In the last four-plus decades, what I have learned by daily study and from lived experience is this: work everyday towards easy sleep (ergo a good death) by not doing to anyone what you find harmful to yourself. All the rest follows.
Totally up to you. There are billions of reasons (you make your own meaning through your use of time, your job, interests, friends, family, nature, pets, causes, helping others, whatever) and many people, even those living with great suffering, privation and war are often optimistic and future focused. Nevertheless lots of people go though a 'what's the point of it all' phase early in life. Some people feel the onset of this in middle age, as priorities suddenly change. In my experience, many people find helping others the most effective pathway out of meaninglessness and depression. Sometimes too much ruminating over meaning leads to a state of analysis paralysis.
It would help if you would say where you are in the spectrum of ageing: twenties, thirties,...
When I was in my twenties, evading the Union Army as it burned Atlanta, I became an existentialist, realizing there is no divine purpose to life. One must create meaning. It then becomes a task to do just that and one begins the search having a purpose.
Antinatalism is a pseudo-solution to the problem of suffering which to explicate is how to live/exist without hurting? This is, as you already know, the perennial philosophical problem (eudaimonia/the good life). Obviously, recommending death/nonexistence is to completely miss the point, oui monsieur?
That’s a fantastic question, and a highly important one.
It’s also, perhaps frustratingly, a deeply personal one. No general answer can be given — from me or anyone else. It has to come from you, and one day it may.
Well I’m in my early thirties, and i’m really looking for a compelling reason/argument to live (and how to live) that would at least work for me. Suicide has been on my mind for a quite some time, but I really don’t want to cause suffering to people around me. That’s why the search for a reason to live or argument why not suicide.
That’s why the search for a reason to live or argument why not suicide.
There are not reasons to live at all. You only have to have to do it. I think you would make a big mistake if you put yourself in a search for a cause of living.
Instead of live, you need to "survive" this life. Don't commit suicide. As you expressed, the effects would be devastating to your love ones.
Suicide could be only acceptable if you are alone and such act would not affect anyone.
Keep in mind that if you kill yourself your family or friends will suffer with the remorse of thinking "what they did wrong with you to end up killing yourself"
Angelo CannataAugust 05, 2022 at 04:53#7257140 likes
Hello, rossii, a "compelling" reason/argument to live and how to live does not exist: every reason/argument is relative. This means that being pessimist/antinatalist is relative as well: there are not compelling reasons/arguments to be be pessimist. While being in this human situation, we can try to find what seems the best to every one of us. What works for me is spirituality, which does not mean automatically belief in anything: I don't believe in anything, I cultivate spirituality as inner life, that is, the best inner experiences that you are able to cultivate inside yourself. It is not a recipe, it is a work of research in life. It is not something that works; it is something that helps.
There are probably many reasons to live; happiness, sensu lato, being the most powerful justification for wanting to (continue to) exist.
That out of the way, if the question is aimed at antinatlists who recommend nonexistence then the answer is rather simple: death/dying is painful and given how hyperalgesic antinatalists are death i.e. suicide isn't really an option for them. Remember that nonexistence isn't the problem (re Epicurus) it's the transition from existence to nonexistence (dying) that is.
That’s why the search for a reason to live or argument why not suicide.
Think of all the cool stuff that might happen, that you will miss if your not around. Maybe we will be visited by aliens, maybe Donald Trump will convert to humanism, maybe science will find some new answers, maybe people's lives will get better, they have got very much better imo since we first came out of the wilds, maybe a good person will love you, maybe a new child in your family will give you renewed purpose and hope, maybe someone else will learn something from you that helps them, maybe you will make a difference somewhere, maybe your favourite food ever will be discovered by you soon, maybe you will watch a show that makes you laugh harder and longer than you have ever laughed before. Maybe you don't know just how important you are to the lives of others that have never told you so or maybe you will become so.
Your like may in fact be incredibly rare in the vast Universe.
Immerse yourself in the wonders of life.
The song below can sound pessimistic, yet the advice from Thom Yorke at the end is: Immerse yourself in love.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 05, 2022 at 15:02#7258060 likes
Reply to rossii You ask for a reason to live, but at base this is not a question about 'reason', or abstract arguments that need to be given for life... but more a question of personal motivation, which is concerned with the affective and aesthetic. What really moves you, what do you find beautiful? What do you feel? If you can answer that, and organize your life around that, I'd think you'll find that the need for coming up with abstract reasons to live goes away.
Reply to Darkneos
I'm pretty happy these days, but the older I get the less attached to life I feel. Does the fruit ripen on the tree? Is there less to prove ? I wrote to a friend yesterday that it's like learning that a video game can't be beat...so that losing your last player is no longer so scary...
I consider that a dodge to my stance on this and a symptom of society's collective fear around death, I mean we can't even talk about it without people thinking there is something "Wrong" with you.
I think it's just an intimate topic. Folks aren't that afraid. What's 'wrong' with someone might just be their timing or expectation of intimacy. Suffering and gloom are not in short supply. They are maybe even the rule and not the exception, at least as people age. So there's not much use talking about it ... unless you can light up the shitshow with a joke we haven't heard yet.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 06, 2022 at 05:29#7259030 likes
Reply to Darkneos My counter would be that as a living being it's weird to prefer death over life, as sustaining its lifeform over time, and propagating it, is essentially what life is. That is what defines living beings/sets life apart from non-living things.
So in other words, preferring life over death seems to me a default, almost axiomatic valuation of living beings, and doesn't need any further justification really.
Considering that, my question to you then would be, what prompted you to flip this basic instinctive valuation on its head?
What causes life to turn on life?
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 05:46#7259090 likes
Reply to Pie I often feel that the so-called small moments of fulfilment can also be of great value. Unfortunately, they aren't often appreciated and even acknowledged as much because we expect the positives to be greatly apparent (like laughing or the pleasure of eating). Personally, I have found an extremely bright silver lining in the darkest of clouds. I hope that this can be the reality for everyone (though it would obviously be better to reduce the size of the clouds!).
I often feel that the so-called small moments of fulfilment can also be of great value.
:up:
I love a good cup of coffee, a lonely bikeride on a cool night, snuggling my torty, laughing at a piece of a bit in an old book that only the aging cool kids remember...
Personally, I have found an extremely bright silver lining in the darkest of clouds.
I can relate. One can even start laughing in the swamp of misery, with the gods at the one's own folly and the folly of humans in general. Gallows humor. And then there is the true platitude that suffering sometimes burns off a mask or a delusion. I don't claim that all suffering can be partially forgiven this way. The world offers pure stupid hurt too.
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 06:04#7259190 likes
Reply to Darkneos I think that people should have a liberal right to exit if they cannot find any alternative source of value.
I am truly saddened by the fact that you don't seem to find joy in life. Since I am not you and don't know your experiences, it would be presumptuous of me to suggest what and how you should think. From what I have observed and experienced, however, I think I can say that moulding our perspectives can play a big role in defining the good we see in our lives. Whenever I've met the financially less-fortunate people in my area, I've noticed that they are simply content with having a decent relationship and being able to sustain themselves. They learn whatever they can and say that they don't need to create some sort of ultimate purpose that transcends their "mundane" existence. Happiness is fundamentally subjective, so I believe that there is truth to the idea that we shouldn't have unrealistic expectations. And it's possible for us to have them subconsciously without even being aware of them. If someone had told me prior to my illnesses that reading my favourite novel would give me satisfaction that would outweigh the intense pain high fever brings, I would have likely dismissed them. However, lo and behold, this is precisely what happened. Sentient experience is quite diverse (and maybe that is what plays a major role in what makes life beautiful). I think that instead of absolute natalism or universal antinatalism, a nuanced approach is desirable.
You also raised a point that I see being mentioned frequently, viz., the fact that you wouldn't need happiness if you don't exist. Now, I actually believe this to be true (assuming physicalism is correct), but this is an incomplete conclusion. If we should not be afraid of/averse to non-existence because we cannot be deprived of something when we don't exist, we should also not chase/worship the void, since the absence of suffering has no value for an inexistent being. You're not going to be in some better/more satisfied state due to the lack of harms. In view of this, non-existence has no value/disvalue. What one does with their life, therefore, becomes a highly individualised affair that differs from person-to-person and what action/emotion brings them happiness when they exist. Lastly, I wouldn't say there's something "wrong" with you. I am not a fan of blind optimism. All I would say is that, considering that value only lies in existence, I think that it can be rational to try our best to discover a source of joy that can provide us happiness for as long as possible instead of seeking cessation which is necessarily limited in its capacity to provide fulfilment. Maybe some people are too uncomfortable thinking about non-existence so they quickly jump to therapy. After having discussed this issue with many individuals, I feel that I am not one of those aforementioned people. Nonetheless, I believe that therapy can definitely help. If there is an opportunity for gaining ineffable value that is more powerful than the temporary and slightly distorted satisfaction that the void might give, it may be the better option.
I was wondering if anyone else thinks similarly or if they have a counter to what I've mentioned. I realize I'm alone
I think it's pretty common to go through phases thinking/feeling like this, especially in the first third of life. Most people I know had periods of anhedonia, accompanied by periods of suicidal thoughts. But things did get better.
Reply to Darkneos
If I outlive every person / activity I love, only then will I long for death. Until then, sleeping well suffices. :death: :flower:
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 06:10#7259220 likes
Reply to Pie Precisely. I also feel that sometimes our mind starts telling us that there's something wrong/incorrect with finding happiness in these so-called small things. I generally respond to this internal pessimistic scepticism by asking why exactly should I not find beauty or meaning in that story or song? Is there an objective reason that compels me to not find it meaningful? More often than not, this makes my other side realise that, though optimism and pessimism can both be rationally chosen, only one has ultimate value that all sentient beings pursue—and there is nothing wrong with that.
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 06:25#7259250 likes
Reply to rossii The very fact that you posed this question makes me think that there is clearly a part of you that finds the worldview you are currently tilting towards to be problematic. I am so sorry that you feel the way you do. I know that platitudes about how it all eventually gets better would seem like empty words to you. But I can say from personal experience that things can definitely change dramatically. I've people who began to enjoy their lives when they reached their 40s. Obviously, their cases were all manifold and intricate. But one common thread was, perhaps surprisingly enough, a shift in what they expected from life. They began to see the things in life that they once found to be merely small things that one needed to "get through" as sources of genuine (albeit not total) fulfilment. There was gratitude whilst drinking a glass of water that sustains life, amazement when thinking about the enormity of the cosmos as they were driving, and happiness at being able to help someone. You're not going to be perpetually satisfied to the greatest degree possible. Yet, there could always be some happiness within you and it could come back again with a lot more force. There's nothing that is inherently wrong with having a pessimistic outlook. Nevertheless, I believe that it can only have instrumental value for sentient beings who are necessarily driven towards regaining satisfaction. Finally, and this is a point that concerns all individuals, I believe that there has to be a realisation that people's experiences are bound to vary, so absolutist views like universal pro-natalism or absolute antinatalism don't seem to be good ideas. They tend to ignore one side of the coin and have the potential to cause unimaginable loss. Even if I suffer, that does not efface all the happiness you might experience. I hope you find the good that you deserve! Have a nice day!
Edit: I have had many discussions regarding AN on this forum. You could check my comments history if you're interested in my reasons for rejecting the philosophy. Here's an example: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/657516
I should forewarn you that these discourses are a bit long and somewhat tedious.
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 06:31#7259260 likes
Reply to 180 Proof :up: Same (unless there's potential for something new).
I think it's pretty common to go through phases thinking/feeling like this, especially in the first third of life.
Agreed. I also had periods on my life related to these feelings. So, I feel better with myself knowing that is pretty common among the people when they grow up
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 06:43#7259280 likes
Reply to DA671
I think fear and curiosity are the two main drivers.
Each has subcategories or synonyms, love being a subcategory of fear.
Its the desire for things to stay the same vs the desire for change. Love and fear are both about attachment: desire for stability, safety and comfort, all ways of coping with fear. Making friendships(love) helps protect us from dangers
Well, if you've ever watched youtube videos, you'll realize that you're not alone in this OP: some people, as one so eloquently put it, have what they call a death wish!
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 07:50#7259430 likes
Reply to Yohan Interesting. I think that fear is a subcategory of loving (being attached to) a positive state of affairs that we would not want to lose. Curiosity is certainly a powerful source of value.
Survival drive is too strong so the best is to live comfortably until death comes to claim me.
So after all, even for you life is preferable to death. Which is normal, after millions or billions of years of evolution have geared our motivations toward survival.
I think death becomes preferable to life when suffering exceeds happiness so much that it beats the survival drive. If the survival drive is strong as usual, this must be a singularly terrible situation but unfortunately it can happen too.
...in death I will have no desire or need to do any of that stuff so it's a moot point and not really a reason to stick around. I mean there would be no "me" right?
So, do you not care about anyone else other than 'you'?
That said suicide isn't an option, at least with the current stance on it. Survival drive is too strong so the best is to live comfortably until death comes to claim me.
Suicide is always an option if anyone really wants to end their life.
You can go slow, slow, or quick depending on tool of choice. Not that I'm recommending it.
What 'current stance' are you talking about?
I agree the survival drive is strong. Why is that?
The need to pass on DNA? Are we here only as animals?
The best way to live.
Is it, as you say, to live comfortably?
Unlikely, even if it were possible. What does it mean to you, to live in comfort?
To be certain, to feel in control?
If you have decided your only option is to stay, then why not view life as less of a chore, more of a challenge? Not merely existing...
'Until death comes to claim you'?
Zoom out for a different perspective. Death can happen at any moment.
It's not about being claimed as if you are a worthless piece of baggage!
I realize I'm alone, but also I have a hard time discussing this anywhere else because people immediately say you need therapy. I consider that a dodge to my stance on this and a symptom of society's collective fear around death, I mean we can't even talk about it without people thinking there is something "Wrong" with you.
You are not alone. Even if you are on your own or feel lonely and an outsider.
Some quality responses here, yes? No dodges.
Who are the people that say you need therapy? How much do their opinions matter?
Is there anything else going on - depression?
Is your stance on this fixed for all time?
Or are you willing to listen to others? Read their words carefully. They have taken the time.
It sounds to me like you do care. Enough to share something we can all relate to.
Stay safe :sparkle:
Forgive this addendum:
[ Sometimes I wonder if such OPs are worth responding to, or if it's all attention-seeking]
Love and fear are both about attachment: desire for stability, safety and comfort, all ways of coping with fear.
Can we not just as easily make love primary ? I fear that harm will come to what I love. No love, no fear.
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 10:59#7259840 likes
Reply to Pie That is what I believe. People hate different communities because they love their own and fear that others could damage their values/customs. The preference for a good is what primarily seems to drive our aversion towards its absence.
universenessAugust 06, 2022 at 12:28#7260040 likes
I enjoyed reading the responses to the OP on this thread.
I don't feel the need to add anything to the general 'choose life!' message, firmly delivered.
I am sure I have an old faded 80's Wham 'CHOOSE LIFE' T-shirt somewhere in a drawer. Sadly, it won't fit me anymore but I might dig it out and stare at it for a while. Memories of past happy moments are also quite life-affirming. At least for me, anyway.
Can we not just as easily make love primary ? I fear that harm will come to what I love. No love, no fear.
Love is basically mutual assurance. People giving each other hope and consolation. Its not a thing in itself. Without fear and insecurity, how could we give each other hope and comfort?
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 12:46#7260080 likes
Reply to Yohan I think we can love someone without necessarily fearing that we would/could lose them. However, if we have lost something of value, then one can feel both hope and despair. I would say that the former is generally preferable. If you meant that to love someone else, one must be dissatisfied/averse to their current state of affairs, I would agree with that. But this state of deprivation/insecurity itself arises from the loss of a previous state of being satisfied/loving what one has.
Love is basically mutual assurance. People giving each other hope and consolation. Its not a thing in itself. Without fear and insecurity, how could we give each other hope and comfort?
I see us as tribal, social animals, evolved to work as a group. I view the relatively isolated self as a kind of invention or development in the story.
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 12:46#7260100 likes
Then why are you still around? I don’t mean this to be callous — and I’m not encouraging suicide — but genuinely curious. If you long for nothingness, why keep going?
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 15:18#7260630 likes
Reply to Xtrix I am not OP, but I could try answering the question:
1. It's not easy to embrace nothingness (at least until there is a liberal right to a graceful exit that allows one to find a completely peaceful and risk-free way out).
2. Since one is already here, they could focus on alleviating the suffering of existing sentient beings.
I am thankful that the extreme step has not been taken. I hope that we can someday live in a world in which people never have to do so in a state of pure misery and despair.
I see us as tribal, social animals, evolved to work as a group. I view the relatively isolated self as a kind of invention, a byproduct of capitalism maybe.
I think man has been isolated from the beginning, and that groups are at least one factor in that.
When someone sees me as a stereotype or representative of a group, they ignore my unique individuality, so I become isolated.
Reply to Darkneos
Well, you won't ever experience death. Death is simply, "The end". You'll experience dying if you're conscious at the time. But that's it. There is no peace, no rest, no etc. You're just dead. You won't be able to tell people how different you are anymore. You won't be able to chat with friends or family about how much of a chore life is. You won't be able to post on the philosophy boards in the hope of conversing or thinking.
You'll be gone. There will be no you. It will simply end. You won't even get the satisfaction of enjoying it or "being right".
You do enjoy life. Now it may not be roses and "the best", but you do, because you live. You actually do enjoy to some extent talking to other people. Making your voice known. People who really don't enjoy life at all don't talk. They don't write. They hate and despise everything about their very existence. You would loath eating, breathing, and doing anything. You obviously do not.
So no, you don't prefer death to living. You still live. You still eat. You still interact. Perhaps you wish life were better than it is. Perhaps you want peace and a release from pain, and confuse that for a desire for death. Many people do. But if you're talking about death as it is, an unromantic end that you won't get any feelings about or be around to experience, no you don't.
If we should not be afraid of/averse to non-existence because we cannot be deprived of something when we don't exist, we should also not chase/worship the void, since the absence of suffering has no value for an inexistent being. You're not going to be in some better/more satisfied state due to the lack of harms. In view of this, non-existence has no value/disvalue. What one does with their life, therefore, becomes a highly individualised affair that differs from person-to-person and what action/emotion brings them happiness when they exist. Lastly, I wouldn't say there's something "wrong" with you. I am not a fan of blind optimism. All I would say is that, considering that value only lies in existence, I think that it can be rational to try our best to discover a source of joy that can provide us happiness for as long as possible instead of seeking cessation which is necessarily limited in its capacity to provide fulfilment.
Value may only lie in existence, yes, so that is why I can see value in not having to perform the song and dance anymore. The same goes for the absence of suffering, your logic doesn't really follow for not chasing the void as the entire point is the end, the cessation of it all. Non existence has greater value as people view the end goal of utter oblivion to be preferable to anything life can offer.
You do enjoy life. Now it may not be roses and "the best", but you do, because you live. You actually do enjoy to some extent talking to other people. Making your voice known. People who really don't enjoy life at all don't talk. They don't write. They hate and despise everything about their very existence. You would loath eating, breathing, and doing anything. You obviously do not.
So no, you don't prefer death to living. You still live. You still eat. You still interact. Perhaps you wish life were better than it is. Perhaps you want peace and a release from pain, and confuse that for a desire for death. Many people do. But if you're talking about death as it is, an unromantic end that you won't get any feelings about or be around to experience, no you don't.
That would be wrong to say. I talk to others because, well what else is there? I mentioned the goal was to make life tolerable until the end. Just because I talk to people doesn't mean I enjoy it, I don't hate it either.
I do prefer death to living, to not have to do any of this anymore, but I must live as I have no other option at the moment.
Reply to Xtrix Because getting there, as I already stated, is hard and unreliable as things stand and a failure will result in further attempts to prevent me from it (institutionalized, etc).
People underestimate just how strong the survival drive is and that it's not easy to overcome.
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 17:51#7261000 likes
Reply to Darkneos Some people might indeed prefer the void (especially when they cannot find any other source of value). However, this doesn't apply to all individuals. I wouldn't say that you are somehow inherently wrong to prefer the void (if that was the case, I would not have been in favour of a right to a dignified exit). But this doesn't affect my logic that choosing nothingness is just as meaningful/pointless as seeking happiness and valuing life is. Many people believe that the precious joys of life (that come from things such as worthwhile bonds with loved ones and gaining knowledge) are worth cherishing instead of focusing on a valueless void. However, if one tragically fails to find any great fountain of fulfilment, then forcing them to live by calling them irrational is wrong, I believe. Uncritically worshipping life can cause more harm than good. The survival instinct is still a part of us and can even help save us in times of need. If there is a will to live that prevents one from ending everything no matter how much they want to, there might also be a will to not exist that would obstruct people's ability to find happiness and a reason to keep living even if they do everything in their power to find it. I don't think that either of these biological processes are intrinsically irrational. At the same time, it's also true that our strong aversion to non-existence coupled with the fear of extreme suffering can force us to keep living a life we really don't want to. In such cases, provided nothing else can be done, I think that a peaceful way to choose the exit door should be available.
So after all, even for you life is preferable to death. Which is normal, after millions or billions of years of evolution have geared our motivations toward survival.
I think death becomes preferable to life when suffering exceeds happiness so much that it beats the survival drive. If the survival drive is strong as usual, this must be a singularly terrible situation but unfortunately it can happen too.
Well no it's not. I wouldn't call the survival drive "me" it's just an obstacle that I can't surmount. Life is not preferable to me, however that doesn't mean my continued existence is a testament to preferring life.
But this doesn't affect my logic that choosing nothingness is just as meaningful/pointless as seeking happiness and valuing life is. Many people believe that the precious joys of life are worth cherishing instead of focusing on a valueless void.
It does though. My main point about the good things in life is that you don't need any of that in death so they aren't reasons to really stick around. In short if you don't HAVE to live then there is no reason to do so. Such good things make life tolerable and seeking them out only makes sense if one HAS to live, which seems to be my case since seeking the end is inordinately difficult. Not only because society pretty much forbids it but apparently a lot of suicide attempts end in failure and leave you in a worse off state, not really how I prefer to spend my remaining days...locked in a hospital with people trying to "fix" me.
I guess people only rationalize living by stating "precious joys are worth cherishing" is due to death anxiety, as Ernest Becker put it. We tend to fear death and much of our lives are ruled by this fact, at least according to him.
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 18:00#7261040 likes
Reply to Darkneos I know that nobody loses something when they don't exist. However, by the same token, nobody feels satisfied/fulfiled when they don't exist either. This is why I think that there is no absolute reason for everyone to either keep living or to try to end everything. If life has nothing worthwhile left, then the only source of comfort becomes cessation—and I am not going to call you irrational for thinking that. But for a lot of people, the positives of life, such as love and beauty, are of greater value, which is why they don't have a reason to simply stop everything. The negatives may degrade the value of the positives, but they don't nullify them entirely for all individuals. In short, it does because we have a reason to gain the goods when we exist (which is the only place where value can exist). Of course, there is no objective reason for us to either continue on or to annihilate everything. But, from the point of view of sentient beings who necessarily seek positives and avoid negatives, the availability of a higher good can give one a reason to not give up.
It's not always about rationalisation; it's about the variegated nature of preferences and perspectives. I am aware of Becker's ideas. Part of the reason why people fear death is because they appreciate the goods of life. These goods could be complex, such as the relationships one has and could lose, to more basic ones, such as death resulting in some sort of horrible black void that takes away the positive state of we were in. I do think that there is a sort of paternalism when it comes to giving people the right to a graceful exit. Personally, I don't think that one's love for life should justify making someone else endure a valueless existence. Toxic positivity is a significant problem.
That would be wrong to say. I talk to others because, well what else is there? I mentioned the goal was to make life tolerable until the end. Just because I talk to people doesn't mean I enjoy it, I don't hate it either.
I do prefer death to living, to not have to do any of this anymore, but I must live as I have no other option at the moment.
It's like you read nothing I said.
Ridiculous. This is a philosophy forum. Logically, you live because you choose to live. If you truly preferred death more, you would die. If you're interested in a "woe is me" or "life is pain" conversation, this isn't the place.
Further, I've had times in my life where pain and emotional despair was unbearable. I've felt the urge to suicide before. But I made the choice to continue to live. That logically means I preferred life to death, despite all the nearly unbearable misery. What a pathetic human being I would have been to whine to others that I preferred death as I continually chose to live again and again.
You don't get to choose life, then say you prefer death. That's illogical. That's just whining about life. When this clear logical discrepancy is pointed out you whine some more. No wonder people tell you to go to therapy. You should listen to them. Your life sucks, so do something about it and improve it.
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 18:37#7261140 likes
Reply to Philosophim I think that their point is that they do prefer non-existence but they are not a huge fan of the road that leads there. In other words, they find life to be better than an overwhelmingly negative end, but not necessarily more desirable than one that would most probably be peaceful. And then one also has to think about societal expectations. I am not saying that annihilation is always better. I sincerely hope that they can find the comfort they seek.
Existential HopeAugust 06, 2022 at 18:39#7261150 likes
Reply to Philosophim Also, I am glad that you were able to hold on despite going through terrible harms. May you have a wonderful day/night ahead!
unenlightenedAugust 06, 2022 at 18:59#7261260 likes
So much for the views of the living. But now listen to the dead.
is usually a flowering of..well.. a view. Indicating some sort of understanding of the entire picture. Taking into account all sides of the story. Usually such a view isn't a reaction or a grasping of any one side.
One may start by inquiring what is this thing we call living. As if you have choice, HA. Freakin' mechanical robots. In any case, it seems that's where the inquiry begins.
I think that their point is that they do prefer non-existence but they are not a huge fan of the road that leads there. In other words, the find life to be better than an overwhelmingly negative end, but not necessarily more desirable than one that would most probably be peaceful.
The OP is confused. There is no peace in death. There is nothing. What the OP wants is peace in life. To get to a moment where they feel peace. You have to live to feel peace. They would prefer a life where they feel peace then a life where they feel pain. Death does not give peace. It gives nothing. There is no chance to find peace. There is no beating the pain. If you die in pain, its the last thing you will ever feel.
To believe that absence of your existence can be preferable to pain is true in some circumstances. Have all of your limbs cut off, your eyes blown out, your brain half blown to bits and you're surviving purely by modern science? Yeah, pull that plug. It does not sound like those are the circumstances of the OP. It sounds like someone who is in pain, and instead of dealing with that pain, looks to invent some fantasy to avoid the work needed to make the pain go away. The OP needs to deal with their pain. They can one day find peace if they work for it. They will not if they keep sticking to this romantic fantasy of death.
"Death" is the most peaceful experience one can experience while "living". Had it not been so, the body won't be programmed to slip into it every night. Surely more or less we understand biological death. But have we understood...for convenience, let's call it psychological death. Have we even asked such a question. Have we questioned if death and life are co-existent. Maybe two sides of the same coin.
But how can you question, if you lack the backbone needed to question your bias towards this thing you call living. Wherein, like some form of the Stockholm syndrome, you have fallen in love with your limitations, begging, beseeching life, to give you one more ounce of what you call "fun"/pleasure. Therefore to you, death is a terrible thing. A thing of fear and oblivion. So, you aren't really living life....but rather your fear. You are corrupted.
The OP is confused. There is no peace in death. There is nothing. What the OP wants is peace in life.
What you say has merit, but consider this edge case :
A man will be tortured for hours for information he does not have. He will then be killed. Is it reasonable for him to grab at a means to end his consciousness, if he knows all this with certainty ?
Or consider, more typically, a person aware that they are sinking into dementia...Are there states worse than death ? So that death is to be sought ? My position is yes.
The OP is confused. There is no peace in death. There is nothing. What the OP wants is peace in life. To get to a moment where they feel peace. You have to live to feel peace. They would prefer a life where they feel peace then a life where they feel pain. Death does not give peace. It gives nothing. There is no chance to find peace.
I agree with this , and would add that the fantasy of peace in life that is the OP’s longing for ‘death’ is , like all experiences of peace or relief, a contrast or transition from a prior state. No state of mind or mood sustains itself in perpetuity because experiences are relational and contingent. An experience of peace will inevitably be followed by a new experience that addresses and transforms it. Peace can become trepidation, struggle, mourning , elation. More importantly, these transitions in attitude and mood change US. In a sense , with every shift in mood and outlook , the particular self that we are are at any given time is born of a previous self and dies as it is replaced by a new self. Even in just longing for and fantasizing about the ‘peace of death’ , we are briefly achieving this feeling of peace. The old ‘we’ who was struggling has died and briefly become the new ‘we’ who is at peace. Soon this new ‘we’ will pass over into yet another ‘we’ who is beset with a fresh situation and attitude. This is all that death will ever give you. It is not death that is eternal but the contingency of desire.
What you say has merit, but consider this edge case :
A man will be tortured for hours for information he does not have. He will then be killed. Is it reasonable for him to grab at a means to end his consciousness, if he knows all this with certainty ?
Or consider, more typically, a person aware that they are sinking into dementia...Are there states worse than death ? So that death is to be sought ? My position is yes.
That's not to say it's not worthwhile discussing again. I did that!
Different time, different posters; pretty much same arguments, assumptions and responses.
However, it makes me question the intention of the OP, rightly or wrongly.
I was wondering if anyone else thinks similarly or if they have a counter to what I've mentioned. I realize I'm alone, but also I have a hard time discussing this anywhere else because people immediately say you need therapy. I consider that a dodge to my stance on this and a symptom of society's collective fear around death, I mean we can't even talk about it without people thinking there is something "Wrong" with you.
[ emphasis added]
Worth considering?
There seems to be an appeal to fellow would-be suicides...
Join the club. Us against the rest of the world.
Darkneos seems to have been doing this for years. Going from forum to forum.
Fishing.
How many pages will this run to...?
We love to hear ourselves talk, don't we?
So, death, it seems, in its correct context, is an ending. An ending to your fears, your pettiness, your jealousies, your beseeching, your pretenses your games, your neuroticism....ya know , don't you? After all these, and more, is what you call living. This "ending" has nothing to do with your biological continuity or dis-continuity. Clearly.
Reply to DarkneosHeroin ... because the grass on the other side of the abyss always seems greener ...
[quote=Renton, Trainspotting]Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose a washing machine, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suit on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing gameshows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you spawned to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?[/quote]
:yawn:
OR
One can choose (e.g.) Epicurus & Lucretius, Montaigne & Spinoza, Zapffe & Camus, Buber & Beckett, Clément Rosset & James Baldwin, Philippa Foot & Martha Nussbaum, Albert Murray & George Steiner ... :fire:
Because getting there, as I already stated, is hard and unreliable as things stand
It’s hard and unreliable to kill yourself? I really can’t see how that’s true, but OK.
As for the survival instinct — yes, true. But supposedly you long for death. If the drive to continue living is greater— then you really don’t want it. If you did you’d be dead already— provided that there are means to do so and, as I already mentioned, there are plenty of ways to do so.
People who consider suicide very often don’t truly want to die — they’re either without meaning and joy or are clinically depressed.
Do you consider yourself depressed? It sounds that way to me. In which case: there are ways out.
The OP is confused. There is no peace in death. There is nothing. What the OP wants is peace in life. To get to a moment where they feel peace. You have to live to feel peace. They would prefer a life where they feel peace then a life where they feel pain. Death does not give peace.
I hear you, but for me this is being a bit too concrete or literal. Death is often described as the end of suffering - which technically it is likely to be (unless you think there is a judgement coming after). Therefore death brings 'peace' in as much is it brings non suffering or 'nothingness'. From the perspective of a suffering life, death holds the appeal of relief or a metaphorically peaceful alternative - you may not be there to experience it, but you won't be there to experience ongoing suffering either.
If one has followed the inquiry thus far and is seeing the true context of death as simplyan ending, which it is, which you wish to postpone for as long as you can since you lack a backbone,
then one puts a reasonable question, if i know there is biological death always lurking around the corner and all your BS is gonna leave you with nothing but sh## in your hands, then why doesn't the human end (psychological death) its weasel-ly-ness. Right.
To end it now! Because that's what biological death will do/does. You won't have a chance to negotiate/weasel out of, as much as want to. So the question then becomes, what is it to die. For example, to all your fears, to your prejudices, to your nonsense.
TiredThinkerAugust 06, 2022 at 23:31#7261960 likes
Life isn't so bad without knowledge of anything afterwards. Find simple passions. Dopamine is harder to feel with age, but I am hopeful age research will someday help us feel like our best selves again before sleep and back issues were a thing.
It's not always about rationalisation; it's about the variegated nature of preferences and perspectives. I am aware of Becker's ideas. Part of the reason why people fear death is because they appreciate the goods of life. These goods could be complex, such as the relationships one has and could lose, to more basic ones, such as death resulting in some sort of horrible black void that takes away the positive state of we were in. I do think that there is a sort of paternalism when it comes to giving people the right to a graceful exit. Personally, I don't think that one's love for life should justify making someone else endure a valueless existence. Toxic positivity is a significant problem.
I think you're missing the point. In death there is no need for such things, it all ends. So there's no need to seek the good stuff. They don't fear death because of the goods of life, they fear the end when really they should not for it can be pretty great.
The OP is confused. There is no peace in death. There is nothing. What the OP wants is peace in life. To get to a moment where they feel peace. You have to live to feel peace. They would prefer a life where they feel peace then a life where they feel pain. Death does not give peace. It gives nothing. There is no chance to find peace. There is no beating the pain. If you die in pain, its the last thing you will ever feel.
To believe that absence of your existence can be preferable to pain is true in some circumstances. Have all of your limbs cut off, your eyes blown out, your brain half blown to bits and you're surviving purely by modern science? Yeah, pull that plug. It does not sound like those are the circumstances of the OP. It sounds like someone who is in pain, and instead of dealing with that pain, looks to invent some fantasy to avoid the work needed to make the pain go away. The OP needs to deal with their pain. They can one day find peace if they work for it. They will not if they keep sticking to this romantic fantasy of death.
Ahh, again you misunderstand. This has nothing to do with peace in life, it's about the cessation of all things. Death does afford a peace, in a sense, even if you can't feel it. You can rest knowing the pain will pass and you won't have to do anything anymore. I think you are giving death less than it is.
Why deal with one's pain when they can just quit? You're still missing the point here trying to find something "Wrong" and that's the mistake you make as much as anyone else does. Nothing in life IMO is worth working for when one doesn't have to live. If society had a different mind they'd see that and allow people to exit if they choose.
It’s hard and unreliable to kill yourself? I really can’t see how that’s true, but OK.
As for the survival instinct — yes, true. But supposedly you long for death. If the drive to continue living is greater— then you really don’t want it. If you did you’d be dead already— provided that there are means to do so and, as I already mentioned, there are plenty of ways to do so.
People who consider suicide very often don’t truly want to die — they’re either without meaning and joy or are clinically depressed.
Do you consider yourself depressed? It sounds that way to me. In which case: there are ways out.
Again making the mistake in thinking there is something wrong.
I've done the research and found out most suicide attempts end in failure, that there really isn't a "surefire way" to do it and those who survive end up in worse shape than before. You'd think it'd be easy and I do too. Trust me when I say I've googled painless ways to die, but you have to wade through a lot of the "therapy" nonsense.
Jack CumminsAugust 06, 2022 at 23:40#7262000 likes
Reply to Darkneos
I am glad to see you back on site because I after reading your posts about death and you not being on the site for a long time I had worried that you had killed yourself. The reason why I say I was worried is because I do see suicide as being about the worst way to die. I do have thoughts of it at times, mainly when I feel that I have more stress than I can cope with, but I am glad that I have never given into such thoughts. I have known people who have killed themselves, often in extreme situations of panic and despair.
Death is probably the end, and I say that because I used to believe in life after death but, now, see it as unlikely. Life does seem harsh at times and it seems that some people have harder lives than others. The things which I think would just be unbearable are having to sleep rough on the streets or becoming blind. I don't know what your own reason for wishing to die is but everyone will die at some point.
Generally, I wish to make the best of what happens and cope with whatever happens to the best of my abilities. I think that I would be too afraid to kill myself whatever situation I was in. Even though I don't fear hell like when I was a teenager I know of people who have tried to kill themselves and ended up with all sorts of injuries, including not being able to walk.
Reply to Jack Cummins I think you are making the same incorrect assumptions about me that everyone else is, not to mention showing me that you haven't read my posts.
If one has followed the inquiry thus far and is seeing the true context of death as simplyan ending, which it is, which you wish to postpone for as long as you can since you lack a backbone,
then one puts a reasonable question, if i know there is biological death always lurking around the corner and all your BS is gonna leave you with nothing but sh## in your hands, then why doesn't the human end (psychological death) its weasel-ly-ness. Right.
To end it now! Because that's what biological death will do/does. You won't have a chance to negotiate/weasel out of, as much as want to. So the question then becomes, what is it to die. For example, to all your fears, to your prejudices, to your nonsense.
That's what I'm saying. The only reason people IMO live is survival instinct because to me death just makes more logical sense. Never having to do good things, or worry about bad things, it all ends. So why put it off?
I feel like everything used to justify the will to keep going is more just our survival instinct trying to rationalize things.
That's what I'm saying. The only reason people IMO live is survival instinct because to me death just makes more logical sense. Never having to do good things, or worry about bad things, it all ends. So why put it off?
I feel like everything used to justify the will to keep going is more just our survival instinct trying to rationalize things.
No. That's not what you were/are saying.
You seem to be concerned about "checking out", which is about biological death.
That's not what i have been looking into.
Jack CumminsAugust 06, 2022 at 23:50#7262050 likes
Reply to Darkneos
I have read your posts. As far as I can see death is a form of peace, a bit like sleep. It may be that each of us comes from a different, unique angle, making it difficult. I guess that it is that I do enjoy life providing it is not too painful constantly, with constant knockdowns. However, it doesn't seem that you come from that point of view and it your own position may be more along the lines of Camus's one, but I am not entirely sure of this. How do you find the thinking of the existentialist writers? Do you feel an affinity with them?
You can rest knowing the pain will pass and you won't have to do anything anymore.
No. You don't know anything. You don't get to rest. You don't get ANYTHING. Your last memory will be pain, and that will be the last thing you know. There will be no sigh, no relief, no calmness, no anything. Whatever you have in your last moments will be the last thing you experience.
No, you are giving death MORE than it is. You think there is something. Some feeling, some assurence etc. There. Is. Nothing. There is not even the realization that there is nothing. There's no you staring into a black void. There's no, "Finally, I'm at rest." You're gone, period.
Why deal with one's pain when they can just quit? You're still missing the point here trying to find something "Wrong" and that's the mistake you make as much as anyone else does.
Because I'm not a coward. Lots of things in life will try to tear you down and end you. All the cells inside of you fight every day to keep viruses and bacteria at bay. They fight to do their jobs, and live. You spit on that. All the people who spent time and effort raising you to continue life. You spit on that. The fact that you have the gift of sentience when so much matter in the universe will never have it. Its absolutely a waste to throw that away when you should fight for it.
Nothing in life IMO is worth working for when one doesn't have to live.
Well no duh. When you're dead, you don't have to do anything. Because you don't exist anymore. You can't even laugh at society. You're just a corpse to be eaten by worms.
No, I get it FAR better than you. My sister collects and cuts up bodies for a living btw. She's done organ donations, autopsies, etc. I'm very keen to know what death is. She's seen plenty of suicides. They aren't special. She's described decomposition in detail. How your last meal sometimes rots inside, swells your stomache, and has to be purged before cutting into the rotting flesh.
Death is not beautiful, peaceful, or relief. If you want real beauty, peace, and relief, you only find that in life. You will never find that in death. So get out of your morose state, stop feeling sorry about yourself and the world, and start working to actually get beauty, peace, and relief in your life. Looking at death for your such things is cowardly, lazy, and incredibly ignorant.
Besides, why rush the inevitable? Nothing lasts (i.e. entropy, anicca). The "chore" of respirating & metabolizing will end soon. Death is the only god that ever comes whether or not you cry out for her. Until then, savor sleep's daily respite; if, however, you're an insomniac, well Darkneos, you have my sympathies ... :sad:
if one dies while still living, maybe they will finally know what it is to be Alive. Perhaps they will be in a better position of having a "view" on the age old question, "if there is such a thing as immortality?".
Course you can't weasel your way to it. Therefore weasels usually give up.
Existential HopeAugust 07, 2022 at 02:25#7262160 likes
Reply to Darkneos I don't think I am. The good is a source of pleasant experiences that don't exist when one doesn't exist. If one cares about having those goods, then they would choose them over a valueless state of affairs. Nothingness is not bad but it isn't good either. If the end can be preferred even though non-existent beings don't gain anything when they don't exist, then it can also be rational to avoid it even if there is no need after cessation. It could be great, but it can also be terrible. I suppose the perspective will vary from person-to-person. It comes down to what possesses more value for someone when they exist. As I have said before, I believe that it isn't inherently irrational for an individual to choose the exit door. I would merely add that if certain elements of being have greater value for someone than a state of affairs that is neither bad (because you don't have any needs) nor good (because there is no fulfilment), then it can be rational for them to try to retain/conserve them. May you find the happiness (in whatever form) that you deserve!
Existential HopeAugust 07, 2022 at 02:35#7262180 likes
Reply to Philosophim I agree that value and disvalue both reside only in existence. Some people seem afraid of the void as if it would bring about some terrible void, whereas others appear to seek it as if it would be peaceful. But I think that it can make sense to say that one wants peaceful cessation but, since it isn't possible, they have to choose the "lesser harm" of continuing a mostly bad existence rather than try to find a way out that could potentially be quite harmful.
What’s so awful about pain? Why is some pain worse than death?
The questions make no sense. Death is the ending of life, not a state. If life is filled with pain one wants pain to end. If the discussion is depressing one wants to end the discussion. The OP wants to escape from this - the present, not to achieve the goal of death. This happens when the mind is filled with the past, and projecting the past into the future as the continuation of the self. This projection of self into the future of years of mediocrity and meaningless routine and general discomfort, followed by the death one fears, is what fills and poisons the present, and thus himself is the prison in which he is confined. The desire to escape creates the very thing one seeks to escape from.
The solution is to face the fear, which is to face the present self which is nothing but this circle of thought going nowhere but round in a miserable circle, and in seeing that whole, there is a new thought and so a new life. That dies, and there is this. If one is every day new, then the thought of death will have no meaning to be either feared or desired. One has to escape the prison of thought to find the terrible beauty of life , that life and death are not separate.
If one lives as though it is good to inhale, but bad to exhale, one will not be happy for long.
I wouldn't call the survival drive "me" it's just an obstacle that I can't surmount.
The survival drive is part of your motivational makeup. You have motives to live and you have motives to die, and it seems that at the moment the motives to live prevail :)
I don't think it's such a bad metaphor. It's like the difference between a surgery without or without general anesthesia. Is it absurd to prefer the anesthesia ?
Existential HopeAugust 07, 2022 at 09:42#7263420 likes
Reply to Pie Anaesthesia can still feel somewhat pleasant. However, death is neither good nor bad for someone who doesn't exist. However, the process of cessation can be preferred/avoided depending upon an existing person's desires and what makes them happy. Ideally, it would be better, I think, for there to be a free and fair RTD that would help people not go through a life pervaded with negatives.
universenessAugust 07, 2022 at 10:15#7263470 likes
Because I'm not a coward. Lots of things in life will try to tear you down and end you. All the cells inside of you fight every day to keep viruses and bacteria at bay. They fight to do their jobs, and live. You spit on that. All the people who spent time and effort raising you to continue life. You spit on that. The fact that you have the gift of sentience when so much matter in the universe will never have it. Its absolutely a waste to throw that away when you should fight for it.
Reply to DA671
I think we basically agree. My point was just that we can consciously choose unconsciousness. A person can risk death to protect their child. A person can stand up against a tyrant, make a grand speech, knowing it'll lead to the guillotine. Duels were common once. In short, it's part of our calculations, and I suspect that death is often thought of as a deep sleep, as a sort of zero state, neither good nor bad.
unenlightenedAugust 07, 2022 at 10:27#7263520 likes
Of course not. It is not absurd to kill yourself either; I simply point out that in choosing oblivion over pain, one is trying to escape something, not achieve or gain something. That is where the notion of 'preferring' is misleadingly positive. Desire and fear are both projections to the future, but with opposite signs. They both equally take one away from one's real (present) life and create the prison of self from which one is seeking to escape.
Existential HopeAugust 07, 2022 at 10:47#7263610 likes
This projection of self into the future of years of mediocrity and meaningless routine and general discomfort, followed by the death one fears, is what fills and poisons the present,
E.m Cioran- The a Trouble with Being Born:To get up in the morning, wash and then wait for some unforeseen variety of dread or depression. I would give the whole universe and all of Shakespeare for a grain of ataraxy.
My faculty for disappointment surpasses understanding. It is what lets me comprehend Buddha, but also what keeps me from following him.
I am enraptured by Hindu philosophy, whose essential endeavor is to surmount the self; and everything I do, everything I think is only myself and the selfs humiliations.
In the fact of being born there is such an absence of necessity that when you think about it a little more than usual, you are left—ignorant how to react—with a foolish grin
The same feeling of not belonging, of futility, wherever I go: I pretend interest in what matters nothing to me, I bestir myself mechanically or out of charity, without ever being caught up, without ever being somewhere. What attracts me is elsewhere, and I don't know where that elsewhere is.
Three in the morning. I realize this second, then this one, then the next: I draw up the balance sheet for each minute. And why all this? Because I was born. It is a special type of sleeplessness that produces the indictment of birth.
Existential HopeAugust 07, 2022 at 13:56#7264000 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 The Hindus seek to elevate the self (which is said to be one instead of being partitioned, which is just maya) towards the ultimate reality. It's not about utter negation.
There's a sort of comfort in the routine. I like waking up, brushing my teeth (not that they are in a great condition!), listening to the birds, and thinking about my work for the day.
Ataraxia can be quite subjective (in terms of its origin). Wealth definitely helps and so does having genuine relationships instead of the numerous transactional ones we see these days.
The absence of necessity can be a source of rapturous gratitude for the precious reality.
Some things are interesting and some aren't. I think that the more one can limit unnecessary desires and see contentment as a worthwhile goal, the better things could be. Plenty of aspects of existence, such as aesthetic value and love, don't seem futile to many people.
When there is an indescribable serenity on the face that went through seemingly insurmountable odds when spending time with someone they care about, it serves to awaken one's will towards affirming the good.
None of this detracts from the necessity of reducing gratuitous harms, however. I hope that my fellow optimists can have a nuanced perspective and be more open-minded when it comes to ideas such as a liberal right to a dignified exit and transhumanism.
"In a life or death crisis, simply settle it by choosing immediate death. There is nothing complicated about it. Just brace yourself and proceed. . . . One who chooses to go on living having railed in one's mission will be despised as a coward and a bungler. ... In order to be a perfect samurai, it is necessary to prepare oneself for death morning and evening, day in and day out."
:flower:
- Yukio Mishima on "The way of Samurai"
universenessAugust 07, 2022 at 17:37#7264370 likes
Anti-life is completely futile as the universe has clearly demonstrated that if life can happen, it will happen, somewhere at some point, again and again and again. Death just means you disassemble back into the spare subatomic parts you were made from. You dissipate back into the universal mix, all of what you were will be used again in new variations and new combinations. Nothing to be afraid of. The little life variation you were is gone forever but you will not be forgotten if you leave a respectable legacy and future transhumanism may offer many more options.
Looking at the examples available from natural selection and the evolutionary process, I think anyone anti-life should beware. The Darwinian rules don't seem to have many moral imperatives that humans would consider 'fair' or 'just.' If you invoke the Darwinian rules then that is what you personally might get.
The best hope for anyone antilife is the fact that those who love life care enough to try to convince them to think differently. We are their only hope against becoming spare parts for new life forms or any new animate or inanimate combination/structure way before they needed to due to their own confused choices.
The only value I see in them is they offer me a level of personal reflection and confirm for me how bad things can get on a personal level. I can say to myself 'well, at least you are not choosing to live life as some kind of daily, hour-to-hour curse.'
I assume anti-lifers struggle when nice things happen to them and to others around them as feeling good must be painful for them.
Anti-life is completely futile as the universe has clearly demonstrated that if life can happen, it will happen, somewhere at some point, again and again and again. Death just means you disassemble back into the spare subatomic parts you were made from. You dissipate back into the universal mix, all of what you were will be used again in new variations and new combinations. Nothing to be afraid of. The little life variation you were is gone forever but you will not be forgotten if you leave a respectable legacy and future transhumanism may offer many more options.
Yeah, but when it really comes to our own lives, we are all such egoist whimps. :sad:
If I die tomorrow, at least I'll be happy that my children are now so old that they will remember me. It would really suck to die when your children are so young that they won't remember anything. But at least I had them and a loving wife, so one notch to the "successful human/animal life"-table.
I have no suggestions if one finds life undesirable. Imagination is good, but living at the moment requires courage. That's it. Courage to face the mundane and the ordinary. Escapism has flourished over the last last decade or so. You've seen a lot of them in vlogs. Cottage fairies is one example. Another, is living a life in the 18th century, complete with costume and oil lamps and lack of modern technology. There's also the shopping addiction. Acquiring things to fill a void. Or just simply using drugs and alcohol to enter the state of stupor and mindlessness.
I don't know what to think of those people. I try to avoid them.
But I know that looking at the determination of animals in the wilderness, that's what I call living. They have enough energy pent up inside them that when they spring into action, all those energy is released like superpowers. Relatively, they live a short life -- when you always give your all and use all your energy to bag a prey, you're bound to have a shorter life. The wear and tear you sustain makes you powerful, but also short-lived.
What am I saying?
There's enough chemicals and enzymes in our body potent enough to fight hopelessness and boredom. We just need to know how to use them. When you use them, your mind is focused and even minutes of your life count. Of course, moments like that don't last 24 hours, 7 days a week. Eventually, the highs subside. That's when you sleep, or just do some physical activities. Or eat.
schopenhauer1August 07, 2022 at 21:02#7264750 likes
You’ve already defeated your own argument that we are “at home” like other animals and extolled the existential /absurdist dilemma (of the specifically human condition) in one sentence.
Reply to litewave Motive implies I choose it and it is part of me, but it isn't. It's just a force more or less that prevents me from doing stuff. I don't really want to live but I sort of have to.
Death just means you disassemble back into the spare subatomic parts you were made from. You dissipate back into the universal mix, all of what you were will be used again in new variations and new combinations. Nothing to be afraid of. The little life variation you were is gone forever but you will not be forgotten if you leave a respectable legacy and future transhumanism may offer many more options.
Well you can't really be sure about that. Once I die it is blackness, I cannot verify past that. Also your point about disassembling is what Ernest Becker would call inventing stories to assuage death anxiety, in your case becoming part of something greater and eternal.
Also you will be forgotten, transhumanism ain't gonna fix that. I mean granted it's not gonna fix anything IMO. Quoting universeness
I assume anti-lifers struggle when nice things happen to them and to others around them as feeling good must be painful for them.
I have no suggestions if one finds life undesirable. Imagination is good, but living at the moment requires courage. That's it. Courage to face the mundane and the ordinary. Escapism has flourished over the last last decade or so. You've seen a lot of them in vlogs. Cottage fairies is one example. Another, is living a life in the 18th century, complete with costume and oil lamps and lack of modern technology. There's also the shopping addiction. Acquiring things to fill a void. Or just simply using drugs and alcohol to enter the state of stupor and mindlessness.
Living does not require courage, that's just rationalization to avoid having to reckon with death, same with calling death boring.
But I know that looking at the determination of animals in the wilderness, that's what I call living. They have enough energy pent up inside them that when they spring into action, all those energy is released like superpowers. Relatively, they live a short life -- when you always give your all and use all your energy to bag a prey, you're bound to have a shorter life. The wear and tear you sustain makes you powerful, but also short-lived.
That's sort of ignorance about what nature is like. Animals survive because they know nothing else. They aren't brave and I wouldn't call that living.
If I die tomorrow, at least I'll be happy that my children are now so old that they will remember me. It would really suck to die when your children are so young that they won't remember anything. But at least I had them and a loving wife, so one notch to the "successful human/animal life"-table.
I think it would be better to die when they don't remember anything, it's less painful. Your reply sounds pretty self centered.
Reply to schopenhauer1 Few things encourage me to, as Beckett says, "I'll go on" like reading the blackest passages of Cioran :cool:
E.m Cioran- The a Trouble with Being Born:[i]To get up in the morning, wash and then wait for some unforeseen variety of dread or depression. I would give the whole universe and all of Shakespeare for a grain of ataraxy.
My faculty for disappointment surpasses understanding. It is what lets me comprehend Buddha, but also what keeps me from following him.
I am enraptured by Hindu philosophy, whose essential endeavor is to surmount the self; and everything I do, everything I think is only myself and the self's humiliations.
In the fact of being born there is such an absence of necessity that when you think about it a little more than usual, you are left ... with a foolish grin.[/i]
You’ve already defeated your own argument that we are “at home” like other animals and extolled the existential /absurdist dilemma (of the specifically human condition) in one sentence.
I don't see how what you just said rejects what I said. Care to explain?
Living does not require courage, that's just rationalization to avoid having to reckon with death, same with calling death boring.
Well, you're helping my argument, not hurting it. We are humans after all. So, yes, we use rationalization like animals use instinct. Courage consists of going against our tendency towards hopelessness. We use rationalization, of course. But there are enzymes and chemicals in our body at our disposal.
That's sort of ignorance about what nature is like. Animals survive because they know nothing else. They aren't brave and I wouldn't call that living.
Pardon me. I went back to my post and see if I called the wild animals brave. I said, humans need that. The animals live the way they are designed to live. Because they know nothing else, they use their energy to fuel life.
I shall name this village Melancholia, which sits in a flood prone depression next to the River Angst. The dark clouds are confined in the valley by the heights of Mount Despair and Mount Regret, where a true rain never falls, just an eternal cold drizzle.
Only one small path leads out, but its trailhead can only be seen by casting one's gaze above shoulder height, and none have yet looked that high up. They've heard of this Path of Hope, but never having seen it, they scoff and shrug, looking at the ground, firmly denying it.
I think it would be better to die when they don't remember anything, it's less painful. Your reply sounds pretty self centered.
I have many good memories of people that have died. They are not painful at all. Why would it be painful to have good (or even not so good) memories of people that have loved and cared about you?
If you think it's great to be an orphan who has no memory about his or her biological parents, I have to disagree. Do you really think that is better?
People die and if you remember the generation of your grandparents, the older people of you childhood, later you will notice that you have become part of that "old generation" to younger people.
schopenhauer1August 07, 2022 at 21:31#7264850 likes
Reply to 180 Proof
Cioran is highly edifying in his inertia. Even suicide is caring too much.
I don't really want to live but I sort of have to.
No you dont, you can check out any time you’d like. I think if you wanted to be dead you would be. You don’t really want to check out though do you? What you actually want here is attention, to validate your feelings about how unimpressed you are with life as an option.
Im not one thats going to tell you life is precious or that you have a gift or you have good in your life if you'd just embrace it. I accept you get nothing out of life, that you see nothing special about living and that death/oblivion seems like a better option than living…I’ll concede all that to you right now.
What your wrong about is that any of those feelings have anything to do with how much life sucks or how much better an option death is. Life isnt the problem, you are.
Your thoughts are those of a depressed mind. Just because its a common response you get ( get therapy) doesn't mean its wrong. You might need meds or something else that you are unqualified to dismiss as a cure for your little dilemma.
If youre adamant about depression or other mental illness not being the source of your view here then you’ve already gotten the best advice in the form of a question:
Are you sure youre doing life right?
If you truly have nothing worthwhile to live for, then you are actually more free than most other people. With such little attachment to life you have a freedom, a liberation of action, that means you can fill your life with whatever you want. If you cant exercise that freedom, then thats on you, not life.
universenessAugust 07, 2022 at 21:51#7264910 likes
Yeah, but when it really comes to our own lives, we are all such egoist whimps.
This is true for some but we have many people amongst us who are very humble and genuinely humanist. They just get on with helping people every day and hardly mention their own suffering. When you compliment them or show them admiration they tend to shrink away, truly embarrassed.
They are imo much more numerous, among the poor and weak than among the famous/rich and strong.
Incredible unsung hero like everyday people exist in all our communities. I am not suggesting such people are perfect but they certainly easily compensate for those I would label misanthropic.
Yes I can. Science has very strong empirical evidence for The law of Conservation of Energy, which states that “Energy cannot be created or destroyed.” In other words, the total amount of energy in the universe never changes, it can only change from one form to another. It is actually quite unlikely that after you die, some of your disassembled subatomic particles will never be involved in any new combination events until the end of the universe. YOU will be recycled.
your point about disassembling is what Ernest Becker would call inventing stories to assuage death anxiety,
I can only assure you and Mr Becker(in memorium) that I have no such death anxiety and I would suggest that you are simply trying to project your own anxiety onto me. I love life and will welcome death as a harbinger of change. I fear and I am anxious about the way I will die but I have no fear of oblivion for the obvious reason that there is no awareness.
Also you will be forgotten, transhumanism ain't gonna fix that.
You have no information regarding the legacy I will leave so you have no idea as to how long I will be remembered. Modern techniques store more and more information about our individual lives so future people will get to know a lot more about the lives of past people if they wish to. Future transhumanism has the potential to offer humans vastly improved robustness, ability and longevity. This will offer many new options. If you stick around you may witness its infancy. If you don't then there are many newborns to replace you. The global population has been increasing since we came out of the wilds.
Only one small path leads out, but its trailhead can only be seen by casting one's gaze above shoulder height, and none have yet looked that high up. They've heard of this Path of Hope, but never having seen it, they scoff and shrug, looking at the ground, firmly denying it.
There's always a way out. And I'm sure we don't mean death, which defeats the point.
Reply to Darkneos
Some motives you can't choose. Like, do you like certain types of food? Do you like orgasm? Do you dislike being hungry? Do you dislike being cold? All of these are ordinary motives that drive our lives and they are wired in our bodies or minds and thus are part of us. And they drive us toward pleasant feelings that make life worthwhile and away from unpleasant feelings that make life miserable. Getting killed is unpleasant and the survival drive drives you away from that.
But I know that looking at the determination of animals in the wilderness, that's what I call living. They have enough energy pent up inside them that when they spring into action, all those energy is released like superpowers. Relatively, they live a short life -- when you always give your all and use all your energy to bag a prey, you're bound to have a shorter life. The wear and tear you sustain makes you powerful, but also short-lived.
:clap: In general and in history, I think non-humans have suffered more than humans. I wonder how many lions or lambs decide that life and living is just a bad idea and they should covet death instead? Why does the prey run from the predator when they offer the placid oblivion of death and I don't think that they would have the same concerns as @Darkneos that they might survive the attempt to cause their own termination. Surely that strong survival instinct that has already been mentioned many times and that all species seem to have must have important purpose behind it.
This is true for some but we have many people amongst us who are very humble and genuinely humanist. They just get on with helping people every day and hardly mention their own suffering. When you compliment them or show them admiration they tend to shrink away, truly embarrassed.
Yet helping others, bringing them happiness, make us feel good (at least me). And yes, people usually don't whine about their problems. Yet I don't think that humble and genuinely humanist people are totally indifferent about their own life. They don't want their lives to end.
Ok, I have to admit that there was a bit of sarcasm with myself too in talking about a notch to the "successful human/animal life"-table.
The vast majority of people that have died before us are unknown and haven't left such an individual mark that we would remember them as historical figures. Yet very many of them are someones ancestors. Especially on a philosophy site the notion of continuation of life as a meaning for life might be boring and doesn't answer much, but it's something one cannot disregard.
universenessAugust 08, 2022 at 07:52#7265660 likes
Yet helping others, bringing them happiness, make us feel good (at least me). And yes, people usually don't whine about their problems. Yet I don't think that humble and genuinely humanist people are totally indifferent about their own life. They don't want their lives to end.
WELL DONE SIR!! A great legacy!
— universeness
Is that sarcasm, universeness? If so, why?
No! I think anyone who has a successful marriage and has produced children and has managed to bring them up in a loving environment and they have all reached old age and continue to thrive is a very good (or great) legacy. Perhaps my use of capitals made you suspicious that I was being sarcastic, maybe its normal in today's society where most people are still a little shell shocked from Trumpism, Bo Jo etc that all comments/compliments made by people you don't know are treated with suspicion.
I am sure there is a lot more significance to the legacy your life will leave than a loving marriage and reproduction but such achievements ARE in themselves very good components of your legacy.
The vast majority of people that have died before us are unknown and haven't left such an individual mark that we would remember them as historical figures.
This imo, is more true the further you go back in time than it is now. I already stated my general opinion in my response to darkneous above:
Modern techniques store more and more information about our individual lives so future people will get to know a lot more about the lives of past people if they wish to. Future transhumanism has the potential to offer humans vastly improved robustness, ability and longevity. This will offer many new options
I think we have been, in the main, on the same page in our viewpoints on this topic.
universenessAugust 08, 2022 at 08:03#7265710 likes
The vast majority of people that have died before us are unknown and haven't left such an individual mark that we would remember them as historical figures.
Just a little bit more on this. I know some people who have traced the ancestry of their family and can describe a good deal of detail about many members of their family that go back centuries.
Historical figures that are known globally is just the tip of the iceberg compared to the information that does actually exist about the lives of non-famous people who lived. I find this quite wonderful.
I still remember a little about an everyday Roman soldier called Petronious Artibus because of some graffiti that was left about him. One stated 'Petronious Artibus got me pregnant!'
Existential HopeAugust 08, 2022 at 08:55#7265890 likes
Reply to universeness If value dies with existence, then it lies in existence (obvious but still worth mentioning). The good that matters for us (which transhumanism can also help provide) whilst we exist is not diminished/improved by the opinions of the posterity. Of course, we would definitely want to do the right thing.
Just a little bit more on this. I know some people who have traced the ancestry of their family and can describe a good deal of detail about many members of their family that go back centuries.
The basic problem is that only few of us have had great grandparents around to tell about their life. Hence it's usually this third generation where the personal link to history is lost. The thinking goes likes this: you surely remember what has happened in your lifetime. Everyone of us will remember for example the Covid-pandemic, which is likely a historical event (especially if the next pandemic won't hit us in the next 50 years). To events that have happened to your parents and grandparents one feels a link, especially if they have told themselves about it. But earlier generations, you don't usually know much if anything about their lives. Then it's hard to relate to them.
Usually people get interested about their family and roots only at older age. It should be something that children should interested in when there older generations still around. And as you said, some families have done this and have stories about people that have lived far earlier. I think it's valuable to keep these stories. And in my country it's quite interesting as the people have lived in the same places, not much immigration here before, and the Church books usually go to the Middle Ages.
universenessAugust 08, 2022 at 09:47#7266050 likes
I don't think this has ever been true as most parents attempt to nurture and teach their offspring how to survive and even how best to thrive in the world they live in. The level of legacy and influence that humans achieve is what makes the difference. From word of mouth traditions to the invention of methods to record (hieroglyphics, books etc) experiences and happenings, outside of the body, so that they last much longer than a human lifespan is the main reason why we gained dominion against all other species.
The good that matters for us (which transhumanism can also help provide) whilst we exist is not diminished/improved by the opinions of the posterity.
I am not sure what you mean here. The most unfortunate aspect of history is the distortion of truth and the manipulation of 'what really happened,' so I think the 'opinions of the posterity,' is crucial, especially, if those opinions are based on seriously dubious historical reportage such as those offered by theistic texts or historical events which were exclusively reported on by those in power at the time or those who conquered. History is rarely written by the vanquished.
universenessAugust 08, 2022 at 10:02#7266120 likes
Reply to ssu
All the points you make are valid, but as I said, this situation is changing. Think of how much information will be available to future generations about the lives of their ancestors. Current technology can hold every photograph, every textual or audio word you ever recorded, every piece of footage you ever recorded. You can gather it and back it up to a single SSD and to 'cloud storage' and pass the whole lot to your offspring as legacy files. This will now be available for the rest of time! To all future generations.
In what ways will such information be employed a million years from now? We will be the 'ancients' at that point. I wonder how they will judge the anti-life people alive today? I predict they will be unfavourable towards them based on the fact that sentient life will still be thriving a million years from now. If no such sentient life exists a million years from now then it won't matter anyway. If antilife wins then there will be nothing around to declare their victory. Perhaps anti-life is inevitable in the same way as anti-protons or antimatter or antichrist. Universal balance seems to be the norm. The good thing about the anti story is that matter won the battle of annihilation! Life defeated antilife long ago. That battle has already been decided. Time to get on with life!
Existential HopeAugust 08, 2022 at 10:56#7266450 likes
Reply to universeness I agree! By value, I was referring to positive and negative experiences. Assuming that non-existence is neither good nor bad, it doesn't make sense to always prefer the void when existence can have pleasant experience that non-existent does not. It's about the good too, not about just avoiding the harms.
It's true that the opinions of the posterity do matter for them. And because we as rational and empathetic beings care about what they think and how their lives would be, it's vital that we do everything we can to create a better tomorrow. I was only responding within the context of the value framework that some pessimists have wherein the absence of life's goods isn't bad because you wouldn't have any needs. Well, if that is true, then the fact that we wouldn't be remembered by everyone long after we are gone should not be a problem (or a blessing), considering that we wouldn't exist to lose or gain from that. To summarise, one should not be inconsistent.
universenessAugust 08, 2022 at 12:49#7267040 likes
I was only responding within the context of the value framework that some pessimists have wherein the absence of life's goods isn't bad because you wouldn't have any needs. Well, if that is true, then the fact that we wouldn't be remembered by everyone long after we are gone should not be a problem (or a blessing), considering that we wouldn't exist to lose or gain from that. To summarise, one should not be inconsistent
As I have said many times, to me, the fundamental is a question of purpose. A universe devoid of life has no purpose that I can conceive of. Such pointlessness is far worse than any concept of undeserved harms human morality or human moralists can come up with. I vote for many more years of harms and suffering for humans, including those who some choose to label 'newborn innocents,' alongside the many many joys and wonders of life which also occur very regularly. I very much prefer this state, compared to the alternative of a lifeless, pointless universe. All good people will also, of course, continue to do exactly what you have suggested many times. We will continue to help alleviate and remove all forms of unjust and unnecessary suffering and even obtain far more control over the inevitability of death.
I would also ask this. Why is the survival instinct so strong in all species if purposeless nonexistence is the superior natural state? Something seems to me to be much better than nothing!
Existential HopeAugust 08, 2022 at 12:53#7267060 likes
Reply to universeness Amen, sir. And as long as concerted efforts and an indomitable spirit remains, perhaps there would not be a need to vote for the former aspect for much longer. At the very least, the number of those particular candidates can be reduced drastically.
universenessAugust 08, 2022 at 13:05#7267110 likes
Reply to DA671
Agreed and life affirmation is already based on sound science imo.
Matter survived and continues to do so against antimatter annihilation and imo, it follows that life will continue to survive against antilife! The Universe will produce life because that is what it did and that is what it does!
Existential HopeAugust 08, 2022 at 13:07#7267130 likes
schopenhauer1August 08, 2022 at 13:28#7267270 likes
I would never presume to speak for the universe :roll:. We went for presuming for other humans to presuming for all of space/time/matter and everything.
One can't take the mechanisms of evolution (survival fit/reproduction) as the universe "saying" anything. It is a contingent form of how matter formed and a mechanism whereby some of that matter (biological matter), has developed. It isn't a moral statement from the universe. Category errors and misguided understanding of sentience, contingency, and implication thereof.
universenessAugust 08, 2022 at 13:54#7267360 likes
As a representative of the Universe, I have a voice within it. I choose to speak in support of the Universes demonstrated preference to create life. I am even content with referring to such as pure happenstance but the survival instinct being so strong in all species is further evidence towards a universe of purpose than one without purpose. Philosophical wordplay is no substitute for what actually happened and continues to happen. The existence of life happened and its human manifestations are compelled to ask questions, therefore its purpose is established, despite any attempts at sophistic wordplay.
The moderators of this site insist that I be nicer to antinatalists. I don't want to be nicer to them but I am threatened with getting banned if I don't and I have already had what I considered to be a very reasonable thread removed regarding the issue of falling foul of discussion site guidelines or the ruminations of individual moderators/administrators so, as I don't wish to be accused of throwing my own toys out of my pram. I will try to comply with their request, but it's not easy.
Existential HopeAugust 08, 2022 at 14:59#7267530 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 I would not comment on the purpose of the cosmos, but I am glad that we don't have to presume what it should not have despite it deserving and benefitting from it.
schopenhauer1August 08, 2022 at 15:40#7267610 likes
Reply to DA671
The universe doesn’t benefit or not benefit anything. Lucky for you the dicey ethical practice for assuming for others doesn’t apply to that category of thing.
Existential HopeAugust 08, 2022 at 15:42#7267620 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 Of course it does not. That's quite lucky because we don't have to worry about the ethical deficiencies that following a non-beneficent framework creates. I am glad others could assume (or presume) the right things for me when I wasn't in a position to take them myself. Have a nice day!
schopenhauer1August 08, 2022 at 15:44#7267630 likes
Reply to DA671
Yep no “one” would have to worry about that.
Existential HopeAugust 08, 2022 at 15:47#7267650 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 Except for existing beings who wish to be consistent and who would understand the value of a benefit. Life is also about celebration, not just worry. Alternatively, they could always understand that if preventing potential harms is good even though it helps nobody, it is also better to create positives.
schopenhauer1August 08, 2022 at 15:52#7267660 likes
Except for existing beings who wish to be consistent and who would understand the value of a benefit.
Benefit with non-benefit (negative) on someone else’s behalf..you know the position.
