? It's inescapable because you have to DIE to escape the situation. Comply or die...
The point is that it is a forced situation upon someone caused by predecessors.. You can't say, "But no ONE was forced'.. Yes, the very person who exists now exists because..........?????? Don't be a dummy.
The analogy holds with the tertiary character in a fiction.. Just because there are options doesn't mean that forcing them into having to do any of it was right.. You don't get to be hurt and then say people born don't get to be hurt ESPECIALLY cause your character was a fiction and this is a lifetime of inescapable harm and dictate following. Now they must survive and comply and maintain or die.. You can't get around it. You're trying your best to justify the unjustifiable. You don't even know what to say.. All you can say is "Possibility and actuality.. variability". . and none of it means anything. No one created, no forced anything cause as you say, no one exists.
Related, you should read this text:
https://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/14444/Antinatalism%20and%20Moral%20Particularism.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Same goes for you. You have no way of proving your own evaluation to be objective - it will always be relative to the affect of your limited experience.
Quoting Possibility
Just google "create a life you love". But it's still all craving, granted, sometimes more sophisticated, but craving nonetheless.
And I’ve repeatedly said so. My point is that we’re capable of living our lives without setting this evaluation in stone, and that it’s inaccurate to morally judge someone else’s actions based on your own evaluation of life. But anytime I suggest here that life might be worth the effort, I’m told I’m not thinking for myself, just doing what the ‘boss’ (whoever that is) tells me. I’m only making sense when I agree with Schop...? And yet, I’m the one accused of gaslighting...?
F Scott Fitzgerald said: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
Quoting baker
I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m saying that we have the intellectual capacity to reconfigure how we make sense of reality, so that craving, dissatisfaction or suffering is not a ‘problem’ to be overcome. This may sound to Schop like PR spin, but there’s little difference between what I’m doing and what he’s doing - we’re just pointing people in different directions. Only he’s insisting that his description of the world is the truth, while I’m just plain wrong.
It’s all language and value-laden concepts, either way. Craving is just a sense of being a dissipative structure - any value relation is arbitrary, subjective. I’m not going to defer to his perspective as ‘the truth’, and he’s not going to acknowledge my perspective as anything but an invalid default, because apparently only one of us can be right, and it must be him.
But I honestly think that BOTH our perspectives are valid, and the fact that I choose to live my life as if it has value doesn’t negate his choice to live his life as if it doesn’t, and vice versa. I’m okay with that, and I actually think there is potentially a lot we can gain from a charitable discussion. But apparently I need to be discredited by any means, because everyone needs to defer to his perspective as ‘the truth’. I’m not okay with THAT.
When you continually claim we have more efficacy than we actually do, and ignore the rules created by our situatedness in physical and social reality, I’m gonna continually call you out on it.
However even more pertinent. The fact you don’t recognize that we are all burdened with the task of subsisting at all and overcoming it, is denied by you. We can try to work together but it would be in this recognition of the tragedy and not through obfuscating misdirection of vague optimistic slogans.
Is ‘striving’ necessarily something negative, as it appears you are implying it is?
Are all hobbies, loves, likes and passions merely purposeful ‘distractions’ from the reality of inevitable existential angst?
Also, I have always been puzzled by the idea that asceticism is somehow viewed as ‘abstaining’ when it is actually just a means to achieve the best situation. It cannot be a selfless act if it made as if it is thought to be ‘better’ than what others are doing.
It is the idea of ‘doctrine’ itself I have issue with in any religious format.
If we ‘suffer’ in the form of ‘dissatisfaction’ (weak form of suffering in my mind) then is this not balanced by places where we are satisfied in the very same moment?
As a simple example of human life I take satisfaction in drawing and I am sometimes dissatisfied with what I produce somewhere along the way too. The ‘suffering’ of dissatisfaction here is merely seen as a way to reflect on my situation and what I am attempting/producing.
If this is then taken into the realm of moral theory then I am assuming you and Schopenhauer are/were striving (‘suffering’) to produce a better moral theory. It kind if follows that we should not strive for a better moral theory because such is suffering and suffering is necessarily worse than not suffering (as you have stated elsewhere).
Maybe you can comment on this a bit?
Thanks
No.
Quoting I like sushi
Not even the right question.
Quoting I like sushi
Suffering in his view us the motivator behind all action. We X because something is not enough now. Don’t see why you can’t gain insight into suffering while suffering. There may also be brief escapes according to Schopenhauer like viewing the sublime in art or nature or creating art or music. He thought this had to do with seeing forms and temporarily stopping the will.
If it is notthe right question why is it not. It is one I am asking.
It's not that they don't recognize this task of subsisting, it's that they claim it's a matter of your choice, not of something forced on you.
In their view, when you're hungry, you _choose_ to eat. Your predicting that you will be hungry tomorrow and the day after that and so on, and therefore need to find ways to satisfy that need (by work, theft, reliance on mercy) is also something they see as a matter of your choice.
Perhaps with some arm twisting, they'd even declare that breathing is a matter of choice.
They are not alone in this view. A few more examples:
A Buddhist teacher once said in a speech words to the effect "your body is perfectly willing to die" and that it is a matter of your choice that you feed it, take care of it, etc.
Some spiritual teachers go further and say things to the effect that until you take responsibility for having been born at all, your life cannot really begin (Caroline Myss, IIRC).
In some religions, such as some schools of Hinduism and Buddhism, it is believed that one was born because one wanted to be born. Mormons, too, believe that one is born because one wanted to do so and chose it.
"Comply or die" isn't tragic to them, it's the baseline, the bare minimum. In order to see things from their perspective, you need to forget about what secular constitutions of democratic countries and the Declaration of Human Rights say about the value of a human being, human dignity, and so on. To them, this is merely about human potential, not about actual people. In their eyes, you get no credit simply because you happen to be a human. You yet need to prove yourself to be worthy.
Heh. You're not so humble.
How else is it possible to make moral judgments, other than on none's own evaluation of life?
I disagree with both of you, I think neither of your perspectives is universally viable, but requires that a person has a sufficient measure of health and wealth in order to live in accordance with either of your perspectives.
So much for democracy!
What's up with this validity business? Are we looking for someone's validation?
Why aren't you okay with that? Can you explain?
Because just about everything in the waking life is part of the dissatisfaction. It is why we are not just being and not having to do anything else about it.
And that's why the 19th century German philosopher Philipp Mainländer claimed that "non-existence" is better than "existence" because in a reductive analysis of both, in the case of "existence" you only have "suffering", or in your own words, "boredom", while in "non-existence", you simply have "nothing" - in his after-death perception -.
Between conscious suffering and not being conscious, which of the two options - in this scenario of pessimism - would be the most satisfying?
"But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!” - Philipp Mainländer, The Philosophy of Redemption
Yep, I am aware of this view. I am glad you explicitly stated it though to understand the mentality I am debating.
Quoting baker
Really good points, especially about their notion of "potential" vs. "actual" humans. It is using people in a scheme.. Of course, it doesn't matter to them that people are used in this way. And yes, it is about proving yourself worthy it seems. One can even make a Nietzsche little manipulation and make it seem as if "worthiness" is only about "worthiness to yourself", but doesn't that make it convenient on a social level? Those who internalize it and think they are doing it for themselves, would be the most easy to comply.. It is now internalized and perhaps obfuscated.. But it's all part of it.
Indeed, Mainlander seems pretty committed to promortalism, not just antinatalism. I understand where he's coming from. There is no escape from the constant dissatisfaction once it is set in motion for each individual.
We can maybe say Mainlander's prescription is for pessimists who go that route. E.M. Cioran perhaps for pessimists who exist and bare witness to existence, over and over and over. I would say I strike a middle ground between the two.. E.M. Cioran is a quiet witness.. He complains, but not on a communal level. To him, it is the silent individual bearing the self-awareness of the situation. I say bring it to the fore...
Mainländer's philosophy is built on a Schopenhauerian basis, as his main question is "how to end any and all hostility to the Self", however, Mainlander not only sees all existence as suffering, but also the very concepts that make existence possible, as "Time" and "Entropy", for entropy in his perception is nothing more than the "decay" - aka death - of everything that was, is and will be, part of existence, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational, etc...
The final conclusion of the "Philosophy of Redemption" is that only death can free Man from suffering, so Mainländer argues that suicide is a real possibility and that it must be chosen - he took his own life after completing the publication of his work -.
Philipp does not fight pessimism, for it is the only answer to the grand question of the purpose of existence, and his answer to it is:
- You should give it up.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Cioran is a pessimist who, unlike Mainlander, decided to prolong the suffering of existence in direct response to the very concept of suffering.
Both came to the same conclusion, however, Cioran, in a maniacal way, decided to laugh at the pain.
Try saying X is … and Y is … and that is why they are different.
If “just about everything” in waking life is ‘dissatisfaction’ what is not ‘dissatisfaction’?
Sleep. Unconscious states.. Temporary states of satiety (maybe). But some might disagree there.
And schopenhauer1, to communally recognize, and empathize about the situation. Collective understanding of tragedy. Consolation of shared understanding. Cioran was doing the same thing in a way because he published his work. He was sharing his thoughts.. having a dialogue with the public, held some interviews and discussed with friends.
Yet, I still believe that in a comparison of both scenarios - of an introspective or externalizing pessimism - it is noticeable that if taken as something to share with others, the possibility of a resentful community emerging grows tremendously.
And resentful people eternalize collective suffering.
Another point..
When you mention "actual people", this includes the actual suffering those people will bare. It is interesting that children are in a way a byproduct of something lacking in the parents' life. There is something they want, but don't have. It's like a pyramid scheme.. where now a new person is holding the bag. They are "it" now. They now must do the whole "overcoming burdens", suffering, and lack game.. But perhaps people, can simply sit with their own lack and not feel the entitled need to pass it to others to satisfy their own. Not spread the burden in the name of X (joy, possibility, humanity, family "good memories" created, religion, etc.). The worst part is using philosophies like Nietzsche's or "No pain/no gain" to justify as you say, the "unworthiness" because post-facto of birth, you somehow haven't played nor embraced the survival/lack game well enough. Comply, comply or simply die.
And we must ask where this resentment is coming from...
Quoting Gus Lamarch
What do you mean by "eternalize collective suffering"? Resentful people would not like to make collective suffering permanent.. at least as a pessimistic therapy. They don't even want us to recognize it, lest we eternalize it and prevent more people!
I guess this means ‘satisfaction’ is a non-thing.
What is the difference between ‘striving’ and ‘challenging yourself’?
You're trying to do a gotcha instead of understanding...
Quoting I like sushi
Dissatisfaction is akin to something that is lacking now.. even if it is lacking something "more" than the satisfaction you are currently feeling.. Clearly you aren't satisfied "enough" to simply be "satisfied" at that moment if you feel that you can improve upon the situation and then continually doing so, over, and over..
Thus..
Quoting I like sushi
Challenging yourself is simply one variety of the many forms of "lack". We lack in food or the pleasure of taste, so we eat. We lack in some stimulating activity so we pursue a game, or "challenging ourselves" with X. That's what I mean by all part of the same thing.
People who carry resentment end up being the most unsuccessful both individually and interpersonally in existence.
Indirectly - or, in worse cases, directly - people with this trait - resentment - end only developing more resentful people.
Nietzsche said about Christians:
“The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”
and I'm saying this of resentful people:
“The resentful's resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”
Nietzsche was a dick. He was trying to be the anti-Schopenhauer. If Schopenhauer observed how the world was about striving after and we should thus retreat (for Schop asceticism and for Mainlander full on suicide of the self), then Nietzsche was going to come up with the Eternal Return.. That is live life over and over as if you were going to return and do it again.. In other words, try to embrace it enthusiastically (and in my spin on it, manically). Be the most gung-ho worker.. but even better be the gung-ho mountain climber or painter, or whatever.. He wanted you to try to be as much about doing in the world as possible. He wanted you to conquer, the world, and yourself by active participation. Opposite of this is Schopenhauer who wanted to retreat as the source of suffering was the eternal willing nature that must be controlled or perhaps denied altogether.
This is no argument.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Even though both authors are in complete disagreement, I do not believe that Schopenhauer's ascetic philosophy is also an answer to the suffering of existence.
Nietzsche argues that "since life is only suffering, let us at least try not to regret witnessing this same constant suffering for the rest of eternity".
It is far more honorable to face the changeless and the indifferent than to simply surrender to the damnation of existence.
And the value that Nietzsche preaches in his argumentation of the conflict between the individual and the eternal - existence - is one that is made of pride for the individual itself.
In your last moments of suffering, just before death takes you, at least you can remember your attempts and your struggles with suffering, and then, only then, you can be proud of trying.
There it is: - Of trying...
Nietzsche does not theorize a victory over existence, for such a fact is incapable of being realized.
Existence IS; We were, are and will be - the human being is fleeting.
Until now we have talked through four scenarios:
You can give up - Mainländer -;
You can cry - Cioran -;
You can isolate yourself from the world - Schopenhauer -;
You can try - Nietzsche -.
While life is subjective, existence is not, so even if we try any of the above options, suffering will still remain being a thing of those who exist.
That is all. Thanks for trying … eventually.
But this is foolish as it leads to more births, more people, more suffering. So even on the face of it, it is wrong.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
It depends on what "facing the changeless and indifferent" really means.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Sounds like a load of bullshit.. I'll explain why in a sec..
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Yep, and this recognition makes it suspect to try..
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Don't forget this one:
You can communally recognize the suffering - schopenhauer 1.
But going back to the "You can try" of Nietzsche..
If I was to force people into working for X reason (to keep my company going, profits, to keep humanity buzzing along), my greatest idea would be to make the people think that they are struggling for themselves in some magnificent Ubermensch sort of way.. All my workers trying to outdo themselves because they all think they are little ubermenschs :lol: :lol:.
See, his philosophy can be coopted so easy to manipulate and at the end, it is just a conceit of a (seemingly coked-up) 19th century philosopher.
Correct summation?
Note: There is no premeditated ‘gotcha’ awaiting.
Quoting I like sushi
As I said earlier:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I would simply add Schop's insight:
If life itself were to satisfy us, we would want for nothing.. We wouldn't need to improve the situation.. we would already be there. But we are constantly struggling to do things that are related to survival, discomfort, or some other dissatisfaction. If not survival and comfort, mere existence isn't enough, thus boredom. Asceticism was Schop's goal then.. deny the will. I'm not necessarily saying that, but giving you some context.
And that's Christianity for you people.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Nietzsche's perception and his manuscripts reflect his reality in a 19th century Europe.
Opportunists, no matter what era they find themselves in, have always distorted people, their deeds, ideas and sayings. However, the intrinsic purpose of "trying" still replaces suffering indefinitely.
The concept of "Ubermensch" is utopian indeed, however, the "path" to it is not, for, with a purpose, suffering can disappear.
Well, there how about atheistic gnosticism? As Schopenhauer himself advocates, take away the mythological components. What I am talking about though is simply a collective understanding of the situation. The problem is I don't think much changes from this.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
How?
‘Existing’ rather than ‘living’ is how I differentiate. Others say ‘to live an empty existence’.
The main difference is you see ‘truth’ in ‘existence’ but not in ‘living’. Why is that?
I’m not claiming efficacy, only potentiality. The difference is desire. I cannot have the life I want wrapped up in a bow and delivered to me, free of suffering. You say this is a ‘tragedy’, but I say get over yourself - what makes you think that was ever an option, let alone what you deserve? I might want to see a unicorn flying through the sky, throwing rainbows everywhere - that doesn’t mean I deserve to see it.
The idea that this potentiality or value I can imagine is all for me as an individual, deserved and mine alone, is a lie we’ve been led to believe against all evidence to the contrary. That’s the tragedy. The potential of human life is unavoidably intertwined with everything and everyone else, and the more we try to pull back from this, to define our selves as ‘individual’, the more we suffer from it. You can say this is a ‘burden’ if you like, but I don’t have to agree with your evaluation. These are not ‘rules’ made up by some creator ‘boss’ with the intention that we suffer. It’s the natural law of existence, and the ‘rules’ you describe are simply an interpretation, based on how we feel in relation to our situation as ‘individuals’.
We can, of course, wallow in the apparent tragedy of our ‘individual’ situation, clinging to the illusion like a lost love. And we can even band together in a first wives club of individualistic misery, finding temporary solidarity in a pessimistic relation to being. It’s an option, sure. Connection, even without collaboration, is better than isolation. But this approach does categorically exclude those of us who relate to being without misery. So, you and I cannot work together until I agree that ALL life is a tragedy, not just that it appears to be?
The way I see it, we can, instead, lean into rather than resist the interconnectedness of potential existence, and realise our value/significance in relation to BEING an undefined change in suffering, rather than the illusion of an ‘individual self’. This is a paradigm shift, granted, but is neither inherently optimistic nor pessimistic, except for this FEELING that we’d ideally prefer (if it were possible) to realise this ‘individual self’ - even though we know it’s an illusion. Identity (as in quantum non-individuality) can still be a ‘useful idealisation’ to simplify our conceptual framework and predict behaviour, but it isn’t metaphysically real. Potential existence has cardinality without ordinality, so to speak.
I’m honestly not trying to obfuscate, I’m just moving on from this shallow realism towards a more constructive empiricist view of how the world could be (not should be). But perhaps the reason you won’t explore existence at this level is because:
- it renders pessimism as relative. I don’t see how we can morally judge ALL acts of procreation based on the apparent tragedy of life, when this isn’t necessarily apparent to everyone. I don’t think my position justifies procreation, though. It simply means that I judge morality in terms of perceived intentionality, rather than the act itself.
- it opens the door to parents justifying an act of procreation as a reduction in their own individual suffering. I agree that this is a common misinterpretation of potential existence, and its intentionality is sufficient reason to consider it immoral. But this immorality is inherent in the ‘individual’ intentionality over another being, NOT in the act itself.