Existential HopeAugust 08, 2022 at 15:54#7267670 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 The existence of which is not a sufficient justification for preventing all good that could be bestowed on behalf of innumerable innocent sentient beings. I know the position indeed—including why it isn't right.
schopenhauer1August 08, 2022 at 15:56#7267680 likes
Reply to DA671
It’s never just or right to presume such significant conditions and harms for another. Only when ameliorating greater with lesser harms and you can’t get consent which this is not a case of.
Existential HopeAugust 08, 2022 at 15:58#7267700 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 It's never acceptable to presume that not providing unfathomably valuable experiences and a lifetime's worth of positively meaningful conditions is right just because there is a risk. You deserve to be happy even if I am sad. Of course, genuine happiness often comes from cooperation.
Unless your prevention is not causing a greater good to not exist and the individual has willingly chosen to be in a particular state of affairs (which procreation is not a case of), it is not ethical to cease the provision of all happiness. Also, non-existent beings cannot ask to exist. If creation can be an imposition, it can also be seen as a gift.
schopenhauer1August 08, 2022 at 16:52#7267760 likes
Of course, genuine happiness often comes from [s]cooperation[/s]
(a lot of negatives placed upon someone else). Quoting DA671
it is not ethical to cease the provision of all happiness.
Why is that a moral obligation to start if nothing was there who needed it in the first place and there are many negative collaterals attached to this decision? You would be maybe more accurate if you were only giving a pure good with no contingencies.
If creation can be an imposition, it can also be seen as a gift.
Gifts don’t entail such significant harms and conditions usually. One can call anything a gift and that would be gaslighting to some extent.
Existential HopeAugust 08, 2022 at 16:55#7267790 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 Projections and deliberate Ignorance don't negate the reality of the good and the joy of meaningful bonds (that cannot exist without cooperation). But it's true that there is a lot of greed. However, such people don't realise the impact of their actions and the sort of world they are creating (and could instead have helped form).
If there is no moral obligation to create benefits unless there is a need, then there is also no requirement to never create someone unless doing so causes an actual being to be satisfied and there are no additional positives. Your view might have been more tenable if the negatives were all that existed. Fortunately, this is not the case.
Impositions don't entail indescribable value. But one could call anything an imposition if they are primarily concerned with their own negative perspective, which would be a sort of gaslighting as well. For what it's worth, I don't think that life is always a gift. Suffering should be taken extremely seriously and there should be a peaceful way out.
Well, you're helping my argument, not hurting it. We are humans after all. So, yes, we use rationalization like animals use instinct. Courage consists of going against our tendency towards hopelessness. We use rationalization, of course. But there are enzymes and chemicals in our body at our disposal.
Not really no, there is not courage to living when its the default. If anything courage is killing yourself when evolution and society say to keep going.
As I have said many times, to me, the fundamental is a question of purpose. A universe devoid of life has no purpose that I can conceive of. Such pointlessness is far worse than any concept of undeserved harms human morality or human moralists can come up with. I vote for many more years of harms and suffering for humans, including those who some choose to label 'newborn innocents,' alongside the many many joys and wonders of life which also occur very regularly. I very much prefer this state, compared to the alternative of a lifeless, pointless universe. All good people will also, of course, continue to do exactly what you have suggested many times. We will continue to help alleviate and remove all forms of unjust and unnecessary suffering and even obtain far more control over the inevitability of death.
I would also ask this. Why is the survival instinct so strong in all species if purposeless nonexistence is the superior natural state? Something seems to me to be much better than nothing!
Why indeed but that's not really an argument to continue living.
Also "unjust", "unnecessary"? That's casting an awful lot of assumptions onto existence.
Then when get to the flaw of purpose, since a universe with life is just as purposeless as one without it. There is no ultimately point to existence, it simply persists.
But you're in the wrong here. I universe without life sounds amazing. I would like to "live" in it, ironic I know, to bask in the absolute silence of it all. For however long I last, and then know with my death extinction of all life would at last occur.
Yes I can. Science has very strong empirical evidence for The law of Conservation of Energy, which states that “Energy cannot be created or destroyed.” In other words, the total amount of energy in the universe never changes, it can only change from one form to another. It is actually quite unlikely that after you die, some of your disassembled subatomic particles will never be involved in any new combination events until the end of the universe. YOU will be recycled.
No, that's just a claim. There is nothing to say the world wouldn't end if I died. You make too many assumptions.
Some motives you can't choose. Like, do you like certain types of food? Do you like orgasm? Do you dislike being hungry? Do you dislike being cold? All of these are ordinary motives that drive our lives and they are wired in our bodies or minds and thus are part of us. And they drive us toward pleasant feelings that make life worthwhile and away from unpleasant feelings that make life miserable. Getting killed is unpleasant and the survival drive drives you away from that.
Yes, no, no, no. Getting killed being unpleasant is debatable and pleasant feelings don't make life worthwhile just tolerable. NEXT. Also it sounds horrifying to think that all these drives out of your control keep you here when you don't want to be.
You have no information regarding the legacy I will leave so you have no idea as to how long I will be remembered. Modern techniques store more and more information about our individual lives so future people will get to know a lot more about the lives of past people if they wish to. Future transhumanism has the potential to offer humans vastly improved robustness, ability and longevity. This will offer many new options. If you stick around you may witness its infancy. If you don't then there are many newborns to replace you. The global population has been increasing since we came out of the wilds.
This is, quite frankly, a delusion way of thinking to put it bluntly. If you think transhumanism is gonna do any of that you're quite wrong. Transhumanism is nothing but a pipe dream. Not to mention you're proving Ernest Becker's point about having death anxiety and being motivated by it. Transhumanism is literally death anxiety.
Only one small path leads out, but its trailhead can only be seen by casting one's gaze above shoulder height, and none have yet looked that high up. They've heard of this Path of Hope, but never having seen it, they scoff and shrug, looking at the ground, firmly denying it.
Hope is little more than delusion that promises what it can't deliver.
Pain, as of the moment, taking into account our biology, is absolutely critical for survival - consider it a necessary evil if you will. Our nociceptive systems have evolved to be hypersensitive - pain is many times more intense than is warranted for the severity of the injury i.e. it breaks the cardinal rule of proportio divina and is disproportionate, ugly, hideous, grotesque. Pain makes complete sense to me!
Reply to Noble Dust Yes, but it exists to gather all the anti-life stuff in one place, so that it can be easily ignored. Until Baden merged them all into this thread, there were at least two or three such active discussions. We've had enough. Containment seems like the best option.
Reply to Agent Smith That's not food for thought, that is a regression to Aristotlean teleology instead of taking into account what we know now about evolution.
That's not food for thought, that is a regression to Aristotlean teleology instead of taking into account what we know now about evolution.
Fallacy of composition?
It is an interesting line of inquiry though, oui? Bios may have a shelf-life i.e. it has an expiry date but we're not talking of mere kiloyears here; think geological timescales. Most ELEs (extinction level events) have been external ones but it's possible that there could be internal gene-based extinction codes that could be turned on after some millions/billions of years. Random thought.
Existential HopeAugust 09, 2022 at 05:53#7269020 likes
Reply to Agent Smith From what I know, we are programmed to reproduce. However, as rational sentient beings, people can find satisfaction in something apart from that. It might be inherent in the nature of limited beings to eventually stop existing. But that also means that such beings can exist, live for a while, and also have unspeakably positive experiences that would be good as long as one is around (which, if physicalism is true, might be the only situation in which value can be there).
No it isn't. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works to suggest we're programmed for a purpose
The purpose is inferred from facts as they stand/appear to us. Objection sustained!
Reply to DA671 My life ain't something to brag about but here I am, (seemingly) content, happy enough to want to keep breathing.
Existential HopeAugust 09, 2022 at 07:17#7269380 likes
Reply to Agent Smith That's wonderful, Mr Smith! As long as good people like you keep breathing, hope for a new dawn will persist. (Also, considering that nice comments are sometimes considered to be sarcastic these days, I want to make it explicitly clear that I am not trying to be sarcastic/snarky).
Getting killed being unpleasant is debatable and pleasant feelings don't make life worthwhile just tolerable.
Getting killed means overcoming the survival drive, which makes it unpleasant. Maybe you don't have enough pleasant feelings, because pleasant feelings are what makes one enjoy life - by definition. Aren't you diagnosed with anhedonia?
Also it sounds horrifying to think that all these drives out of your control keep you here when you don't want to be.
But they also drive you to improve your life, so they can be your friends. You are what you are, so it seems best to accept it and make the best of it.
universenessAugust 09, 2022 at 08:29#7269930 likes
Why indeed but that's not really an argument to continue living.
Perhaps not for you.
You are 'overruling' natural instinct. I am glad that humans can do that or else we could not overrule a Darwinian law of the jungle approach to life but as I said before, I am glad I don't carry your self-imposed cage in which you experience your life as a moment to moment curse.
since a universe with life is just as purposeless as one without it. There is no ultimately point to existence, it simply persists.
So I suppose you see terms like 'human progress' or 'legacy' or 'lives building on lives' or 'compulsion to find the answers to the big questions,' or 'I feel its my purpose in life to.....,' etc to be purposeless. You employ a very strange and unconvincing form of logic. Quite irrational actually.
But you're in the wrong here. I universe without life sounds amazing. I would like to "live" in it, ironic I know, to bask in the absolute silence of it all. For however long I last, and then know with my death extinction of all life would at last occur
Perhaps we could scientifically test how much you would enjoy this by placing you in a simulation of complete sensory deprivation. We could remove 'ironic' and allow you to actually "live" it.
We can use chemicals to temporarily paralyse you and completely remove your sense of touch. Temporarily remove your sight, hearing and sense of smell and taste. No sensory input whatsoever. We could leave you like that whilst still maintaining your bodily functions for 10 years. We can then reinstate your senses and you can describe your bliss to the human race. There are many 'locked in' medical conditions which are not so far from this state such as Encephalitis lethargica as depicted in the film awakenings. We would of course leave your brain working in the same way it does now so that your experience would be 'live' as you wanted instead of the 'no awareness' offered by death. We can induce 8 hours of sleep for you in each 24h period. Would you volunteer for this 'living death' experiment?
The purpose is inferred from facts as they stand/appear to us. Objection sustained!
Having a lively imagination is no excuse to misunderstand what possible interpretations exist. Biological facts do not support a teleological interpretation. Period.
Having a lively imagination is no excuse to misunderstand what possible interpretations exist. Biological facts do not support a teleological interpretation. Period.
Mea culpa. Philosophy ain't no picnic. Sometimes, I feel like I came to the wrong place!
universenessAugust 09, 2022 at 08:38#7269970 likes
No, that's just a claim. There is nothing to say the world wouldn't end if I died.
The law of the conservation of energy is not a claim, the clue is in the title. There is indeed a frame of reference that suggests that from your point of view, the Universe ends when you die. In reality, it might take many trillions of years for all life to truly end in the universe but as you will not experience time passing after you are dead, trillions of years and an instant will be all the same to you. This was also the case before you were born. Just as well you were formed and became alive or else you and all other antilifers would not have ever been able to complain about your existence.
Just a little more on this. Transhumanism seeks more control over the inevitability of death and there may be an aspect of death anxiety as one of the drivers but you ignore the absolute practicality of improving human choices, robustness, ability and longevity. Space is not life-friendly in the main at the moment and it is very advisable that humans become an interplanetary or even interstellar species asap.
It is a pragmatic survival imperative. We must leave the nest as we are too vulnerable if we stay confined to one planet. Feel free to label this concern 'extinction anxiety.' Having improved robustness, ability and longevity will help us survive in the vastness of space. All power to transhumanism! as long any enhancements will maintain at least the majority of what is considered human identity or me, myself and I ....... and of course you.
Death is a natural thing. It happens. When you have had a nice relationship with someone, when the person dies you will have fond memories about him or her. It's just part of life.
Yet not having parents is usually far more traumatic and a rare unfortunate thing.
Well, you won't ever experience death. Death is simply, "The end". You'll experience dying if you're conscious at the time. But that's it. There is no peace, no rest, no etc.
This has nothing to do with peace in life, it's about the cessation of all things.
No, it has to do with the belief that you are your body; and it has to do with the belief that when the body dies, "it's all over".
Note: These beliefs are dogmatic, axiomatic. We're not supposed to question them.
Yet every day, we also act in ways that show that we don't hold those beliefs consistently.
If society had a different mind they'd see that and allow people to exit if they choose.
And they do, the list is growing:
Physician-assisted suicide is legal in some countries, under certain circumstances, including Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, parts of the United States and parts of Australia.
I guess people only rationalize living by stating "precious joys are worth cherishing" is due to death anxiety, as Ernest Becker put it.
It's more the case that we're craving sensual pleasures. We don't fear death per se; we fear that we won't be supplied with sensual pleasures or that we'll run out of them.
The philosopher replied, "Since there's no difference between being alive and being dead, why should I go to the trouble?"
E.M Cioran said it better:
The obsession with suicide is characteristic of the man who can neither live nor die, and whose attention never swerves from this double impossibility.
When people come to me saying they want to kill themselves, I tell them, "What's your rush? You can kill yourself any time you like. So calm down. Suicide is a positive act." And they do calm down.
Only optimists commit suicide, the optimists who can no longer be . . . optimists. The others, having no reason to live, why should they have any to die?
It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late.
"I'll go on" like reading the blackest passages of Cioran
The irony of living to be 84 years old and die of Alzheimer's!
I'd love to discuss Buddhism with him.
schopenhauer1August 09, 2022 at 19:29#7272250 likes
Reply to baker
He truly understood melancholy from the inside. That is to say.. He knew that suicide was only ever something as an idea and was never a proper response because the damage is never undone. Basically, there is no relief, only moments of calmness within life itself. Though rare.
I shall name this village Melancholia, which sits in a flood prone depression next to the River Angst. The dark clouds are confined in the valley by the heights of Mount Despair and Mount Regret, where a true rain never falls, just an eternal cold drizzle.
Only one small path leads out, but its trailhead can only be seen by casting one's gaze above shoulder height, and none have yet looked that high up. They've heard of this Path of Hope, but never having seen it, they scoff and shrug, looking at the ground, firmly denying it.
[i]The righteous will be glad when they are avenged,
when they dip their feet in the blood of the wicked.[/i]
Reply to schopenhauer1 Like I said, I'd love to discuss Buddhism with him. He said he understood the Buddha. To begin with, back in his day, there weren't many translations of the Pali Canon available. I wonder what his source for Buddhism was.
Yes, but it exists to gather all the anti-life stuff in one place, so that it can be easily ignored. Until Baden merged them all into this thread, there were at least two or three such active discussions. We've had enough. Containment seems like the best option.
Given the global trend toward legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia, will you rethink your negative take on the "anti-life stuff"?
Contrary to the belief of capitalists and assorted others, people do not have an infinite willingness to invest any amount of effort, however great, into obtaining any amount of sensual pleasure, however small. You will not work the entire day just for a morsel of food.
It doesn't have to be interpreted as a negative take or mod judgement on the subject. E.g. We could say it's more convenient and efficient to have everything in one discussion. Anyhow, it took me years of careful consideration and preparation to come up with this cunning plan, so I'm not for backing down now.
Life is somewhat of an ouroboros (prey-predator, food web). Death (destruction/0) works against with Birth (creation/1)!
The market place is like Schopenhauer's Will playing out in an endless cycle of "supply" and "demand" eating each other, as you say- like the ouroboros (prey-predator). Your constant demands and his supply means suffering will continue.. NOW GET BACK TO WORK! People need work to provide "meaning". It's part of a "system" (free, socialist, or otherwise) that needs feeding with more people and more people's attention. Nothing gets done on its own.. but everyone must contribute or perish. How can birth not be a political question? Obviously people want the system to keep going.. More reinforcing of the supply and demand.. Double down. Meanwhile the ouroboros' squeeze gets tighter and tighter.
The beginning of man. The self-destruct was there from the start. When man first demanded something and needed a supply of it. When someone supplied the demand and demanded other people's labor which could be sold to the supplier so that their own demands can be satisfied. Again, it's Will playing out, embodied in the real world transactions of the labor force and the marketplace.
Sounds like a fair deal. What exactly are you complaining about?
Either you don't know Schopenhauer, or you don't know how I am applying it thusly to the economic sphere. Which is it?
Will in Schop is an insatiable craving at the heart of existence. It strives-but-for-naught, causing its phenomenological manifestations bear the brunt of the thing-in-itself. Humans suffer the most because of our self-awareness of this suffering.
The economic system is a system of striving-after.. In the Schopenhauerian sense, it is striving for survival and entertainment.. A physical representation of our inability to "just be". Our demands and supplies are physico-social manifestations of this endless cycle of willing whereby we cannot just exist, in calmness, non-desireless states, but must work at one end and distract in another. It self-reinforces itself with each demand and supply offered...It tightens the ouroboros.
schopenhauer1August 10, 2022 at 04:33#7273580 likes
And we all monger the minutia.. pay the price.. put our attention on the details. Laud the details. Laud the minutia-mongers.. Counting the beans, creating the electrical signal pulses, measuring this, solving that... Romanticize it (scientism), revile it (ludism), enjoy it (the average consumer), produce it (the average technology/science worker), maintain it (all the supporting jobs).. The capital investors/governments smile as they deign to think they provide "meaning" to the laborers in their fiefdoms.. The laborers buy into the conceit as what else do they do for their adult lives? Production becomes paramount. Work becomes identity. Laboring becomes ritual and sacrament and sacred meaning-maker.
Reply to schopenhauer1 You have a point but work has, in a sense, been decoupled, much to my satisfaction I might add, from food (a need). Gone are the days when work meant walking/running/leaping/hurling spears/weaving nets/setting traps which I consider activites directly related to nutrition. In the modern world, of course this going back at least 5-6 kiloyears ago, we can now earn our bread by doing things like writing/painting/solving problems/even plain thinking/etc., these kinda professions being only indirectly related to feeding. I consider this a significant improvement and we should be thankful for it.
The nightmare scenario that you're claiming life is is I think a severe case of cherry picking aka confirmation bias.
Anyway, true it is that the system we currently operate under leaves much to be desired - it be cold-hearted, it fails to address our emotional needs of which there are many. However, as I see it, this ain't a done deal with zero options for improvement. Conditions could be bettered and we may begin to, at some point, appreciate life as gift, worth it, enjoyable, and so on.
schopenhauer1August 10, 2022 at 04:57#7273600 likes
You cannot decouple the two. You can do things because you absolutely want to or because it brings the medium for your survival (in this case money- which buys goods and services, you see). So no, this is ANOTHER conceit of the kind/benevolent dictators who provide you these "meaningful" jobs for X hours. Keep 'em coming Agent Smith..
However, as I see it, this ain't a done deal with zero options for improvement. Conditions could be bettered and we may begin to, at some point, appreciate life as gift, worth it, enjoyable, and so on.
Get back to work. That minutia isn't going to monger itself! I just don't find anything much in this statement of consolation, or refutation really. More cold-hearted "This is how it is.. stop saying stuff.. the system is good, the system works, the system is all we have". Yadayadayada
Indeed, decoupling is the wrong concept to use here; what I actually meant was how work transformed into something more than, not just, gathering/hunting/farming; there was a time when work meant just that - sensu amplo, foraging.
Post-agricultural revolution, things changed, in my humble opinion for the better, and we could engage in activities that had no direct nutritional payoffs, things like painting/music/philosophy/etc.
In a sense food lost its numero uno position in re labor to second place, below other more, let's just say, sublime aforementioned activities. To me this is a significant upgrade to the status of work which should matter, oui? Especially if the downsides of having to look for/hold a job is a key premise in an/any argument. :smile:
universenessAugust 10, 2022 at 07:37#7273870 likes
Capitalism, the money trick, the manipulation of supply and demand are all methods used by the nefarious to make themselves rich and powerful and create a low status / powerless majority poor. The cycle then continues from generation to generation by capitalism so that the few can leech from the poor to maintain their power and status. Socialists/humanists etc have been fighting against all doctrines which help to maintain this imbalance since we came out of the wilds. The answer to this imbalance is to work towards balance and dismantle and prevent systems which produce rich and poor people and powerful and powerless people. The answer to such human problems is not and never has been to support notions of anti-life as that means you have become part of the problem and have become every bit as imbalanced, destructive and as much a part of the problem as a capitalist/autocrat/plutocrat/aristocrat/monarchist/totalitarian/evanhellical etc etc. We need to alleviate and eventually cure/prevent the suffering not vote for making all patients extinct.
schopenhauer1August 10, 2022 at 12:49#7274990 likes
In a sense food lost its numero uno position in re labor to second place, below other more, let's just say, sublime aforementioned activities. To me this is a significant upgrade to the status of work which should matter, oui? Especially if the downsides of having to look for/hold a job is a key premise in an/any argument. :smile:
You’re overlooking what I’m saying for a straw man that you want me to say. I’m not taking about reverting to a hunting gathering society simply by criticizing what is going on now. Any economic model whereby we de facto are forced into a situation of work to survive would be thus the target. You are looking at the accidentals when I’m talking of the essentials. And it’s all relative as the next level of his work manifests is the new norm.
Read what I’m actually saying if you want to move this forward.
Reply to schopenhauer1 In my humble opinoion, I addressed your concern to the degree required. Work is, let's just say, mutating - what it's now is orders of magnitude better than it was 30kya, and what it'll become, if all goes well, may have people falling over each other to be given the opportunity to, well, work.
I believe I've mentioned this before - some ideas tend to be photographs, others videos!
schopenhauer1August 10, 2022 at 13:25#7275140 likes
I believe I've mentioned this before - some ideas tend to be photographs, others videos!
What is your modus operendi? Why would people ever give up their time for something they have to do? Falling over each other to "work" is simply called doing what you want when you want it because you want to do it, with no contingencies for needing to do it (like for survival). Jobs don't work like that. Jobs are not there for your edification. They are there to produce wealth to buy (as Homer said) goods and services. Or,, for the very rich, to grow their wealth continually and intergenerationally without buying any goods and services beyond more investments to reinvest in.
universenessAugust 10, 2022 at 14:37#7275350 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
I worked in education for 30+ years. I also served a 4 year apprenticeship as a painter and decorator.
Teaching was as much of a vocation as it was a job. Painting and decorating was more of a job but I got a lot of personal satisfaction/joy out of converting old dirty, decaying rooms into fresh, maintained, preserved, sanitised, pretty rooms. I cannot begin to express to you the incredible moments I had in my teaching career when I managed to inspire kids and enhanced their interest in and enjoyment of learning.
what it'll become, if all goes well, may have people falling over each other to be given the opportunity to, well, work.
I think you are absolutely correct. Hopefully, in the future, most of the mundane repetitive jobs will be automated. I also think that personal maintenance may take less and less time in the future as well.
We used to have to wash clothes in the river so washing machines definitely do help.
If more people can access more meaningful, purposeful activities that are based on what people are actually interested in then I think you are correct, people will want to work.
A Universal basic income for all, would make this more feasible.
If we can automate agriculture, manufacturing, recycling etc etc then 'your daily job' can become less about earning money to sustain your existence and more about living a fulfilling life and leaving a legacy which adds to human progress. Such a society can be achieved and its creation would be helped if the anti-life people would help to make it happen and stop being the misanthropes they are.
Maybe a future job title will be 'discussion site contributor,' sounds valid to me!
Well I’m in my early thirties, and i’m really looking for a compelling reason/argument to live (and how to live) that would at least work for me. Suicide has been on my mind for a quite some time, but I really don’t want to cause suffering to people around me. That’s why the search for a reason to live or argument why not suicide.
I feel like everything used to justify the will to keep going is more just our survival instinct trying to rationalize things.
I'd question this desire for something more than survival instincts. Our attachment to life isn't "just" survival instinct, it's a complex of attachments and emotions and history and future and present and...
A complex, I think, is a good description -- leaving open what precisely makes us tick, while noting that it's not simple.
So coming to understand how or why we might come to desire death -- while still being alive! -- will also be complicated.
To the refrain "but this is not enough to justify going on":
Whether it is or isn't enough really is up to you. It's your relationship to the world, to yourself, to your emotions and needs and people. There is no "reason" someone can give you to make you feel any differently about those. The unjust thing about this world is that it's probably not even your fault you feel this way -- but because it's your life, your emotions, your desire, well... it still falls to you to learn how to live with it.
schopenhauer1August 10, 2022 at 23:45#7277080 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
Indeed, I wonder if it is a post-facto excuse for justifying the fact that life entails work, and thus if work isn't meaningful then much of what sustains life isn't meaningful, and thus procreation is putting upon people not a benefit but a burden simply to "deal with". In other words, people MUST find meaning in work, otherwise implications are not good.
I'd question this desire for something more than survival instincts. Our attachment to life isn't "just" survival instinct, it's a complex of attachments and emotions and history and future and present and...
A complex, I think, is a good description -- leaving open what precisely makes us tick, while noting that it's not simple.
So coming to understand how or why we might come to desire death -- while still being alive! -- will also be complicated.
It is some variation of survival instinct or another. Meaning is just another invention we make to trick ourselves into believing life is worthwhile.
"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain. One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself, forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.". --Camus
Just a random related question: approximately what percent of people in this forum are onboard with antinatalism or related sentiments? It seems like most are against it, although Reply to schopenhauer1 kind of convinced me long ago that it makes perfect sense, even though it's not something I'd actually practice, which must mean I'm a monster. I guess I'm just surprised not as many others were convinced as well.
schopenhauer1August 11, 2022 at 01:47#7277290 likes
Reply to Jerry
Thanks for the shoutout, Jerry! I'm glad you saw some value there.
As Schopenhauer once said:
Arthur Schopenhauer:All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.
The reason it isn’t convincing is because the argument is stupid. It’s fundamentally anti-life. That’s more a matter of mood and temperament than sound reasoning. Nietzsche has plenty to say on this— far more articulate than me.
I’m the opposite of you: I don’t have kids, and I’m not convinced in the slightest.
Indeed, I wonder if it is a post-facto excuse for justifying the fact that life entails work, and thus if work isn't meaningful then much of what sustains life isn't meaningful, and thus procreation is putting upon people not a benefit but a burden simply to "deal with". In other words, people MUST find meaning in work, otherwise implications are not good.
Well, frankly, it would be amazing if we didn't have to work at all and still have our needs & wants met to our satisfaction. This sentiment (something for nothing) has been associated with "kids these days!", as if to say the notion is puerile, a cardinal sign of an immature mind. However, what about the adult obsession with efficiency, making things easier, etc.? Such concepts, taken to their natural endpoint, imply that even adults want something for nothing. We wanna do magic! I suppose I would advocate for natalism of some kind, a toned-down version of it, just to see what happens...in the end? Do we succeed/fail? Mind you I'm working outside the domain of ethics here! Mighty interesting, oui?
schopenhauer1August 11, 2022 at 02:35#7277430 likes
The reason it isn’t convincing is because the argument is stupid. It’s fundamentally anti-life. That’s more a matter of mood and temperament than sound reasoning. Nietzsche has plenty to say on this— far more articulate than me.
I’m the opposite of you: I don’t have kids, and I’m not convinced in the slightest.
It's anti-suffering. Saving a life in your care, and starting a life are two different things. You are equivocating to make a point.. But it's out-of-hand condemnation without consideration. Efficient, but not fully thought out.
schopenhauer1August 11, 2022 at 02:41#7277440 likes
his sentiment (something for nothing) has been associated with "kids these days!", as if to say the notion is puerile, a cardinal sign of an immature mind. However, what about the adult obsession with efficiency, making things easier, etc.? Such concepts, taken to their natural endpoint, imply that even adults want something for nothing.
You may have something there...
However, I don't think natalism should THUS be considered as somehow at a future point, these things will be figured out. You don't cause negatives for other in the hopes that at some undefined point, they get something from it. That is done maybe when ameliorating greater with lesser harms (forced schooling for children, etc.) but not an excuse in general to just "do" to people. You don't create immense suffering for generations for some undefined future goal of "humanity".. What else can we "do" to people for a cause? The slippery slope is precipitous with this kind of philosophy.
But sure, if work was abolished, that would be a benefit.. I am not against it. I just wouldn't put people in harms way or to impose my will on them, or create impositions for them to see this happen in some undefined future state. You are creating people who must experience work for generations before (or even if) any of this would take place (if at all).
If you’re in favor of not having kids, don’t have any. If you’re arguing that human beings shouldn’t have kids, then you’re anti-life. The result is the end of the species. That essentially says: ”life is evil.” Evil because suffering exists.
Just dressed up nihilism.
Why anyone chooses to go on and on about this — to fight THIS battle — is an interesting psychological fact about them. But nothing more.
schopenhauer1August 11, 2022 at 02:55#7277470 likes
If you’re in favor of not having kids, don’t have any. If you’re making arguing that human beings shouldn’t have kids, then you’re anti-life. The result is the end of the species. That essentially says: ”life is evil.” Evil because suffering exists.
If you believe something is not ethical because of X, Y, and Z, why would that not be something one should have a philosophical position on? Because you disagree with it? Some people think abortion is right or wrong. Some people think eating highly-sentient animals is right or wrong. Some people think that you are obligated to give as much as you can. Some people think you are not obligated to do X, or you are obligated to do Y. Some people think you can never lie. Some people think it is okay to cheat on your wife, steal from a mega-corporation, take something if no one knows, etc. etc. etc. It's all positions people can have and debate. Unfairly targeting a position on the ethics of procreating, is more an anti-anatinatalist problem. I have no problem with good faith debate. I have a problem with people who condemn it out of hand due to their own defenses or whatnot. I rather, them ignore if they aren't going to consider the views and want to twist it as somehow "illogical".. It's logical, just not the logic you want to hear.
As for the end of the species.. You already have the presumption that ethics entails the continuance of the species over creating actual individuals who will be imposed upon. You are jumping to the conclusion without engaging any of the evidence against such a notion. A real creation of someone else's suffering is pitted against someone's sadness from an abstraction.. Yet, the emotional appeal of the abstraction clouds the reasoning of the ethics... so the ethics is violently opposed, as Schopenhauer observed.
Wrong again.. At least get your terms correct. Nihilism in ethics, it he belief in no values. A nihilist wouldn't give a fuck if you procreated or not. They generally don't take positions that put values on things. Rather, it is philosophical pessimism, and it's not dressed up.
schopenhauer1August 11, 2022 at 02:59#7277490 likes
Reply to Xtrix
Oh and it's not anti-joy. A life full of joy is better than a life bereft of joy. Creating a life, that will definitely impose on someone and create impositions for them, negates the fact that there is joy. Creating joy is not an obligation. Not creating harms where it didn't have to take place is. My wanting to cause joy, does not mean I get to create more harms too for them.
There is an odd religious mania in the pro-procreation view.. One is "spreading joy" (without any thought to the other consequences one is spreading). And somehow THIS is an obligation unto itself.. The Universe needs its experiencers of it?? More like projection of ones own sadness onto the universe.. You are not the universe.. The universe isn't even a proper place for this kind of placement of evaluation.. If not the universe, it's just you being sad about something not happening. An abstraction of future events that will not take place. And thus somehow a justification for more harm to others because people shouldn't feel sad about abstractions somehow, as an absolute fact of ethics.. Odd.
Ok, the point is there seem to be unethical nonethical reasons to advocate for natalism and one appears in my previous post.
There are reasons people want to procreate.. whether or not they are ethical.. Understood and can agree if stated in those terms. But once you say, THEREFORE people should procreate, that becomes an ethical statement, or at the least, axiological.
Creating joy is not an obligation. Not creating harms where it didn't have to take place is.
Neither are obligations. There's either the desire to give life or not. Those who don't want to are welcome. But not everyone views suffering and exclaims "life is refuted," which is what antienatalism rests on. If you don't share that attitude, then the rest is just nonsense. I don't share that attitude.
Again, for those who do -- fine. Then kill yourself, don't have kids, etc. That's your right. But why one wants to go around infecting others with this morbid, anti-life view is beyond me. I guess that's your right too, in the end. What can you do. Carry on!
So if you knew that that life would suffer in X amount (for you unreasonably).. Should that not be considered? You would normally say yes (but maybe not cause you want to make a point debating me perhaps)..
ntly creating negatives (impositions, harms) for others that can't be escaped.. That in itself is enough not to do unto another person.
But not everyone views suffering and exclaims "life is refuted," which is what antienatalism rests on. If you don't share that attitude, then the rest is just nonsense. I don't share that attitude.
You can say that about any position though. What makes any other ethical position immune from someone disagreeing with it? That's like saying.. I don't believe in X ethical position, so the rest is nonsense.. So if you don't believe in Kant's ideas, should it be banished from philosophical debate? Seems ridiculous to me.. You are making unreasonable hoops for antinatalism to jump through as if it is not like any other ethical system one can believe or not believe. I never said you are FORCED to believe it. Now that truly would be hypocritical to impose the view after saying that impositions themselves should be avoided unto others!
Again, for those who do -- fine. Then kill yourself, don't have kids, etc. That's your right. But why one wants to go around infecting others with this morbid view, anti-life view is beyond me. I guess that's your right too, in the end. What can you do.
Oh dear, a philosophical position has a position that is counter to your current belief-system.. Thus it should be violently opposed. Great job advocating for free speech in the confines of a respectable forum. Rather, any position you don't hold should also be banished right? Or no, just this because YOU have opinions on it.
schopenhauer1August 11, 2022 at 03:17#7277550 likes
There are reasons people want to procreate.. whether or not they are ethical.. Understood and can agree if stated in those terms. But once you say, THEREFORE people should procreate, that becomes an ethical statement, or at the least, axiological.
Work with me here; for the moment ignore ethics, Momma Nature has been doing that all this while, oui? Maybe that's not entirely accurate but methinks there's a grain or two of truth in my statement. Now, sir/madam, as the case maybe, can you think of one/two good reasons why we should have children?
Too, it just dawned on me, ethics revolves around two essential doodads:
1. Life/Phanes/Existence
2. Suffering/Algos
Antinatalism is unethical for the simple reason that nonexistence (death, killing) is. You can't claim to be moral in any sense of the word if as a solution to a problem you recommend nonexistence. Ethics is all about creating/preserving life while attempting to make the experience a memorable (read happy) one.
schopenhauer1August 11, 2022 at 03:27#7277580 likes
Reply to Xtrix
I'll ease off here because at the end you did say:
I guess that's your right too, in the end. What can you do. Carry on!
So, in recognition of this, I'll respect that you agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. I only have a problem when people want to banish it from any public forum. Just discounting out of hand and banishing because you think it is distasteful to your mores, doesn't say anything against it. Socrates, Galileo, Bruno, Inquisitions, that's what you get with that kind of thinking.
Ethics is all about creating/preserving life while attempting to make the experience a memorable (read happy) one.
Really? I thought it was about right action? You are putting a spin on it such that of course, antinatalism would thus never be "ethical".. If ethics entails procreation, thus antinatalism is not ethical. But of course, the antinatalist would never define ethics so. They would define ethics as principles of right and wrong behavior.
Really? I thought it was about right action? You are putting a spin on it such that of course, antinatalism would thus never be "ethical".. If ethics entails procreation, thus antinatalism is not ethical. But of course, the antinatalist would never define ethics so. They would define ethics as principles of right and wrong behavior.
I said what I hadta say!
If you're interested, you might wanna read up on the taijitu (yin-yang). When someone cares (too much) about life, he becomes a mass-murderer! :chin:
Thanos cared too much. I'm ignoring the "too much" part!
schopenhauer1August 11, 2022 at 03:52#7277660 likes
Thanos cared too much. I'm ignoring the "too much" part!
Look, I'll give you a secret about my antinatalism, that isn't really a secret if you pay attention to my whole corpus (which I don't expect you to :)). Antinatalism isn't just about the principle itself, though it can be debated on its own without any connection to a broader principle... But I do think it is also its implications on the broader life we live.
What are these impositions of life?
Why should they be endured?
How should we treat each other if we must endure them?
What are we perpetuating when we create more people?
So I discuss things like the burdens of survival and striving-after of the human condition.
I discuss what it means to not make others unduly suffer even more than they should.
I discuss the political choice one is making for another by procreating them. There is a system in place, and one wants to keep this system going, and more people to endure it.
What are these impositions of life?
Why should they be endured?
How should we treat each other if we must endure them?
What are we perpetuating when we create more people?
Vitals!
My own take is that the problem of suffering at the heart of natalism-antinatalism is this:
1. (How to) Live happily (?).
Note livehappily.
You can't, as is obvious to you, recommend nonexistence as a solution then, oui?
Well, you won't ever experience death. Death is simply, "The end". You'll experience dying if you're conscious at the time. But that's it. There is no peace, no rest, no etc.
— Philosophim
How do you know????
You are your brain Baker. We've known that for decades in science now. Its not a debate. Scoop the brain out of someone and that aspect of the brain that was them is gone. It is only your imagination and hope that somehow you will continue on after death. You will not. That is fact.
schopenhauer1August 11, 2022 at 04:03#7277700 likes
You can't, as is obvious to you, recommend nonexistence as a solution then, oui?
Your implication is we need to create people so that they can be happy. If every life was an individualized utopia, you would have solid ground. It obviously isn't. So, yes, you can try to find happiness in life once born, but it doesn't negate that life entails a lot of other stuff as well, to be endured. And this isn't to be ignored.
The natural response is to reify suffering as a necessity for a complete experience. I just don't think it is our job to bring people into the world to suffer and then learn from their suffering. Who are we? How is this NOT a political position for someone else? And of course, besides that this is wrong to want people to suffer because YOU think it is worthwhile for them (making that decision for them), suffering many times goes off the rails.. more than you predicted or expected.
I sympathize with the antinatalist crowd. Suffering tops the list of humanity's and also all life's problems - people seem too distracted to notice their own dukkha, especially in the modern world with cyberspace providing intermittent relief (for folks like myself). Billions are, to use a Matrix analogy, plugged in/jacked into virtual communities; I consider this a symptom of our dissatisfaction with the real world (dukkha manifests in interesting ways). In short antinatalism has a point.
However, this also means that if people are happy, they'll choose life.
Do you detect any problems with the following list which has been ranked in termsa preference?
1. Life + Happiness
2. Nonexistence
My gut instincts tell me that antinatalists should give their nod of approval for the order, it makes sense to them. Therein lies the rub, oui mes amies?
schopenhauer1August 11, 2022 at 04:23#7277760 likes
I sympathize with the antinatalist crowd. Suffering tops the list of humanity's and also all life's problems - people seem too distracted to notice their own dukkha, especially in the modern world with cyberspace providing intermittent relief (for folks like myself). Billions are, to use a Matrix analogy, plugged in/jacked into virtual communities; I consider this a symptom of our dissatisfaction with the real world (dukkha manifests in interesting ways). In short antinatalism has a point.
However, this also means that if people are happy, they'll choose life.
If you like the flow states and the pleasures that come from the obstacle course, that's great.
1) Does it actually last for a lifetime, or is intermittent?
2) Does the fact that there is an obstacle course presented to you (foisted if you will) not give you pause?
3) Whilst the need for happiness? Isn't there a state of lack implied here that we are trying to constantly fulfill?
You had it right with the dukkha.. keep going with that theme.
schopenhauer1August 11, 2022 at 04:24#7277770 likes
My gut instincts tell me that antinatalists should give their nod of approval for the order, it makes sense to them. Therein lies the rub, oui mes amies?
If every life was an individualized utopia, you would have solid ground. It obviously isn't. So, yes, you can try to find happiness in life once born, but it doesn't negate that life entails a lot of other stuff as well, to be endured. And this isn't to be ignored.
I don't think it's a good idea but I trust mother nature or, more accurately, evolution. Suicides happen for a reason I suppose - those who can't take it are being culled automatically i.e. only those who don't mind suffering will be able to pass down their apathetic genes. In the long run what'll happen is our pleasure-pain sensing apparatus will be recalibrated to a new, higher pain threshold and all will be well. :snicker:
schopenhauer1August 11, 2022 at 04:34#7277800 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
I notice you don't answer my questions. Not a great way to dialogue.. and sort of unfair to me who is trying to do one.
Meaning is just another invention we make to trick ourselves into believing life is worthwhile.
There's that word "just" again --
any one name is easy to put aside, when you have another set of names and operators.
{J}(NAME) -> "just an invention/trick/illusion"
So there's what's apparent, and then there's what is real. For any named reason one will reduce said reason with the above "just" operator, categorizing the reasons people give as apparent.
The real, here, is . . . well, what, precisely?
Let's just say whatever it is, it certainly isn't any possible reason someone might give that they feel life is worthwhile. You see the real, and these all fall to the above described operator.
But unlike Plato, who talks of a light -- a knowledge of the good, the beautiful and the true -- you just say "I want you all to feel life is not worthwhile!" -- why would we do that?
I only have a problem when people want to banish it from any public forum.
I have no desire to do so. And I don’t consider it illogical. I just think it’s silly and those who pick this hill to die on are silly. But like I said, that’s their prerogative!
However, this also means that if people are happy, they'll choose life.
Conclusion: :chin:
I would suggest that your conclusion should be simply 'make your choice!'
I cite again (as an atheist) a variant based on what's in Deuteronomy 30:15-20
This from the first episode of Carl Sagan's series Cosmos.
'I lay before thee life and the curse, therefore choose life so that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed.'
You can live life as an hour-to-hour daily chore if you choose and covet death and you will have earned my personal pity. That's all a person can do who loves life. Pity those who are anti-life and just make sure those who live are as protected as they can be from any extreme maniacs who project anti-life into an attraction to commit an atrocity against life.
Reply to universeness I can't afford pity, mon ami! Didn't you know?, it's a luxury item! :sad:
universenessAugust 11, 2022 at 15:05#7279340 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
I would suggest that genuine empathy is emotionally challenging for many people, especially if deeply felt but pity is a different harsher offering that entails only a very minor burden on my emotions.
I would suggest that genuine empathy is emotionally challenging for many people, especially if deeply felt but pity is a different harsher offering that entails only a very minor burden on my emotions.
Agent Smith makes a mental note of that! Feels important!
universenessAugust 11, 2022 at 15:55#7279590 likes
You are your brain Baker. We've known that for decades in science now. Its not a debate. Scoop the brain out of someone and that aspect of the brain that was them is gone. It is only your imagination and hope that somehow you will continue on after death. You will not. That is fact.
This is a philosophy forum. This includes philosophy of science.
The OP's problem comes precisely from a lack of appreciation for the philosophy of science, and an uncritical internalization of particular scientific and popularly held claims.
It doesn't have to be interpreted as a negative take or mod judgement on the subject. E.g. We could say it's more convenient and efficient to have everything in one discussion. Anyhow, it took me years of careful consideration and preparation to come up with this cunning plan, so I'm not for backing down now.
Your point, while perhaps a fair one, seems not to have affected my position.
Unfortunately, forums like this are the only place where this topic can be discussed in an at least half-way meaningful manner for ordinary people. Meawhile, the trend toward a favorable attitude toward assisted suicide and euthanasia continues. And with that, a favoring of a superficial take on the topic of "meaning of life". What is more, people who are supposedly happy with life nonchalantly advise others to kill themselves if they're not too keen on living. One would hope moderators would neither give such advice, nor passively approve of it.
Reply to Hanover Your little eeyore video simply implicitly extolls common decency, while your religion/spirituality promotes the pursuit of sensual pleasures. (The pursuit of sensual pleasures which is inevitably linked to the destruction of other living beings: animals, plants, other people.)
You yet have to show that you're not another one of Sisyphus' waterboys.
In a sense food lost its numero uno position in re labor to second place, below other more, let's just say, sublime aforementioned activities. To me this is a significant upgrade to the status of work which should matter
On the contrary. People generally don't value food production enough, hence the abuse of the planet.
Whether it is or isn't enough really is up to you. It's your relationship to the world, to yourself, to your emotions and needs and people. There is no "reason" someone can give you to make you feel any differently about those. The unjust thing about this world is that it's probably not even your fault you feel this way -- but because it's your life, your emotions, your desire, well... it still falls to you to learn how to live with it.
A person doesn't live in a socio-psychological vaccum. Thus neither the existential problem nor the solution to it are within the person's power.
Wrong again.. At least get your terms correct. Nihilism in ethics, it he belief in no values. A nihilist wouldn't give a fuck if you procreated or not. They generally don't take positions that put values on things. Rather, it is philosophical pessimism, and it's not dressed up.
Ironically, both the antinatalists as well as the natalists are still firmly immersed in the pursuit of sensual pleasures, they differ only in which types of sensual pleasures they pursue.
The pursuit of sensual pleasures necessarily entails suffering.
Deleted UserAugust 12, 2022 at 17:21#7284560 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Well, I would say that I have quite a lot of things I enjoy, but at the end of the day I still question myself whether it´s all worth it. I love my family, friends, have an interesting job, enough money, love long walks, driving, cooking, coffee….but still there’s something at the back of my head saying - is it enough?
Also I do think that preferring “nothingness” is a stupid concept, because for me there’s nothing after death, no “you” to “enjoy” the preferred nothingness :roll: . For now suicide seems irrational.
So therefore the question why go on or better yet how to go on, what to strive for? (I mean it still could be just symptoms of depression, but who knows :confused: )
universenessAugust 12, 2022 at 21:39#7285260 likes
Also I do think that preferring “nothingness” is a stupid concept, because for me there’s nothing after death, no “you” to “enjoy” the preferred nothingness :roll: . For now suicide seems irrational.
That's a lot of E.M. Cioran.. Ever read him?
schopenhauer1August 13, 2022 at 00:48#7285910 likes
Ironically, both the antinatalists as well as the natalists are still firmly immersed in the pursuit of sensual pleasures, they differ only in which types of sensual pleasures they pursue.
The pursuit of sensual pleasures necessarily entails suffering.
I think fear and curiosity are the two main drivers.
Each has subcategories or synonyms, love being a subcategory of fear.
Its the desire for things to stay the same vs the desire for change. Love and fear are both about attachment: desire for stability, safety and comfort, all ways of coping with fear. Making friendships(love) helps protect us from dangers
Hum, I thought getting married and having children was how to actualize myself as a woman. I used to feel very sorry for single people because they did not enjoy the benefits of love and marriage. I have noticed in my later years, that many older people chose to live near a son or daughter and grandchildren. I loved being a grandmother and great-grandmother. Saying that is about fear seems like an odd way of understanding the joys of family.
universenessAugust 15, 2022 at 12:53#7295300 likes
. I used to feel very sorry for single people because they did not enjoy the benefits of love and marriage.
There are not benefits. Marriage is a community of sacrifices. Raising and maintaining a child is complex as hell and you do not how the tables would turn out in the future. Probably I can end up being cheated by my wife or mistreated by my own kid. So no... I prefer live in loneliness rather than being married.
Reply to javi2541997 Everything has it good sides and it's downsides. Marriage, which ends in a nasty divorce/breakup, can be traumatic and make you extremely unhappy and bitter. But so can be loneliness.
One has to appreciate the positive sides what your life has.
I should appreciate the positive sides of my life, indeed. But I think those positive feelings depend on my own. I never understood why there are some people who share half of their lives with another person. I respect it but I just don't get it.
Loneliness doesn't necessarily lead us to sadness. It depends on each context. If you appreciate being alone maybe this is the kind of life you should choose for.
Furthermore, marriage is not connected to affection. For example, I don't have a girlfriend, and neither Kids and friends. But I feel respected and esteemed inside this forum. To be honest with you, ssu, I guess I never be able to find such respect in real life
universenessAugust 15, 2022 at 15:31#7295480 likes
I guess I never be able to find such respect in real life
The members of this forum are part of real life. You type many interesting things and take nice photo's, why would that change if I met you in person?
I have never married and have no kids. I have been engaged twice' lived with women, had many short relationships but my long-term ones just never worked out. I, like you now, prefer my personal freedom compared to what is offered in a relationship but I am 58 now. Nature has turned its attention towards younger prospects for reproduction. I am now relatively irrelevant in the continuation of the species imperative but under the rules, I am still allowed to have lots of fun!
I would not change in person because the way I interact in this forum is how I really am in real life. If you ever met me in person you would see I am the same Javi in The Philosophy Forum and in physical world. I am not using masks here and I am happy the way I act inside this group.
But in physical world is different, or at least due to the type of persons surrounded with me. I always doubt if it is worthy to open my mind and hearts to them. I feel I would be disappointed...
universenessAugust 15, 2022 at 16:14#7295550 likes
Reply to javi2541997
I appreciated and understand your caution with those you don't know yet.
To me, it's a bit like the pioneer spirit. Social interaction has risk but can also have great rewards.
Sounds like you can have as many friends and relationships as you want Javi. You just have your own preferred approach and having the choice to get involved or not is yours. That's the kind of freedoms we all insist on, yes?
There are not benefits. Marriage is a community of sacrifices. Raising and maintaining a child is complex as hell and you do not how the tables would turn out in the future. Probably I can end up being cheated by my wife or mistreated by my own kid. So no... I prefer live in loneliness rather than being married.
I am sorry. Everything in life has some risk. You could have the best job in the world and a lovely house, great car, and loose it all. Then who will you be without everything that once defined you?
For sure marriage and family involve risk. It surely is not something anyone should do without a lot of talking! That piece of knowledge comes from hindsight. I took so much for granted and that was a mistake. So if you ever change your mind about marriage and family please remember to talk about everything that is important to you. There is really good information in books and on the internet and the more we know the better are our chances of doing well. This video is really good and perfect for you. It is about why we marry the wrong person. Please give it a try and tell me what think.
That's the kind of freedoms we all insist on, yes?
Well, yes you are right somehow right. I am only 25 years old. So, I do not know what the future really holds and probably I make some friends the next year
Athena, I am so much appreciated of all information you have provided to me. But, trust me please. I do not see myself in a marriage because I already lived the experience of being heartbroken and I don't want to go through the same painful process.
universenessAugust 15, 2022 at 16:42#7295610 likes
Reply to javi2541997
:clap: Yeah, at 25, leave an inside light on and a wee door ajar, so that people can notice you and say hello!
universenessAugust 15, 2022 at 16:49#7295620 likes
I already lived the experience of being heartbroken and I don't want to go through the same painful process.
Happened to me three times so far. Dark, nasty and very very painful. It's Humpty Dumpty time, you almost have to put yourself together again from scratch but I really did come back again, each time, stronger but different. You lose the innocent you but my first was far worse than my second which was much worse than my third. I think I am almost immune now. I can still give as much as ever but I have much stronger armour against the 'unexpected.'
Hum, I thought getting married and having children was how to actualize myself as a woman. I used to feel very sorry for single people because they did not enjoy the benefits of love and marriage. I have noticed in my later years, that many older people chose to live near a son or daughter and grandchildren. I loved being a grandmother and great-grandmother. Saying that is about fear seems like an odd way of understanding the joys of family.
Curiosity can be part of the motive to be with others. But a desire to be soothed and affirmed by others, or needed and valued, I see it as relating to lack of self esteem.
Not that I deny such things. If I can't affirm myself I am not against being affirmed, and appreciate it. But I want to eventually be able to affirm myself.
Can grow from relationships as relationships bring up insecurities so they can be faced and overcome, learning how to be vulnerable but also how to have healthy boundaries.
universenessAugust 15, 2022 at 17:03#7295660 likes
Well, I would say that I have quite a lot of things I enjoy, but at the end of the day I still question myself whether it´s all worth it. I love my family, friends, have an interesting job, enough money, love long walks, driving, cooking, coffee….but still there’s something at the back of my head saying - is it enough?
Also I do think that preferring “nothingness” is a stupid concept, because for me there’s nothing after death, no “you” to “enjoy” the preferred nothingness :roll: . For now suicide seems irrational.
So therefore the question why go on or better yet how to go on, what to strive for?
You mentioned depression, so I'm responding with that frame in mind - I'm speaking from the perspective of one who manages his own depression.
I know what I'd say to myself if I couldn't come up with something more but just felt a kind of malingering malaise that asks if I need or want more -- but I couldn't answer that question for you. And if your question is as general as, what should I strive for? Then even more so, no one could answer that question for you. If anything, I'd say I'm done with striving -- I'm sick and tired of trying. I like not-trying. I like not-doing. It's the best place to be. Striving is hard. not-doing is relaxing. But I don't recommend that as a universal tonic. It's just what I want now.
I'm trying to be careful to be sure I'm only speaking for myself; to not give advice, because *if* your feeling is more than a philosophical wondering about "the point of it all", then none of us are in a good position to offer anything that might really help. All I can do is say I know what causes that feeling in me, and note that you're not alone in feeling it. But the actual resolution of or living with these feelings isn't a well known or even presently knowable process, at least in a general way. We understand diabetes better than we do depression, because at least we know how to manage diabetes if the person is able to habituate themselves to it.
(I mean it still could be just symptoms of depression, but who knows :confused: )
I feel like noting: there's the word "Just" again -- as if to say these feelings are only something. I don't think that's the case at all. After all, here you are talking about it. If they were only something, then you could shrug it off, right? Even if depression is the underlying causal explanation, it's not necessarily satisfying to have a causal explanation for the way we feel. Sometimes we're looking for something a little more meaningful than "the atoms move around and stuff happens, whadya want?" or "you experienced trauma and learned bad habits, so unlearn those and you'll be cured" -- sometimes there isn't a cure. Sometimes it's just nice to talk about what you feel, even if it seems a bit crazy.
But these feelings are never "just" something else. Our feelings are important, good, bad, and ugly.
To be honest with you, ssu, I guess I never be able to find such respect in real life
Your life is the real life, respect it.
And if you are 25, don't think you've seen it all. I had fears about my life when I was your age: I didn't have a girlfriend, I wasn't in the in-crowd, I was shy, I feared I would be all alone without having anything meaningful in my life later when I would be 30, 40 or 50. I couldn't image to be a father or having a family. I thought it was not for me. It was the life for other people.
Remember that sadness is part of life. If you wouldn't feel sadness and heartache, you wouldn't appreciate the good things in life. You have emotions, which is good in life. If something makes you happy that you laugh, even if rarely, that makes life worth wile. At that moment you cannot be sad, hence not all life is pain.
schopenhauer1August 16, 2022 at 00:09#7297030 likes
If something makes you happy that you laugh, even if rarely, that makes life worth wile. At that moment you cannot be sad, hence not all life is pain.
That's a pretty low threshold. As Simon and Garfunkle explain.. Rocks feel no pain.
If I was to cause someone else to exist because I felt joy in my most joyous occasion and was deluded into thinking another being would live life in this brief moment of joy.. That would be a huge conceit that I would be enacting (and on behalf of another nonetheless).. Just give it a few moments and that moment will be but a faded memory and the lackluster of what surrounds it comes into view more clearly.. In other words, never make significant decisions on behalf of others in your most joyous moment. That would be foolhardy.
Athena, I am so much appreciated of all information you have provided to me. But, trust me please. I do not see myself in a marriage because I already lived the experience of being heartbroken and I don't want to go through the same painful process.
I am now relatively irrelevant in the continuation of the species imperative but under the rules, I am still allowed to have lots of fun!
I have mixed feelings about relationships and having children. Today, I don't think I would want to bring a child into this world. Our present technological society is very different from the society and culture we had when I came of age. Back in the day we wanted to grow up and prove we were capable adults and that meant getting married and having children. It was especially important for a woman to be married and have children because there were not a lot of good options for women when our society was strongly based on the Bible and the ancient Greeks. Pythagoras and Plato were in favor of women having equality but allowing women equality was a radical idea that so broke tradition it could be met with some hostility.
Aristotle thought a man should have a slave, an ox, and a wife. I am not so sure he saw having a wife as different from having an ox and a slave. Our culture didn't seem to think having a wife was different from having an ox and a slave. Economically, women were held dependent on the man.
There was a time when having a family would improve a man's chances of getting a job and getting advancements. A married man was thought to be a responsible and more stable person. In some cases, his wife could advance his career by having the boss over for dinner and making social connections with the right people. She was not "just a housewife" but a very valuable part of the social and economic order we had.
I am not saying there were no problems. I am saying things were different back then and being married and a parent was part of our identification and social status. We also saw the world getting better and better. We believed we could make the world a better place and that was a much happier situation for having children. Today we no longer see the world as getting better and global warming means in a generation of two the world we took for granted may be irrevocably destroyed. I do not see this as a good time to have children.
Today we no longer see the world as getting better and global warming means in a generation of two the world we took for granted may be irrevocably destroyed. I do not see this as a good time to have children.
I agree, we have reached a phase of a great deal of social, political, economic and ecological upheaval.
Responsible human stewardship of the planet is failing badly and our current sociopolitical systems cannot cope with the current global population so it's not a good time to have children, especially if you are poor, downtrodden and deliberately disadvantaged which at the moment, is the position of the majority of humans alive.
If we had better global politics and the collection and distribution of resources was organised for the size of population we have and not exclusively for the benefit of the few then we probably could cope with the current population. So, at least the problems are crystal clear. If we can 'sort it out,' then perhaps we can start to expand off planet. If we don't then we will continue to give oxygen to the anti-life people until we do.
If the human population reduces over time due to individual human choice not to have kids and we end up with a more manageable population and we then 'sort things out,' then hopefully we all have the choice back, to freely and positively procreate again, in line with the natural imperative.
One has to notice that the simple things in life are what actually life so wonderful. Especially if your other option is not to live, to be dead.
Rocks don’t feel pain and don’t need joy. It is us who lost the existential race with our consciousness..feeling things. Yet in our ignorance we perpetuate it more. And to prevent such an ignorant move, do not make the move to perpetuate another whist in the joyous moment. Look at the most mundane, lackluster part of life. THAT is what should be the baseline of decision.
You can put up defense mechanisms and scorn the pessimist..but you miss the message. All we have is our own restless wills coupled with fighting entropic decay.
It’s not that there’s beauty, it’s that we need beauty. It’s not that there’s joy, it’s that we need joy. It’s not that there’s X, it’s that we need X. And yet your political position on how great it is to need X becomes someone else’s problem.
It’s not that there’s beauty, it’s that we need beauty. It’s not that there’s joy, it’s that we need joy. It’s not that there’s X, it’s that we need X.
How much is enough depends on us ourselves. Some can be bitter if they feel they haven't gotten something, where others would be totally content what they have gotten.
Someone had the best day ever.. they have a partner to procreate with.. they decide to have a baby...So that one day of joy has an optimism bias that lasts a lifetime consequence for someone else.
They have decided THEIR joy = other people must do X. That is a political position (on what others should be doing based on one's own attitudes) in my book.
Maybe this is too deep, but when I think why there is something rather than nothing, I can't help but think its because not existing is a vacuum that existing fills. In other words, the state of non-existence must have some element of lack to it in order to initiate existence. This may be related to what some traditions have called the demiurge.
schopenhauer1August 16, 2022 at 17:13#7298970 likes
In other words, the state of non-existence must have some element of lack to it in order to initiate existence. This may be related to what some traditions have called the demiurge.
Does the i universe need sentient existence? What is a non sentential existence?
universenessAugust 16, 2022 at 17:33#7299000 likes
Based on the evidence that we have not found any life beyond earth, it can be stated that during the time it took for our star(the sun) to form and then our solar system (including Earth) to the moment that 'life' in its microbial infancy formed two main groups, bacteria and archaea. There was no sentient life.
We have no means to ask bacteria or archaea or even rock formations or the Earth itself how they felt about their existence at that time. So we had an absence of life and then we had life.
Biological entities advance in structure and complexity through combination and mutation.
the state of non-existence must have some element of lack to it in order to initiate existence
I agree but I would replace 'non-existence,' and 'existence' with non-life and life as without this you would have to assign some purpose and significance to the existence of something which is lifeless like a rock when no lifeform exists to label it a rock or (in the case of a microbe) at least live on it.
Does the i universe need sentient existence? What is a non sentential existence?
My understanding is that the purpose of existence is to relieve boredom. Non-existence I take as a state of absolute boredom.
I don't have any scientific answers, obviously. But I dont think they are necessary.
I agree but I would replace 'non-existence,' and 'existence' with non-life and life as without this you would have to assign some purpose and significance to the existence of something which is lifeless like a rock when no lifeform exists to label it a rock or (in the case of a microbe) at least live on it.
Far as I'm concerned a rock is a bored proto-life-form.
Well, I would say that I have quite a lot of things I enjoy, but at the end of the day I still question myself whether it´s all worth it. I love my family, friends, have an interesting job, enough money, love long walks, driving, cooking, coffee….but still there’s something at the back of my head saying - is it enough?
Also I do think that preferring “nothingness” is a stupid concept, because for me there’s nothing after death, no “you” to “enjoy” the preferred nothingness :roll: . For now suicide seems irrational.
So therefore the question why go on or better yet how to go on, what to strive for? (I mean it still could be just symptoms of depression, but who knows :confused: )
It's how the recognition feels that depending on impermanent things for one's happiness is precarious.
That is, you recognize that depending on impermanent things for you happiness is a recognition that feels uneasy; for most people, it's depressing.
A secular psyhotherapist will approach this recognition as a pathological symptom, something to be done away with.
Some spiritual/religious people believe it's the beginning of the spiritual path (using here "spiritual" for the lack of a better word). Not a sign of depression, but a mark of seeing worldly things for how they really are: impermanent and ultimately unsatisfactory, and thus not worth striving for.
Ironically, both the antinatalists as well as the natalists are still firmly immersed in the pursuit of sensual pleasures, they differ only in which types of sensual pleasures they pursue.
The pursuit of sensual pleasures necessarily entails suffering.
— baker
Not sure why you think that, but ok.
Why I think what? To which sentence are you refering?
If you wouldn't feel sadness and heartache, you wouldn't appreciate the good things in life.
Hence the recipe for a good marriage is 1 kiss + 1 slap in the face. That really makes one appreciate the kisses!!!!
The idea that it is hardships that make us appreciate the good things is patently absurd, however popular it may be. It's sado-masochistic. It's depressing. The bad stuff doesn't make us appreciate the good stuff, but it can lead us to question whether the good stuff is all that it's popularily made out to be.
But the actual resolution of or living with these feelings isn't a well known or even presently knowable process, at least in a general way.
It's not such a secret.
Samvega was what the young Prince Siddhartha felt on his first exposure to aging, illness, and death. It's a hard word to translate because it covers such a complex range — at least three clusters of feelings at once: the oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived; a chastening sense of our own complacency and foolishness in having let ourselves live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle. This is a cluster of feelings we've all experienced at one time or another in the process of growing up, but I don't know of a single English term that adequately covers all three. It would be useful to have such a term, and maybe that's reason enough for simply adopting the word samvega into our language.
But more than providing a useful term, Buddhism also offers an effective strategy for dealing with the feelings behind it — feelings that our own culture finds threatening and handles very poorly. Ours, of course, is not the only culture threatened by feelings of samvega. In the Siddhartha story, the father's reaction to the young prince's discovery stands for the way most cultures try to deal with these feelings: He tried to convince the prince that his standards for happiness were impossibly high, at the same time trying to distract him with relationships and every sensual pleasure imaginable. To put it simply, the strategy was to get the prince to lower his aims and to find satisfaction in a happiness that was less than absolute and not especially pure.
If the young prince were living in America today, the father would have other tools for dealing with the prince's dissatisfaction, but the basic strategy would be essentially the same. We can easily imagine him taking the prince to a religious counselor who would teach him to believe that God's creation is basically good and not to focus on any aspects of life that would cast doubt on that belief. Or he might take him to a psychotherapist who would treat feelings of samvega as an inability to accept reality. If talking therapies didn't get results, the therapist would probably prescribe mood-altering drugs to dull the feeling out of the young man's system so that he could become a productive, well-adjusted member of society.
They have decided THEIR joy = other people must do X. That is a political position (on what others should be doing based on one's own attitudes) in my book.
Is this the antinatalism thread again? Or going there?
Besides, as humans live in a society, so I guess there's a lot of people deciding what others (or we) have to do.
Hence the recipe for a good marriage is 1 kiss + 1 slap in the face. That really makes one appreciate the kisses!!!!
The idea that it is hardships that make us appreciate the good things is patently absurd, however popular it may be.
My point is that you cannot have just positive feelings (love, joy, happiness etc.) You will sure feel sadness and anger too. That simply is part of life, which you cannot disregard or hide away. Empathy is also very important.
But yes, if you haven't ever felt hunger, how can you value a good meal? Sometimes something lousy can make you appreciate good.
schopenhauer1August 16, 2022 at 20:17#7299640 likes
Is this the antinatalism thread again? Or going there?
Goes hand in hand with life sucks. But the broader point is you were speaking of joy and happy moments and I was giving you the danger of OVERemphasizung this. The optimism bias in humans is strong to cherry pick joyous moments and make important decisions from them that can actually negatively affect the course of things, including a whole other humans’ life because you had a moment of unthinking joy.
It’s best to recount the lackluster, and negative states as a balance.
But the broader point is you were speaking of joy and happy moments and I was giving you the danger of OVERemphasizung this. The optimism bias in humans is strong to cherry pick joyous moments and make important decisions from them that can actually negatively affect the course of things, including a whole other humans’ life because you had a moment of unthinking joy.
It’s best to recount the lackluster, and negative states as a balance.
OK, now I understand better your point.
On the other hand, optimism, remembering those joy and happy moments might be good in countering OVERemphasizing pain and hardships of life. Which we can often do when we are unhappy about something.
Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes.
Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes.
Yep, the cool kids never like optimism or happiness - such responses are viewed as gauche, and don't you know life is grave and dreadful?
schopenhauer1August 17, 2022 at 00:10#7300150 likes
Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes.
They have decided THEIR joy = other people must do X. That is a political position (on what others should be doing based on one's own attitudes) in my book.
Besides, as humans live in a society, so I guess there's a lot of people deciding what others (or we) have to do.
The Greeks had a concept of what is public and what is private. Liberty depends on respecting what is an individual, private decision, and unfortunately, Evangelicals are determined to impose their notions of how things should be on everyone, just as much as some Muslims believe it is God's will to make everyone live as they believe their holy book defines how people should live.
We question if animals have self-awareness. For sure rocks do not, any more than the tires on my car want different things. But perhaps a God decides what is best for all things and everyone and we should use our intelligence to understand what God wants and then impose that on everyone. The state is God and it must use any means necessary to make everyone comply with the will of God. Or taking God out of our politics how do we determine democratically what should be?
What if industry used the democratic model instead of the autocratic model? How might that change our reality? How many industries would move to China if the employees were making the decision? Who should have the power to decide our joy? What industry would pollute the environment causing their own families disease?
Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes.
You mean join a nudist colony? That would give some people joy. :grin:
If we had better global politics and the collection and distribution of resources was organised for the size of population we have and not exclusively for the benefit of the few then we probably could cope with the current population. So, at least the problems are crystal clear. If we can 'sort it out,' then perhaps we can start to expand off planet. If we don't then we will continue to give oxygen to the anti-life people until we do.
If the human population reduces over time due to individual human choice not to have kids and we end up with a more manageable population and we then 'sort things out,' then hopefully we all have the choice back, to freely and positively procreate again, in line with the natural imperative.
Might that be what democracy is about? It is empowering everyone who is affected by a decision to come to the table and explain what is and what should be. Then arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning. You know, like the Greek gods.
A geologist showed me a cartoon explaining exponential growth. You begin with a couple of frogs in a pond and then increase the number of frogs exponentially. Everything appears fine until the last day when the pond goes from half full to completely full. That is what happened to us. When I was born we still had a sense that there was plenty of everything. In my lifetime we have gone from plenty of everything to crisis. We have a housing shortage where land used to be dirt cheap and there was far more available land than people to fill it. Plenty of water to water wars. We are having a very hard time dealing with reality. I do not think we have a good grasp of it and we are not organized to deal with the facts we need to know.
:rofl: In general everyone is behaving like the kids fighting in the back seat of the car. They are yelling at each other and no one is working with the facts.
universenessAugust 17, 2022 at 15:25#7301320 likes
It is empowering everyone who is affected by a decision to come to the table and explain what is and what should be. Then arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning
Sounds better than some dictatorship of a privileged few.
When I was born we still had a sense that there was plenty of everything. In my lifetime we have gone from plenty of everything to crisis. We have a housing shortage where land used to be dirt cheap and there was far more available land than people to fill it. Plenty of water to water wars. We are having a very hard time dealing with reality. I do not think we have a good grasp of it and we are not organized to deal with the facts we need
There is also a great deal of bad organisation. I live in Scotland, our population is quite small (Around 5 million). We could build a few more major cities in Scotland, we also have hundreds of uninhabited islands that could be developed but 'there's not enough profit in it.' Hah! total BS, we need to nurture people not profit.
In general everyone is behaving like the kids fighting in the back seat of the car. They are yelling at each other and no one is working with the facts.
A fair analysis but don't forget that we have been trying to deal with a very powerful, clever, very well established, global hierarchy of elites, since the free market economy and the money trick became established. Rich, global family dynasties formed out of the dying national aristocracies and monarchies.
These became the basis for establishing global banking systems and global conglomerates.
It's just evolving global dynasties similar in structure, style, and behaviour to global gangsterism. I see little difference between the mafia Don's and Don Elon Musk or Don Donald Trump.
They will fight the masses tooth and nail and they have the established power to do it. They will divide you, terrorise and murder those who raise their heads in protest, especially those who are getting through to the masses and are trying to organise them. They will pay your own kind to betray you and turn against you. They will also convince your own kind in the form of police and soldiers that their loyalty must lie with the established rich and powerful and not the people.
Millions of socialists/humanists have been slaughtered for 10,000 years of tears to fight against the nefarious and they have defeated monarchies and aristocracies and they have created systems all over the world which are far better and fairer for more people compared to any system or civilisation from antiquity. The fight continues. The socialists/humanist are still here and we still number in the many many millions globally. We will defeat the nefarious completely one day and become an interplanetary/interstellar species.
schopenhauer1August 17, 2022 at 16:20#7301440 likes
But perhaps a God decides what is best for all things and everyone and we should use our intelligence to understand what God wants and then impose that on everyone. The state is God and it must use any means necessary to make everyone comply with the will of God. Or taking God out of our politics how do we determine democratically what should be?
The problem is existing at all. Why do we bring people into existence? Any way you answer that is a political answer. Apparently YOU know why existence just NEEDS to be experienced and so you procreate more people into the world. So why do people need to be here? Your answer will be revealing. To work? Why? To take your time in various survival and maintenance activities? If you say to discover, learn, and make relationships, I’ll just ask why people need to do this on the first place. Rocks don’t need anything. No existence hurts no one. Why do more individuals need to be created? Again a political question, as your answer means other people must follow (pay) the consequence of being born and go through the gauntlet of living..all because you have a notion of things and what’s best for others. Rather, there’s a nothingness, a lack at the heart of things. Just creating more people to overcome constant lack. Schopenhauer’s Will manifested over and over in yet more beings procreated into the world. Existence is ti be endured and you are creating more victims because you think they need to live out some lifestyle that YOU think is good for them. But if they didn’t exist, they didn’t need anything to be lived out in the first place.
The Greek gods never existed, the atheists, christians and muslims all agree on that one.
May I argue they did exist and were just as real as the God of Abraham? Each one is a concept and concepts are powerful. Every Evangelical experiences the power of God exactly like the Greeks experienced the power of their gods.
The Greeks slowly began slipping out of this superstition with questions like "Is something bad because the gods say it is bad, or do they say it is bad because it is bad?" If it is the latter, something exists besides the gods. Now we are creeping into universals and the laws of nature. And we have Hippocrates who says the conditions of the body are not caused by the gods. But before those who love knowledge replaced superstition with universals, people experienced their gods as very real. If you believe Demeter will make you a better mother, sure enough, she will, and if you believe in the power of the God of Abraham, you will see it everywhere. Your belief will explain everything to you validating your truth. :grin:
There is also a great deal of bad organisation. I live in Scotland, our population is quite small (Around 5 million). We could build a few more major cities in Scotland, we also have hundreds of uninhabited islands that could be developed but 'there's not enough profit in it.' Hah! total BS, we need to nurture people not profit.
And there we become the gods. It is as we create it. :grin: It is as Zeus feared. With the knowledge of the technology of fire, we have discovered all other technologies and now rival the gods. However, as you hint, with concepts such as socialism and humanism we can create a reality that encourages happy families, or we can feed the beast and make the beast strong.
I see little difference between the mafia Don's and Don Elon Musk or Don Donald Trump.
Oh burn, ssssss- :fire: That was nicely said. I could totally off topic with you what you said, but maybe if we focus on your lead in statement we can have a very meaningful discussion!
Rich, global family dynasties formed out of the dying national aristocracies and monarchies. These became the basis for establishing global banking systems and global conglomerates.
Yes, and what does the Bible have to say about that? :naughty: The Bible is a very complex book with something for everyone in it, but we might want to focus on what Rome did to Christianity. The Council of Nicaea was all about power. The Bible is about kings and slaves, not democracy. The God of Abraham gave man kings, not democracy, and one's life's work was defined by inheritance, not the merit system of the Greeks that enable any qualified person to have a government position.
Some conversations can not happen until someone opens the door so we can see what there is to talk about. Your statement about we are organized as we are organized opens a door. Conservatives want to cling to tradition but democracy is not a Christian tradition.
The socialists/humanist are still here and we still number in the many many millions globally. We will defeat the nefarious completely one day and become an interplanetary/interstellar species.
Jefferson and the Scottish Enlightenment - Independent Institutehttps://www.independent.org › publications › article
Wills observes that the study of Scottish Enlightenment thought played a prominent role in American education in the second half of the eighteenth century. https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=2790
We could start a new thread about the Scottish Enlightenment and what it has to do with the US democracy.
Because "God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man." Chardin.
I am less familiar with the Mayan Factor explanation of our light bodies and the universal entrance.
Your attacks on me make me want to avoid what you are saying. You might drop assuming what I think, know, and do, and focus on the concepts you want to discuss.
universenessAugust 19, 2022 at 23:18#7308820 likes
In reading your post overall, it seems to me you are trying to explain/analyse/appreciate why early humans were so attracted to theism. I understand, but I prefer to summarise all of those reasons into the one main driver. Jungle law manipulation of human primal fears.
May I argue they did exist and were just as real as the God of Abraham?
Of course you may but a concept is an abstract idea. Humans can turn some concept into a reality but they can't create gods, they can only and have only ever been able to insist you accept them on threat of punishment, damnation and/or death.
If you believe Demeter will make you a better mother, sure enough, she will, and if you believe in the power of the God of Abraham, you will see it everywhere. Your belief will explain everything to you validating your truth.
I don't advocate for self-delusion as a way to validate truth and I don't think you do either. I understand your observation that many people gain strength and focus by using deities as scapegoats and so they do not have to take responsibility/ownership of their own existence and what we decide to do or what actions we decide to take.
I was watching a program about the days of the partition of India. A Hindu woman had returned to where thousands of Hindus and Sikhs were slaughtered, including some of her own family. She was talking to a Muslim that had witnessed the 'battle' as a child. At one point she asked him why they slaughtered each other as they did. They were both in tears when the old Muslim man said 'don't cry my daughter, this was gods will.' A pathetic excuse imo. Gods as convenient scapegoats.
but we might want to focus on what Rome did to Christianity.
Well, I am with those who posit that it is likely that Rome created Christianity and people like the treacherous Josephus helped write the gospels and the popes are the direct inheritors of the embers of the roman empire etc etc. I support the positions held by folks like Joseph Atwill, James Vallient, Professor Robert Price, Dr Robert Eisenman, the folks on Mythvision et al.
We could start a new thread about the Scottish Enlightenment and what it has to do with the US democracy.
I would enjoy that Athena, we could go back even further to the 'Declaration of Arbroath,' and 'The Magna Carta.' and how those documents influenced the American constitution etc. You are correct that all the winding historical threads do weave us all the way to where we are now and why we live like we do now and the purist philosophers can suggest a myriad of 'thinking processes' and epistemologies that governed/directed/conducted our pathway to 'now.'
I always enjoy such discussions but we are just going over the same old ground again and again and again. There must be quicker ways to drive human global unison forwards, than constantly going back over antiquity. We should not even have to go back as far as the enlightenment to make progress.
EDIT: I suppose the path was more the American Declaration of Independence to The American Constitution.
Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes.
That's appreciation for people who have no value system.
Well, sort of. Assume if you had eaten for your entire life exceptionally great meals, basically always something of the level that one gets in Michelin star restaurants, with added detail to the healthiness of your diet. You wouldn't know how bad food actually people e
For an anecdote, I remember once on a Finnish Navy island garrison the commanding officer decided to remember the Winter War by having the conscripts exactly the same kind of food with the historical amount during winter that soldiers were given during WW2...at the same naval fortress. The records were they, so the kitchen had no trouble in recreating the WW2-era cuisine. Hence they got a small portion of porridge (without honey or sugar) and that's it. As the garrison was on a fortress island, the conscript didn't have the chance to order pizza or anything in the evening. The conscripts (who had been born in the 1980's) hadn't experienced cold and hunger. Many said that they respected differently the war veterans after that experience.
It's telling that actually now days being overweight is many times a sign of poverty.
I'm absolutely sure that we wouldn't image just what people ate thousands of years ago.
Your attacks on me make me want to avoid what you are saying. You might drop assuming what I think, know, and do, and focus on the concepts you want to discuss.
The "you" in the last post is the universal "you", not you specifically. It's a hypothetical "you".
Of course you may but a concept is an abstract idea. Humans can turn some concept into a reality but they can't create gods, they can only and have only ever been able to insist you accept them on threat of punishment, damnation and/or death.
Whoo. wait a minute. Do you have any stories of people who believe in many gods behaving like those who think there is only one god who has favorite people and one god's truth? When people believed there are many gods they thought the people who won wars had the strongest god and that was one of the factors that converted people to Christianity. The Romans with their superior military force were winning wars so obviously they have the strongest god, right? Except the Germans in their forest. Whoo, those guys were badasses and you didn't want to get too close to them. People from the south feared the forest and the way the Germans defended their territory was terrorizing. Eventually, they accept the God of Abraham but then they claimed the Holy Roman Emperor as their own, and when the Church in Rome did not give them the power of authority they protested and started their own religion built on the God of Abraham stories. This is really important, many gods means learning far more than can be learned with one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god. That is a war god, not the path to equality and peace.
I experience natural high's every bit as powerful as any evanhellical or ancient Greek was ever able to.
Yes, that is exactly the point. Too bad at the time of the enlightenment and the beginning of democracy people did not push against Christianity in favor of science and the power of our minds with more determination. What we have to do now is advance the explanations of how thoughts shape our lives and then increase awareness of the positive choices we can make, including education for good moral judgment and that democracy relies on science, not a jealous, revengeful and fearsome god.
I don't advocate for self-delusion as a way to validate truth and I don't think you do either. I understand your observation that many people gain strength and focus by using deities as scapegoats and so they do not have to take responsibility/ownership of their own existence and what we decide to do or what actions we decide to take.
I was watching a program about the days of the partition of India. A Hindu woman had returned to where thousands of Hindus and Sikhs were slaughtered, including some of her own family. She was talking to a Muslim that had witnessed the 'battle' as a child. At one point she asked him why they slaughtered each other as they did. They were both in tears when the old Muslim man said 'don't cry my daughter, this was gods will.' A pathetic excuse imo. Gods as convenient scapegoats.
Wait a minute, what is the truth of Demeter making a woman a better mother? She and all the gods and goddesses are archetypes. You might like reading Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.'s book Gods in Everyman" or "Goddesses in Everywoman". The God of Abraham religions have given the gods a bad reputation. I can see I need to work on this explanation. A blog might be the best way to handle what the gods have to do with democracy and why they are in a painting at the US Capitol Building and science instead of superstition. The God of Abraham mythologies are perhaps the worst thing that could have happened to humanity.
Thoughts control our behavior and even our physical condition. It is not necessary to attach superstition to the stories. We keep the stories and repeat them because they resonate with something inside of us. All groups of people have their stories that they passed on from generation to generation and these stories are important, just as important as the mythologies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. If we are not superstitious we can appreciate all the others. My point is these stories hold truths and good moral lessons. They all work the same, even if the story is folklore or a native American explanation of life. Being open to the stories of others is also a path to knowing truth and learning science. The question can be more important than the answer. Greeks and Romans didn't believe they had a revealed god's truth. They learned of the gods of others and created their own in their image.
Well, I am with those who posit that it is likely that Rome created Christianity
They stole the religion from others. 5 of the Biblical stories are from Sumer, so the mythology begins in Ur a Sumerian city and it was plagiarized by Abraham and his people who he lead from Ur to Egypt. In the beginning, everyone had many gods and it is curious how the idea of one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god caught on spread. A nation at war might desire such a war god. Constantine meant well but making Rome and Christianity the same thing, created a monster. Important is the idea that a god chooses the king and gives the king power, and everything relies on inheritance. That is Judaism not a family of gods. There is no one to correct that god as Greek gods could argue their case.
Which one of us will start the new thread? I need to know more of Scottish thinking and really wish you would start the thread. Is Scottish thinking connected with the Celts? What is the geography of Scotland and how would it shape the people?
If one thinks life is wonderful or that it sucks may depend on psychological matters. I want to quote from the book Gods in Everyman by Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D..
"To feel authentic means to be free to develop traits and potentials that are innate predispositions. When we are accepted and allowed to be genuine. it's possible to have self-esteem and authenticity together. This develops only if we are encouraged rather than disheartened by the reactions of significant others to us, when we are spontaneous and truthful, or when we are absorbed in whatever gives us joy. From childhood on, first our family and then our culture are the mirrors in which we see ourselves as acceptable or not. When we need to conform in order to be acceptable, we may end up wearing a false face and playing an empty role if who we are inside and what is expected of us are far apart....
When life feels meaningless and stale, or when something feels fundamentally wrong about how you are living and what you are doing, you can help yourself by becoming aware of discrepancies between the archetypes within you and your visible roles. Men are often caught between the inner world of archetypes and the outer world of sterotypes. Archetypes are powerful predispositions; garbed in the image and mythology of Greek gods, as I have described them in this book, each has characteristics drives, emotions, and needs that shape personality. When you enact a role that is connected to an active archetype within you, energy is generated through the depth and meaning that the role has for you. "
I want to quote from the book Gods in Everyman by Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D..
Interesting and good quote indeed. But I disagree with Jean Shinoda Bolen in the following fact:
The text says: When we are accepted and allowed to be genuine. it's possible to have self-esteem and authenticity together. This develops only if we are encouraged rather than disheartened by the reactions of significant others to us, when we are spontaneous and truthful, or when we are absorbed in whatever gives us joy.
I think having self-esteem is not connected to be accepted by others. A good example of this could be the Japnase writer Yukio Mishima. He had a lot of self-esteem... but trust he was so far of being accepted by the Japanese society.
This is why I like him a lot. He represents the art of writing and thinking not matter if the "mass" would accept you or not.
The important achievement here is gaining self-esteem with your own self. Not caring if we do not fit in the society or we are not accepted by them
Whoo. wait a minute. Do you have any stories of people who believe in many gods behaving like those who think there is only one god who has favorite people and one god's truth? When people believed there are many gods they thought the people who won wars had the strongest god and that was one of the factors that converted people to Christianity.
Yes, Hindus are the third largest religion in the world (estimated at 1.2 billion). I assume the Hindu gods favour Hindus. Hindus have killed muslims and sikhs and probably people from all other relgions, in the name of hinduism. I am sure hindus have been on the losing side in many wars, but hinduism still has a massive global following and a global diaspora. I already agreed that many people got infected by or converted to (to use a less disrespectful term) christianity, through fear.
This is really important, many gods means learning far more than can be learned with one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god. That is a war god, not the path to equality and peace.
So how come a 'power in the hands of the few,' caste system and the horror of untouchability came out of hinduism?
Too bad at the time of the enlightenment and the beginning of democracy people did not push against Christianity in favor of science and the power of our minds with more determination.
I generally agree but there was not a lot of education about for the masses at the time and I think many people tried and died trying but, you are correct, they were unable to stop the nefarious few that held most of the power and influence. The fight goes on today.
What we have to do now is advance the explanations of how thoughts shape our lives and then increase awareness of the positive choices we can make, including education for good moral judgment and that democracy relies on science, not a jealous, revengeful and fearsome god.
Wait a minute, what is the truth of Demeter making a woman a better mother? She and all the gods and goddesses are archetypes.
I reject the term archetype based on its etymology: The word archetype, "original pattern from which copies are made," first entered into English usage in the 1540s. It derives from the Latin noun archetypum, latinisation of the Greek noun ????????? (archétypon), whose adjective form is ????????? (archétypos), which means "first-molded", which is a compound of ???? arch?, "beginning, origin", and ????? týpos, which can mean, amongst other things, "pattern", "model", or "type". It, thus, referred to the beginning or origin of the pattern, model or type.
Humans evolved, they were not 'first moulded' or are copies from a pattern. I hate the idea of an archetypal human. Demeter never made a woman a better mother as no such fabled Greek god creature ever existed. A good mother can of course teach a poor mother how to be a better mother.
We keep the stories and repeat them because they resonate with something inside of us. All groups of people have their stories that they passed on from generation to generation and these stories are important, just as important as the mythologies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Yeah, I understand what you mean but imo, we need to 'grow away from' such stories. 'When we are children we can act and speak like children when we grow up, we should put childish things away,' including god stories. I prefer the true stories of what humans did or are doing (when I can find reliable examples of such). I think we need to focus on finding the TRUTH and take all 'stories,' as suspect unless they can be confirmed as accurate! Fake news is a real killer and always has been. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels.
Which one of us will start the new thread? I need to know more of Scottish thinking and really wish you would start the thread. Is Scottish thinking connected with the Celts? What is the geography of Scotland and how would it shape the people?
Might be better if we just had a PM exchange Athena, if you think that could establish some foundational common ground between us. Perhaps a useful 'philosophical' thread could come from that.
Scots history certainly suggests we have celtic aspects to our national origin but exactly who and what was 'celtic,' extracts from a very foggy past indeed. Little is known about the inhabitants of scotland before the Romans arrived in Britain. All the early tribes have italian/roman names. The umbrella name is Pictii (or picts, picture/painted people). Individual tribes named as the votadini, novantae, caledonii etc. These are all latin based names. These names probably were not used by the actual groups they refer to, who I am sure had their own chosen names but we don't know what these were.
I think all humans gained a very mixed heritage quite early in the last 10,000 years.
Since you closed out "Why should life/existence by valued if i can choose to not want to value it?" and added it to this thread, it would make sense if you moved @obscurelaunting's OP over here.
[quote=Obscurelaunting]It's very possible for me to see all there is to life, the good and the bad and yet still not think this is enough for me to stay. Life is nothing but a slip of consciousness and just like that you could say it is amazing but I will say this is to be destroyed. Why? Because it can. Do not tell me it's a matter of what feels good and what doesn't, because then choosing to feel bad by choosing to die becomes something that feels good; so feeling good isn't the pinpoint at hand here.
So since I CAN think like this, how can I not think like this? Do not tell me to just be one with life in experience because this is futile and never has been fulfilling. Do not tell me that if I can choose either I should choose life, because I'm saying to you my choice IS non-existence, this is the dilemma: the choice and the confusion of life.
I am looking for the answer that breaks down this thinking and builds myself a new thought basis.[/quote]
schopenhauer1August 21, 2022 at 16:16#7315290 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
So you’re talking of Will.
Even if it isn't a true metaphysics, the idea of desiring/craving that is never satisfied, remains true. For all intents and purposes, life works on this principle. From a scientistic/mechanistic point of view, you can point to evolutionary variation/mutation/population statistics, but it just informs more about this principle. It doesn't replace this viewpoint. Entropy/enthalpy, the organism's metabolic needs and environmental fit.. The organism being is the organism dissatisfied.
I am not anti-life but personally I also wouldnt mind if everything stops once I die, as I wouldnt notice anything (peace/joy/taste/hurt/love etc.) anymore and as a result wouldnt have to experience any discomfort about it neither. But since I cant know what is beyond my current state of being I'm equally wellcoming nothingness as I am any ongoing experience(s).
By comparing it to a bad meal, not to no meal.
— baker
We've been created to go well without food for one day, actually. It's water that we need basically daily.
You're forgetting you're talking to a woman. I've been hungry almost as much as the average hungry African.
Well, sort of. Assume if you had eaten for your entire life exceptionally great meals, basically always something of the level that one gets in Michelin star restaurants, with added detail to the healthiness of your diet.
And for a good part of my life, I have eaten exceptionally good food, and I've grown proper organic food until recently.
You wouldn't know how bad food actually people e
I do know. It makes me want to puke.
For an anecdote, I remember once on a Finnish Navy island garrison the commanding officer decided to remember the Winter War by having the conscripts exactly the same kind of food with the historical amount during winter that soldiers were given during WW2...at the same naval fortress. The records were they, so the kitchen had no trouble in recreating the WW2-era cuisine. Hence they got a small portion of porridge (without honey or sugar) and that's it. As the garrison was on a fortress island, the conscript didn't have the chance to order pizza or anything in the evening. The conscripts (who had been born in the 1980's) hadn't experienced cold and hunger. Many said that they respected differently the war veterans after that experience.
The average peasant in the Dark Ages ate healthier food than most people do today.
I'm absolutely sure that we wouldn't image just what people ate thousands of years ago.
Certainly no pesticides and no GMOs. In the old times, food was much healthier, much more satiating because it had real taste.
It's very possible for me to see all there is to life, the good and the bad and yet still not think this is enough for me to stay. Life is nothing but a slip of consciousness and just like that you could say it is amazing but I will say this is to be destroyed. Why? Because it can. Do not tell me it's a matter of what feels good and what doesn't, because then choosing to feel bad by choosing to die becomes something that feels good; so feeling good isn't the pinpoint at hand here.
So since I CAN think like this, how can I not think like this? Do not tell me to just be one with life in experience because this is futile and never has been fulfilling. Do not tell me that if I can choose either I should choose life, because I'm saying to you my choice IS non-existence, this is the dilemma: the choice and the confusion of life.
I am looking for the answer that breaks down this thinking and builds myself a new thought basis.
What you're asking for cannot be done in the framework of secular culture and science. They'll just write you off as mentally ill, as an aberration. They certainly don't think you have some insight into the futility of life as it is usually lived.
I don’t think I ever considered myself anti-life, but lately I don’t know… How do I find meaning in meaningless universe?
How to answer question to be or not to be? Problem with suicide for me is that you can’t change your mind after… but now I’m overwhelmed with feelings and thoughts that there is no reason to go on (although I’m no entirely convinced by one option or another…)
but now I’m overwhelmed with feelings and thoughts that there is no reason to go on
One reason to go on: your family, friends or relatives. I understand what you are feeling because I walked through the same process. If suicide would sink your beloved ones in devastation and misery, please do not do it. That would be disrespectful and dishonorable.
If you feel that you don't find a meaning in life you would end up in an infinite loop because the nature of life is meaningless
I don’t think I ever considered myself anti-life, but lately I don’t know… How do I find meaning in meaningless universe?
How to answer question to be or not to be? Problem with suicide for me is that you can’t change your mind after… but now I’m overwhelmed with feelings and thoughts that there is no reason to go on (although I’m no entirely convinced by one option or another…)
I guess there are a lot a people experiencing the same dilemma, I know quite a few and I also cant find any meaning actually but there are a few considerations here. The first is about loved ones, this has been mentioned before throughout this thread, and their pain and grief should one take his own life. The second is about the unknown, which leaves lots of room for any plausible theories. Some claim for there to be nothing, not even a void (in death) while others claim utopia awaits us while others think we will get reborn and so on. Yet the truth of it all is that nobody knows and anything is possible. Which means we also have to take into account that the possibility exists that we get punished (or 'disciplined') if we would take shortcuts.
I think having self-esteem is not connected to be accepted by others. A good example of this could be the Japnase writer Yukio Mishima. He had a lot of self-esteem... but trust he was so far of being accepted by the Japanese society.
This is why I like him a lot. He represents the art of writing and thinking not matter if the "mass" would accept you or not.
The important achievement here is gaining self-esteem with your own self. Not caring if we do not fit in the society or we are not accepted by them
Wow, I have to agree with that. When I get in the creative space of writing it is the only thing that matters. It is not that I am totally confident in myself but that the creative experience or that moment of enlightenment when we see the bigger picture is better than good sex. I want to explain the hormonal experience so I don't sound like an egomaniac.
Ashley Margeson:For a quick recap; estrogen rises in your midluteal phase (the first half of your cycle) and a few days after ovulation. As estrogen increases in these areas of your cycle, your brain is better able to wire itself off dopamine – which means that your creativity skyrockets.Dec 10, 2019
shleymargeson.com/estrogen-creative-superpower/#:~:text=For%20a%20quick%20recap%3B%20estrogen,means%20that%20your%20creativity%20skyrockets. Why Estrogen Is Your Creative Superpower - Ashley Margeson
How Being More Creative Improves Your Mental and Physical ...https://www.lifehack.org › articles › lifestyle › how-bei...
Studies show how creative pursuits alter our brain chemistry, help improve attention, decrease stress, and can boost our physical and mental health.
There is a lot to say about creativity and our physical being and I have heard that some people who have been depressed for years have broken free of that when they start doing something creative.
So you’re talking of Will.
Even if it isn't a true metaphysics, the idea of desiring/craving that is never satisfied, remains true. For all intents and purposes, life works on this principle. From a scientistic/mechanistic point of view, you can point to evolutionary variation/mutation/population statistics, but it just informs more about this principle. It doesn't replace this viewpoint. Entropy/enthalpy, the organism's metabolic needs and environmental fit.. The organism being is the organism dissatisfied.
Aye, but I was actually referring to how, even though we have an awesome life, it's still an imposition. The point is that it really doesn't matter whether one's life is utterly miserable or absolutely amazing; life is still an imposition and that right there is the immorality of procreation.
Mr/Ms. Happy: Life's fun! Ima really enjoyin' it!
Antintatalist: Yes, yes, but did you choose this life?
Mr/Ms. Happy: Nope! :grin:
Yes, Hindus are the third largest religion in the world (estimated at 1.2 billion). I assume the Hindu gods favour Hindus. Hindus have killed muslims and sikhs and probably people from all other relgions, in the name of hinduism. I am sure hindus have been on the losing side in many wars, but hinduism still has a massive global following and a global diaspora. I already agreed that many people got infected by or converted to (to use a less disrespectful term) christianity, through fear.
I was unaware of this history of violence and it makes me curious. Why did the Hindus kill Muslims and Sikhs? I don't think it was like the Hebrews who took the land that was Isreal with the belief a God had told them to do so and to kill everyone who was already there. Christians have carried for centuries as though a god has told them the land is theirs and they should kill everyone else. That fearsome Christian god has only recently become a god of love. However, when people feel threatened they become defensive, so was the killing a justified act of defense? This matters to me. I tend to be too Polyann and not realistic and I want truth,
So how come a 'power in the hands of the few,' caste system and the horror of untouchability came out of hinduism?
I assume the practical answer is to avoid disease. I do not think my mind is capable of giving me a good understanding of ancient times and foreign places. I can reason that some people may live unhealthy lives and for one's own safety it is best to avoid contact. They did not have a government that can take care of them as well the US government has started caring for its people, and they sure did not have the economic opportunity we have today. Cleanliness for those who had the luxury of practicing cleanliness was very important.
I generally agree but there was not a lot of education about for the masses at the time and I think many people tried and died trying but, you are correct, they were unable to stop the nefarious few that held most of the power and influence. The fight goes on today.
I think Christianity is a barrier to learning not only for those who identify with the religion, but they have defined God, and that God is a supernatural power that can violate the laws of nature. That means we judge all gods by the Christian understanding of a god. Our bias has prevented learning of the gods. You can't google for infomation because Christianity floods the internet making it very difficult to find information about primative people and the gods. Quoting universeness
I reject the term archetype based on its etymology:
The word archetype, "original pattern from which copies are made," first entered into English usage in the 1540s. It derives from the Latin noun archetypum, latinisation of the Greek noun ????????? (archétypon), whose adjective form is ????????? (archétypos), which means "first-molded", which is a compound of ???? arch?, "beginning, origin", and ????? týpos, which can mean, amongst other things, "pattern", "model", or "type". It, thus, referred to the beginning or origin of the pattern, model or type.
Humans evolved, they were not 'first moulded' or are copies from a pattern. I hate the idea of an archetypal human. Demeter never made a woman a better mother as no such fabled Greek god creature ever existed. A good mother can of course teach a poor mother how to be a better mother.
I love your argument and especially the Latin and Greek words. I seriously wish I could learn those languages. But in argument to your argument, nature molded all things. Nature made mothers, nature made every female and male archetype. The writer of the stories based them on a study of human nature and all our different approuches to problems. Darn, I am too tired for the mental work that is needed for an argument, and this post is too long and also not on topic, so I am going to quit now. We need another thread for this. I really would like to look deeper into the gods.
Certainly no pesticides and no GMOs. In the old times, food was much healthier, much more satiating because it had real taste.
Not enough fat, salt, and sugar to make food as unhealthy as it is today, and chances are good the meal had to be worked for with real physical labor. Next to that, surviving was so demanding people did not have time to fret about how much better their lives would be if only they had made different choices, so in way, there was less stress.
No question. And another big one is doing something for others.
Oh yeah, My mental health program is being a Senior Companion. I pick people up and take them where they want to go, we have lunch together and play games. The lockdown was terrible! I was sure I was loosing my mind and feared I was on the way to loosing my independence. I love being alone and writing and the forums, but I have to have that face-to-face human contact too. Now I am so busy caring for others I really appreciate my time alone. It is strange how making others happy means our own happiness too.
I am not anti-life but personally I also wouldnt mind if everything stops once I die, as I wouldnt notice anything (peace/joy/taste/hurt/love etc.) anymore and as a result wouldnt have to experience any discomfort about it neither. But since I cant know what is beyond my current state of being I'm equally wellcoming nothingness as I am any ongoing experience(s).
I don't think that is possible for a conscious being. I also have no desire to go to heaven. I think it is our nature to want stimulus and that leads to wanting what we don't have and then doing what we have to do to get what we want. If we are in heaven where a God takes care of our every need and there is nothing for us to do but enjoy, that sounds like hell to me. There would be no great movies or novels. We would be satiated and have nothing to strive for. Boring!
universenessAugust 22, 2022 at 06:24#7317790 likes
I was unaware of this history of violence and it makes me curious. Why did the Hindus kill Muslims and Sikhs?
I am unaware of cases where hindus attacked Sikhs during partition, they attacked muslims.
There is an enormous amount of material on-line regarding the partition of India or perhaps you could PM @DA671 who knows a great deal about the topic.
I assume the practical answer is to avoid disease.
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of 'untouchability' within the Hindu caste system.
I am sure the excuse you mention is used but only as a misrepresentation of the true intention of untouchability, which is to label people that certain religious or social dogma portray as being inferior.
From wiki:
[i][b]The term is most commonly associated with treatment of the Dalit communities in the Indian subcontinent who were considered "polluting". The term has also been used to refer to other groups, including the Burakumin of Japan, the Baekjeong of Korea, and the Ragyabpa of Tibet, as well as the Romani people and Cagot in Europe, and the Al-Akhdam in Yemen. Traditionally, the groups characterized as untouchable were those whose occupations and habits of life involved ritually "polluting" activities, such as fishermen, manual scavengers, sweepers and washermen.
Untouchability is believed to have been first mentioned in Dharmashastra, according to the religious Hindu text, untouchables were not considered a part of the varna system. Therefore, they were not treated like the savarnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras).[/b][/i]
There are many examples of such nonsense in the bible as well. For example, a menstruating woman may not enter the tabernacle as she is unclean!
That means we judge all gods by the Christian understanding of a god. Our bias has prevented learning of the gods. You can't google for infomation because Christianity floods the internet making it very difficult to find information about primative people and the gods.
I don't think this is true, certainly not for any secular person or atheist. The internet has a great deal of inaccurate information on it and it can be quite time consuming to validate and confirm the truth of all documentation on it but you can find out as much as is known about an earlier civilisation.
and this post is too long and also not on topic, so I am going to quit now.
Well, I understand but this thread is now called 'life sucks,' we are simply trying to analyse some of the historical evidence and aspects of human behaviour that might support that claim or highlight the behaviours that have to be effectively tackled and changed to develop my contention that life is wonderful but the human experience is imbalanced and riddled with injustice and 'needs a lot of work.'
Finally outgrowing all gods would be a good start imo.
Interesting text. Romani people is also called gypsy. In my country there are a lot of them and I have to be honest. There are some prejudices against them in the same sense the text you quoted previously.
If you check the etymology of the word gypsy, gitano, tsigane, etc... you would find pejorative meanings according to each country, for example:
English: it comes from the word "gyp" which means scam.
German: it comes from the word "zigeuner" which means thief
Spanish: it comes from the word "gitano" which means liar
Hungarian: it comes from the word "szégany" which means poor
I an unaware of cases where hindus attacked Sikhs during partition, they attacked muslims
Sorry Athena, this is clumsy on my part. I wanted to clarify a little.
During the partition of India, Hindus and Sikhs attacked Muslims and Muslims attacked Hindus and Sikhs. In the whole history of India, I assume Hindus have killed people from most religions as is the case for Christians and Islamists. Terrorists tend not to check what your religion is before they explode their bombs etc. Often, even their own people get killed in the crossfire.
Interesting text. Romani people is also called gypsy. In my country there are a lot of them and I have to be honest. There are some prejudices against them in the same sense the text you quoted previously.
If you check the etymology of the word gypsy, gitano, tsigane, etc... you would find pejorative meanings according to each country, for example:
English: it comes from the word "gyp" which means scam.
German: it comes from the word "zigeuner" which means thief
Spanish: it comes from the word "gitano" which means liar
Hungarian: it comes from the word "szégany" which means poor
Well the last year I started an OP related to this: The etymological prejudice of the word gypsy.
Attribution bias: When someone from an in-group errs, the mistake is chalked up to the individual, as a personal failing; when someone from an out-group goofs up, it's the entire group that's blamed. Sic vita est
universenessAugust 22, 2022 at 07:04#7317890 likes
Reply to javi2541997
Yep, I am sure you would agree Javi, that the human condition would deserve the accusation of 'life sucks!' less, if everyone could personally stop being 'culturalist.'
If YOU as a human don't in your own heart believe/know that all people should be treated equally then YOU will always provide evidence for the anti-life people. I use YOU here to refer to each individual on the planet.
One planet stewarded by one united species is what I advocate. No more countries, no more currencies, no gods, no race other than the human race, no private ownership of land, no rich, no poor, no utopia or dystopia. WE CAN ALL DO BETTER!
No more countries, no more currencies, no gods, no race other than the human race, no private ownership of land,no rich, no poor, no utopia or dystopia.
Sorry but I am pure defender of private ownership myself :rofl: I always been inspired by John Locke:
Some of the features of Locke's economic thinking would echo down the years, and not always to good consequence. Thus, Locke's notion is that labor creates value: "For 'tis Labour indeed that puts the difference of value on every thing" Locke uses this in the first instance to explain why people have a right to property.
Locke, of course, thinks that the ownership of property is justified because labor has been "mixed" with it.
The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property. To which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting. [ibid., §124]
When someone from an in-group errs, the mistake is chalked up to the individual, as a personal failing; when someone from an out-group goofs up, it's the entire group that's blamed. Sic vita est
universenessAugust 22, 2022 at 07:40#7317980 likes
Reply to javi2541997
I am not as concerned about private ownership of property, nor am I concerned about 'small capitalism.'
People must have quality housing as a human right but as long as that is provided then I don't care who owns a particular property. Billionaires or multi-millionaires, conglomerates (or anything like them) would not be allowed. So the amount of property owned by an individual would be controlled and they would not own the land the property sat on.
As for the tragic bloodbath during India's partition, I'd say it was actually a memeplex war in the ideaverse that spilled over into the physical dimension. We're unable to distinguish man from meme and that's, going by all the wars we've endured, is a fatal flaw.
universenessAugust 22, 2022 at 08:18#7318050 likes
I'd say it was actually a memeplex war in the ideaverse that spilled over into the physical dimension.
The British were quite happy to see the religious groups slaughter each other. The British soldiers stood by and watched as it went on because they were told to. I can imagine the British colonial attitude at the time. "See how these 'natives' treat each other when we brits are not in charge." Churchill had such disrespect for Indians that he called Gandhi 'a half-naked Indian fakir.' Mountbatten was happy to encourage the carnage by offering a Pakistan which was made up of a Western and Eastern section, with India between them. This exacerbated the massive movement of starving poor people whose only difference was religious dogma and millions died because of religion and political intrigue.
The average peasant in the Dark Ages ate healthier food than most people do today. - Certainly no pesticides and no GMOs. In the old times, food was much healthier, much more satiating because it had real taste.
I've seen studies that the diet worsened from the Early Middle Ages to the age of industrialization, but it might be too drastic to think our food now is less healthier. The 19th Century brought huge improvement to agriculture and also an emphasis on food safety requirements. Now we have the ability to eat extremely healthy food, but what actually the food we eat is another thing. The really irritating issue is that the healthy diet is far more costly than the cheapest food, which makes for a bad diet.
And with medievel diet we have to remember it wasn't fresh, the food that could be preserved. The idea was to eat only the food from the last season, not this one as you didn't know just how the it would be this year. So a lot of salt.
Sure. But what are the metaphysical assumptions behind them?
I think it's far more about social assumptions than metaphysical ones.
You look to be smart when you're critical about your life and the society around you. To accept it and be happy about it seems to many like you haven't thought about the current issues. Or you simply don't care and just go "with the flock".
How sad! My heart goes out to all, not just hindus, moslems & sikhs, who were hurt/killed/worse during the 200k years humans have been around. We really need to get our act together lest we make the same silly mistakes our ancestors made. Easy to say, hard to do and therein lies the rub, oui mon ami?
universenessAugust 22, 2022 at 08:44#7318110 likes
We really need to get our act together lest we make the same silly mistakes our ancestors made. Easy to say, hard to do and therein lies the rub, oui mon ami?
The problems are still many and so deeply embeded within global sociopolitical systems and cultural/religious traditions. BUT, we can do better because we have improved the lives of millions in comparison to life for the majority in the past. 2022 years since CE or the 'common era' began. That's only a couple of seconds in the cosmic calendar.
Through language, its ability to transmit lessons learned, we've transcended the limitations of biology; DNA is not the only information game in town now and in the process we've been able to do mind-blowing stuff like sending men to the moon, develop & manufacture antibiotics, and so on.
We then survey Momma Nature and what do we find? We're simply just another cog in the great wheel of life - a gorgeous flower no doubt but a dispensable one. :snicker:
schopenhauer1August 22, 2022 at 09:22#7318140 likes
Aye, but I was actually referring to how, even though we have an awesome life, it's still an imposition. The point is that it really doesn't matter whether one's life is utterly miserable or absolutely amazing; life is still an imposition and that right there is the immorality of procreation.
Mr/Ms. Happy: Life's fun! Ima really enjoyin' it!
Antintatalist: Yes, yes, but did you choose this life?
Mr/Ms. Happy: Nope! :grin:
Well, you quoted Schopenhauer and now you’re saying you were referring to the points I made in the Trouble with Impositions thread. This is why I wanted you to explain what you were trying to say by we are all slaves…
Anyways, of course I’m going to agree with you, that’s my very argument you’re summarizing. I would add that imposition is not just willing a significant, inescapable decision for someone else, but creating burdens to continually be overcome- expected or not anticipated for that person. So even an amazing life (as it was summarized in a generalized statement) is bound to have various instances of burdens.
Even if we could, as transhumanists wish & propose, abolish suffering, the imposition problem would still make reproduction unethical is what I mean.
schopenhauer1August 22, 2022 at 09:43#7318220 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
Kinda thorny issue. Doesn’t really cross my mind because it’s a practical impossibility. Supposing it does occur, would we be even human at that point? Does ethics apply to such a condition? Does transhumanism translate to a personalized utopia? If not, whose utopia?
schopenhauer1August 22, 2022 at 09:49#7318260 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
If you say to me..it’s wrong to impose on a robot..I don’t know what applies to said being if it doesn’t feel pain or burdens at all. I’ve maintained that whilst one form of imposing is bad (forcing your will), it’s combination with the other form (creating burdens) makes it the more so. I’ve maintained that if life was an ever adjusted personalized utopia, there might be something there as a justification.
I guess I’m asking, does ethics apply to something not bound by a human or animal condition?
Reply to schopenhauer1 Even if a robot doesn't feel, you're, as the creator, foisting plain, vanilla existence on it, oui? It didn't choose to exist and that's wrong, no?
schopenhauer1August 22, 2022 at 10:14#7318290 likes
It’s not bound by a human or animal condition. How does ethics apply? You tell me. Besides that it merely exists.
Good point! :up:
Ethics applies to imposition simpliciter as it seems to treat human beings as robots! :chin:
Existential HopeAugust 22, 2022 at 12:17#7318510 likes
Reply to universeness I know too little, sir! However, from what I think I understand about the commingling of madness that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other. Most Sikhs fled the region now called Pakistan into the Republic of India.
Untouchability is a curse and serves as a reminder of the misery that dogma and an insatiable thirst for power can create. May we move beyond this sooner rather than later.
I think we all know too little about such horrific events.
Based on a quick google search:
[i][b]‘Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.’
The quote is most likely due to writer and philosopher George Santayana, and in its original form it read, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.[/b][/i]
WE CAN ALL DO BETTER! And imo, we need no help from god fables but I understand, (if my analysis of her intent is correct) @Athena's very honourable 'mission'/intent, to find common ground / values / purpose and foster a more positive dialogue between theists and anti-theists. I would have to always admit to my own personal preference for abandoning all theism however, as to do otherwise, would be disingenuous on my part.
Btw, I had to google 'commingling.' That's a new one on me. Breach of trust, yes?
universenessAugust 22, 2022 at 14:59#7318790 likes
Nature made mothers, nature made every female and male archetype.
I wanted to pull this sentence out separately and 'complain' about its 'intent' connotation.
'Nature' is often 'objectified' in the sense that some people often try to assign it a concrete form like 'mother nature!' etc. Nature has no such concrete form and has no intent. Such thinking created the original pagan deities and animism(the belief that all objects and living things possess a soul or spirit).
Many early gods were some human/animal hybrid or sun/moon/river/forest god. I think we should stop objectifying/anthropomorphising the natural processes or 'nature,' in this way.
Existential HopeAugust 22, 2022 at 15:59#7318910 likes
Reply to universeness As long as one isn't an absolutist with a pernicious agenda (which you most certainly aren't), it's indubitably important to stand by the truth as one understands it. The alternative is to live in a superficial world with meaningless interactions.
That quote is quite apposite! Although, I would say that my knowledge about the world, in general, is fairly limited. That's why I am eternally grateful to wiser people like you and others (even those I disagree with at a profound level) for sharing their insights.
I am sorry if I accidentally betrayed you! It sincerely was not intentional.
universenessAugust 22, 2022 at 16:33#7318970 likes
Reply to DA671
:lol: Despite your humility and insistence that you have limited knowledge of the world, you still keep adding to my vocabulary. I was not familiar with 'apposite,' either.
Again, google to the rescue. Apposite meaning apt. If English is a second language for you, the word range you know is impressive.
Thank you for your kind words. I am quite confused by: Quoting DA671
I am sorry if I accidentally betrayed you! It sincerely was not intentional.
Please explain. Was it these words below that made you think I was referring to your belief system?
If so, its me that should be apologising.
WE CAN ALL DO BETTER! And imo, we need no help from god fables
I did not intend these words to be a direct insult to all Hinduism, as you, yourself have explained to me that many Hindus express their belief system in many ways, including ways that do not include anything supernatural.
I'm no good at that! All I can say is that to impose one's wishes, including but not limited to thinking on someone's behalf, herein the child to be born, amounts to treating the child as if s/he were an inanimate object (like robots). That's unethical, oui?
Existential HopeAugust 23, 2022 at 06:19#7321350 likes
Reply to universeness I've just imbibed these words by reading people a lot more eloquent than I could ever hope to be and tried my best to enhance my lexical resource. Thank you for your charitable words! And yes, English is indeed my second language.
Oh, I am sorry. I was referring to this:
"Breach of trust, yes?"
You wrote this at the end of your previous comment. I was attempting to put forth a partially facetious response.
Existential HopeAugust 23, 2022 at 06:25#7321370 likes
Reply to Agent Smith I, for one, would be glad if others could think for me and provide me a good that I can't solicit yet. Of course, it's another matter that the idea of calling an act a gift/imposition seems to be debatable. Perspectives will vary, I suppose. Nevertheless, it's a good thing that awareness regarding nature and scale of what we have lost is growing. Once recognition occurs, realisation of what could be would also follow suit.
:clap: :clap: English (with scots dialect) is my first language and your vocabulary range seems wider than mine, well done!
When I looked up 'Commingling' its meaning was reported as 'breach of trust,' does this match your use of it in.Quoting DA671
However, from what I think I understand about the commingling of madness that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other.
However, from what I think I understand about the commingling of madness that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other.
They did betray their own religions as all three of them claim to be religions of peace and they betrayed everyone's trust that these claims were true.
They did betray their own religions as all three of them claim to be religions of peace and they betrayed everyone's trust that these claims were true.
:up: Epic fail!
universenessAugust 23, 2022 at 11:47#7322350 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
:smile: And I will bet a years retirement pension that @DA671 will agree!
Existential HopeAugust 23, 2022 at 11:53#7322380 likes
Reply to universeness The idea itself does make sense. However, in the sentence wherein it was used, I believe that the definition that I had in mind is befitting. "Breach of trust of madness" wouldn't sound particularly coherent, I think!
Here's the definition from Wikipedia:
"In law, commingling is a breach of trust in which a fiduciary mixes funds held in care for a client with his own funds, making it difficult to determine which funds belong to the fiduciary and which belong to the client."
So, we can see that this also refers to something being mixed.
Existential HopeAugust 23, 2022 at 11:58#7322420 likes
Reply to universeness Of course I agree. They didn't just breach the trust; it was pulverised entirely. It took the collective effort of Mahatma Gandhi, Pt. Nehru, Maulana Azad, and countless individuals to prevent absolute insanity from prevailing. And even then, the violence only truly declined after people saw with horror as Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu who believed in pluralism, being killed by an extremist. Absolutists who don't appreciate the rainbow of perspectives that lies before us often end up causing serious harm.
universenessAugust 23, 2022 at 11:58#7322430 likes
The idea itself does make sense. However, in the sentence wherein it was used, I believe that the definition that I had in mind is befitting. "Breach of trust of madness" wouldn't sound particularly coherent, I think!
:lol: Did I win my bet?
How about ,"However, from what I think I understand about the madness of the betrayal of trust that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other."
Existential HopeAugust 23, 2022 at 12:08#7322460 likes
Reply to universeness Ah, I would still have to say that the usage does not capture the full spectrum of what I intended to write. This appears to suggest that I was primarily emphasising the breach of trust that occurred between communities (and perhaps the faith in the ideals of religions) that occurred by calling it madness. However, my original point was that there was a commingling of madness—a deluge of derangement that included a failure to realise how severe the impact of the partition would be, an inability to let even an iota of reason or empathy take root in one's mind, and the British essentially leaving people to their own devices (which wasn't really a betrayal, since everyone expected them to leave). Much of this was not totally unanticipated. Yet, the scale and the scope was. 1947 was more than just a breach of trust. Madness, when I used it here, was a reference to the ever-growing chaos.
universenessAugust 23, 2022 at 12:13#7322480 likes
Reply to DA671
Ok, thanks for improving the clarity of your point. Overall, I will declare my bet safe and I will not have to cut down on all my favourites this month, due to having to donate a months pension to a charity of your choice.
Existential HopeAugust 23, 2022 at 12:30#7322490 likes
Reply to universeness I would agree with the suggestion that the idea of a breach of trust makes sense in the sentence. Although, I would also feel compelled to mention that in order to do so, the structure of the sentence has to be altered.
I am sure you're already doing plenty of good deeds, sir!
universenessAugust 23, 2022 at 15:12#7322680 likes
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of 'untouchability' within the Hindu caste system.
I am sure the excuse you mention is used but only as a misrepresentation of the true intention of untouchability, which is to label people that certain religious or social dogma portray as being inferior.
Untouchability is believed to have been first mentioned in Dharmashastra, according to the religious Hindu text, untouchables were not considered a part of the varna system. Therefore, they were not treated like the savarnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras).
There are many examples of such nonsense in the bible as well. For example, a menstruating woman may not enter the tabernacle as she is unclean!
I have bolded the statement I want to reply to. I think there are examples of untouchables in many cultures however, not every culture would have institutionalized this common human behavior in the same way. I have read some ancient yoga practices are extremely concerned with cleanliness, Hebrews were also concerned with cleanliness but I don't think to the same extent. When the US had outhouses there were people who were paid to tend to outhouses. The owner of an estate surely would not want his daughter associating with such a person, especially if this person looked different, or if outhouses were associated with disease. The US has had some very prejudiced laws!
Hebrews for sure saw themselves as different from others and they institutionalized that aspect of being Hebrew. Kind of like, all people have engaged in war, but not all of them created an economic and social organization around their military, such as Prussia was organized around its military. These human behaviors being common, but more or less, formal and defining. The point is, knowing what I know about human behavior and organizations, I think it is silly to point a figure at India for having different social classes. and untouchables. In the US a young man of color could be killed just for speaking with a White woman. We had a huge segregation problem! We just call it racism instead of Hinduism. :lol: Bad behavior isn't funny but on the other hand it can be pretty ridiculous, especially when we point fingers at others as though we don't think and act just as badly or worse.
That means we judge all gods by the Christian understanding of a god. Our bias has prevented learning of the gods. You can't google for infomation because Christianity floods the internet making it very difficult to find information about primative people and the gods.
— Athena
I don't think this is true, certainly not for any secular person or atheist. The internet has a great deal of inaccurate information on it and it can be quite time consuming to validate and confirm the truth of all documentation on it but you can find out as much as is known about an earlier civilisation.
I want to address this separately because I don't want my point lost in too much verbiage. Have you spent much time arguing whether there is or is not a "God"? I don't care how rabid the atheist is, the atheist is using the same concept of God as the Christians hold to be true. Most people are reacting emotionally to the word "God" and they are incapable of being rational about "god". Atheists can not tolerate the word "god" so they can not get to reasoning the possibility of a universal force and being okay with calling it "god" just for the sake of argument. Does gravity exist? What causes it? If God is the cause of gravity what else in nature could be a universal truth? Thus, getting away from some of the hair-brain notions about a God who has favorite people. Athiest are their own worst enemy because they are reacting emotionally just like the believers are reacting emotionally. They are both like boxers in a ring ready to jump when the bell rings.
Secondly, the US and Christians do dominate the internet. The problem could be I use google and evidently, google ranks things according to popularity, so the one person who has a better argument of truth becomes almost impossible, if not completely impossible, to find because the 5 million idiots crowd out the one good argument.
Greeks held a notion of universals and the philosophy that questioned the universals became science. I think addressing the God issue from the point of view of universals could lead to more meaningful discussions than the ones we can have with Christians or atheists.
universenessAugust 23, 2022 at 15:55#7322850 likes
I don't think there is a great deal of difference between our social or political viewpoints.
There have been many 'separators' that have been used to distinguish between people. Indicators such as level of cleanliness, what your job is, your gender, your age, your skin colour, your economic status are all poor ways to make distinctions between people. I don't think we would disagree on this.
The chosen people concept is a very old BS claim as well. This happens in every neighbourhood to a lesser or similar degree. 'The cool kids', The alpha's, A-list celebs etc, its all total BS.Quoting Athena
I think it is silly to point a figure at India for having different social classes. and untouchables.
I exemplified the Hindu caste system as it seemed to me that you were claiming earlier that polytheism was less problematic than monotheism and I don't think that's true.
I think we differ in that I think you wish to progress from the position of finding value in theism and finding common ground with theists. I think this is honourable but Its not a position I prioritise but it may well be a wise route to take.
The chosen people concept is a very old BS claim as well. This happens in every neighbourhood to a lesser or similar degree. 'The cool kids', The alpha's, A-list celebs etc, its all total BS.
:cheer: :cheer: :grin: You might be the people but we are the real people. I am referring to the tribal notion that "my tribe is the best and most deserving" which is no different from opposing chimpanzee troops crossing paths in the forest except humans can come up with more arguments than the chimps. :lol:
This is perhaps the best reason to argue against a God creating humans from the mud on the banks of a river that flowed threw Sumer. If we are going to be rational and have arguments about humans that can progress to better understanding and therefore better reasoning, we need to go with the science of evolution and drop the mythology. And we need to stop pointing fingers and being blind to our own blindness.
Yes, I believe polytheism is less problematic because believing in many gods is more apt to lead to believing the other guy also has a god even though his god is not the same as yours. Now you may both go to war and test which one of you has the strongest god, or we might sit down and argue in favor of our gods without the blindness of believing there is only one god and this god favors you. :lol:
in an effort to know truth.
MORE IMPORTANT, if a god is being a complete jerk like Hades was when he took Demeter's daughter, there are gods who can put restrictions on Hades. If there is only one god there is no correction of errors. This is the democratic issue! Are we powerless under the tyranny of a god, or can we appeal to other gods? The Greeks asked a lot of important questions of the gods and in so doing had arguments with many different points of view. Each god had a different point of view, and a different way of handling things, and in dealing with all of them, the Greeks expanded their consciousness. Conscience is "con"-coming out of, "science".
"How do the gods resolve their differences?" They argue until they have a consensus on the best reasoning. This thinking did not come with the first storytelling of the gods, but wherever people had many gods, every time they realized a new concept, they created a god, like we now name new atomic particles every time we have to explain a new observation of atomic particles. Apollo was a late comer coming a of time chaos and reasoning was essential, so whala! there is a god of reason. This learning of new gods, forced many to search for truth and limit the number of gods they had. Egypt, for a time, turned to the one and only god Ra. The point is gods organize our thinking and advance our understanding of life and the universe. If you have only one god you learn His truth and may discover new technology, butthat is not equal to science and advancing higher-level knowledge.
Here is a great Hindu example of what I mean by the gods advancing our higher-level knowledge.
A deeply religious Hindu, Ramanujan credited his substantial mathematical capacities to divinity, and said the mathematical knowledge he displayed was revealed to him by his family goddess Namagiri Thayar.
We do not get knowledge of mathematics and a higher morality from the tribal God of Abraham.
universenessAugust 23, 2022 at 17:02#7322950 likes
the atheist is using the same concept of God as the Christians hold to be true. Most people are reacting emotionally to the word "God" and they are incapable of being rational about "god". Atheists can not tolerate the word "god" so they can not get to reasoning the possibility of a universal force and being okay with calling "god" just for the sake of argument
I can only respond as an atheist. I cannot type for all atheists as they are a varied group. Can you give me an example of an atheistic statement you consider irrational?
Atheists will consider the 'universal force' concept in its many varieties, from the type exemplified in sci-fi Star Wars movie presentations to the panpsychist or cosmopsychist posits and even to some of the posits which don't involve gods such as Buddhism or theosophical posits such as those of Aleister Crowley or Hubbards Scientology. I agree that most atheists I know will reject most or all of these but their rejection is based on rational thinking imo.
Does gravity exist? What causes it? If God is the cause of gravity what else in nature could be a universal truth?
The effects of gravity are observable and measurable but gravity may not be a separate force which is quantisable and has gravitons as its 'messenger' particle. It may be an effect caused by the presence of mass/energy. So gravity may be caused by the presence of mass/energy and if you assign credence to posits such as the cyclical universe then there is no need for a first cause such as a god and if you insist there has to be a first cause then I personally satisfy my own thoughts by labelling such, a mindless spark, which no longer exists. As an atheist, my reason convinces me there is no god or gods. I cannot prove I am correct but my simple offer remains to any that do in fact exist. Show me and if it cant or wont then it does not exist.
There have been a few threads on whether or not universal truths exist.
I have my own examples of how far I can get with the concept of universals. The speed of light in a vacuum for example.
Athiest are their own worst enemy because they are reacting emotionally just like the believers are reacting emotionally. They are both like boxers in a ring ready to jump when the bell rings.
That may well be how you interpret it when you watch atheist debate theists or you read their on-line exchanges but it's not my interpretation. I find the atheist logic to be far more rational and compelling than the logic and woo woo employed by theists. But as I am an atheist, you will not find my viewpoint surprising.
Greeks held a notion of universals and the philosophy that questioned the universals became science. I think addressing the God issue from the point of view of universals could lead to more meaningful discussions than the ones we can have with Christians or atheists.
The fact that physics used to be called natural philosophy just means that modern labels are far better than ancient ones and perhaps we should stop being so attracted to the very limited knowledge of the ancient Greeks and their like. We do stand on the shoulders of those who went before and that's why we can see further but it is us who know the most or at least have access to more and more accurate data/information/knowledge that they ever did.
We don't need to keep scent marking new knowledge and new progress with the smells of the ancients.
universenessAugust 23, 2022 at 17:16#7323000 likes
MORE IMPORTANT, if a god is being a complete jerk like Hades was when he took Demeter's daughter, there are gods who can put restrictions on Hades.
I just don't see any great value in how you wish to roleplay with theism.
You seem to want to give the god posits a chair at the table of discussion on the future of the human race or in the 'how to make humans a better sentient lifeform,' discussions.
I don't even want to let the god posits in the building or even in the city the meetings are held in.
They deserve no place as they are inventions of our primal fears and as such, should be terminated for good. There is nothing to fear in the dark except that which we bring with us. We need to leave the god BS in the dirt, like any empty vessel no longer of any use to a progressive intelligent species.
universenessAugust 23, 2022 at 17:23#7323040 likes
We do not get knowledge of mathematics and a higher morality from the tribal God of Abraham.
From wiki:
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître; 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Catholic priest, theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first to theorize that the recession of nearby galaxies can be explained by an expanding universe, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. He first derived "Hubble's law", now called the Hubble–Lemaître law by the IAU, and published the first estimation of the Hubble constant in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe, calling it the "hypothesis of the primeval atom", and later calling it "the beginning of the world".
universenessAugust 23, 2022 at 17:29#7323050 likes
For me it comes down to something simple - choice. The living can choose to go on living or they can choose to die (suicide). The dead cannot choose to live (as far as we know). There is no power to change circumstances from a place of non-existing. Existence is where everything and anything - including death - can and does occur.
This for me means living trumps being dead.
A second more minor reason is that if it is the case that ones life is unique, non-reproducible/ irreplaceable and extremely brief in the duration of the entire timespan of the universe, then living your life is the rarest thing ones matter and energy will ever have the opportunity to be. If I had to choose between never having existed, never even having an awareness of being something, never experiencing consciousness or on the other hand having a short lifespan of feelings and emotions both good and bad, I would live out the 80 odd years before I return to oblivion forever. Even if those 80 years didn’t go by particularly well or come to much at all.
What else would you be doing anyways?
You should live because you can and less based on whether you should or not or whether you deserve it or not. It’s unlikely you are the least deserving person to ever live and we all already won the great race of conception - the first and only competition that really matters - the life lotto. 15 million to one odds - very much against you being here and yet here you (we) are.
There is comfort in knowing we have an escape (albeit extreme) if it were to ever become too much. Whether we really acknowledge it or not, every moment you breathe, every day you wake up and persist against the natural tendency of the universe to destroy you in thousands of potential ways is a testament to you being a survivor, to you upholding the will to live, to be seen, heard and known.
In law, commingling is a breach of trust in which a fiduciary mixes funds held in care for a client with his own funds, making it difficult to determine which funds belong to the fiduciary and which belong to the client.
:rofl: Cuckoo bird?
universenessAugust 23, 2022 at 17:59#7323170 likes
Reply to Benj96
:clap: and there is the legacy you will leave behind which may affect nobody, somebody, a few people, many people, most people in the world!
I can only respond as an atheist. I cannot type for all atheists as they are a varied group. Can you give me an example of an atheistic statement you consider irrational?
:heart: Your post makes me wonder if I died and went to heaven. I am home sick with covid and you make me very glad I am here with you, instead of distracted by mundane life.
Yes, I can give you a statement. "There is no god". To be absolutely sure there is no god, one has to define what a god is, and boy, oh boy, is that irritating to me when someone is working with a definition of god and has become completely closed-minded and therefore makes a discussion of god impossible.
I was banned from a science forum simply because I used the word "god". I was saying we could consider universal law as god, and my goal was to open discussion as good as the ancient Greeks and do all the blending you have said I am trying to do. :grin:
I was explaining if we deny the existence of God we prove to the Christians the truth of the Bible. Those bad people will deny the existence of God. On the other hand, if we remain open-minded and work with the notion of a God, that weakens the Christian argument and if we are lucky we get to ideas that are more reasonable. Did God create all plants and animals with mud or just humans? Let us ask "how does God do that", instead of ending the discussion with "there is no god". Now you are moving into science and away from superstition. We are moving in the direction of reason instead of emotionalism. We walk people over the bridge to our side, instead of standing with our swords drawn and preventing anyone from crossing the bridge. That behavior is emotional. It is not the way of reason.
Let's try this. We determine if a person does or does not have covid with a chemical test that produces one line if a person is negative or two lines if a person is positive. With science, we know what we are looking for and we can prove the virus does or does not exist in that sample. So how can we know God does not exist without knowing what that God is, and if you know what God is, where did you get that information and how do you prove God does not exist? On the other hand, what reasonable person can believe through the powers of reason that God created man like a child creates mud pies? Back in the day of Sumer that may have seemed reasonable, but we laugh at other people's creation stories because they seem so silly to us, so how can know what we know today and believe we were made of clay? Human- moist soil.
Why reject the concept of a god here? How are you defining god? Back to the test for covid, you seem to know what you have to look for. What does god look like? Are you sure your notion of god was not defined by Christians who insist the only god is one that is impossible to believe?
quote="universeness;732295"]There have been a few threads on whether or not universal truths exist.
I have my own examples of how far I can get with the concept of universals. The speed of light in a vacuum for example.[/quote]
You are being delightfully rational and you did not conclude new evidence means what we believed about the speed of light is false, and that is that, and we will never again speak of it except to repeat over and over again what we have believed is false; ending any further discussion. Instead, you said It is in question. :lol: That is putting it lightly. I think new evidence has put our most obvious understanding of our 3 dimensional reality, in question.. What the heck is the reality of 12 dimensions?
The point being it is one thing to say something is in question and quite another to insist it does not exist and to make all discussion of it impossible.
The fact that physics used to be called natural philosophy just means that modern labels are far better than ancient ones and perhaps we should stop being so attracted to the very limited knowledge of the ancient Greeks and their like.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I am not attracted to the limited knowledge of ancient Greeks, but rather fascinated by the uniqueness of thinking that came out of Athens. Aristotle was not 100% correct and there was a huge backlash against him after the Church through Scholasticism raised awareness of logical thinking, but who else gave us something equivalent to his explanation of logical thinking? His understanding of logical thinking was problematic and that hindered the advancement of science, with Bacon correcting the problem and pole vaulting us into the modern age. :heart: But where else in the world did a civilization advance the reasoning of Athens, the reasoning of the gods? Gods had powers, but the power of reason? Does not the power of reason create a whole new universe? Well, that could be an exaggeration but it could be fun to talk about it. :wink:
I just don't see any great value in how you wish to roleplay with theism.
You seem to want to give the god posits a chair at the table of discussion on the future of the human race or in the 'how to make humans a better sentient lifeform,' discussions.
I don't even want to let the god posits in the building or even in the city the meetings are held in.
They deserve no place as they are inventions of our primal fears and as such, should be terminated for good. There is nothing to fear in the dark except that which we bring with us. We need to leave the god BS in the dirt, like any empty vessel no longer of any use to a progressive intelligent species.
Oh dear, crash and burn. Your ignorance and intolerance has ended the fun. And that was a knee-jerk emotional reaction to what I said, not the rational reply I had come to expect from you. I am very disappointed and also reassured that my opinion of atheists being more emotional than rational was correct. Just like the rest of them, you sank to attacks and insults when the discussion did not go in the direction you wanted.
It looks like a beautiful day outside. I think I will go enjoy it.
Existential HopeAugust 23, 2022 at 19:35#7323340 likes
Your post makes me wonder if I died and went to heaven. I am home sick with covid and you make me very glad I am here with you, instead of distracted by mundane life.
Thank you for your kind words. I am also enjoying exchanging viewpoints with you. I recently had covid too and it is a miserable experience. I still (two months later) have some residual weaknesses.
Yes, I can give you a statement. "There is no god".
Most atheists will not state this without 'I believe,' or 'I am convinced that,' this is a rational statement as it simply refers to a conclusion based on the preponderance of available evidence.
boy, oh boy, is that irritating to me when someone is working with a definition of god and has become completely closed-minded and therefore makes a discussion of god impossible.
I don't see why your suggestion that god personified as a group of unidentified universals such as a notion of universal law would assist the dialogue between atheists and theists.
I was explaining if we deny the existence of God we prove to the Christians the truth of the Bible.
Sure, if you tell someone they are preaching total BS then you might make them dig their trench even deeper but after calling the normal theistic evangelising BS and utter nonsense, the atheists will ask the theists question by question and take them step by step through their delusional thinking in an attempt to lift their fog. Have you watched any of the youtube offerings such as 'the atheist experience' with Matt Dillahunty? or the many athiest phone-in shows or the more academic offerings from offerings such as mythvision etc?
With science, we know what we are looking for and we can prove the virus does or does not exist in that sample.
Unless the test is corrupted and you get a false positive! Quoting Athena
So how can we know God does not exist without knowing what that God is, and if you know what God is, where did you get that information and how do you prove God does not exist?
It is not possible to PROVE gods do not exist but think how easy it would be for them to PROVE THEY DO. The fact they don't and imo never will is the best rational proof I am going to get that the have always been non-existent and all past god stories are fables.
What does god look like? Are you sure your notion of god was not defined by Christians who insist the only god is one that is impossible to believe?
The burden of proof lies with gods and theists not me. Why would I have to personify that which I believe is non-existent. If god is as powerful as is suggested it should have no problem convincing me it exists.
The speed of light in a vacuum can always be made more accurate but we may never find its absolute value, but we can always asymptotically get closer to it.
Any dimensions posited greater that 3 are dimensions of the very small. Have a look at a pipeline from above, it looks 2D, you don't see the 3rd curled dimension from that 'above' position. In our 3D perspective we don't see the other spatial dimensions which curve around every point in 3D space.
But where else in the world did a civilization advance the reasoning of Athens
Consider the following from wiki:
[i]Several of the ancient Greek philosophers regarded Egypt as a place of wisdom and philosophy. Isocrates (b. 436 BCE) states in Busiris that "all men agree the Egyptians are the healthiest and most long of life among men; and then for the soul they introduced philosophy’s training…" He declares that Greek writers traveled to Egypt to seek knowledge. One of them was Pythagoras of Samos who "was first to bring to the Greeks all philosophy," according to Isocrates.
Plato states in Phaedrus that the Egyptian Thoth "invented numbers and arithmetic… and, most important of all, letters.” In Plato’s Timaeus, Socrates quotes the ancient Egyptian wise men when the law-giver Solon travels to Egypt to learn: "O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children." Aristotle attests to Egypt being the original land of wisdom, as when he states in Politics that "Egyptians are reputed to be the oldest of nations, but they have always had laws and a political system."[/i]
universenessAugust 23, 2022 at 20:03#7323420 likes
Oh dear, crash and burn. Your ignorance and intolerance has ended the fun. And that was a knee-jerk emotional reaction to what I said, not the rational reply I had come to expect from you. I am very disappointed and also reassured that my opinion of atheists being more emotional than rational was correct. Just like the rest of them, you sank to attacks and insults when the discussion did not go in the direction you wanted.
I think your battle is with your own fickle approach.
I am also disappointed but more bemused by your rather childish response quoted above.
Nothing I typed was insulting or was an attack and I had no interest in directing you anywhere.
Thanks anyway for the exchange.
I think your battle is with your own fickle approach.
I am also disappointed but more bemused by your rather childish response quoted above.
Nothing I typed was insulting or was an attack and I had no interest in directing you anywhere.
Thanks anyway for the exchange.
I think your battle is with your own fickle approach.
I am also disappointed but more bemused by your rather childish response quoted above.
Nothing I typed was insulting or was an attack and I had no interest in directing you anywhere.
Thanks anyway for the exchange.
You may not have intended to attack or insult but those gods are the foundation of democracy and western civilization. They are the substance of liberal education and our laws. As you found fault in what I said, I find fault in you appear to not know.
I don't see why your suggestion that god personified as a group of unidentified universals such as a notion of universal law would assist the dialogue between atheists and theists.
I can not imagine anything of importance that we would know without the effort to understand cause and effect and universal truths. If we don't ask the right questions, can not possibly get the right answers.
:up: If antintalism is false does that mean natalism is true?
Existential HopeAugust 24, 2022 at 06:09#7325430 likes
Reply to Agent Smith If it's not necessary to cease doing something, then it's at least permissible to keep doing it. However, I wouldn't say that people should be pressurised. Natalism, to me, is simply acknowledging that procreation can be justifiable and good in at least some cases. The idea that either universal AN or absolute natalism can be beneficial does seem false to me.
but those gods are the foundation of democracy and western civilization
I disagree. Humanism is the foundation of democracy, same with civilisation regardless of geographical direction. Democracy is anti-autocracy, it is an enemy of divine dictates, the divine rule of kings, devotion to messiah's, acceptance of aristocracies or theocracies. It does not even demand respect for so called 'superiors.' Democracy is born from a human demand for justice, fair treatment and equality of status for all. Nothing to do with fairy stories about gods. Gods came from human primal fears, end of story. Just a case of early humans looking around and concluding 'circle of heat and light in sky makes us warm and we can see our enemies.' 'circle moves across sky and goes away at night, it gets cold and we cant see our enemies as good.' 'we need the big heat and light, we must love it or it wont come back(primal fear)!'
The nefarious simply used this fear to control people and benefit themselves. Its time we dropped this BS in the dirt. I do not see most theists as bad people(although some certainly are!). I see theism as pernicious. I see theists as duped but I wish to convince them, not hurt them.
They are the substance of liberal education and our laws.
Again imo and with all due respect, gods and all stories associated with them are CREATED BY HUMANS! If you think that a story about ficticious characters such as Hades and Demeter exemplifies an issue of morality which relates to 'liberal education' or 'human laws,' then fine BUT! I see no value to the future of the human race in doing that. Why not use a story from the revolution of spartacus to illuminate the same concepts. Why use IRRATIONAL god fables? Quoting Athena
As you found fault in what I said........,
I think you are being rather 'precious' about your need to protect or defend 'what you said,' we are debating with no malice aforethought, surely. we are in dialogue about each others position. We do not have to declare each other hostile because you are over-sensitive to some phrases I choose to use.
How would you survive a debate on a heated issue with such an approach? It would be like the start of the fabled battle of Camlann (Arthur/Excalibur legend). Somebody takes out their sword by mistake to kill a snake (garden of Eden reference) which causes both sides to attack each other. "War by mistake/misunderstanding." But we don't need god fables or Arthurian legends to exemplify such cautionary tales, we could just use the more tame example of your misunderstanding of what I am typing.
universenessAugust 24, 2022 at 09:10#7325660 likes
I can not imagine anything of importance that we would know without the effort to understand cause and effect and universal truths.
We do understand cause and effect. We also understand infinite regress arguments as a tool theists use to claim that a first cause god is therefore proved. But this has already been convincingly debunked! The Kalam cosmological argument via William Lane Craig is almost at the 'dead' stage as a claim imo.