Still, the morality of procreation aside, neither of these points negate the non-individual potential, value and significance of being an undefined change in suffering. If we consider our identifying preference for the illusion as a useful idealisation, I think we can philosophically determine how to more accurately develop and structure change - eg. into a reduction of suffering overall.
No, the idea is that any kind of existence is burdensome. It's about a dissatisfaction that would persist even if one had all the health, wealth, beauty, fame, family, friends, etc. in the world.
I’m aware of that. And I’m saying that any kind of existence can appear burdensome and dissatisfying in relation to the illusion of ‘individual potentiality’.
Deer good gods... Where did it go wrong with this sad figure. Couldn't he get any relief in his miserable pathetic life? Was it Munch on dope? Munch after dope? Damned, where did humanity took the wrong turn... It's depressing! Redemptioooon!
Again, no. It's that any kind of seeking happiness outside cannot provide satisfaction. Whether one seeks happiness through obtaining things, relationships, or sophisticated pursuits such as art, it's all still unsatisfactory.
@Possibility
What he said.
Where do you stand on buddhist ideas and nihilism?
But that is the game.. comply or die. So you are just reiterating it.. Just because you have some options in the game, doesn't mean it was right to make people play it.
Quoting Possibility
All HR spin of "You are in this for the community!". But the community doesn't make decisions and feels and thinks and does.. I, the individual does.. So even if I am not "truly" an individual in some art house, new age way (as @baker explained a few posts ago), I am the locus of the concretion of all the ways the universe impinges on me.. Working within a community and being the locus of what actually feels, thinks, does, etc. are two different things that your obfuscating language can never combine, no matter how hard you try to equate them.
Quoting Possibility
Oh right, Linda from HR says the boss wants more collaboration.. That's why I am so unhappy.. I am not committing myself to the "cause" enough :roll:. More comply or die.. you deem this as moral somehow because HR has some collaboration videos to cram down your throat for why you should work harder with the other team members.
Quoting Possibility
Quoting Possibility
I don't get your question. I am constantly "working together" whether I fuckn like it or not because I am existing in a world interconnected with others. So your collaboration thing is just an odd de facto truth of living as a human.. I work with people I have nothing in common with or don't particularly agree with in almost anything except getting some task done all the time. What does that have to do with the fact that I wouldn't want to do this in the first place, and including the decision for suicide? Guess its too late for that so I got to "lean in" :lol:. You must know this is like a parody of itself right?
Quoting Possibility
You're kidding right? You are literally now using the terminology of corporate buzzwords.."Lean into it"..
Quoting Possibility
Say that to someone who is suffering in a huge way.. But even more so, even if I am atoms, quantum events, or neurons, it is only the subjective "self" that I feel at any conscious moment, so it means nothing to point to the "real" substrate, as that doesn't change the situation.. if I "change" from this notion, it would still be the subjective self changing and feeling it.
Quoting Possibility
I don't judge procreation as necessarily immoral, but misguided, though I think it does have moral components of being callous with suffering.
Quoting Possibility
Okie dokie.
Quoting Possibility
That's what work and public policy is in modern day.. Work, work work, and left-leaning politicians will cry for mitigation of externalities (environmental, racial, educational, etc.). Right-leaning will cry for business freedoms (less taxes, less government, more private ownership of resources, etc.). So at the end of the day, you are just advocating what we have now.. Comply, comply, comply. But no, you are going to make vague references to change, and potential, etc.. and start the BS all over again as if you are not saying that.
But back to what baker was saying, you can deny the dissatisfaction while living out the dissatisfaction. It's okay, that happens. Dissatisfaction is the rule of this world. We are born into it and must deal with it. As for your collaboration scheme.. as I said, it's already what is going on. You are just saying to do more of the same, but "lean into it".
It is hard for me to guess where you lie between buddhist views and Schopenhauer’s views on things so just say what you can in your words if possible please.
I do not think there is a simple solution or way to express such things but I will outline something that I find puzzling regarding these views in general.
“Compassion” is a primary focus it seems for both buddihism and Schopenhauer in terms of morality. Compassion is framed as experiencing the suffering of others in some capacity. Also, the aim to end all suffering is part of the doctrine of both it seems?
This obviously poses a problem that looks more or less like ‘the better of two evils’ in the sense that one cannot show ‘compassion’ and not ‘suffer’. So what they both seem to hope for is to ‘reduce suffering’ yet (for buddhists at least) this is embedded in the ‘belief’ that it can be nullified completely.
As for the ‘default position’ in terms of ‘boredom’. I view ‘boredom’ as a kind of stress due to lack of arousal. Basic hand to mouth living certainly has not been the norm for human living as far as we can tell - even back into prehistory. Leisure time is present for most animals, but the difference with humans seems to be our cosmological view (our ability to understand our physical space as ‘finite’). Maybe our recognition of our limitations is what causes an attitude of ‘striving’ (beyond basic biological functions including mating and reproduction)?
Then there is the relation of ‘mindfulness’ and ‘boredom’. The act of ‘mindfulness’ as a meditative technique is interesting here as it is not about ‘striving’ for a goal, nor is it really ‘boredom’. This technique is more or less like boredom in that it is a place where a new perspective appears from the unconscious.
The main issue I have personally with how you word our position is with the terms ‘existence’ and ‘living’ perhaps? As I said previously, what you seem to frame as ‘boredom’ I call mere ‘existence’ - a disconnection from ‘living a life’. This is one reason I am not a big fan of buddhism as it seems more or less like an easy ‘escape’ from life ironically.
Anyway, it is complex topic so pick through what you can and offer up any of your views if you wish.
So why is seeking ‘happiness’ or ‘satisfaction’ the most important thing?
Quoting schopenhauer1
...and its this ‘locus of concretion’ that’s most important, right? Your identity: cardinality or ordinality?
What I’m saying has nothing to do with forming a ‘community’. That’s your interpretation (for some reason you need something ‘concrete’, although it seems straw is sufficient), but I’ve not said anything about forming anything in particular.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Your job has nothing to do with it. You work with other people because want to get paid, and for some reason you thought that work situation was a good deal. That’s on you.
You said:
Quoting schopenhauer1
The truth is that I’ve been collaborating with your perspective over a couple of years now. When I first read your arguments for antinatalism, I was firmly in the ‘but life can be wonderful, everyone should try it’ camp. But I’ve never considered my position to be set in stone, and whenever I encounter a view so diametrically opposed to my own, then I tend to work on the possibility that we’re arguing from two points in a broader picture. So I’ve been working to construct that possibility, and in turn my perspective has changed somewhat - and so I appreciate your participation in that. I do recognise the apparent ‘tragedy’ of your perspective, but from what I can see, it’s nothing that can’t be changed. Except that it gives you a sense of purpose to BE the victim, so it seems that you’re not really interested in changing the situation much at all.
Quoting schopenhauer1
And how I feel at any conscious moment is always the most important thing, right? This idea that I should be happy and satisfied? That’s what my life should be? The meaning of life, as defined by...?
Quoting schopenhauer1
See? We do agree on some points. My argument has been that procreation is ‘misguided but not necessarily immoral’ throughout this thread.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It only seems that way. Nothing changes when we stand still. Standing still, doing nothing, recognising the ‘tragedy’ of our situatedness - this just enables us to get a clear sense of where we are, so we can determine the next step in the direction towards where we want to be. Because taking a step is the only way to change anything. And I get that NO step seems to be the right direction, because to step anywhere just looks as if you’re complying, even though all you’ve done is accept the situation as a starting point. Because there potentially exists a relational structure of change between this situatedness and an overall reduction in suffering, which would render a step worth taking, even though it looks like you’re just complying.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I said lean into the interconnectedness, not the overall agenda - big difference in my book. What is going on is mostly exclusive, isolated incidents of task-oriented ‘collaboration on...’ with limited connection, or even without awareness. Examples include pleasure, entertainment, productivity, etc. But there’s also a whole lot of activity that involves deliberate exclusion, isolation and ignorance, all of which actively contributes to dissatisfaction and suffering in the name of survival, dominance, individuality, etc.
So if we’re going to live out dissatisfaction and suffer anyway, let’s do so in a way that is directed specifically at reducing the existing and ongoing dissatisfaction or suffering of others, long-term. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and you feed him for life. And no, I don’t mean push the agenda that he needs to fish in order to ‘survive’. I mean actually spend time with the man on his terms and share a way to reduce suffering, that he can share with others to reduce suffering, and so on.
Nor do I mean that if I know how to fish I should be out there looking for starving people who don’t know how to fish so I can teach them something. I’m not talking about self-actualisation, it’s just a recognition that BEING changes the experience of suffering in every relation, one way or the other, and whether I like it or not. The more I am aware of this in terms of how I plan and structure being as ongoing attention and effort over time, the less damage I’m likely to do. But this is more information than the mind can process alone, so it is the extent to which we are also aware of connecting and collaborating that enables us to maximise the effectiveness of being a change in suffering.
And this is your communication problem. WHAT are you trying to say?? Say it plainly or explain neologistic terms meticulously before using them. Your moral/value recommendation is to "collaborate, connect, and be aware". Besides the obvious that we do this already to get by every day....
What are you trying to say with it? Work in charities more? Build houses for the homeless? Is that it? Is it just common notions of giving to the poor wrapped up in unnecessarily unclear language? If you say no.. then okay......WHAT??
Is it to build a humanity towards a newer realm of knowledge on science and technology? I mean that sort of already happens if you join universities, technology companies, and the like in the capacity of engineer, scientist or some other capacity like this. But you say no.... then okay... WHAT??
So you don't give examples and say that I am taking it the wrong way. Yeah, I guess that would naturally happen if you don't really explain much except self-referential terminology. And then say you can never be more than vague about it.. Then don't expect me to get what you are getting at.
Quoting Possibility
Again with the vagueness. .What does it even mean to go in the "right" direction without using non-helpful terminology like "connection/collaboration/awareness". Give me more or you aren't saying anything communicatively useful.
Collaborating to "change anything" is not robotic or given. The "change" would have to be a value of some sort. WHAT is the value that you want to see it changed to? WHAT is "right direction"?
Quoting Possibility
What does this mean? Just more volunteer at charities and government and non-profit interventions? Oh wait.. that is already the case.. so basically basic stuff that we already do and just more involvement in these things we already do. It's just the progressive/humanist cause reiterated in vague terminology.
Quoting Possibility
Again, doesn't make any sense what you are saying to me. You'd have to communicate it differently. I've already guessed you just mean volunteer in organizations.. pretty standard stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-class_values
Humans can self-reflect.. We know we are bored. Animals seem to have a more "be in the present" that we can almost never have due to the nature of our self-reflection and ability to at will look to the past, plan for the future, and knowingly do this.
Quoting I like sushi
Again, isn't it interesting we are in a position where we feel we have to do things like "mindfulness"? There must be an existential problem if we have to do something like mindfulness to fix it. Again, going back to the Schopenhauerian idea of not able to "be", at least in this case, naturally without a bunch of techniques we must try (or try without trying.. don't get caught up Eastern semantics please :roll:).
Quoting I like sushi
No, existential boredom in this case means the motivation for why we need to do anything and can't just exist qua existing. We can't just be, but must adjust. Survival, comfort, entertainment.
Quoting I like sushi
Okie dokie. Hopefully some of those answers help.
I still feel like you are using ‘exist’ in a way I cannot quite get to grips with.
I understand that some people just view human life as ‘eat, fuck and die’ too. I think that is a little shallow though. On the most basic level we map the world onto our and our understanding onto the world.
Familiarity is just that. Someone living forever in some mud hut may not find it at all fascinating or fun, yet if someone else visited they may be in wonder and awe at such a ‘rustic’ existence and point out some things to the person who occupies the mud hut that they had forgotten about.
An ever adjusting perspective is ‘living’ whilst going through the motions is just ‘existing’. To merely ‘be’ is not a ‘mere’ thing at all. Contentment will eventually lead to existential boredom because with nothing new there is no life. Some people are more open than others though. I am sure many are ‘content’ with what they have because they have a way of viewing their life in a certain way.
I certainly don’t buy into the idea of ‘seeking happiness’ as I find that term rather drab and meaningless. As for ‘meaning’ that is something we wrestle with and it is that that brings on existential questions.
That ‘meaning’ is something we construct is probably closer to what you are concerned with here maybe?
Do not except Schopenhauer’s view as the only valid view. He met his conclusion and came up with an answer to it (kind of) because it was his thoughts he knew best.
Schopenhauer makes good points but I certainly do not agree with everything he says - nor do I with any philosopher/person dead or alive.
To gain a feeling of ‘unity’ perhaps trying some psychedelic drug would help out there. I have personally been lucky to experience something I would describe as ‘more real than real’ (even though that makes no sense!) and there is no reason I can see that every individual is not capable of the same BUT I cannot give them the experience.
Ironically it was a state where all such human existential troubles seemed ridiculously childish … but I admit now that the effects of the experience have dulled with time. I relate all this to what Jung describes as the process of individuation. That may be a place to begin a journey to an answer for you. REALLY though, it is not an important problem … but you will not believe me and nor should you.
No.
Since Early Buddhism considers being born as a human to be precious (because it is in the human form that one can most easily attain enlightenment), clearly, Early Buddhism is not nihilistic.
It's not that life is enjoyable, it's that death is painful.
The antinatalist is in quite a bind! S/he knows that nonexistence is better but then the agony of death! :grimace: I don't wanna live but I don't wanna die too! Reminds me Chris (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) who rejects every logically possible choice that's given him by his dad. The perfect setting for a Zen moment, oui? Rationality is out of the question! Tis time for madness!
It's a truism. It goes without saying that people don't want to suffer and that they look for ways out of suffering.
Quoting I like sushi
It seems the point is to have a theory about the matter, a certain mental framework. Hence the vagueness, the abstractness, the lack of concrete examples.
The difference is that we do it only when it appears to be in our own best interests, when it helps us to get by, to survive, dominate, or procreate - because we’ve been told that’s what’s important. This means when a new opportunity comes to be more aware of what’s going on, to reach out or to help out, we draw the line and consolidate existing value instead. We remind ourselves how much we’re already doing, especially the stuff we don’t really want to do, ‘to get by every day’. We strive to avoid the risk of humiliation, pain or loss, avoid sitting with this feeling of boredom, dissatisfaction or lack, which is all part of the human experience. We make small, consolidating moves to ignore, isolate or exclude ideas, people, information and we easily justify it to ourselves as pragmatic self-interest, as ‘getting by’, as being ‘forced to comply’ rather than risk death.
But every act of ignorance, isolation or exclusion brings ongoing harm and suffering to ourselves and others that we cannot avoid, because we’re not paying attention to it. And if we value a reduction in suffering overall more than the existence of any single being (which appears to be the essential argument of antinatalism), then we should be willing to endure a little more suffering ourselves, even risk our own death, rather than choose to ignore, isolate or exclude any longer. We just need to be honest with ourselves about this - that nothing we will ever do with our existence is worth more than what we do to reduce suffering for others. And if we’re still alive, then it means we haven’t done enough.
I know...this all seems rather extreme - but this is the argument of Schopenhauer and antinatalism, FULLY applied to human existence. And interestingly, it has Buddha at one extreme, and Jesus at the other. It’s fucking scary to take it this far, but this is basically what it’s saying - we’re just too frightened to apply it to this extreme, if we’re honest. This is why ‘the agenda’ persists - it’s our excuse, our safety net, our illusion, nothing more. And we can’t quite bring ourselves to dismantle it, even though we know it’s harmful. It’s not forced, it’s preferred.
@baker@Possibility
How many times has this phrase been used to gloss over or justify human suffering? Repackage it so it is just inevitable. But it isn't.
Quoting Possibility
So life should be a horror show of extreme sacrifice to reduce suffering.. Then we really really gotta double down on that prevention part...more antinatalism.
Quoting Possibility
Yes Schopenhauer was about compassion to the extent of sacrifice. Lessening other people's suffering to a "saintly" extent. The problem is, without proper context it is just doing to do.. I can volunteer at charities all my waking life and give away all my belongings.. Now let's extend this to everyone in existence doing this.. Oh wait.. everyone and no one needs help now.. It is rearranging the chairs on the Titanic as an ethical end.. That doesn't make sense.
Rather, the context is that we were all brought here and have to deal in the first place. Ironically, religion, with all its mythos and bullshit had the function of reorienting people to existential context. Most people in a post-modern mindset only know the context of the small... little screens of discrete information or simply work/home contexts. The whole Big Picture is lost and given perfunctory anything. Yet the Big Picture is what I am advocating we are constantly aware of (to use one of your lauded words). The picture is We are Fucked and to recognize it.. Dark/existential humor is one way to deal with it.. But that's not enough.. It has to be taken to the conference room, the board room, the political sphere and beyond. In other words... We all love to laugh at dark humor until it's time for work or "something X must get done or Y will happen" (getting fired, products being made, output getting outputted.. losing a house).. Banks, and customers, and investors, and consumers, and owners.. need their flesh and they don't give a fuck if you think life is a burdensome whatever.. Our Desires and Demands and Wants and Needs fuck each other over and over.. Humor is lost.. time to put the "nose to the grindstone" and "self-actualize" and "develop one's skills, talents, and usefulness". In other words comply... There is no getting around it.. No Ultimate Compassion Theory that will drowned the situatedness of existence and historical contingency of human life out.
I think Cabrera's understanding of how we are always unethical by our very nature should even be taken into account.. In other words, again, no getting around it.. In a way Possibility, it is similar to your altruistic suicide:
I do know @_db had a whole blog article devoted to Cabrera I think. Maybe he can shed some light?
You’re right, it isn’t inevitable and it isn’t justifiable, but nor is it entirely avoidable. Those of us who do exist are going to suffer to some extent, purely because we interact as dissipative structures. The point is to arrange this dissipative structure in such a way that it effects a reduction in suffering overall, instead of just for this illusion of ‘individual self’. I’m not saying we MUST do this - I’m saying this is how we put the philosophy into practice.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Life IS a case of sacrifice to change suffering, either way. But you orchestrate the overall direction and depth of focus.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You’re trying to predict an endgame, but in the end you’ll always come face-to-face with a contradiction. Have another think about your prediction: ‘everyone and no one needs help now’. Regardless of whether or not it makes sense, how is this a bad thing?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I get this, but what I’ve been trying to explain is that there’s an even bigger picture than what you’re describing. It’s one that explores beyond our desires and demands and wants and needs. And I get that you don’t think there’s anything ‘real’ about that, but the reason we can even describe this Big Picture you’re referring to is because we have the capacity to not only perceive it, but replicate or recreate its political/ideological arrangement using language. And if we can replicate its arrangement, then we can rearrange it, too. The trick is to not just be aware of the Big Picture, but to understand it - how each aspect connects and collaborates, but also where it fails to connect, where it’s ignoring, isolating or excluding information, and how this relates to our desires and demands and wants and needs fucking each other over. Because the problem is that there are serious logical and structural errors in the Big Picture that we’re afraid to dismantle, and it has to do with how WE structure politics, money, potential, value and significance in relation to our desires and demands and wants and needs.
The truth is that NO ONE except you gives a fuck if you think ‘life is a burdensome whatever’ - not even those who say they agree with you. The trick is not to ‘drown out’, but to recognise that our desires and demands and wants and needs are ours alone - they have nothing at all to do with objective reality. Our situatedness, at the end of the day, is the only thing that is NOT shared. This is what the Tao Te Ching is all about: the most useful description of objective reality consists only of everything that wouldn’t give a fuck how we feel about it or how we might affect it - including this aspect in ourselves and in other people. Once we identify this aspect, then we simply relate to it from an understanding of our own unique situatedness (ie. affect), and accept that everyone and everything else will do the same. The Tao Te Ching refers to this aspect as ‘the Way’: not a set of specific instructions, but an inherent directional structure to reality, logical and qualitative, through which all energy (affect) naturally flows.
But the English language doesn’t lend itself to an unaffected description of reality. So, when I use the term pairings of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion, you immediately want to position them somewhere in a SUBJECT-PREDICATE-OBJECT structure. Each of these pairings, however, refer to a relation of quality in a logical structure, and it simply needs our affect. When we add affect to the first structure, for instance, all energy flows naturally either from ignorance to awareness or from awareness to ignorance. You just decide which way you align with it, and it’s pretty clear which is the recommended ‘way’, but it’s easier said than done.
@baker Anyway, I never said buddhism was nihilism. I asked what @schopenhauer1 thought about buddhism and nihilism.
As for the other response you gave I will say the same thing I said to Schopenhauer fellow here … ‘no’ is not a helpful answer for me if am I to understand your position. Why no?
No because …
In a future orientation, yes it can be.
Quoting Possibility
I don't though. You seem to be overlooking the superstructures already in place. The situatedness of the current political, economic, and social arrangement. We went over this. I cannot just will whatever arrangement I want. I am always working on something that is a system that is not what I would have wanted.
Quoting Possibility
Because the endgame is the only one. It is what Schopenhauer's thesis is (and my OP) from the start. That is, it is all dissatisfaction all the way down. It is at the heart of why we are here, why we need help, why there cannot be a utopia. And in my conception, why we can't meditate our way out.
Quoting Possibility
Again, dissatisfaction rules everything. There is no way out. Not in theory, nor in practice. Hence consolation through communal recognition of the situation. Here is a thought experiment:
Scene 1:
"I want bread. I don't want just any generic bread, but a special kind that this store has"..
You go to the store... There is no bread. In fact, the whole shelf is missing bread. You go up to the employee and ask, "Excuse me sir/mam, do you know where I can find the bread?". The employee says, "Hey lady, you seem really nice, so I will tell you.. The bread is in the a box in the warehouse somewhere. I just didn't want to do shit today".. You leave confused and pissed at not getting your bread.
Now one part of you (the rebellious free spirit) is like, "intellectually yeah.. fuck that job.. fuck life's boundaries". The other part of you is like, "Fuck that employee, he's gotta do his job.. if everyone did this, nothing would get done.. which is code for (in this instance).. "Wah wah, my needs and wants will not get met if no one pitches in.
Scene 2:
"I want a house, but I don't want to pay the mortgage"..
Months go by and a bank calls you:
"Excuse sir/mam, we are notifying you of your delinquency in paying the mortgage.."
You tell the bank.. "Hi sir/mam, you sound like a nice loan collector person, but with all due respect to your company.. FUCK OFF!!!"..
A couple more months go by and now they have a lean on your house and an officer enforcing it. You are essentially homeless.
One part of you is (the free spirited rebellious part) goes, "Yeah you tell em!!".
The other part goes, "That was stupid of you.. Now you are homeless and your needs and wants of shelter from the elements, and a place with comfortable surroundings is gone".
Scene 3:
The boss man and a few shitty coworkers harrass you for X, Y, Z..
You say, "You all can go fuck yourselves.. I quit!".
You have no money coming in.. You slowly lose any money you had. You are poor on the streets.
One part of you is, "Yeah free spirit and rebellion"..
The other part is, "That was stupid.. Now you can't pay for the goods and services you need and want".
In other words, all our needs and wants as a consumer, producer, are inextribly tied up in other people doing work. Work that you wouldn't do otherwise unless cohersion from your own needs and wants.. There is a "lack" at the bottom of things that we are all unfortunately a slave to. No rearrangement makes this go away..
Dissatisfaction is the rule.. It is the comply or die in one word. The social-economic-historical arrangement is simply how it is carried out. But the core is still there, putting a proverbial gun to our heads. Cultural mores, expectations, and are simply epiphenomenal social "memes" that simply make it easier to accept the situation. Nothing more.
All of this implicit and inherent forms of dissatisfaction aren’t even touching on the contingent suffering off all the harms that befall us while just contending with the inherent dissatisfaction.
I've never read his works in detail but can agree with the gist of some things.. For example this:
I'd have to read more to be convinced we are in a perpetual "denial of death". Rather, I still think Schop's idea of constant dissatisfaction is at the root of things mainly. But I really like Becker's phrasing "tranqualizing themselves with the trivial". Talk about most of modern workaday and home life!
But again, all stemming from dissatisfaction.. A basic feature of the sentient being. Lacking can be another word for it. Survival-habits can take basic drives (hunger), but then for humans it takes on the form of the enculturation process for sustaining one's metabolism (aka working in an economic system ranging from hunting-gathering to what we see in the "modern"). Comfort-habits.. Wanting to not feel discomfort.. pain in your toe, too hot, too cold, not soft enough pillow, not hard enough bed, not hot enough water to shower, not cold enough water to drink, not clean enough house, not clean enough clothes, not pleasant smelling enough, too much smell... etc. etc. And of course, Entertainment-habits.. I'm bored, I'm going to fiddle around in the garden.. I am going to weed, read, smoke weed, plead, bead, knead, lead, etc. etc. etc. keep mind focused, in flow state, off of bare nothingness.. Mediation is entertainment too.. All of it. Dissatisfaction.
Do you listen to podcasts? Philosophize This is a really nice series. Well presented and gives a nice overlay of different philosophical thoughts and works.
Yes I like that one and the The Partially Examined Life. Another good podcast. That one goes a little more in depth and tries to do a lot of deep dives in the primary sources.
Nice..
My latest posts with @Possibility (still waiting for a response in last post), is that our dissatisfactions create for each other the de facto forced situation of having to at all comply with the agenda of a society (going to work, paying bills, anythign we do for survival and comfort and entertainment within a broader socioeconomic framework..in our society's case), because if we don't, we will die (through slow starvation and depredation or outright suicide). This inextricable nature of life makes it inescapable. There is no end-goal we can achieve here.. Only collective understanding of the dissatisfaction we are all brought into. There is no way out of it. Best not to bring people into it to also be forced to comply or die. That is misguided and potentially immoral to create this situation unto yet another.. To give someone else burdens of life, should be examined and we should all recognize the tragedy of the situation. Instead, we couch birth in terms of "hopes" and "what they will accomplish", "memories they will cherish" and the like.. If life was only this, there would be no problem. But there is always inescapable and significant collateral damage. This, I contend is dangerous because it hides/downplays the costs of birth.. The burdens (the overall dissatisfaction), that will be started upon another person to contend with.. The dictates of life that they will deal with, the contingent harms that are circumstantial but inevitable at various degrees and times..It's a political agenda (of living out life in a certain society) that is being forced unto yet another.. Who either must comply with it, or die a slow death (or kill themselves). This to me is misguided, and callous and disregarding other people's dignity that one feels they should make others endure it.
I basically lay out the stakes of life and being-born-in-the-first place in my profile:
[i]Life has necessary and contingent suffering. Necessary suffering is often considered "Eastern", similar to how Buddhism defines it. That is to say it is a general dissatisfaction stemming from a general lack in what is present. Relief is temporary and unstable. If life was fully positive without this lack, it would be satisfactory without any needs or wants.
Contingent harms are the classic ones people think of. It is the physical harms, the emotional anguish, the annoyances great and small. It is the pandemics, the disasters, the daily grind of a tedious work day. It is the hunger we feel, and the pain of a stubbed toe. It is any negative harm. It is contingent as it is contextual in time/place, and situation. It is based on historical trajectories and situatedness. It is based on the "throwness" (in Existentialism terminology). It varies in individuals in varying amounts and intensity, but happens to everyone nonetheless.
Philosophical pessimism deals with the fact that life has negative value and thus examines the human condition understanding these features. It is similar to atheistic Gnosticism. We are exiled in a way. Antinatalism is often an ethical response to philosophical pessimism, but is not the same thing. Philosophical pessimism often goes with pessimistic dispositions but is also not the same thing. Technically, you can have an optimistic disposition hold claims of a philosophical pessimistic nature such that there is much suffering inherent in life, and can generally agree with such philosophers as Arthur Schopenhauer and their works regarding the striving of human existence and the struggles of negative experiences.[/i]
I have no wish to say much more than that on those topics in this thread.
What you want isn’t as important as you seem to think it is, and is certainly not a reliable foundation on which to structure anything to last. We’re continually constructing a political, economic and social arrangement based on the idea that what we want matters - but it doesn’t matter in the way we’re commonly led to believe. It has meaning, but only relative value. And the problem is that most of us can’t tell the difference, or more likely don’t want to.
The thing is, I am at least potentially capable of choosing my actions according to whatever arrangement I want (and many people do), but it isn’t necessarily going to align with the political, economic or social arrangements that most people are working with. Depending on the differences, my actions might come across as rebellious, ascetic, destructive, criminal, pathological, or just plain nuts.
We’re taught from a very young age to align our conceptual structures with those of our parents, broadening to our social group and influenced by the educational system and prevailing cultural, political, economic and social arrangements, etc in which we are situated. But in reality this current arrangement is only a temporary situatedness - it’s so amorphously constructed that any attempt to render it it may be already outdated to some extent before the ink dries.
The most accurately simple way for me to describe this conceptual reality, interestingly, seems to be, as you say: ‘not what I would have wanted’. It’s a linear relation of value between my conceptualisation and the one in which I am ‘situated’ - much like observable ‘time’ is a linear relation of change between observer and observed (or ‘not what I measured’). But the linear relation is not as accurate as we think. It’s just enough to get by.
So, when we’re done with just getting by and want to get at the truth, we need to recognise that what seems to be a linear relation is in reality much more complex. And I could try to explain this, but I don’t think you’re interested in the complexity, because you don’t seem to want to DO anything.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The only one what? it’s not a bad thing to reach a point where everyone and no one needs help. This is neither utopia nor a way ‘out’ - it’s just a more accurate understanding of reality that isn’t focused on suffering or dissatisfaction as if they’re some affront to all sensibilities.
When your relation to reality is linear, then it always looks like there’s an endgame. Like heat death, or utopia, or escape, or zero value. But the linear structure at this level is heuristic only, like time, or the line we draw to render a beam of light. It’s just an oversimplified indication of direction. Describing the endgame as ‘everyone and no one needs help’ seems meaningless to you because this contradiction appears to have no real logical value. But someone can still act on it, if they choose.
Quoting schopenhauer1
We don’t need to be a slave to lack - we feel it, sure, but it doesn’t own us unless we let it. Lack is just an awareness that ‘individuality’ is false at any level of existence. Any sense of completion is always in relation to something else. And we’re not forced to see ourselves as ‘consumer’ or ‘producer’ - this is all part of an arrangement to which we keep binding ourselves in ignorance - feigning completion in ‘community’ through isolation or ‘teamwork’ through exclusion, with the false notion that we might ‘individually’ appear to suffer less. Rearrangement isn’t about making lack ‘go away’, but about rendering it as a tool, instead of being led around by our own needs and wants as if they have ‘individual’ value to anyone but our ‘selves’.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You claim to be rebelling against this ‘forced agenda’, but all I see here is you perpetuating it, only with a pessimistic slant. We’re helpless, it’s hopeless, we’re powerless, all we can do is accept the situation, or die. This, to me, is the voice of the agenda, the very cultural illusion we keep arranging to protect ourselves in fear of non-existence.
But perhaps our positive vs negative evaluation - this process to render, criticise, redesign and redevelop - is precisely how we’ve been evolving conceptual reality all along, together. Some of us are focused on rendering and criticising, and some of us on redesigning and redeveloping...:smile:
This I believe is just not true unless death. Comply or die. Anything besides immobility would be acting on it so de facto X would be acting on it, and it "owning us".
Quoting Possibility
No that doesn't go together. Lack is an awareness of a feeling of what one doesn't have at the moment. The fact that we are a social animal in order to meet needs is not entailed in that point, though it's entailed in being a human animal.
Quoting Possibility
No context or examples so can't say anything one way or another what you are trying to say.
Quoting Possibility
I'm protecting nothing from non-existence. How am I doing so?
Quoting Possibility
Into what?? It is all the same, no matter what form. Your words have the appearance of meaning, but no context to chew into.
Give me a glimpse of a vision of what your recommendation how to live looks like? Start there. You give me something, I'll show you where it breaks down into the same. That will be this dialogue over and over. You clearly haven't found some way out.. You too are living in the situatedness as much as I am.. You can write here like you are a sage that knows a different way but you don't have one.
There is an old inside joke in Buddhism about Mahayana heaven:
Outside of the heavenly gates, crowds of bodhisattvas bowing to eachother, making a gesture with the hand, saying, "After you!"
Quoting I like sushi
This has already been addressed earlier in the thread. E.g.
Quoting baker
At least theoretically, there is a way out. Early Buddhism proposes it.
This is actually an overstatement. You're assuming a general model, an abstract notion of life -- those 75 years or so that one must somehow get through.
But you don't actually know whether this scenario applies to you, you just take for granted that it does. And perhaps in doing so, you actually make it happen.
An airplane engine could fall on your house and crush you tomorrow. An aneurysm in your brain could burst and off you are in the following hour. You could die in a hundred ways long before you reach those 75 years of age.
Actually, even if you were a deaf, mute, and blind tetraplegic, you could still be in compliance mode. The comply-and-die is first and foremost in the mind.
I want to say more, but I am in too much pain from complications from my injury. I'll try to get back to the forum in a few days.
So much for people easing eachother's suffering.
If you have an answer then that would be a ‘good life’ of a sorts right? Is a ‘sort of good life’ better than a ‘no sort of good life’? If so and your response is it doesn’t matter because we suffer anyway, then you have not made any meaningful distinction between the two.
There’s no point in saying ‘unless death’, because death is undeniable. This whole mantra of ‘comply OR die’ is false: rather it’s AND, and both terms are highly variable in context. When you speak to young people today, they KNOW this. Many of them live daily with suicidal thoughts, so trying to convince them that death is NOT an option only reveals the lie as an attempt to control. And the more we try to control them with this ‘comply or die’ crap, the more they demonstrate just how wrong we are, and in the simplest way available to them. We need to stop pretending these are THE options, and acknowledge that ‘comply’ is just as frighteningly varied, valuable, filled with potential and available as ‘die’ appears to them. Then we can begin to understand just how ignorant we have been.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So, you’re saying that it’s possible to BE ‘complete and whole’, wanting for nothing as an individual human animal? Do you really think that’s true? Lack is a basic quality inherent to EVERY existence. Any feeling in relation to this is based on expectations with regard to ‘individuality’.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I’m not going to recommend ‘how to live’ - that’s as ridiculous as recommending ‘how to die’. Of course you can reduce any observable action to an arbitrary binary value structure of ‘comply or die’. You might as well say 1/0. So, you describe ‘reality’ using 1s and 0s, but that’s a virtual reality that has nothing to do with actual being. Because how you ‘die’ has as much complex and differentiated value, potential and significance as how you ‘comply’. So the relation between 1 and 0 is different for each of us, which effectively renders this basic ‘language’ arbitrarily useless in determining ‘how to live’. It just describes ‘how life appears to be’.
The way I see it, our only universally useful information on ‘how to live’ is a relative sense of direction in a state of ongoing flux. Whenever you come to a crossroad that you recognise as between awareness and ignorance, with whatever time, effort or attention available, turn towards awareness.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I’m not looking for a way out, just a more useful description of ‘the way’, because it’s obvious that ‘comply or die’ is NOT it...
Quoting baker
I notice you’ve written it as ‘comply-AND-die’ - the difference in relation to ‘comply OR die’ is important.
:ok:
Not really. Yes, we die, but it's one or the other at the same time. You either comply or you die. You will die eventually, but at that point, you no longer will be or have to be complying.