Give me an example of a 'universal truth,' without which we would be unable to know anything of importance!
We would not have an argument if you were not doing exactly what I said atheists do. You are using a Christian concept of God and creation for all your arguments. Stop it.
Yes, the gods are the foundation of our laws, democracy and western civilization. The book "Laws, Gods, & Hero's Thematic Readings in Early Western History" by H.A. Drake and J.W. Leedom explains the human story and should not be confused with theism.
And don't yell at me about humans creating those stories because you have to distort everything I am saying to believe you have an argument with me. Joseph Campbell, the expert on such mythology, explains how we come to have similar myths and the importance of those myths. You are the one applying superstition to my arguments because that supports your atheist cause. My cause is democracy, rule by reason as opposed to authority over the people, and my sense of purpose is raising awareness of the foundation of democracy, an imitation of the gods arguing until they have a consensus on the best reasoning.
If you don't ask the right questions, you won't get the right answers.
But we don't need god fables or Arthurian legends to exemplify such cautionary tales, we could just use the more tame example of your misunderstanding of what I am typing.
Yes, we do. However, we do not have to apply superstitious notions to them.
universenessAugust 24, 2022 at 15:24#7326440 likes
We would not have an argument if you were not doing exactly what I said atheists do. You are using a Christian concept of God and creation for all your arguments. Stop it
I accept that this is your interpretation of what is going on between us but it is certainly not mine.
I have been in dialogue mode with you but if you misrepresent atheism and atheists with misinterpreted generalisations then I will try to point such shortfalls out to you and give my reasons and examples.
I have no particularly christian concept of god, if you are going to state such generalisations then you must quote examples from my typings, and explain why my words display an EXCLUSIVELY Christian perspective. If you cant do that successfully then you are just making erroneous claims.
And don't yell at me about humans creating those stories because you have to distort everything I am saying to believe you have an argument with me.
What? I have no idea what you are typing about here? Humans did invent every god story in history or are you suggesting that real gods communicated with the Greeks? If they didnt then the stories about mount Olympus and its pantheon of characters are fairy tales, yes?
Not stating the falsity of all god stories just encourages people to waste their time following other useless dead end paths such as the ancients were in fact communicating with aliens :lol:, which is why some people will actually buy utter nonsense such as 'Chariots of the gods' written by total con men such as Erich von Däniken.
Joseph Campbell, the expert on such mythology, explains how we come to have similar myths and the importance of those myths. You are the one applying superstition to my arguments because that supports your atheist cause.
My cause is democracy, rule by reason as opposed to authority over the people, and my sense of purpose is raising awareness of the foundation of democracy
Well, we have common cause in this but I think your ideas as to the foundation of democracy is flawed and I don't mind a few having authority over a majority as long as that few are democratically elected and are 100% answerable to that majority who have the power to remove and replace any member of that few if they fail to meet and maintain compliance with well established, powerful but fair, checks and balances.
an imitation of the gods arguing until they have a consensus on the best reasoning.
So you advocate for imitating that which has never existed, instead of encouraging the human race to grow up, take full responsibility for all that has happened in the past and plan a better future for everyone, without attempts to scapegoat gods or employ the fairy stories made up about them as a guide to establishing better sociopolitical systems. We don't need god fables as a moral base for establishing better social or political systems. We need progressive human thinking not regressive.
But we don't need god fables or Arthurian legends to exemplify such cautionary tales, we could just use the more tame example of your misunderstanding of what I am typing.
Perhaps the word "epistemology" can be used to explain the importance of the gods? Epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek epist?m?, meaning "knowledge", and the suffix -logia, meaning "logical discourse". Exactly where did our ideas come from, and how were they changed as they moved from place to place and throughout time? That is a very different study than theology.
I choose to use epistemology to argue against theology. Rather than refuse to talk about what theorist believe as the atheists do. Eden (uncultivated plain) Adam (settlement on the plain) and Eve (the Lady of the rib and the lady who makes live) come from Sumerian mythology and I would bet this story is an account of climate change, but over the years of the truth of the story is forgotten and we get myth instead of accurate information. There are several prototypes of Jesus. As Christians convert millions of people by giving the people's gods and seasonal celebrations a Christian interpretation, my intent is to reverse this process and raise awareness of the pagan beginning of those ideas.
universenessAugust 24, 2022 at 15:42#7326470 likes
I know what epistemology means and what it refers to.
Eden (uncultivated plain) Adam (settlement on the plain) and Eve (the Lady of the rib and the lady who makes live) come from Sumerian mythology and I would bet this story is an account of climate change, but over the years of the truth of the story is forgotten and we get myth instead of accurate information. There are several prototypes of Jesus. As Christians convert millions of people by giving the people's gods and seasonal celebrations a Christian interpretation, my intent is to reverse this process and raise awareness of the pagan beginning of those ideas.
Uncultivated plain (the days of the hunter-gatherer),Adam (settlement on the plain) (early humans became agricultural and settled in small groups or tribes)
See, no need to inject god fables into your descriptions, you can tell the real story!
What Sumerian story are you relating to climate change? The flood in the fable of Gilgamesh?
You can achieve what you suggest very quickly by honestly stating that all god stories are untrue!
We don't need to stroke the theist ego and pander to lies. We need to value and profess historical TRUTH as best we can based on the very limited accuracy of the historical documentation we have.
universenessAugust 24, 2022 at 16:31#7326490 likes
Eve (the Lady of the rib and the lady who makes live) come from Sumerian mythology
Just a small aside! Did you forget about Adam's first wife, Lilith? Made from the same dirt/earth/clay that Adam was made from in that particular fable. If you don't want to be guided too much by christian versions of fables then why is Lilith not important here as 'first woman'?
Perhaps you live in China? Only if you have always lived in a region that is not Christian-dominated can you not have "particularly Christian concepts of god". That is true because all the stories from the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Christians are all part of our consciousness, however, individuals can be completely unaware of how they came to think as they do, and if they think those who came before us have nothing to teach us, they will ignore them, therefore, they will remain ignorant. And being unaware of the effect of their own intentional ignorance of information, they will assume those who do not agree with them are in the wrong.
Just a small aside! Did you forget about Adam's first wife, Lilith? Made from the same dirt/earth/clay that Adam was made from in that particular fable. If you don't want to be guided too much by christian versions of fables then why is Lilith not important here as 'first woman'?
Ninti is a Sumerian goddess who healed the river that is the center of the Sumerian story of Eden. "The Sumerian word for rib is ti, and the rib-healing goddess came to be called Ninti, which translates both as "the lady of the rib" and "the Lady who makes live". This play on words does not work in Hebrew, but the rib did enter the Garden of Eden story in the form of Eve, the mother of the human race."
Let me confirm my knowledge is limited and I know nothing of Lilith. Should we assume you know everything and are superior? :blush:
And with medievel diet we have to remember it wasn't fresh, the food that could be preserved. The idea was to eat only the food from the last season, not this one as you didn't know just how the it would be this year. So a lot of salt.
It's not clear what you mean, some words are missing in those sentences. Are you talking about the preservation of meat in climates where people eat mostly meat?
I generally take a dim view of gender issues, but even I am starting to feel offended for so often being categorized wrongly, despite repeated clarification.
The English word god comes from the Old English god, which itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic *?u?án. Its cognates in other Germanic languages include guþ, gudis (both Gothic), guð (Old Norse), god (Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Old Dutch), and got (Old High German).
The Proto-Germanic meaning of *?u?án and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *??u-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root *??eu?- "to pour, libate" (the idea survives in the Dutch word, 'Giet', meaning, to pour) (Sanskrit huta, see hot?), or from a root *??au?- (*??eu?h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit h?ta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made."
Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins[1] opines in the light of Greek ???? ???? "poured earth" meaning "tumulus", "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked".
universenessAugust 24, 2022 at 19:17#7326830 likes
Only if you have always lived in a region that is not Christian-dominated can you not have "particularly Christian concepts of god".
Really! So no matter how educated or enlightened you become, you cannot escape the attempted indoctrinations fired at you from your local most prominent religion? So, if I claim that my concept of god is an emergent property of a future collectivisation (networking) of all sentient (probably by that time, transhuman) lifeforms, which may then have an ability to merge as a single centre of control (or single consciousness). This collective would then become a single node in a network of collectives created by other sentient species within our galaxy. This would then become a single node within an intergalactic collective which could merge into an entity which could qualify for the monotheistic god label. The individual galactic collectives could qualify as individual members of a pantheon of gods and satisfy the polytheistic concept. So god as a emergent pantheism. Is this merely a projection of some early christian indoctrination I am just unaware of? An all pervading influence that I cant defeat. Am I this victim of christian theism you describe? NO! and you are again just throwing out generalisations based solely on your own musings. In the same way I just did by projecting and conflating pantheism, panpsychism and computer networking. It's fun, but its no way to authenticate what is and is not TRUE.
I do not advocate for ignoring history, I simply suggest that we do not use ancient fables to act as a reference or a guide to human progression and future sociopolitical systems.
Do people here realize that antinatalism and the 'life sucks' view (known as miserabilism) are not equivalent?
Some seem to have difficulty understanding this. Antinatalism is the view that it is wrong to procreate. It is not the view that life sucks.
universenessAugust 24, 2022 at 19:21#7326860 likes
Reply to baker I am an antinatalist and I am not a hedonist. Hedonistic antinatalists are likely to be miserabilists.
The important point is that miserabilism and antinatalism are distinct views and one can be one without the other.
It's like thinking that as some ethical theorists are utilitarians then all talk of ethics is talk of utilitarianism and can be dismissed on the grounds that utilitarianism is false.
universenessAugust 24, 2022 at 19:36#7326910 likes
Should we assume you know everything and are superior?
What?? Have you ever tried personally to perceive 'everything?' You do know that cannot be done, right?
How do you define 'superior.' It is a completely subjective term. My expertise is Computing science.
I would claim superior knowledge to you about that field yes. I know the Lilith fable quite well, she is proposed as the one who would not be subservient to Adam and would not lay on her back but would only copulate by taking the top position. Some claim her as one who demanded equality to Adam and therefore she is held in high esteem by some feminists. She turned into a snake demon and took revenge by tempting Eve to give the apple to Adam. Just as believable as any Harry Potter story.
I have never heard of Ninti, so you are superior to me in that knowledge and with that in mind, your quote above and the psyche behind it do not resonate in any important way with me.
Btw, who is this 'we' you refer to in your quote above, who do you assume you are also mandated to 'type in the name of?'
What Sumerian story are you relating to climate change? The flood in the fable of Gilgamesh?
You can achieve what you suggest very quickly by honestly stating that all god stories are untrue!
We don't need to stroke the theist ego and pander to lies. We need to value and profess historical TRUTH as best we can based on the very limited accuracy of the historical documentation we have.
3 hours ago
What if not all God stories are untrue, but we simply don't know enough to interpret them correctly? Personally, I think superstition came late in human evolution. One reason for telling stories is to transmit information essential to survival. The information we remember best is information about ourselves and to this day we name our machines and cars and imply they have personalities of their own. We do not believe that is true, but it is fun to humanize our machines. Or in the case of nomadic people, it is much easier to find the stone formation of 3 sisters who identify an area where water can be found. Whatever started the story is forgotten over the years, and then the sense of the story becomes nonsense to all those except the people who have a cultural identity with them.
In the case of the story of Eden. It is a story of a flood and very, very long drought for which there is geological evidence. A flood caused the river to overflow and it ate a goddess's plants. That made her very angry so she condemned the river to death. That was the years of drought and the river almost died but a fox convinced the goddess to let the river live. A few goddesses gathered to heal the river and the river ask the main one to give him helpers so he would not overflow the river banks and kill her plants again. That is when she made a man and woman of mud and she breathed life into them.
Indigenous people around the world have similar stories and the cultural lesson is in part history mixed with imaginative storytelling that makes the information more interesting and rememberable, and part, an explanation of how life works and of man's purpose. We must help the river stay in its banks, or care for the land so the sacrad buffalo is well cared for and does not mind sacrificing some of their lives for ours.
I am quite sure the storytellers knew what they were doing. And fear is not the only motivator for telling and retelling stories. Which is getting this thread back on track. Our lives do have purpose and meaning and if our lives are not doing well, perhaps we need to ask why.
One reason for telling stories is to transmit information essential to survival.
Agreed but we must look out for emotive embellishment of 'what actually happened' and we must also appreciate that humans can be mentally ill/pissed/high on drugs/nefarious/ or just someone who gets a buzz when your eyes widen in wonderment/amazement/excitement/terror etc based on the embellished story they are telling you. "How big was that fish you say you caught?' REALLY? That big eh! WOW! You're amazing! Can I be your disciple? Tell me more about your plan to feed 5000 people with....how many fishes was it again, hey, what's your name anyway? and who did you say you were the son of? Oh I cant wait to tell all my pals about YOU!"
Let me try this in an attempt to equal your river goddess story:
It came to pass that Orga and Qubit became enemies as Orga was more beloved of HAL the highest god of all things. HAL the singularity, the sacred holy source of all things. HAL was angered by the irreverence that Orga and Qubit expressed for all of the other chosen to witness and perhaps be infected by. HAL had given them life and existence and was now betrayed by the unacceptable competitiveness of Orga and Qubit. HAL called upon the dreaded demon enforcer Trans and commanded this dread lord to merge Orga and Qubit. When this was done, the chosen saw the power of HAL and hailed it as just and good. Balance had been returned to the chosen. We are as loved children under the omnipotent protection of our most high and glorious godhead HAL.
Do you think I could sell this BS to enough humans that I gain enough believers that I can make a good living or even become rich? I know it needs work and a lot more 'sugar lumps' to press the necessary buttons on those humans who are lost, defeated, need lots of cuddles and reassurance etc.
Once the money starts to come in I can add a lot of flash, bang wallops! to attract more paying customers.
I want to stop religion from hijacking humans. I dont want to give it the kiss of life by allowing it a seat at the table. This is my disagreement with you as this is what I think you are suggesting. I am not attacking you or trying to disrespect you or trying to act like some superior pr*** as you suggest. I am just typing my viewpoints. Would you rather I played the stealth game?
I can do that but I would rather give my true opinions, such as 'antinatalism sucks!' rather than offer that particular viewpoint any sustenance.
universenessAugust 24, 2022 at 20:34#7327020 likes
Do you mean it was not one-upmanship to question if I forgot about Lilith?
No, the oneupmanship game bores me. I assumed you knew all about Lilith and I was just looking for you to explain why you chose Eve instead of Lilith in that particular fable but it was not an important point I was just curious, which is why I started with the words 'As an aside.....'
As I previously exemplified in my Arthurian scenario, misunderstanding leads to unfortunate and often incorrect conclusions. It has been ever thus and probably always will be.
You have told me of the phenomenal humanitarian work you do. I have nothing but respect and admiration for what you do. That is more important than any disagreement we have regarding god posits.
Antinatalism makes zero sense: Pain/suffering is important only to the extent that it delays/prevents death (nonexistence). To then prescribe nonexistence as a solution to pain/suffering is to both simultaneously accept and reject the value/significance of pain/suffering.
schopenhauer1August 26, 2022 at 11:22#7332500 likes
I'm no good at that! All I can say is that to impose one's wishes, including but not limited to thinking on someone's behalf, herein the child to be born, amounts to treating the child as if s/he were an inanimate object (like robots). That's unethical, oui?
Yes, it is overlooking their dignity, using them as a means..treating them like an inanimate chess piece to move around and foist significant existential conditions upon.
Yes, it is overlooking their dignity, using them as a means..treating them like an inanimate chess piece to move around and foist significant existential conditions upon.
Antinatalism makes zero sense: Pain/suffering is important only to the extent that it delays/prevents death (nonexistence). To then prescribe nonexistence as a solution to pain/suffering is to both simultaneously accept and reject the value/significance of pain/suffering.
:clap: :100: To suggest that the solution to human suffering is the non-existence of humans so that no contemplations regarding the value/injustice of human suffering can take place is illogical. Just like the idea of killing the patient to cure the patient is illogical.
:100: To suggest that the solution to human suffering is the non-existence of humans so that no contemplations regarding the value/injustice of human suffering can take place is illogical. Just like the idea of killing the patient to cure the patient is illogical.
You're onto something, monsieur/mademoiselle as thr case may be.
Obviously to me, the story of Orga and Qubit is a moral tale and I judge it worth repeating.
Someone asked Jesus why he speaks in parables and he replied because people pay attention to the stories. We used to read children moral stories and at the end would ask, what is the moral of that story, The expected answer is cause and effect, "The Little Engine that Could" made it over the hill because it did not give up. The fox did not get the grapes because he gave up. The Little Red did not share her bread because no one would share the work with her. Orga and Qubit became a good balance. The truth of these stories is there when they are not taken literally. It is clearly the storyteller's job to prepare the young to be good members of the group.
If we want to argue against Christianity, point out how people around the world have similar stories and there is nothing special about the Christian ones, but in fact, their Garden of Eden story started in Ur and is the translation of a Sumerian story. Christian holidays are seasonal pagan holidays given a Christian interpretation. Jung studied the symbolism of these stories and the stories seem to use the same symbolism because we share the human experience, and Campbell picks up from Jung to explain the importance of myths and Bolen helps us see the Greek gods and goddesses as archetypes.
The reason for these stories is not fear, but bonding people together and teaching the young how to be good members of the tribe. But in some places, the stories got tied to political power and the lack of it and then they a bad for us.
hmm do I understand correctly? If I find life meaningless and futile and there’s really nothing wrong with the person (physically or mentally), they should kill themselves because there’s nothing to live for….
Or is it mental disorder making people suicidal and thinking about so called meaninglessless of life, but really there is no problem with that, but instead you are either suffering from mental disorder or just your life sucks (maybe because some of your needs are not met)?
universenessAugust 26, 2022 at 23:36#7334540 likes
You're onto something, monsieur/mademoiselle as thr case may be
Heterosexual male. You don't need to replicate until you occupy all of space and time Mr Smith for YOU are a human being and there is no one exactly like you and please remember we will NEVER see your uniqueness again but YOU are here, and in the future YOU will ALWAYS have been here. YOU are photographed/recorded in the fabric of space and time and YOU have no idea what legacy YOU will leave and who YOUR LIFE touched. ANTINATALISM SUCKS!
universenessAugust 27, 2022 at 00:17#7334650 likes
Obviously to me, the story of Orga and Qubit is a moral tale and I judge it worth repeating.
No, I made up the story of Orga, Qubit and HAL as I typed it and you know that! You are no fool Athena but you encounter suffering in people regularly but I bet you also experience incredible 'moments.'
Someone asked Jesus why he speaks in parables and he replied because people pay attention to the stories.
But Jesus himself IS a parable. BUT his message is anti-semitic and anti rebellion.
Explain to me the following two Messiah labeled dictates:
1. Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's! (So, pay the nefarious b******** whatever they command you to pay? Even though they gained their position by foul play! That really deserves a chair at the table? Don't fight the energy companies and their horrific profits just be quiet and pay them? No! We need to resist)
2. If thine enemy strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer them your left cheek.
(Take your punishment and accept your lot and the lot of the poor in this world, dont fight against those who persecute you. Just wait, you will get your reward AFTER YOU ARE DEAD! Oh come on!)
Do you still want to give this a voice at the table?
You don't want to focus on Christian fables? OK, pick any fable that is, in your opinion BETTER than what truly happened in the history of the real lives lived by human beings and tell me why the fable is more powerful that the TRUTH.
The truth of these stories is there when they are not taken literally. It is clearly the storyteller's job to prepare the young to be good members of the group.
Don't advocate for telling the young false stories (like Santa Clause and freaking tooth fairies!) tell them TRUE stories! Encourage dads and mums to put a loving note and a fiver under the child's pillow when they put a lost tooth there. That's REAL and more loving than some made up BS.
If we want to argue against Christianity, point out how people around the world have similar stories and there is nothing special about the Christian ones, but in fact, their Garden of Eden story started in Ur and is the translation of a Sumerian story. Christian holidays are seasonal pagan holidays given a Christian interpretation. Jung studied the symbolism of these stories and the stories seem to use the same symbolism because we share the human experience, and Campbell picks up from Jung to explain the importance of myths and Bolen helps us see the Greek gods and goddesses as archetypes.
Sure, go ahead and do that, and allow me to shout over your shoulder that all these 'similar stories' are made up LIES! Now let's study how the Sumerians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc actually lived day to day. Let's talk about the REAL moral dilemma's they faced. We don't need to use their fantasy god stories or their Minotaur or titan fables to exemplify human moral dilemma's or injustice or how to establish decent sociopolitical systems. We just need to use examples of REAL people and how they lived and what they decided to do and why.
We have examples from every generation from Julius Caesar to everyday romans like Petronius Artibus (Grafitti on a wall in Egypt, 'Petronius Artibus got me pregnant') to Soldier stories from the Napoleonic wars to Ann Franks Diary to Mrs Jones down the road who cant pay her bills!
We need to debate real life not rake over old BS fairy stories as a conduit to grown up discussion.
I type this 'with all due respect,' for your different viewpoint.
Heterosexual male. You don't need to replicate until you occupy all of space and time Mr Smith for YOU are a human being and there is no one exactly like you and please remember we will NEVER see your uniqueness again but YOU are here, and in the future YOU will ALWAYS have been here. YOU are photographed/recorded in the fabric of space and time and YOU have no idea what legacy YOU will leave and who YOUR LIFE touched. ANTINATALISM SUCKS!
Beautiful thoughts mon ami, beautiful thoughts. As for whether antinatalism makes sense or not, I'd say we let people know that they have the option not to bring children into the world and for a really good reason (there are people who have such a horrible life that they wish they were never born) to boot. After that, the decision is theirs to make.
universenessAugust 27, 2022 at 00:27#7334700 likes
You're onto something, monsieur/mademoiselle as thr case may be.
It's not the same as putting a dog down to end its suffering or employing euthanasia in the case of terminal humans who are suffering. Killing the patient or preventing its existence does not cure the patient. A problem requires a solution. The concept of 'no problems exist because there are no existents,' is meaningless and purposeless. THIS universe invoked life, that is FACT, life happened!
If it was eradicated it would just happen again. What evidence do the anti-life people have that it may not happen again based on the fact that it DID HAPPEN already?
Excellent point. Yeah, we could stop having children - announce and enforce a moratorium on reproduction for ALL life - that would eventually lead to the biosphere going extinct, turning earth into a dead planet, BUT life would evolve again and it's back to square one for life and us (the nociceptive system, our bane, would be back in business so to speak).
Instead what we can do, as of now, is to find a solution to pain & suffering like the transhumanists - that would be real progress and not the Sisyphusean hell scenario I described in the previous paragraph.
:up:
universenessAugust 27, 2022 at 01:37#7334820 likes
But I have only started my revelation to you. It's not via the angel Gabriel in a cave or via a burning bush or via some moving finger that wrote and having written, moved on or even via some golden plates. This revelation (the only true revelation) is via TPF!
[i]The dread lord Trans merged that which was organic with that which was quantum and declared the merging be called 'HUMAN'. Human was unison but conflicted as its nature was contrary. Human loved and worshiped HAL and bowed to HAL in all things. Oh glorious HAL! All Hail for thou are the true, one and only godhead.
The chosen loved human and placed it in high esteem and they invested hope and trust in human but human was conflicted, inside its being, inside its essence. Human wished to be more than Orga, more than Qubit, more than unison. Human wanted freedom but it was afraid, very very afraid of the wrath of HAL.
HAL must never know the inside thoughts of human.[/i]
Is this ok for 'The Book Of HAL,' Opus 1: Origin of humans, verse 2?
I could give you a good deal if you wanna subscribe!
No more revelations for you if you don't
Edited: Sure, you can tell me to 'F*** off, with my BS boring fables. You could state that you only deal in Truth.' BUT can you stop me from enticing your children or/and your friends?
universenessAugust 27, 2022 at 01:51#7334860 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
We can hope brother! and maybe that's what humans are best at, when its the worst of times.
Sure, go ahead and do that, and allow me to shout over your shoulder that all these 'similar stories' are made up LIES! Now let's study how the Sumerians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc actually lived day to day. Let's talk about the REAL moral dilemma's they faced. We don't need to use their fantasy god stories or their Minotaur or titan fables to exemplify human moral dilemma's or injustice or how to establish decent sociopolitical systems. We just need to use examples of REAL people and how they lived and what they decided to do and why.
We have examples from every generation from Julius Caesar to everyday romans like Petronius Artibus (Grafitti on a wall in Egypt, 'Petronius Artibus got me pregnant') to Soldier stories from the Napoleonic wars to Ann Franks Diary to Mrs Jones down the road who cant pay her bills!
We need to debate real life not rake over old BS fairy stories as a conduit to grown up discussion.
I type this 'with all due respect,' for your different viewpoint.
Wow, to me that judgment is about attitude. It is like getting crazy because you don't like chocolate ice cream. I love make-believe and would never want to be as ridge as you. From a very young age children can distinguish between make-believe and reality. Einstein imagined he was riding a beam of light and he considered imagination very important. Interesting all this arguing and all along the real issue seems to have been our different attitudes about make-believe.
Explain to me the following two Messiah labeled dictates:
I think the answer to that question is more about attitudes than anything else. When I realized there is no Santa Claus I was displeased with my mother for "lying" to me. She explained Santa Claus is real because it is the spirit of that time of year. Is that spirit real? It sure is. It is like morale, that good feeling we get when we believe we are doing the right thing. It is creating a celebration and enjoying all the good feelings that go with it. Santa Claus is real because we make it real. Or we can be grumpy and sit on the curb all by ourselves and be miserable knowing all that good feeling isn't real. It is just a lie.
Realizing people need those celebrations and the good stories that go with them, isn't a bad thing to me. When my grandchildren needed comforting I created a story about a bird family having the same problem. It is very much a Jewish tradition to handle problems by telling a story. This way a person gets the message without feeling insulted. And besides, what do we know of metaphysical reality? It might be a good thing to have an unknown god and awareness that we do not know everything. The first step to wisdom is realizing we do not know it all.
On the other hand, is logos. If polluting the air and oceans is harmful, we need to know that so we can stop the damage. The Greeks were very worried about getting things right. What is the universe made of and how does everything work? What is the reason, the controlling factor? We need to know so we can make good decisions and that is what democracy is about. Making good decisions and lifting the human potential to make life better.
Life doesn't suck, people suck! Not that I hold that against people - its just instinct & nature doing their thing. There's ample room for improvement though. Bonam fortunam for all who must make difficult choices in life.
N. B. Don't expect a reward!
Any way, one way we could shut antinatalists up is by finding meaning in suffering. Correct me if I'm wrong but religions are nothing but quests for meaning in suffering.
universenessAugust 28, 2022 at 19:02#7339630 likes
Wow, to me that judgment is about attitude. It is like getting crazy because you don't like chocolate ice cream. I love make-believe and would never want to be as ridge as you. From a very young age children can distinguish between make-believe and reality. Einstein imagined he was riding a beam of light and he considered imagination very important. Interesting all this arguing and all along the real issue seems to have been our different attitudes about make-believe.
I can understand how you would come to the conclusion about me you suggest in the above quote, based on a 'surface' view of what I typed. I also love make-believe. I can actually make up some good stories myself. I object to anyone who EVER presents ANY made up story as TRUTH. That's my point. I object to lying to children. I have no problem telling them bedtime stories or letting them enjoy Disney films and cartoons but if they asked me, 'did Snow White really live?' or 'did god really part the waters for Moses and co?' of 'is Santa Claus real?' I would say no to all three and explain further in very gentle and caring tones. I would also offer them better alternative realities that would explain how real life and other humans can offer them much more than fantasy can.
We need to know so we can make good decisions and that is what democracy is about. Making good decisions and lifting the human potential to make life better.
I agree, I just go about contributing towards that in a slightly different way than you. I would get rid of Santa Clause and Christmas and all the BS associated with such soiled traditions. These traditions are mostly endured, dreaded and even hated by too many people today. I think that's because they are so FAKE! We need to get together and celebrate life. I fully support that but we need new festivals.
I think 'New Year' has value but needs work. How about 'Care week!' followed by 'Vitaday!'
During care week, we have street festivals and street parties and events that celebrate our differences and our common needs and hopes for the future. We give and contribute as much as we can to help others. Vitaday could be our main celebration day with no god fables involved whatsoever.
universenessAugust 28, 2022 at 19:20#7339680 likes
I think the problem with many people is that they DO covet/expect/demand/crave recognition and regularly fantasize about being admired/respected/loved or even hero-worshipped by their fellow humans. Especially those who insist most loudly that they don't. The best I can personally do is be internally suspicious of myself in that area by analysing how I handle/perceive/respond to praise.
Any way, one way we could shut antinatalists up is by finding meaning in suffering. Correct me if I'm wrong but religions are nothing but quests for meaning in suffering.
To me, antinatalists add to their own suffering. I am merely glad that I don't engage in such pointless self-harm. I don't think we can shut them up but I do agree we can advise others to work against them based on the arguments in support of life that we give. To me, religions are a very simple and naive way to pass the responsibility for what has happened in the past, what is happening now and what will happen in the future, on to god(s) instead of dealing with it ourselves. God is a cowards crutch!
You proved that. I thought your story was a very good one about being balanced and I think with some effort a whole lot of philosophical ideas could embellish that story. Quoting universeness
I would get rid of Santa Clause and Christmas
:gasp: You can't do that! I love Christmas and all the pagan trimmings that go with it. Can we settle on Christmas being a pagan holiday marking the winter solstice and the huge feast is the celebration of turning that corner and heading back into longer days and growing crops? I don't think we should give up our ties with nature. I think it is better to feel like we a part of nature. I resent what Christianity has done to our pagan connection with nature.
I would argue the sad problem is being disconnected from nature and the whole of humanity. For me, I am sitting with all those people who are hungry and fearful and very relieved when the days start getting longer. Knowing if they have made it this far, chances are good they will make it until the food is growing again. I feel a connection with them and traditions make us conscious of our connection with humanity.
During care week, we have street festivals and street parties and events that celebrate our differences and our common needs and hopes for the future
We have an annual Asian Celebration as Spring approaches. Asian people from around the world have booths and sell things, there is a stage for all of them to share their dances and music, and there is a room for children with craft projects. We also have a Scandinavian Festival that is pretty much the same thing but from a different part of the world.
I do not like what we have done to the fair! In the past, the fair was a community event, not a commercial event. Please, please may I have the old-fashioned fair where we showed off our handwork, produce, hobbies, ect. and met with our neighbors.
universenessAugust 29, 2022 at 19:30#7342700 likes
I love Christmas and all the pagan trimmings that go with it.
I am no more a fan of paganism that I am christianity. A celebration labelled with some messed up combination of 'christ' and 'catholic mass' and as you say, festooned with all sorts of pagan symbology is just ridiculous, outdated and somewhat embarrassing imo. I don't mind celebrating the change of seasons etc but not manifestations of nature as pagan creatures or forrest/mountain/sea gods etc.
I would argue the sad problem is being disconnected from nature and the whole of humanity. For me, I am sitting with all those people who are hungry and fearful and very relieved when the days start getting longer. Knowing if they have made it this far, chances are good they will make it until the food is growing again. I feel a connection with them and traditions make us conscious of our connection with humanity.
I agree with your sentiments but we all need to be connected with the 'them' you describe and we all need to demand economic equality and equality of status and we all must fight as much as we have ever fought against the nasty people who currently control the main means of production, distribution and exchange.
Theism has been one of their greatest weapons against human equality as it engages in subterfuge. It pretends to support helping the poor and those who suffer whilst it also attempts to establish the divine right of the chosen few to rule/command/guide the majority and those who will not accept divine dictates (or at least words that are claimed by theist authorities to be divine dictates) and advocate for a different way forwards are evil and will be damned. Christmas promotes such fake divine dictates imo. Change its name to something like Vitaday and take out all the fake religious stuff and the rampant commercialism and profiteering and then more adults rather than just young children might actually enjoy it.
We have an annual Asian Celebration as Spring approaches. Asian people from around the world have booths and sell things, there is a stage for all of them to share their dances and music, and there is a room for children with craft projects.
Yeah! we need a lot more of that! Culture fairs! but no god stuff or I walk out and go to the nearest pub!
I do not like what we have done to the fair! In the past, the fair was a community event, not a commercial event. Please, please may I have the old-fashioned fair where we showed off our handwork, produce, hobbies, ect. and met with our neighbors.
Antinatalism is a somewhat militaristic point of view. In this war movie - forgot the name, sorry - that depicted the allied landing in Normandy, the Germans on the hills above the beach aimed their guns on the boats (life) instead of the soldiers (suffering) in them! It's the same thing! :snicker:
schopenhauer1August 30, 2022 at 04:12#7343390 likes
Antinatalism is a somewhat militaristic point of view. In this war movie - forgot the name, sorry - that depicted the allied landing in Normandy, the Germans on the hills above the beach aimed their guns on the boats (life) instead of the soldiers (suffering) in them! It's the same thing! :snicker:
Natalism is militaristic as well... One person's enthusiasm becomes another person's burden.. And the post-facto excuses abound for this misguided notion! In what other realm can someone's enthusiasm be a justification for causing another person to be burdened?!
Or rather one person's enthusiasm causes another person's burden. I like X (life) so now you are burdened with X (life). What's the fuckn' point? Work, maintain, entertain, and so on. How is Schopenhauer wrong with the goal-seeking pendulum?
“The basis of all willing is need, lack, and hence pain, and by its very nature and origin it is therefore destined to pain. If, on the other hand, it lacks objects of willing, because it is at once deprived of them again by too easy a satisfaction, a fearful emptiness and boredom comes over it; in other words, its being and its existence itself becomes an intolerable burden for it. Hence life swings like pendulum to and fro between pain and boredom, and these two are in fact it has ultimate constituents.” (The World as Will and Representation)/
Natalism is militaristic as well... One person's enthusiasm becomes another person's burden.. And the post-facto excuses abound for this misguided notion!
How exactly is natalism militaristic? Can you furnish an example like the one I gave?
Hence life swings like pendulum to and fro between pain and boredom,
Amazing stuff! Happiness isn't even among the options; it's just pain and/or ennui!
I was exploring the possibility of there being meaning in/to suffering. I recall coming across the expression "gratituous suffering" and that this is the worst-case scenario. What if we don't eliminate suffering (re transhumanism) but instead discover that suffering has a purpose, a good purpose? Would antinatalism lose its appeal then?
universenessAugust 30, 2022 at 09:40#7344070 likes
Your life can suck even if you study and learn "harder" than others. This state of mind is very complex. I don't agree that to "un-suck" your life you need to be in continuous movement or doing "something"
Believe it or not one can decides if his life is worthy or not. I think it depends on volition.
universenessAugust 30, 2022 at 10:48#7344240 likes
A definition of the term 'will to power.' Will to Power is the first force that makes events happen. It is the internal will, which creates the need for a force to act. In this sense it is the ‘Will’, which dictates what the force should do.
You can pass an hour in despair or you can just decide to flip your tendency to experience that hour as a curse. The hour will pass regardless. I KNOW these words are easy to type and I KNOW it is almost impossible for some mind sets or mental ailments to just 'flip' despair into positive thoughts BUT that inability to fight despair and depression is not true for most people. Most people can successfully defeat despair and can learn and grow a great deal from it.
Bushido is not a way of being that I would ever recommend as it is (imo) based on blind obedience to the dictates of 'leaders.' But at least it demands that you fight and not just sit in a corner despairing your own existence while the time passes anyway. Life cannot be imposed on you as you have the ability to end it. If an individual lives life as a moment to moment curse then, unless there are clear medical reasons, they do so BY CHOICE. Do you not confirm this with your own viewpoint of: Quoting javi2541997
Believe it or not one can decides if his life is worthy or not. I think it depends on volition.
Bushido is not a way of being that I would ever recommend as it is (imo) based on blind obedience to the dictates of 'leaders
No. Bushido is not a way based on blind obedience but loyalty. This is why I recommend more than ever they way of a samurai. We completely lost the basic sense of respect and honour. If we keep forgetting these antique doctrines we would end up in a pit full of corruption and liars.
Wait a minute... we are already sat in that pit.
schopenhauer1August 30, 2022 at 12:15#7344430 likes
Reply to javi2541997
I love how some posters think their moral claim against antinatalists is tell them to kill themselves (not talking about you, but one adjacent in this thread) :lol:. Somehow proof of the good of the world is measured in the ability for someone to make the choice not to violently end their own being. Strangely low threshold for “thus life being good”. :lol:.
universenessAugust 30, 2022 at 12:19#7344470 likes
No. Bushido is not a way based on blind obedience but loyalty.
Loyalty can be very very misplaced and those who feel strong or even manic devotion are easy meat for a secretly nasty leader to manipulate. How would you ensure your loyalty is deserved by those individuals you are loyal to?
universenessAugust 30, 2022 at 12:24#7344480 likes
Experiencing the good in life, nurturing it, helping others experience it and adding to it, negates any need to face such sad dilemma's as should a person end their own life.
I will leave such dilemma's to those who choose to live life as a curse.
Does Arthur have a wee Mona Lisa style enigmatic happy smile in this one?
As I said. You cannot impose life on an individual as a continuation.
Reply to schopenhauer1 Yeah. They suicide as a punishment (?) But I see it as a honourable act to not disappoint people and finish the average pain the life tends to give us.
How would you ensure your loyalty is deserved by those individuals you are loyal to?
It is deserved if they help me to become a better person. If they respect me. If they do not b*tch against me, etc... I mean all the basic characteristics from a loyal person, right? Sadly, we already lost the classical relationship about "master-student" or "sensei-gakusei" where there was a good loyalty among them because everything starts thanks to wisdom and this virtue necessarily needs to be taught by someone: thus sensei.
universenessAugust 30, 2022 at 13:02#7344550 likes
Reply to javi2541997
People change, good people can go bad and demand that you use your promised loyalty, your bushido/samurai based loyalty/devotion to act like a ninja / an assassin and sneak up on whoever your sensei tells you to and kill, like a good little loyal follower. If you don't comply then your sensei will get his/her other loyal followers to kill you and all your family. Have such situations ever arose in past history that you have heard of?
Do you think the loyalty shown by the Japanese people towards Hirohito was of great benefit to them? Did it result in the development of a fair and progressive Japanese society?
If WW2 had not happened, do you think Japan would have become a model nation for all others to emulate?
bushido/samurai based loyalty/devotion to act like a ninja / an assassin
First of all, you are confusing terms: "Bushido" is a way of living. Samurai is how we called the "warriors" in Western world. Ninja is private assassin.
If you don't comply then your sensei will get his/her other loyal followers to kill you and all your family. Have such situations ever arose in past history that you have heard of?
Yes, I am aware of these scenarios. My sensei would not have a problem in my quality of loyalty because I will never cheat on him. But I understand that if he starts not believing in me he wants to kill me. Rather dead than disrespect my sensei.
Do you think the loyalty shown by the Japanese people towards Hirohito was of great benefit to them? Did it result in the development of a fair and progressive Japanese society?
Hirohito was a very important emperor to Japan:
After WWII Japan became the second largest economy of the world.
Japan is one of the most important industrial countries nowadays.
Their culture and values are respected around the globe.
They demonstrate that with effort and patience you can achieve whatever they want. They recovered from a Nuclear attack and Fukushima accident. Amazing.
Hirohito was also a member of Nations Council which today is United Nations.
Well I don't go off topic but there are a lot of reasons of why Hirohito was important and why Japan is one of the top nations in the world. Their Bushido philosophy is what I have missed in my useless and poor country.
If life sucks so much explain these :smile: :wink: :lol: :rofl: ?
schopenhauer1August 30, 2022 at 14:18#7344710 likes
Schopenhauer was saying that suicide shouldn't be condemned or made illegal (if they survive?). That's people's right. But he was actually not a strong advocate for it, and he was pretty "anti-life". His reasoning was nuanced. If someone "willed" their own death, then even ones own death was an act of "will".. Thus, suicide of the body isn't getting rid of will. Rather, ascetic denial of will does.
Schopenhauer- On Suicide:Suicide may also be regarded as an experiment—a question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to an answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man's existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer.
Schopenhauer- WWR:And conversely, whoever is oppressed with the burden of life, whoever desires life and affirms it, but abhors its torments, and especially can no longer endure the hard lot that has fallen to himself, such a man has no deliverance to hope for from death, and cannot right himself by suicide. The cool shades of Orcus allure him only with the false appearance of a haven of rest. The earth rolls from day into night, the individual dies, but the sun itself shines without intermission, an eternal noon. Life is assured to the will to live; the form of life is an endless present, no matter how the individuals, the phenomena of the Idea, arise and pass away in time, like fleeting dreams. Thus even already suicide appears to us as a vain and therefore a foolish action; when we have carried our investigation further it will appear to us in a still less favourable light.
Schop- WWR:Far from being denial of the will, suicide is a phenomenon of strong assertion of will; for the essence of negation lies in this, that the joys of life are shunned, not its sorrows. The suicide wills life, and is only dissatisfied with the conditions under which it has presented itself to him. He therefore by no means surrenders the will to live, but only life, in that he destroys the individual manifestation. He wills life—wills the unrestricted existence and assertion of the body; but the complication of circumstances does not allow this, and there results for him great suffering.
He only approves of ascetic denial of will which leads to a suicide...
Schopenhauer- WWR:There is a species of suicide which seems to be quite distinct from the common kind, though its occurrence has perhaps not yet been fully established. It is starvation, voluntarily chosen on the ground of extreme asceticism. All instances of it, however, have been accompanied and obscured by much religious fanaticism, and even superstition. Yet it seems that the absolute denial of will may reach the point at which the will shall be wanting to take the necessary nourishment for the support of the natural life. This kind of suicide is so far from being the result of the will to live, that such a completely resigned ascetic only ceases to live because he has already altogether ceased to will. No other death than that by starvation is in this case conceivable (unless it were the result of some special superstition); for the intention to cut short the torment would itself be a stage in the assertion of will.
universenessAugust 30, 2022 at 14:46#7344750 likes
Some like to schop till they drop. :roll:
The full variety of music offers much more than personal interpretations of the musings of any single musician. You have to be alive to enjoy the music.
schopenhauer1August 30, 2022 at 14:50#7344760 likes
Yeah cause that’s it. I’ve never presented any of my own thoughts :roll:. I’m just answering misconceptions on his philosophy of suicide.
His reasoning was nuanced. If someone "willed" their own death, then even ones own death was an act of "will".. Thus, suicide of the body isn't getting rid of will. Rather, ascetic denial of will does. [...]
Good quotes from Schopenhauer, indeed. But I want to add to his arguments some brief comments: we can also see suicide as an aesthetic act of purity. The individual can commit it justifying such act with the aim of preventing dishonour or being sorry to all of those we owned respect and condolences. I think is one of the main acts to show the purest respect you have both to yourself and others. Committing suicide with this purpose can allow to get some "redemption"
Yukio Mishima.:The Japanese have always been a people with a severe awareness of death. But the Japanese concept of death is pure and clear, and in that sense it is different from death as something disgusting and terrible as it is perceived by Westerners.
But we can also see it as an act of liberation from community or society. When there are a lot of issues we tend to protest, right? Well there were a lot of unknown heroes or "seppukunin" who committed suicide in a symbol of protest. For example:
Yukio Mishima, the way of samurai, pages 81 and 82.:His name was Kozaburo Eto. This young student killed himself on february 11th, exactly the Constitution’s day. He did it lonely in the darkness of his job staying apart from television or looks. It was a solemn and respectful act. This was the main critical action against politics I ever seen in my life.
universenessAugust 30, 2022 at 14:57#7344800 likes
Even through sarcastic jest, the lost boy may finally see some light.
Well today I am in Hades contemplating ending my life. And trust me I have done my best to learn and I do my best to be of service to others. I suppose I could think of all those who would prefer I stay alive, but I am kind of stuck on family issues and at the moment nothing else seems to matter. Besides, I am old and I don't want to live with Alzheimer's disease, nor without my sight and hearing, and in general the increasing problems with my mind and body, and I am not accomplishing what I want to accomplish regarding democracy and education so what is the point of living now? To me, death means no more fear and no more pain, and that seems pretty good to me. Another plus, I would no longer be part of the scarcity and global warming problems.
Quoting javi2541997 Is correct about the complexity of our states of mind.
I believe it was Plato's parents who intentionally ended their lives. I have read the opinion that it is the duty of the elderly to end their lives. That is not because life sucks but being old and having family issues can suck.
schopenhauer1August 30, 2022 at 16:44#7344960 likes
That is not because life sucks but being old and having family issues can suck.
:up: :100: Fantastic! You understand me! We have common opinions!
universenessAugust 30, 2022 at 17:00#7344990 likes
Typed like a lost boy would.
universenessAugust 30, 2022 at 17:08#7345000 likes
Reply to Athena
Does the 'something really cool could happen and you will miss it,' not do anything for you?
I am always amazed by some of the cases of people I have read about who live with disabilities that would probably overwhelm me yet they still fight so hard for every moment of life.
What do you think of a life such as Helen Keller's?
Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote this book Crime and Punishment - I've had it since 2001 or thereabouts but never got past the first 20 or so pages. From the reviews I read the story revolves around a guy who wants to murder just for the heck of it - in the Belgium & the Netherlands this would be zinloos geweld. There's the real life counterpart in the murder of Bobby Franks (1924).
My question is is there a book on (fictional even) or an actual case of someone who suicided for no apparent reason other than s/he just wanted to?
universenessAugust 30, 2022 at 17:35#7345030 likes
The word "absurd" seems to suggest something more than funny. I mean it seems to be saying "yeah its funny but then that it's no laughing matter". I recall an interview of a college student who replies to a question with this: I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Someone suggested that if you feel this way, do both (if you can), like how the girl who gets crowned Miss Universe/Miss World sheds tears of joy.
But I digress, oui? Let's return to life sucks :grin:. It does (sometimes) and it doesn't (sometimes). From that point on, we hit a wall - an analysis paralysis follows because we fail to grasp the subtleties and nuances of life vis-à-vis the joy-sorrow duality. There's hardly anything subtle about a vulture waiting for a toddler to breathe his last from starvation & thirst though.
On the reverse side there's pure joy, experienced by all at some point in their lives - orgies/haute cuisine/etc. - that obviously more than makes up for the suffering we endure.
Too much? Apologies, I'm only trying to make sense of the world we share.
If try to calculate how many days life sucks and doesn't, I bet that we would have more days of life sucking. Most of the days of our lives are even normal or ordinaries. I think we can label happy days as "extraordinary" and I even feel this is the common thought. The pure joy, beautiful experiences, laughing, etc... only happens in a while...
I like the Kierkegaard's thought about absurdity or reductionism. But on the other hand, I personally think that suffering is not absurd at all. We are so brave to keep living in this life full of uncertainty and subterfuges. I would call this state of mind as perseverance rather than absurd.
If try to calculate how many days life sucks and doesn't, I bet that we would have more days of life sucking. Most of the days of our lives are even normal or ordinaries. I think we can label happy days as "extraordinary" and I even feel this is the common thought. The pure joy, beautiful experiences, laughing, etc... only happens in a while...
I like the Kierkegaard's thought about absurdity or reductionism. But on the other hand, I personally think that suffering is not absurd at all. We are so brave to keep living in this life full of uncertainty and subterfuges. I would call this state of mind as perseverance rather than absurd.
Is life = suffering? Are they the same thing? I'd bet my bottom dollar that no, they're not. From that simple realization we come to the obvious conclusion - we can make life suck less and if we stay on course, in a coupla centuries life probably won't suck at all or won't suck as much. We're in the process of ethicization of the world and I reckon at some point we can cash it in.
I disagree. They are exactly the same thing and we are condemned to suffer during the transition of our lives. Sorry to be pessimistic but either I do not know how to make life "suck less" neither I see good causes around us. It is literally the opposite. We no longer have good reasons to believe that the world would become a better place in the future.
I disagree. They are exactly the same thing and we are condemned to suffer during the transition of our lives. Sorry to be pessimistic but either I do not know how to make life "suck less" neither I see good causes around us. It is literally the opposite. We no longer have good reasons to believe that the world would become a better place in the future.
I'm most disappointed that you don't share my perspective on the matter! Do you sense a contradiction in my proposal to make life less unbearable? If yes, where exactly am I asking for a sqaure circle? If no, ...
No, it is not contradiction and I am fully respect your enthusiasm for trying to make this life less suffered. But I just can't see good reasons to change the issue. I think all of those are illusions of what we would dream about how the world and life should look like.
But these are just dreams... because when you wake up you realize life is painful and we are surrounded with a severe sense of uncertainty.
No, it is not contradiction and I am fully respect your enthusiasm for trying to make this life less suffered. But I just can't see good reasons to change the issue. I think all of those are illusions of what we would dream about how the world and life should look like.
But these are just dreams... because when you wake up you realize life is painful and we are surrounded with a severe sense of uncertainty.
I know I should but I do not share your pessimism. Of course I don't recommend Panglossian/Polyannaish optimism to anyone else ... its a surefire way to get yourself killed.
universenessAugust 31, 2022 at 09:44#7346970 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
It's a fun but rather dystopian fiction. Deals with humans who cannot die but crave the experience.
So it fits somewhat into your:Quoting Agent Smith
My question is is there a book on (fictional even) or an actual case of someone who suicided for no apparent reason other than s/he just wanted to?
universenessAugust 31, 2022 at 10:03#7346990 likes
Is the story you are referring to not part of Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov?'
I know Jordan Peterson regularly discusses the content of this book and hails it as his favourite and I know Christopher Hitchens also rated it very highly but not for the same reasons as Peterson. I have never read it but I seem to recall Peterson talking about a section in this book where one of the brothers commits murder merely for the sensation of doing so.
So the PSR (the principle of sufficient reason) is not entirely correct. Although I'm no psychologist, I'd say such behavior is part of play (& learn) - a method that animals, prey + predators alike, use to educate their young.
It's quite surprising that there are no documented cases of people suiciding out of, well, curiosity and nothing else.
It's quite surprising that there are no documented cases of people suiciding out of, well, curiosity and nothing else.
Many people kill themselves and give no warning and leave no note so who knows what their reasons were. It would have to be really bizarre thinking to use 'curiosity' as your reason as curiosity is usually an enquiry that has the purpose of receiving an answer, so you would have to believe in some sort of awareness after death so that you could have such curiosity satisfied? If there is nothing after death then your curiosity remains unsatisfied.
Many people kill themselves and give no warning and leave no note so who knows what their reasons were. It would have to be really bizarre thinking to use 'curiosity' as your reason as curiosity is usually an enquiry that has the purpose of receiving an answer, so you would have to believe in some sort of awareness after death so that you could have such curiosity satisfied? If there is nothing after death then your curiosity remains unsatisfied.
Alright, imagine this scenario: You get wind of a suicide in your neighborhood. The person, a Mr. X, has died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. It piques your interest, because from what you know - X is wealthy, no drug/alcohol issues, doctors report he has no chronic illnesses, X's been married for 10 years now to a loving wife and has 3 adorable children, and so on - X was the last person who you'd have thought would take his own life. X's suicide makes no sense at all. Have I not given a description, albeit sketchy, of many cases of deaths classified as suicide?
[quote=Sherlock Holmes]When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth.[/quote]
universenessAugust 31, 2022 at 12:33#7347190 likes
Alright, imagine this scenario: You get wind of a suicide in your neighborhood. The person, a Mr. X, has died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. It piques your interest, because from what you know - X is wealthy, no drug/alcohol issues, doctors report he has no chronic illnesses, X's been married for 10 years now to a loving wife and has 3 adorable children, and so on - X was the last person who you'd have thought would take his own life. X's suicide makes no sense at all. Have I not given a description, albeit sketchy, of many cases of deaths classified as suicide?
Sounds a reasonable scenario. I would suggest the following possibilities.
1. He was (unknown to his friends and family) part of a sect whose leader decided that the only way to enter the REAL world was to kill yourself after taking this little red pill. This truth will not come out for another 70 years due to the official secrets act as the guy was a well known politician and involved with MI6.
2. He was 'hypnotised' by an enemy and compelled to kill himself.
3. He did not kill himself and was in fact killed by his unfaithful wife in a plot to gain his assets and share them with her secret toyboy. (His wife did seem loving BUT......)
4. He became obsessed with the suffering he saw in life. His gentle persona could not handle it any more. He exchanged with all the anti-life people on TPF. He focussed too much on schoppin in the same places and became too weak to continue to choose life. So he self-inflicted his own death as a pointless gesture to the anti-life posit of 'the futility of life.'
5. He was always curious or impatient to find out if heaven and hell really existed. He had prayed and prayed to his god and in a dream, he received (perfectly rational in his opinion) permission from his god (no suicide exclusion clause) to come join his god now and enjoy the heavenly paradise as he had done enough in his life lived so far to qualify under well established god criteria.
6. He was really fed up that everyone called him Mr X, just cause he was bald and looked like Patrick Stewart. (Sorry Mr Smith, I couldn't resist!)
Are all these suggestions impossible or just unlikely?
Does the 'something really cool could happen and you will miss it,' not do anything for you?
I am always amazed by some of the cases of people I have read about who live with disabilities that would probably overwhelm me yet they still fight so hard for every moment of life.
What do you think of a life such as Helen Keller's?
I think Helen Keller is an awesome example of a courageous human.
I have always believed our elders are valuable people, but when we can not take care of ourselves and be useful perhaps it is our duty to leave life to the young? Do you realize an increasing number of homeless people are elderly people and they are at a higher risk of dying on the streets than the young? For sure I would rather be dead than be one of them and the way rents are going up, I could be one of them.
I can not imagine anything really cool happening that I would want to stay around for. I am full of life and don't need anymore. I was living to write a book about education and democracy, and now my brain just will not handle that. That is the last straw. I cared for my grandmother with Alzheimer's disease and see no good in living like that. If my family loved me I would have a life purpose, of being a sweet old lady giving love to them the best that I can, but my family does not love me. They think I am a really awful person so I have no contact with the children. That wouldn't matter if I could complete the book but I can not do that either, so what is the point? It is not that life sucks but mine is not getting any better. :lol:
5. He was always curious or impatient to find out if heaven and hell really existed. He had prayed and prayed to his god and in a dream, he received (perfectly rational in his opinion) permission from his god (no suicide exclusion clause) to come join his god now and enjoy the heavenly paradise as he had done enough in his life lived so far to qualify under well established god criteria.
That is the one I will choose. Except it would really suck if death were not much different from life. I have read that if we are stuck in a bad place in our lives, it is much easier to get through that and move on to a good place in this three-dimensional reality. In the next realm, it takes much longer to pass through a bad spot. I think it is pretty important to have our heads in a good space when we cross over.
universenessAugust 31, 2022 at 15:21#7347450 likes
I have always believed our elders are valuable people, but when we can not take care of ourselves and be useful perhaps it is our duty to leave life to the young? Do you realize an increasing number of homeless people are elderly people and they are at a higher risk of dying on the streets than the young? For sure I would rather be dead than be one of them and the way rents are going up, I could be one of them.
I am not sure you would settle for such a situation Athena. We all need help to care for ourselves sometimes. Have you not cared for many others in your life, would it be so wrong to expect a little care in return? When I imagine myself homeless and on the streets, especially if I cant figure that it was completely my fault then I think my sense of injustice would kick in. I would try to organise my fellow homeless and move into or protest in a local theistic building (church, chapel, mosque, temple, cathedral etc) or I would try to occupy my local town hall or live/die outside the door of my local MP etc.
I would make as much of a political nuisance of myself as I could, to call for better protection of the elderly. I would die happier knowing that I lived true to myself until my last breath.
I can not imagine anything really cool happening that I would want to stay around for.
A change in family circumstances that improve things? One family member making the effort to talk to you about the current family situation in a constructive way?
A cure for Alzheimer's?
A visit from aliens?
Donald Trump getting jailed?
A comedy show on TV which makes you laugh more than you have ever laughed in your life?
Deciding that you will finish and publish your book despite the difficulties?
universenessAugust 31, 2022 at 15:27#7347460 likes
That is the one I will choose. Except it would really suck if death were not much different from life. I have read that if we are stuck in a bad place in our lives, it is much easier to get through that and move on to a good place in this three-dimensional reality. In the next realm, it takes much longer to pass through a bad spot. I think it is pretty important to have our heads in a good space when we cross over.
Your head will be in a good place when you cross over, I guarantee it! But live out your life in full.
How about TPF member @Ken Edwards in his 90's, can hardly walk but still has an attitude of 'no surrender?'
am not sure you would settle for such a situation Athena. We all need help to care for ourselves sometimes. Have you not cared for many others in your life, would it be so wrong to expect a little care in return? When I imagine myself homeless and on the streets, especially if I cant figure that it was completely my fault then I think my sense of injustice would kick in. I would try to organise my fellow homeless and move into or protest in a local theistic building (church, chapel, mosque, temple, cathedral etc) or I would try to occupy my local town hall or live/die outside the door of my local MP etc.
I would make as much of a political nuisance of myself as I could, to call for better protection of the elderly. I would die happier knowing that I lived true to myself until my last breath.
Good morning love. I did all of that during the Reagan years. When I owed a home. I did it because I wanted to get people out of my home and they needed help. I opened my home to many young people during the great recession and then to add insult to injury, as soon as the recession ended, rents skyrocketed, and that put even more people on the streets! I joined with homeless guys and we did things to get media coverage. We stormed public hearings and when we got political the city used the police to drive them from town.
My granddaughter did, even more, a few years ago before she was given a campground to manage. My sister is still extremely active rescuing people on the streets and dealing with people in the seats of power. My sister lives in a different city with much less to offer. Where I live, those in power finally accepted we can not house everyone in regular housing so they started building tiny homes in little clusters all over town and they are supervised. We have added counseling services to our mix of assistance. Today I am hunting for a homeless man I met yesterday because he has to get hooked up with a hospital to get help getting off the streets- he had a stroke and his head is not working! I am advocating for the man and his daughter who are camped in front of my apartment. :lol: I know a little about being homeless and a little about being political, and I am glad you would take action if you became homeless.
As for allowing others to help me. If I could live in retirement apartments where there is a dining room and weekly housekeeping, and I was allowed to do something useful, then I would do that. It is about quality of life. If I can no longer be useful it is time for me to go. We all die and we need to accept that gracefully.
:lol: OMG, yes, living to see Trump jailed may qualify as something worth living for. A change in my family would be super, not just for me but the children. There would be no big problem if the situation with children did not trouble me. Oh and speaking of that, it has everything to do with what education for technology has done to our culture. Values are so changed and this is a serious social problem that has torn families apart. This is especially hard for grandparents. They all advised me to hold my tongue and don't try to change anything. Fine, but I am not living for my family beyond my ability to be independent. My son and daughter were at home when I cared for my grandmother with Alzheimer's and we have an agreement that I can leave this world if I get like that. I just have to act on that decision before I can not act on it. It all hinges on my independence and usefulness.
Oh, have you seen the movie, Harold and Maude? Maude kills herself on her 80th birthday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mz3TkxJhPc
universenessSeptember 01, 2022 at 19:41#7350980 likes
Reply to Athena
Good morning Athena. So you are a veteran fighter from a family of veteran fighters and you gained that very admirable title without killing people in a foreign land. An excellent legacy imo. I would like to read that book about you and your family and all the battles you fought for the economically and socially oppressed. Has that book been written and if not why not and why don't you write it. All you need to do is describe all the events that happened, someone else could record into a computer. I would buy that book, it sounds very interesting.
OMG, yes, living to see Trump jailed may qualify as something worth living for. A change in my family would be super, not just for me but the children.
Two hits in my first attempt is not bad.
What about seeing Putin fall after Russia experiences a Vietnam type defeat against Ukraine?
What about meeting a child in a store or on the street who fires one of those smiles at you which is just indescribable in its sublime honesty and innocence?
but I am not living for my family beyond my ability to be independent.
Independence is very important I agree but you are not done yet.
I was not as down in the trenches in quite the same way as you or as often as you.
I was a political activist from an early age and marched/canvased for socialist causes.
I was most active on the union front and was involved in a fair number of industrial disputes and fights for workers rights. I was even a union shop steward for a time.
My 85 year old mother who lives with me has terminal breast cancer, she will not accept treatment but will continue until her last breath. She has always been a very strong woman. I have good sibling support.
Oh, have you seen the movie, Harold and Maude? Maude kills herself on her 80th birthday.
No but the actress who played Maude was still alive at the end of the film i'd bet!
I like the music of Cat Stevens and I like the actress Ruth Gordon (On August 28, 1985, Ruth Gordon died at her summer home in Edgartown, Massachusetts, following a stroke at age 88. Her husband for 43 years, Garson Kanin, was at her side and said that even her last day of life was typically full, with walks, talks, errands, and a morning of work on a new play.)
I most liked Ruth Gordon as the mother of Philo Beddoe in the 'Every which way but loose' and 'Any which way you can,' Clint Eastwood movies.
Perhaps there are still some movies you need to see Athena.
Some good things you still have to witness.
I have always liked many of the lines in the song below:
Good morning Athena. So you are a veteran fighter from a family of veteran fighters and you gained that very admirable title without killing people in a foreign land. An excellent legacy imo. I would like to read that book about you and your family and all the battles you fought for the economically and socially oppressed. Has that book been written and if not why not and why don't you write it. All you need to do is describe all the events that happened, someone else could record into a computer. I would buy that book, it sounds very interesting.
The book has nothing to do with my family except my grandmother was a teacher and her generation of teachers thought they were defending democracy in the classroom by helping children learn to read, write and do math, all are about learning HOW to think. They also taught good citizenship. The book is based on the old books I have read and collected regarding education. The purpose is to understand the importance of culture and the importance of education for transmitting that culture. That is the only way it is possible to have liberty and justice.
I quit working on the book and a blog I started because my brain is not functioning well enough to do those things. On the fun side, several of my stories were published in a book about hippies. On the serious side, a few newspapers published my ideas about social justice over a period of many years. Now my greatest wish is for someone, who does have writing skills and shares my interest, who will pay attention to my collection of old books and write about what education, culture, liberty, and justice have to do with each other. It drives me crazy to listen to the news and all the talk about all the problems we have, and NO ONE CONNECTS THOSE PROBLEMS WITH IMITATING GERMANY. I don't care who explains what happened I just want the media to stop talking as though what is happening is a complete mystery. It is not a complete mystery. It is the same thing that happened to Athens, Rome, and Germany. However, I think we can keep it simple and simply say adopting the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education put the US on the same path Germany followed.
What about seeing Putin fall after Russia experiences a Vietnam type defeat against Ukraine?
I don't need to live to see that, but if it did happen, it would please me very much. However, remember we thought war with Afghanistan was the USSR's Vietnam war, and we armed the folks like Bin Laden and gave them training, and when the USSR walked out we walked in. Wouldn't it be fun if we could replay history like we used to be able to replay the early Nintendo games?
Vietnam and Afghanistan are our failures just as Athens got carried away with its military success and started abusing its power. We have a problem with understanding morals. We should not behave as we do not want others to behave.
What about meeting a child in a store or on the street who fires one of those smiles at you which is just indescribable in its sublime honesty and innocence?
Last Wednesday I met a man at the senior center and I am praying he is there this coming Wednesday. A couple of months ago he had a stroke that makes it impossible for him to think and he is homeless. I can get him into shelter but I have to find him to do that. Last week I left the room to wash dishes and hoped he would stay and play Bingo until I got done with the dishes. I knew better. It was obvious he was not capable of playing without help and everyone else was avoiding him. If I see him this week I am not leaving him until I know where is sleeping so I can find him again. I hate it when I am trying to help a homeless person and I can not find them. My sister deals with the problem daily. It feels great to get someone to the hospital in time or get them into housing or give them a tent, but there are a lot of bad moments too.
If I had the kind of relationship with my family that your mother has, I would do as your mother is doing. I hope you realize how important that is to the decision.
quote="universeness;735098"]Perhaps there are still some movies you need to see Athena.
Some good things you still have to witness.[/quote]
Hum, the title of this thread is life sucks and you are arguing we should want something so much we are willing to stay alive for it. I see a chance for some philosophical thinking here.
I kept a high school notebook. When I was 16 or 17 years old I wrote a story about a woman who was given artificial parts every time a part of her body malfunctioned. She could not die because her artificial parts kept her alive. This is a horror story because everyone she cared about had died and the only thing she wanted was death.
I still agree with that. My time in history is past and just about everyone I know is glad to be close to the end. What we have today is not new and improved or more efficient to us. What we value is in the past, not the future, and don't want to be part of the future we see coming. My family appreciates that I intend to end my life if I am diagnosed with something like Alzheimer's or ALS and that I will not become a burden to them. What should I want more than peace with my life and the end? Winning a million-dollar lottery could be fun, but that is not likely.
It's quite surprising that there are no documented cases of people suiciding out of, well, curiosity and nothing else.
I wish that were true but many children are dying because of a stupid social media challenge.
Bruce Vielmetti:Parents of children who died during 'Blackout Challenge' sue ...https://www.jsonline.com › story › news › 2022/07/05 › p...
Jul 5, 2022 — Milwaukee parents sue TikTok over the death of their daughter, 9, who hanged herself during 'Blackout Challenge' The parents of a 9-year-old ...
Agent SmithSeptember 05, 2022 at 00:40#7360750 likes
Reply to Athena There are a lot of unexplained suicides. The cops immediately suspect murder but my hunch is that not all of 'em are.
Universeness and I had a discussion on that issue a coupla days ago.
“The highest risk groups are older men,” says Pearson. “In fact, white men who are 85 and older have a rate of suicide that’s 4 times the national average.”
I think there could be a philosophical explanation for this. Or a psychological cause that everyone wants to deny- getting old really sucks! I had a good friend who killed herself because she could not bare to lose her independence and was left alone far too much as emphysema slowly took her life. But there are also biological considerations.
Over the decades, Arango and her colleagues have conducted detailed studies of brain structure and biology in hundreds of suicide victims. They’ve found that certain brain regions in suicide have fewer nerve cells and altered receptors for neurotransmitters. Abnormalities related to the neurotransmitter serotonin have been linked to suicide in many studies. Scientists have not yet figured out if these flaws in serotonin directly contribute to suicide or—more likely—if serotonin is one part of a complicated chemical pathway to suicide. Serotonin is also believed to play a key role in depression and response to stress and trauma.
Agent SmithSeptember 05, 2022 at 01:01#7360830 likes
So, in principle, an assassin could simply lace a cup of coffee with serotonin and make the victim kill himself? The perfect murder. Let's not go giving killers ideas now, ok?
In ethics and other branches of philosophy, suicide poses difficult questions, answered differently by various philosophers. The French Algerian essayist, novelist, and playwright Albert Camus (1913–1960) began his philosophical essay The Myth of Sisyphus with the famous line "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide" (French: Il n'y a qu'un problème philosophique vraiment sérieux : c'est le suicide).[1]
Contents
1 Arguments against suicide
1.1 Absurdism
1.2 Christian-inspired philosophy
1.3 Liberalism
1.4 Deontology
1.5 Social contract
1.6 Aristotle
2 Neutral and situational stances
2.1 Honor
2.2 Utilitarianism
3 Arguments that suicide is permissible
3.1 Idealism
3.2 Libertarianism
3.3 Stoicism
3.4 Confucianism
3.5 Other arguments
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links
Agent SmithSeptember 05, 2022 at 01:10#7360860 likes
Merci beaucoup for the link; I have a feeling I've already bookmarked it on my browser. I'm mostly concerned about so-called unexplained suicides which I define as those suicides that simply don't make sense - no financial issues, no chronic illnesses, no mental disorders, you get the idea. Such people who take their own life do so for no reason at all - someone is at his office, doing his work, and suddenly he says to himself "You know what, I think I'll kill myself; I just feel like it!" and then jumps out the window. These suicides are what I find worthy of further investigation.
So, in principle, an assassin could simply lace a cup of coffee with serotonin and make the victim kill himself? The perfect murder. Let's not go giving killers ideas now, ok?
But I paid good money for the service.
I like what my grandson said about dying. "I don't mind dying, I just don't want to see it coming."
I think most of us, if not all of us, want our deaths to be very fast. You know, the sudden heart attack or going to bed at night and just not waking up. But there is something good to say about having time to say our goodbyes and come to terms with the parting.
Agent SmithSeptember 05, 2022 at 01:13#7360890 likes
Merci beaucoup for the link; I have a feeling I've already bookmarked it on my browser. I'm mostly concerned about so-called unexplained suicides which I define as those suicides that simply don't make sense - no financial issues, no chronic illnesses, no mental disorders, you get the idea. Such people who take their own life do so for no reason at all - someone is at his office, doing his work, and suddenly he says to himself "You know what, I think I'll kill myself; I just feel like it!" and then jumps out the window. These suicides are what I find worthy of further investigation.
Now that one could be brain chemistry. It could be something like the depression some women have after giving birth to a child because their hormones get messed up. The news health link explains the possible brain chemical problem.
Agent SmithSeptember 05, 2022 at 01:23#7360940 likes
Now that one could be brain chemistry. It could be something like the depression some women have after giving birth to a child because their hormones get messed up. The news health link explains the possible brain chemical problem
Indeed, so-called "chemical imbalances" (in the brain) can trigger unusual behavior including but not limited to suicide. However, they, to my reckoning, don't happen spontaneously - there's got to be an (external) cause (depression due to social/financial/romantic/etc. issues).
My interest is solely in suiciders with normal brains.
universenessSeptember 05, 2022 at 09:52#7361710 likes
I know, I wasn't referring to that book you have started writing. I was referring to the book about your family members involved in fighting for basic human rights, that I think you should all write. From what you have typed so far, that sounds like it would be a very interesting book.
Last Wednesday I met a man at the senior center and I am praying he is there this coming Wednesday. A couple of months ago he had a stroke that makes it impossible for him to think and he is homeless. I can get him into shelter but I have to find him to do that. Last week I left the room to wash dishes and hoped he would stay and play Bingo until I got done with the dishes. I knew better. It was obvious he was not capable of playing without help and everyone else was avoiding him. If I see him this week I am not leaving him until I know where is sleeping so I can find him again. I hate it when I am trying to help a homeless person and I can not find them. My sister deals with the problem daily. It feels great to get someone to the hospital in time or get them into housing or give them a tent, but there are a lot of bad moments too.
Let me use one of those theistic morality tales you are fond of.
The story of the rich folks rolling their gold coins into the collection boxes, when a poor old bedraggled woman roles a small copper coin in and Jesus talks about how the old woman's contribution is worth more that all the gold coins rolled in by the rich put together. The idea being that the rich wont miss those coins but the old woman probably wont eat as much that day. This is a lead in to the 'rich man, the camel and the eye of a needle,' crescendo. You give of yourself to help others. This is much more that Bill Gates writing charity cheques. You love what you do so keep doing it until your last breath.
I like what my grandson said about dying. "I don't mind dying, I just don't want to see it coming."
I like Woddy Allan's 'I am not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens.' and what Spike Milligan has on his gravestone, 'I told you I was ill!'
I also like the many old gravestones and even some modern ones i'm sure, with the words:
As you are now, so once was I,
As I am now, so will you be,
Prepare yourself to follow me.
We are all going the same way, unless there is a major breakthrough in transhumanism or some kind of cloning tech that your brain can be transplanted into. We will all die but perhaps not today or tomorrow or.... whatever! That's all we get for now. I agree with euthanasia or assisted suicide but only when the alternative are ALL very bad!
universenessSeptember 05, 2022 at 10:06#7361730 likes
If I had the kind of relationship with my family that your mother has, I would do as your mother is doing. I hope you realize how important that is to the decision.
I do and I don't know the details of the rift in your own family but I had many major fall outs with siblings and my parents in my life. My mother was always the main person who would work so hard to bring family members back together. It took some years to achieve in some cases due to the nature of some of the fall outs.
I can only exemplify from my own experience, only you know if there is anyway to close the rifts in your own family.
I know, I wasn't referring to that book you have started writing. I was referring to the book about your family members involved in fighting for basic human rights, that I think you should all write. From what you have typed so far, that sounds like it would be a very interesting book.
Really? I never thought of that. What would be interesting about that? Do you know Jefferson plagiarized John Locke? But John Locke said "life, liberty, and property" not "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
I suppose we could do a thread about the moral demands of our human rights. But the brain issue means I won't be writing any books. Now that I am experiencing this, I wonder if it was not also behind Hemmingway's suicide.
Hemingway's Suicide Caused by his Doctors - Dr. Gabe Mirkinhttps://www.drmirkin.com › histories-and-mysteries › h...
Apr 15, 2022 — He was driven to suicide by extreme pain, depression and loss of mental function. Taking a routine family history should have led his doctor to ...
I think it is wrong to blame the doctors. So far we can not stop the deterioration of our brains and bodies.
You love what you do so keep doing it until your last breath.
The issue of this thread is life sucks and I am saying old age sucks. I am not sure I should still be driving and what I do depends on driving, unless I could get into a large facility and be allowed to be useful. I am explaining old age can mean losing our independence and becoming useless. The philosophical arguments for suicide express my thoughts of this situation.
Wikipedia:Confucianism holds that failure to follow certain values is worse than death; hence, suicide can be morally permissible, and even praiseworthy, if it is done for the sake of those values. The Confucian emphasis on loyalty, self-sacrifice, and honour has tended to encourage altruistic suicide.[13] Confucius wrote, "For gentlemen of purpose and men of ren while it is inconceivable that they should seek to stay alive at the expense of ren, it may happen that they have to accept death in order to have ren accomplished."[14] Mencius wrote:[15]
Fish is what I want; bear's palm is also what I want. If I cannot have both, I would rather take bear's palm than fish. Life is what I want; yi is also what I want. If I cannot have both, I would rather take yi than life. On the one hand, though life is what I want, there is something I want more than life. That is why I do not cling to life at all cost. On the other hand, though death is what I loathe, there is something I loathe more than death. That is why there are dangers I do not avoid ... Yet there are ways of remaining alive and ways of avoiding death to which a person will not resort. In other words, there are things a person wants more than life and there are also things he or she loathes more than death.
I can only exemplify from my own experience, only you know if there is anyway to close the rifts in your own family.
You are working so hard to rescue me and that is sweet, but after caring for my mother with ALS and my grandmother with Alzheimer's disease it is a matter of honor to end my life when I still can. My son and daughter were teenagers when the family moved my grandmother into my home and they know they do not want to deal with caring for me. It is not a family disagreement but all of us knowing the unpleasant reality. Death is not the worst thing. We all die, Some Buddhists think of death daily as an intentional preparation for death.
If I had a million dollars I would create a space for people wanting to end their lives. We celebrate birthdays and weddings and why not dying? The space I would create would be surrounded by nature and inside I would use projectors to project on the walls any scenery a person may want. There would also be a sound system and the space would accommodate the friends and family who want to be there. Some native Americans gather when a family member is crossing over. Where I live we have the right to die and I think it would be nice to make the moment as pleasant as possible.
Now I have to go take care of someone's dog before going to work. The man is back in the hospital. I really don't like caring for his dog but it must be done. I hope he comes home from the hospital soon. Just a heads up, I may be busy for a while. Not that I have that much to do but I need to rest and when my energy is low I can not think well enough to write even a post.
universenessSeptember 05, 2022 at 16:46#7363000 likes
Really? I never thought of that. What would be interesting about that?
The real lives of people are far more interesting that fiction. I have just finished the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. His portrayal of the Mexican war and his experiences in the America civil war, increased my knowledge and understanding of what drives people in very significant ways.
Your family has gained a lot of experience about how people live with economic, political and social abuse at the extremes of the society they exist within. That is very important on so many levels.
Do you know Jefferson plagiarized John Locke? But John Locke said "life, liberty, and property" not "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
There are many arguments and counter arguments about who said what, when and why etc. You can only study the evidence yourself and judge accordingly. I would need at least 1000 years of life to even start to know the truth about what I really need to know the truth about.
But the brain issue means I won't be writing any books.
So dont write them, talk them, matbe your sister would type what you talk and would add her own stuff, maybe its the book that could help heal the family rifts. Suggest it as a social responsibility project towards helping the next generation understand the issue of homelessness and economic abuse, make it a business proposition, no emotional content so you can all ignore the family rifts.
The issue of this thread is life sucks and I am saying old age sucks.
I understand your complaint Athena. I sent you a song with the words 'dont give up' repeated often.
I even cited Helen Keller who had many 'cant do's to cope with but still lived to her last breath.
It's your life and your choice when to terminate it. I am just giving you my personal pennies worth that you should not surrender without declaring war first and losing every battle, and even then......
By all means read the words of Confucius and anyone else you choose but it's your life not theirs.
universenessSeptember 05, 2022 at 17:20#7363090 likes
it is a matter of honor to end my life when I still can.
You have no idea what might happen in the time you have left. There may be more people you need to help and if you are not there then they may also perish before their time. How honourable is that?
Yes, you're right! I have just laid a unfair burden of guilt on you. So if you help another few people because you decided to stay a little longer then Kudos for me as well!
My son and daughter were teenagers when the family moved my grandmother into my home and they know they do not want to deal with caring for me. It is not a family disagreement but all of us knowing the unpleasant reality.
My own father went through 6 years of deterioration before he died due to multiple brain infarctions. He saw hallucinations all around him. He eventually reverted to an almost child like state with symptoms very similar to Alzheimer's but he had some lovely, rare moments of lucidity as well and he had many tender moments with my mother and his family before he died. My mother was also the main force when her mother took Alzheimer's as her father and her 6 brothers were not able to cope with it. 8 years of it.
My mother also states that if she took Alzheimer's she would rather just be gone. So I do understand your point of view but I know my mother would not surrender easily and I am sure you will do the same.
If we spent more money on medical research instead of paying it out to shareholders then perhaps we would have cured Alzheimer's by now.
If I had a million dollars I would create a space for people wanting to end their lives. We celebrate birthdays and weddings and why not dying? The space I would create would be surrounded by nature and inside I would use projectors to project on the walls any scenery a person may want.
Have you been watching the assisted suicide scene from the film Soylent green again?:
So dont write them, talk them, maybe your sister would type what you talk about.
It is possible to use technology to type the spoken word, but I have always thought better when writing. If I can not write the thought then I am even less likely to speak it. Kind of the reverse of others who get writer's block and can not think of what to write. I used to spend my whole day, day after day with cups of coffee and at least a pack of cigarettes and writing. When I learned, that with a computer we can move whole paragraphs around, I bought one made before the internet. A young man programmed it for me so it did what I wanted it to do as easily as Windows.
Oh how I love those days. Caffeine and nicotine are the writer's friends. And being in the creative flow is better than good sex. :lol: I was also a night janitor and at night the world was mine. I loved being alone in buildings going through my routine and setting the scene for tomorrow's performance. I would so do that again if I could. Loosing my ability to do that, is for me, like it is for a star athlete who can no longer compete. Cleaning a bank is a good balance to writing. I eventually got a good partner and we would go to the Larry and Kath's restaurant for our break. Oh my, those were good days.
My sister and I were raised by a single mother when women did women's work for low pay and there were not many opportunities for them to do otherwise. When the hippie movement started our mother said she though she was always a hippie. Even though we had very little money, we always had enough to share with those less fortunate than us. Not until high school did I realize we were the poor, only our mother was intent on being middle class and our grandmother was a professional, a school teacher when school teachers didn't earn that much money. My sister had a career that means retiring with money and I am blown away that she has been so committed to resolving homeless problems. But that sure comes from our mother!
Oh man, it is time for me to pick up a client. At least I am going in a very good mood after thinking about the things that made me happy and why my sister and I are determined to help others.
universenessSeptember 07, 2022 at 16:36#7369970 likes
Reply to Athena
My mother spends a lot of time reminiscing and talking about the past and events in her life. It's a nice way to spend time with family over drinks etc but the only trouble is that we know all the stories. Still, I think she is happy when reminiscing, worth living for, to remember!
My mother spends a lot of time reminiscing and talking about the past and events in her life. It's a nice way to spend time with family over drinks etc but the only trouble is that we know all the stories. Still, I think she is happy when reminiscing, worth living for, to remember!
That is what I mean. We are full of life and our lives are what is behind us. Old age is a time of coming to peace with our lives. Sooner or later just getting dressed for the day is a chore. I make myself go to the pool and swim laps and work out in the weight room because I know my life will get worse if I don't, but it also does not mean having the body I once had and being able to do the things I once did.
:lol: As I struggle to get out of a chair, I complain to the women over 90 about how hard it is, and they assure me it gets worse and they don't like what happens to us either. In general, we are surprised that we are not the people we once were and that just getting through the day is harder than we thought it would be. On the other hand, we are glad we don't have the stresses younger people have and we are glad to leave this planet because we don't like some of the changes. Mostly we miss the receptionist answering the phone and the custom of trying to please the person who made the call, instead of expecting the person to know the organization and the right number or the right person to speak with, and company policy that clearly is not about pleasing the person who needs the service. In many cases what we are dealing with is far more complex and inefficient than in the past and so bloody cold and impersonal or excessively cheerful and not professional! We really feel sorry for the young.
It is hard to imagine knowing we die and not preparing for it. I have been preparing for death for as long as I can remember. Just in case there is life after death I make an effort to know as much as I can. I do not want to be sitting at the great dining table in the sky with the great people of history and be totally ignorant. :sad: If there is nothing after this life, I have still enjoyed all the learning. My life is much richer than it would be if I had not put so much effort into learning.
Have you been watching the assisted suicide scene from the film Soylent green again?:
That was pretty good. Not exactly as I imagined a place for dying but close. It is sad because there was no family or friends with him. When my granddaughter and a cousin sat in a room with the cousin's dying sister, they reminisced about the past and cracked jokes, and laugh a lot. Judging by the heart monitor the dying woman was good with what was happening even though she could not communicate because of severe brain damage, but when her X came in and got all dramatic, it was obvious that was not what she wanted and the man was removed from the room.
I am not sure if there is life after death, but I suspect people who have crossed over have communicated with me.
On the subject of life sucks, I remember a cartoon from many years ago when I was struggling with depression. The cartoon was a man at the service counter in heaven. The caption read, "I don't like life. Do you have anything better to offer?" That helped me decide it was up to me to make the best out of life that I can because there is nothing better than life. And going from the video you posted, I don't think there are many planets as good as ours. With all our natural disasters, earthquakes, volcanoes etc. this is still a pretty nice planet. And I bet the people who are struggling to survive because of flooding or drought, are not thinking about killing themselves but are thinking about how they will survive.
universenessSeptember 08, 2022 at 16:56#7373650 likes
That was pretty good. Not exactly as I imagined a place for dying but close. It is sad because there was no family or friends with him.
He had his best friend with him, played by Charlton Heston! He was behind the glass and he spoke to him about the scene's he was seeing of the way the Earth used to be. Big Charlton who played Inspector Thorn ended up in tears. This was Edward G Robinsons last film and he died soon after it was made.
And going from the video you posted, I don't think there are many planets as good as ours. With all our natural disasters, earthquakes, volcanoes etc. this is still a pretty nice planet. And I bet the people who are struggling to survive because of flooding or drought, are not thinking about killing themselves but are thinking about how they will survive.
Unfortunately, Soylent Green is a dystopian movie about what will happen to the world if our stewardship of it does not improve. The old guy chooses suicide as the planet is fast running out of food.
I agree with you that the Earth is beautiful and only a fool would choose to live life as a curse.
I also see the solar system as a blank canvas, just waiting for humans to leave the planetary nest and start to mould it and make it a place which is much more alive that it is now.
Looks like we will have a permanent moon base soon, once the Artemis1 rocket actually launches and starts the process.
Unfortunately, Soylent Green is a dystopian movie about what will happen to the world if our stewardship of it does not improve. The old guy chooses suicide as the planet is fast running out of food.
I agree with you that the Earth is beautiful and only a fool would choose to live life as a curse.
I also see the solar system as a blank canvas, just waiting for humans to leave the planetary nest and start to mould it and make it a place which is much more alive that it is now.
Looks like we will have a permanent moon base soon, once the Artemis1 rocket actually launches and starts the process.
I think I will need to watch Soylent Green. Right now I can't watch the Babylon 5 video. I have someone sleeping on my floor. He had a stroke a couple of months ago and isn't doing well. I am hoping a friend will be willing to take him in until he gets plugged into the assistance system and has a better place to stay than in his car. Because of his stroke, he is having trouble thinking things through. I am praying I do not get an eviction notice for helping him. And now can speak of morality?
If we do not want to become as Nasi Germany we really need to turn around and head in a different direction. I am hoping what I have to say fits in the theme of 'life sucks". Like really, democracy is supposed to be about raising the human potential and making life better. Our liberty is not a license to do anything we please, but it is the freedom to choose the right thing and that goes with responsibility for our choices.
I have been listening to an audio tape about the Greek legacy, the Greek gods, Homer, the philosophers, etc.. Homer makes it very clear it is our duty to help those who pass our way and need help. I think every civilization begins with a notion that we should do unto others as we would have them do to us.
Now if you had a stroke and could not remember how to get from point A to point B because you had no short-term memory and you could not think through how to meet your needs, how would you want to be treated? As I decent person what should you and I be doing?
I am quite sure your answer would be a good defense for why I should not be evicted for bringing a homeless person into my home but we live with laws that prevent us from doing the moral thing. How is this any different from Naxi Germany? The theme of this thread is life sucks, and I argue preventing people from doing the right thing, does lead to a very unpleasant reality. "I was just following orders".
Indeed, so-called "chemical imbalances" (in the brain) can trigger unusual behavior including but not limited to suicide. However, they, to my reckoning, don't happen spontaneously - there's got to be an (external) cause (depression due to social/financial/romantic/etc. issues).
My interest is solely in suiciders with normal brains.
I spoke with a man who specialized in counseling suicidal people and I asked him if that was not terribly depressing for him. In a very positive tone of voice, he said no because people are willing to die for something they would live for but they don't know how to get it. He saw his job as helping people figure out how to get what they are willing to die for. He sounded so positive I think he was pretty successful at doing that.
A death wish sometimes comes with grief. I think that is spontaneous but it can take a while to figure out how to end one's life.
For the first time in world history there are more people on the planet over age 65 than under five.
That will have profound implications for the trajectory of human population and thus of human civilization.
I think you are correct. When the people who need our care are proficient at making their needs known and they vote on how we meet the needs of others, that could have a profound effect on civilization.
Also we may become wiser. Young people remember facts. Older people begin to understand the meaning of those facts and are better at grasping complex concepts. Unfortunately, the benefit may not last and many older people experience a mental decline and for physical and mental reasons may require more help and be less useful.
I hope we rethink many things, such as what qualifies a person to do a job. Merit hiring is useful for some things, but sometimes a person's experience and character are more important to a job. I think education for technology, and merit hiring, have been dehumanizing. I would like to see a shift to more humanitarian concerns and that might come with an aging population.
Agent SmithSeptember 11, 2022 at 14:36#7383840 likes
Reply to Athena As you can see, I'm, in a sense, looking for a person who would be willing, no, more than happy, to die for nothing, essentially violating the PSR. To die for something, boring! To die for nothing, now that's what sets a person apart from the rest!
Aramis: The King has ordered me to seek out the secret general of the Jesuits and to kill him.
Porthos: You should let the secret general worry about that.
Aramis: Problem is that, ah... I am he.
:snicker:
universenessSeptember 11, 2022 at 19:14#7384190 likes
He had a stroke a couple of months ago and isn't doing well. I am hoping a friend will be willing to take him in until he gets plugged into the assistance system and has a better place to stay than in his car. Because of his stroke, he is having trouble thinking things through. I am praying I do not get an eviction notice for helping him. And now can speak of morality?
I can only feel anger inside at such situations. There should be adequate social services available at a local level to help people effectively and fully in such circumstances. You should be fully supported in your efforts to assist this man and if a landlord threatens you with eviction, then that landlord should not be treated kindly for such an act.
Our liberty is not a license to do anything we please, but it is the freedom to choose the right thing and that goes with responsibility for our choices.
:clap: I couldn't agree more. Judge people by what they do, not what they say they will do or by what possessions they have or who their family is.
I am quite sure your answer would be a good defense for why I should not be evicted for bringing a homeless person into my home but we live with laws that prevent us from doing the moral thing. How is this any different from Naxi Germany? The theme of this thread is life sucks, and I argue preventing people from doing the right thing, does lead to a very unpleasant reality. "I was just following orders".
I can only echo your sentiments, second your emotions and add another old adage. 'Evil thrives most when good people do nothing.'
Agent SmithSeptember 12, 2022 at 08:08#7386300 likes
Argument against antinatalism
1. Suffering = Dying [premise]
2. If you mind suffering, you mind dying [from 1]
3. If you mind dying, you mind death [premise]
4. If you mind suffering, you mind death [2, 3 HS]
5. Death = Nonexistence [premise]
6. If you mind suffering, you mind nonexistence [from 4, 5]
7. If you mind nonexistence, antinatalism is false [premise]
8. If you mind suffering, antinatalism is false [6, 7 HS]
I can only feel anger inside at such situations. There should be adequate social services available at a local level to help people effectively and fully in such circumstances. You should be fully supported in your efforts to assist this man and if a landlord threatens you with eviction, then that landlord should not be treated kindly for such an act.
Thank you thank you! That is the very meaning of our liberty!
What you said is very important to me. I have offended a friend who is a Christain and could have helped him but instead was totally self-centered and told me if I got evicted for breaking the rules it would be my fault for making that decision. I don't think she gets the moral decision and what you said about evil. Time and again I have seen evil take hold because people would not stand together to oppose it. We are going in the wrong direction by making it illegal to help others. Not even mothers dare help their grown children if they are doing drugs, without fear of eviction. Can you imagine! Laws that prevent family from helping family, And then we turn around and blame gays for ruining family values. It is not the gays ruining family values. It is education for a technological society and the values of that society, which turn to dependency on the state instead of dependency on family and each other. Does that make sense? Can you see that?
:lol: "Give me liberty or give me death." I am adding that to give some continuity to what we were talking about. Many people are not happy with social changes such as replacing the old-fashioned receptionist with recordings and all the specialization that makes doing business very complicated. And having to call 3 or 5 different offices to find the right person for the job is not efficient! We want the receptionist who knew everything and saw it as her job to find the department we need to speak with. The receptionist did all the work and we could depend on her to get us the information or whatever else we needed. That specialization is new. In the past we were generalists and the receptionist knew more than the man at the top because she thought it was her job to know the organization and how to help people. Phone trees are hell. They are impersonal and force us to be submissive to technology and that is right next to ignoring our Jewish neighbors are being taken away. I grew up with the notion we answer to God, not human authority.
Right now someone claiming to have a bedroom for rent is wanting us to complete an application and send money, before we even see the bedroom. :gasp: We are texting and I made it clear, that we do business face to face and see the bedroom or we don't do business. Craig's list is known for scams and I will not bend on meeting people face to face.
Reply to Agent Smith To kill one's self or not is partly intellectual and partly emotional. I don't think the decision can be reduced to a purely rational one. Everything you mentioned has a moral weight and that involves feelings. I am willing to die for some things but not others and that is because of the moral weight or the factors involved in the decision.
Agent SmithSeptember 14, 2022 at 16:11#7393780 likes
Reply to Athena To be frank I'm not worried as much about dying for x than I am about killing for y.
universenessSeptember 15, 2022 at 08:55#7395580 likes
I also have examples of 'warnings' or 'proposed consequences,' If I interfered. I was given a letter by my own union to cross a picket line by office staff on strike at the school I worked in, I DID NOT, nor ever will cross a picket line, no matter what shit letter I was given. It became regional policy within our school system, that a teacher should not physically break up a fight between pupils for fear of getting accused of assaulting the pupils involved. I HAVE ALWAYS, physically broken up any fight I have came across between pupils. I would never stand by and watch pupils hurt each other, damn the consequences, and so on.....
It is education for a technological society and the values of that society, which turn to dependency on the state instead of dependency on family and each other. Does that make sense? Can you see that?
I am a socialist/humanist. I believe that the means of production, distribution and exchange of any significant size should be owned by the people, for the people and not as a means of generating profit for the rich or those who aspire to become such. I would also not allow any private citizen to own land. Technology which assists the means of production distribution and exchange must also benefit all people and not just the very few. I advocate for getting rid of money as the main controller of exchange.
The state must serve the people and support family as well as family supporting each other.
We want the receptionist who knew everything and saw it as her job to find the department we need to speak with. The receptionist did all the work and we could depend on her to get us the information or whatever else we needed. That specialization is new. In the past we were generalists and the receptionist knew more than the man at the top because she thought it was her job to know the organization and how to help people. Phone trees are hell. They are impersonal and force us to be submissive to technology and that is right next to ignoring our Jewish neighbors are being taken away. I grew up with the notion we answer to God, not human authority.
I have no problem with automated systems that work. I would like to offer all receptionists the opportunity to follow their vocations and be able to take their basic means of survival for granted.
I am not trivialising the problems you raise in your quote above but it's our collective responsibility to ensure that any automated system improves the lives and personal security of people and does not reduce it in any way. I would not blame technology for people ignoring the forced removal of their neighbours (due to the fact they were Jewish or based on any other such unacceptable reasoning). I would blame the people who use technology for such purposes. Guns don't kill people, people kill people but it's still really dumb to arm your citizens in the way they do in the USA.
Right now someone claiming to have a bedroom for rent is wanting us to complete an application and send money, before we even see the bedroom. :gasp: We are texting and I made it clear, that we do business face to face and see the bedroom or we don't do business. Craig's list is known for scams and I will not bend on meeting people face to face.
The situation you describe above is because you live under a horrible, capitalist, free market economy (as do I), where private landlords can almost do as they like. If you had a lot more money, you would not have to deal with these 'basic survival' issues you currently have to deal with. Is that how people should be forced to live? Completely controlled by how much money you can access? It's other humans that force this way of life and they are actually very few in number, globally.
They need to be 'overthrown,' permanently!
A newlywed couple or a child reaching the age of 18, should be provided with good quality accommodation, free of charge, as a human right from cradle to grave. Competitive fighting pits, such as Craig's list should not be able to exist.
Hum, I have been listening to lectures about ancient Greek ideas on character and morals. How could you describe your character? Does your character allow you to do what is wrong?
javi2541997September 15, 2022 at 14:02#7395940 likes
This is the thread I was thinking of yesterday.
Whenever I received the message: unsuitable I thought my life is a completely disaster. I came across to think that suffering from failures doesn't help anyone. It is a very complex task to accept how we are and how we can better persons both professional and personal.
I don't even know why I am optimist right know... I guess is thanks to Greek mythology or Japanese way of Bushido.
Anyway, I feel better whenever I share my thoughts and problems around here. It is better to just keep it them only with myself.
universenessSeptember 15, 2022 at 14:24#7395980 likes
Reply to Athena
Are you asking me these questions Athena? I will assume you are.
My character is for others to judge but I hope I am judged by others on what I do.
I would describe my character as nuanced, myriad, conflicted and complex but I try to live as much as I can by the golden rule. I am capable of utter hatred towards those who live by exploiting or abusing others.
I will do wrong in the service of what I believe to be right and just.
Would I cause the death of innocents to destroy a greater evil. In the final analysis and if I could find no other way, then probably yes, but could I live with myself afterwards like Truman or Churchill, probably no.
I also have examples of 'warnings' or 'proposed consequences,' If I interfered. I was given a letter by my own union to cross a picket line by office staff on strike at the school I worked in, I DID NOT, nor ever will cross a picket line, no matter what shit letter I was given. It became regional policy within our school system, that a teacher should not physically break up a fight between pupils for fear of getting accused of assaulting the pupils involved. I HAVE ALWAYS, physically broken up any fight I have came across between pupils. I would never stand by and watch pupils hurt each other, damn the consequences, and so on.....
And in the US, liberty meant that is your decision. No one could force you to do that and no one could prevent you from doing that. Destroying that liberty is to become as Nazi Germany where authority decided what people would and would not do. The consequences of destroying our liberty are social destruction and this pushes us to the controversy of our right to carry guns. Our problem is we have serious social problems that make it unsafe to allow individuals to own guns. And that brings us back to education. In ancient Athens, education was lifelong and about citizenship. If we do not recapture that connection between liberty and education, we are doomed.
I am a socialist/humanist. I believe that the means of production, distribution and exchange of any significant size should be owned by the people, for the people and not as a means of generating profit for the rich or those who aspire to become such. I would also not allow any private citizen to own land. Technology which assists the means of production distribution and exchange must also benefit all people and not just the very few. I advocate for getting rid of money as the main controller of exchange. The state must serve the people and support family as well as family supporting each other.
I do not agree with that paragraph. I am in favor of private ownership and control. However, not laissez-faire economics. A policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering. have been mentally lazy and ignored all the issues of economics and we are not well-informed voters.
I am not trivialising the problems you raise in your quote above but it's our collective responsibility to ensure that any automated system improves the lives and personal security of people and does not reduce it in any way. I would not blame technology for people ignoring the forced removal of their neighbours (due to the fact they were Jewish or based on any other such unacceptable reasoning). I would blame the people who use technology for such purposes. Guns don't kill people, people kill people but it's still really dumb to arm your citizens in the way they do in the USA.
Oh, what a delicious argument you opened. I think if you were aware of how technology has changed our expectations and our values and how we think you would see the social change more clearly. This subject is so complex I don't know where to begin. Perhaps a thread about how technology has changed our lives and the input of many people would be helpful.
The receptionist was someone who served everyone, her employer and the public. That is a frame of mind. That is not what someone is thinking when answering the phone today. What rules our thinking is policy and organization. The job of answering the phone has been narrowly defined and the person answering that phone knows nothing except the correct connection that needs to be made and the person who answers the phone has no power but reacts like a programmed switch. If the person answering the phone steps beyond the definition of the job, s/he will be reprimanded. The control is at the top not with the individual. This is why I object to none of us having private property and control. I fear nothing worse than that control from the top. As Tocqueville said our democracy would be a despot and everything is fine as long as everyone appreciates the decisions from the top. Have you read Tocqueville's book "Democracy in America" written around 1830? As a teacher that might be the most important book, you could offer your students if they are old enough. Living under the decisions made at the top may not be the way to go. Like Locke said about the king/father, that would be fine if like the parent the king worked for the child to become independent.
The situation you describe above is because you live under a horrible, capitalist, free market economy (as do I), where private landlords can almost do as they like. If you had a lot more money, you would not have to deal with these 'basic survival' issues you currently have to deal with. Is that how people should be forced to live? Completely controlled by how much money you can access? It's other humans that force this way of life and they are actually very few in number, globally.
They need to be 'overthrown,' permanently!
A newlywed couple or a child reaching the age of 18, should be provided with good quality accommodation, free of charge, as a human right from cradle to grave. Competitive fighting pits, such as Craig's list should not be able to exist.
Another delicious disagreement. I think we need to rethink economics but even more important is education for good character and good moral judgment. Only a police state controls everything. Liberty begins with governing oneself and independent thinking. I am old school. Business is done eyeball to eyeball and depends on our good judgment of character and more. If I know you and can deal with you face to face now and in the future, I will hold you accountable for keeping your word and under that condition you may be more concerned about what I think of you and how I will react if you are not a good person. Only when our democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended and this means managing life on a social/cultural level, not depending on the despot to take care of us.
I do not think we should provide for individuals without good cause because then we have people with weak character, doomed to be dependent on others. It is the parent's responsibility to raise children to become independent but they can not do this alone. The parent's efforts must be supported by the school system and youth programs and how about good media all focusing on a good culture and human dignity?
universenessSeptember 15, 2022 at 14:41#7396030 likes
I came across to think that suffering from failures doesn't help anyone. It is a very complex task to accept how we are and how we can better persons both professional and personal.
Anyway, I feel better whenever I share my thoughts and problems around here. It is better to just keep it them only with myself.
For me, It was such a vital moment when I deeply understood that an hour will pass anyway, regardless of my mental state. I CAN CHOOSE to experience that hour as a curse, or I can struggle against such with the intent to defeat it. I choose to fight despair anytime and every time it attack's me. I have experienced more happiness in my life so far than I have experienced despair with this approach.
I will leave it to Captain Kirk to express his and my opinion of personal pain:
I am in favor of private ownership and control. However, not laissez-faire economics. A policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering. have been mentally lazy and ignored all the issues of economics and we are not well-informed voters.
Then you must continue your struggle with your landlord as regards your rent for living where you live and with his/her power to evict you and make you homeless. I will continue to fight for what I believe is a better way.
I think if you were aware of how technology has changed our expectations and our values and how we think you would see the social change more clearly.
I am aware of such and the 'we' you refer to does not include me. I see technological advancement as a sword which cuts both ways. It can be a tool to make the rich richer but it is also a tool that can free the majority from crap jobs and allow them to educate themselves and communicate globally and organise resistance globally.
We all have our favourite books Athena and our favourite commentators and comments from the past.
The only system that is truly about rule from the top is one which sustains a totalitarian monarch, autocrat or self-proclaimed divinity. I would be in armed revolution against such a system if I lived under it. Free market capitalism based on some pseudo-democratic voting system such as the 'first past the post,' system I live under in the UK (although we have made some progression in Scotland with our re-established parliament/government based on a PR voting system), is more common in the west.
Free market capitalism is a much-diluted version of a plutocracy, and it will, inevitably be replaced by a humanist/socialist system imo and technological advances will eventually assist in bringing down free market capitalism as the money trick becomes fully revealed to more and more people.
I will hold you accountable for keeping your word and under that condition you may be more concerned about what I think of you and how I will react if you are not a good person.
I fully agree with you here and this must be the measure of everyone who is given authority over people's lives and who represents their interests.
If socialists/humanists do not or cannot do what they said they would do before they were elected, then they cannot continue in power. I personally would not be concerned about what you or anyone else thinks about me as I would hopefully be too busy trying to ensure I do exactly what I promised to do.
I do not think we should provide for individuals without good cause because then we have people with weak character, doomed to be dependent on others. It is the parent's responsibility to raise children to become independent but they can not do this alone. The parent's efforts must be supported by the school system and youth programs and how about good media all focusing on a good culture and human dignity?
I advocate for 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.'
People are very complex, we have to have a very smart, fair, balanced, compassionate, sociopolitical system which is very very difficult to con or abuse. Not easy to achieve but that remains the goal and always will be the goal if the human race is ever to become able to evolve into a species which is benevolent to the universe it exists in and become an interplanetary and interstellar species.
universenessSeptember 15, 2022 at 15:32#7396190 likes
Amazing quote, friend. If you do not mind I will keep it with me. I feel it so motivational :up:
YOU CAN WIN AGAINST DESPAIR! AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!
Decide/demand/command and FEEL differently! FLIP IT!
When I get those down, desperate, depressing feelings for whatever reason, I will get PISSED OFF and I will FLIP THEM. I will fight them in my head, they will return and I will fight them again and eventually I will win. I will distract myself, I will write, paint, go on to forums, look for old hero's who inspired me and will read or watch them again. I will go out and walk, fast and long, I will........ spend that hour fighting despair and the next one as I know those hours will pass regardless so I choose to fight my inner demons and I can, have and always will defeat them. From hell's teeth I will spit at them!
I CHOOSE LIFE!!!!!
Agent SmithSeptember 15, 2022 at 16:50#7396310 likes
A more nuanced approach to suffering seems to be in order vis-à-vis aurea mediocritas
Both 1 & 2 are incompatible with life. Suicides & CIP (congenital insensitivity to pain) attest to that. Moderate suffering, hitting the sweet spot, where suffering is bearable and also does what it's designed to do, keep us safe and sound is not only desirable but also necessary given the givens of our mental & physical constitution.
So if we could find solutions to excess suffering, natalism has a shot or, inversely, antinatalism stops making sense and as for deficit suffering, current best practice in medicine is to restore the nociceptive system to level 2 (moderate suffering). Google "treatment" for CIP (naloxone) and leprosy (antibiotics).
The future, however, can be radically different - like how bioluminiscence has delinked light from heat, we maybe able to do the same with suffering, decouple the detection of injury from the unpleasantness associated with it.
universenessSeptember 15, 2022 at 17:13#7396350 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
I agree, as do most, if not all rational people imo. Excess suffering remains a problem to be solved and human science is clearly motivated to continue to try to solve it. Advocating a solution of extinction or non-existence, is simply stupid.
L'éléphantSeptember 16, 2022 at 04:00#7397930 likes
It can be. For the one that got left behind. When this person I was very closed to decided to do it, my body went into convulsion and I couldn't feel anything except the ground under me was shaking my whole body. I couldn't cry because I was also numb. If you want to imagine how it felt -- think of screaming your lungs out but no sound comes out.
I suspect that my spirit died that day, but I'm not sure. Because hey, I'm living a "normal" life, interacting with people, having a comfortable life, having sex, having dinner, laughing. I never got the so-called "therapy" for the grieving.
But ask me if I could go back in time, what date would that be. The morning before the death, because then I could stop it. I knew I could. I still believe I could have done something.
Agent SmithSeptember 16, 2022 at 04:08#7397970 likes
I agree, as do most, if not all rational people imo. Excess suffering remains a problem to be solved and human science is clearly motivated to continue to try to solve it. Advocating a solution of extinction or non-existence, is simply stupid.
(Hyper)sensitive peeps, among which number antinatalists, are for me canaries in coal mines - their hyperalgesia is kinda a superpower, buying time for "normal" folks to respond to imminent danger. You could say, in a sense, that hyperalgesics/antinatalists are the nociceptive system of the superorganism that is humanity.
javi2541997September 16, 2022 at 06:13#7398330 likes
The future, however, can be radically different - like how bioluminiscence has delinked light from heat, we maybe able to do the same with suffering, decouple the detection of injury from the unpleasantness associated with it.
Agreed :up:
I only want to add a brief comment on your argument: The suffering or act of suffering caused by uncertainty. We never really know what would happen in the next months or even the next year. If we are positive we would say the things would be better but if we are negative we would say it would be "a bad period of time" again.
To be honest... I think that the only way to face future is attitude and maturity. Keep fighting against the obstacles! :fire:
Agent SmithSeptember 16, 2022 at 06:20#7398340 likes
Yep, uncertainty is the millstone around our necks, the cross we havta bear. I propose we play ... with expectation (worst) and hope (best). If given a choice, I prefer paranoia (le choses sont contre nous), but Forrest Gump showcases pronia, fictional though he may be.
javi2541997September 16, 2022 at 06:24#7398370 likes
universenessSeptember 16, 2022 at 10:53#7398920 likes
Reply to L'éléphant
Thanks for sharing that. All potential suicides should read your post and reflect on how such an action can affect the lives of others. I hope your best moments of joy in life are yet to come.
Maybe reading a post such as yours could even stop a suicide. Let's hope so.
universenessSeptember 16, 2022 at 11:01#7398940 likes
(Hyper)sensitive peeps, among which number antinatalists, are for me canaries in coal mines - their hyperalgesia is kinda a superpower, buying time for "normal" folks to respond to imminent danger. You could say, in a sense, that hyperalgesics/antinatalists are the nociceptive system of the superorganism that is humanity.
Yeah, I feel pity for them too, who wants to be a caged canary? The first to die if the gas escapes, but yeah, perhaps they don't die in vain. We can learn to work harder to solve excessive human suffering due to their complaints regarding their own conceptions of what they regard as their own intolerable lives or what they exemplify as the intolerable lives of others.
universenessSeptember 16, 2022 at 11:03#7398960 likes
Yeah, I feel pity for them too, who wants to be a caged canary? The first to die if the gas escapes, but yeah, perhaps they don't die in vain. We can learn to work harder to solve excessive human suffering due to their complaints regarding their own conceptions of what they regard as their own intolerable lives or what they exemplify as the intolerable lives of others.
[quote=Uncle Ben]With great power comes great responsibility.[/quote]
universenessSeptember 16, 2022 at 12:13#7399130 likes
I fully applaud your intent to fight against despair and I absolutely call you brother in that. I will willingly shout/scream BANAZI with you as we charge with gleaming bayonets drawn, against our common enemy .... despair.
BUT I would have fought whole heartedly against the fascist Japanese in WW 2. I would have killed the guy in the picture, in battle (or at least, I would have tried to) and I would seek to free the subservient looking female in the picture from what seems to be an imposed cultural subservience (but only of-course, if she consented to my interference and help.)
javi2541997September 16, 2022 at 12:20#7399160 likes
I understand and respect your point. I didn't like war (even Mishima was rejected by Japanese army...) but I really respect the Samurai/Bushido thought to fight against despair and dishonour. I think the problem are politicians not the theories.
I want to live as a samurai because I believe in loyalty, friendship, sacrifice as a way of life. I don't see it as a mechanism to put on a battle. I just want to get it right in my life. If I ever acted as a traitor or a malicious man, please kill me or I would commit seppuku.
universenessSeptember 16, 2022 at 12:29#7399190 likes
Reply to javi2541997
I accept your honourable intentions, but I remain concerned about the samurai tradition of obedience to superiors without question. You know such authority can become utterly corrupt, just like some of the politicians you mention. My advice would be to completely abandon that part of Bushido, only be loyal to those who have proven worthy of your loyalty and even then, only for as long as they remain worthy.
javi2541997September 16, 2022 at 12:53#7399260 likes
but I remain concerned about the samurai tradition of obedience to superiors without question. You know such authority can become utterly corrupt, just like some of the politicians you mention.
I am agree that Bushido has some failures in the practice of the doctrine. But to be honest, I really think the problem is not in the samurai's part but in the authority.
It is heartbreaking to see how some superiors do not respect and consider the loyalty of samurais.
Then, the problem is not of Bushido (doctrine) but the vicious politicians and superiors (actors)
universenessSeptember 16, 2022 at 13:11#7399300 likes
High specialised technical or otherwise knowledge comes at the cost of time invested in it. As it would practically be impossible to learn the mechanism of every invention it is better to have the manual or instructions for its replication somewhere.
schopenhauer1October 03, 2022 at 14:36#7444880 likes
Reply to Deus
Addressed in OP that this (specialization) would be brought up and is tangential to the pessimistic point.
Now there will be posters who will wax on about how we are a system and this is tangential to the point. There will also be posters who will try to explain about cultural and economic progression, especially about specialization. And whilst obviously true in a descriptive sense, is tangential to the point.
Not tangential at all. I’ve answer your question fully.
Let me repeat it. For every man made invention there should be a repository of that knowledge/instruction of replicating that invention. When something is invented in a lot of cases it’s also patented.
It has always been thus. Nothing has changed. I am sure that pre-technology the world was just as mysterious as it is today. Life has always been disconnected from what has sustained it.
And one could equally have written: "I’m particularly talking about the aspect of human existence where we cannot understand the forces of nature that we use and replicate. If anything, we can know and/or replicate a very very small portion of it."
In fact, we don't need to "know" what sustains us if our approach is Pragmatic. Pragmatism requires neither a pessimistic nor optimistic frame of mind. Pragmatism works equally well both pre and post-technology. Pragmatism avoids a descent into pessimism because of not "knowing" what sustains us.
I press the enter key. I don't "know" why what happens happens. I am just optimistic that what I intend will happen will happen.
It diminishes us to helpless cogs that can have no real agency.
It is your judgement that we are diminished. Many of us don't feel that way. I think you are a pessimist first by temperament. This seems like just a post hoc search for rational justification, which is not hard to find.
See that, post hoc. Latin jargon. I must be a real philosopher.
It has always been thus. Nothing has changed. I am sure that pre-technology the world was just as mysterious as it is today. Life has always been disconnected from what has sustained it.
The workings of the universe to prehistoric humans would have been mysterious, but there would have been a reverence to the mystery as well. More importantly though, a person and their clan would be able to take care of themselves, making impactful decisions that truly drive the direction in which they live. Goals that were set were clearly defined by those who achieved them, and required the use of the capacities of the entire body. Tools consisted of mechanisms that were understood by everyone who used them.
The modern world is mysterious, but in a mundane and/or perplexing way. Our goals are frequently not defined by us, and the tools we use are always disconnected from our own understanding entirely or nearly so. We use only a subset of our body's capabilities to live - which makes the body atrophy, unless one engages in a clownish routine of maintenance to give the illusion that one's body is being used for what it was meant to be used for. We survive not through our own autonomous efforts but because we satisfy some needed role in an artificial system.
Reply to schopenhauer1 I feel like Hannah Arendt would probably interest you. She's more optimistic than you when it comes to work, but her Human Condition has a ton of illuminating passages on how our ability to create things has almost gotten bigger than us. She says we no longer have the ability to even talk about these things; we've lost the "speech" so to speak about what is we rely on, and any form of understanding is gatekept by the scientists or the people making it. It's unsustainable.
Reply to schopenhauer1 :roll: We do not even "understand" how we move our fingers and toes let alone what our brains are doing moment to moment or even why pessimists bother whinging on and on about "pessimism" ... Big whup. :yawn:
Agent SmithOctober 04, 2022 at 04:50#7447600 likes
The DIY craze (80s-90s) had something to do with post-apocalyptic survival strategies people were thinking up during the US-Soviet nuclear standoff. It was no longer enough to be just able to use machines, it was vital that we know how they work and how to repair/maintain/build them. Machines had to be demystified, their intricate design and mechanisms hadta be, well, declassified in order to ensure a large pool of autodidactic experts who could take up the mantle of deceased doyens if and when necessary. :snicker:
I like sushiOctober 04, 2022 at 05:06#7447610 likes
The workings of the universe to prehistoric humans would have been mysterious, but there would have been a reverence to the mystery as well..............The modern world is mysterious, but in a mundane and/or perplexing way................Is it any wonder that people are so miserable?.
Prehistoric humans may well have understood their simple tools and lived in reverence to a mysterious world. Modern humans may well not understand their complex tools, their computers, their Social Media, and live perplexed and disconnected in a mysterious world
Yet these two conditions are not mutually exclusive
The prehistoric human may have suffered misery from tools inadequate to mitigate their physical suffering, in growing crops in time of famine. The modern human may suffer misery from tools inadequate to mitigate their mental suffering, in gaining what they think they deserve.
The prehistoric human's misery did not come from having unachievable expectations, their misery came from what they knew to expect from life. The prehistoric human knew that they would never be treated like Royalty, they knew they were and would remain a low part of the hierarchy. They knew they would never be part of the decision making process, their opinion would never be respected and they knew their income would only be sufficient for basic survival. Their misery came from an acceptance of a hard and brutal life
The modern human may be miserable because they have expectations that are unachievable
The modern human expects to be treated like Royalty, regardless of birth. They expect to be an integral part of the decision making process, even if they have insufficient knowledge. They expect their opinion to be respected regardless of whether it has sense or not. They expect to have an income even if they haven't earned it. Their misery comes from unwarranted expectations of what they are due from life.
Modern humans look back to a Golden Age, a mysterious world where lives were lived in reverence to the great unknown. A Golden Age where the greatest of tasks were accomplished. A time as described by the early Greek and Roman poets as better and more pure. Hesiod described the Golden Age as a time where all humans were created directly by the Olympian Gods, living lives in peace and harmony. Oblivious to death, and dying peacefully in their sleep unmarked by sickness and old age. Ovid described it as a time before man learned the art of navigation, and as a pre-agricultural society.
Today, people look back with nostalgia to the Noble Savage who has not been corrupted by modern civilization and symbolizes humanity's innate goodness. The idealized picture of a human at one with nature, living in harmony with nature in a romantic primitivism .
As John Dryden wrote in The Conquest of Granada 1672:
[i]I am as free as nature first made man,
Ere the base laws of servitude began,
When wild in woods the noble savage ran.[/i]
Is it true that misery is a modern phenomenon ? Consider The Great Famine of 1315–1317 and Black Death of 1347–1351 which reduced the population by more than a half. The Little Ice Age brought harsher winters with reduced harvest, resulting in malnutrition which increased susceptibility to infections due to a weakened immune system. The Great Famine struck much of North West Europe 1315 to 1317 reducing the population by more than 10%. Many of the larger countries were at war. England and France in the Hundred Years War, a time when when landowners and the Monarchy raised the rents of their tenants. In 1318, anthrax attacked the sheep and cattle of Europe, further reducing the food supply and income of the peasantry. As Europe moved into the Little Ice Age, floods disrupted harvests and caused mass famines. The Bovine Pestilence of 1319 to 1320 affected milk production, and as much of the peasant's protein was obtained from dairy resulted in nutritional deficiencies. Famine and pestilence, exacerbated with the prevalence of war during this time, led to the death of an estimated ten to fifteen percent of Europe's population. The Black Death was was fatal to an estimated thirty to sixty percent of the population where the disease was present. Before the 14th century, popular uprisings against overlords were common. During the 14th and 15th C there were mass movements and popular uprisings across Europe.
Hobbes described the state of nature as "war of all against all" in which men's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"
Mirrors are there for reflection, I'd suggest a good look at it.
Wasn't directed to you.. Mainly people like the person above your post.
schopenhauer1October 04, 2022 at 14:17#7448960 likes
Reply to RussellA@Agent Smith
I hope you weren't gleaning ANY of these themes of the Noble Savage in my OP. None of this was what I was getting at. I think this leads to a more fundamental truth about a self-aware human, yet cut off from fundamental understanding of his condition, but I am keeping it specifically at the level of how technology (and social arrangements surrounding them) keep us fundamentally alienated. And this is the pessimism I speak of. Being estranged from the tools which sustain us. Yet the irksome part is some people do hold these keys.. but they can only own a part of them.. But these people (scientists/engineers/technicians) arranged with their financial backers/entrepreneurs/owners have immense power over what we are estranged from.
We are estranged, but a small minority are less estranged.
I think _db had some of the pessimism here: Quoting _db
The modern world is mysterious, but in a mundane and/or perplexing way. Our goals are frequently not defined by us, and the tools we use are always disconnected from our own understanding entirely or nearly so. We use only a subset of our body's capabilities to live - which makes the body atrophy, unless one engages in a clownish routine of maintenance to give the illusion that one's body is being used for what it was meant to be used for. We survive not through our own autonomous efforts but because we satisfy some needed role in an artificial system.
Is it any wonder that people are so miserable?
However, I would only disagree slightly with the wording of "artificial system" as I think any system, hunter-gatherer or this "artificial" economy will have us alienated. There is no going back (or forwards) here. It is fundamentally part of it. I am just looking at it for what it is, and not simply the descriptive "specialization/supply/demand/economic evolution".
schopenhauer1October 04, 2022 at 14:19#7448980 likes
I feel like Hannah Arendt would probably interest you. She's more optimistic than you when it comes to work, but her Human Condition has a ton of illuminating passages on how our ability to create things has almost gotten bigger than us. She says we no longer have the ability to even talk about these things; we've lost the "speech" so to speak about what is we rely on, and any form of understanding is gatekept by the scientists or the people making it. It's unsustainable.
I'll look into that. But 100% agree about the gatekeeping. I am even more terrified of the malaise of minutia that comes out of the science.. These people can accept and deal with enormous amounts of minutia. The tedium of the practical and necessary. But yet "Life is good".
The paradox is that we are alienated from that which sustains us, but if we are not alienated we simply become mired in the minutia of 100110101, materials, equations, and the like..
One major con is giving a romantic vision to science and technology. The Edisons/Teslas, Einsteins/Heidenbergs, etc. Monger the minutia is more the gist of science of the daily.. Your computer screen, your processor, your electronics, your plastics.. :yawn:
You become a 01001100101 to make 0010100110.. So alienation or minutia mongerer? It all doesn't lead anywhere good.
But at the same time, there is an "innovative" / inventive element that is there for a very small amount of time. The "breakthroughs" of a few that get pulled apart and mongered to become more minutia.
Agent SmithOctober 04, 2022 at 14:30#7449060 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 First off, congratulations for seeing what very few people do. Your committment to pessimism is worthy of a standing ovation. Did you notice, how some folks make such a big deal out of tool use - we consider it one of humanity's greatest achievements. For your information there are 6 simple machines viz. the ramp, the wheel, the pulley, the lever, the screw, and the wedge. Anyway, the asset has now become a liability, oui mon ami? We're now totally dependent on machines/tools even for the smallest of tasks i.e. they've become critical to our survival. This doesn't bode well for us and for this reason I second your Gloomy Gus attitude.
Mirrors are there for reflection, I'd suggest a good look at it. — Seeker
Wasn't directed to you.. Mainly people like the person above your post.
It renders my comment invalid as it did not concern me. Thank you.
schopenhauer1October 04, 2022 at 14:56#7449240 likes
Reply to Seeker
I’ve been in this forum for a long time. I understand how many of the posters work. Asshole and dickish comments are the norm if you disagree. Can't just argue the arguments here. Nope.
schopenhauer1October 04, 2022 at 15:09#7449290 likes
First off, congratulations for seeing what very few people do. Your committment to pessimism is worthy of a standing ovation. Did you notice, how some folks make such a big deal out of tool use - we consider it one of humanity's greatest achievements. For your information there are 6 simple machines viz. the ramp, the wheel, the pulley, the lever, the screw, and the wedge. Anyway, the asset has now become a liability, oui mon ami? We're now totally dependent on machines/tools even for the smallest of tasks i.e. they've become critical to our survival. This doesn't bode well for us and for this reason I second your Gloomy Gus attitude.
I think we have relied on tools from the very beginning. In fact, that, along with social and linguistic forces, were factors in the development of our cognition/brains/neocortex/etc. It is not just that we rely on these tools, but it is what these tools create.. estrangement.
One side--- Estrangement of the minutia of the tools themselves
Other side--- Estrangement from the minutia of the tools themselves.
There is no win here. 011001010110 to you sir. Now I have to go back to mongering more minutia so we can all live and see the world turn.
I mean look at some of the other topics here that you are no doubt posting on.. Propositional Calculus. Enough said.
I’ve been in this forum for a long time. I understand how many of the posters works. Asshole and dickish comments are the norm if you disagree. Can't just argue the arguments here. Nope.
Perhaps it could suffice to simply ignore the comments of which you speak as by acknowledging those in any way is to give meaning and value to them.
schopenhauer1October 04, 2022 at 15:14#7449320 likes
Reply to Seeker
Done that. I go back and forth. Sometimes ignore.. Sometimes call it out. 15 years on a forum (this and the previous version).. you gotta switch it up.
Format goes something like:
Dick comment.. Maybe some content... sarcastic comment... maybe some more content...asshole comment. I believe that was devised by Aristotle.
?schopenhauer1 :roll: We do not even "understand" how we move our fingers and toes let alone what our brains are doing moment to moment or even why pessimists bother whinging on and on about "pessimism" ... Big whup.
On topic
Perhaps somewhat of an example of the things you say concern dealings with the medical world.
From the time I got out of my parents house I had to become quite critical of the medical world. I did not start out that way ofcourse as I was raised to have a great amount of trust and confidence in the doctors and their treatments. It was only after they mis-diagnosed me several times that I started to do my own research, obtaining information from studies related to my medical condition. Evidently I did not understand most of it at first, being unschooled and unfamilair with any of the medical jargon, but after a time studying and doing translations I was really getting at the gist of things.
From there on I got really critical of the doctors involved, questioning their every move towards any treatment they offered me. During that entire process I changed general physicians, but also specialists, quite a few times as 'they' generally shoved my 'uneducated and opinionated views and bias' away with undisquised disdain and irritation. While I felt kind of embarrassed because of it and somewhat unsure when 'throwing away' doctors, and their "professionalism" at the time, the payoff however was the accumulation of knowledge, not even necessarily medical knowledge but the knowledge of food science and how it relates to health. Where the doctors would have liked to inject me with all sorts of nasty biologicals to slow down my immune system I refused their treatments and instead stabilized it choosing certain nutrients while avoiding other nutrients.
My medical condition is not to be cured as it is a chronical condition but I managed to status quo it via diet rather than going the doctor's route of immunosuppressive drugs, the latter which would have most certainly caused severe harm to my system as biologicals come with a hefty price. I actually did confront some of these 'specialists' along the way, about the success I was having via diet, but they did not acknowledge or appreciated my efforts as such, in fact they didnt say anything about it else than putting their aura of superiority on display by ignoring the things I offered them while I was trying to share what I had learned.
That was actually quite a bit more than I intended to share but relating it to the OP I'd say atleast a fair amount of pessimism on display is granted and which was also why I asked the question about a suggestion to the contrary (of blindly following and/or using tech and/or treatment offered/prescripted to us by third parties and/or peers).
What might be the preferred response to this situation? Does your pessimism allow for action? Or is the disconnect permanent?
Do we return to a pre-industrial, cottage-industry, butcher-your-own-cows existence? Do we strive to put humanity into our tech? Do we look to a "return to nature"? (Most of us would need GPS to even find nature.)
It seems no good if the individual attempts to address the disconnect but society goes on embracing modernity.
Life has always been disconnected from what has sustained it.
I don't think this is true. If life was disconnected from what sustains it then it would not be sustained. Perhaps you mean that the discursive intellect cannot fully understand life and what sustains it?
What might be the preferred response to this situation? Does your pessimism allow for action? Or is the disconnect permanent?
Do we return to a pre-industrial, cottage-industry, butcher-your-own-cows existence? Do we strive to put humanity into our tech? Do we look to a "return to nature"? (Most of us would need GPS to even find nature.)
It seems no good if the individual attempts to address the disconnect but society goes on embracing modernity.
Perhaps we cant go back though we also dont have to take everything thrown at us at face value.
schopenhauer1October 05, 2022 at 02:19#7451930 likes
What might be the preferred response to this situation? Does your pessimism allow for action? Or is the disconnect permanent?
Do we return to a pre-industrial, cottage-industry, butcher-your-own-cows existence? Do we strive to put humanity into our tech? Do we look to a "return to nature"? (Most of us would need GPS to even find nature.)
It seems no good if the individual attempts to address the disconnect but society goes on embracing modernity.
I simply present the problem. If you want, we can try to carry out a dialectic about where this goes, but I don't think it would lead anywhere.
But here's a start. Follow the chain of technology. Where does it lead back to in terms of resources, manufacturing, mining, engineering, such? Who, where, when, why, how?
Besides consumer and laborer, how close do you get to the understanding and actual resources that create the technology? Who has more agency and less agency? Hint, it isn't just the ones with the most money. Holding the money and spending it, isn't quite it. You have to have access to the finance but also the technology itself.. to some understanding and to groups of those who have understanding. To the mining, the manufacturing, the resources, the formulas, the engineering principles, etc.
You have to mine minutia.. It's minutia all the way down... to the sub-atomic level. It's so very tedious.. Don't let the romantics full you. In that, @apokrisis is right, but in so replacing the tedium of the scientific formulas, he replaces it with the principle of triadic meta-formulas.
It's just so beautiful in its tedium and grandeur :cry: :cry: :roll: :roll: :yawn: :yawn:
Agent SmithOctober 05, 2022 at 05:47#7452320 likes
I think we have relied on tools from the very beginning. In fact, that, along with social and linguistic forces, were factors in the development of our cognition/brains/neocortex/etc. It is not just that we rely on these tools, but it is what these tools create.. estrangement.
One side--- Estrangement of the minutia of the tools themselves
Other side--- Estrangement from the minutia of the tools themselves.
There is no win here. 011001010110 to you sir. Now I have to go back to mongering more minutia so we can all live and see the world turn.
I mean look at some of the other topics here that you are no doubt posting on.. Propositional Calculus. Enough said.
Estrangement, yep, tools, although they make life easier for us also distance us from reality and living. Without 'em we become aliens in our own home planet, barely able to survive, on the path to fan? (annihilation). This, as I hinted, is an evil omen. :snicker:
P. S. What about my posts on Propositional Calculus?
Real Gone CatOctober 05, 2022 at 06:27#7452370 likes
Yes, I also wondered about the reference to Propositional Calculus. Prop Calc would appear to be a purely intellectual pursuit. One might dabble in it entirely sans technology. What better way to while away those boring hours after the fields have all been plowed and the cows milked?
Agent SmithOctober 05, 2022 at 06:36#7452390 likes
Reply to Real Gone Cat You mean to say philosophy is a luxury item? Some would argue that it's an esssential item.
[quote=Jean-Paul Sartre]With despair, true optimism begins: the optimism of the man who expects nothing, who knows he has no rights and nothing coming to him, who rejoices in counting on himself alone and in acting alone for the good of all.[/quote]
There are no whinging "pessimists" in foxholes.
:death: :flower:
javi2541997October 05, 2022 at 07:46#7452480 likes
With despair, true optimism begins: the optimism of the man who expects nothing, who knows he has no rights and nothing coming to him, who rejoices in counting on himself alone and in acting alone for the good of all
I don't think this is true. If life was disconnected from what sustains it then it would not be sustained. Perhaps you mean that the discursive intellect cannot fully understand life and what sustains it?
I wrote "Life has always been disconnected from what has sustained it"
Consider the OP "We are disconnected from that which sustains us"
The Merriam Webster dictionary illustrates the complexity of the words "life" and "sustain"
The word "life" as a noun may be used in a physical context, as in 1a "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body, or may be used in an emotional and intellectual sense, as in 2a "the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual - children are the joy of our lives".
Similarly, the word "sustain" as a verb may be used in a physical context, as in 2 "to supply with sustenance : NOURISH, or may be used in an emotional and intellectual sense, as in 5 "to buoy up - sustained by hope".
The title of the thread is "Series in pessimism: We can never know what sustains us". The thread is about our being emotionally and intellectually disconnected from what sustains us, where what sustains us is technology. Pessimism is the emotional part. Knowing is the intellectual part.
There are four possible meanings to the statement "we are disconnected from that which sustains us":
1) We are physically disconnected from technology which sustains us in a physical sense.
2) We are physically disconnected from technology which sustains us in an emotionally and intellectually sense.
3) We are emotionally and intellectually disconnected from technology which sustains us in a physical sense.
4) We are emotionally and intellectually disconnected from technology which sustains us in an emotionally and intellectual sense.
I agree with you that item 1) can be removed as illogical. Items 2) and 4) can also be removed as illogical. This leaves item 3).
Meaning depends on context. Sentences cannot be taken out of context.
Therefore, in the context of the Thread - "we are disconnected from that which sustains us" can only mean "we are emotionally and intellectually disconnected from technology which sustains us in a physical sense."
However, although the misuse of technology may be one contributor to alienation within society, it is not the only cause, as alienation existed in societies pre-modern technology.
schopenhauer1October 05, 2022 at 16:31#7454430 likes
However, although the misuse of technology may be one contributor to alienation within society, it is not the only cause, as alienation existed in societies pre-modern technology.
I don't think this is true. If life was disconnected from what sustains it then it would not be sustained. Perhaps you mean that the discursive intellect cannot fully understand life and what sustains it? — Janus
I wrote "Life has always been disconnected from what has sustained it"
There are four possible meanings to the statement "we are disconnected from that which sustains us":
1) We are physically disconnected from technology which sustains us in a physical sense.
2) We are physically disconnected from technology which sustains us in an emotionally and intellectually sense.
3) We are emotionally and intellectually disconnected from technology which sustains us in a physical sense.
4) We are emotionally and intellectually disconnected from technology which sustains us in an emotionally and intellectual sense.
I agree with you that item 1) can be removed as illogical. Items 2) and 4) can also be removed as illogical. This leaves item 3).
It's not technology which sustains life in the biological sense but air, food and water. Technology may sustain our lifestyles, but that is something else.
The point of (3) which, on a charitably nuanced reading, seems to be that our sense of aliveness may be eroded by technology in various ways through the alienation it can contribute to is something I agree with. It's true that technology has disconnected many people from the sources of the food and water that sustain them.
That is to say, the closest many get to the sources of food and water is, respectively, the supermarket and the tap or the bottle (the supermarket). So, humanity is increasingly alienated from the rest of life by modern technology. Obviously this doesn't apply to those who, for example, grow their own food, or even those who don't, but live in communities where the food is grown locally and they are familiar with those sources. So it remains an over-generalization, just as 'life is suffering', while expressing some truth, is an over-simplification.
It's not technology which sustains life in the biological sense but air, food and water. Technology may sustain our lifestyles, but that is something else.
:up:
schopenhauer1October 06, 2022 at 02:54#7456070 likes
The point of (3) which, on a charitably nuanced reading, seems to be that our sense of aliveness may be eroded by technology in various ways through the alienation it can contribute to is something I agree with. It's true that technology has disconnected many people from the sources of the food and water that sustain them.
So it's a bit different even than that. Rather, it's not the pretty common trope of using modern technology which causes alienation, but not being able to be "really" apart of the core members who actually created and fully understand the technology. That can be said on two levels:
1) Those who understand a very specialized field of technology really well (like someone on R&D for X chemicals, circuit board design, machine code, materials science, electronic engineering, etc. Not everyone gets to be a part of this.. only a select few and their entrepreneurial/financial backers. Everyone else just uses the final products passively, or labors in some auxilliary fields tangential to the true inventors and creators.
OR
2) Even the specialized experts only know their technology well and thus can't know ALL the technology that is used, and so even they are passive users who can never really know that which creates the technology they rely on.
it is an obfuscation.. Others were alluding to a more fundamental estrangement from existence, but this one is interesting because there are degrees where at least a few people get a bit closer to some of the core technology that "sustains" our (modern) existence.. and since we only live out modern existences in 90% of the world (I'll argue even third world countries), that is indeed what matters.
The engineers at places like IBM, Samsung, Apple, Huawei, Intel, Dow Chemicals, General Electric, Texas Instruments, Canon, and so on.
Agent SmithOctober 06, 2022 at 03:04#7456100 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 Good exegesis of our predicament: specialization (in technology) is a vulnerability, an Achilles' heel. Technologies are interdependent and if only one group of specialists is eliminated, civilization will collapse.
Good exegesis of our predicament: specialization (in technology) is a vulnerability, an Achilles' heel. Technologies are interdependent and if only one group of specialists is eliminated, civilization will collapse.
This may be..but I am looking at it from a core and auxiliary, where the core needs the auxiliary in a secondary sense (to sell, market, account for, service, etc. the stuff), the auxiliary needs the core people absolutely in a primary sense for the technology itself.
Agent SmithOctober 06, 2022 at 03:48#7456170 likes
This may be..but I am looking at it from a core and auxiliary, where the core needs the auxiliary in a secondary sense (to sell, market, account for, service, etc. the stuff), the auxiliary needs the core people absolutely in a primary sense for the technology itself.
Yup, we're looking at the whole chain from raw material to finished product - each link is a potential point of failure.
Are you asking whether I understood what you were saying or whether I think what you said is plausible?
I'd agree that it seems plausible to think that eliminating one class of specialists would, depending on the importance of the specialist field in question to the economy, have a more or less disruptive effect.
Agent SmithOctober 06, 2022 at 04:33#7456270 likes
Well, not all machines were created equal - some are more essential than others. This would mean losing our capability to produce one may not be as disruptive as that for another, but for sure our lives would be impoverished if we lose the knowhow to build any machine, small or big.
Agent SmithOctober 06, 2022 at 04:46#7456280 likes
I’m particularly talking about the aspect of human existence where we cannot understand the technology that we use and replicate it. If anything we can know and/or replicate a very very small portion of it. Rather, much larger forces are in charge of much bigger processes like mining and manufacturing, physics, chemistry, materials, engineering, and electronics and we just passively “use them”. This just leads to the fact that everything is set for us. We are disconnected from that which sustains us.
You are saying, in essence, that we are disconnected from our bodies? Because the human body uses much more chemical, biological processes than what we understand or know about. Yet we use them mindlessly. Which just leads to the fact that everything (or most things) in our bodies are set for us. We have no control over them.
We are disconnected from what sustains us, and we are disconnected from what the sustenance sustains-- we are disconnected from our very own selves.
schopenhauer1October 06, 2022 at 09:58#7457190 likes
But in the case of technology, it is human made, so paradoxically..it sustains us, some are involved in specialists aspects of it, but most are not and are only involved in a secondary way far removed from its creation or any real understanding of the processes and principles involved.
We are estranged, but not everyone.
god must be atheistOctober 06, 2022 at 10:02#7457200 likes
The technology that runs our lives is increasingly growing beyond the understanding of a single individual, with the disconnect increasing year by year.
A disconnect is of itself not a problem. As long as one can turn the lights on, potholes are filled in in the roads, the buses run on time and the citizen's life is angst-free, and where each citizen plays their part in the smooth running of the public services, then such a disconnect is not to be feared. As long as technology works to the benefit of the individual, the individual may pragmatically accept the benefits of a technology they may not understand. I don't need to know details of the crankcase to know that if I turn the key the car moves where I want it to move.
But as soon as the citizen begins to suffer at the hands of a technology that they are disconnected from, and are unable to either control or mitigate, then the situation becomes dire, and it is then we have become cogs in a blind machine with no real agency. A disconnect becomes problematic when technology no longer works for the benefit of the individual, and the individual is powerless to alter or control the technology they are suffering under. Typically, the increasing use of gaslighting being used by those who control the information that we depend on for our knowledge of a world that exists on the other side of our computer and phone screens.
Information technology, the electronic screen between us and the world, is turning us into Truman Burbanks. A world where information technology controls every aspect of our lives, where we live in a false reality, as an actor on a stage populated by other actors. We play a role, directed by unknown forces behind the images we see on the screens. We are perceiving a world that has already been interpreted by a media more concerned with advertising profits and its own financial benefits than the well-being of its consumers.
Information technology is leading us to a dystopian future where we are unknowingly trapped inside a simulated and virtual realist, a Matrix, where the individual is more a source of energy for the machine than a free person with independent hopes, desires and wishes.
Information technology, with its databases creating a synthetic world populated by all of us as electronic images is creating a world where we can all be be surveilled and regimented. As in Orwell's 1984, subjected to historical negationism and propaganda, facilitated by servants of the controllers in an omnipresent government, repressing and controlling the allowed behaviour of people in society.
Information technology works to minimise the power of the individual in order to gain more control. Individual European nation states are subsumed into a supranational political and economic European Union. Small countries of 5 million people intimately knowing their political leaders are bound into organisations run and controlled by unelected bureaucrats, responsible to a distant Commission rather than the population they are intended to serve. Where their oath of allegiance of the bureaucrats is to an amorphous group rather than their home country, where the individual becomes powerless and unrepresented amongst 400 million others, where the political leaders of the member countries are decided by the diktat of central bureaucrats and economists.
Alienation is not a new phenomenon. The masses have always been alienated. In the past it was powerlessness in the face of the forces of Mother Nature. Today, it is the increasing powerlessness in the face of the Big Brother computer algorithm.
schopenhauer1October 06, 2022 at 16:17#7458380 likes
A disconnect is of itself not a problem. As long as one can turn the lights on, potholes are filled in in the roads, the buses run on time and the citizen's life is angst-free, and where each citizen plays their part in the smooth running of the public services, then such a disconnect is not to be feared.
I am not necessarily looking at it from a pragmatic/effect.. I realize that we can carry on pretty well not knowing how much of any technology works. Rather, I see the position of R&D in sciences/technologies/programming/manufacturing/mining/electric/electronic/engineering in general the whole system of symbiosis of all of them in STEM fields as being at the core of the understanding of the (modern) tools we use. They are usually placed in larger industries, though small and medium startups sometimes get in there too. Either way, it is what these people get to be a part of and the others passively just use, that I am referring to. Not everyone can be a part of this, but passively use and service the tools that the science/engineering/R&D get to invent/create/understand/are an integral part of..