Quoting Possibility
Read it again in context. I was saying that to what you said here, somehow entailing lack with "individuality is false".. huh?
Quoting Possibility
Bullshit. You live in the situatedness of history, physics, socioeconomic reality. You can deny it, but I can deny gravity and that wouldn't mean jack shit on its truth.
@schopenhauer1
After a while i decided to take a peek and saw this thread. Read the first couple of pages and saw the usual (funny) shenanigans by certain *..*. Things don't change much, do they.
The avoidance, and consequently the attempt to fill the perceived intrinsic emptiness or call it meaninglessness, that is at the base of human existence, is at the base of all human activity. This is a simple observation, unless the person is in denial and lacks the intestinal fortitude to face facts. Indeed, schopeanhoauer has offered some good things to ponder. My question to you is: I understand he has also talked about the aesthetic experience. If you were to explain it according to your own understanding perhaps supported by some verbatim quotes from him, what's your take? Aesthetic appreciation definitely isn't "entertainment", right? What and where is the distinction?
Then there is the overt problem of sifting through the plethora of transcendental views to find one that seems ‘correct’.
For me life is neither bleak nor wondrous. Ponderous? Certainly seems that way more than anything.
"[i]one day the old woman ventured to say to them:
"I want to know which is worse, to be ravished a hundred times by negro pirates, to have a buttock cut off, to run the gauntlet among the Bulgarians, to be whipped and hanged at an auto-da-fé, to be dissected, to row in the galleys—in short, to go through all the miseries we have undergone, or to stay here and have nothing to do?"
"It is a great question," said Candide.
This discourse gave rise to new reflections, and Martin especially concluded that man was born to live either in a state of distracting inquietude or of lethargic disgust. Candide did not quite agree to that, but he affirmed nothing. Pangloss owned that he had always suffered horribly, but as he had once asserted that everything went wonderfully well, he asserted it still, though he no longer believed it.[/i]"
Quoting I like sushi
The question.....was asking about Schopenhauer's views on the aesthetic experience. It was also asking, how does he distinguish between an aesthetic experience and mere entertainment. He seems to have spoken and written on both. This was the question.
The reason for asking @schopenhauer1 : he seems to have studied Schopenhauer.
The motive for asking the question: an interest to hear Schopenhauer's views. Nothing more, nothing less.
Schopenhauer (THE Schopenhauer) refers to aestheticism as being that which turns away from our inner nature.
The original question to ( OUR Schopenhauer) also included a request for verbatim quotes. If i feel the need to interpret his words, i can do it myself. Thank you for the response. Let's see what (our Schopenhauer) has to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Fuxkinhug
So there is a problem that there is too much to quote! All of Book 3 of The World as Will and Representation can be referenced. But as a start, look at this quote from WWR:
If, raised by the power of the mind, a man relinquishes the common way of looking at things, gives up tracing, under the guidance of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason, their relations to each other, the final goal of which is always a relation to his own will; if he thus ceases to consider the where, the when, the why, and the whither of things, and looks simply and solely at the what; if, further, he does not allow abstract thought, the concepts of the reason, to take possession of his consciousness, but, instead of all this, gives the whole power of his mind to perception, sinks himself entirely in this, and lets his whole consciousness be filled with the quiet contemplation of the natural object actually present, whether a landscape, a tree, a mountain, a building, or whatever it may be; inasmuch as he loses himself in this object (to use a pregnant German idiom), i.e., forgets even his individuality, his will, and only continues to exist as the pure subject, the clear mirror of the object, so that it is as if the object alone were there, without any one to perceive it, and he can no longer separate the perceiver from the perception, but both have become one, because the whole consciousness is filled and occupied with one single sensuous picture; if thus the object has to such an extent passed out of all relation to something outside it, and the subject out of all relation to the will, then that which is so known is no longer the particular thing as such; but it is the Idea, the eternal form, the immediate objectivity of the will at this grade; and, therefore, he who is sunk in this perception is no longer individual, for in such perception the individual has lost himself; but he is pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of knowledge. This, which in itself is so remarkable (which I well know confirms the saying that originated with Thomas Paine, Du sublime au ridicule il n'y a qu'un pas), will by degrees become clearer and less surprising from what follows. It was this that was running in Spinoza's mind when he wrote: Meus aeterna est, quatenus res sub aeternitatis specie concipit (Eth. V. pr. 31, Schol.)[4] In such contemplation the particular thing becomes at once the Idea of its species, and the perceiving individual becomes pure subject of knowledge. The individual, as such, knows only particular things; the pure subject of knowledge knows only Ideas.
So let's analyze this...
There is the "common way of looking at things" that is based on "principle of sufficient reason" (cause/effect/time/space),
and then there is
"Whole power of mind to perception/whole consciousness filled with quiet contemplation of the object". Clear mirror of the object.. no longer separation between perceived and perceiver pure perception of eternal form..
In context, Schop was a variant of platonist mixed with Kant. He believed that this realm of the principle of sufficient reason is akin to the bottom of Plato's divided line.. It is the "corrupt" material world of time/space/cause/effect which is the "representation" or "presentation" that one's subjective will is creating for the person. The will's playground is the world as perceived by us in time/space/cause/effect. But it's the devil's playground because the person caught up in the presentation basically suffers dissatisfaction of a ceaseless need, even it is just to get away from boredom itself.. The pendulum swing of goals/base desires on one end and boredom with existence itself on the other..
Works of great art (he describes his idea of great art in detail), as well as natural beauty can in a sense "elicit" the reality above the divided line.. the one of forms. In other words, it captures the essential nature of the object, what it "really is" outside of time/space/cause/effect.. It elicits the sense not of just perceiving the forms but "knowing it" in some pure way.
Now you might ask how it is a) that there are really forms? How does this fit into his Willing system? It seems shoe-horned and b) How is the feeling elicited by art/nature any different than other forms of feeling coming from the world of Will?
These are two legitimate criticisms of Schopenhauer and perhaps fatal to the his project of shoe-horning Plato.. However, to be charitable we can look to Plato himself...
In Plato there are grades of knowing.. Gnosis I believe was akin to "knowing" the forms not just understanding them in a partial way using our discursive/intellectualized usual manner. It is in some sense not just thinking about, but actually feeling/knowing/becoming one with the form.. It is more than mere appearance and playing around with the ideas and abstractions.. It is "feeling it" in some way beyond that. So where all other forms of thought seem to only get at the thing through intellectualization or through ones desires.. this is kind of a backdoor way of actually getting at the thing.. But it is not through the usual way one would expect of intellectualizing or working your way there.. It must come through acts of will-less contemplation of the object that only natural forms or the genius artist can elicit..
That is the gist of it at least.
Thanks. I will be coming back to this
.Quoting schopenhauer1
What are his ideas of great art?
Why the :ok: ?
The joke is actually a harsh criticism of the idea of postponing one's own enlightenment in favor of others.
Can you copy-paste it? I read the OP again, and don't see that question there.
I think there is a "good life", it's just that I think it's not one directed the usual way, into consumption in the pursuit of sensual pleasures. But, rather, it is one of making an effort to end suffering (not merely reduce it).
What does he mean by "gives up tracing"? He says it in the 2nd line of your quote.
If my last post to you was uncalled for, hopefully you will attribute it to my uncertainty of our very first interaction, and take into account the history of my interactions with some "......." here. And perhaps posting a video during an exchange didn't help. In any case..that's that.
;-)
I think part of the problem is that you're simultaneously holding onto two theories/philosophies which are mutually exclusive. Namely, one the one hand, Schopenhauerian pessimism and on the other, the Theory of Evolution. The two together make for a supertoxic mix.
From an evolutionary perspective, antinatalism is a dead end; antinatalists are evolutionary detritus, they cull themselves out of the gene pool, while evolution, and life, march on, ever on. Antinatalists who adhere to the ToE have no right to complain (or rebel).
By seeing that there are two kinds of suffering:
1. suffering that leads to more suffering,
2. suffering that leads to the end of suffering.
Am I doing your homework or something? Haha, look it up on Book 3! But I'll give you some quotes, but there are just too many comments to give a summary.. Basically music is the most potent art in reflecting being a sort of mirror of Will. Painting/sculptures and such should reflect the form of an object, and not have to be contemplated via a set of synthetic knowledge such as mythical allegories etc. it should simply reflect what it is seeing. Poetry however, can use allegory if it gets to the heart of the tragedy of will human nature or things of this nature.. There's just too much commentary to summarize it. Just read Book 3 of WWR.
The question came up because of what you said. There was no intent to make you work. Thanks.
I don't view evolution quite so cut-and-dry in humans regarding procreation. Procreation becomes a choice, unlike eating food or going to the bathroom. It's something we can choose to carry on. It is simply cultural reinforcement and personal preferences that perpetuate it.
Look at the quote again..
Quoting schopenhauer1
So he is saying the contemplative of art is relinquishing the common way of looking at things, which he qualifies as giving up tracing the relations of the forms of principle of sufficient reason... Explaining this as ceasing to consider the "where, the when, the why, and the whither of things" and looks simply and solely at the what.
Yes, really. Every moment you exist as being, you are also dying, and no amount of compliance can change that. Life isn’t one or the other, but BOTH. You can’t prevent death by complying - all you’re doing is rearranging deck chairs.
You’re confusing a description of ‘what life appears to be’ with a description of ‘how to be’. ‘Comply or die’ assumes that one either appears to ‘comply’ (ie. acts) or chooses ‘death’ (by inaction) in any moment, and assumes that it isn’t possible to do both. But every day, people can and do take a deliberate step towards death while still appearing to comply - without actually dying - right up until that moment when one is no longer... well, appearing to comply, of course. But that’s a completely different moment.
Here’s what I’ve noticed: when you say ‘comply’, you’re talking about perceived potential in terms of observable, quantitative effort. Every act appears to be complicit, regardless of direction. But when you say ‘die’, you’re talking about a perceived outcome or directed attention, describing a qualitative goal based on an observable trajectory. Immobility is apparently aiming to ‘die’, regardless of effort over time. These are non-commutative variables - it isn’t possible to be observing both the momentum and trajectory of an event (being) in the same moment - so it appears as if “it’s one or the other at the same time”, at that point.
This is a perceptual illusion. The world appears to be flat, the solar system appears to be moving around the earth, the universe appears to be a created event that begins and ends, and the agenda (potential) of existence appears to be an ideological conscription to reject the idea of non-being - to comply in direct opposition to dying.
Explorers setting out towards the horizon were heading towards what appeared to be inevitable failure, but was simply the threshold of their understanding. When Jesus set out on a path that would hasten his own suffering and death, it appeared to be inevitable failure, too. No procreation, no dominance, no survival - no immobility, either - and yet, more than 2,000 years later, observations of his life (the structure of his apparent compliance) in relation to his death continue to interact with humanity on a perceptual level, regardless of what we believe. So, too, with the life and death of Siddhartha Gautama as an understanding of apparent inaction, or what Taoism refers to as wu-wei.
So the idea that the potential of existence is bound to its apparent being is false - just as the expanse of the world is not bound by the horizon, the structure of the solar system is not bound by the apparent movement of celestial bodies, and the universe is not bound by the appearance of time. Quantum physics also supports this, in its own way, and makes use of it to direct qualitative attention in anticipation of observable events by calculating the quantitative potential of surrounding interactions.
How we can be is not bound by what life appears to be at any point in time, pessimistic or not. This applies to the moment we die as much as any other.
That depends on your interpretation. The idea of ‘getting through the gates of heaven’ seems to me a misunderstanding of enlightenment in the first place. The joke portrays an incongruity between the Buddhist notion of ‘no-self’ and a self-actualising perception of enlightenment. Given there is no consensus on this in Buddhism, I guess it depends on your perspective, doesn’t it?
Pessimism in its purest form, stated simply, is, the real neither is nor can ever become perfect, and that the ideal is always bound to remain unreal. It thus postulates a complete lack of harmony between the world of facts and the world of ideals.
Sounds like our present mainstream narrative, doesn't it. As an exercise, one can apply the above, to the views they hold (whether they are atheist, theist, materialist, scientist, or whatever labeled box they have boxed themselves in), to find out if they are, or not, a pessimist.
Again, you either are not addressing or are failing to see how we are bound by the situatedness of historical contingency, physics, and socioeconomic realities. Unless or until you address that, we don't have much to talk about. I am not denying change happens in the context of these boundaries.. but that doesn't really mean much for my argument. Rather, it is the fact that our dissatisfaction-nature creates, manifested in the human animal as a historically-grounded, socioeconomic contextualized being, must do X, Y, Z, to survive (comply) or die.. Simple as that. You can pretend otherwise, you can speak soliloquies on whatever, but what you are doing now, after you get off this forum, and just about anything else you do is bound by these conditions.
But it does go together. Lack - as an awareness of feeling I don’t have something - entails EITHER an expectation that I should have it - that there is a wholeness to be had as an ‘individual’ existence, OR an awareness that this feeling is false, and that ‘individuality’ as a whole concept is an illusion. So, which is it?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I’m not denying the situatedness, only your claim of our incapacity in relation to it. Without denying that gravity exists, we can simulate a zero gravity situation. It’s a start. When we understand how to counteract its effects, we’re no longer ‘slaves’ to it - it only appears that we are. Once we understand how to simulate the effects of gravity in situations where it’s lacking, then we won’t be bound by it.
Same with this situatedness - understand how to counteract its effects, then understand how to simulate those effects where it’s lacking. We do this already, with language. All your carry-on about HR management and corporate motivation is exactly that. We’ve been spinning this cultural agenda bullshit to each other for so long now, we don’t even realise that we’re the ones doing it. We’ve drawn so many lines in the sand that we have no clear perspective of the full capacity available to a global humanity in relation to conceptual reality. Instead, we’ve been chasing this myth of ‘individual’ wholeness, as if it’s the answer to all our needs and wants.
Schopenhauer recognised the egoistic ‘individual’ as illusion, and saw interconnectedness or compassion, aesthetic contemplation and asceticism as ways to relate this world as representation (what appears to be) with the world as will (how to be). It is in these temporary, will-less states, free from striving and suffering, that we can perceive the potential of this world as will, and the way to be laid out before us. We then simply need the courage and understanding to choose that way despite the striving and suffering of what life appears to be. Easier said than done, granted. Still, the way isn’t hidden from us, and we’re not entirely incapable of following it.
While these are good points, I think that the dissatisfactory nature of being is providing the why as to why the realities don't met the ideals. Rather, it was never going to be ideal. It was always set up for dissatisfaction from the start. In fact, our very being born itself was a result of dissatisfaction of a human not born previously, or perhaps a night of passion, again, drives of dissatisfaction pleasure not had now leads to a whole lifetime of dissatisfaction, and it continues.
We survive by manipulating tools and passing on these technologies through storage of this information through cultural means via language... Language itself applied with the general ape learning processes our ancestors inherited being the mechanism by which we can abstract concepts to make tools in the first place.. But somehow this confers that because of novel tricks (artistic genius, technological innovations, complexity itself in all our processes of social arrangements and how we interact with the environment), there is meaning in this beyond the dissatisfaction. Don't get tricked by the accidental and look at the essential nature.
This is a false dichotomy.. so I don't buy the straw man you are knocking down.
Quoting Possibility
Is this a justification for birthing more people? No. Because the agenda is real.
Quoting Possibility
So I think you are missing my point completely. Did. you. read. the. Willy. Wonka. discussion? The reason I ask, is that is basically my start with this particular argument we are having. There are options, but on closer inspection, those options are much more limited.. For example, I can't not comply with the dictates of life because I will die.. We are bound to a certain extent to the realities we are born into. The capacity for change or variety doesn't negate the boundaries that we are born into as humans. Don't sugar coat the picture. Don't romanticize it. Don't try to sublimate it. Certainly don't try to obfuscate it.
Quoting Possibility
Right right, be an ascetic monk/saint whatever. I admire Schopenhauer and agree with him on his general evaluation, but I said right in the OP this:
Quoting schopenhauer1
So no, there is no where to go, nothing to do, nothing to see, nothing to be. But ironically, that includes the achievement of "no-thingness" of the whole ascetic enterprise, which I question as anything that is real or achievable or even necessary. Schopenhauer was an ardent platonist (infused with Kantian concepts). That is, there are some "grades" of "being" beyond the material. That brings up a whole other discussion on what "gnosis" is in ancient Platonic thinking, etc. He had ideas of "Ideas" that are somehow existent "beyond" material reality.. in the realm of pure Idea/form.. and that one can "access" this in some way through acts of will-lessness like "art", "compassion", and "ascetic practice". Yet, the whole scheme of "higher reality" I question.. As much an admirer I am oh Schopenhauer, it doesn't mean I think he is beyond questioning. He thought long and hard about the most important things (human condition, existential stuff, etc.) but this doesn't mean he is absolutely correct in all his conclusions.
In this case, I think he was too optimistic, oddly enough.. That Plato for him allowed an "escape hatch" whereby we can get "true glimpses" of some other "sublime reality".. if only temporary.. and that meditation and asceticism somehow will bring about even more "sublime glimpses" and for the ascetic who goes all the way (suicide via starvation?) they have achieved the ultimate escape.. Buddhist-parallels for sure. But this does not mean that this conception of "true glimpses" are correct. They seem to me to be romanticized ideas of feelings we get when we encounter certain things.. We might feel awe or a sense of amazement looking at something, or listening to something.. We might feel a sense of sincere compassion with someone's suffering, and we might have a sense of our own constant desires by meditation techniques.. But these I believe are not somehow connected through a higher gnosis of "will-lessness". They are just discrete feelings that are part of our reactions to various concepts and stimuli.. I don't give them any more divine status beyond that.