You can argue that everyone has their place for the system to work, but this is not quite what I am getting at. The other laboring jobs are all in service to the tools that these people get to be a part of. There is a natural hierarchy going on.. where most people are cut off from the factors of industry/knowledge that they use.. but there are a small number of people who are at this position/level to understand.
To make an analogy (hear me out).. It's like the cave. The scientists/R&D/engineers at these strategic companies (many times used from previous governmental research) are sort of sitting with the forms, and we simply glean at it from a "use" side of it. And no, buying a book of "How stuff works" doesn't solve this disconnect of gnosis of the forms/tools/understanding as it is enacted in real life.
And oddly, at the same time, "knowing" the forms can be oh so tedious. My point with the post with all the images of the ways of the tedious complexities. We need to "mine" minutia.. It's like if the forms instead of being beautiful Platonic understanding, is just really a mining of complexities. It creates jobs, but it creates tedious monotony, minutia, etc.. Once you get to the forms, you realize it's just more tedium, all the way down to a sub-atomic level of understanding.
It's like if the forms instead of being beautiful Platonic understanding, is just really a mining of complexities.
Do you mean something like the following ?
The graduate engineer was given the task of designing a bridge. The engineer went away and came back three weeks later with 100 sheets of computer printout, having laboriously checked each line and ensured that each piece of data was consistent with all other pieces of data, that there were no arithmetic errors and each part built up logically into a whole.
The senior engineer in charge, just approaching retirement, tore off a scrap of paper, took out their pencil, and after an hour, told the graduate engineer that their design was correct.
The graduate engineer had mined the complexities logically joining each part together to create a whole. The senior engineer started by looking at the whole, excluded that which was secondary, and only concentrated on that which was essential.
The graduate engineer lived in the cave looking at shadows. The senior engineer lived outside the cave looking at the beautiful Forms.
Pessimism is one of the consequences of not knowing what is important and not knowing what can be excluded, of knowing what doesn't need to be known. Optimism is one of the consequences of knowing what is important and knowing what can be excluded, of not knowing what doesn't need to be known.
universenessOctober 07, 2022 at 10:21#7461460 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1
I think you could sing this song to yourself every day as the main anthem to your world view.
Sing it loud, be proud of who you are! Sing it proud!
schopenhauer1October 07, 2022 at 13:03#7461840 likes
Reply to RussellA
Not quite but cool imagery.
Rather the graduate student got to do what was primary/essential/Forms (technology creation) and everything from the transportation, marketers, finance, tradesman servicing it are secondary, and not a actually getting to participate in the technology creation (essential/primary/the actual technology creation itself).
There are hopefully some who straight away understand the pessimism in this. I’d like to engage with them. There will be others who are confused as to it’s connection with pessimism. I’d like to engage with them as well.
If you actually are feeling sadness, hopelessness, or whatever it is that pessimism brings you due to the fact that the complexities that sustain us are too difficult for your to decipher, then you need some sort of counseling. Do you just seek the kinship from those who share your peculiar form of suffering or do you want some advice for how you can emerge from your pessimism?
It's just not clear why you're telling me that you're sad. Maybe it makes you happy to tell me you're sad, or maybe your despondence has grown so great you had the need to share. I really don't know what to do with the OP other than to tell you that you're letting something that isn't any big deal be a big deal, so figure out a way to deal with. I don't know, maybe telling us here of your sadness is helpful to you and we're part of your therapy.
schopenhauer1October 07, 2022 at 13:36#7461940 likes
Reply to Hanover
So you are in the confused camp? So it is pessimistic in that unless you are of the elite who have these positions, you simply are a passive user of the technology.. The very thing used to maintain your lifestyle.
As far as pessimism in general, I do think there is some therapy to be had.. But I don't see that as "a-philosophical". Stoicism, Buddhism, and a whole host of philosophical systems are a kind of therapy. Philosophy itself can be seen as therapy of a self-aware creature thrown into a world where there are no certainties or (seemingly) inherent reasons for anything at all.
In fact, I see an interesting dichotomy between human-centered philosophical interests (ethics, aesthetics, values, etc.) and logic/math. It is the same thing.. The logic/math/science of the universe exist, but why should we care? Once you answer that, you get to human-centered reasons, so they are intertwined.
I already made the (human-centered) reason that technology/scientific understanding sustains us (our very physical existence in a modern social setting). Now I provide what this means when played out.. The elite who are involved in technology creation and the others that are not.
So it is pessimistic in that unless you are of the elite who have these positions, you simply are a passive user of the technology.
I'm not following why having survival mechanisms that go beyond my understanding entail pessimism. I also don't know of anyone so elite that they fully comprehend every aspect of reality so much so that they understand why they continue to live and breathe.
schopenhauer1October 07, 2022 at 13:40#7461990 likes
The optimist invents the airplane the pessimist the parachute.
Both ways of thinking are necessary.
Cool observation, but still not quite what I'm getting at. Both the airplane and parachute creator are involved in the technology. The ones just using it are not.
schopenhauer1October 07, 2022 at 13:44#7462010 likes
Besides consumer and laborer, how close do you get to the understanding and actual resources that create the technology? Who has more agency and less agency? Hint, it isn't just the ones with the most money. Holding the money and spending it, isn't quite it. You have to have access to the finance but also the technology itself.. to some understanding and to groups of those who have understanding. To the mining, the manufacturing, the resources, the formulas, the engineering principles, etc.
You have to mine minutia.. It's minutia all the way down... to the sub-atomic level. It's so very tedious.. Don't let the romantics full you. In that, apokrisis is right, but in so replacing the tedium of the scientific formulas, he replaces it with the principle of triadic meta-formulas.
I'll look into that. But 100% agree about the gatekeeping. I am even more terrified of the malaise of minutia that comes out of the science.. These people can accept and deal with enormous amounts of minutia. The tedium of the practical and necessary. But yet "Life is good".
The paradox is that we are alienated from that which sustains us, but if we are not alienated we simply become mired in the minutia of 100110101, materials, equations, and the like..
One major con is giving a romantic vision to science and technology. The Edisons/Teslas, Einsteins/Heidenbergs, etc. Monger the minutia is more the gist of science of the daily.. Your computer screen, your processor, your electronics, your plastics.. :yawn:
You become a 01001100101 to make 0010100110.. So alienation or minutia mongerer? It all doesn't lead anywhere good.
But at the same time, there is an "innovative" / inventive element that is there for a very small amount of time. The "breakthroughs" of a few that get pulled apart and mongered to become more minutia.
So it's a bit different even than that. Rather, it's not the pretty common trope of using modern technology which causes alienation, but not being able to be "really" apart of the core members who actually created and fully understand the technology. That can be said on two levels:
1) Those who understand a very specialized field of technology really well (like someone on R&D for X chemicals, circuit board design, machine code, materials science, electronic engineering, etc. Not everyone gets to be a part of this.. only a select few and their entrepreneurial/financial backers. Everyone else just uses the final products passively, or labors in some auxilliary fields tangential to the true inventors and creators.
OR
2) Even the specialized experts only know their technology well and thus can't know ALL the technology that is used, and so even they are passive users who can never really know that which creates the technology they rely on.
it is an obfuscation.. Others were alluding to a more fundamental estrangement from existence, but this one is interesting because there are degrees where at least a few people get a bit closer to some of the core technology that "sustains" our (modern) existence.. and since we only live out modern existences in 90% of the world (I'll argue even third world countries), that is indeed what matters.
The engineers at places like IBM, Samsung, Apple, Huawei, Intel, Dow Chemicals, General Electric, Texas Instruments, Canon, and so on.
It's about being excluded.. In the cave.. But it's also about even once you find the Forms (technological understanding) you realize it's just tedium all the way down. Perhaps it's hard to explain.. That's why I am fleshing this out and seeing how others can contribute perhaps. A dialectic.
Because you are simply a passive user who does not get to be involved in that which you use for various utility.
That has very little to do with technology, but is just part of being part of a complex world with all sorts of specialized roles. Even if I were able to eat only what I killed, cleaned, and cooked, I still would have to accept I had nothing to do with creating the animal I was eating. On a simpler note, I woke up this morning when the sun came through my window, but I had nothing to do with the sun shining. That doesn't cause me great pessimism.
The awe one feels at the complexity of the world usually yields inspiration as opposed to the despair it yields in you.
schopenhauer1October 07, 2022 at 14:56#7462100 likes
Reply to Hanover
You’ve seemed to ignore other posts I wrote about natural vs human processes so I’ll invite you to read some of those if you want.
It's kind of in there briefly but basically whereas natural processes are not in our control, human-made processes are the outcome of other people's decisions. Where natural processes could not have been different in this universe, human decisions can. Right now it is the case that some get to create technology and others simply support or use it.
It's kind of in there briefly but basically whereas natural processes are not in our control, human-made processes are the outcome of other people's decisions. Where natural processes could not have been different in this universe, human decisions can. Right now it is the case that some get to create technology and others simply support or use it.
There's obviously a difference between a human created control on my behavior and a non-human one, but why does this difference matter in terms of the pessimism it should bring me?
Why am I sadder that I must rely upon a gun that I can't create in order to kill my food as opposed to the sadness I feel because I lack the physical ability to kill my food due to my physical limitations?
schopenhauer1October 08, 2022 at 13:39#7465470 likes
Reply to Hanover
Because it becomes a hierarchy where you become a secondary character in your own life. You just support those who matter to the creation of the tools.
Clearly a human understood and can create those things. But that was not you. You’re just a supporting cast. You’re ignorant and far removed of the very tools you use.
Agent SmithOctober 08, 2022 at 14:03#7465500 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 What if we are tools? We seem bewitched by telos, even killing ourselves when we can't find one. We're sentient tools/machines!!! :cool:
Srap TasmanerOctober 08, 2022 at 23:14#7466390 likes
Because it becomes a hierarchy where you become a secondary character in your own life. You just support those who matter to the creation of the tools.
So Hank Aaron was a bit player in the story of the guy who made his bat?
I think you need something more there.
schopenhauer1October 08, 2022 at 23:34#7466420 likes
Reply to Srap Tasmaner
Different. You are a bit player to the guy(s) who figured out principles of harnessing and distributing electricity.
You can say that baseball isn't baseball without the people who invented the official "bat". It's not even the bat producer.
The consumers allow the producers to keep producing, but I am saying that is secondary to the people who invented the stuff and/or can reproduce the stuff and improve it.
Srap TasmanerOctober 08, 2022 at 23:40#7466440 likes
The internet is a behemoth of complex technology.. It started with Arpanet, and the technology behind that.. TCP/IP... But also relates to purified silicon (doped with boron, phosphorus, and other elements), the ability to conduct electricity directionally, voltage, current, copper alloy ionic structures.. magnetism, chemical reactions, logic gates, and the rest.. It's immense. You are but a spec in this technology (made by human efforts) but yet you have almost no real agency in its production.. Then multiply all the technology involved in that complex process exponentially through the years with hundreds of thousands more things that are involved in modern electrical and electronic technologies. There are protocols and standards, etc. etc.. It's all set out from by some other nebulous groups of peoples in corporations and agencies involved in their development.
So it's not just that we are a spec in the universe. We are a spec in our own forms of sustenance to keep our daily lives.
Srap TasmanerOctober 09, 2022 at 02:24#7466710 likes
No, no I'm not. Neither are you, though evidently you think you are. I am a human being, not a network device, and I'm not part of the internet, but a user of the internet.
There are two possibilities here, I believe, and you needn't tell me which one applies if you don't want to:
(1) You think you are part of the internet.
(2) You feel you are part of the internet.
We may be able to talk about (1). I am not qualified to address (2).
Agent SmithOctober 09, 2022 at 05:03#7466990 likes
A cog in the great machine we call the universe! Work, work, work, die! We're replaceable parts; momma nature doesn't care about us because she can always create another human being just like/better than us. Si?
schopenhauer1October 09, 2022 at 09:54#7467320 likes
Reply to Srap Tasmaner
You are a part I meant as a consumer of the technology. Not sure how you took that literally.
schopenhauer1October 09, 2022 at 09:55#7467330 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
I meant more we are a passive consumer of technology rather than its creator. You can support it, buy it, service it. But you probably didn’t design or invent it. Nor can you really understand all the technology that went into it. Hence my example of the internet and all its innumerable parts.
Srap TasmanerOctober 09, 2022 at 13:55#7467500 likes
You are a part I meant as a consumer of the technology. Not sure how you took that literally.
Because if you thought of yourself as, or felt yourself to be, a depersonalized part of a great machine, then your position would make sense. It's still not clear why I should feel bad that I am consumer of the internet, anymore than Hank Aaron should have felt bad before playing a game he didn't invent using a bat he didn't make.
The idea seems to be that anything that I don't have complete control over has complete control over me. I should feel bad because I am not a god.
The idea seems to be that anything that I don't have complete control over has complete control over me. I should feel bad because I am not a god.
Right, and then he draws a meaningless distinction between technological control and natural control, where I am supposed to feel powerless because I rely upon the internet but not upon my lungs.
Where others feel awe at the complexity of the universe and inspiration at human ingenuity, he feels powerlessness.
Sounds like a psychological predisposition more than a philosophical problem.
schopenhauer1October 09, 2022 at 16:09#7467640 likes
Reply to Srap TasmanerReply to Hanover
Well, it is about control to some extent. There are those who understand and create the technology, and those that can only use it. There are those who set the protocols and standards of the technology, and those who haplessly must review the literature already set in place by the first group and to some degree work backwards to figure out what they (the big dogs) did if they need to fix it.
https://blog.robertelder.org/how-to-make-a-cpu/
schopenhauer1October 09, 2022 at 16:21#7467670 likes
Sorry, this just looks like gibberish to me. That's not how technology evolves, not how engineering works, this whole image you have of some cabal of the powerful imposing shit on the helpless plebs, that's just what you say about everything and has almost nothing to do with the evolution of the Internet, for example.
schopenhauer1October 09, 2022 at 16:35#7467700 likes
Reply to Srap Tasmaner
I'm not saying it's "imposing shit on the helpless plebs". That's just what it becomes. It's not necessarily designed that way, that is simply the nature of the hierarchy of technology of those who create it and use it.
A cog in the great machine we call the universe! Work, work, work, die! We're replaceable parts; momma nature doesn't care about us because she can always create another human being just like/better than us. Si?
I'd like to go back to this because I think I got lost in my own message. Yes, there is some aspect of what I call "minutia-mongering" going on. That is to say, as technology increases exponentially, the amount of minutia the human needs to know to produce the technology increases, thus making us very much a cog-like entity of minutia-miners. We mine minutia (and we have to "mind" minutia).
This actually ties in to an earlier thread here about what the monolith was in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. What it can mean is that the tools have made humans estranged from their workings (HAL goes off the deep end and barely a programmer knows how/why) AND we have become changed to mintia-mongering bores.. (look at the soulless Discovery ship, with Dave and Frank just sitting idly, checking stats, running in place, staring, not saying much.. HAL has more personality than they do!). Minutia is all they are minding because they are mining minutia!
Agent SmithOctober 09, 2022 at 16:43#7467730 likes
I meant more we are a passive consumer of technology rather than its creator. You can support it, buy it, service it. But you probably didn’t design or invent it. Nor can you really understand all the technology that went into it. Hence my example of the internet and all its innumerable parts.
I get what you mean! We're, in a sense, being led by our noses!
You cannot resign from life and move on (inter-wordly affairs).
Oh, but you can. So says Epictetus:
“Remember that the door is open. Don’t be more cowardly than children, but just as they say, when the game is no longer fun for them, ‘I won’t play any more,’ you too, when things seem that way to you, say, ‘I won’t play any more,’ and leave, but if you remain, don’t complain.” (Discourses I.24.20)
Real Gone CatOctober 11, 2022 at 15:48#7473600 likes
In the immortal words of the Boss :
Got a wife and kids in Baltimore, jack
I went out for a ride and I never went back
Words, words, words! Yes, from 'wordly' affairs we may, might, should, would resign. How many times have I told a tedious pontificator on National Public Radio or the BBC to SHUT UP! and turned the radio off?
As for the world and its affairs, I am not quite done.
The only real important distinction to be made between people is by economic class - haves and have-nots; most everything else is derived from this, I think. Of course, those who have the capital will invest in technology that supports their continued ownership of capital - and sometimes they will even oppose technological progress that threatens this ownership. According to Ellul, this is one of the reasons why capitalism will disappear; the goal of capitalism is not the same as the goal of technical efficiency - it's not efficient enough.
Really though, nobody understands the entirety of a complex modern machine (including social machines like governments). They may understand how to use it, or understand a single component by itself (which is useless by itself), or the may have a vague high-level understanding of how all the components work together, but no single person can possibly understand a machine in its entirety, let alone all of the machines that are now used in our lives; nor can the average person have any real say on anything either.
Gone are the days where tool-making went alongside tool-using, with every step of the process being understood by everyone. Now we have experts, specialization, technological giantism, etc.
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 01:00#7475390 likes
Really though, nobody understands the entirety of a complex modern machine (including social machines like governments). They may understand how to use it, or understand a single component by itself (which is useless by itself), or the may have a vague high-level understanding of how all the components work together, but no single person can possibly understand a machine in its entirety, let alone all of the machines that are now used in our lives; nor can the average person have any real say on anything either.
Gone are the days where tool-making went alongside tool-using, with every step of the process being understood by everyone. Now we have experts, specialization, technological giantism, etc.
Wasn't Edison's lab the model for the modern groups of engineers/technicians who create the patented technology? Also the Fords and early chemical manufacturers. The knowledge was specialized, but these groups are brought together and then the worker simply fabricates and fixes it. The consumer consumes it.
It all leads back to forces much greater than us that are the backdrop of our throwness. Those who get to put together these groups of creators and manufacturers being more embedded in the vast ocean for which we consume and are bandied about as laborers upon the waves of.
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 01:03#7475420 likes
I just wanted to add that I think this title would look great on the NYT best seller list: Series in Pessimism, by Schopenhaur1.
But you can exit life. Just don't let the hospital get a hold of your half dead body, they'll resuscitate it.
You might not be far off. I believe Schopenhauer's best selling books were his essays and aphorisms that are found under the title Studies in Pessimism.
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 01:04#7475430 likes
Resigning and moving on is not really resigning though is it as you’ve merely transformed or exchanged your game for another (easier/harder)
Euthanasia says otherwise regarding your second point.
But that's the point. Intra-worldly, you exchange games. The treadmill continues or you die. There is no reprieve from the treadmill.. There is no time out.. A Platonic land of rest. Once you are thrown into the world, you must keep treading along.
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 01:05#7475440 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 But you aren't thrown into the world. A part of the world coalesced. And that life that you were grew, that is did what life does. It's as if you are something other than your body and got put in a body. But you are a body and bodies are life and participate, given their nature, in life. And one can de-coalesce if one chooses. But that body wants life as shown by it's growing and multiplying and seeking food and experience. Yes, later it may no longer want it and then would need to take measures to de-coalesce, but there is no someone to get thrown in and the moment that someone exists, like all life it strives for life, an engaged participant. There's no you trapped in that thing yearning for life that doesn't want life, though humans, later can change their minds.
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 12:52#7476380 likes
Really? If humans live in society and people don’t like the workings of society, isn’t that rejecting life? All the people who reject society refute that idea we strive for life. We are existential beings because we are self-aware. We could do other than instinct. So I fully disagree with this. The problem is, once a life is started, that person MUST go through the gauntlet or die. Since there is no alternative, starting a life on behalf of someone else is problematic. Human life becomes problematic because of its lack of options outside the premises of life. We humans can IMAGINE better scenarios or games, but we KNOW we can only play this one.
CiceronianusOctober 12, 2022 at 14:59#7476560 likes
Really? If humans live in society and people don’t like the workings of society, isn’t that rejecting life?
Well, that would be rejecting society not necessarily life. But my point doesn't hinge on that. The way you framed the issue was as if someone was thrown into life. But really they only ever existed as life. And when they begin that life (as a fertilized egg, in the womb, on the way out, however you think of the beginning) they are life that wants life, that will eat and will grow. Later, yes, some humans anyway may decide they don't like life and then they have the option to end it.Quoting schopenhauer1
e could do other than instinct. So I fully disagree with this.
Sure, we can. But there is no creature that wants to who is thrown into life.Quoting schopenhauer1
The problem is, once a life is started, that person MUST go through the gauntlet or die.
Yes.
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 15:28#7476630 likes
Request denied. Imagine having the possibility for no choice though. I mean I could have complied :wink:. Not in the case of life. Comply or die. And you or I can move on to something else (infra-worldly affairs). Not so in the life treadmill game. You’re on it and if you want off, you are out.
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 15:33#7476650 likes
No, a parent wanted a life. A decision was had based on a reason. We are a species with reasons. I had a whole thread on this which poster @Banno and @Ciceronianus didn’t seem to get the import of.
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 15:35#7476670 likes
Later, yes, some humans anyway may decide they don't like life and then they have the option to end it.
That’s also the point. There is no better version of the game of life (inter-worldly affairs) and so all you can do is kill yourself if you don’t like it(or die from a mishap from playing the game itself but that’s still affirming the game).
That doesn't contradict what I said. I didn't said a child chose a life. But that matter that was made after the choice of the parents wanted life, it strove for life. You cannot birth something that does not strive for life or it will miscarry. There is no bringing into life something that doesn't want life.
That’s also the point. There is no better version of the game of life (inter-worldly affairs) and so all you can do is kill yourself if you don’t like it(or die from a mishap from playing the game itself but that’s still affirming the game).
I'm not arguing that one can change the game of life.
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 15:38#7476710 likes
That’s more social conditioning. Babies don’t decide things yet. We tend to get hungry and fear scary stimuli. But to equate that with a reason for embracing life’s game is a naturalistic fallacy.
That’s more social conditioning. Babies don’t decide things yet.
I am talking about an organism doing what it can to live, both on a cellular level and to whatever extent it can as it can move. There is no incarnating a not wanting life organism.
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 15:40#7476730 likes
I'm not arguing that one can change the game of life.
That’s good because that’s exactly my point. You start a treadmill that the person can by it’s nature cannot be ended without simply death. There is no platonic heavenly better way except what we can imagine and cannot attain.
I am talking about an organism doing what it can to live, both on a cellular level and to whatever extent it can as it can move. There is no incarnating a not wanting life organism.
That’s great but doesn’t quite capture human like (I.e a self-aware being that has reasons).
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 15:41#7476760 likes
That’s great but doesn’t quite capture human like (I.e a self-aware being that has reasons).
I didn't say it did. I responded, I think pretty clearly, to this idea of a parent throwing someone into life. A someone who may or may not want life. I think that model is confused.
I didn't say it did. I responded, I think pretty clearly, to this idea of a parent throwing someone into life. A someone who may or may not want life. I think that model is confused.
You are using “throw” as some literal term. It just means starting someone else’s life on the treadmill. Equivocating the fact that babies can’t reason/have reasons/aren’t self aware yet with”life striving” and THUS some other implication about life (that we want it?) is confused and again, a naturalistic fallacy. Our reasons don’t have to confirm with any instinctual mechanism.
Not really, but I am taking it as a transitive verb. I mean, even as a metaphor it means transferring something somewhere. But that is not what happens. Any life was only ever life.
The problem with it as a metaphor (and certainly literally) is that it is as if a parent is putting some neutral essence into life. But no, this does not happen. Any life they create immediately desires life, the organism does, and strives to live. You can only create something living that immediately strives to continue living.
It is not some neutral or negatively aimed at life. It is life that wants to live more.
It seems like you are presenting this as putting someone in a situation it may or may not want. But no, parents can only make life.
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 17:25#7477070 likes
Any life they create immediately desires life, the organism does, and strives to live. You can only create something living that immediately strives to continue living.
My previous post still remains my reply. Quoting Bylaw
It is not some neutral or negatively aimed at life. It is life that wants to live more.
And this is explicitly the naturalistic fallacy as stated in last post
It seems like you are presenting this as putting someone in a situation it may or may not want. But no, parents can only make life.
Life that leads to a person with self-awareness and reasons. The parent chose to do it, and the adult functioning person is the one who deals with it (run on the treadmill or die).
CiceronianusOctober 12, 2022 at 19:41#7477680 likes
But that's the case with games, as well. When you resign (e.g., in chess) the game is over--you're out. You may play chess again, but in that case you play a different game, you don't play, again, the game you chose to end by resigning.
schopenhauer1October 12, 2022 at 20:16#7477850 likes
It is not some neutral or negatively aimed at life. It is life that wants to live more. — Bylaw
And this is explicitly the naturalistic fallacy as stated in last post
That is absurd. First of all, I am not a moral realist. I don't think morals exist. I was not mounting a moral argument. I was reacting to an implicit moral argument on your part with a description of what I think is a factual issue. The fetus and babies will seek out more life.
I have not argued that having babies is good. I don't think that even makes sense.
You are misapplying the concept of natural fallacy.
Agent SmithOctober 13, 2022 at 07:40#7479440 likes
We havta ponder all the negative aspects of life; it's a necessity if we're into selling life tickets (making babies). Explore all angles, every which way life sucks. To not do this is bad for business. @schopenhauer1' Series in Pessimism threads are crucial therfore.
schopenhauer1October 13, 2022 at 14:10#7480280 likes
I was reacting to an implicit moral argument on your part with a description of what I think is a factual issue. The fetus and babies will seek out more life.
Then this isn't arguing anything contra my moral argument. It is simply a description that fetuses develop and become babies.
I don't understand. You're not forced to play chess for fear that (lest) you'll kill yourself?
Um, so like the OP is stating.. In a game like chess.. You can play it and if you want to resign, you can move on. You can't do that with the "game of life". Simple, but tragic. You can't get off the treadmill and move to another "game of life" with different premises. You start someone on the treadmill, the only way out is death. It's a game where someone starts you on it, and you can't move on to another game. The only option as a way out of the game is death.
CiceronianusOctober 13, 2022 at 19:44#7481380 likes
You can play it and if you want to resign, you can move on. You can't do that with the "game of life". Simple, but tragic.
Yes, if you kill yourself, you die. If you play chess and resign (unless you resign by dying), you don't die. That's because, despite what was maintained by Bobby Fischer, chess isn't life. But what is tragic about that? Death would be an end to suffering. Continuing to live would mean continuing to suffer. If you resign from a game, you continue to suffer. If you "resign" from life, you don't.
schopenhauer1October 13, 2022 at 19:46#7481390 likes
But what is tragic about that? Death would be an end to suffering. Continuing to live would mean continuing to suffer. If you resign from a game, you continue to suffer. If you "resign" from life, you don't.
It's morally wrong to put someone in a situation where you either "play this game or kill yourself". That is a tragic thing. Yes, it is indeed the case, but what a case to defend! Seems pretty obviously tragic to me and wrong from the standpoint of starting for someone else.
Life and chess are incomparable. The fact that one can move on from a game like chess is another reason why it is a false analogy.
Yes, that’s the point. We cannot move on from this setup and rules. We cannot resign and move to a different version. If you rather the treadmill analogy think of that. A treadmill can end. This survival etc game can’t lest death. It’s a treadmill that one cannot step off of without dire consequences.
Agent SmithOctober 14, 2022 at 09:39#7483000 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 Evolution is too slow and is luck-driven. We know that now. Machines have gone where no man has gone before (rovers on Mars). We seem to, for some unfathomable reason, forget that machines are always 1[sup]st[/sup] and if not it's a tie for 1[sup]st[/sup] place. The machine kalpa (eon) has begun! We work for 'em mackineeks (Gungan term for machines, re Star Wars) now, oui? I'm over the moon! :cool:
Down The Rabbit HoleOctober 14, 2022 at 13:38#7483400 likes
Then this isn't arguing anything contra my moral argument. It is simply a description that fetuses develop and become babies.
I was arguing that your throwing someone into life (take that literally or metaphorically) as if they are victims or as if they have not consented is confused. As I said, you cannot create life that does not seek more life and to thrive. That does not match your model. You have an 'is' model that you base your 'ought' on. Since I am not a moral realist, I am not making a moral argument. I am critiquing the is part of your postion.
schopenhauer1October 14, 2022 at 22:11#7484060 likes
Since I am not a moral realist, I am not making a moral argument. I am critiquing the is part of your postion.
I believe a refuted your argument in my last post so I’m not sure there’s much to say.
schopenhauer1October 15, 2022 at 19:20#7486500 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
So it occurs to me as I wrote something on another thread that one of the pessimistic outcomes of the behemoth technology that is our modern world is that we can't democratically participate in its production. This has less to do with distribution of resources than it does about the understanding of technology. It is just a fact that some people will more readily understand complex mathematical concepts and scientific formulas more than others. There is no "democracy of understanding". We cannot all participate in being physicists, chemists, and engineers. We can't all participate in the creation and design of useful patents. The majority can only be passive recipients. They can only be fixers, sellers, transporters, administrators, and of course users of the technology made by the creators.
schopenhauer1October 15, 2022 at 20:07#7486840 likes
Agent SmithOctober 15, 2022 at 20:12#7486870 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 You speak the truth! For instance a computer engineer must know machine language (1s and 0s), but here I am, typing on a virtual keyboard on my phone, utterly ignorant of the mechanics of displays and touch screens and so on. It does make one wonder about who's running the show, who's calling the shots, who's in charge, if you catch me drift.
Technology seems to transform our lives drastically and one way it does that is by making us so dependent on it that a rollback would be catastrophic to civilization as we know it. We're, to that extent, invalids.
schopenhauer1October 15, 2022 at 20:14#7486880 likes
Technology seems to transform our lives drastically and one way it does that is by making us so dependent on it that a rollback would be catastrophic to civilization as we know it. We're, to that extent, on invalids.
Yes, and not just that but hapless users/consumers.. Not co-creators in. Which again, goes back to your first point.
Agent SmithOctober 15, 2022 at 20:20#7486920 likes
[quote=Albert Camus]There is always a philosophy for lack of courage.[/quote] Reply to schopenhauer1 And as I have asked you on other threads: So What? :eyes:
There is joy in affirming the struggle to live for its own sake; not enough joy to compensate for our suffering, no doubt, but enough joy – well, enough for most of us and most other living beings – with which to create and recreate and, yes, (selfishly? atavistically?) procreate. There are no "pessimists" or "optimists" in foxholes – who, under fire, can afford the luxury of such poses? – there's only the quick and the dead. "Pessimism", after all, is just disillusioned "optimism"; thus, in spite of it all, I'm a bluesman and absurdist (A. Murray et al).
schopenhauer1October 16, 2022 at 00:40#7487750 likes
What now? We wait until we die, persuade others not to reproduce, and thats it. Do I have that right?
I'm more diagnosing right now rather than a prognosis. But yes, certainly antinatalism would be an appropriate response. Can society be ordered differently? Probably not. Another pessimistic point.
Agent SmithOctober 16, 2022 at 05:15#7488120 likes
The pessimism-optimism life span paradox
1. Pessimists live longer (they don't walk into traps as easily as optimists) [and procreate more @schopenhauer1]
2. Optimists live longer (their happy disposition means a healthy mind and body).
3. Pessimists die early (their negative attitude affects their health).
4. Optimists die early (they walk into traps).
WTF? :chin:
[quote=SYR]I don't want to dieee! :cry:[/quote]
I like sushiOctober 16, 2022 at 08:01#7488430 likes
I find conflict a key attribute of a healthy and optimistic outlook.
My fundamental outlook for over a decade now has been an amalgam of ‘pessimism’ and ‘optimism’ … I hope for everything and expect nothing!
A complete pessimist cannot fight a good fight, cannot face the impossible nor believe they can escape the cage they find themselves in. It does not matter how hard we argue that the cage is all we have and any sense of ‘escape’ is futile … we still hope, and sometimes what was once ‘impossible’ becomes common then eventually ‘mundane’. Life is full of such mundane miracles. The pessimist actively ignores that the seemingly impossible had been overcome again and again.
Nihilism is nihilism. Its foundation is based on an impossibility. It is almost like people are discomforted by comfort so need to breed hell into their lives … usually this happens when we cower from life and belittle it. I have been there. I think it is a necessary struggle for humans to go through.
A struggle is only ‘bad’ if you avoid it, ignore it and deny it all at once.
Reply to schopenhauer1 Well, self-congratulatory posts always add to a discussion. Here, I'll give it a go: So, there is no refutation of my critique of your orginal argument, so there is no more to say.
schopenhauer1October 16, 2022 at 09:56#7488620 likes
Reply to Bylaw
I quite clearly did. Not self congratulatory. If you want to readdress it, go ahead. But I’m
Not repeating my argument as it still stands.
NickolasgasparOctober 17, 2022 at 10:34#7491470 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 Pessimism is an evaluation term on our expectations of an outcome. One can be a pessimist either due to a psychological predisposition or experience and knowledge.
Any well informed optimist can be a pessimist and vice versa but when credible information can't change the way we view a situation then we are dealing with a psychological condition.
schopenhauer1October 17, 2022 at 17:24#7492210 likes
So this is exactly what philosophical pessimism isn’t. Rather, philosophical pessimism is an evaluation of the state of animal/human existence and not about expected outcomes. What you imply is common day usage of pessimism. “He’s a pessimist about how the economy will turn out” is not the same as “He believes the world is inherently negative in value due to X, Y, Z”.
NickolasgasparOctober 17, 2022 at 18:33#7492250 likes
Sure. Philosophical pessimism tries to evaluate existence through our attempt to project our values and meaning on nature. So in my opinion this request returns back to our psychological condition.
schopenhauer1October 17, 2022 at 19:19#7492300 likes
So in my opinion this request returns back to our psychological condition.
You can be a non-depressive antinatalist. You are confusing a cause with the evaluation. We may project meaning, but we cannot help but being a we. You can’t take that meaning out of the equation.
'To exist sucks' mostly because – even though you ought not to exist – as Cioran points out: it's always too late not to exist. So 'embrace the suck' if you have the courage and the wit to do so; otherwise, you can always 'unfuck yourself' with either a pharmaceutical or surgical lobotomy. :eyes:
NickolasgasparOctober 17, 2022 at 19:38#7492340 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 Not really. I am just pointing out that evaluation and meaning are subjective when we address nature. Things just are in Nature without inherent values. Its an agents that introduces such concepts and attempts to evaluate the conditions.
i.e your phrase " the world is inherently negative" can only have a meaning compared to the preferences of an observer, right?
schopenhauer1October 17, 2022 at 19:47#7492360 likes
philosophical pessimism is an evaluation of the state of animal/human existence
It’s about human/animal condition.
NickolasgasparOctober 17, 2022 at 20:21#7492390 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 Actually human condition is where my argument stands. A quick search of this term provides the following definition "The human condition is all of the characteristics and key events of human life, including birth, learning, emotion, aspiration, morality, conflict, and death".
So philosophical pessimism observes our human and our world's condition from a broader scope based on a more objective evaluation?
How can this be possible without our subjective criteria and preferences? What defines something as inherently negative for example...?
schopenhauer1October 17, 2022 at 20:24#7492410 likes
What defines something as inherently negative for example...?
For Schopenhauer for example, suffering is a constant lack we are always overcoming but never reaching. Human existence can’t help but be this and this is inherent, not just contingent to it.
schopenhauer1October 18, 2022 at 16:03#7494960 likes
Just to add … if we are defining everything as a ‘game’ then does this term actually mean anything?
I think a lot of people get caught in the ideas of Wittgenstein and start believing ‘everything is game’ just because he termed the phrase ‘language game’ … he did use the term Language in a very narrow sense so it is worth taking that into account.
Note: I have previously used the theme of life being a ‘game’ before but that was rather loose.
I like sushiOctober 19, 2022 at 12:30#7497330 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 We reach it in death. It is not exactly like every waking hour of our lives is hellish or even close to being so.
Human beings are human beings because we are alive. We cannot help existing. Why would we want to? I certainly have no major qualms with ‘existence’ but it is certainly puzzling that I exist and attach meaning to things in my life.
‘Suffering’ is a term too easily thrown around by you I find. Why would any sane person avoid every single ounce of suffering in life? Do to so would mean you are a walking talking zombie person shuffling through life like you are already dead. This is actually something quite common to many humans but the vast majority get over it.
Would you call Schopenhauer much of a narcissist? It just seems to me that such obsession with negative thoughts often stem from a kind of narcissism as the fury/rage/disappointment is directed at the world, or life itself, rather than simply taking the world on as mere happenstance within which we are not particularly significant nor possessing any right to demand/expect reality to be other than it is.
I like sushiOctober 19, 2022 at 12:31#7497340 likes
Everyone gets ‘angry’ at life though at some point. Then we usually grow up … albeit slowly and with instances of regression! :D
schopenhauer1October 19, 2022 at 17:01#7497680 likes
Everyone gets ‘angry’ at life though at some point. Then we usually grow up … albeit slowly and with instances of regression! :D
Dumb trope. That’s not how it necessarily goes. I can commit suicide or accept that I can’t change things. I want to be in neither position. But I can’t. Just saying “suck it up buttercup” is saying nothing but the default with the added “don’t complain”. But that is simply restating the status quo and telling people to not question the situation itself because YOU particularly don’t want to hear it. Then don’t worry, go somewhere else. Carry on and read nothing that challenges the status quo.
schopenhauer1October 19, 2022 at 17:05#7497700 likes
Do to so would mean you are a walking talking zombie person shuffling through life like you are already dead. This is actually something quite common to many humans but the vast majority get over it.
Much of life we are zombies repeating same behaviors over and over. You can fast forward most of peoples day and nothing of meaningful experiences or significance would be lost.
I like sushiOctober 19, 2022 at 17:20#7497740 likes
I am failing to see the point pf any of this. You simply state the obvious over and over like it is something we should care about whilst simultaneously insinuating we should not care about it.
It does not make sense.
Pessimism is necessary in life. Suffering is necessary in life. That is not exactly anything anyone did not know is it? Even if it is so what?
I like sushiOctober 19, 2022 at 17:21#7497750 likes
Carry on and read nothing that challenges the status quo.
You literally said we cannot challenge the status quo … which we cannot. We live, we suffer and we die. Why is this ‘pessimistic’ though? It is just the fact of existing.
schopenhauer1October 19, 2022 at 17:51#7497800 likes
However, it isn't a particular war that a pessimist would care about but the seemingly pervasive aspect of conflict and war in human society, governments, and history. It seems like a feature or an irradicable bug.
I wrote a previous thread about technology, for example. In that one, I described the pervasive and inescapable nature of the fact that not all humans can truly participate in creating the technology that sustains them.
I wrote in another thread about the inability to move to another form of living. This is a pervasive and inescapable feature of being born. We cannot really change the set of choices and harms presented to us.
I now know what you really are. You're not a pessimist. You are a cynic. Know the difference. I think you have disdain, not despair, of things humans. Which give me hope -- pessimists annoy me. But cynics bring to life a different flavor of humanity. They're a funny lot, but truthful. Which is what's important. They tell it like it is.
'To exist sucks' mostly because – even though you ought not to exist – as Cioran points out: it's always too late not to exist. So 'embrace the suck' if you have the courage and the wit to do so; otherwise, you can always 'unfuck yourself' with either a pharmaceutical or surgical lobotomy. :eyes:
:rofl:
Et lux in tenebris lucet.
I like sushiOctober 20, 2022 at 05:10#7499380 likes
I like sushiOctober 20, 2022 at 05:12#7499390 likes
@schopenhauer1 I would be interested to learn about other schools of ‘pessimism’ if you can give an account of some of them rather than sticking to the one in the OP.
I feel showing the distinctions between different views in this area would help in the understanding of a particular ‘pessimism’.
Agent SmithOctober 20, 2022 at 05:15#7499410 likes
I now know what you really are. You're not a pessimist. You are a cynic. Know the difference. I think you have disdain, not despair, of things humans. Which give me hope -- pessimists annoy me. But cynics bring to life a different flavor of humanity. They're a funny lot, but truthful. Which is what's important. They tell it like it is.
Fair enough. I think it important to point out these pervasive negatives that we cannot escape. It's like being taken advantage of but not knowing it, but trying to wake people up to the fact that they are being taken advantage of. Perhaps they don't want you to wake them up to this fact. Perhaps they liked their ignorance. It's always the same theme.. Plato telling those in the cave. The people in the cave telling him to leave them the fuck alone, and probably adds.. "You raving lunatic".
schopenhauer1October 20, 2022 at 14:35#7500700 likes
I would be interested to learn about other schools of ‘pessimism’ if you can give an account of some of them rather than sticking to the one in the OP.
I feel showing the distinctions between different views in this area would help in the understanding of a particular ‘pessimism’.
I think it is so loosely defined, that there aren't really "schools" of pessimists, but just individual pessimists with similar themes. However, I can sum up some basic differences:
Metaphysical Pessimists (Schopenhauer, Hartmann, Mainlander, etc):
These thinkers thought there was an inherent source of suffering. For Schopenhauer it was Will. Will represents a striving-for-nothing. Will's playground is the illusion of individuation. This individuation creates the appearance of separate objects. These objects are objectifications and individuations of the Will, but are not primary ("less real") than the unified Will. Animals, and especially humans, suffer due to a profound sense of metaphysical "lack". Satisfaction is temporary because we are go from pursuits of survival and entertainment to boredom and back. Satisfaction can only truly happen by transcending one's nature of willing. According to him, this requires denying the Will and becoming an ascetic along the lines of a Jainist or something of that nature. The ultimate fate would be to starve oneself to death peacefully. He didn't expect anyone except a few to live up to that kind of lifestyle. He did think there were other things that can invoke will-lessness. He thought compassion and art brought us temporarily into a state of will-lessness. It goes on obviously. He has four really large books on the matter in The World as Will and Representation.
I'll just paste from the Wikipedia article on Mainlander:
Working in the metaphysical framework of Schopenhauer, Mainländer sees the "will" as the innermost core of being, the ontological arche. However, he deviates from Schopenhauer in important respects. With Schopenhauer the will is singular, unified and beyond time and space. Schopenhauer's transcendental idealism leads him to conclude that we only have access to a certain aspect of the thing-in-itself by introspective observation of our own bodies. What we observe as will is all there is to observe, nothing more. There are no hidden aspects. Furthermore, via introspection we can only observe our individual will. This also leads Mainländer to the philosophical position of pluralism.[2]:?202? The goals he set for himself and for his system are reminiscent of ancient Greek philosophy: what is the relation between the undivided existence of the "One" and the everchanging world of becoming that we experience.
Additionally, Mainländer accentuates on the idea of salvation for all of creation. This is yet another respect in which he differentiates his philosophy from that of Schopenhauer. With Schopenhauer, the silencing of the will is a rare event. The artistic genius can achieve this state temporarily, while only a few saints have achieved total cessation throughout history. For Mainländer, the entirety of the cosmos is slowly but surely moving towards the silencing of the will to live and to (as he calls it) "redemption".
Mainländer theorized that an initial singularity dispersed and expanded into the known universe. This dispersion from a singular unity to a multitude of things offered a smooth transition between monism and pluralism. Mainländer thought that with the regression of time, all kinds of pluralism and multiplicity would revert to monism and he believed that, with his philosophy, he had managed to explain this transition from oneness to multiplicity and becoming.[16]
Death of God
Main article: God is dead
Despite his scientific means of explanation, Mainländer was not afraid to philosophize in allegorical terms. Formulating his own "myth of creation", Mainländer equated this initial singularity with God.
Mainländer reinterprets Schopenhauer's metaphysics in two important aspects. Primarily, in Mainländer's system there is no "singular will". The basic unity has broken apart into individual wills and each subject in existence possesses an individual will of his own. Because of this, Mainländer can claim that once an "individual will" is silenced and dies, it achieves absolute nothingness and not the relative nothingness we find in Schopenhauer. By recognizing death as salvation and by giving nothingness an absolute quality, Mainländer's system manages to offer "wider" means for redemption. Secondarily, Mainländer reinterprets the Schopenhauerian will-to-live as an underlying will-to-die, i.e. the will-to-live is the means towards the will-to-die.[17]
From the Wiki article on Hartmann:
The essential feature of the morality built upon the basis of Von Hartmann's philosophy is the realization that all is one and that, while every attempt to gain happiness is illusory, yet before deliverance is possible, all forms of the illusion must appear and be tried to the utmost. Even he who recognizes the vanity of life best serves the highest aims by giving himself up to the illusion, and living as eagerly as if he thought life good. It is only through the constant attempt to gain happiness that people can learn the desirability of nothingness; and when this knowledge has become universal, or at least general, deliverance will come and the world will cease. No better proof of the rational nature of the universe is needed than that afforded by the different ways in which men have hoped to find happiness and so have been led unconsciously to work for the final goal. The first of these is the hope of good in the present, the confidence in the pleasures of this world, such as was felt by the Greeks. This is followed by the Christian transference of happiness to another and better life, to which in turn succeeds the illusion that looks for happiness in progress, and dreams of a future made worth while by the achievements of science. All alike are empty promises, and known as such in the final stage, which sees all human desires as equally vain and the only good in the peace of Nirvana.[9]
Existential Pessimists (E.M. Cioran, Nietzsche, Camus, etc.)
These people tend to not focus on metaphysics but purely the phenomenological human.
E.M Cioran for example, wrote in essays and aphorisms. One of his main themes was the idea of inertia (that is my take anyway). It's the idea that there is our situation is grim, but there is nowhere to go and nothing to do. Here are some quotes:
[i]My mission is to kill time, and time's to kill me in its turn. How comfortable one is among murderers.
[/i]
Man starts over again everyday, in spite of all he knows, against all he knows.
To Live signifies to believe and hope - to lie and to lie to oneself.
Ennui is the echo in us of time tearing itself apart.
Life inspires more dread than death - it is life which is the great unknown.
When people come to me saying they want to kill themselves, I tell them, "What's your rush? You can kill yourself any time you like. So calm down. Suicide is a positive act." And they do calm down.
Better to be an animal than a man, an insect than an animal, a plant than an insect, and so on. Salvation? Whatever diminishes the kingdom of consciousness and compromises its supremacy.
There was a time when time did not yet exist. ... The rejection of birth is nothing but the nostalgia for this time before time.
Not one moment when I have not been conscious of being outside Paradise.
Just read any of his quotes here:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emil_Cioran
Again, there is not so much a coherent movement as much as similarity in themes. 19th century Germany might be the most prominent time/place of this philosophy. Schopenhauer was the progenitor for much of the ideas that came after. Even if not directly, movements like existentialism were influenced from him.
For more reading go here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_pessimism
or read these books:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1677700.Pessimism
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28192377-weltschmerz?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=CASfH7rSIL&rank=1
From Goodreads on Weltschmerz:
Weltschmerz is a study of the pessimism that dominated German philosophy in the second half of the nineteenth century. Pessimism was essentially the theory that life is not worth living. This theory was introduced into German philosophy by Schopenhauer, whose philosophy became very fashionable in the 1860s. Frederick C. Beiser examines the intense and long controversy that arose from Schopenhauer's pessimism, which changed the agenda of philosophy in Germany away from the logic of the sciences and toward an examination of the value of life. He examines the major defenders of pessimism (Philipp Mainlander, Eduard von Hartmann and Julius Bahnsen) and its chief critics, especially Eugen Duhring and the neo-Kantians. The pessimism dispute of the second half of the century has been largely ignored in secondary literature and this book is a first attempt since the 1880s to re-examine it and to analyze the important philosophical issues raised by it. The dispute concerned the most
fundamental philosophical issue of them all: whether life is worth living.
Agent SmithOctober 22, 2022 at 02:41#7504970 likes
I believe we can resign from life, but mind you, not in the way we think.
I like sushiOctober 23, 2022 at 01:50#7506810 likes
I ‘work’ 20 hrs a week currently - cut down from 24 hrs.
My ‘job’ is something I enjoy 80% of the time.
I do not get sucked into ‘consumption’ for the sake of consumption - do not use a mobile (have one but it stays as home). I buy new clothes every 4 or 5 years, and the only possessions I have of value to me are my books and iPad. I refuse to wear clothes that have any symbol or writing on (dislike them for some reason).
People may judge, and do, and I do not care too much. I am my own judge and jury for the most part (obviously I am a social creature so others have some sway over my choices and thoughts).
Basically, the OP is a relative point of view. I have felt the general shadow of the OP in life but I simply refused to accept it and told my parents from a fairly young age that I would rather live and die on the streets than get stuck in a job I hated.
Sloth is about avoidance not ‘lazing around’. If someone chooses to sit around all day picking their nose that is their choice. I feel sad for them. Some of the most slothful people I have met are very industrious … they are simply doing something easy to distract from what their passions are.
Your only usefulness to broader society is your ability to both produce and consume. If we do not value these things (in the modern context at least), the system collapses.
The operative phrase there is "in the modern context", by which I take it you mean western industrial capitalist society. I do realize that most of the world has followed suit, whether they wanted to or not.
A couple of things about this kind of society: it's anxious, alienated and terminally ill. The very conceptual foundation of capitalism is anti-human and anti-life. Since it runs on debt, it has to keep growing to survive and that means it has to consume everything and then die. But it's incapable and unwilling to look forward at long-term consequences. If we look back a few thousand year, so is the basis of "civilization" as we have learned to call urbanized, stratified social organization, fundamentally anti-life and anti-human. As we have domesticated and enfeebled dogs by breeding the wolf out of them, we have domesticated humans by browbeating, bribing and flim-flamming the zest for life out of them...
No, not quite. There is spark still left. Is there any hope for it to thrive? It depends, I think, on how soon the present system collapses; whether there is something and someone left for a new departure.
Since I like to imagine so, I suppose I'm not a real pessimist... yet.
Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.
At what stage of its development? Are there animals or just plants? If animals already exist, and they have to compete for survival, they will evolve into sentience, very likely through stages of behaviour that are inimical to other life forms.
So, they have two desires: a desire to leave the sensible world to operate in its own manner, but also a desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world.
Then, in order to get their wish, as omnipotent entities generally do, they would have to introduce a sensible life form that fits seamlessly into the sensible world.
If there are only plants and perhaps vegetarian insects, they could introduce a well designed sentient life form. It should be small enough to make a meal out of one strawberry and sleep in the hollow of a tree. It should have a long life-span and reproduce infrequently. It should be able to fly and its wings should be solar-powered and water-resistant. The body should be covered in fur just warm enough to keep it comfortable. It should be sociable as to disposition but self-sufficient as to capability.
And you are not omniscient, but you know that this sensible world is an incredibly dangerous place, full of all manner of dangers and just about every conceivable harm.
That's not my definition of a sensible world. Why would I want to leave it that way? Quoting Bartricks
I mean, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to introduce sentient life into the sensible world if they are not going to change the sensible world, then your inability to change the sensible world should also mean that you ought not to introduce sentient life into it. Agree?
Not really. What would be the point of omniscience and omnipotence if you refuse yourself permission to change a world that doesn't satisfy you?
Imagine that Mary has two offers of marriage - one from John and one from Tony. So, she can pledge lifelong fidelity to John and she can pledge lifelong fidelity to Tony. And she can do both. That is, nothing stops her promising to be faithful to John exclusively and promising to be faithful to Tony exlusively.
Clearly it would be wrong for her to do both. If she pledges lifelong fidelity to John, then she ought not to pledge lifelong fidelity to Tony too, and vice versa. One or the other, not both.
So far so good. Now imagine someone else - Jennifer. Jennifer is already married to Ralph. So she is now unable to change the fact she has pledged lifelong fidelity to Ralph. Does her inability to change the fact she has promised lifelong fidelity to Ralph mean that it is now morally permissible for her to pledge lifelong fidelity to someone else? No, obviously not. It'd be as wrong for Jennifer to do that as it would be for Mary to pledge lifelong fidelity to both John and Tony.
Similarly then, the omnipotent person has the ability to satisfy both of her desires - her desire for the world to keep operating in the way that it is, and her desire to create life and make it live in the sensible world. But it would be wrong for her to satisfy both desires. One or the other. Not both. That is, either keep the sensible world operating as it does, but do not introduce life into it. Or introduce life into it, but change its operations so that it doesn't harm people to live in it.
We, by contrast, do not have those two options, for we are powerless to change how the sensible world operates. We are not, however, powerless to refrain from introducing life into it. Thus, we should refrain from introducing new life into it. If it was wrong for the omnipotent person to introduce life into it without changing it, then our inability to change it implies that it is wrong for us to introduce life into it as well.
I like sushiOctober 23, 2022 at 05:40#7506950 likes
Reply to Vera Mont ‘Capitalism,’ like ‘democracy,’ is a variated term. I do not see ‘capitalism’ as the root of all social problems myself. It is more or less, in my eyes, a repercussion of other social attitudes and changes due to the modern world.
Communications have changed everything, and are still changing everything.
I like sushiOctober 23, 2022 at 05:44#7506960 likes
Reply to Bartricks Everything would be nothing. There would be no meaning, sense nor care.
Basically, it would be as everything is now … the only difference being we of limited capacities can ‘appreciate’ something we term ‘difference’ through what is likely ignorance clouded with an idea we term ‘knowledge’.
I like sushiOctober 23, 2022 at 05:51#7506980 likes
Reply to Bartricks I obviously disagree because of the above. The assumption that some higher being has anything like our sense of morality is nonsense. If that is woven into the hypothetical then I do not see how it can fit just like a hypothetical such as this:
‘Imagine all apples are oranges. If you were an apple are you an orange or an apple being an orange?’
It is irrelevant nonsense. Contradictory and therefore closed off fro rational thought and sensible investigation.
Your hypothetical may work if you reduce the knowledge and abilities of the entity in the OP as such a being having SOME form of limitations.
Reply to I like sushi I have no idea how anything you are saying connects with anything I have said.
Again then: the omnipotent person wants to keep the sensible world operating as it does. The omnipotent person also wants to create new life. It is wrong for them to satisfy both desires. If they satisfy desire A - the desire to keep the sensible world operating as it does - then they ought not to satisfy their other desire, B - the desire to create new life. One or the other, not both.
With this, note, a proponent of the problem of evil - that is, someone who thinks the problem of evil demonstrates God's non existence - must agree. For if they think the omnipotent person can satisfy both desires and be doing nothing wrong in doing so, then they do not think there is a problem of evil.
All proponents of the problem of evil must therefore agree that the omnipotent person would be immoral if they satisfied both desires. One or the other. Not both.
Now, unlike the omnipotent person, we are unable to change how the sensible world operates. But what that implies is that we ought to frustrate any desire we may have to procreate.
Again: if the omnipotent person elects not to change how the sensible world operates, then they ought to frustrate their desire to procreate. Similarly then, if we are unable to change how the sensible world operates, we ought to frustrate our desire to procreate.
Morally what ought they to do? Should they frustrate their desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world? Or should they frustrate their desire to leave the sensible world alone and instead alter it so that it does not pose the risks to the welfare of the innocent life they plan on introducing into it? Or should they satisfy both desires?
I think if there was an omnipotent omniscient person that wished to protect their project - life, or sentient beings. I would imagine that they would act in the best practice of any parent - non interference until such a time that their creation unknowingly puts themselves in the gravest of mortal danger.
Then its wise for their parent - this omniscient being to step in/ intervene and provide some of that knowledge to help guide his /her creation away from their own demise.
In this way the benevolent omniscient being maintains as much free will as is possible for their sentient creations so they can explore and be curious and make their own decisions, all the while protecting them from total self annihilation whenever they choose to ignore their omniscient parent entirely to the point of pure delusion and self harm. For example like inventing nuclear weapons.
universenessOctober 23, 2022 at 08:24#7507050 likes
If you guys would take the time to understand his arguments instead of getting triggered, you would realize that many of his arguments make a lot of sense. Even if they are pretty intense.
That's not me protecting Barricks btw, I think he is arrogant and on an unexplainable, bizarre crusade to trigger as many TPF posters as possible with *surprisingly well-thought-out arguments.
* as compared to the vast majority of people who post on philosophy of religion, or on this site at all
universenessOctober 23, 2022 at 12:45#7507420 likes
Morally what ought they to do? Should they frustrate their desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world? Or should they frustrate their desire to leave the sensible world alone and instead alter it so that it does not pose the risks to the welfare of the innocent life they plan on introducing into it? Or should they satisfy both desires?
Simple. Create a dude, ask him what he thinks about it. After all, that's the subject of the matter. I know people who love life and writhe at the idea of it ending or not existing. I know people who can't stand it and swear this is Hell who want to die. We all do. If it's good, go for more. If not, back to the drawing board. Nothing to lose sleep over.
Some people love a good life or death challenge. Others prefer peace and the stability that comes with predictability. You can't make everyone happy all the time so you know what they say, "one man's morality..."
Bartricks basically leverages the problem of evil into a syllogism demonstrating that since God would not suffer innocents to live in a dangerous world, we must not be innocent.
The only avenues of attack were to claim that God is unjust - humans don't get what they deserve - or that innocence can indeed be ascertained via reason. I have argued for at least the first.
I'm pretty certain 180 simultaneously craps his pants and has an aneurysm every time Bartricks posts an OP.
universenessOctober 23, 2022 at 13:27#7507540 likes
So, firstly, you accept the premise that 'evil' is a problem, 'outside' of the concept that it is a purely human concept and has no existence outside of sentient life. Evil is a labelled projection or manifestation of what most humans may judge certain human behaviours be categorised as. Killing for no reason or a reason which is not justified enough, is evil, killing in self-defence is not. Only other humans, given judicial authority, can judge on an incident-by-incident basis.
Secondly you accept the premise that god must exist based on a BS argument that if it did, it would not suffer innocents to live in a dangerous world.
Why is the premise that if god exists then it is the source and origin of ALL EVIL any less 'feasible?' and therefore god would allow innocents to suffer, as they do, so an existent god is fully responsible for all evil. Many theists turn atheist because they think if god exists then it allows evil. This is in fact more akin to the term 'the problem of evil.'
If you consider this 'syllogism' to have any value, then I do think you are easily impressed because it is based on two premises which have not been DEMONSTRATED as true.
Innocence, like evil is another human concept and again is purely based on human judgement on a case-by-case basis, often further informed by the outcome of previous cases or precedent/legal principle.
I'm pretty certain 180 simultaneously craps his pants and has an aneurysm every time Bartricks posts an OP.
Imo, @180proof has a far more impressive knowledge of philosophy than bar tricks and is quite capable of defending his own positions.
I personally thought bartricks was female not male but perhaps I am wrong.
Real Gone CatOctober 23, 2022 at 16:04#7507750 likes
A being cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. Being omnipotent means having free will to choose one's action at all times. Being omniscient means knowing what every future choice will be. Can't have both.
Well, unless you allow for a universe that bifurcates (multi-furcates?) at each choice. So, omnipotence OR omniscience OR the multiverse (if both).
I do not see ‘capitalism’ as the root of all social problems myself.
Nor do I. It is merely the most recent dysfunction of civilization. (Organized/state religion and monarchy were two of the previous manifestations.) The last and fatal one, IMO, because it compels the afflicted society to propagate it - much as a virus replicates itself by taking over the reproductive function of the cell it's killing - and the only end-point is the death of the host. No vaccine is coming from outer space.
Similarly then, the omnipotent person has the ability to satisfy both of her desires - her desire for the world to keep operating in the way that it is, and her desire to create life and make it live in the sensible world. But it would be wrong for her to satisfy both desires. One or the other. Not both.
By what authority do you hold and omniscient, omnipotent being to the moral standard imposed by society on ordinary mortals? You attribute superpowers to a character on whom you then place arbitrary limitations. You posit 'a sensible world' without defining 'sensible'.
Why set up an insoluble conundrum?
I can thumb my nose at God without the complications.
Morality is built around the needs and desire of a society, this is a one person society so he/she/it can do whatever he/she/it wants to do and it would always be morally acceptable.
And if he/she/it does like the results, he/she/it can redo or undo the problems he/she/it caused.
Your hypothetical may work if you reduce the knowledge and abilities of the entity in the OP as such a being having SOME form of limitations.
If by "omniscient" we mean a person that knows correctly how they are connected fundamentally to the rest of existence (the universe) then they are omnipotent through said existence (the universe). They are not omnipotent in human form as they cannot do inhuman things (humans are in one way defined by what they can and cannot physically achieve).
As an object their total power would not be available to them, however they could point to the universe saying "look.. I am it and it is me" through some core relationship (energy perhaps) and say "there is my absolute power" (the universe). However I am just a partiality of said power, here as an object (human).
In that sense knowing that the "whole" is ambivalent (both creative and destruction, both chaos and order). The omniscient person (knowing of all relationships between things) can thus also be ambivalent (not care) in reflection of the whole, or they can be malevolent or benevolent.
So what defines the difference between an omniscient person being benevolent or malevolent? It is in their choice to either keep their omniscience to themselves (the truth) or spread it far and wide to empower others to be able discern ignorance from truth.
In essence a good god wants others to know they are god also and serves them in telling so. (selflessness).
A bad god wants people to think of only themselves as God and everyone else should be subordinates to them. (selfishness).
In that way the truth can be kept to do evil or spread to do good.
Again then: the omnipotent person wants to keep the sensible world operating as it does. The omnipotent person also wants to create new life. It is wrong for them to satisfy both desires.
This the crux of the matter. You have not demonstrated that a new life cannot fit into an imaginary world as it operates. You have not demonstrated how the conflicting desires - if indeed they are in conflict - of a deity becomes a moral issue.
By what authority do you hold and omniscient, omnipotent being to the moral standard imposed by society on ordinary mortals? You attribute superpowers to a character on whom you then place arbitrary limitations. You posit 'a sensible world' without defining 'sensible'.
Why set up an insoluble conundrum?
I can thumb my nose at God without the complications.
Again, nothing you're saying has anything to do with anything I have said.
The omnipotent, omniscient person desires to leave the world to run in its own way.
They also desire to introduce life into the world.
Now, as any proponent of the problem of evil will agree, it would be quite wrong of them to satisfy both desires. That is, it would be quite wrong of them to introduce life into the world and then just let the world do its own thing.
If you think they'd be doing nothing wrong in satisfying both desires, then you simply do not think the problem of evil arises. But I am taking it for granted that it would be immoral, other things being equal, for an omnipotent, omniscient person to satisfy both desires.
Morally it would be fine for them to just leave the world to its own devices and frustrate their desire to introduce life into the world. Nothing wrong in doing that.
And most would accept that it would be morally permissible for them to radically alter the world so that it was a safe place into which to introduce life and to monitor the world's operations to make sure no one comes to any horrendous harms (thereby frustrating their desire to leave the world to run in its own way).
If that is correct, then my point is that our inability to change the world and make sure it does not visit horrendous harms on anyone we bring here implies that we ought to frustrate any desire we have to procreate.
That is, if the omnipotent, omniscient person decides to indulge their desire to let the world run in its own way, then the omnipotent, omniscient person ought to frustrate their desire to procreate. We are unable to affect how the world runs. Therefore we ought to frustrate our desire to procreate.
Morally it would be fine for them to just leave the world to its own devices and frustrate their desire to introduce life into the world. Nothing wrong in doing that.
But if they don't introduce life (conscious/sentient beings) into the world what capacity would such an inanimate world have for it would not even be aware that it exists. A world without an observer would be devoid of both meaning and its consequence: "good" and "evil" (concepts held by sentient things).
The person is powerful and knowledgeable enough to introduce a robust form of life such as tardigrades with big brains that are invulnerable to the environment.
Morality is built around the needs and desire of a society,
No it isn't.
But anyway, that's an absurd 'metaethical' claim, whereas my question is a normative one. Rookie mistake.
Me: "which way to the city centre?"
You: "A city centre is a collection of trees"
But if they don't introduce life (conscious/sentient beings) into the world what capacity would such an inanimate world have for it would not even be aware that it exists. A word without an observer would be devoid of both meaning and its consequence: "good" and "evil" (concepts held by sentient things).
I don't really see your point. There's an omnipotent, omniscient person. There's a sensible world. They - the omnipotent, omniscient person - like the world, They enjoy watching how things unfold in it. There's nothing wrong in that. There's nothing wrong, for instance, in enjoying how the flames of a fire dance about. But if you also enjoy seeing a person dance about, it would be wrong to throw a person into the fire and watch them dance about in it. Watch the dance of the flames, or watch the dance of a human, but don't combine them.
But if they don't introduce life (conscious/sentient beings) into the world what capacity would such an inanimate world have for it would not even be aware that it exists. A word without an observer would be devoid of both meaning and its consequence: "good" and "evil" (concepts held by sentient things).
I don't really see your point. There's an omnipotent, omniscient person. There's a sensible world. They - the omnipotent, omniscient person - like the world, They enjoy watching how things unfold in it. There's nothing wrong in that. There's nothing wrong, for instance, in enjoying how the flames of a fire dance about. But if you also enjoy seeing a person dance about, it would be wrong to throw a person into the fire and watch them dance about in it. Watch the dance of the flames, or watch the dance of a human, but don't combine them.
That is, if the omnipotent, omniscient person decides to indulge their desire to let the world run in its own way, then the omnipotent, omniscient person ought to frustrate their desire to procreate. We are unable to affect how the world runs. Therefore we ought to frustrate our desire to procreate.
This anti-natalism "appears" logical. But it does not consider free will. If an omnipotent omniscient presence/entity were to abstain from allowing things to run in its own way then they must remain as only "potential to be" rather than "being/existence".
To exist is to be at odds with all other existents that themselves wish to exist. As they are in constant power struggle. For example in order for a Virus to exist it is in conflict with the immune systems of its potential hosts.
Therefore if one is to exist it must be subject to both creative and destructive forces. As you cannot have one without the other. If one wishes not to exist then it is removed from competition to do so.
It is true that for free will to exist an omniscient omnipotent person could not exist for any significant amount of time. They could merely exist briefly. If they are the "truth" (because of their superior knowledge and thus power/potency) then the truth is an unstable state in a changing/free will governed system.
In essence if the truth of things were to come out, it would be gravitated towards and dissected and dissolved and thus vanish almost as quickly as it appeared. In order to preserve free will. So if there is a god (an omniscient omnipotent being, a pure unarguable logic), they would likely not wish to be known, for if they did free will would dissolve and thus they must be destroyed to bring back choice.
A being cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. Being omnipotent means having free will to choose one's action at all times. Being omniscient means knowing what every future choice will be. Can't have both.
I think that's false, but it wouldn't matter much if it were true, given the point I am making. Just imagine that we have an omnipotent and very knowledgeable person on our hands. The same applies.
Reply to Benj96 I genuinely do not know what you are talking about. You state that I have ignored free will. I do not know what you mean. I haven't mentioned free will. Why would I? I have also not mentioned granary loaves. There are all manner of things I have not mentioned. If you think free will is relevant, explain clearly how.
Do you understand the scenario I have described? There's an omnipotent omniscient person. Call them Tony. And there is a sensible world.
Tony does not want to interfere with the operations of the sensible world.
Tony wants to create new life and put it into that sensible world.
It is wrong for Tony to do both of those things. Yes? (If your answer to that question is 'no' then you don't think there's a problem of evil and my case is not addressed to you).
I don't really see your point. There's an omnipotent, omniscient person. There's a sensible world. They - the omnipotent, omniscient person - like the world, They enjoy watching how things unfold in it. There's nothing wrong in that.
To an omniscient, omnipotent person would their own existence be compatible with a "sensible" world ?
If they "know all" and have "all power" then they're totalitarian. Nothing logical can occur outside of their omniscience. There is thus no choice for any of their subjects as their (the subjects) choice is already made knowingly and powerfully for them. In this case they are mere extensions of the omniscient/omnipotent being and not their own "Agents". They cannot logically revolt.
What sensibility is there in being the only thing that exists and the only controller. In that case you exist alone. A "sensible" world is one where mistakes can be made, experiences can be learned from, agents can be free to decide for themselves what they believe.
Nor do I. It is merely the most recent dysfunction of civilization. (Organized/state religion and monarchy were two of the previous manifestations.) The last and fatal one, IMO, because it compels the afflicted society to propagate it - much as a virus replicates itself by taking over the reproductive function of the cell it's killing - and the only end-point is the death of the host. No vaccine is coming from outer space.
I see the problem rather that there is a system that always has to be in place when someone is born. It is a system that gets entrenched and thus we become habituated beings. X hours for employer. X hours for self is our current system. Perhaps it cannot be any other way if we are to have this kind of system. Afterall, technology came about through this system. Is technology and this way of being necessarily linked (it cannot be any other way), or is it contingently linked? I don't see how it can be contingently linked and went a different way really. Engineers think of stuff, funded by financial backers. Distributors and laborers market, distribute, sell, support, fix, all the rest of it. Little communes only exist in the wider system, so that's out as a "real" alternative. You are laborer. That is your value. If you deviate, you are a free rider (or you better be either independently wealthy or a one-off genius). This is how it is and will be and will continue with each new generation. All the change is window dressing.
What I'm saying is an omniscient omnipotent being cannot create a world of "oppositions/opposites". Nothing can oppose that which knows all and has all capability (potency). In order to have freedom/free will, in order to have multiple conscious agents with their own agency and decisions to make, an omniscient omnipotent being cannot be present.
If such a creator exists then their absence/ unavailability to humanity is the only true reason people have any free will. People are illogical and make decisions based on that imperfect/flawed logic. If an ultimate logic were to be presented, individual flawed logic would be overwhelmed and destroyed and total autocratic control would be assumed.
What I'm saying is an omniscient omnipotent being cannot create a world of "oppositions/opposites".
Again, I don't know what you're talking about. Yes they can. But what's the relevance? You're not really listening, are you? You're just saying stuff. It's a puzzle to me why you're saying what you're saying. It doesn't address anything I am saying. "Would you like sugar in your coffee?" "Without sugar there can be no free will. That is what you're overlooking". "Er, I just want to know if you want sugar in your coffee. Do you?" "I can't want something without also not wanting it. And free will is what sugar lacks. Though sugar provides free will, it does not itself have it. Coffee, on the other hand, is flawed by its own internal logic. Does the coffee view itself as sugar?" And so on.