In my previous post I was simply making of note of what true pessimism postulates.Not arguing about its benefits or shortcomings. Nor giving any advice or prescriptions.
Maybe i will take the liberty of making a short note on the things you have said to @Possibility
Its good you are questioning and doubting everything, but hopefully you are also questioning and doubting yourself. Especially, the value/meaning/ "status" you give to everything and yourself. Both the values, and the e-valuer. Therein is the repository of tricks as well as the trickster.
AGAIN - NOT arguing for birthing more people. There is no point in bringing this into our discussion.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I’ve already commented on Willy Wonka. Go back and read what I’ve written. Your ‘closer inspection’ on these options is to view them as limits of being, and yet you won’t do the same for acts of compliance - which, by the way, are subject to the same limits. It’s the ‘because’ that implies a false relation. I will die, whether I comply with the dictates or not - that’s the reality of being. Compliance/non-compliance changes the overall arrangement or relational structures of being, not the limits. But our awareness of structures of potential enables us to rewrite the agenda, changing the conditions of our compliance. Our overall arrangement of being is much different now than it was a thousand years ago, because the agenda has changed. Human reasoning has changed it. And we’ll continue to change it.
What Schopenhauer argues is that this agenda increasingly prioritises the false notion of an ‘individual’ will, which leads us to strive and suffer for an ideal that is fundamentally unattainable. This priority is due to the conditions or limits of sufficient reason that Kant described. Schopenhauer proposed the world in itself as will: the faculty by which all actions are determined and initiated. Both Kant and Schopenhauer point to the need for an additional Copernican turn that Darwin’s work enables, de-centring the human experience of being (what appears to be) as a mere participant in the unfolding universe, rather than its central, invariable observer.
But neither Kant nor Schopenhauer were able to recognise that the tense-dependent structure of language, in describing the world as representation according to subject-predicate-object, is insufficient to accommodate a full correlation of the faculties of human reason (logic, ideas and affect) in developing a predictive relational structure of the potential world as will, without a reliance on being for empirical testing. It’s not our reasoning that limits us, but this reliance on an outmoded language structure that appears to ‘force’ the agenda, to produce more ‘individual’ observers in being.
Carlo Rovelli points out that grammar in language structure fails to account for an experience of reality in which ‘now’ for me might occur in the past for someone/something else. He proposes that the world as representation be more accurately described as interrelating events in potentiality, rather than as ‘individual’ subjects interacting with objects in ‘time’. No central, invariable observer, just events that change in relation to each other. The world as will - the faculty by which all actions are determined and initiated - makes sense in relation to how these events change in relation to each other, and can be arranged as a distribution of effort and attention over time, adhering to the ultimate limits of being without reference to an ‘individual’.
This only seems pessimistic if you’re hung up on the illusion of the ‘individual’, which it appears that you are.
Besides being a bunch of word salad this is just ridiculous. You are making a whole bunch of logical errors. You conflate what something might be composed of for what it is. For example, we may be just strings or subatomic particles and forces, that doesn’t mean that this, I’m not a body and mind because the “real bits” are “really” these smaller components. Same with the idea of social learning and cultural change. Just because “we” are part of a changing social arrangement or dynamic or that we learn by social means largely, doesn’t mean there is no individual whereby no one actually is doing the thinking, decision-making, who feels, who is the person writing this right now.
Don’t confuse the mechanisms for the phenomenon itself. That is something akin to or a kind of genetic fallacy.
No this is taking the point out of context. Rather the compliance is how we live when we are not dead. There can’t be non-compliance, lest death. Because we die eventually doesn’t negate how living works when still alive. Willy Wonkas Forced Game is also invariable to social relations…it is the same general thing…communism, capitalism, hunting gathering whatever.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Whatever social contingency you are brought into, that is the agenda you are dealt. The agenda, no matter the current social arrangement is the same for the individual who has to survive within it.
The context is people are here and more people will come. Eventually there will be no more people. None of this is ‘moral’.
We are alive. Life necessarily contains some degree of suffering/discomfort. To negate all suffering means to negate all life. I don’t view reality as ‘moral’ anymore than a view a rock as ‘moral’.
What does this have to do with ‘boredom’ anyway? We exist. You asked what we should do in the face of the existential crisis in the OP. What do you think we should do and why?
??
Where did you get that??
No. From what I've seen, insiders understand it immediately to be about the idea that one should "postpone" one's enlightenment in favor of "helping others".
It's a belief that the blind are nevertheless fully qualified to lead the blind and to be trusted (blindly).
Mahayana criticizes Theravada for being "selfish", for not caring about others, and only focusing on one's own development. Theravada points out the folly and the danger of the blind leading the blind.
I brought this up in reference to your proposition that we should help others, even at the expense of our own lives. It's an absurd proposition that serves no other purpose but to bolster one's ego.
It's certainly convenient to frame it that way, it makes it easy to criticize it.
The antinatalist's particular socio-economic situatedness makes the antinatalist unfit to procreate, but it says nothing about the procreative fitness of other people or about procreation per se.
Once we introduce particular socio-economic situatedness, all notions of egalitarianism or universalism (things that would be true for all people) are off the table, and we are firmly in eugenics.
There are people who have procreated and who really do not have any compunctions about it. People who are fit to live, fit to procreate.
The kind of general antinatalism you're advocating is not compatible with the Theory of Evolution.
No I'm not comparing Willy Wonka to the universe, but procreating the agenda of what human affairs generally outlined consists of, onto another person. That is to say, don't force your agenda (to follow Willy Wonka's Forced Game) onto another person, because you deem it good or permissible. That is a forced agenda that others (the child born) must pay the consequences for. If you want to enact an agenda, do it on yourself.
And yes, to negate all suffering, negate all life.. But we can work at the margins.. To negate suffering for at least something we can prevent, we can prevent procreating another person.
Quoting I like sushi
This came out of what to do.. Part of the recommendation was preventing future suffering. The other half was building collective realization of our suffering.. Like non-religious communities of realization of the pessimism... It should be talked about all over.. and communities of consolation created post haste.. Instead of (tacitly) optimistic ones of X, Y, Z "project" we should have communities recognizing our existential position. As I was explaining to Possibility, it is about understanding our context and realizing it.
:up:
No, it's about the limits. No matter what else you do, you're a lifeform that requires oxygen. There is no way around that. This is what living in this body is defined by, and it carries with it a number of other givens.
No, the agenda has always been the same, only its external manifestation varies according to circumstances.
Riiight, the good old "no man, no problem" solution to all of life's problems!
Eugenics is people forcing certain groups not to procreate and forcing others to do so. Not quite the word to use. Antinatalts are not "eugenics"ing themselves. If this is about birth control, there are so many types and they are widely available all over the world. It may be more about education more than anything, as well as "traditional" values.
Yes!
Quoting baker
Exactly.
Quoting baker
Exactly... You see, you're not suffering, cause "you" don't exist :roll:.
In the past, and implicitly still now, there were whole categories of people who were not supposed to marry and/or procreate.
Soldiers and servants, monks and nuns, for example.
I think part of the problem is that we are now under the dictature of sameness, an absolute egalitarianism ("everyone is supposed to have the same basic goals in life, having children being one of them"), even though this is a historical novum.
Yeah good point. I mentioned earlier the idea of minutia-mongering. When focused on the minutia, the big picture becomes negated. The minutia can get over more convoluted. The only thing that is acknowledged for "big picture" are various goal-posts people set which vary somewhat depending on society.. but can be roughly the same.. some sort of education goal or community enculturation goal (in the last remaining real tribal societies that exist), career goals (or full community participation goals in tribal societies), relationship goals (marriage, long-term relationships), and personal growth goals (mostly modern societies really but perhaps something similar going on in tribal). Then within these, are simply minutia.. For the modern societies it is where you are going for vacation, how you are going to clear out the weeds in your garden, mow the lawn, meet a friend for drinks at poker night, and all the rest. For the homeless man, sure it's going to be more immediate needs (and possibly illicit addictions in some cases). So yeah, we are fucked in terms of some sort of coming together, even in small communities to recognize the pessimistic context. The minutia dominates many people's thoughts.
Oddly enough, religion acted to reorient people to big picture stuff, but using the wrong methods and often for the wrong reasons.
Anatta.
:chin:
What is it exactly that's wallowing in ennui?
Pessimism would mean our worst fears would be realized. What's worse than finding out you (the self) are(is) but an illusion - the self doesn't exist (re Cotard's delusion)? If so, there's absolutely nothing that could ever gets bored!
Is boredom just another way of stating cogito ergo sum: In (broken) English, I bored, therefore I exist?
Though it's addressed to Possibility.. I would like to reiterate again the fallacy of mixing the components of the phenomenon for the phenomenon itself. Even if "self" was an illusion, the reality of "self" in the construct of a human doesn't go away by simply "realizing" this (if that is even true in the first place that we are an illusion, whatever that means). Thus yes, the Cogito does make sense in this situation. There are certain realities that one can't, by fiat of argument, make go away, and thus try to push through as some proof of non-suffering (or "really suffering") for the sake of argument.
I’m not talking about divine status or ‘higher reality’, only metaphysics. And I’m not talking about escape, either. It’s an opportunity to increase awareness of reality. I don’t see asceticism as an escape but a learning process - not to simply cope with the striving, but to understand it from a perspective beyond mere appearance, as we do with everything else.
Exploring the effects of non-compliance and suffering on being is a learning process. Deliberately approaching the limits of being confirms our capacity for non-compliance, and with that the variability of the agenda as it stands. Likewise, recognising the variability of our being, our capacity to be affected simply by looking at or listening to something, points to information available in experience that isn’t accurately subsumed under concepts such as ‘awe’ or ‘amazement’, and awaits to be understood.
The idea that what we feel in relation to the world has little to no bearing on our understanding of the world is ignorant, at best. Kant’s third critique showed that qualitative ideas and affect contribute to reason alongside logic, but this aspect of his work is too often ignored or dismissed. Schopenhauer’s writing on aesthetics, too, deserves far more serious attention than it gets. And your own tendency to legitimise negative feeling but dismiss any positive ones as ‘romanticised’ just goes to show how significant feeling is in philosophy, despite attempts to downplay it to suit the argument. Having excluded all positive affect (for no reason other than a preference for pessimism), your structure of potential appears binary, as arousal (comply) vs valence (die). But it’s literally only half the picture. Without positive valence, there is no attention to new information, and you really are stuck - in your intentional ignorance, isolation and exclusivity.
Indeed, this is one of the many instances when the mind/brain is at war with itself. I sometimes feel that our brains/minds have installed on them a software package that's internally inconsistent/incompatible. Glitches like this are symptomatic of such.
No, anatta is not "no self".
We've been over this.
I mean I did call it a technique to help cope, so you are building straw men for things I didn't say in my OP...So in that regard, I can kind of see it as a coping mechanism- a technique for the mind, as I mentioned in the OP.
Quoting Possibility
Yeah but ya know what.. you still have to eat, get comfortable, and entertain the mind. It's not, "thus these experiences and everything else in life is negated as a result". Again, no escape hatches.. So you are just reaffirming what Schopenhauer already explained, and not adding much. Since I already explained my position, this pretty much puts the argument back to nothing new advanced.. so moving on.
Quoting Possibility
Again, just because one beholds what one deems as beautiful or listens to something that moves them (all things that are complicated phenomenon requiring a combination of cognitive faculties and cultural-related things at play.. not just something that automatically "elicits" feelings from the Platonic aether), doesn't negate Willy Wonka's Forced Agenda we all have to play. It's not a matter of "because there is positive, thus the other is justified".
Quoting schopenhauer1
Old habits die hard.
It's part of the development of the human animal to develop a "self". Unless you are trying to pose some sort of evidence of extreme Sapir-Worff hypothesis whereby societies can or have existed which somehow have gotten rid of the self, this would be universally wrong.. It is part of the human animal.. We have language which allows for self-reference.. I am doing this.. you are doing that we are doing this and that and on and on. The way we function is having selves that make decisions an operate in a social and physical environment. The self-referential part, seems to entail this division whereby this body with this experience is "doing stuff" in the environment that is not this body and experience, but interacts with this body and experience in ways often predictable, unpredictable, wanted, unwanted, etc.
Life in this world is about dominance.
Antinatalists are simply losers, weaklings.
I would ask though that if the idea is to ‘prevent further suffering’ then death is the only way UNLESS you believe that suffering can be lived with and/or reduced/dispersed during life.
I don’t see ‘suffering’ as necessarily a ‘harmful’ thing. Black comes with white and comes with black. I don’t see how one side exists without the other nor do I see doing away with both (or aiming at that) to be anything at all.
It is this underlying issue that seems entwined around buddhism and is why I am not exactly in favour of certain buddhist factions. It is too much like living can be viewed as living as a zombie or as if life itself is illusionary. The ‘illusionary’ part is okay to some degree because the life we perceive is mostly a human life not some intrinsic connection to ‘the things in themselves’ and we live in a culturally defined cooking pot … so even the Schopenhauer ideas are build upon the vast waste of nothingness … the pointlessness, but we never see the pointlessness directly or we wouldn’t move.
We ‘live’. Why? No one knows. I think ‘why?’ as a serious question about this is quite meaningless if anything it meaningless.
On second thoughts a clarification seems to be necessary for the above.There is a chance of it being misunderstood. The 'you' in the post should be read as part of the 'we'.
Well you can stop commenting on my posts then.. Simple as that. I don't need you to police what I am saying. Or clutch at your pearls when I say them. I'm being very charitable even answering your non-question questions.
Quoting I like sushi
So you obviously don't pay attention to what I am saying, because I am arguing against this idea of "illusory" phenomenon. The self is intrinsic to being an enculturated human.. one with the capacities we have. And so you are arguing with a straw man and not me.. So stop.
Quoting I like sushi
Um, we live because we basically fear death and are prone to habituating to what we are used to (being alive). Unless in terrible pain, we basically run on the default of doing the same as we did. The routine. But, that aside, I am saying simply we must recognize, communally the dissatisfaction at the root of why we do anything at all. The motivation behind why we do the routines around survival, discomfort, and entertainment. We are lacking in something present that drives us to the goal/basic need. We lack a fulfillment, and what we relieve it with is temporary and unsustainable. And thus Schopenhauer's quote about if life was of positive value, we would want for nothing. We wouldn't have dissatisfaction. But of course it isn't like that.
I can't argue that dominance is a factor. People who are aggressive and assertive often do get their way.. The meek often don't inherit the earth. People, however, can be able to understand what is going on, even if just a few can really recognize it for what it is.
I agree with your prior statement that it is our usefulness that is really sought after. "What can you do for me".. Because we are, by way of being alive, put in a position where we have to be useful to ourselves and others to survive. It is part of the burdening of the "dealing with" that we are born into in the first place. It's part of the forced game.. the burdens to overcome.
Or simply overpower others. Understanding what is going on is overrated, for the most part.
You'd need to show that understanding really does make a difference, a relevant difference.
If we count it as living together without exploiting one by burdening them, perhaps it can. I am not optimistic about my project either. All I have is antinatalism as a post-facto action. The whole, "do something while we live part" is not something I am sure will be of much difference. I just proposed something for those who say, "what besides antinatalism as a result?". To be charitable to my own proposal though I can try to outline a few things that can "make a difference" if that really means much in this inescapable situation:
1) Try burdening people with less. Just as we were burdened with the dissatisfaction-overcoming of being born at all, perhaps we can try to not put too many burdens on others.. Too many demands. Too many ultimatums.. Too many musts.. Of course this is never unavoidable with the Game (lest death) so it is only to lessen, it can never be to make go away completely all demands on others, obviously.
2) Try using humor, especially shared cynical humor when doing tasks that are unpleasant.. Like making the unpleasant task known as a shared hatred amongst peers that must deal with the task.
3) Try to tread lightly.. don't be aggressive with others, dominant, etc. This is what got us here in the first place.. people aggressively pursuing their agenda.
4) Shared consolation of suffering.. complain and listen to others complaints. Be sympathetic to them and perhaps feel a sense of community in sharing the burdens and the dissatisfaction-overcoming process.
You think I have been reading every post? No.
Stop what? Trying to find somewhere we can have a discussion … no I won’t. We do not have to agree on one point to have a discussion about something else.
I’ll skip over the rest of the weird snipes at me and put it down to … you can fill in the blanks with whatever.
Content in last paragraph …
Quoting schopenhauer1
Here is where I see the problem. Life as a ‘positive value’? What does that even mean. If we didn’t have ‘dissatisfaction’ we would not be living beings. So what? How does stating that if we didn’t have anything to do, nothing to work for, no need to try and survive, then we would be dead make any kind of sense as either a ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ value?
This literally makes no sense whatsoever to me. Life contains value. That is how we are able to attribute ‘value’ - by being alive. No life means no value whatsoever as there is no evaluation of anything by anything. The fact that we can value things means we attribute both positive and negative value to items. Not existing means absence of value NOT something either ‘positive’ or ‘negative’.
Lived experiencing viewed as negative or positive. Life itself is neither a negative nor a positive item but living is most certainly both of these.
I a not straw manning you here at all. I am presenting, as best I can, my thoughts on this matter. So PLEASE take them as they are and quiz/correct where you feel you need to. I am not hear to learn from you I am here to learn full stop so drop the ego … it is depressing and tiresome if all you give are barbs on barbs.
The negatives or dissatisfaction can also come from a loss of fulfillment (like the consumption of the water in one's body leading to thirst), so I don't think that the negatives are more fundamental or more important. Schopenhauer was wrong because the lack of absolute perfection has no bearing on the fact that life can still have more than adequate value for countless sentient beings despite of the harms they have faced. Something could be positive yet still deplete due to usage (for another positive) without losing its significance entirely. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction vary for each individual and can often be multi-faceted. It's undeniable that life has many harms that we should try to reduce/eliminate (and reckless procreation is one such negative), but it can also have inimitable value for many people. Individuals facing seemingly insuperable problems, like the man in the iron lung, continue to find a value that transcends the very real issues they do face. I have also experienced a relatively small version of this when, in spite of suffering from various illnesses, the company of a loved one could end up overshadowing the pain and misery I felt. Of course, this is unfortunately not the case for all, which is why do believe that there should be a liberal right to a dignified exit.
Your points are quite good. We should definitely strive to minimise unnecessary harms (and pointless needs for superficial pleasures). To me, this is a good way to strengthen the positive that never dies and help provide momentum to the process of preserving and increasing fulfillment.
May you have a fantabulous day/night ahead!
A genuine attempt to look for clarity and some common discussion to be had cannot be framed as ‘straw manning’.
If I was to ask you a question and then share my thoughts on the matter is my sharing my thoughts ‘straw manning’ … no. What else I to conclude? The ego is out. The defence is up. Maybe I am wasting my time trying again.
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. I have read Schopenhauer enough to know a fair bit about his views and I am curious as to why this person is fixated on him (not interested in antinatalism though because we have been there before and it was a brick wall). This whole dissatisfaction and boredom thing though is something that interests me because it is at the heart of existentialism.
Probably should read a few..
Quoting I like sushi
Because you came into the discussion saying, "I don't get this illusion business" when I am in the midst of telling other posters how I don't believe in this idea of illusion as any great way of trying to deny that there is a self.. So you were out of context of the other discussions taking place.
The other "snipes" were because when I give you my answer of antinatalism you say, "don't go there". Well then, don't ask..
Quoting I like sushi
Because he didn't say that. He posed a counterfactual.. if existence did not entail dissatisfaction. It is an impossibility, but doesn't mean it isn't something that one can't conceptually pose as a question. The point is to inform not what that looks like (because we can't even really understand that), but simply to point to how this existence is not that, but is indeed characterized by the opposite.. that is, dissatisfaction.
Quoting I like sushi
He didn't say "non-existing" but giving a counter-case of what is the current state of affairs.. A different kind of existence.. at least from a conceptual standpoint, even if we can't really "understand" it being that it's not in our reality.
However, one of my themes is to not create dissatisfaction for more people. Don't put more people in the situation of being dissatisfied.. and having to overcome it. Don't force an agenda onto another, because you think this that or the other about it yourself.
Quoting I like sushi
It is straw manning when you take a position I actually oppose (that somehow it is all illusion so we don't "really" exist), and then claim it as what I am saying.. Don't confuse me, schopenhauer1 with Schopenhauer.
The difference in opinion here seems to lie in the term ‘illusion’. He didn’t say what I said … true. I said it though. The fact remains that value is a property of the living not the dead. Value is actually the very measurement of ‘dissatisfaction’ as you put it. Agree? If not why not?
I am interested in why ‘dissatisfaction’ is ‘negative’ or ‘positive’. I do not see that it is necessarily Can be one or the other. If the ‘dissatisfaction’ is striving for something forever, and also a necessary facet of living, then living contains striving always. If there is a ‘better way to live’ then there is a ‘better way to live’.
Creating ‘more dissatisfaction’ is bad or good? Why or how is it or good or bad? These kinds of questions are where I see fault in what is being said. What Schopenhauer says (the actual one) is nothing because he is dead. He is no longer dissatisfied by anything because he no longer is. He has no negative nor positive take on anything for the same reason.
We are always striving/dissatisfied. Yes. What can we do about it? Nothing other than die if our wish is to cease living - which we will do anyway. Naturally I can understand the position ‘why live at all?’. Meaning is a strange thing we constantly seem to be clutching for even though we really know that it is unobtainable if not a complete lie.
May you have a nice day!
Doesn’t mean there is, either. It’s a concept that’s entirely constructed from perceived value/potential/significance in relation to an ongoing sensory event. This ‘individual’ is an heuristic device that enables us to use language in describing, discussing and rearranging a relative structure of potential that determines and initiates an actual relational structure of ongoing thinking, feeling and decision-making in the variable form of a living human being. But ‘individuality’ as a feature of this structure of potential is, on closer inspection, found to be false. It’s a useful idealisation - tied to cardinality as a matter of meaning - to simplify our conceptual framework and predict/discuss behaviour.
The structure itself is real, the quality of individuality is pure imagination - wishful thinking on our part. If only we could each just BE meaningful in ourselves...
A Buddhist monk once told me this:
Question: Is there a self?
Buddhism: Neither yes nor no!!!
Analyze that!
Epistemological/Ontological stance? Unknown (to me)!
It kinda brings on confusion, such an answer, but the state desired seems to be a kind of aporia (bewilderment) and then onto ataraxia (calm bafflement).
Some interpret it this way, sure. Doesn’t mean they’re correct, just because they’re ‘insiders’. That’s like assuming Christian fundamentalists understand the bible correctly.
It highlights a fundamental disagreement within Buddhism, though - and there is no standard doctrine or interpretation that resolves it, as evident by the Mah?y?na vs Therav?da criticisms back and forth. It comes down to this question of ‘individuality’ that is at the heart of these discussions. Is there more value in attaining individual enlightenment - non-existence - or in reducing suffering across existence overall? So yes, it does depend on your perspective. Because there is meaning in both.
Not sure what a ‘no-self’ approach to reduction in suffering has to do with bolstering one’s ego. The value/expense of one’s ‘own’ life is unquantifiable - it’s inseparable from a relation to others. Nor do I see how ‘individual’ enlightenment through ignorance, isolation and exclusion reduces anything more than the appearance of suffering in relation to the ‘individual’, who then effectively ceases to exist.
We are all blind until the moment we attain enlightenment, at which point we are no longer in a position to lead. This is the dilemma we face.
It is funny how people confuse leading out of a bad situation to putting people in the situation in the first place so that they can lead them out. I'm not saying you are doing that, but surely that is and has gone on trillions of times over. I'm trying to prevent the latter situation. I don't want people to even have to lead people from X to Y, or from ignorance to enlightenment, or whathaveyou. I certainly don't want people to follow Wonka's "loving" agenda of which way to survive, get more comfortable, and overcome dissatisfaction.
The problem is akin to being in a sleep and then getting woken up, but never being able to sleep again. Don't wake the person up in the first place. Don't create the burdens so that they now have to be lead out of it. That's part of what I am getting at.
Hence my other recommendations:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Oh, for crying out loud...
I didn’t say it was a ‘bad’ situation - it’s a situation. Most people prefer to be blind, to be led around by ‘forces’ they can complain about. They’d rather have a boss they hate than acknowledge they can change their situation. They deliberately reduce perception of potential, arranging and defining their situation so it appears as if they have no choice. They harp on about how their life sucks, and gravitate towards those who feel the same, sharing consolation of suffering, using cynical humour etc. They ignore or belittle anyone who proposes an alternative, and they take great pride in pointing out how every opportunity to change just appears to be more of the same. It’s a crab in the bucket scenario.
Yet, you have offered no real solution other than words like "connection, collaboration, and awareness". Funny how easy that part is. Vague notions are a dime-a-dozen.
There is not "time out" in this game. There is no pause. There is only game over. It can ever and only be played in real time. That disqualifies it as moral.
And I haven't even TOUCHED the idea of contingent harm. This is all so far about the inherent necessary harm of simply being at all (the survival-dissatisfaction thing). Now put on top of that the contingent ways which people suffer as they play this game-in-real-time.. and fogettaboutit.. It totally disqualifies as moral. Suffering all around and then there are the gaslighting pimp salesmen who try every way they can to sell it as your fault/problem/deficit with not embracing it. Not denying what they see well enough. Not willing to take it as "win some/lose some".. "no pain, no gain" and all the rest. You see, YOU are not a person.. YOU aren't getting screwed.. Keep looking at the watch going back and forth.. that's right.. you are getting very sleepy...
See here for good example of cynical humor ;).
Because there IS NO one-size-fits-all, ‘concrete’ solution. Because everyone’s situation is different, and changes all the time. Because any step-by-step instruction manual for life is going to be relevant to only those whose situation is identical to yours was.
These are not vague, pie-in-the-sky notions, though. They are the basic switches to change any situation, and are most effective when it appears there is nowhere to go, nothing to see, nothing to do. These three switches - ignorance/awareness, isolation/connection and exclusion/collaboration - are how we engage with the world as will; NOT the world as representation.
Language describes the world as representation, so any ‘concrete’ examples I attempt to give will just seem to be more of the same. And my efforts to get into the science that supports the metaphysics is just ignored or dismissed as ‘word salad’, so clearly that’s going over your head. I’m actually at a loss as to how else I can present this, but I’m also getting the sense that you’re not really interested in what you claim to be asking in the OP. You don’t really WANT to know ‘what is one to do?’ because you prefer this situation of vocal pessimism - it gives you a sense of purpose to take the moral high ground against existence...:chin:
That’s right. Better than tacit whatever else it is that’s going on when not examining life (aka not understanding what’s actually going on).
Sleep apnea is a microcosm of the gaslighting situation. You see here is a problem that one’s esophageal tissue is in the business of actively suffocating yourself at night. But eh, now we have a “solution”, the CPAP machine to shove up your face to allow proper breathing. So to get this, you go to the sleep doctor and have electrodes put on you while you sleep in a monitored hospital bed for 8 hours. They see all the lack of sleep and pauses in breathing, and you are prescribed an expensive machine to wear over your mouth and nose every night to help you breathe.
You might say, “Look at that! We can find solutions to so many problems!”.
But the problem is having the problem to overcome in the first place. It is this moral disqualification of being presented with problems to overcome in the first place, that I will never let go. You can play pretend all you want that self is an illusion. Pretend at being some Eastern sage. But the reality is it is the individual dealing with these things. You can try to twist the logic in wordplay but that’s it. Whether you say it is an illusion matters not because there is still the first person protagonist getting suffocated. The obvious fact that we have to work together to solve problems doesn’t make the individual self disappear either, nor does it negate the fact that the problem existed the first place to be overcome. This misguided notion is that overcoming itself means is good when in fact it’s just the opposite. It’s people being forced to face overcoming dissatisfaction.
No, the appearance is the ‘individual dealing with these things’. For you, it seems, the world as representation is the reality, being oppressed by the world as will, in the form of an ‘agenda’. This seems to directly contradict Schopenhauer...?
Describing the situation as ‘the first-person protagonist is getting suffocated’ provides no information that would enable one to relieve suffering. The issue I have is not with the language, but the depth of awareness. Either way, you’re describing the situation from an exclusive, isolated and ignorant perspective. To reduce the suffering, it helps to be aware of what’s going on inside the body, how these systems connect to the suffocation, as well as how that affects both the quantitative and qualitative potential of the world as will. In other words, recognise that the individual is just one minor aspect of a far more complex situation, and find ways we can collaborate with the many aspects that contribute to the situation.
And wearing an expensive machine while you sleep addresses individual ‘survival’ at the expense of more qualitative aspects of life, so that’s about as far from my position as you can get. A ‘problem’, narrowly described, can ‘appear’ to be solved from one perspective, only to create new ‘problems’ in the process.
But I’m not proposing ‘a solution’, and if you were paying any attention to what I’ve been writing here (apart from how it appears to contradict your position), you might see that. I’m not saying ‘we have to work together to solve problems’, either - that’s only a narrow perspective of collaboration. Situations appear as ‘problems’ relative to a perspective. The human mind is capable of understanding the reality of a situation from a number of different perspectives and at various different levels of awareness, and prioritising one of these over another is merely a preference on our part, not a necessity.
I get that morality seems vitally important to you, and it bothers you that I won’t assume a moral stance in this discussion, let alone construct a definable (concrete) position so you can orientate yourself in opposition. But morality refers to observation, not determination. Someone must act before morality can be evaluated, so it will always be based on observable past action - ignoring variable intentionality, and excluding unobservable action as well as inaction. Morality is focused on identifying an action/event in isolation from its temporal context as an observation, and reducing what is a complex value structure into something to DO or NOT to do.
Ethics is about how shared systems of intentionality, based on complex value structures, determine and initiate relational structures of change, regardless of observation. But the majority of our ethical systems and structures rely on observation and identification of ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ events. What continues to be presented in this discussion is that both suffering and procreation are not immoral events in themselves, even though there are unethical aspects to some of our systems of intentionality that determine and initiate them.
This being the case, the aim is not to exclude these events from individual systems of intentionality, but to understand how our complex value structures form, and to rearrange them so that they generate more ethical systems of intentionality, which would reduce immorally determined or initiated suffering and procreation, regardless of observation. Given that our complex value structures are neither inherent nor forced, but rather form relative to our unique situation and in necessary relation with others, there seems to be no one-sized-fits-all system of intentionality that can be described in terms of either ideology or morality.
There is, however, a logical and qualitative process that underlies all systems of reality. Any relational structure of change in existence naturally follows this fundamentally non-conscious process, regardless of observation or intentionality. But there has been no simple way to describe this process that enables consciousness to consider itself a participant. It appears that we either observe (in death) or we intend (in compliance).
Schopenhauer’s description of reality in itself as the world of ‘will’ helps to bring this underlying logical and qualitative process of any system face-to-face with our quest for an ethical system of intentionality. This is also what the Tao Te Ching aimed to do. Perhaps we can describe this underlying process AS a logical, qualitative system of intentionality, and then develop our complex value structures so that they align with this in relation to our unique situation.
I get that this would seem contrived or backwards to you - the relation of these value structures with being appear to form our self-identity. But this is what Schopenhauer argues - that this consolidation of ‘individual will’ is what got us in this mess in the first place. We tend to think that the value of humanity derives from this capacity to act individually and collectively against the ‘natural’ process of existence, but if there is value in humanity at all, then it is in our capacity to be aware of and participate in it, rather than try to survive it, dominate it, or ‘overcome’ it through procreation, as if it’s a ‘problem’.
Statistics? Tyranny of the majority? :chin:
There's got to be an overall trend, a widely-held opinion on all matters, including antinatalism/natalism, oui?
The idea is not to formulate a recommendation for ALL but for MOST! Surely, you're in the know about the Champagne glass effect!
How about if we adopt this position: Antinatalism is false doesn't imply that natalism is true. Find the middle ground as it were. We don't recommend natalism (there's still so much suffering and by the looks of it, the situation is only going to get worse), but do continue to have children because there's a slim chance that one of those children or their descendants will find a solution to suffering.
State control of family aka Family Planning!
That means that those possible future children will be treated as a means, not as an end itself. That is wrong.
Because you are making that genetic (or something akin) fallacy again. Even if the world was really a big illusion as an appearance (the devils playground), the appearance persists. It doesn’t go away because one knows the situation; the “feels like” ingrained aspect remains despite its “illusory” origins. And yes, that is assuming I even buy into that metaphysics, which I don’t. But even if I did, he would never say that “knowing” that the world is illusion (or ideas of connection, collaboration, or awareness for that mater) somehow brings an end to the illusion.
If anything, the dichotomy would between illusion of the appearance and denying of the will. Complete "annihilation" of the will is near impossible except for the saintly ascetic (representing a fraction of a fraction of people who can actually attain this. And he believed only certain characters can achieve this anyways).
Also understand that appearance and will in his conception are one and the same. Appearance does not give way to bare will or is in some sort of opposition to it. Rather, the appearance is the double-aspect of Will. It is its flip side. If one extirpates the appearance, one extirpates will and vice versa.
Quoting Possibility
No, studying the mechanisms of sleep apnea does not make the the actual suffering to the sufferer go away. Let's go further, scientists writing papers on the systems involved in sleep apnea, will not stop a person with an extreme case from possibly getting a heart attack due to the breathing problems. That's just obviously wrong and not even worth me writing to say this.
Quoting Possibility
But you did just say this.. and you are contradicting yourself.. At least as I interpret your obfuscating writing here:
Quoting Possibility
But this quote so vague that it can mean anything and nothing, so feel free to correct me with more vague language.
Quoting Possibility
It is true, I cannot take a position or even evaluate vague language that contains neologisms or words used in novel ways. If you are going to say things like "complex structure" and "find ways to collaborate" and then deny that you are talking about "working together to solve problems" which I interpreted it as, and took a position against (as a solution to the problem of suffering itself)... then you have to be very precise on how you are using language like "complex structure" and "find ways to collaborate" cause that's how it sounds prima facie.
Quoting Possibility
That is gaslighting BS. Telling someone who is suffering, that you are looking at it wrong, you are part of a big system, doesn't negate the suffering for the individual. You think consoling language that you are part of a bigger universe magically makes things go away? Nope. You are trivializing people's experience by trying to hijack it with this "we are part of a bigger picture" crap. It is all part of contingent suffering that is part of existing at all.
Quoting Possibility
Huh? Yeah this is woo Tao talk.. You are trying to take the pessimism out of Schopenhauer. You are trying to make Schopenhauer fit into your sanitized version. Schop thought that Will, and its appearance were negative- causing/entailed suffering. There was no working with it for any good. Existence was fundamentally not a good thing to exist at all. So "value in participating.." is misrepresenting anything he is saying. Denying will would be more like it. And again, because you choose to be vague, you aren't saying much at all when you say "participate" either. I and reminds me again of HR Sheryl saying to Lean In.
So far, your big takeaway is "participate"..
Going back to my point. The human condition is dissatisfaction. We are constantly overcoming dissatisfaction. It is misguided/immoral to create for people a lifetime's worth of dissatisfaction-overcoming. It is immoral to give a game to someone that cannot be paused, that is de facto a play in real time or game over. We cannot retreat to the Platonic realm of a Mt. Olympus when we get tired or frustrated with the dissatisfaction. It is constant. This inescapability makes it disqualifying as moral to force onto others. None of what you said refutes that. There is nothing "there" in what you are saying. And it sounds like rhetorical tricks to hijack language and purposely be too vague so that you can't be wrong.