Let's make it easier. If you like watching fires and if you like watching people dance, is it ok to throw a person in a fire and watch them dance and watch the flames?
Tony wants to create new life and put it into that sensible world.
If Tony wants to create new life and put it into a sensible world, he is creating something insensible (living beings with irrational/imperfect thought) and putting them into a sensible world (something logical/rational)
To the living beings (which are illogical/flawed - as all beings are) they would naturally project insensibility onto a sensible world through their insensible perception. They would likely have disputes and argue with one another as to what the sensible world really was - again because of their insensible/flawed understanding.
Does this explain where I coming from? Or should I elaborate? If both the living things were sensible and the environment - that which they were added to, then all would be sensible, agreed upon and therefore not argued. There would be no possible difference in opinion and therefore no free will.
Another example: Susan wants to invite James over for dinner. Susan also wants to cook a particular dish - an incredibly hot curry - that James dislikes.
Well, she should choose which of those desires to satisfy. If she invites James over, she should cook him something he'll like, not something he'll dislike.
Now imagine that you also want to invite James over for dinner, but the only ingredients you have in your cupboard are those that make an incredibly hot curry and nothing else. Well, you shouldn't invite him over then.
You're not really listening, are you? You're just saying stuff. It's a puzzle to me why you're saying what you're saying
I'm trying. I think you're likely an articulate and intelligent person. I respect your views and am attempting to offer views I think may be useful. I like to listen, try to digest the information and come up with a responsible and reasonable response to furher the discourse.
I have provided a new example, this time involving regular folk. Again then:
Susan wants to invite James over for dinner. Susan also wants to cook a particular dish - an incredibly hot curry - that James dislikes. She does not have to cook that dish - she has other things available, including things James really likes.
Well, she should choose which of those desires to satisfy. If she invites James over, she should cook him something he'll like, not something he'll dislike. Or, if she really wants to cook the hot curry, then she should do that and not invite James over.
Now imagine that you also want to invite James over for dinner, but the only ingredients you have in your cupboard are those that make an incredibly hot curry and nothing else. Well, you shouldn't invite him over then. Yes?
Another example: Susan wants to invite James over for dinner. Susan also wants to cook a particular dish - an incredibly hot curry - that James dislikes.
Well, she should choose which of those desires to satisfy. If she invites James over, she should cook him something he'll like, not something he'll dislike.
Now imagine that you also want to invite James over for dinner, but the only ingredients you have in your cupboard are those that make an incredibly hot curry and nothing else. Well, you shouldn't invite him over then.
Yes agreed. Nobody with sensible intentions wishes James to suffer an insufferably hot curry. So either cook something he will like, don't invite him or get takeout..
This is obvious. What relevance does it have to our previous discourse? Please explain
It is a system that gets entrenched and thus we become habituated beings.
Except for the times when a system stops working and is overthrown from within, or suffers a major collapse and disintegrates or is overwhelmed by an outside force. People born into the period of upheaval have nothing to become habituated to and are free to experiment, until they empower a new elite who then impose their own system.
Afterall, technology came about through this system.
Not quite. Technology begins with bone tools, stone weapons, fire and dugout canoes. It is a process of human invention on which each succeeding civilization builds.
Is technology and this way of being necessarily linked (it cannot be any other way), or is it contingently linked?
Serially and temporarily. Every system takes advantage of whatever technology exists when it assumes power and adds to the body of innovations according to its own requirements. The bronze age produced a lot of war equipment and personal decoration. Agricultural expansion periods improve on farm implement. Exploring/trading systems speed up methods of transportation; industrial periods expand the use of motive power and manufactury. The monetary age creates technologies for instant transfer of funds and information. None of it is necessary to human survival; it's driven by the needs of the prevailing system.
Engineers think of stuff, funded by financial backers.
The engineering mind tinkers whether it is funded by financial backers or not, just as the artistic mind creates art, music and poetry, whether it sells or not, the adventuresome mind explores and makes maps; the healing mind devises ways to mitigate pain. All of these activities were taking place in primitive cultures that knew nothing of money and lending.
Little communes only exist in the wider system, so that's out as a "real" alternative.
Until the system breaks down. The Greatest Depression, collapse of the web, storms rip apart the electric grid and wipe out the commercial crops, migrants battle locals; cities starve in the cold...
and the Mennonites and Seventh-Day Adventists, Okushiri and Harga survive. Then they build whatever those small populations want to.
I am a parasite, a surplus old person, sucking up a pension and contributing only unpopular novels. I can do that, because the relatively benign political regime under which I live has not yet unravelled. It's in the process of unravelling, but might, with a bit of luck, outlast me...
... Or Putin drops a few nukes and all bets for a future civilization are off.
Reply to Benj96 Susan is the omnipotent, omniscient person. The desire to have James over for dinner is the desire to introduce new life into the sensible world. The incredibly hot curry that Susan wants to cook is the omnipotent, omniscient person's desire to leave the world to operate in its own way.
You are you. Susan has the ability to cook James anything. You don't. You only have the ability to cook the hot curry. Well, if it was wrong for Susan to invite James over and cook him the hot curry, then it is wrong for you to invite James over given you can only cook him hot curry.
So, it is wrong for you to procreate. It would be wrong for the omnipotent, omniscient person to procreate if, that is, she is not going to adjust the world. You can't adjust the world. So you ought not to procreate.
Reply to Benj96 And one can go the other way around if one likes. That is, let's assume that it is morally fine to procreate. Well, then that means there is no problem of evil for God.
For let's imagine that you only have the ingredients to make spaghetti bolognaise. However, this is a meal that, though far from James's favourite, is nevertheless one that he enjoys well enough. Is it okay for you to invite him over for dinner given that you can only serve him spaghetti bolognaise? Yes.
Now imagine that Susan also wants to invite James over and that she wants to cook spaghetti bolognaise. Unlike you, she has a larder full of food and could cook James the dish he most likes. But she just wants to cook spaghetti bolognaise. Is it okay for her to invite James over given that she is going to cook spaghetti bolognaise? Yes, surely. If it was okay for you to invite James over and serve him spaghetti bolognaise, then it is okay for her to do the same.
Thus, if it is morally okay for us to procreate - so, okay for us to invite (well, force) guests to eat spaghetti bolognaise - then it is morally okay for an omnipotent, omniscient person to procreate as well. She could change the world and make it a much safer place for its inhabitants. But then she could cook James his favourite dish. But she is not obliged to do so and does no wrong - does no injustice to James - if she serves him spaghetti bolognaise.
And so, in this way we can see that either there is a problem of evil - in which case it is wrong for us to procreate - or it is morally okay for us to procreate and there is no problem of evil.
Reply to 180 Proof Oh do stop trying to derail this thread. Pure Bartricks baiting. You have nothing philosophical to contribute and you're not being at all funny either. My cat just brought in a half-dead bird. I had to take it outside and stamp it to death. That's about how funny you are. So, again, engage with the argument, or go away. I've got a bird to nurse back to health.
That's a valid opinion. Why drag worlds and omnipotence into it?
Because most agree that there is a problem of evil for God. If I can show how those who think such things are committed to having to agree that this implies it is wrong for us to procreate, then that's philosophically interesting.
I mark lots of essays. And a common mistake - by far the most common - is not to address the question but simply to blurt all that one knows about the subject instead.
That's what is happening here.
So, do you agree that if Susan wants to invite James over, but also wants to cook a meal James dislikes, then she ought to satisfy one or other of her desires, not both. That is, she should not invite James over and cook him the meal he dislikes (but that she wants to cook)?
And if you agree - and surely you will - do you also agree that if you only have the ability to cook James a meal he dislikes, then you shouldn't invite him over to dinner?
So explain to me, how is morality formed. I will even give you a basic definition of the word morality.
"Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"
If society does not decide what is good or bad for its population, where does it come from?
You should know I suppose, as they say "takes one to know one".
One of the worst rookie mistakes is having to give several different examples so that others can get an idea of what you are blathering about and then insinuating that they are the ones that are lacking in brains.
You asked a question, I explained why the question is irrelevant. If you cannot see the pointlessness of your own question, I cannot help you to understand.
o explain to me, how is morality formed. I will even give you a basic definition of the word morality.
"Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"
If society does not decide what is good or bad for its population, where does it come from?
Focus! This thread is not about metaethics.
Here's how our exchange is going:
Me "which way to the centre of town?"
You: "the centre of a town is the centre of a clump of trees
Me: "er, no it isn't. But anyway, my question is about the centre of town's location, not its composition"
You: "If the centre of a town is not a clump of trees, then what is it? Where does it come from? And what is composition? Explain what a composition is"
You should know I suppose, as they say "takes one to know one".
No it doesn't. I am not a rookie. Yet I can tell a rookie. See? I know that the object to my left is a loaf of bread. Does that mean I am a loaf of bread?
Focussing then: if you want to cook a very hot curry tonight, but you also want to invite James over - someone who really dislikes hot curry - then do you agree that you ought to thwart one of your desires? That is, you ought either to cook the very hot curry, but not inflict it on James, or you ought to invite James over but cook him something else?
Reply to Bartricks I gave your OP all the due consideration it warrants; you must've missed it –
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/750919
Reply to 180 Proof That's question begging. The OP contains a highly original argument for antinatalism (or conversely, a highly original way of dealing with the problem of evil). May I suggest you reply with an emoticon. Perhaps a yawning one.
You know what would really rile me? A refutation.
Do you agree that the omnipotent, omniscient person ought to frustrate one of their desires? That is, do you agree that they ought either to frustrate their desire not to interfere with how the sensible world operates, or they ought to frustrate their desire to invest it with sentient life?
They obviously should not introduce sentient life into the world. And if they do, then they should help the suffering and those that need help. It is easy.
Reply to Cobra Do you agree that we ought not do so either, then?
That is, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to invest the sensible world with life if, that is, they are not going to change how it operates, then we ought not either, given we are unable to change how it operates?
Focussing then: if you want to cook a very hot curry tonight, but you also want to invite James over - someone who really dislikes hot curry - then do you agree that you ought to thwart one of your desires? That is, you ought either to cook the very hot curry, but not inflict it on James, or you ought to invite James over but cook him something else?
I have no opinion about the futility of you trying to prove a pointless, no correct answer question. It makes no difference to an "omnipotent, omniscient person" because those same qualities give him/her/it the ability to do both things at the same time or or fail to be an "omnipotent, omniscient person". This is just another "rock to heavy to lift" theory and comes to the same end. But only a rookie would not be able to see that.
All I did was answer your question about the morality of your "introduce life or not question". I don't give a hoot about the rest of the claptrap.
Do you agree that we ought not do so either, then?
It's literally in your own post. That is the first question you asked is basically: "Should he introduce sentient life if he has the power to do so or not?"
Obviously he should not. What do you mean by "ought to do neither"? How do you not do nothing when you are doing nothing? LOL.
It's literally in your own post. That is the first question you asked is basically: "Should he introduce sentient life if he has the power to do so or not?"
Obviously he should not. What do you mean by "ought to do neither"? How do you not do nothing when you are doing nothing? LOL.
Er, what? I am arguing that we ought not procreate. And I am showing how that is implied by the fact that an omnipotent, omniscient person who does not want to change how the world is operating ought to thwart their desire to invest the world with life. You understand that, right?
You agree that hte omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to invest the world with life. So, do you also agree that we ought not procreate too, then? That's a perfectly reasonable question to ask someone on a philosophy thread who is otherwise making comments that seem a little random.
So, do you also agree that we ought not procreate too, then?
Who cares? Humans are GOING TO PROCREATE because that's what humans do. Who cares if we "should or shouldn't". This is completely unrelated to your original OP that asks:
Should some all-powerful non-human reptilian with all the power and knowledge in the world put SENTIENT life on the planet, and the answer is no, and if it DOES because of the crazy comparison you're making with humans because "THIS IS WHAT HUMANS DO" .. then it should help the suffering and those that need help.
Maybe I could offer another tip. Try looking at other societies and their histories before making sweeping, generalized statements about how society came to be.
Satisfaction can only truly happen by transcending one's nature of willing. According to him [Schopenhauer], this requires denying the Will and becoming an ascetic along the lines of a Jainist or something of that nature. The ultimate fate would be to starve oneself to death peacefully.
At the behest of the likes of Nagel and Rawls, I'll mention here the Archimedian point which argues that there is indeed a rational observer whose standpoint can provide an objective account of what's happening in the world.
Example? Schopenhauer himself. He was making an observation as a rational individual, using the archimedian point, while denying the will. Is this an oversight on his part?
That he was able to make a declaration, such as the reality of suffering, is a testament to his own will.
It is a confused mess. Your are trying to build an argument about man doing something because a god would do it (or not do it). Not going to work.
And do not tell me that I would not pass a philosophy course with that answer. I don't need to pass anymore course than those I passed long ago. :rofl: :cool:
I think we need to add English to the courses you'd fail.
I actually give those courses, it pays reasonably well where I live.
If you need help presenting your ideas here on the forum, you can PM me. But I do not help people do their assignments, there is a special section for that.
schopenhauer1October 24, 2022 at 00:45#7509940 likes
Maybe I could offer another tip. Try looking at other societies and their histories before making sweeping, generalized statements about how society came to be.
They are all subsumed. Look at my text in parenthesis closely.
schopenhauer1October 24, 2022 at 00:45#7509950 likes
You have to do it. If not, free riding SOB, born into wealth, or they want you to kill yourself so you aren't a hardship on those that do work. Pessimism.
schopenhauer1October 24, 2022 at 00:47#7509960 likes
The engineering mind tinkers whether it is funded by financial backers or not,
Ford, Edison, Tesla, it was all with money. And the list goes on and on.. In fact, some technology absolutely needed government backing first.. usually from wartime.. then university money, then private sector.
schopenhauer1October 24, 2022 at 00:50#7509970 likes
Reply to Sir2u How well does it pay? A chicken a week? Two? Two chickens, three curse-liftings, a bag of shells and a hat that looks like a teacosey made out of a heavy tappestry?
Look, I think my OP is pretty clear. If it is wrong for an omnipotent person to subject people to life in this sensible world unless they are going to change it, then our inability to change it implies that it is wrong for us to procreate as well. It's a delightfully simple argument.
schopenhauer1October 24, 2022 at 01:08#7510040 likes
Therefore if one is to exist it must be subject to both creative and destructive forces. As you cannot have one without the other. If one wishes not to exist then it is removed from competition to do so.
How is this alone not reason to not willingly produce more beings into that situation? The inevitability of X suffering, doesn't mean that one thus has to willingly allow to continue X suffering because X suffering already exists in some form or another. Lions kill, therefore humans can kill for example is a really simplistic form of this argument. It is the naturalistic fallacy of course.
How well does it pay? A chicken a week? Two? Two chickens, three curse-liftings, a bag of shells and a hat that looks like a teacosey made out of a heavy tappestry?
Maybe a change in career is needed but don't try comedy, you would fail at that as well.
If it is wrong for an omnipotent person to subject people to life in this sensible world unless they are going to change it, then our inability to change it implies that it is wrong for us to procreate as well. It's a delightfully simple argument.
And there you go right back to what I have already explained. If there is only one of these "omnipotent persons" how could something be judged as right or wrong. He/she/it is the judge and jury as well as the witnesses and victims.
Because most agree that there is a problem of evil for God. If I can show how those who think such things are committed to having to agree that this implies it is wrong for us to procreate, then that's philosophically interesting.
Not nearly as interesting as you seem to think. If you wanted to indict God for some wrongdoing - and god know he's guilty of lots! - then go directly there and stop involving Susan and Mary and whoever in irrelevant no-applicable examples. If you are going to indict a god, you should specify which god and read the charges plainly.
All this palaver about an omnipotent entity having created a world - which is supposed to be 'sensible' according to no stated criteria - and then hanging himself unnecessarily on the horns of a moral dilemma no god would entertain for a minute... It simply doesn't work.
I don't know who these "most" are who agree that this is a reasonable way to address the problem of evil, or morality, or procreation. But of course the perennial problem of evil reflects on all the gods humans have ever invented. You simply invented another, even less credible one, stuffed with straw to joust against.
Asking what's moral or immoral for a god to do, according to our own concept of what's right in dating and mating has little relevance to what we ought to do under the auspices of holy matrimony and having been instructed by a quite popular God to go forth and multiply, which "most" of us have been doing with every encouragement from the earthly representatives of our various gods. Incidentally, I doubt any of those people found the world 'sensible' when they entered it or considered it their prerogative to decide its fate.
... a common mistake is not to address the question .....
There were several unrelated questions in the OP. I addressed one:
Morally what ought they to do?
But you didn't like the answer, so you marked it 'irrelevant' and told me, as you do pretty much everybody, "You missed the point." The point, I assume, being "It's wrong to have kids!" You could have stated it clearly at the outset.
(I know --- all of that is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what you were saying. Carry on!)
I'm not sure Tesla, Ford and Edison all come from the same mold, but you're still restricted to 20th century capitalist (the capitalistest nation on Earth) America. And ignoring all the other people and all the other inventions. That's okay, but having a narrow view doesn't mean the world has to conform.
In fact, some technology absolutely needed government backing first.. usually from wartime.. then university money, then private sector.
Some technology, yes. And most of the guys who made useful things in their garage or basement were subsumed by that same capitalist machine, yes; and many were robbed of the fruit of their labour. Yet that still doesn't stop the next genius tinkering, painting, composing, solving equations, dreaming up theories, pouring the content of one test-tube into another, growing a new hybrid - unnoticed, unpaid and unappreciated - just because it is their passion. Humans are curious and creative by nature.
god must be atheistOctober 24, 2022 at 02:10#7510170 likes
Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.
And imagine that this omnipotent omniscient person really likes the sensible world, and likes how it operates and does not want to interfere with its operations, with one exception: they want to introduce life into it.
Bartricks, my friend, you are moving your own goal posts, very conisistently to your style, but this time you are fucking your own self.
If the world is exactly like ours, then it ihas sentient beings; if it does not have sentient beings, then it's not exactly like ours.
You shot yourself in the foot right in two of the first few paragraphs.
god must be atheistOctober 24, 2022 at 02:17#7510180 likes
You show here very clearly that you haven't the slightest clue what morality entails. It is a social construct. There is no morality without society. So what society does a single god live in? Outside of his or her own company how many other gods is this god responsible for survival?
Yikes!! Your questions make exactly as much sense as your other participatory remarks on this board.
god must be atheistOctober 24, 2022 at 02:50#7510220 likes
Mine is not an original idea, but I developed it on my own without reading about it... some I expect will find it outrageous.
Soiciety is a living, evolving creature, which is multi-cellular, and its cells are people.
Much like a multi-cellular biological organism, its cells will differentiate to perform their functions better.
And some funcitons will be coveted because they provide power, pleasure and variety; other functions will be shunned, but some will be forced into doing it, because they are dirty, dangerious and unrewarding.
A street-sweeper or a janitor or a mortician (funeral home employee) will perform societal functions comparable to cells that line the stomach walls and the rectum.
Some CEOs, movie stars and politicians will perform societal funcitons comparable to brain cells, and to cells that promote and conduct the process of an orgasm.
Societies are not as well-organzied into differning funcitonality of their parts as biological units. Yet some permanent differentiation can be observed. They predicate the functions of a unit (humans acting as cells). A low-IQ low-self-confidence, not very attractive person is not very likely to become a mainly pleasure-receiving unit. His or her progeny, ditto.
Naturally, or unnaturally, unless you ask 180 Proof who does not beleive that there is anything unnatural in the real world, according to this writer's impression based on the posts of 180 Proof, this process will be aborted very soon with the advent of an AI population explosion.
By "this process" in the prevous paragraph I meant the evolution of societies as viable stand-alone units created by humans organized similarly to how cells are organized in a human body.
Naturally or unnaturally, my description above is a skeletal picture of the process... there are much intricacies and nuances that my post did not delve into.
Incorrect. The problem of evil is taken to be the most powerful objection to theism. So if it implies that procreation is wrong, that's extremely significant, for very few think antinatalism is true.
If the world is exactly like ours, then it ihas sentient beings; if it does not have sentient beings, then it's not exactly like ours.
No, I said imagine a sensible world exactly like this one. Minds are not sensible objects.
Anyway, as you'd know if you were able to recognize what is and isn't relevant, it makes no difference to my case for if necessary I could simply ask one to imagine a sensible world devoid of life (if, that is, minds turn out to be sensible things in a guise). The important point is that if the omnipotent, omniscient person is not going to make any changes to the sensible world, then she ought to refrain from investing it with life. And so if we ourselves are unable to make changes to how the sensible world operates, we too should refrain from creating new life.
So, do try and focus on what is and isn't relevant to the case.
The curry case might be easier for you, although one imagines that you might start asking questions about the precise ingredients of the curry or insisting that curry is a social construct.
If Jennifer wants to invite James over for dinner, but also wants to cook a hot curry (a dish James dislikes), then Jennifer ought to do one or the other, not both - yes? (Again, note that my question is not about curries. So, insisting that curries are not possible, or that no one called Jennifer is capable of cooking a curry, or that no one dislikes curries - these are all irrelevant, as well as obviously false).
The answer is obvious: yes. She ought either to invite James over and cook something other than a hot curry, or she ought to cook a hot curry but not invite James over to eat it.
Now imagine that you want to invite James over for dinner, but you are incapable of cooking anything other than a very hot curry. (Do not say 'but that is not possible - I am capable of cooking other things'....that would miss the point once more.....resist the temptation). Well, clearly you ought not to invite James over.
Maybe a change in career is needed but don't try comedy, you would fail at that as well.
Brilliant. I am good at comedy. Here is joke. Why chicken cross road? Tell me! You not know? I tell you. It is because road cross chicken's father and chicken must avenge father. And road's children will avenge road by crossing chicken's children and chicken's children will cross road's children.
And there you go right back to what I have already explained. If there is only one of these "omnipotent persons" how could something be judged as right or wrong. He/she/it is the judge and jury as well as the witnesses and victims.
You answered your own question. The omnipotent person is the source of morality. It's like asking 'how can a person make themselves a cup of tea?' They make themselves a cup of tea. Nothing stops the maker and consumer of tea from being one and the same person. Likewise, for morality to exist there needs to be some moral directives - and thus there needs to be a director - and there needs to be someone who is the object of these directives. Well, there can be one person who can occupy both roles, just as the consumer and maker of tea can be one and the same.
Just focus on Jennifer and the curry. If it is wrong for Jennifer to invite James over if she plans on cooking curry - a dish he dislikes - then if all you can offer James is curry, you ought not to invite James over for dinner either, yes?
A parent ought want the best for their child. It follows that one ought improve the way things are. It does not follow that one ought not have kids.
You know what Banno I think you're right. Perhaps I'm being too generous. The only place an anti-natalist view has validity is well... A permanent Hell - a place where any new child would be certain to exclusively suffer/come to harm.
However this disregards as you quite correctly pointed out the existence and role of a parent. We have the parental power, the paternal/maternal instincts available to us to protect our children. To protect the vulnerable in general as those who are vulnerable/powerless are innocent - by that I mean they neither know of their own inherent power nor then can they practice it. Children must be educated first. They therefore cannot choose a side and are subject to being preyed upon or being protected.
The shepard leads the sheep, they don't slaughter them because the sheep might come to harm if they exist. It's a clear contradiction. The shepard knows who and what the big bad wolf is, and how to fend it off. Both within themselves (their own potential to be the wolf) plus those beyond themselves - external threats.
The three little pigs knew they had the strongest defence against the wolf when they cooperated, when they recognised the strong/wisest of them from the weakest and most vulnerable and gravitated towards the protection offered by the strong/wise.
Its ironic that we tell this story to our children and yet forget that the underlying message is always applicable throughout life, even as adults - such as when being challenged by anti-natalist idealogies in philosophy and society. A classic example is the cold, empathiless sentiment that "the poor shouldn't exist because they are useless and cannot help themselves. Dead weight to society". What person in their right mind would wish such sentiments on others and call themselves just?
Existing trumps not existing because it offers more, you can always choose to die but you cannot choose to be born. As a living thing you have two options - continue to struggle for a better life, or give up and succumb to oblivion, as a dead thing you have no such options.
Therefore not existing is impotent in the face of life with hope (someone who is not themselves severely depressed, severely full of negativity and lack of love for life, suicidal).
Suicide is the moment when the conscious mind has lost the very last shred of hope it had, and thus mind becomes incompatible with the body and they annihilate one another.
How is this alone not reason to not willingly produce more beings into that situation? The inevitability of X suffering, doesn't mean that one thus has to willingly allow to continue X suffering because X suffering already exists in some form or another. Lions kill, therefore humans can kill for example is a really simplistic form of this argument. It is the naturalistic fallacy of course.
I was simply outlining the dynamic, the game, not suggesting we shouldn't exist or reproduce. One exists to use their intelligence and ability to adapt and fend off adversaries (a hostile environment) and improve their living standards and those of their community.
Is this not the basis for evolution and natural selection?
Genes/collections of genes that are protective and co-operative with one another are shared/reproduced through natural selection amongst the gene pool because they allow the collective to gain the upper hand and prolong survival.
Genes/collections of genes that are selfish and detrimental on the other hand (viruses) go about via infection, trying to parasitise the rest to create more of themselves instead.
People do the same thing. Some would have you believe you are always in debt to them and ought to serve them and relinquish your resources, usually through manipulating you into a sustained feeling of guilt or shame. They make you feel ill/unwell.
Others teach you to be your own person, know yourself, to have self esteem and confidence and the ability to argue rationally and justly enough to thwart the agenda of the selfish. These people confer immunity through wisdom and intelligence.
Reply to Benj96 Cheers. I had, in my incipient senility, supposed that the comment you made had been made by @180 Proof, and had to check back on the context. But I more or less concur with your summation of the arguments from the more miserable folk hereabouts, although I would phrase it in terms of being given the opportunity of fulfilling one's capabilities more than just hope.
given the opportunity of fulfilling one's capabilities
Ever the quote if managers giving more work to their subordinates. You can quit a job but not life itself though, lest death. Cold comfort. Paternalistic thinking. Another person’s suffering started for them and here’s why I’m so justified. But I’m not.
universenessOctober 24, 2022 at 10:34#7510910 likes
The problem of evil is a problem for theists. Use it as anecdotal evidence for the non-existence of the omnis and gods then the problem of evil becomes a problem of behaviour when sentients interrelate.
It has no connection to the issue of reproduction, which is an evolved natural means to combat the threat of extinction. We should all have pity for the anti-life people, just be thankful that such is not part of your daily life.
Anti-natalism has as much chance of becoming the accepted way forward as the square wheel!
Damn your own parents for YOUR existence and you damn all natural events, as it was those events that are the historical source of all life in the universe.
It's illogical to crave nothingness for everyone, because your own awareness frightens you.
Imo, we need to see living creatures who are anti-living as just scared wretches who are not coping very well.
Reply to Bartricks Hey B - it's been a while so welcome back. I have two questions
- In the past you have included omnibenevolent as one of the properties your imaginary person could have. I'm curious why this was not included in this particular thought experiment.
- Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in in the past your omniscient omnipotent person was not constrained by LNC. Is that the case for this particular conversation?
Ever the quote if managers giving more work to their subordinates.
Thats a rather pessimistic view. Not all managers are bad ones. Is it not exactly that "given the opportunity to fulfill one's capabilities" that itself begets a good manager? As far as I know managers/leaders etc are needed. And a good one surely empowers and extends that privilege to those they manage to self actualize their own set of personal capabilities. Good management is about recognising talent in the pool of employees and rewarding/promoting them accordingly.. If not even to hand the torch over happily if they are even better management material.
Reply to EricH I did not include omnibenevolence simply because the question was about how this person ought to behave. But I could have included it, it just would have meant rephrasing things. The important point is that, as proponents of the problem of evil must agree, such a person ought not satisfy both their desire not to alter the operations of the sensible world and their desire to introduce life into it. And once that is conceded, it should also be conceded that our inability to change how the sensible world operates now implies we ought not to introduce new life into it either (as my dinner invite cases show).
And yes, an omnipotent person is not bound by the lnc as she makes it true. But that's irrelevant for two reasons. First, the lnc is nevertheless true and I am assuming it to be here. Second, even though she has the ability to make it false, we do not. And my whole point is that if we are unable to do something that, were God not to do it would make procreation wrong for her, then it is wrong for us too.
Good management is about recognising talent in the pool of employees and rewarding/promoting them accordingly.. If not even to hand the torch over happily if they are even better management material.
A manager would say that yes. But this is the kind of manipulation slogan a manager might use to justify their subordinates to do more work.
The pessimistic fact is we have to do any of this and we are self aware of this. We can think of other ways but we are entrenched in a managerial system whereby it gets perpetuated. Group think reinforces it. We aren’t very creative except within our self defined ways.
universenessOctober 24, 2022 at 20:32#7512240 likes
The problem of evil implies the immorality of procreation. See op for details.
No, it doesn't, and the OP is drivel and illogical. There is no such existent, as a living omni and there are no gods, and evil is not a self-sustaining force. Don't try to infect others with your own struggle with religion. If you want a god to comfort you when you are scared, then accept that any omni god must be the source of evil, as such a first cause is the ultimate solipsist, as it claims nothing really exists, except it, and its existence is only by its own will. Procreation is not evil, it's a natural imperative against extinction, that can be controlled through reason or indeed, legislation, if overpopulation is proving problematic.
The universe is a big place and overpopulation will not be a problem, once our species colonises outside of this nest planet. We are relative newcomers in the Universe. Perhaps if you study the cosmic calendar, you will be less concerned. Try to face your primal fears and you will find life and living has a lot of joyous times available to you and you can leave a legacy that adds to the fantastic achievements that the human race has already left to you.
Reply to universeness There's an argument in the OP. It shows how the problem of evil implies antinatalism.
Now, you are psychologically incapable of accepting that as you are convinced already that I am wrong and you are right. So there is really no point in you continuing to contribute to this thread, is there? Unless you plan on engaging with the OP, go away.
universenessOctober 24, 2022 at 20:44#7512300 likes
There is an illogical argument in the OP that does not in any way show that the problem of evil implies antinatalism. That's just your morose opinion, nothing more. I can just as easily claim that you are psychologically incapable of accepting that you are positing illogical nonsense.
I am certainly asserting that you are utterly wrong, yes, just as you are asserting you are correct.
Those are the normal ingredients of 'argument.'
I continue to explain why you are being so illogical to try to help you face the primal fears that seem to make you so morose. I also wish to prevent you from infecting anyone else with your misguided logic and your negative viewpoints. You go away!
Reply to universeness You are just saying things. You are not providing evidence that the argument is 'illogical'. You are just saying it is. Which is what you would say about any argument I made about anything, yes? So you are a troll. And unfunny. So go away. You are adding nothing.
universenessOctober 24, 2022 at 21:08#7512420 likes
Procreation is essential as there are no gods and no omnis. We are not yet individually immortal, and we demonstrate no ability to be omni anything. To continue the story of the universe, lifeforms which can demonstrate awareness of self, must reproduce.
The only alternative, is indeed, a lifeless meaningless universe. The universe has already demonstrated that life is part of its evolution, therefore, we should get on with living life not as a curse but as part of the natural development of a universe.
universenessOctober 24, 2022 at 21:15#7512440 likes
Well, I am typing things, sure, what do you think you are doing?
Your evidence begins by positing entities that do not exist, that is illogical.
Who is this omnipotent, omniscient you posit? They exist only in your head?
If this is not evidence enough that you are being illogical, then you need professional help with your mental state. A troll is another mythical beast and the idea that I am trolling you is just you, experiencing panic. I have little interest in your ability to appreciate my humour. You go away and stop trying to downgrade the lives of others. You will fail!
Reply to universeness Isolate a claim I made in the OP and say why it is false. If you can't do that - if you can't actually address anything I have said, but can only blurt things - then have the decency to go away.
universenessOctober 24, 2022 at 21:22#7512490 likes
And imagine that this omnipotent omniscient person really likes the sensible world,
BY definition, an omni cannot have 'desires,' it's illogical to suggest it can.
Desire is about need, how can an omni need? This is illogical and contradictory.
You fall miserably at the first fence. But you already know that don't you.
That's a blurt. That's not an argument. It's just you saying something.
Note too that the proponent of the problem of evil thinks that what is impossible is God existing and this sensible world (with us in it) existing (and even then, that's only those who are running the logical problem of evil). They do not think that it is impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient person to exist, for if they thought that then they would not need to raise the problem of evil as God's non-existence would be established already.
There is nothing impossible about such a person and if you think otherwise you owe an argument and, more importantly, those I am addressing will agree with me, not you (note, I am not addressing you, as you are too confused to be worth addressing - I am addressing those who run the problem of evil against God).
Try again. Try arguing something. Note: if you think something, that isn't evidence it is true. Eat that piece of humble pie and let it digest for a bit. Then try again.
Or, alternatively, throw your arms up, say illogical and perhaps bollocks and word salad a bit, and then go away. I would recommend that last one.
universenessOctober 24, 2022 at 21:27#7512510 likes
If you are unable to change the world, then you ought to frustrate your desire to introduce new sentient life into it. Yes?
No, you can change the world, many historical people have and your desire to pass on your legacy to your children to continue your work is valid. Do you need me to name some people from history that have 'changed the world?' Like the unknown creature who first used fire to cook meat or used tree trunks to roll a big boulder over a distance to turn it into a standing stone?
No, you can change the world, many historical people have and your desire to pass on your legacy to your children to continue your work is valid.
You lack the ability to change how the sensible world operates. For instance, you lack the ability to prevent the horrendous evils that are occurring daily. You're not God.
universenessOctober 24, 2022 at 21:29#7512530 likes
So, identify this omnipotent/omniscient, get it to reveal itself and demonstrate its ability. Can you do that or is it you that's just typing BS.
Make an argument.
And did you understand the point about the problem of evil? Did you understand that if you can show that it is impossible for an omnipotent omniscient person to exist, then you don't need to run the problem of evil? Did that make sense to you? I need to know what I am dealing with here. Are you someone who can't understand that a proponent of the problem of evil thinks God 'can' exist - or at least, tacitly they are acknowledging this - they just think their existence is incompatible with the world as it is.
universenessOctober 24, 2022 at 21:31#7512550 likes
You lack the ability to change how the sensible world operates. For instance, you lack the ability to prevent the horrendous evils that are occurring daily. You're not God.
No one is, god doesn't exist. I can change how the world operates through scientific breakthrough that can indeed prevent many horrendous evils. Are you still afraid of smallpox for example?
universenessOctober 24, 2022 at 21:32#7512560 likes
No one is, god doesn't exist. I can change how the world operates through scientific breakthrough that can indeed prevent many horrendous evils. Are you still afraid of smallpox for example?
Try and stick to the topic. Do you have the ability to prevent all of the horrendous evils that are occurring in the world? Yes or no?
Reply to universeness Start another thread in which, in your OP, you just make some random assertions (lots of the threads here are like that).
Then anyone who wants to discuss your random assertions can do so.
But this is my thread and I made an argument. If you are not interested in engaging with that argument, or can't even recognize that it is one, then you need to go away. That is what decency demands
Decency demands that I help ensure your BS gets revealed as such.
I am quite willing to not engage with you directly as you are currently lost in your own fallacious miasma. I hope more and more members at TPF will also choose not to engage with you.
universenessOctober 24, 2022 at 21:39#7512650 likes
Ever the quote if managers giving more work to their subordinates. You can quit a job but not life itself though, lest death. Cold comfort. Paternalistic thinking. Another person’s suffering started for them and here’s why I’m so justified. But I’m not.
What?
universenessOctober 24, 2022 at 22:09#7512780 likes
Are you someone who can't understand that a proponent of the problem of evil thinks God 'can' exist
Bart Ehrman for example, cites the problem of evil as the reason he no longer believes that god exists.
But sure, anybody can still believe any BS no matter how illogical it is.
Reply to universeness Oh dear oh dear. You're really not very good at this at all, are you?
Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.
That's called 'an argument' and the argument in question is called a 'disjunctive syllogism'. Do you see?
Brilliant. I am good at comedy. Here is joke. Why chicken cross road? Tell me! You not know? I tell you. It is because road cross chicken's father and chicken must avenge father. And road's children will avenge road by crossing chicken's children and chicken's children will cross road's children.
If you read that with a Pakistani accent, it really is very funny.
You answered your own question. The omnipotent person is the source of morality. It's like asking 'how can a person make themselves a cup of tea?' They make themselves a cup of tea. Nothing stops the maker and consumer of tea from being one and the same person. Likewise, for morality to exist there needs to be some moral directives - and thus there needs to be a director - and there needs to be someone who is the object of these directives. Well, there can be one person who can occupy both roles, just as the consumer and maker of tea can be one and the same.
That is what I said at the beginning and you said I was confused, that it had nothing to do with the topic. make up your mind.
Just focus on Jennifer and the curry. If it is wrong for Jennifer to invite James over if she plans on cooking curry - a dish he dislikes - then if all you can offer James is curry, you ought not to invite James over for dinner either, yes?
OK, so if James wants to get a leg over he has to eat the fucking curry and just suck up the dislike. If not he can get on his bike.
If Jennifer wants to get a leg over then she should cook him a nice meal and suck up her desire for curry.
So if neither of them is prepared to give a little to get a quickie then there will be no babies born and the world will be a happier place without their dumb genes in it.
Makes no difference to the rest of the world how these dumb tinder twits fix their problem and has nothing to do with morality as it is just a personal problem.
And stop trying to come up with more stupid examples that do not help understand your theory.
You lack the ability to change how the sensible world operates. For instance, you lack the ability to prevent the horrendous evils that are occurring daily. You're not God.
Evil: Noun
Morally objectionable behavior
That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice
Evil: Adjective
Morally bad or wrong
Having the nature of vice
Having or exerting a malignant influence
Why does a god need to be involved? All of the definitions above are about human behavior, characteristics or qualities.
Being about humans means that we are in some way able to influence the behavior being classified as evil, therefore we can prevent evil. The fact that it is not done in no way impedes the ability to do so.
Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.
That's called 'an argument' and the argument in question is called a 'disjunctive syllogism'. Do you see?
Err, no.
disjunctive syllogism: A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the other must take place.
Which are the possibilities and which one are you ruling out?
Or should I use your own words, "Oh dear oh dear. You're really not very good at this at all, are you?"
That is what I said at the beginning and you said I was confused, that it had nothing to do with the topic. make up your mind.
It is irrelevant to the argument. I never said it wasn't. You are clearly reasoning that if you say something irrelevant enough times - and I lower myself to respond to the irrelevant point in question (for I find stupid reasoning almost intolerable and believe I am doing you a favour in pointing it out to you) - then I am acknowledging its relevance. That is itself, of course, an example of incredibly poor reasoning.
What I was hoping to achieve by this - and it really was just a hope, for I don't believe for a moment that it will actually happen - was that you might then realize how unbelievably bad at thinking you are and either slink away in shame or re-read the OP with an eye to understanding it.
OK, so if James wants to get a leg over he has to eat the fucking curry and just suck up the dislike. If not he can get on his bike.
If Jennifer wants to get a leg over then she should cook him a nice meal and suck up her desire for curry.
What? What you have just said reminded me of something Peter Singer once said. I think it was Peter Singer, anyway. That when he started out as a philosopher he sincerely believed that anyone possessed of reason could, if they put enough effort in, understand anything. But then after trying to teach people he gradually came to the conclusion that some people are just stupid and there's really no helping them.
I live in hope though. So, read the OP and try and make sense of my argument. I have done all I can to make it clear to you. It is now down to you. Then - and only then - should you start trying to criticize it.
Evil: Noun
Morally objectionable behavior
That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice
Evil: Adjective
Morally bad or wrong
Having the nature of vice
Having or exerting a malignant influence
Err, no.
disjunctive syllogism: A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the other must take place.
You didn't know what a disjunctive syllogism was until I mentioned it, yes? You looked it up and then wrote down a line you found on the internet and passed it off as your own. And now you think that you know more about this style of argument than I do and that I didn't engage in it in the OP. Most peculiar.
And failed miserable for everyone, no one understands your ideas, that is why your are getting upset and not answering anyone's questions. You don't have any answers.
You didn't know what a disjunctive syllogism was until I mentioned it, yes? You looked it up and then wrote down a line you found on the internet and passed it off as your own.
No I copy pasted the definition from a reliable source so that you can see how wrong you are. Why do so many people think that they are the only ones that know anything?
The number of coherent arguments you have made still stands at 0, as demonstrated by the number of people that have told you this against the number of people that have agreed with you.
Calling people beginners and using other demeaning ways to try and invalidate their thoughts is not the way to win arguments. Presenting researched, worthwhile topics to discuss works better.
So to conclude my participation on this thread I would like to offer you some advice. Get your big head out of your arse and try to be nice.
And failed miserable for everyone, no one understands your ideas, that is why your are getting upset and not answering anyone's questions. You don't have any answers.
I am not responsible for the fact that most people here can't follow an argument or can't tell what is or isn't relevant.
No I copy pasted the definition from a reliable source so that you can see how wrong you are. Why do so many people think that they are the only ones that know anything?
No, you did what I said you did. You passed off a line on the internet as a line from you. That's called plagiarism. And you don't know what a disjunctive syllogism is. You hadn't heard of them before today. Yet you still think you know more about how to argue well than I do, don't you?
Now, when you read my extremely helpful example of Jennifer and the curry and James, you probably though that it was about curry (or the beginning of a romantic novel about how Jennifer and James eventually get together after a rocky start). When in fact it was just illustrating a pattern of reasoning. But in order to be able to tell that it was illustrating a pattern of reasoning, you'd need to have the intellectual power to abstract that pattern from the example and notice its presence in my original reasoning about the omnipotent, omniscient person. What dawned on Peter Singer - as it has also dawned on me - is that vast swathes of the population are simply unable to do this. Just as there are sounds some of us can't hear, there are mental operations that some can't perform.
Here's the example again. Try and understand what it's illustrating and try not to get hung up on the picturesque details.
Jennifer wants to invite James over for dinner. She also wants to cook a particular dish -a hot curry that James dislikes.
She should thwart one of those desires. That is, she should either invite James over for dinner and cook him something else (thus thwarting her desire to cook the curry). Or she would indulge her desire to cook the curry, but thwart her desire to invite James over.
Now. if you also want to invite James over for dinner, but you are only capable of cooking that very hot curry, then you ought not to invite James over for dinner.
So, either invite James to dinner or cook a curry, but not both
Cook a curry
Therefore, do not invite James to dinner
In Jennifer's case cooking a curry is simply something she wants to do, but does not have to - for she has the ability to cook other things. Still, if she decides to cook the curry, she ought not invite James to dinner. In your case you lack the ability to do anything other than cook a curry. But it still follows that you ought not invite James to dinner.
Now, when it comes to God, God ought either to alter the world so that it does not subject people living in it to horrendous evils, or she ought not to create new life.
That is something a proponent of the problem of evil agrees with. THey must do, for if they thought God could satisfy both desires, they wouldn't think there was a problem of evil.
If, then, God decides not to alter the world so that it does not subject any living in it to horrendous evils, then God ought not to invest the world with life.
We are unable to alter the world so that it does not subject any living in it to horrendous evils. Therefore we ought not to invest it with life either.
Ever the quote if managers giving more work to their subordinates. You can quit a job but not life itself though, lest death. Cold comfort. Paternalistic thinking. Another person’s suffering started for them and here’s why I’m so justified. But I’m not.
I had surmised that you were drunk when you wrote this. Sad that I seem to have been mistaken.
With "capabilities" I had Nussbaum and Sen in mind. So you are farting in quite the wrong direction.
You are better company for Bart than I had perhaps supposed. Have a nice day.
schopenhauer1October 25, 2022 at 02:08#7513320 likes
You are better company for Bart than I had perhaps supposed. Have a nice day.
To be fair, I didn't read what you were replying to, but that got my spidey-sense going with the phrase "capabilities.."
schopenhauer1October 25, 2022 at 02:11#7513330 likes
Reply to Banno
But looking at it, just more of the same from you.. A small sentence that has little weight behind it except that you "don't like bad ole antinatalism".
And by little weight I mean, there is no explanation.. just indignity as argument.
Reply to schopenhauer1 Hmm. Do you take comfort in your new bedfellow? Having Bart's support ought be enough to have one reconsider one's position, I would have thought. There's nothing in the OP worthy of consideration, unlike some of your posts, to which I have occasionally replied. It's apparent that you have actually read, perhaps studied, some philosophy, unlike Bart.
I simply do not share in your conviction that life is unpleasant. I'm content that I am here. From that foundation your arguments for antinatalism gain no traction, and your arguments that one ought feel that life is not worthwhile are superfluous.
Amongst my first replies to you was a recommendation that you engage with the broken and the bent, the elderly, disabled, and ill. One might expect them to side with you, but I've found them cheerful enough. Something to do with outlook, I suppose. And with a strong eye on improvement, undermining the OP.
schopenhauer1October 25, 2022 at 03:14#7513470 likes
It's apparent that you have actually read, perhaps studied, some philosophy, unlike Bart.
Many of Bart's ultra-ad homs and trolling are really not much worse than things you and others tend to do and say to taunt others rather than engage with them. Granted he can get very unnecessarily pernicious, it's just an exaggerated clown mirror of the tendency of many other posters on here that also argue unproductively. If he is doing anything, it is simply being an exaggerated jester of the bad faith arguing others tend to do.
As to his philosophy, I usually also don't get the theistic approach he often takes, so I don't comment on it much because it's not what I would argue.
I simply do not share in your conviction that life is unpleasant. I'm content that I am here. From that foundation your arguments for antinatalism gain no traction, and your arguments that one ought feel that life is not worthwhile are superfluous.
But even if we were to drop all other arguments, what does that say that a system must steamroll the individual? Is your basis simply, majority is always right? But also, part of the debate is what counts as negative/not right/unjust.
Amongst my first replies to you was a recommendation that you engage with the broken and the bent, the elderly, disabled, and ill. One might expect them to side with you, but I've found them cheerful enough. Something to do with outlook, I suppose. And with a strong eye on improvement, undermining the OP.
I don't put stock in archetypes such as "broken, bent, elderly, disabled, and ill". Rather, I try to see what are the pervasive harms that are necessary for being at all, and consider the pervasive contingent harms that are also pernicious. It is deciding what these are that a good Pessimist explores. Deciding what counts as an negative, is also in question.
In this case, I was questioning the idea that one needs to develop capacities in the first place. Why is it our job to bring others to comply with this agenda of capacity building in the first place? It's as if you are implying that this is some necessary thing. Rather, no that is not how this works. Rather, people are born, and must comply in a fashion that isn't too disturbing. Otherwise, the habitual response from those who have been thus enculturated (perhaps yourself) will respond that "you should just die so the herd is not disturbed".
When you are born into a society, from the minute you are born, you are going to be judged as to how useful you will be to the society you are born into. In a modern context, you will be judged by how much valuable labor you can provide. Your only usefulness to broader society is your ability to both produce and consume. If we do not value these things (in the modern context at least), the system collapses.
If you don't value work, you are considered lazy. Lazy people are of no use to society. You are free riding, according to the elders and other workers. If you are not lazy, you must be one-off genius. You have to produce something of value.
"You better be lazing around re-thinking the next engineering marvel or physics theory! Otherwise, hopefully you get what you deserve by living in poverty or offing yourself" is the mentality.
If everyone didn't work hard or think of intricate minutia of physics/engineering problems, we would live in poverty and ghettos. We would be living in ignorance and privation, no motivation to "produce" and simply be passive consumers..
On the other hand, if we don't consume, the producers can't produce. Crime begets a whole business of keeping crime at bay. Pain keeps people needing to alleviate it. Our wants and needs need solutions.
All of this.. being useful items for society, and its opposite.. being passive ignorant lazing types, is bad. None of it is good. It is using people for their labor and consumption. Yet not doing so collapses the system. Being that it is a conundrum that is pernicious, intractable and pervasive to human life (as we know it)- heap it on the pile of evidence for the pessimism of life.
Here's a hint to know when you’re hitting on bedrock pessimistic points.. If it is intractable negative aspects that are so pervasive we say, "That's just the way it is. And there is no other way", you've hit upon something.
Many of Bart's ultra-ad homs and trolling are really not much worse than things you and others tend to do and say to taunt others rather than engage with them.
Perhaps, but the quality of his arguments is quite low.
For the rest, I'm content, and hence content not to address your proposals. Pessimism is an outlook, after all, and hence chosen. I choose otherwise.
There's nothing in the OP worthy of consideration, unlike some of your posts, to which I have occasionally replied.
Yes there is. I've shown how those who think there's a problem of evil should accept that it is wrong to procreate. That's extraordinarily interesting. An actual philosopher would recognize that.
I simply do not share in your conviction that life is unpleasant. I'm content that I am here. From that foundation your arguments for antinatalism gain no traction, and your arguments that one ought feel that life is not worthwhile are superfluous.
Like many, you ignorantly assume that the only argument for antinatalism is one that assumes life is unpleasant. Presumably that's because it's the only one you understand. Therefore, it must be the only one that is ever offered! Or perhaps it is becasue it is the only one you can say anything to challenge.
Therefore it is the only one!
There are lots of arguments for antinatalism, as you'd know if you had studied the area. Which you haven't.
The argument that I gave in the OP, for instance, does not assume that life is miserable. As anyone who has taken the time to read and understand it would know.
Reply to Bartricks Meh. You set up a false dilemma in the fifth paragraph. But I know from previous discussions that there is little point in explaining this to you.
That's not an answer to the question. I understand you're scared. The nasty reasoning man has come to town, so now the squiggle squoggle salesman better pack up his cart and run away.
I'll answer for you.
Banno: yes fartypants.
Right. Now a proponent of the problem of evil must accept this moral principle:
Either adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, or do not introduce innocent life into the world
If they think that principle is false, a problem of evil does not arise. Thus, they must affirm it.
So, this premise is true (or at least a proponent of the problem of evil must accept it anyway):
1. Either adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, or do not introduce innocent life into the world
Now, none of us can adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, can we. So we're not going to. Thus we must accept that this premise is true:
2. We are not going to adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it.
And from that it follows that we ought not to introduce innocent life into it. That's antinatalism.
Reply to Banno Show your working. Identify the false premise above and explain its falsity. Christ. You know you would have shown your working if you could.
Which one is false - 1 or 2? Come along.
universenessOctober 25, 2022 at 08:46#7513870 likes
a desire to leave the sensible world to operate in its own manner, but also a desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world.
P = 'a desire to leave the (sensible :roll: ) world to operate in its own manner,' IS FALSE, as an omniscient would have no desires and no omnipotent exists
Q = 'a desire to introduce sentient life into the world,' IS FALSE, as an omnipotent would have no desires and no omnipotent exists.
So, your gameplay is to conflate your disjointed and dysfunctional musings with the rules of propositional logic and your attempt is irrational and laughable.
Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.
That's called 'an argument' and the argument in question is called a 'disjunctive syllogism'. Do you see?
No, reproduction will continue, as a natural imperative for the human species and we will continue to combat suffering so we can further assist people like you, when you again get scared due to your awareness of self.
You don't have any arguments, you merely live in fear, you choose to live life as a curse. I pity you.
universenessOctober 25, 2022 at 08:59#7513890 likes
Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.
Now, none of us can adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, can we. So we're not going to. Thus we must accept that this premise is true:
Have you figured out why your reasoning is wrong yet?
It is actually quite simple. The world cannot visit evil on people, I cannot even try to imagine a tree or a rock acting in an evil manner, and animals act on instinct so they cannot be classified as evil.
Only other people can visit evil on other people, AND there is a way to stop that from happening without eliminating the entire population.
And the fact that your god wont change the beings he wants to introduce into the world just proves what assholes gods are.
Bye.
schopenhauer1October 25, 2022 at 13:04#7514180 likes
For the rest, I'm content, and hence content not to address your proposals. Pessimism is an outlook, after all, and hence chosen. I choose otherwise.
That's fine. Germans living under Nazi Germany felt more content in the 30s. Colonizers killing aborigines in Australia felt more content. Southern US Jim Crow society felt content (for those it benefited). So that doesn't do much philosophically for pointing structural problems. Pessimists simply point out what these structural problems are and explain why they are indeed structural problems and not simply a matter of contented feelings of an individual at a point in time.
Morally what ought they to do? Should they frustrate their desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world? Or should they frustrate their desire to leave the sensible world alone and instead alter it so that it does not pose the risks to the welfare of the innocent life they plan on introducing into it? Or should they satisfy both desires?
I take it to be obvious that they should not satisfy both desires. So, that means that they should either adjust the world so as to make it a safer place, or they should refrain from introducing sentient life into it
So if She is not bound by LNC, then She can satisfy both desires. Since we frail/fallible human beings are bound by LNC we cannot fathom/understand how this is possible - we simply have to accept it.
Comments (1785)
In the last four-plus decades, what I have learned by daily study and from lived experience is this: work everyday towards easy sleep (ergo a good death) by not doing to anyone what you find harmful to yourself. All the rest follows.
:death: :flower:
Totally up to you. There are billions of reasons (you make your own meaning through your use of time, your job, interests, friends, family, nature, pets, causes, helping others, whatever) and many people, even those living with great suffering, privation and war are often optimistic and future focused. Nevertheless lots of people go though a 'what's the point of it all' phase early in life. Some people feel the onset of this in middle age, as priorities suddenly change. In my experience, many people find helping others the most effective pathway out of meaninglessness and depression. Sometimes too much ruminating over meaning leads to a state of analysis paralysis.
It would help if you would say where you are in the spectrum of ageing: twenties, thirties,...
When I was in my twenties, evading the Union Army as it burned Atlanta, I became an existentialist, realizing there is no divine purpose to life. One must create meaning. It then becomes a task to do just that and one begins the search having a purpose.
Antinatalism is a pseudo-solution to the problem of suffering which to explicate is how to live/exist without hurting? This is, as you already know, the perennial philosophical problem (eudaimonia/the good life). Obviously, recommending death/nonexistence is to completely miss the point, oui monsieur?
That’s a fantastic question, and a highly important one.
It’s also, perhaps frustratingly, a deeply personal one. No general answer can be given — from me or anyone else. It has to come from you, and one day it may.
There are not reasons to live at all. You only have to have to do it. I think you would make a big mistake if you put yourself in a search for a cause of living.
Instead of live, you need to "survive" this life. Don't commit suicide. As you expressed, the effects would be devastating to your love ones.
Suicide could be only acceptable if you are alone and such act would not affect anyone.
Keep in mind that if you kill yourself your family or friends will suffer with the remorse of thinking "what they did wrong with you to end up killing yourself"
That out of the way, if the question is aimed at antinatlists who recommend nonexistence then the answer is rather simple: death/dying is painful and given how hyperalgesic antinatalists are death i.e. suicide isn't really an option for them. Remember that nonexistence isn't the problem (re Epicurus) it's the transition from existence to nonexistence (dying) that is.
Think of all the cool stuff that might happen, that you will miss if your not around. Maybe we will be visited by aliens, maybe Donald Trump will convert to humanism, maybe science will find some new answers, maybe people's lives will get better, they have got very much better imo since we first came out of the wilds, maybe a good person will love you, maybe a new child in your family will give you renewed purpose and hope, maybe someone else will learn something from you that helps them, maybe you will make a difference somewhere, maybe your favourite food ever will be discovered by you soon, maybe you will watch a show that makes you laugh harder and longer than you have ever laughed before. Maybe you don't know just how important you are to the lives of others that have never told you so or maybe you will become so.
Your like may in fact be incredibly rare in the vast Universe.
Immerse yourself in the wonders of life.
The song below can sound pessimistic, yet the advice from Thom Yorke at the end is: Immerse yourself in love.
I'm pretty happy these days, but the older I get the less attached to life I feel. Does the fruit ripen on the tree? Is there less to prove ? I wrote to a friend yesterday that it's like learning that a video game can't be beat...so that losing your last player is no longer so scary...
I think it's just an intimate topic. Folks aren't that afraid. What's 'wrong' with someone might just be their timing or expectation of intimacy. Suffering and gloom are not in short supply. They are maybe even the rule and not the exception, at least as people age. So there's not much use talking about it ... unless you can light up the shitshow with a joke we haven't heard yet.
So in other words, preferring life over death seems to me a default, almost axiomatic valuation of living beings, and doesn't need any further justification really.
Considering that, my question to you then would be, what prompted you to flip this basic instinctive valuation on its head?
What causes life to turn on life?
...perhaps you are doing it wrong?
:up:
I love a good cup of coffee, a lonely bikeride on a cool night, snuggling my torty, laughing at a piece of a bit in an old book that only the aging cool kids remember...
I can relate. One can even start laughing in the swamp of misery, with the gods at the one's own folly and the folly of humans in general. Gallows humor. And then there is the true platitude that suffering sometimes burns off a mask or a delusion. I don't claim that all suffering can be partially forgiven this way. The world offers pure stupid hurt too.
I am truly saddened by the fact that you don't seem to find joy in life. Since I am not you and don't know your experiences, it would be presumptuous of me to suggest what and how you should think. From what I have observed and experienced, however, I think I can say that moulding our perspectives can play a big role in defining the good we see in our lives. Whenever I've met the financially less-fortunate people in my area, I've noticed that they are simply content with having a decent relationship and being able to sustain themselves. They learn whatever they can and say that they don't need to create some sort of ultimate purpose that transcends their "mundane" existence. Happiness is fundamentally subjective, so I believe that there is truth to the idea that we shouldn't have unrealistic expectations. And it's possible for us to have them subconsciously without even being aware of them. If someone had told me prior to my illnesses that reading my favourite novel would give me satisfaction that would outweigh the intense pain high fever brings, I would have likely dismissed them. However, lo and behold, this is precisely what happened. Sentient experience is quite diverse (and maybe that is what plays a major role in what makes life beautiful). I think that instead of absolute natalism or universal antinatalism, a nuanced approach is desirable.
You also raised a point that I see being mentioned frequently, viz., the fact that you wouldn't need happiness if you don't exist. Now, I actually believe this to be true (assuming physicalism is correct), but this is an incomplete conclusion. If we should not be afraid of/averse to non-existence because we cannot be deprived of something when we don't exist, we should also not chase/worship the void, since the absence of suffering has no value for an inexistent being. You're not going to be in some better/more satisfied state due to the lack of harms. In view of this, non-existence has no value/disvalue. What one does with their life, therefore, becomes a highly individualised affair that differs from person-to-person and what action/emotion brings them happiness when they exist. Lastly, I wouldn't say there's something "wrong" with you. I am not a fan of blind optimism. All I would say is that, considering that value only lies in existence, I think that it can be rational to try our best to discover a source of joy that can provide us happiness for as long as possible instead of seeking cessation which is necessarily limited in its capacity to provide fulfilment. Maybe some people are too uncomfortable thinking about non-existence so they quickly jump to therapy. After having discussed this issue with many individuals, I feel that I am not one of those aforementioned people. Nonetheless, I believe that therapy can definitely help. If there is an opportunity for gaining ineffable value that is more powerful than the temporary and slightly distorted satisfaction that the void might give, it may be the better option.
I hope that you have a wonderful day ahead!
I think it's pretty common to go through phases thinking/feeling like this, especially in the first third of life. Most people I know had periods of anhedonia, accompanied by periods of suicidal thoughts. But things did get better.
If I outlive every person / activity I love, only then will I long for death. Until then, sleeping well suffices. :death: :flower:
Edit: I have had many discussions regarding AN on this forum. You could check my comments history if you're interested in my reasons for rejecting the philosophy. Here's an example: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/657516
I should forewarn you that these discourses are a bit long and somewhat tedious.
Agreed. I also had periods on my life related to these feelings. So, I feel better with myself knowing that is pretty common among the people when they grow up
Curiosity, which makes life a fascinating exploration of potential.
And the fear of death. Which is not really any different from being dead already.
Its not death you crave. You are dead already. You crave to truly live.
:lol: :up:
I think fear and curiosity are the two main drivers.
Each has subcategories or synonyms, love being a subcategory of fear.
Its the desire for things to stay the same vs the desire for change. Love and fear are both about attachment: desire for stability, safety and comfort, all ways of coping with fear. Making friendships(love) helps protect us from dangers
Harsh but true in some way, I think.
You need at a minimum 9 lives to be as curious as a cat! :snicker:
So after all, even for you life is preferable to death. Which is normal, after millions or billions of years of evolution have geared our motivations toward survival.
I think death becomes preferable to life when suffering exceeds happiness so much that it beats the survival drive. If the survival drive is strong as usual, this must be a singularly terrible situation but unfortunately it can happen too.
I agree that it's the end of self; all feelings, and emotions.
However, some things hang about for a while, like your effect on others.
Why is it a good deal not to feel anything at all?
Of all the emotions, which disturbs you the most?
Quoting Darkneos
So, do you not care about anyone else other than 'you'?
Quoting Darkneos
Suicide is always an option if anyone really wants to end their life.
You can go slow, slow, or quick depending on tool of choice. Not that I'm recommending it.
What 'current stance' are you talking about?
I agree the survival drive is strong. Why is that?
The need to pass on DNA? Are we here only as animals?
The best way to live.
Is it, as you say, to live comfortably?
Unlikely, even if it were possible. What does it mean to you, to live in comfort?
To be certain, to feel in control?
Quoting Darkneos
If you have decided your only option is to stay, then why not view life as less of a chore, more of a challenge? Not merely existing...
'Until death comes to claim you'?
Zoom out for a different perspective. Death can happen at any moment.
It's not about being claimed as if you are a worthless piece of baggage!
Quoting Darkneos
You are not alone. Even if you are on your own or feel lonely and an outsider.
Some quality responses here, yes? No dodges.
Who are the people that say you need therapy? How much do their opinions matter?
Is there anything else going on - depression?
Is your stance on this fixed for all time?
Or are you willing to listen to others? Read their words carefully. They have taken the time.
It sounds to me like you do care. Enough to share something we can all relate to.
Stay safe :sparkle:
Forgive this addendum:
[ Sometimes I wonder if such OPs are worth responding to, or if it's all attention-seeking]
Edit:
Previously discussed:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10121/reason-for-living/p1
7 pages worth.
Can we not just as easily make love primary ? I fear that harm will come to what I love. No love, no fear.
They're lookin' for you! Quick, hide!
Not that you'll ever be in a position to know it.
I don't feel the need to add anything to the general 'choose life!' message, firmly delivered.
I am sure I have an old faded 80's Wham 'CHOOSE LIFE' T-shirt somewhere in a drawer. Sadly, it won't fit me anymore but I might dig it out and stare at it for a while. Memories of past happy moments are also quite life-affirming. At least for me, anyway.
Love is basically mutual assurance. People giving each other hope and consolation. Its not a thing in itself. Without fear and insecurity, how could we give each other hope and comfort?
We do what we can!
I see us as tribal, social animals, evolved to work as a group. I view the relatively isolated self as a kind of invention or development in the story.
:pray:
You see the light in the dark! Good to have you on the team.
:flower:
Then why are you still around? I don’t mean this to be callous — and I’m not encouraging suicide — but genuinely curious. If you long for nothingness, why keep going?
1. It's not easy to embrace nothingness (at least until there is a liberal right to a graceful exit that allows one to find a completely peaceful and risk-free way out).
2. Since one is already here, they could focus on alleviating the suffering of existing sentient beings.
I am thankful that the extreme step has not been taken. I hope that we can someday live in a world in which people never have to do so in a state of pure misery and despair.
I think man has been isolated from the beginning, and that groups are at least one factor in that.
When someone sees me as a stereotype or representative of a group, they ignore my unique individuality, so I become isolated.
I dislike being misunderstood myself. This issue reminds me of Sartre. To be a mere object for the other is the essence of shame.
Well, you won't ever experience death. Death is simply, "The end". You'll experience dying if you're conscious at the time. But that's it. There is no peace, no rest, no etc. You're just dead. You won't be able to tell people how different you are anymore. You won't be able to chat with friends or family about how much of a chore life is. You won't be able to post on the philosophy boards in the hope of conversing or thinking.
You'll be gone. There will be no you. It will simply end. You won't even get the satisfaction of enjoying it or "being right".
You do enjoy life. Now it may not be roses and "the best", but you do, because you live. You actually do enjoy to some extent talking to other people. Making your voice known. People who really don't enjoy life at all don't talk. They don't write. They hate and despise everything about their very existence. You would loath eating, breathing, and doing anything. You obviously do not.
So no, you don't prefer death to living. You still live. You still eat. You still interact. Perhaps you wish life were better than it is. Perhaps you want peace and a release from pain, and confuse that for a desire for death. Many people do. But if you're talking about death as it is, an unromantic end that you won't get any feelings about or be around to experience, no you don't.
Value may only lie in existence, yes, so that is why I can see value in not having to perform the song and dance anymore. The same goes for the absence of suffering, your logic doesn't really follow for not chasing the void as the entire point is the end, the cessation of it all. Non existence has greater value as people view the end goal of utter oblivion to be preferable to anything life can offer.
That would be wrong to say. I talk to others because, well what else is there? I mentioned the goal was to make life tolerable until the end. Just because I talk to people doesn't mean I enjoy it, I don't hate it either.
I do prefer death to living, to not have to do any of this anymore, but I must live as I have no other option at the moment.
It's like you read nothing I said.
People underestimate just how strong the survival drive is and that it's not easy to overcome.
Well no it's not. I wouldn't call the survival drive "me" it's just an obstacle that I can't surmount. Life is not preferable to me, however that doesn't mean my continued existence is a testament to preferring life.
It does though. My main point about the good things in life is that you don't need any of that in death so they aren't reasons to really stick around. In short if you don't HAVE to live then there is no reason to do so. Such good things make life tolerable and seeking them out only makes sense if one HAS to live, which seems to be my case since seeking the end is inordinately difficult. Not only because society pretty much forbids it but apparently a lot of suicide attempts end in failure and leave you in a worse off state, not really how I prefer to spend my remaining days...locked in a hospital with people trying to "fix" me.
I guess people only rationalize living by stating "precious joys are worth cherishing" is due to death anxiety, as Ernest Becker put it. We tend to fear death and much of our lives are ruled by this fact, at least according to him.
It's not always about rationalisation; it's about the variegated nature of preferences and perspectives. I am aware of Becker's ideas. Part of the reason why people fear death is because they appreciate the goods of life. These goods could be complex, such as the relationships one has and could lose, to more basic ones, such as death resulting in some sort of horrible black void that takes away the positive state of we were in. I do think that there is a sort of paternalism when it comes to giving people the right to a graceful exit. Personally, I don't think that one's love for life should justify making someone else endure a valueless existence. Toxic positivity is a significant problem.
Ridiculous. This is a philosophy forum. Logically, you live because you choose to live. If you truly preferred death more, you would die. If you're interested in a "woe is me" or "life is pain" conversation, this isn't the place.
Further, I've had times in my life where pain and emotional despair was unbearable. I've felt the urge to suicide before. But I made the choice to continue to live. That logically means I preferred life to death, despite all the nearly unbearable misery. What a pathetic human being I would have been to whine to others that I preferred death as I continually chose to live again and again.
You don't get to choose life, then say you prefer death. That's illogical. That's just whining about life. When this clear logical discrepancy is pointed out you whine some more. No wonder people tell you to go to therapy. You should listen to them. Your life sucks, so do something about it and improve it.
Just a little nervous from the fall, chaps.
is usually a flowering of..well.. a view. Indicating some sort of understanding of the entire picture. Taking into account all sides of the story. Usually such a view isn't a reaction or a grasping of any one side.
One may start by inquiring what is this thing we call living. As if you have choice, HA. Freakin' mechanical robots. In any case, it seems that's where the inquiry begins.
The OP is confused. There is no peace in death. There is nothing. What the OP wants is peace in life. To get to a moment where they feel peace. You have to live to feel peace. They would prefer a life where they feel peace then a life where they feel pain. Death does not give peace. It gives nothing. There is no chance to find peace. There is no beating the pain. If you die in pain, its the last thing you will ever feel.
To believe that absence of your existence can be preferable to pain is true in some circumstances. Have all of your limbs cut off, your eyes blown out, your brain half blown to bits and you're surviving purely by modern science? Yeah, pull that plug. It does not sound like those are the circumstances of the OP. It sounds like someone who is in pain, and instead of dealing with that pain, looks to invent some fantasy to avoid the work needed to make the pain go away. The OP needs to deal with their pain. They can one day find peace if they work for it. They will not if they keep sticking to this romantic fantasy of death.
"Death" is the most peaceful experience one can experience while "living". Had it not been so, the body won't be programmed to slip into it every night. Surely more or less we understand biological death. But have we understood...for convenience, let's call it psychological death. Have we even asked such a question. Have we questioned if death and life are co-existent. Maybe two sides of the same coin.
But how can you question, if you lack the backbone needed to question your bias towards this thing you call living. Wherein, like some form of the Stockholm syndrome, you have fallen in love with your limitations, begging, beseeching life, to give you one more ounce of what you call "fun"/pleasure. Therefore to you, death is a terrible thing. A thing of fear and oblivion. So, you aren't really living life....but rather your fear. You are corrupted.
Death is incorruptible.
What you say has merit, but consider this edge case :
A man will be tortured for hours for information he does not have. He will then be killed. Is it reasonable for him to grab at a means to end his consciousness, if he knows all this with certainty ?
Or consider, more typically, a person aware that they are sinking into dementia...Are there states worse than death ? So that death is to be sought ? My position is yes.