Exactly.
I completely forgot about Kant! Thanks for the reminder. As you would've already realized Kant's people as ends in themselves is at odds with another very pressing need that seems to bother us at a very deep level viz. meaning of life, which, if one really thinks about it, is simply the desire to be of some use, a synonym for means or something like that.
Moreover, people seem to find a life as but a means to such lofty ends as abolishing suffering quite fulfilling and well worth ignoring/overriding Kant's maxim, noble thought it may be.
Stop being a childish red herring ad hom
Antinatalist was replying what he thought about Agent Smiths reply. Don’t start picking fights for no reason.
Picking fights? :D
Bye bye silly person
Sure, but a trend is very different from a widely-held opinion, wouldn’t you say?
Quoting Agent Smith
Pareto’s principle is about the distribution of quantitative value, which is only part of the picture. I find it interesting that so many people experience quite an affected relation to the graph. The basic feeling is that it should at least be more of a normal distribution - a bell curve - and that it should be someone else making the change.
In the vernacular "trend" is near synonymous with "widely-held opinion". Loose usage I'd say, but nothing to be concerned about.
Quoting Possibility
Sorry, I don't follow. My point was one doesn't need to aim for universality, a majority will/should suffice. We need someone to conduct a poll, pronto! You know, to settle the matter once and for all!
Watch your words. You could be charged with aiding & abetting suicide! Weren't there highly publicized cases of such happenings? I'd better edit that post before something untoward occurs.
Better? Wasn’t saying it as a directive but a description in it’s context as in this is what is going on, not what you should do.
Maybe so, but those fulfilling sufferings need to be taken by a person´s own free will, not after someone is forcing her/him to the "game" of life.
You're on target, sir/ma'am! However, who's coercing anyone to save the world? Do you think Alexander Fleming was bullied into discovering antibiotics? Are all the folks engaged in cancer research under some kind of duress? :chin:
I’m well aware that the illusion doesn’t go away. The horizon doesn’t go away, either, but it ceases to be a limitation once we understand the situation. We can set out towards it without fearing we might fall off the edge of the world, even though it still appears that way. I’ve not said anything here about ‘bringing an end’ to the illusion, so enough with this strawman.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, you’re assuming that the world as will must be denied, but Schopenhauer is talking about individual will as the illusion - the world as will is reality as it exists in itself, the world as representation exists relative to the notion of an individual.
As for my own view, we don’t need to deny individual will, anymore than we need to deny the horizon. I imagine it would have been only a fraction of a fraction of people who didn’t think Columbus or Magellan were insane when they set sail, including their own crew. They didn’t need to deny this optical limitation - they simply recognised that appearances were deceiving.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, appearance and individual will are the same in this sense. The world as representation and the world as will both refer to the world, but not the ‘flip side’ of each other. The world as will has an additional aspect which the ‘individual’ only perceives in its linear relation to the world as representation. There is no need to extirpate the ‘individual’ will, but even if this did (or could) occur, the world as will would persist, although the particular appearance would not.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That’s not what I said. I said awareness helps us to determine an effective reduction in suffering, not that it makes the experience of suffering go away all on its own.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, you’re interpreting a conceptual restructuring of potential as action. But I get the confusion - language structure doesn’t really accomodate a discussion that crosses back and forth between descriptions of actual and potential reality. If you’re going to keep denying conceptual structure, and ignoring the science that supports potentiality as more than a linear value relation to actuality, then there’s not much more I can do here to help you understand.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I’m not asking you to evaluate value structures - that’s your problem, not mine. I don’t see the point, tbh. Potential, value, significance - it isn’t possible to be precise here without reducing the complexity. Finding ways to collaborate is a conceptual process, not an actual one. I already explained how I’ve found ways to collaborate with your perspective, regardless of whether you intended us to ‘work together’, or were even aware of the conceptual process.
But it seems to me, after all I’ve written here, that your insistence at this point on ‘prima facie’ interpretation is being deliberately obtuse.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Here we go again. This is not what I said at all. And, once again, I’m not talking about using language to ‘solve the problem’ or to ‘make things go away’ but to simply change how we perceive the situation - not action as such but conceptual process. The perception that we do exist as part of a broader system (not ‘bigger picture’) is not meant to be consoling. It’s meant to open our minds to this potential that has people like you so afraid you’d prefer to not exist or begrudgingly comply than acknowledge it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, I’m trying to explain that Schopenhauer’s pessimism was just a starting point. Philosophy is not about describing a ToE (what appears to be), but about actualising wisdom (how to live). Schop argued that our preference for and actualising of this apparent ‘individual will’ entails suffering, and that because of this we tend to evaluate a living existence as negative overall. But the world as will is neither negative nor positive, and denying this ‘individual will’, even temporarily, enables one to conceptually process the world as will more accurately, even if we’re unable to describe it precisely using language.
And once again, I’m not saying ‘value in participating’ at all, but rather value (if any) in our capacity to be aware of and participate in an otherwise non-conscious process. Stop twisting my words around, it’s getting really old.
Maybe we are speaking about different things. By ´forcing´ in this particular point I mean reproduction. I thought it was quite clear.
Metaphorically, death, discomfort, and boredom are the gun to the head. That is part of my OP about dissatisfaction. That is part of complying with the game.
I'm not sure, but your concern seems to be consent, the lack thereof, in birthing children. While it's true that there are many of us who'd have wished to remain unborn, the catch is would-be parents are in the dark about that - they didn't know if the child they're now busy bringing up would've preferred nonexistence over life. Plus those people who manage to do well in life are likely to say "yes" to life.
As you might've already realized, starting a family then requires you to accurately predict the future (of your children), something notoriously difficult to do! Some of us then resort to what is essentially a gamble - we have children, hoping they'll have a good life and we do our best (grooming, educating, assisting, etc. them) to give them a decent chance at success, knowing all the while that life may throw them a curve ball with catastrophic consequences. The sentiment is noble (a person could enjoy life) but also ignoble (we're basically gambling with someone's life).
Frankly, I have a feeling that people hardly think so deeply about bringing other peeps into existence! They should, right?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I sometimes feel that given the givens, only a fool would opt for life!
Also, what do you make of how spirituality, some strains, recommend, as a practice, denial of life as most people recognize it. There's something unclean/impure/unsatisfactory about physical existence seems to be the message!
But this is my point - it is the assumption that they’re the same thing that results in prediction error. Just because people think or say that something should occur, doesn’t follow that they will do it. It is a widely-held opinion that wealth should be more evenly distributed across the population; but all trends indicate that this would never been the case. This incongruity is what the Pareto principle demonstrates.
Quoting Agent Smith
People don’t determine or initiate action just on what appears to be - which is continually changing and relative to their situation - but on their understanding of what can change in relation to a current availability of effort and attention. The moment a poll is taken, it’s insufficient to predict change. A poll doesn’t take into account the distribution of effort or attention - which, according to the Pareto principle, is mostly where it is least effective.
We need to find a different way to portray what is happening here more accurately. In my opinion, it’s worth looking into quantum mechanical system structures, because of the way they account for a distribution of effort and attention. But our conceptual language structure is notoriously insufficient in describing QM.
The baseline of the human condition can be described as ‘dissatisfaction’ by those for whom ‘individual will’ is considered the ultimate goal of being. The resulting conclusion that deliberately creating any such being is ‘immoral’ makes sense only in the context of ‘individual will’ as ABSOLUTE. Except that this ‘individual will’ is an illusion. There is no ‘will’ that we can call our own, no satisfaction or perfection to be attained as a self-sustaining identity in relation to the world.
So, your reaction to this is to double down on the illusion, and take the moral high ground against existence. There is nothing rational about this stance. You simply feel you’re being cheated out of a fantasy by an ‘individually’ conceived appearance of the world.
Sure, that’s ONE way of looking at it. I disagree that this is the ONLY way of looking at it, or even the RIGHT way of looking at it. In fact, I would go so far as to say it’s a particularly USELESS way of looking at it, giving us nothing by way of ‘how to live’. That’s my position, vague as it may be.
Agreed! And that ‘margin of error’ plays out in the human condition as suffering.
True, hence antinatalism. Right?
Quoting Agent Smith
I do think the ultimate imperfection of any being is sufficient reason NOT to create another one, and any expectation or hope that we could ever create a perfect being who doesn’t suffer is misguided at best. But antinatalism is presented here with the attitude of ‘we can’t do things to perfection, so there’s no value in doing anything’. I don’t agree with this, because I don’t believe the ultimate goal of any being should be to ‘do things to perfection’.
I will point out that living with an expected margin of error is not necessarily the same as equating the human condition with suffering. When we equate this suffering instead with prediction error, it creates opportunities to learn from it, and improve accuracy in understanding this universal faculty by which all action/change is determined and initiated.
I will borrow my text from other thread.
[i]It can be further argued that what we call non-life is in fact not that: it is possible that before turning into a human person, there is an entity that truly lives but in a form that is not evident to humans. Consequently, one could express the same argument that this non-human life ”can be an even worse fate than the two previously mentioned fates” (those of a test animal in a brain pressure chamber and the rape victim of a wolfhound). This is a very speculative and perhaps unrealistic statement, but I do not deny that this would in theory be possible, nor do I deny the characteristic similarity of the counterexamples I have presented.
Finally, what can we say about this side of the matter? The answer is strikingly clear. Even if it was the case that we cannot say anything about the supremacy of life or non-life – even in the case that all the world’s current and forthcoming human beings were to experience the fate of those two! – there is an important, fundamental difference between having a child and not having one (as this is finally the focal issue here): not having a child leaves things as they were. Let us assume that unit A is making a decision on whether or not to have a child.
In case A does not have a child – and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A having a child – A will still not have actively influenced the occurrence of this bad.
Let us now assume the opposite: A has a child, and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A not having a child. In this case, it is unquestionably clear that A has actively affected the materialization of this bad.[/i]
That's what @Possibility was driving at. Nirvana fallacy it's called if memory serves. Quite an apt name taking into account how Gautama was like life is suffering - he was aiming for perfection and it didn't take him long to find out that that was impossible in the world as we know it. Hence, the fact that no one knows where exactly a buddha goes to (neti neti).
Too "Speak for yourself" is an expresssion that's alive and well you know.
It's clear as crystal that the best-case scenario is to be able to get a child's prenatal permission. Hold on! Last I checked, children don't get to make decisions until they're 18+, legal guardians (parents, elder siblings, etc.) speak for them until autonomy at 18 is attained, oui? If so, isn't it odd that antinatalists demand that consent is a sine qua non for bringing children into this world? A fortiori, pre-birth, children are less able to make decisions.
However, the problem doesn't go away, does it? Even if we're supposed to think for unborn children, we can't ignore the suffering that stares us in the face every single day of our lives, ja?
Why? The world's a messy place, because? It's all your fault Fortuna, damn you! Damn you and your dice and your coins and your cards and your quantum mechanics! :grin:
This actually gets tricky. Schopenhauer was an idealist, so the world as appearance is just internal, not "out there". In fact, Schop is a true Idealist in that there is no "out there", just grades of will-objectified. He is no Materialist.
So in that passage Schop seems to be contrasting Will with nothingness, while at the same time trying to overcome objections at getting at "nothing" that has been a topic of discussion since the pre-Socratics. Barring a lengthy discussion of the sticky subject of "nothingness" as an absolute term (rather than what is not), he seems to say that once one lets go of will completely, there is something of what it is like to be absolute nothingness.. And we should not romanticize it with myths of union with God, or even states of Nirvana. He seems to like the idea of bare nothingness as a better, less obfuscating understanding of what is opposed to the will to live which is the regular course of things.
So this is just a follow up to my lengthy Schopenhauer quote..
What I think I disagree with most in your approach is that you are championing Schopenhauer while not really championing what he actually believed. Yes, the world of appearance is an illusion, and for some very small minority of people (saints), will may become annihilated. However, just us sitting here "realizing this is an illusion" does nothing more than intellectualize this understanding. Just "knowing" we are all Will and this this is an illusion doesn't have any or much force in Schopenhauer's conception. Actually being an ascetic of some saintly variety does. You cannot skip to the end by fiat of some understanding of the oneness of things. That is not how Schopenhauer's idea on ascetic denial of will works.
That beings said, I explicitly showed all my cards as it were in the OP by saying that whilst admiring Schopenhauer's system, I do not particularly agree with his assessment that we can even get out of this suffering situation by even ascetic contemplation. In other words, I don't think a state of peaceful "nothingness" is a thing. "Serenity now" permanently doesn't seem like a thing to me. Rather, it is a nice romanticized idea of what people would like. A permanent state of rest, but not quite dead. Platonic peace, without the becoming of the changing flux of this world. It's a nice notion, I just don't buy it.
Besides not buying the notion of this "escape hatch" of asceticism (or even aesthetic contemplation for that matter), I think there is the very real of having to survive at all. I am not doubling down on the illusion, but rather acknowldging the realities of how the human condition works.. That is to say, we are willful beings for sure, but that we are also situated in a socioeconomic context, and inextricably tied to our individual selves with this society. HOWEVER, this does not signify anything more than precisely that.. We are individual SELVES that INTERACT in a historically-contingent, socioeconomic-political SETTING. That is it... There is no higher way-of-being of "connection, collaboration, and awareness" one must do for a better of way of life.. Rather, one must be involved in the things described by Schopenhauer (the goals and hardships related to survival, discomfort, and dissatisfaction in general), to or turn against it and die. He added an extra category of "turn against it and be an ascetic", and that is the part I deny is a thing.
So, what to do? There is nothing to do except, as you state, "vocal pessimism". To me, that can mean communally recognizing the situation we are all in, and easing the suffering as a group in the context of this recognition. Like a soldier going on a suicide mission, who knows their fate, we the living, should understand what is going on here, and cope with it through cynical/existential humor, lowering of aggression and expectations, resignation in our fate, and the rest. It is understanding that we simply have to play this game out until we are dead.
You got a point there, I have to admit.
However, those are decisions that people make after the child is already born. It is a different kind of scenario when there is nobody who already exists.
There is asymmetry in procreating. I don´t believe there is a moral obligation to bring human life into the world, even if we somehow could find it is a good thing for becoming a person (and if we do have that kind of obligation where does it end? Do we then have a moral obligation to bring as many human beings to life as we can, does the obligation stop somewhere?).
On the other hand, I do believe that we don't have a moral permission to bring a human life to this world, if we do not surely know that this life would be a good thing for this potential human being - with no exceptions. And that kind of sureness we can not have.
Quoting Agent Smith
I agree with you that everyday suffering don´t go away. As long as there is life, there is suffering
17 people + 1 guitar (in one piece) in a saloon car meant for 5 max!
I suppose we'll all fit on this planet! All this hullabaloo about overpopulation is just hype!
I like the music!
I see population control as just a happy outcome from antinatalism, not as the reason. But I see it was a good segue to show that video.
All that I can say at the moment is that there's going to a dramatic fall in the global population in (say) another 50 years. Whether this is done the easy way or the hard way is anyone's guess!
Well, I never claimed to be championing Schopenhauer, or what he actually believed - although, to be fair, I haven’t laid out very clearly where I disagree with him. Schopenhauer, as you say, is an idealist, where I’m more of a structural realist. But I find his philosophy to be a useful discussion space - when we start there, you and I both deviate from it in very different ways.
I’m not saying that simply realising our ‘individual will’ to be an illusion achieves much more on its own than intellectualising this understanding. It is where we go from here that makes the difference, and the ascetic has much to teach us about what we can do, how far we can subvert the agenda. Schopenhauer deliberately falls short of deferring to their wisdom (not ‘proper knowledge’ due to a lack of form), as Kant does with creative genius. The impression is that they are to be respected and feared in equal measure, and isolated from the rest of humanity. I disagree with this. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that abolishing the apparently fundamental form of subject and object does not abolish the world, as Schopenhauer assumes. When we bring the ideas of Kant and Schopenhauer into the 21st century, we’re not obliged to bring their relative ignorance with us. I find it worthwhile to rework these ideas in the context of neuroscience and quantum physics, with due respect to the original. I’m sure there’s a more formal or academic way to go about this, but I will start where I am, and take advice on process as I go.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I agree that a permanent state of peaceful ‘nothingness’ doesn’t seem achievable. This, in my view, is equivalent to death. I think that these notions of nirvana, heaven, even enlightenment and sainthood are romanticised attempts to reify or concretise a preferred fantasy, much like ‘individual will’. I don’t believe there comes a point in ascetic practise when no further effort or attention is required, except in death. In my view, ascetic practise is a process that forces one to align our world as representation with the world as will, abandoning the assumption that this ‘self-knowledge of the will’ is accurate. I believe this can also be achieved by combining ascetic practises such as meditation and self-discipline with honest self-reflection and reasoning. I don’t think it helps to deny EITHER the illusion (which Schop nevertheless prefers) or the will in itself (which Schop fears is essentially an unknowable nothingness), but to recognise that these relations to the world each reflect an inaccuracy that needs addressing. And I think quantum physics is addressing it, in its own way - we just need to find a way to discuss it without confusion or complex mathematics.
There’s a lot more here I find worth discussing, but my available time has been limited. Hopefully that’s enough to start, and not too disjointed. Thanks for sourcing this quote, by the way...
This sounds like a modernized Western rendition of Jainism. Or Quietism. Both are pernicious.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The Early Buddhists would probably say that this is where the existentialist insight ends, and falls short.
For a no-selfer, you sure are hung up on individuals!
Not everyone feels the need to resolve the disagreements between the Buddhist schools.
This is a fallacious question to begin with, born out of a wrong understanding of suffering and enlightenment.
Earlier, you said words to the effect that it is possible to conceive of suffering in such a way so that it isn't a problem. I didn't address that then, and I let you go on with your idiosyncratic understanding of the term. I wondered what you'd have to offer.
It allows you to feel good about what you're doing -- whatever it is that you're doing -- and to condemn others for being so stupid not to see things your way.
It's no surprise you don't see anything more, because from a perspective like yours, there's nothing to see.
By inventing one's own definitions of terms one runs the risk of ending up with an internally inconsistent, incoherent mess of claims.
Really? What is the foundation for this claim of yours?
This is probably a dilemma for you, given what you said earlier.
Because it's usually not an alternative. Like they say, "Different packaging, same shit."
Quoting Possibility
No need to be at such a loss.
Your approach is one that gives priority to the attitude with which one approaches things in life.
In short, it's not about what in particular one does (as in whether one watches tv or helps in a soup kitchen), it's about how one thinks about what one is doing, how one frames it cognitively.
I just don't get the sense that the OP was actually asking anything.
Well, if they don't have bread to eat, then they should eat cake!
The Tao Te Ching was written by the upper class, for the upper class. Hence its aloof attitude toward hardship. It's easy to be aloof when someone else does the hard and dirty work.
In that case, you've determined yourself to be a materialist.
In their native contexts, those terms have definitions, and they are not what you claim them to be.
For some reason, you use those terms, but insist in your idiosyncratic definitions of them. Why?
Quoting Possibility
This is extraordinary. Do you have any actual historical support for this interpretation? Such a diary entries, contemporary essays, ...?
Myth of the flat Earth
Not that I would wish hardship upon you, but I'd love to see how you hold up under pressure. Like when having a nasty toothache and no access to a dentist for quite some time. Or chronic back pain. Poverty. Being of the wrong skin color.
Because as things stand, you've consistently sounded like someone who is relatively well off or at least like someone who is trying to sound like someone who is relatively well off. You exude that "Let them eat cake!" attitude.
This is the problem with mixing scientific concepts.. So let's say there is a concept of relativism in physics or chance in quantum mechanics... This does not entail anything about a broader philosophical principle by necessity. One has to bolster this idea with several steps tying that concept with a metaphysical point, which is trickier than making up neologisms. Rather, Kant's "Copernican Revolution", however you think it, can be applied to modern physics as well. That is to say, whatever it is "out there", it can be considered simply the cognitive apparatus of the mind making it seem that way. The thing-in-itself being as it were, a speculative claim of the "out there", which as in Schopenhauer, can be gradations of this "something" all the way down (Will in Schopenhauer's case).
Quoting Possibility
So far, so good.
Quoting Possibility
Except for "much like 'individual will' I agree with this".
Quoting Possibility
This seems very Tao, as I believe @baker has also picked up on. There is some "way" (the Will), and we are to align to it through attitude towards how we get on in the world. This approach is simply another attempt at Natural Reason (pace the Stoics). There is a "best way" about things that we tap into and align with using our Reason. This, of course, I believe to wrong thinking. There is nothing to align to in the universe. Even if there were, we simply have a transcendental form of something that we must comply or die to. Instead of socio-economic realities, its something else. And as @baker brought up, by ignoring the realities of having to survive, in some socioeconomic way, it is ignoring what is really the case, and so falls short of much at all, except for a ruling class who can afford to tune in, turn on, and drop out..(of course "leading people" in whatever way as well in this alternative way of being somehow).
When asceticism is presented in such an ascetic (eh!) manner, it's no wonder it doesn't come across as promising.
Why not inform oneself about it some more, as opposed to sticking to some vague, superficial notions of it?
Yep.
Quoting baker
Yep. I compare it to Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In".
I have read it, and I am not convinced of such a state. I just don't buy it. I've read about ego-death, etc. It entails a certain metaphysics as well, that I also don't buy.
Do I believe that meditation can "calm the mind" and "clear the mind", "calm the body" etc. I can understand this notion of trying to be "still" and not letting the "monkey brain" go in different directions, or try to assign "self" to thought. But I just see it as a bunch of mental exercises at that point.
Yes.
A quick search gave this:
Examples of theorems misapplied to non-mathematical contexts
The SEP in the entry on Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems gives some examples of how they are sometimes misunderstood/misapplied.
What in particular did you read?
Nice. :up:
So instead of playing this game, why don't you give me some references, and we can see if it is the conception I have from what I know already, and we can reconvene.
Ok, so I know you would like me to imbibe from the "TRUTH" of Buddhism en totale, because (like hipsters say), "I just won't get it" otherwise.. but what is the most important parts of the Pali Canon would you like me to research. I know I know, in order to really "KNOW" Buddhism, I am to become a scholar... but we are on an internet forum. I cannot expect for example, to debate someone on here by saying, "Just read WWR and all Scholarship on Schopenhauer" because that is not feasible and unfair in this platform. As a meta-analysis of this dialogue, how do you want me to proceed?
In other words, if there were a few most important concepts, what would you like me to understand from it?
What is pernicious about it?
Quoting baker
Allow who to feel good?
Quoting baker
No, not at all. Forget Schop1’s misleading interpretations. My approach is about how one determines and initiates action - including determined inaction - from perceived potential.
Quoting baker
No, the Tao Te Ching was translated into English by the upper class, for the upper class.
Quoting baker
No, I’ve already said that my position is more along the lines of structural realism.
Quoting baker
I’m not using them in their native contexts, and I’m not insisting on any particular definition - you are, by resisting a broader understanding of what they’re referring to.
Quoting baker
This Wikipedia article only addresses the claim that most scholars had determined a flat earth cosmology. Given scholars and educated people were a fraction of a fraction, it doesn’t refute what I’m saying here. Try this one.
Quoting baker
You’re making assumptions here based on what you’d prefer me to be, to support your argument and dismiss my contributions, just as you dismiss the TTC under the guise of classism. But there is no evidence in my writing that suggests this, only your affected interpretation. I’m aware of how I hold up under pressure, what my weaknesses and strengths are - I don’t need to prove that to you with tales of woe. Your assumption that I must not understand what it’s like to really suffer is completely unfounded, particularly given the general consensus here that everyone who exists suffers. You’re grasping at straws...
Not by necessity, of course not. I don’t dispute any of this - hence structural realism.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Tao does not refer to a ‘best way’ of being at all - that, I believe, is wrong thinking. The Tao refers to a logical and qualitative relational structure to reality, which we distort according to this affected ‘self-knowledge of the will’ that we believe is better... for ourselves, at least, regardless of its accuracy. It’s not about aligning through attitude, but through reasoning, prior to even determining any variation of being, and recognising affect as indicative of limited effort and attention over time. According to neuroscience, the organism doesn’t act on concepts, but on affect, as a predictive distribution of attention and effort over time. Concepts help us to share our distorted self-knowledge of the will through language, and our faculties of reason help us to develop a logical and qualitative relational structure of reality without these affected distortions, which improves the accuracy with which we distribute what attention and effort we have available in our limited being (affect), thereby reducing prediction error, ie. suffering. There is no ruling or leading to be done from the TTC, unlike religious texts or doctrine - the structure is all there in the text; attention, effort and time are your own.
You keep trying to shoehorn what I say into the agenda of ‘having to survive’ - a product of this misguided self-knowledge of the will. You can’t seem to even bring yourself to think beyond this, even as a possibility. It’s not about ignoring what appears to be the case (from a human perspective), but about trying to understand it in a broader context of reason, of which the human condition is a limited and affected structure. I get that what I’m proposing is not a set of goals or things to do that will somehow make life easier to survive. I never claimed this was the case, and I’m surprised you still hold to the irrational belief that there should be something to this effect, simply because that’s what you’d prefer.
:up:
We talked about margin of error!
So, suffering is, at the end of the day, an error!
Is that why we dislike suffering so much? Nobody likes making mistakes, especially silly mistakes?
There's more but I can't quite put my finger on it at the moment! Maybe you can. Give it a go, will ya?
I honestly hate how Eastern ways of thinking has bled into New Age Western thinking.. It's always about not saying something correctly, and then when the New Ager explains it, it becomes exactly what you said but stated in a slightly different way.. Here is an example:
Quoting Possibility
Premise: Tao does not refer to a "best way of being at all".. Then right after...
Premise contradicted: Quoting Possibility
So instead of just admitting "the better way" in the positive form, you simply state that not living in the Tao is the distorted way. It's the same thing but stated in its negative form!
Quoting Possibility
Sure, but if you are let's say suffocating, your affect is immediately about your physical suffocation.. Enlightened or not! Then all the mental techniques to keep mind off.. maybe.
Quoting Possibility
Well, once we learn that we are just here to be useful workers being de facto the situation, and survival for ourselves de facto.. It is comply or die all around.. You can't go against it.. You can only say word salads about structures and collaborating. This a) Isn't seeing anything of the socioeconomic superstructure, historical contingency of our situation, b) It isn't doing anything about it.. It's all better ways to comply.. changing your "attitude" or as you like to complicate it "affect".. and it's all ways to better cope with complying. More HR spin.
I’m not claiming any ‘higher way of being’, nor a ‘better way of life’. I’m simply describing an alternative to vocal pessimism. We can acknowledge how the human condition works without referring to any particular way of living as forced or inescapable. Survival is not a realistic goal. Discomfort and dissatisfaction are variable conditions in which we come to understand human capacity - they’re not necessarily hardships to be avoided.
We can communally recognise the situation and ease suffering collectively in a number of ways (including, but by no means limited to, antinatalism), without cynicism or resignation. A soldier in a suicide mission, who knows their fate but refuses to acknowledge their part in it (‘just following orders’), will carry on as you describe. A soldier who accepts their suicide mission makes what they can of their limited effort and attention over time - without wasting it on vocal pessimism - recognising that what they have left in them is no longer for themselves but to give freely to others as they see fit within the context. They can attack their enemies or make peace with them, they can save, improve or destroy the lives of those around them. These apparent ‘goals and hardships related to survival, discomfort and dissatisfaction’ stripped away at this point, their lives are no longer forced into a particular way of being.
So a "Yay" for comply. Got it.
Quoting Possibility
Funny you mention "context" and provide none of it, thus making the statement hollow and meaningless unless contextualized.
Quoting Possibility
Comply with a nicer look.
Quoting Possibility
There is no stripping away, lest death. Give me one example of someone "stripping away" and not being dead.
This is not about better or worse, positive or negative - these are value structures. A distortion is about accuracy of information. We will always consider our self-knowledge of the will to be better, relative to the self as we perceive it. There’s no point in arguing against this. But we also know that this self-knowledge of the will is an illusion, like the distorted appearance of a stick in a glass of water. So it’s a choice of what appears better for our perceived ‘self’ at this juncture, or what is more accurate overall.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Maybe, it depends on your situation. Enlightenment aside, I know people who have ‘accidentally’ asphyxiated themselves in pursuit of pleasure/escapism, so I would dispute this. The mind is much more variable than I think Schopenhauer gave us credit for. This is more apparent in the last few decades at least.
Quoting schopenhauer1
...and we’re back to doubling down on the illusion. Never mind.
Prediction error feeds back to us as pain, humiliation/humility and loss/lack in our relation to the world. It’s just an indication that something needed to be different in how we conceptualised the situation and/or in how we structured our being in relation - ie. attention and effort over time.
But this is how we learn. Babies and children experience prediction error almost all the time. Each error we make comes with information, which enables us to make adjustments in very the next moment, or the next time we’re in a similar situation. As we pay attention to a ball hurtling towards us, we can make hundreds of judgements on speed and direction, as well as small adjustments to our body, including heart rate, visual focus, hands and feet position in order to eventually catch it. If we’re not paying attention, or we haven’t tried to catch a ball before, it could hit us on the head before we determine the correct position. The more information we already have about this type of situation, and the more attention, effort and time we’re able to devote to it, the less prediction error. The more mistakes we make, the more accurate our brain gets at predicting.
But the older we get, the less prediction error we experience, and the less we appreciate those experiences when they do occur. We buy into the idea that as adults we shouldn’t make mistakes, and so we avoid putting ourselves at that risk. And eventually, the body and the brain stop learning.
Suffering is a(n) (prediction) error! When plans go awry, that's precisely when hearts start to ache!
I wish I could say more, but that's all my brain can offer at the moment. G'day and keep posting. I'll be watching you! :eyes:
Yet you say stuff like this:
Quoting Possibility
Mine as well come from an HR seminar of how to be a better worker. And this truly would be doubling down on the game. Not only accepting it, but trying to get better at it over time so as to learn and grow. And now we are back at very common notions of self-actualization like Maslow or any of the others. I got some minutia to monger.
Everything is connected to Wonka's "loving game". Communes, monasteries, rose-tinted ideas of collaboration, etc. There is no escape. You're in for good (until you are not).
Not ‘yay’. Why does everything have to have either a positive or negative value?
Quoting schopenhauer1
It’s a statement of relational structure, not actuality. Populate it how you like, the relational structure is the same.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Someone who walks onto a battlefield without a weapon and carries wounded soldiers to safety is neither striving for survival nor seeking to avoid discomfort.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You’re reading a whole lot more into it than is there. None of what I’ve written is describing what anyone should be doing, or how to be a ‘better’ anything. It’s simply describing a relational structure. How you feel about it or what you do with it is entirely up to you.
You can comply or die. It’s up to you. That’s all I’m seeing. Just better tools to comply.
This doesn’t evade comply or die. It simply makes the choice starker. No middle man.
I think first you must get a handle on what I mean by “comply” before you fit your scheme within its structure.
Your ‘structure’ is false, and I’m not the one trying to make it fit.
Forget it - I’m done with this merry-go-round.
Hey, that is the gist of the game of life too! But there's no getting off of this merry-go-round.
I'm not a Buddhist nor do I advocate Buddhism. I do have some knowledge of and interest in Buddhism. When someone boldly declares that the Buddha was wrong or implies as much, I am curious as to what this person has to say. I use my knowledge of Early Buddhism to inquire of them what they have to say and test their knowledge of Buddhism.
You keep saying things like "we're in an inescapable situation" and such. I wonder where you get your certainty. I find it bewildering how a person could have such certainty.
Even on an entirely mundane level, it's clear where they go wrong: the quietist whines and complains and is miserable, while other people are having fun. He gets nothing for all his misery, apart from a little ego satisfaction.
So you refused to tell me what to study from the Pali Canon. If you can't at least give me a few concepts without telling me to read the whole thing, that is at the least uncharitable in the context of this dialogue. As clearly you have "something" in mind from it..
But Buddhism in general has ideas of reincarnation and liberation from the birth cycle. So let's start there. Do you believe this to be the case? Now, if you want to secularize it, maybe you see this as a "metaphor" for pa?icca-samupp?da, (“dependent origination”). That is to say the 12 links which produce the cycle of samsara and that the adherent is trying to reverse through 8 fold path.
Here's the thing though:
1) I don't see any evidence that certain people have transcended suffering. This has to be taken on faith.
2) I don't even know what "enlightenment" would mean other than non-existence, which as far as the mind is concerned is death.
3) Enlightenment is ill-defined and seems to be self-referential because of its vagueness.
And then there's duties of the Buddhas.. etc. etc. Both the goal and the metaphysics, epistemology, and the phenomenology don't seem either coherent or accurate. I have a right to disagree with Buddhism as a metaphysics as with any Western tradition I disagree with. What I don't appreciate is when because something is Eastern it must mean it bypasses ones own judgement of its logic, truth, and the like.
Pessimists can have fun. It's not mutually exclusive. Rather, it is recognizing the situation for what it is, that we are put in the agenda in the first place, and not to force it as much as possible onto others. And thus, not to demand so much either because of this. Compassion due to knowledge of the shitty situation. If we are all filling in the holes of the leaky boat that we didn't ask to be on, we can commiserate on it. If everything was fun all the time with no downsides, I guess there wouldn't be a need for this conversation. But the whole point of the OP is that "fun" comes at a cost.. At least Buddhism had some truths about things like becoming and change. Things are temporary etc. There is boredom as a phenomenon of experience, as much as with physical pain, annoyances of the survival and being conditioned by the pressures of others in a socioeconomic system. In that regard Buddhism is right on the target with dependent origination. We are all enmeshed in each others wants and needs, which gives rise to ever more complex versions of suffering.
Again, as a meta-analysis of this dialogue:
I have no interest to convince you of anything Buddhism. I am skeptical about your certainty that we're in a hopeless situation. There are several religions, philosophies, ideologies that claim we're not in a hopeless situation (e.g. Buddhism, Christianity, Humanism, even popular consumerism). Instead of using Buddhism as a reference point for my skepticism, I could also use, say, Roman Catholicism (but I don't feel all that warmly about it, so I don't reference it much; also, there is some overlap between your arguments and Buddhism's).
Again, despite repeated requests, you have not demonstrated what the foundation of your certainty of hopelessness is.
Yeah, as long as it is accompanied by – derived reflectively from – infrequent, brief episodes of 'negative phenonomenology' ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/708506
Helplessness, Worthlessness :grimace: Ouch!
Your answer here contradicts your main point. The “need to create” is also just repackaged wording of the same thing. If you have a need that is behind mere survival or getting more comfortable, that is a form of boredom, albeit existential.
Now you are reduced to telling me what I really feel. And you only responded to a little of my post. You assumption is that any need must come from boredom. But there is no foundation for that. We have our natures. You seem to see us as passive, so resting in boredom, suffering it, so choosing to distract ourselves. That is not what I experience. If free, I was never bored as a child. I was always curious, always learning, always exploring. The ones who are bored as a base I would guess are damaged, though their may have inborn tempermental traits. I don't know. Desires and curiosity do not need to be reactive to suffering. And aren't at base. They are an outward expression of life. Rather than reactions to some negative state. You're positing the negative state as primal. I am bored so I develop desires. I don't think that model fits children at all.
Read the Schopenhauer quote again by what I mean by existential boredom.