I agree with this , and would add that the fantasy of peace in life that is the OP’s longing for ‘death’ is , like all experiences of peace or relief, a contrast or transition from a prior state. No state of mind or mood sustains itself in perpetuity because experiences are relational and contingent. An experience of peace will inevitably be followed by a new experience that addresses and transforms it. Peace can become trepidation, struggle, mourning , elation. More importantly, these transitions in attitude and mood change US. In a sense , with every shift in mood and outlook , the particular self that we are are at any given time is born of a previous self and dies as it is replaced by a new self. Even in just longing for and fantasizing about the ‘peace of death’ , we are briefly achieving this feeling of peace. The old ‘we’ who was struggling has died and briefly become the new ‘we’ who is at peace. Soon this new ‘we’ will pass over into yet another ‘we’ who is beset with a fresh situation and attitude. This is all that death will ever give you. It is not death that is eternal but the contingency of desire.
I agree with you. But this is not the OP's case.
Are you sure about that?
Quoting Philosophim
Are you sure about that?
The issue has been 'worked' on before by Darkneos:
Quoting Amity
That's not to say it's not worthwhile discussing again. I did that!
Different time, different posters; pretty much same arguments, assumptions and responses.
However, it makes me question the intention of the OP, rightly or wrongly.
Quoting Darkneos
[ emphasis added]
Worth considering?
There seems to be an appeal to fellow would-be suicides...
Join the club. Us against the rest of the world.
Darkneos seems to have been doing this for years. Going from forum to forum.
Fishing.
How many pages will this run to...?
We love to hear ourselves talk, don't we?
So, death, it seems, in its correct context, is an ending. An ending to your fears, your pettiness, your jealousies, your beseeching, your pretenses your games, your neuroticism....ya know , don't you? After all these, and more, is what you call living. This "ending" has nothing to do with your biological continuity or dis-continuity. Clearly.
Heroin ... because the grass on the other side of the abyss always seems greener ...
[quote=Renton, Trainspotting]Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose a washing machine, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suit on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing gameshows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you spawned to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?[/quote]
:yawn:
OR
One can choose (e.g.) Epicurus & Lucretius, Montaigne & Spinoza, Zapffe & Camus, Buber & Beckett, Clément Rosset & James Baldwin, Philippa Foot & Martha Nussbaum, Albert Murray & George Steiner ... :fire:
Quoting Banno
:lol: :up:
It’s hard and unreliable to kill yourself? I really can’t see how that’s true, but OK.
As for the survival instinct — yes, true. But supposedly you long for death. If the drive to continue living is greater— then you really don’t want it. If you did you’d be dead already— provided that there are means to do so and, as I already mentioned, there are plenty of ways to do so.
People who consider suicide very often don’t truly want to die — they’re either without meaning and joy or are clinically depressed.
Do you consider yourself depressed? It sounds that way to me. In which case: there are ways out.
I hear you, but for me this is being a bit too concrete or literal. Death is often described as the end of suffering - which technically it is likely to be (unless you think there is a judgement coming after). Therefore death brings 'peace' in as much is it brings non suffering or 'nothingness'. From the perspective of a suffering life, death holds the appeal of relief or a metaphorically peaceful alternative - you may not be there to experience it, but you won't be there to experience ongoing suffering either.
then one puts a reasonable question, if i know there is biological death always lurking around the corner and all your BS is gonna leave you with nothing but sh## in your hands, then why doesn't the human end (psychological death) its weasel-ly-ness. Right.
To end it now! Because that's what biological death will do/does. You won't have a chance to negotiate/weasel out of, as much as want to. So the question then becomes, what is it to die. For example, to all your fears, to your prejudices, to your nonsense.
I think you're missing the point. In death there is no need for such things, it all ends. So there's no need to seek the good stuff. They don't fear death because of the goods of life, they fear the end when really they should not for it can be pretty great.
Ahh, again you misunderstand. This has nothing to do with peace in life, it's about the cessation of all things. Death does afford a peace, in a sense, even if you can't feel it. You can rest knowing the pain will pass and you won't have to do anything anymore. I think you are giving death less than it is.
Why deal with one's pain when they can just quit? You're still missing the point here trying to find something "Wrong" and that's the mistake you make as much as anyone else does. Nothing in life IMO is worth working for when one doesn't have to live. If society had a different mind they'd see that and allow people to exit if they choose.
You still aren't getting it.
Again making the mistake in thinking there is something wrong.
I've done the research and found out most suicide attempts end in failure, that there really isn't a "surefire way" to do it and those who survive end up in worse shape than before. You'd think it'd be easy and I do too. Trust me when I say I've googled painless ways to die, but you have to wade through a lot of the "therapy" nonsense.
I am glad to see you back on site because I after reading your posts about death and you not being on the site for a long time I had worried that you had killed yourself. The reason why I say I was worried is because I do see suicide as being about the worst way to die. I do have thoughts of it at times, mainly when I feel that I have more stress than I can cope with, but I am glad that I have never given into such thoughts. I have known people who have killed themselves, often in extreme situations of panic and despair.
Death is probably the end, and I say that because I used to believe in life after death but, now, see it as unlikely. Life does seem harsh at times and it seems that some people have harder lives than others. The things which I think would just be unbearable are having to sleep rough on the streets or becoming blind. I don't know what your own reason for wishing to die is but everyone will die at some point.
Generally, I wish to make the best of what happens and cope with whatever happens to the best of my abilities. I think that I would be too afraid to kill myself whatever situation I was in. Even though I don't fear hell like when I was a teenager I know of people who have tried to kill themselves and ended up with all sorts of injuries, including not being able to walk.
That's what I'm saying. The only reason people IMO live is survival instinct because to me death just makes more logical sense. Never having to do good things, or worry about bad things, it all ends. So why put it off?
I feel like everything used to justify the will to keep going is more just our survival instinct trying to rationalize things.
No. That's not what you were/are saying.
You seem to be concerned about "checking out", which is about biological death.
That's not what i have been looking into.
I have read your posts. As far as I can see death is a form of peace, a bit like sleep. It may be that each of us comes from a different, unique angle, making it difficult. I guess that it is that I do enjoy life providing it is not too painful constantly, with constant knockdowns. However, it doesn't seem that you come from that point of view and it your own position may be more along the lines of Camus's one, but I am not entirely sure of this. How do you find the thinking of the existentialist writers? Do you feel an affinity with them?
If you can't feel it, it isn't peace. It does not afford peace in ANY sense.
Quoting Darkneos
No. You don't know anything. You don't get to rest. You don't get ANYTHING. Your last memory will be pain, and that will be the last thing you know. There will be no sigh, no relief, no calmness, no anything. Whatever you have in your last moments will be the last thing you experience.
Quoting Darkneos
No, you are giving death MORE than it is. You think there is something. Some feeling, some assurence etc. There. Is. Nothing. There is not even the realization that there is nothing. There's no you staring into a black void. There's no, "Finally, I'm at rest." You're gone, period.
Quoting Darkneos
Because I'm not a coward. Lots of things in life will try to tear you down and end you. All the cells inside of you fight every day to keep viruses and bacteria at bay. They fight to do their jobs, and live. You spit on that. All the people who spent time and effort raising you to continue life. You spit on that. The fact that you have the gift of sentience when so much matter in the universe will never have it. Its absolutely a waste to throw that away when you should fight for it.
Quoting Darkneos
Well no duh. When you're dead, you don't have to do anything. Because you don't exist anymore. You can't even laugh at society. You're just a corpse to be eaten by worms.
Quoting Darkneos
No, I get it FAR better than you. My sister collects and cuts up bodies for a living btw. She's done organ donations, autopsies, etc. I'm very keen to know what death is. She's seen plenty of suicides. They aren't special. She's described decomposition in detail. How your last meal sometimes rots inside, swells your stomache, and has to be purged before cutting into the rotting flesh.
Death is not beautiful, peaceful, or relief. If you want real beauty, peace, and relief, you only find that in life. You will never find that in death. So get out of your morose state, stop feeling sorry about yourself and the world, and start working to actually get beauty, peace, and relief in your life. Looking at death for your such things is cowardly, lazy, and incredibly ignorant.
Inertia.
Besides, why rush the inevitable? Nothing lasts (i.e. entropy, anicca). The "chore" of respirating & metabolizing will end soon. Death is the only god that ever comes whether or not you cry out for her. Until then, savor sleep's daily respite; if, however, you're an insomniac, well Darkneos, you have my sympathies ... :sad:
Consider Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl.
if one dies while still living, maybe they will finally know what it is to be Alive. Perhaps they will be in a better position of having a "view" on the age old question, "if there is such a thing as immortality?".
It’s not a mistake. If someone “longs for death,” that person has a problem. Unless we want to vacate the words of any meaning whatsoever.
Quoting Darkneos
What’s so awful about pain? Why is some pain worse than death?
If one were to take a dive off a tall building they’d be dead.
Anyway— It’s really not that interesting. Feel free to have the last word.
Quoting Xtrix
The questions make no sense. Death is the ending of life, not a state. If life is filled with pain one wants pain to end. If the discussion is depressing one wants to end the discussion. The OP wants to escape from this - the present, not to achieve the goal of death. This happens when the mind is filled with the past, and projecting the past into the future as the continuation of the self. This projection of self into the future of years of mediocrity and meaningless routine and general discomfort, followed by the death one fears, is what fills and poisons the present, and thus himself is the prison in which he is confined. The desire to escape creates the very thing one seeks to escape from.
The solution is to face the fear, which is to face the present self which is nothing but this circle of thought going nowhere but round in a miserable circle, and in seeing that whole, there is a new thought and so a new life. That dies, and there is this. If one is every day new, then the thought of death will have no meaning to be either feared or desired. One has to escape the prison of thought to find the terrible beauty of life , that life and death are not separate.
If one lives as though it is good to inhale, but bad to exhale, one will not be happy for long.
The survival drive is part of your motivational makeup. You have motives to live and you have motives to die, and it seems that at the moment the motives to live prevail :)
Most profound questions! You must be Einstein's descendant! Please comtinue, you must...for our sakes...you must.
I don't think it's such a bad metaphor. It's like the difference between a surgery without or without general anesthesia. Is it absurd to prefer the anesthesia ?
:up: :clap:
I think we basically agree. My point was just that we can consciously choose unconsciousness. A person can risk death to protect their child. A person can stand up against a tyrant, make a grand speech, knowing it'll lead to the guillotine. Duels were common once. In short, it's part of our calculations, and I suspect that death is often thought of as a deep sleep, as a sort of zero state, neither good nor bad.
Of course not. It is not absurd to kill yourself either; I simply point out that in choosing oblivion over pain, one is trying to escape something, not achieve or gain something. That is where the notion of 'preferring' is misleadingly positive. Desire and fear are both projections to the future, but with opposite signs. They both equally take one away from one's real (present) life and create the prison of self from which one is seeking to escape.
Fair enough. The right amount/kind of desire can be fun though. Dopamine, immersion in the game.
:roll:
It makes perfect sense. Why does one prefer death to pain?
Sometimes the pain is excruciating — that’s obvious. That’s also not what I’m talking about.
The rest of your post is Buddhist cliche.
What does this mean and what is it contributing?
Yeah, sure. I'm not a Buddhist, but you know best.
There's a sort of comfort in the routine. I like waking up, brushing my teeth (not that they are in a great condition!), listening to the birds, and thinking about my work for the day.
Ataraxia can be quite subjective (in terms of its origin). Wealth definitely helps and so does having genuine relationships instead of the numerous transactional ones we see these days.
The absence of necessity can be a source of rapturous gratitude for the precious reality.
Some things are interesting and some aren't. I think that the more one can limit unnecessary desires and see contentment as a worthwhile goal, the better things could be. Plenty of aspects of existence, such as aesthetic value and love, don't seem futile to many people.
When there is an indescribable serenity on the face that went through seemingly insurmountable odds when spending time with someone they care about, it serves to awaken one's will towards affirming the good.
None of this detracts from the necessity of reducing gratuitous harms, however. I hope that my fellow optimists can have a nuanced perspective and be more open-minded when it comes to ideas such as a liberal right to a dignified exit and transhumanism.
May you have a beautiful day!
I didn’t say you were. But you know best.
:flower:
- Yukio Mishima on "The way of Samurai"
Looking at the examples available from natural selection and the evolutionary process, I think anyone anti-life should beware. The Darwinian rules don't seem to have many moral imperatives that humans would consider 'fair' or 'just.' If you invoke the Darwinian rules then that is what you personally might get.
The best hope for anyone antilife is the fact that those who love life care enough to try to convince them to think differently. We are their only hope against becoming spare parts for new life forms or any new animate or inanimate combination/structure way before they needed to due to their own confused choices.
The only value I see in them is they offer me a level of personal reflection and confirm for me how bad things can get on a personal level. I can say to myself 'well, at least you are not choosing to live life as some kind of daily, hour-to-hour curse.'
I assume anti-lifers struggle when nice things happen to them and to others around them as feeling good must be painful for them.
Yeah, but when it really comes to our own lives, we are all such egoist whimps. :sad:
If I die tomorrow, at least I'll be happy that my children are now so old that they will remember me. It would really suck to die when your children are so young that they won't remember anything. But at least I had them and a loving wife, so one notch to the "successful human/animal life"-table.
I have no suggestions if one finds life undesirable. Imagination is good, but living at the moment requires courage. That's it. Courage to face the mundane and the ordinary. Escapism has flourished over the last last decade or so. You've seen a lot of them in vlogs. Cottage fairies is one example. Another, is living a life in the 18th century, complete with costume and oil lamps and lack of modern technology. There's also the shopping addiction. Acquiring things to fill a void. Or just simply using drugs and alcohol to enter the state of stupor and mindlessness.
I don't know what to think of those people. I try to avoid them.
But I know that looking at the determination of animals in the wilderness, that's what I call living. They have enough energy pent up inside them that when they spring into action, all those energy is released like superpowers. Relatively, they live a short life -- when you always give your all and use all your energy to bag a prey, you're bound to have a shorter life. The wear and tear you sustain makes you powerful, but also short-lived.
What am I saying?
There's enough chemicals and enzymes in our body potent enough to fight hopelessness and boredom. We just need to know how to use them. When you use them, your mind is focused and even minutes of your life count. Of course, moments like that don't last 24 hours, 7 days a week. Eventually, the highs subside. That's when you sleep, or just do some physical activities. Or eat.
You’ve already defeated your own argument that we are “at home” like other animals and extolled the existential /absurdist dilemma (of the specifically human condition) in one sentence.
Well you can't really be sure about that. Once I die it is blackness, I cannot verify past that. Also your point about disassembling is what Ernest Becker would call inventing stories to assuage death anxiety, in your case becoming part of something greater and eternal.
Also you will be forgotten, transhumanism ain't gonna fix that. I mean granted it's not gonna fix anything IMO.
Quoting universeness
Nah, it's just another blip in experience.
Living does not require courage, that's just rationalization to avoid having to reckon with death, same with calling death boring.
Quoting L'éléphant
That's sort of ignorance about what nature is like. Animals survive because they know nothing else. They aren't brave and I wouldn't call that living.
Quoting ssu
I think it would be better to die when they don't remember anything, it's less painful. Your reply sounds pretty self centered.
:death: :fire:
Quoting unenlightened
:strong: :smirk:
I don't see how what you just said rejects what I said. Care to explain?
Quoting Darkneos
Well, you're helping my argument, not hurting it. We are humans after all. So, yes, we use rationalization like animals use instinct. Courage consists of going against our tendency towards hopelessness. We use rationalization, of course. But there are enzymes and chemicals in our body at our disposal.
Quoting Darkneos
Pardon me. I went back to my post and see if I called the wild animals brave. I said, humans need that. The animals live the way they are designed to live. Because they know nothing else, they use their energy to fuel life.
Only one small path leads out, but its trailhead can only be seen by casting one's gaze above shoulder height, and none have yet looked that high up. They've heard of this Path of Hope, but never having seen it, they scoff and shrug, looking at the ground, firmly denying it.
:hearts: :sparkle:
I have many good memories of people that have died. They are not painful at all. Why would it be painful to have good (or even not so good) memories of people that have loved and cared about you?
If you think it's great to be an orphan who has no memory about his or her biological parents, I have to disagree. Do you really think that is better?
People die and if you remember the generation of your grandparents, the older people of you childhood, later you will notice that you have become part of that "old generation" to younger people.
Cioran is highly edifying in his inertia. Even suicide is caring too much.
No you dont, you can check out any time you’d like. I think if you wanted to be dead you would be. You don’t really want to check out though do you? What you actually want here is attention, to validate your feelings about how unimpressed you are with life as an option.
Im not one thats going to tell you life is precious or that you have a gift or you have good in your life if you'd just embrace it. I accept you get nothing out of life, that you see nothing special about living and that death/oblivion seems like a better option than living…I’ll concede all that to you right now.
What your wrong about is that any of those feelings have anything to do with how much life sucks or how much better an option death is. Life isnt the problem, you are.
Your thoughts are those of a depressed mind. Just because its a common response you get ( get therapy) doesn't mean its wrong. You might need meds or something else that you are unqualified to dismiss as a cure for your little dilemma.
If youre adamant about depression or other mental illness not being the source of your view here then you’ve already gotten the best advice in the form of a question:
Are you sure youre doing life right?
If you truly have nothing worthwhile to live for, then you are actually more free than most other people. With such little attachment to life you have a freedom, a liberation of action, that means you can fill your life with whatever you want. If you cant exercise that freedom, then thats on you, not life.
This is true for some but we have many people amongst us who are very humble and genuinely humanist. They just get on with helping people every day and hardly mention their own suffering. When you compliment them or show them admiration they tend to shrink away, truly embarrassed.
They are imo much more numerous, among the poor and weak than among the famous/rich and strong.
Incredible unsung hero like everyday people exist in all our communities. I am not suggesting such people are perfect but they certainly easily compensate for those I would label misanthropic.
Quoting ssu
WELL DONE SIR!! A great legacy!
Quoting Darkneos
Yes I can. Science has very strong empirical evidence for The law of Conservation of Energy, which states that “Energy cannot be created or destroyed.” In other words, the total amount of energy in the universe never changes, it can only change from one form to another. It is actually quite unlikely that after you die, some of your disassembled subatomic particles will never be involved in any new combination events until the end of the universe. YOU will be recycled.
Quoting Darkneos
I can only assure you and Mr Becker(in memorium) that I have no such death anxiety and I would suggest that you are simply trying to project your own anxiety onto me. I love life and will welcome death as a harbinger of change. I fear and I am anxious about the way I will die but I have no fear of oblivion for the obvious reason that there is no awareness.
Quoting Darkneos
You have no information regarding the legacy I will leave so you have no idea as to how long I will be remembered. Modern techniques store more and more information about our individual lives so future people will get to know a lot more about the lives of past people if they wish to. Future transhumanism has the potential to offer humans vastly improved robustness, ability and longevity. This will offer many new options. If you stick around you may witness its infancy. If you don't then there are many newborns to replace you. The global population has been increasing since we came out of the wilds.
There's always a way out. And I'm sure we don't mean death, which defeats the point.
Some motives you can't choose. Like, do you like certain types of food? Do you like orgasm? Do you dislike being hungry? Do you dislike being cold? All of these are ordinary motives that drive our lives and they are wired in our bodies or minds and thus are part of us. And they drive us toward pleasant feelings that make life worthwhile and away from unpleasant feelings that make life miserable. Getting killed is unpleasant and the survival drive drives you away from that.
:clap: In general and in history, I think non-humans have suffered more than humans. I wonder how many lions or lambs decide that life and living is just a bad idea and they should covet death instead? Why does the prey run from the predator when they offer the placid oblivion of death and I don't think that they would have the same concerns as @Darkneos that they might survive the attempt to cause their own termination. Surely that strong survival instinct that has already been mentioned many times and that all species seem to have must have important purpose behind it.
Right, I was talking about finding a way out of despair, not of life.
Yet helping others, bringing them happiness, make us feel good (at least me). And yes, people usually don't whine about their problems. Yet I don't think that humble and genuinely humanist people are totally indifferent about their own life. They don't want their lives to end.
Quoting universeness
Is that sarcasm, universeness? If so, why?
Ok, I have to admit that there was a bit of sarcasm with myself too in talking about a notch to the "successful human/animal life"-table.
The vast majority of people that have died before us are unknown and haven't left such an individual mark that we would remember them as historical figures. Yet very many of them are someones ancestors. Especially on a philosophy site the notion of continuation of life as a meaning for life might be boring and doesn't answer much, but it's something one cannot disregard.
I completely agree!
Quoting ssu
No! I think anyone who has a successful marriage and has produced children and has managed to bring them up in a loving environment and they have all reached old age and continue to thrive is a very good (or great) legacy. Perhaps my use of capitals made you suspicious that I was being sarcastic, maybe its normal in today's society where most people are still a little shell shocked from Trumpism, Bo Jo etc that all comments/compliments made by people you don't know are treated with suspicion.
I am sure there is a lot more significance to the legacy your life will leave than a loving marriage and reproduction but such achievements ARE in themselves very good components of your legacy.
Quoting ssu
This imo, is more true the further you go back in time than it is now. I already stated my general opinion in my response to darkneous above:
Quoting universeness
I think we have been, in the main, on the same page in our viewpoints on this topic.
Just a little bit more on this. I know some people who have traced the ancestry of their family and can describe a good deal of detail about many members of their family that go back centuries.
Historical figures that are known globally is just the tip of the iceberg compared to the information that does actually exist about the lives of non-famous people who lived. I find this quite wonderful.
I still remember a little about an everyday Roman soldier called Petronious Artibus because of some graffiti that was left about him. One stated 'Petronious Artibus got me pregnant!'
Yeah, that was it. Well, thanks for clearing this.
Quoting universeness
The basic problem is that only few of us have had great grandparents around to tell about their life. Hence it's usually this third generation where the personal link to history is lost. The thinking goes likes this: you surely remember what has happened in your lifetime. Everyone of us will remember for example the Covid-pandemic, which is likely a historical event (especially if the next pandemic won't hit us in the next 50 years). To events that have happened to your parents and grandparents one feels a link, especially if they have told themselves about it. But earlier generations, you don't usually know much if anything about their lives. Then it's hard to relate to them.
Usually people get interested about their family and roots only at older age. It should be something that children should interested in when there older generations still around. And as you said, some families have done this and have stories about people that have lived far earlier. I think it's valuable to keep these stories. And in my country it's quite interesting as the people have lived in the same places, not much immigration here before, and the Church books usually go to the Middle Ages.
I don't think this has ever been true as most parents attempt to nurture and teach their offspring how to survive and even how best to thrive in the world they live in. The level of legacy and influence that humans achieve is what makes the difference. From word of mouth traditions to the invention of methods to record (hieroglyphics, books etc) experiences and happenings, outside of the body, so that they last much longer than a human lifespan is the main reason why we gained dominion against all other species.
Quoting DA671
I am not sure what you mean here. The most unfortunate aspect of history is the distortion of truth and the manipulation of 'what really happened,' so I think the 'opinions of the posterity,' is crucial, especially, if those opinions are based on seriously dubious historical reportage such as those offered by theistic texts or historical events which were exclusively reported on by those in power at the time or those who conquered. History is rarely written by the vanquished.
All the points you make are valid, but as I said, this situation is changing. Think of how much information will be available to future generations about the lives of their ancestors. Current technology can hold every photograph, every textual or audio word you ever recorded, every piece of footage you ever recorded. You can gather it and back it up to a single SSD and to 'cloud storage' and pass the whole lot to your offspring as legacy files. This will now be available for the rest of time! To all future generations.
In what ways will such information be employed a million years from now? We will be the 'ancients' at that point. I wonder how they will judge the anti-life people alive today? I predict they will be unfavourable towards them based on the fact that sentient life will still be thriving a million years from now. If no such sentient life exists a million years from now then it won't matter anyway. If antilife wins then there will be nothing around to declare their victory. Perhaps anti-life is inevitable in the same way as anti-protons or antimatter or antichrist. Universal balance seems to be the norm. The good thing about the anti story is that matter won the battle of annihilation! Life defeated antilife long ago. That battle has already been decided. Time to get on with life!
It's true that the opinions of the posterity do matter for them. And because we as rational and empathetic beings care about what they think and how their lives would be, it's vital that we do everything we can to create a better tomorrow. I was only responding within the context of the value framework that some pessimists have wherein the absence of life's goods isn't bad because you wouldn't have any needs. Well, if that is true, then the fact that we wouldn't be remembered by everyone long after we are gone should not be a problem (or a blessing), considering that we wouldn't exist to lose or gain from that. To summarise, one should not be inconsistent.
As I have said many times, to me, the fundamental is a question of purpose. A universe devoid of life has no purpose that I can conceive of. Such pointlessness is far worse than any concept of undeserved harms human morality or human moralists can come up with. I vote for many more years of harms and suffering for humans, including those who some choose to label 'newborn innocents,' alongside the many many joys and wonders of life which also occur very regularly. I very much prefer this state, compared to the alternative of a lifeless, pointless universe. All good people will also, of course, continue to do exactly what you have suggested many times. We will continue to help alleviate and remove all forms of unjust and unnecessary suffering and even obtain far more control over the inevitability of death.
I would also ask this. Why is the survival instinct so strong in all species if purposeless nonexistence is the superior natural state? Something seems to me to be much better than nothing!
Agreed and life affirmation is already based on sound science imo.
Matter survived and continues to do so against antimatter annihilation and imo, it follows that life will continue to survive against antilife! The Universe will produce life because that is what it did and that is what it does!
One can't take the mechanisms of evolution (survival fit/reproduction) as the universe "saying" anything. It is a contingent form of how matter formed and a mechanism whereby some of that matter (biological matter), has developed. It isn't a moral statement from the universe. Category errors and misguided understanding of sentience, contingency, and implication thereof.
The moderators of this site insist that I be nicer to antinatalists. I don't want to be nicer to them but I am threatened with getting banned if I don't and I have already had what I considered to be a very reasonable thread removed regarding the issue of falling foul of discussion site guidelines or the ruminations of individual moderators/administrators so, as I don't wish to be accused of throwing my own toys out of my pram. I will try to comply with their request, but it's not easy.
The universe doesn’t benefit or not benefit anything. Lucky for you the dicey ethical practice for assuming for others doesn’t apply to that category of thing.
Yep no “one” would have to worry about that.
Benefit with non-benefit (negative) on someone else’s behalf..you know the position.
It’s never just or right to presume such significant conditions and harms for another. Only when ameliorating greater with lesser harms and you can’t get consent which this is not a case of.
Unless your prevention is not causing a greater good to not exist and the individual has willingly chosen to be in a particular state of affairs (which procreation is not a case of), it is not ethical to cease the provision of all happiness. Also, non-existent beings cannot ask to exist. If creation can be an imposition, it can also be seen as a gift.
Quoting DA671
Why is that a moral obligation to start if nothing was there who needed it in the first place and there are many negative collaterals attached to this decision? You would be maybe more accurate if you were only giving a pure good with no contingencies.
Quoting DA671
Gifts don’t entail such significant harms and conditions usually. One can call anything a gift and that would be gaslighting to some extent.
If there is no moral obligation to create benefits unless there is a need, then there is also no requirement to never create someone unless doing so causes an actual being to be satisfied and there are no additional positives. Your view might have been more tenable if the negatives were all that existed. Fortunately, this is not the case.
Impositions don't entail indescribable value. But one could call anything an imposition if they are primarily concerned with their own negative perspective, which would be a sort of gaslighting as well. For what it's worth, I don't think that life is always a gift. Suffering should be taken extremely seriously and there should be a peaceful way out.
Not really no, there is not courage to living when its the default. If anything courage is killing yourself when evolution and society say to keep going.
Quoting ssu
Actually yes since it's less painful
Why indeed but that's not really an argument to continue living.
Also "unjust", "unnecessary"? That's casting an awful lot of assumptions onto existence.
Then when get to the flaw of purpose, since a universe with life is just as purposeless as one without it. There is no ultimately point to existence, it simply persists.
But you're in the wrong here. I universe without life sounds amazing. I would like to "live" in it, ironic I know, to bask in the absolute silence of it all. For however long I last, and then know with my death extinction of all life would at last occur.
No, that's just a claim. There is nothing to say the world wouldn't end if I died. You make too many assumptions.
Quoting litewave
Yes, no, no, no. Getting killed being unpleasant is debatable and pleasant feelings don't make life worthwhile just tolerable. NEXT. Also it sounds horrifying to think that all these drives out of your control keep you here when you don't want to be.
Quoting universeness
This is, quite frankly, a delusion way of thinking to put it bluntly. If you think transhumanism is gonna do any of that you're quite wrong. Transhumanism is nothing but a pipe dream. Not to mention you're proving Ernest Becker's point about having death anxiety and being motivated by it. Transhumanism is literally death anxiety.
Quoting Hanover
Hope is little more than delusion that promises what it can't deliver.
Life sucks, eh? :snicker:
Just playing class clown and riffing on the title of the thread.
:up:
1. We're all programmed to die (senex) in a manner of speaking
What if, just what if, bio (life itself) is also programmed to, well, die (off)/go exitinct?
Fallacy of composition?
It is an interesting line of inquiry though, oui? Bios may have a shelf-life i.e. it has an expiry date but we're not talking of mere kiloyears here; think geological timescales. Most ELEs (extinction level events) have been external ones but it's possible that there could be internal gene-based extinction codes that could be turned on after some millions/billions of years. Random thought.
The purpose is inferred from facts as they stand/appear to us. Objection sustained!
My life ain't something to brag about but here I am, (seemingly) content, happy enough to want to keep breathing.
Getting killed means overcoming the survival drive, which makes it unpleasant. Maybe you don't have enough pleasant feelings, because pleasant feelings are what makes one enjoy life - by definition. Aren't you diagnosed with anhedonia?
Quoting Darkneos
But they also drive you to improve your life, so they can be your friends. You are what you are, so it seems best to accept it and make the best of it.
Perhaps not for you.
You are 'overruling' natural instinct. I am glad that humans can do that or else we could not overrule a Darwinian law of the jungle approach to life but as I said before, I am glad I don't carry your self-imposed cage in which you experience your life as a moment to moment curse.
Quoting Darkneos
So you disagree with the antinatalists that its immoral to have kids due to the existence of unneccessary and unjust harms/suffering?
Quoting Darkneos
So I suppose you see terms like 'human progress' or 'legacy' or 'lives building on lives' or 'compulsion to find the answers to the big questions,' or 'I feel its my purpose in life to.....,' etc to be purposeless. You employ a very strange and unconvincing form of logic. Quite irrational actually.
Quoting Darkneos
Perhaps we could scientifically test how much you would enjoy this by placing you in a simulation of complete sensory deprivation. We could remove 'ironic' and allow you to actually "live" it.
We can use chemicals to temporarily paralyse you and completely remove your sense of touch. Temporarily remove your sight, hearing and sense of smell and taste. No sensory input whatsoever. We could leave you like that whilst still maintaining your bodily functions for 10 years. We can then reinstate your senses and you can describe your bliss to the human race. There are many 'locked in' medical conditions which are not so far from this state such as Encephalitis lethargica as depicted in the film awakenings. We would of course leave your brain working in the same way it does now so that your experience would be 'live' as you wanted instead of the 'no awareness' offered by death. We can induce 8 hours of sleep for you in each 24h period. Would you volunteer for this 'living death' experiment?
Having a lively imagination is no excuse to misunderstand what possible interpretations exist. Biological facts do not support a teleological interpretation. Period.
Mea culpa. Philosophy ain't no picnic. Sometimes, I feel like I came to the wrong place!
The law of the conservation of energy is not a claim, the clue is in the title. There is indeed a frame of reference that suggests that from your point of view, the Universe ends when you die. In reality, it might take many trillions of years for all life to truly end in the universe but as you will not experience time passing after you are dead, trillions of years and an instant will be all the same to you. This was also the case before you were born. Just as well you were formed and became alive or else you and all other antilifers would not have ever been able to complain about your existence.
Quoting Darkneos
Nonesense!
Quoting Darkneos
I am with Alexander Pope. Hope springs eternal.
Quoting universeness
Just a little more on this. Transhumanism seeks more control over the inevitability of death and there may be an aspect of death anxiety as one of the drivers but you ignore the absolute practicality of improving human choices, robustness, ability and longevity. Space is not life-friendly in the main at the moment and it is very advisable that humans become an interplanetary or even interstellar species asap.
It is a pragmatic survival imperative. We must leave the nest as we are too vulnerable if we stay confined to one planet. Feel free to label this concern 'extinction anxiety.' Having improved robustness, ability and longevity will help us survive in the vastness of space. All power to transhumanism! as long any enhancements will maintain at least the majority of what is considered human identity or me, myself and I ....... and of course you.
How is it less painful?
Death is a natural thing. It happens. When you have had a nice relationship with someone, when the person dies you will have fond memories about him or her. It's just part of life.
Yet not having parents is usually far more traumatic and a rare unfortunate thing.
The friend, in a playful mood, asked, "If there's no difference between being alive and being dead, why not just kill yourself?"
The philosopher replied, "Since there's no difference between being alive and being dead, why should I go to the trouble?"
How do you know????
No, it has to do with the belief that you are your body; and it has to do with the belief that when the body dies, "it's all over".
Note: These beliefs are dogmatic, axiomatic. We're not supposed to question them.
Yet every day, we also act in ways that show that we don't hold those beliefs consistently.
And they do, the list is growing:
Quoting Darkneos
It's more the case that we're craving sensual pleasures. We don't fear death per se; we fear that we won't be supplied with sensual pleasures or that we'll run out of them.
The courage to lower one's existential standards! Yay!
"Facing" the mundane and the ordinary is yet another form of escapism.
E.M Cioran said it better:
The irony of living to be 84 years old and die of Alzheimer's!
I'd love to discuss Buddhism with him.
He truly understood melancholy from the inside. That is to say.. He knew that suicide was only ever something as an idea and was never a proper response because the damage is never undone. Basically, there is no relief, only moments of calmness within life itself. Though rare.
[i]The righteous will be glad when they are avenged,
when they dip their feet in the blood of the wicked.[/i]
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+58&version=NIV
Quoting Jamal
Given the global trend toward legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia, will you rethink your negative take on the "anti-life stuff"?
Not enough return upon investment.
Contrary to the belief of capitalists and assorted others, people do not have an infinite willingness to invest any amount of effort, however great, into obtaining any amount of sensual pleasure, however small. You will not work the entire day just for a morsel of food.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13302/page/p1
A person doesn't live in a socio-psychological vacuum, therefore, the answer to this question cannot be idiosyncratic.
It doesn't have to be interpreted as a negative take or mod judgement on the subject. E.g. We could say it's more convenient and efficient to have everything in one discussion. Anyhow, it took me years of careful consideration and preparation to come up with this cunning plan, so I'm not for backing down now.
Why do these quotes oddly cheer me up :lol:?
The market place is like Schopenhauer's Will playing out in an endless cycle of "supply" and "demand" eating each other, as you say- like the ouroboros (prey-predator). Your constant demands and his supply means suffering will continue.. NOW GET BACK TO WORK! People need work to provide "meaning". It's part of a "system" (free, socialist, or otherwise) that needs feeding with more people and more people's attention. Nothing gets done on its own.. but everyone must contribute or perish. How can birth not be a political question? Obviously people want the system to keep going.. More reinforcing of the supply and demand.. Double down. Meanwhile the ouroboros' squeeze gets tighter and tighter.
The self-destruct countdown began...quando?
The beginning of man. The self-destruct was there from the start. When man first demanded something and needed a supply of it. When someone supplied the demand and demanded other people's labor which could be sold to the supplier so that their own demands can be satisfied. Again, it's Will playing out, embodied in the real world transactions of the labor force and the marketplace.
Either you don't know Schopenhauer, or you don't know how I am applying it thusly to the economic sphere. Which is it?
Will in Schop is an insatiable craving at the heart of existence. It strives-but-for-naught, causing its phenomenological manifestations bear the brunt of the thing-in-itself. Humans suffer the most because of our self-awareness of this suffering.
The economic system is a system of striving-after.. In the Schopenhauerian sense, it is striving for survival and entertainment.. A physical representation of our inability to "just be". Our demands and supplies are physico-social manifestations of this endless cycle of willing whereby we cannot just exist, in calmness, non-desireless states, but must work at one end and distract in another. It self-reinforces itself with each demand and supply offered...It tightens the ouroboros.
The nightmare scenario that you're claiming life is is I think a severe case of cherry picking aka confirmation bias.
Anyway, true it is that the system we currently operate under leaves much to be desired - it be cold-hearted, it fails to address our emotional needs of which there are many. However, as I see it, this ain't a done deal with zero options for improvement. Conditions could be bettered and we may begin to, at some point, appreciate life as gift, worth it, enjoyable, and so on.
Homer explains it best:
You cannot decouple the two. You can do things because you absolutely want to or because it brings the medium for your survival (in this case money- which buys goods and services, you see). So no, this is ANOTHER conceit of the kind/benevolent dictators who provide you these "meaningful" jobs for X hours. Keep 'em coming Agent Smith..
Quoting Agent Smith
Are you a capital investor? Sounds like the defense of one me thinks :D.
Quoting Agent Smith
Get back to work. That minutia isn't going to monger itself! I just don't find anything much in this statement of consolation, or refutation really. More cold-hearted "This is how it is.. stop saying stuff.. the system is good, the system works, the system is all we have". Yadayadayada
Indeed, decoupling is the wrong concept to use here; what I actually meant was how work transformed into something more than, not just, gathering/hunting/farming; there was a time when work meant just that - sensu amplo, foraging.
Post-agricultural revolution, things changed, in my humble opinion for the better, and we could engage in activities that had no direct nutritional payoffs, things like painting/music/philosophy/etc.
In a sense food lost its numero uno position in re labor to second place, below other more, let's just say, sublime aforementioned activities. To me this is a significant upgrade to the status of work which should matter, oui? Especially if the downsides of having to look for/hold a job is a key premise in an/any argument. :smile:
You’re overlooking what I’m saying for a straw man that you want me to say. I’m not taking about reverting to a hunting gathering society simply by criticizing what is going on now. Any economic model whereby we de facto are forced into a situation of work to survive would be thus the target. You are looking at the accidentals when I’m talking of the essentials. And it’s all relative as the next level of his work manifests is the new norm.
Read what I’m actually saying if you want to move this forward.
I believe I've mentioned this before - some ideas tend to be photographs, others videos!
Nothing about what I was talking about though. Quoting Agent Smith
HAHAHHAHA :rofl: Why?
Quoting Agent Smith
What is your modus operendi? Why would people ever give up their time for something they have to do? Falling over each other to "work" is simply called doing what you want when you want it because you want to do it, with no contingencies for needing to do it (like for survival). Jobs don't work like that. Jobs are not there for your edification. They are there to produce wealth to buy (as Homer said) goods and services. Or,, for the very rich, to grow their wealth continually and intergenerationally without buying any goods and services beyond more investments to reinvest in.
:rofl: I don't need to embarrass myself further!
Life really does suck!
I worked in education for 30+ years. I also served a 4 year apprenticeship as a painter and decorator.
Teaching was as much of a vocation as it was a job. Painting and decorating was more of a job but I got a lot of personal satisfaction/joy out of converting old dirty, decaying rooms into fresh, maintained, preserved, sanitised, pretty rooms. I cannot begin to express to you the incredible moments I had in my teaching career when I managed to inspire kids and enhanced their interest in and enjoyment of learning.
Quoting Agent Smith
I think you are absolutely correct. Hopefully, in the future, most of the mundane repetitive jobs will be automated. I also think that personal maintenance may take less and less time in the future as well.
We used to have to wash clothes in the river so washing machines definitely do help.
If more people can access more meaningful, purposeful activities that are based on what people are actually interested in then I think you are correct, people will want to work.
A Universal basic income for all, would make this more feasible.
If we can automate agriculture, manufacturing, recycling etc etc then 'your daily job' can become less about earning money to sustain your existence and more about living a fulfilling life and leaving a legacy which adds to human progress. Such a society can be achieved and its creation would be helped if the anti-life people would help to make it happen and stop being the misanthropes they are.
Maybe a future job title will be 'discussion site contributor,' sounds valid to me!
Quoting Darkneos
I'd question this desire for something more than survival instincts. Our attachment to life isn't "just" survival instinct, it's a complex of attachments and emotions and history and future and present and...
A complex, I think, is a good description -- leaving open what precisely makes us tick, while noting that it's not simple.
So coming to understand how or why we might come to desire death -- while still being alive! -- will also be complicated.
To the refrain "but this is not enough to justify going on":
Whether it is or isn't enough really is up to you. It's your relationship to the world, to yourself, to your emotions and needs and people. There is no "reason" someone can give you to make you feel any differently about those. The unjust thing about this world is that it's probably not even your fault you feel this way -- but because it's your life, your emotions, your desire, well... it still falls to you to learn how to live with it.
Indeed, I wonder if it is a post-facto excuse for justifying the fact that life entails work, and thus if work isn't meaningful then much of what sustains life isn't meaningful, and thus procreation is putting upon people not a benefit but a burden simply to "deal with". In other words, people MUST find meaning in work, otherwise implications are not good.
Not really, so far they are facts not beliefs. Anything saying you are not the body hasn't held up very well
It is some variation of survival instinct or another. Meaning is just another invention we make to trick ourselves into believing life is worthwhile.
"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain. One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself, forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.". --Camus
Did someone post that already? I didn't look.
Thanks for the shoutout, Jerry! I'm glad you saw some value there.
As Schopenhauer once said:
I think he was onto something.
The reason it isn’t convincing is because the argument is stupid. It’s fundamentally anti-life. That’s more a matter of mood and temperament than sound reasoning. Nietzsche has plenty to say on this— far more articulate than me.
I’m the opposite of you: I don’t have kids, and I’m not convinced in the slightest.
Well, frankly, it would be amazing if we didn't have to work at all and still have our needs & wants met to our satisfaction. This sentiment (something for nothing) has been associated with "kids these days!", as if to say the notion is puerile, a cardinal sign of an immature mind. However, what about the adult obsession with efficiency, making things easier, etc.? Such concepts, taken to their natural endpoint, imply that even adults want something for nothing. We wanna do magic! I suppose I would advocate for natalism of some kind, a toned-down version of it, just to see what happens...in the end? Do we succeed/fail? Mind you I'm working outside the domain of ethics here! Mighty interesting, oui?
It's anti-suffering. Saving a life in your care, and starting a life are two different things. You are equivocating to make a point.. But it's out-of-hand condemnation without consideration. Efficient, but not fully thought out.
You may have something there...
However, I don't think natalism should THUS be considered as somehow at a future point, these things will be figured out. You don't cause negatives for other in the hopes that at some undefined point, they get something from it. That is done maybe when ameliorating greater with lesser harms (forced schooling for children, etc.) but not an excuse in general to just "do" to people. You don't create immense suffering for generations for some undefined future goal of "humanity".. What else can we "do" to people for a cause? The slippery slope is precipitous with this kind of philosophy.
But sure, if work was abolished, that would be a benefit.. I am not against it. I just wouldn't put people in harms way or to impose my will on them, or create impositions for them to see this happen in some undefined future state. You are creating people who must experience work for generations before (or even if) any of this would take place (if at all).
Also anti-joy and anti-life.
If you’re in favor of not having kids, don’t have any. If you’re arguing that human beings shouldn’t have kids, then you’re anti-life. The result is the end of the species. That essentially says: ”life is evil.” Evil because suffering exists.
Just dressed up nihilism.
Why anyone chooses to go on and on about this — to fight THIS battle — is an interesting psychological fact about them. But nothing more.
If you believe something is not ethical because of X, Y, and Z, why would that not be something one should have a philosophical position on? Because you disagree with it? Some people think abortion is right or wrong. Some people think eating highly-sentient animals is right or wrong. Some people think that you are obligated to give as much as you can. Some people think you are not obligated to do X, or you are obligated to do Y. Some people think you can never lie. Some people think it is okay to cheat on your wife, steal from a mega-corporation, take something if no one knows, etc. etc. etc. It's all positions people can have and debate. Unfairly targeting a position on the ethics of procreating, is more an anti-anatinatalist problem. I have no problem with good faith debate. I have a problem with people who condemn it out of hand due to their own defenses or whatnot. I rather, them ignore if they aren't going to consider the views and want to twist it as somehow "illogical".. It's logical, just not the logic you want to hear.
As for the end of the species.. You already have the presumption that ethics entails the continuance of the species over creating actual individuals who will be imposed upon. You are jumping to the conclusion without engaging any of the evidence against such a notion. A real creation of someone else's suffering is pitted against someone's sadness from an abstraction.. Yet, the emotional appeal of the abstraction clouds the reasoning of the ethics... so the ethics is violently opposed, as Schopenhauer observed.
Quoting Xtrix
Wrong again.. At least get your terms correct. Nihilism in ethics, it he belief in no values. A nihilist wouldn't give a fuck if you procreated or not. They generally don't take positions that put values on things. Rather, it is philosophical pessimism, and it's not dressed up.
Oh and it's not anti-joy. A life full of joy is better than a life bereft of joy. Creating a life, that will definitely impose on someone and create impositions for them, negates the fact that there is joy. Creating joy is not an obligation. Not creating harms where it didn't have to take place is. My wanting to cause joy, does not mean I get to create more harms too for them.
There is an odd religious mania in the pro-procreation view.. One is "spreading joy" (without any thought to the other consequences one is spreading). And somehow THIS is an obligation unto itself.. The Universe needs its experiencers of it?? More like projection of ones own sadness onto the universe.. You are not the universe.. The universe isn't even a proper place for this kind of placement of evaluation.. If not the universe, it's just you being sad about something not happening. An abstraction of future events that will not take place. And thus somehow a justification for more harm to others because people shouldn't feel sad about abstractions somehow, as an absolute fact of ethics.. Odd.
There are reasons people want to procreate.. whether or not they are ethical.. Understood and can agree if stated in those terms. But once you say, THEREFORE people should procreate, that becomes an ethical statement, or at the least, axiological.
Neither are obligations. There's either the desire to give life or not. Those who don't want to are welcome. But not everyone views suffering and exclaims "life is refuted," which is what antienatalism rests on. If you don't share that attitude, then the rest is just nonsense. I don't share that attitude.
Again, for those who do -- fine. Then kill yourself, don't have kids, etc. That's your right. But why one wants to go around infecting others with this morbid, anti-life view is beyond me. I guess that's your right too, in the end. What can you do. Carry on!
It's dressed up nihilism. Always has been.
So if you knew that that life would suffer in X amount (for you unreasonably).. Should that not be considered? You would normally say yes (but maybe not cause you want to make a point debating me perhaps)..
ntly creating negatives (impositions, harms) for others that can't be escaped.. That in itself is enough not to do unto another person.
Quoting Xtrix
You can say that about any position though. What makes any other ethical position immune from someone disagreeing with it? That's like saying.. I don't believe in X ethical position, so the rest is nonsense.. So if you don't believe in Kant's ideas, should it be banished from philosophical debate? Seems ridiculous to me.. You are making unreasonable hoops for antinatalism to jump through as if it is not like any other ethical system one can believe or not believe. I never said you are FORCED to believe it. Now that truly would be hypocritical to impose the view after saying that impositions themselves should be avoided unto others!
Quoting Xtrix
Oh dear, a philosophical position has a position that is counter to your current belief-system.. Thus it should be violently opposed. Great job advocating for free speech in the confines of a respectable forum. Rather, any position you don't hold should also be banished right? Or no, just this because YOU have opinions on it.
Haha.. What does that even matter? It isn't but why do you think that makes a point? Big Lebowski or something? Great movie, by the way.
Work with me here; for the moment ignore ethics, Momma Nature has been doing that all this while, oui? Maybe that's not entirely accurate but methinks there's a grain or two of truth in my statement. Now, sir/madam, as the case maybe, can you think of one/two good reasons why we should have children?
Too, it just dawned on me, ethics revolves around two essential doodads:
1. Life/Phanes/Existence
2. Suffering/Algos
Antinatalism is unethical for the simple reason that nonexistence (death, killing) is. You can't claim to be moral in any sense of the word if as a solution to a problem you recommend nonexistence. Ethics is all about creating/preserving life while attempting to make the experience a memorable (read happy) one.
I'll ease off here because at the end you did say:
Quoting Xtrix
So, in recognition of this, I'll respect that you agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. I only have a problem when people want to banish it from any public forum. Just discounting out of hand and banishing because you think it is distasteful to your mores, doesn't say anything against it. Socrates, Galileo, Bruno, Inquisitions, that's what you get with that kind of thinking.
:chin:
Really? I thought it was about right action? You are putting a spin on it such that of course, antinatalism would thus never be "ethical".. If ethics entails procreation, thus antinatalism is not ethical. But of course, the antinatalist would never define ethics so. They would define ethics as principles of right and wrong behavior.
I said what I hadta say!
If you're interested, you might wanna read up on the taijitu (yin-yang). When someone cares (too much) about life, he becomes a mass-murderer! :chin:
Thanos cared too much. I'm ignoring the "too much" part!
Look, I'll give you a secret about my antinatalism, that isn't really a secret if you pay attention to my whole corpus (which I don't expect you to :)). Antinatalism isn't just about the principle itself, though it can be debated on its own without any connection to a broader principle... But I do think it is also its implications on the broader life we live.
What are these impositions of life?
Why should they be endured?
How should we treat each other if we must endure them?
What are we perpetuating when we create more people?
So I discuss things like the burdens of survival and striving-after of the human condition.
I discuss what it means to not make others unduly suffer even more than they should.
I discuss the political choice one is making for another by procreating them. There is a system in place, and one wants to keep this system going, and more people to endure it.
Vitals!
My own take is that the problem of suffering at the heart of natalism-antinatalism is this:
1. (How to) Live happily (?).
Note live happily.
You can't, as is obvious to you, recommend nonexistence as a solution then, oui?
You are your brain Baker. We've known that for decades in science now. Its not a debate. Scoop the brain out of someone and that aspect of the brain that was them is gone. It is only your imagination and hope that somehow you will continue on after death. You will not. That is fact.
Your implication is we need to create people so that they can be happy. If every life was an individualized utopia, you would have solid ground. It obviously isn't. So, yes, you can try to find happiness in life once born, but it doesn't negate that life entails a lot of other stuff as well, to be endured. And this isn't to be ignored.
The natural response is to reify suffering as a necessity for a complete experience. I just don't think it is our job to bring people into the world to suffer and then learn from their suffering. Who are we? How is this NOT a political position for someone else? And of course, besides that this is wrong to want people to suffer because YOU think it is worthwhile for them (making that decision for them), suffering many times goes off the rails.. more than you predicted or expected.
I sympathize with the antinatalist crowd. Suffering tops the list of humanity's and also all life's problems - people seem too distracted to notice their own dukkha, especially in the modern world with cyberspace providing intermittent relief (for folks like myself). Billions are, to use a Matrix analogy, plugged in/jacked into virtual communities; I consider this a symptom of our dissatisfaction with the real world (dukkha manifests in interesting ways). In short antinatalism has a point.
However, this also means that if people are happy, they'll choose life.
Conclusion: :chin:
Do you detect any problems with the following list which has been ranked in termsa preference?
1. Life + Happiness
2. Nonexistence
My gut instincts tell me that antinatalists should give their nod of approval for the order, it makes sense to them. Therein lies the rub, oui mes amies?
Good points.
Quoting Agent Smith
If you like the flow states and the pleasures that come from the obstacle course, that's great.
1) Does it actually last for a lifetime, or is intermittent?
2) Does the fact that there is an obstacle course presented to you (foisted if you will) not give you pause?
3) Whilst the need for happiness? Isn't there a state of lack implied here that we are trying to constantly fulfill?
You had it right with the dukkha.. keep going with that theme.
I already answered:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't think it's a good idea but I trust mother nature or, more accurately, evolution. Suicides happen for a reason I suppose - those who can't take it are being culled automatically i.e. only those who don't mind suffering will be able to pass down their apathetic genes. In the long run what'll happen is our pleasure-pain sensing apparatus will be recalibrated to a new, higher pain threshold and all will be well. :snicker:
I notice you don't answer my questions. Not a great way to dialogue.. and sort of unfair to me who is trying to do one.
Apologies! Not a refusal to answer, but an inability to answer! Please carry on. Danke for sharing your views. Paranesis!
You haven't thought enough or at all about it? Or have come up with no answer?
There's that word "just" again --
any one name is easy to put aside, when you have another set of names and operators.
{J}(NAME) -> "just an invention/trick/illusion"
So there's what's apparent, and then there's what is real. For any named reason one will reduce said reason with the above "just" operator, categorizing the reasons people give as apparent.
The real, here, is . . . well, what, precisely?
Let's just say whatever it is, it certainly isn't any possible reason someone might give that they feel life is worthwhile. You see the real, and these all fall to the above described operator.
But unlike Plato, who talks of a light -- a knowledge of the good, the beautiful and the true -- you just say "I want you all to feel life is not worthwhile!" -- why would we do that?
I have no desire to do so. And I don’t consider it illogical. I just think it’s silly and those who pick this hill to die on are silly. But like I said, that’s their prerogative!
:up:
It's nice to see someone else call out this effervescent real.
:up:
I would suggest that your conclusion should be simply 'make your choice!'
I cite again (as an atheist) a variant based on what's in Deuteronomy 30:15-20
This from the first episode of Carl Sagan's series Cosmos.
'I lay before thee life and the curse, therefore choose life so that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed.'
You can live life as an hour-to-hour daily chore if you choose and covet death and you will have earned my personal pity. That's all a person can do who loves life. Pity those who are anti-life and just make sure those who live are as protected as they can be from any extreme maniacs who project anti-life into an attraction to commit an atrocity against life.
I would suggest that genuine empathy is emotionally challenging for many people, especially if deeply felt but pity is a different harsher offering that entails only a very minor burden on my emotions.
Agent Smith makes a mental note of that! Feels important!
:up: Stay with the light side of the force, Ya auld Jedi!
I hope I'll be able to remember that under fire! Muchas gracias!
I do not have kids but I would lie to them if it would be necessary to their safety
Quoting Philosophim
This is a philosophy forum. This includes philosophy of science.
The OP's problem comes precisely from a lack of appreciation for the philosophy of science, and an uncritical internalization of particular scientific and popularly held claims.
Quoting Jamal
Unfortunately, forums like this are the only place where this topic can be discussed in an at least half-way meaningful manner for ordinary people. Meawhile, the trend toward a favorable attitude toward assisted suicide and euthanasia continues. And with that, a favoring of a superficial take on the topic of "meaning of life". What is more, people who are supposedly happy with life nonchalantly advise others to kill themselves if they're not too keen on living. One would hope moderators would neither give such advice, nor passively approve of it.
You yet have to show that you're not another one of Sisyphus' waterboys.
On the contrary. People generally don't value food production enough, hence the abuse of the planet.
A person doesn't live in a socio-psychological vaccum. Thus neither the existential problem nor the solution to it are within the person's power.
Ironically, both the antinatalists as well as the natalists are still firmly immersed in the pursuit of sensual pleasures, they differ only in which types of sensual pleasures they pursue.
The pursuit of sensual pleasures necessarily entails suffering.
Well, I would say that I have quite a lot of things I enjoy, but at the end of the day I still question myself whether it´s all worth it. I love my family, friends, have an interesting job, enough money, love long walks, driving, cooking, coffee….but still there’s something at the back of my head saying - is it enough?
Also I do think that preferring “nothingness” is a stupid concept, because for me there’s nothing after death, no “you” to “enjoy” the preferred nothingness :roll: . For now suicide seems irrational.
So therefore the question why go on or better yet how to go on, what to strive for? (I mean it still could be just symptoms of depression, but who knows :confused: )
Your core sounds like it has strength. You may well conquer your own negatives. For what it's worth to you, I hope you do.
That's a lot of E.M. Cioran.. Ever read him?
Not sure why you think that, but ok.
Hum, I thought getting married and having children was how to actualize myself as a woman. I used to feel very sorry for single people because they did not enjoy the benefits of love and marriage. I have noticed in my later years, that many older people chose to live near a son or daughter and grandchildren. I loved being a grandmother and great-grandmother. Saying that is about fear seems like an odd way of understanding the joys of family.
:clap: :clap:
There are not benefits. Marriage is a community of sacrifices. Raising and maintaining a child is complex as hell and you do not how the tables would turn out in the future. Probably I can end up being cheated by my wife or mistreated by my own kid. So no... I prefer live in loneliness rather than being married.
One has to appreciate the positive sides what your life has.
I should appreciate the positive sides of my life, indeed. But I think those positive feelings depend on my own. I never understood why there are some people who share half of their lives with another person. I respect it but I just don't get it.
Loneliness doesn't necessarily lead us to sadness. It depends on each context. If you appreciate being alone maybe this is the kind of life you should choose for.
Furthermore, marriage is not connected to affection. For example, I don't have a girlfriend, and neither Kids and friends. But I feel respected and esteemed inside this forum. To be honest with you, ssu, I guess I never be able to find such respect in real life
The members of this forum are part of real life. You type many interesting things and take nice photo's, why would that change if I met you in person?
I have never married and have no kids. I have been engaged twice' lived with women, had many short relationships but my long-term ones just never worked out. I, like you now, prefer my personal freedom compared to what is offered in a relationship but I am 58 now. Nature has turned its attention towards younger prospects for reproduction. I am now relatively irrelevant in the continuation of the species imperative but under the rules, I am still allowed to have lots of fun!
I would not change in person because the way I interact in this forum is how I really am in real life. If you ever met me in person you would see I am the same Javi in The Philosophy Forum and in physical world. I am not using masks here and I am happy the way I act inside this group.
But in physical world is different, or at least due to the type of persons surrounded with me. I always doubt if it is worthy to open my mind and hearts to them. I feel I would be disappointed...
I appreciated and understand your caution with those you don't know yet.
To me, it's a bit like the pioneer spirit. Social interaction has risk but can also have great rewards.
Sounds like you can have as many friends and relationships as you want Javi. You just have your own preferred approach and having the choice to get involved or not is yours. That's the kind of freedoms we all insist on, yes?
I am sorry. Everything in life has some risk. You could have the best job in the world and a lovely house, great car, and loose it all. Then who will you be without everything that once defined you?
For sure marriage and family involve risk. It surely is not something anyone should do without a lot of talking! That piece of knowledge comes from hindsight. I took so much for granted and that was a mistake. So if you ever change your mind about marriage and family please remember to talk about everything that is important to you. There is really good information in books and on the internet and the more we know the better are our chances of doing well. This video is really good and perfect for you. It is about why we marry the wrong person. Please give it a try and tell me what think.
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+we+marry+the+wrong+person&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=Why+we+marr&aqs=chrome.0.0i512l2j69i57j0i512l5j0i390l2.4428j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Well, yes you are right somehow right. I am only 25 years old. So, I do not know what the future really holds and probably I make some friends the next year
Athena, I am so much appreciated of all information you have provided to me. But, trust me please. I do not see myself in a marriage because I already lived the experience of being heartbroken and I don't want to go through the same painful process.
:clap: Yeah, at 25, leave an inside light on and a wee door ajar, so that people can notice you and say hello!
Happened to me three times so far. Dark, nasty and very very painful. It's Humpty Dumpty time, you almost have to put yourself together again from scratch but I really did come back again, each time, stronger but different. You lose the innocent you but my first was far worse than my second which was much worse than my third. I think I am almost immune now. I can still give as much as ever but I have much stronger armour against the 'unexpected.'
Curiosity can be part of the motive to be with others. But a desire to be soothed and affirmed by others, or needed and valued, I see it as relating to lack of self esteem.
Not that I deny such things. If I can't affirm myself I am not against being affirmed, and appreciate it. But I want to eventually be able to affirm myself.
Can grow from relationships as relationships bring up insecurities so they can be faced and overcome, learning how to be vulnerable but also how to have healthy boundaries.
Sorry, just noticed the tense, why the past tense? Just a typo? a 'd' that shouldn't be there, no alternate horrors I hope.
You mentioned depression, so I'm responding with that frame in mind - I'm speaking from the perspective of one who manages his own depression.
I know what I'd say to myself if I couldn't come up with something more but just felt a kind of malingering malaise that asks if I need or want more -- but I couldn't answer that question for you. And if your question is as general as, what should I strive for? Then even more so, no one could answer that question for you. If anything, I'd say I'm done with striving -- I'm sick and tired of trying. I like not-trying. I like not-doing. It's the best place to be. Striving is hard. not-doing is relaxing. But I don't recommend that as a universal tonic. It's just what I want now.
I'm trying to be careful to be sure I'm only speaking for myself; to not give advice, because *if* your feeling is more than a philosophical wondering about "the point of it all", then none of us are in a good position to offer anything that might really help. All I can do is say I know what causes that feeling in me, and note that you're not alone in feeling it. But the actual resolution of or living with these feelings isn't a well known or even presently knowable process, at least in a general way. We understand diabetes better than we do depression, because at least we know how to manage diabetes if the person is able to habituate themselves to it.
I feel like noting: there's the word "Just" again -- as if to say these feelings are only something. I don't think that's the case at all. After all, here you are talking about it. If they were only something, then you could shrug it off, right? Even if depression is the underlying causal explanation, it's not necessarily satisfying to have a causal explanation for the way we feel. Sometimes we're looking for something a little more meaningful than "the atoms move around and stuff happens, whadya want?" or "you experienced trauma and learned bad habits, so unlearn those and you'll be cured" -- sometimes there isn't a cure. Sometimes it's just nice to talk about what you feel, even if it seems a bit crazy.
But these feelings are never "just" something else. Our feelings are important, good, bad, and ugly.
Your life is the real life, respect it.
And if you are 25, don't think you've seen it all. I had fears about my life when I was your age: I didn't have a girlfriend, I wasn't in the in-crowd, I was shy, I feared I would be all alone without having anything meaningful in my life later when I would be 30, 40 or 50. I couldn't image to be a father or having a family. I thought it was not for me. It was the life for other people.
Remember that sadness is part of life. If you wouldn't feel sadness and heartache, you wouldn't appreciate the good things in life. You have emotions, which is good in life. If something makes you happy that you laugh, even if rarely, that makes life worth wile. At that moment you cannot be sad, hence not all life is pain.
That's a pretty low threshold. As Simon and Garfunkle explain.. Rocks feel no pain.
If I was to cause someone else to exist because I felt joy in my most joyous occasion and was deluded into thinking another being would live life in this brief moment of joy.. That would be a huge conceit that I would be enacting (and on behalf of another nonetheless).. Just give it a few moments and that moment will be but a faded memory and the lackluster of what surrounds it comes into view more clearly.. In other words, never make significant decisions on behalf of others in your most joyous moment. That would be foolhardy.
Quoting universeness
I have mixed feelings about relationships and having children. Today, I don't think I would want to bring a child into this world. Our present technological society is very different from the society and culture we had when I came of age. Back in the day we wanted to grow up and prove we were capable adults and that meant getting married and having children. It was especially important for a woman to be married and have children because there were not a lot of good options for women when our society was strongly based on the Bible and the ancient Greeks. Pythagoras and Plato were in favor of women having equality but allowing women equality was a radical idea that so broke tradition it could be met with some hostility.
Aristotle thought a man should have a slave, an ox, and a wife. I am not so sure he saw having a wife as different from having an ox and a slave. Our culture didn't seem to think having a wife was different from having an ox and a slave. Economically, women were held dependent on the man.
There was a time when having a family would improve a man's chances of getting a job and getting advancements. A married man was thought to be a responsible and more stable person. In some cases, his wife could advance his career by having the boss over for dinner and making social connections with the right people. She was not "just a housewife" but a very valuable part of the social and economic order we had.
I am not saying there were no problems. I am saying things were different back then and being married and a parent was part of our identification and social status. We also saw the world getting better and better. We believed we could make the world a better place and that was a much happier situation for having children. Today we no longer see the world as getting better and global warming means in a generation of two the world we took for granted may be irrevocably destroyed. I do not see this as a good time to have children.
:up: :100:
I agree, we have reached a phase of a great deal of social, political, economic and ecological upheaval.
Responsible human stewardship of the planet is failing badly and our current sociopolitical systems cannot cope with the current global population so it's not a good time to have children, especially if you are poor, downtrodden and deliberately disadvantaged which at the moment, is the position of the majority of humans alive.
If we had better global politics and the collection and distribution of resources was organised for the size of population we have and not exclusively for the benefit of the few then we probably could cope with the current population. So, at least the problems are crystal clear. If we can 'sort it out,' then perhaps we can start to expand off planet. If we don't then we will continue to give oxygen to the anti-life people until we do.
If the human population reduces over time due to individual human choice not to have kids and we end up with a more manageable population and we then 'sort things out,' then hopefully we all have the choice back, to freely and positively procreate again, in line with the natural imperative.
One has to notice that the simple things in life are what actually life so wonderful. Especially if your other option is not to live, to be dead.
Rocks don’t feel pain and don’t need joy. It is us who lost the existential race with our consciousness..feeling things. Yet in our ignorance we perpetuate it more. And to prevent such an ignorant move, do not make the move to perpetuate another whist in the joyous moment. Look at the most mundane, lackluster part of life. THAT is what should be the baseline of decision.
You can put up defense mechanisms and scorn the pessimist..but you miss the message. All we have is our own restless wills coupled with fighting entropic decay.
It’s not that there’s beauty, it’s that we need beauty. It’s not that there’s joy, it’s that we need joy. It’s not that there’s X, it’s that we need X. And yet your political position on how great it is to need X becomes someone else’s problem.
Have we?
Quoting schopenhauer1
How much is enough depends on us ourselves. Some can be bitter if they feel they haven't gotten something, where others would be totally content what they have gotten.
Quoting schopenhauer1
My political position?
Not following your line of thought here.
Someone had the best day ever.. they have a partner to procreate with.. they decide to have a baby...So that one day of joy has an optimism bias that lasts a lifetime consequence for someone else.
They have decided THEIR joy = other people must do X. That is a political position (on what others should be doing based on one's own attitudes) in my book.
Does the i universe need sentient existence? What is a non sentential existence?
We have no means to ask bacteria or archaea or even rock formations or the Earth itself how they felt about their existence at that time. So we had an absence of life and then we had life.
Biological entities advance in structure and complexity through combination and mutation.
Quoting Yohan
I agree but I would replace 'non-existence,' and 'existence' with non-life and life as without this you would have to assign some purpose and significance to the existence of something which is lifeless like a rock when no lifeform exists to label it a rock or (in the case of a microbe) at least live on it.
My understanding is that the purpose of existence is to relieve boredom. Non-existence I take as a state of absolute boredom.
I don't have any scientific answers, obviously. But I dont think they are necessary.
Far as I'm concerned a rock is a bored proto-life-form.
Bored proto-life-form but at least the rock is not concerned about how painful the life could be
It's how the recognition feels that depending on impermanent things for one's happiness is precarious.
That is, you recognize that depending on impermanent things for you happiness is a recognition that feels uneasy; for most people, it's depressing.
A secular psyhotherapist will approach this recognition as a pathological symptom, something to be done away with.
Some spiritual/religious people believe it's the beginning of the spiritual path (using here "spiritual" for the lack of a better word). Not a sign of depression, but a mark of seeing worldly things for how they really are: impermanent and ultimately unsatisfactory, and thus not worth striving for.
Why I think what? To which sentence are you refering?
Hence the recipe for a good marriage is 1 kiss + 1 slap in the face. That really makes one appreciate the kisses!!!!
The idea that it is hardships that make us appreciate the good things is patently absurd, however popular it may be. It's sado-masochistic. It's depressing. The bad stuff doesn't make us appreciate the good stuff, but it can lead us to question whether the good stuff is all that it's popularily made out to be.
It's not such a secret.
Is this the antinatalism thread again? Or going there?
Besides, as humans live in a society, so I guess there's a lot of people deciding what others (or we) have to do.
My point is that you cannot have just positive feelings (love, joy, happiness etc.) You will sure feel sadness and anger too. That simply is part of life, which you cannot disregard or hide away. Empathy is also very important.
But yes, if you haven't ever felt hunger, how can you value a good meal? Sometimes something lousy can make you appreciate good.
Goes hand in hand with life sucks. But the broader point is you were speaking of joy and happy moments and I was giving you the danger of OVERemphasizung this. The optimism bias in humans is strong to cherry pick joyous moments and make important decisions from them that can actually negatively affect the course of things, including a whole other humans’ life because you had a moment of unthinking joy.
It’s best to recount the lackluster, and negative states as a balance.
OK, now I understand better your point.
On the other hand, optimism, remembering those joy and happy moments might be good in countering OVERemphasizing pain and hardships of life. Which we can often do when we are unhappy about something.
Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes.
Yep, the cool kids never like optimism or happiness - such responses are viewed as gauche, and don't you know life is grave and dreadful?
I mean, you aren't wrong.
I totally like that explanation.
Quoting ssu
The Greeks had a concept of what is public and what is private. Liberty depends on respecting what is an individual, private decision, and unfortunately, Evangelicals are determined to impose their notions of how things should be on everyone, just as much as some Muslims believe it is God's will to make everyone live as they believe their holy book defines how people should live.
Quoting schopenhauer1
We question if animals have self-awareness. For sure rocks do not, any more than the tires on my car want different things. But perhaps a God decides what is best for all things and everyone and we should use our intelligence to understand what God wants and then impose that on everyone. The state is God and it must use any means necessary to make everyone comply with the will of God. Or taking God out of our politics how do we determine democratically what should be?
What if industry used the democratic model instead of the autocratic model? How might that change our reality? How many industries would move to China if the employees were making the decision? Who should have the power to decide our joy? What industry would pollute the environment causing their own families disease?
You mean join a nudist colony? That would give some people joy. :grin:
Might that be what democracy is about? It is empowering everyone who is affected by a decision to come to the table and explain what is and what should be. Then arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning. You know, like the Greek gods.
A geologist showed me a cartoon explaining exponential growth. You begin with a couple of frogs in a pond and then increase the number of frogs exponentially. Everything appears fine until the last day when the pond goes from half full to completely full. That is what happened to us. When I was born we still had a sense that there was plenty of everything. In my lifetime we have gone from plenty of everything to crisis. We have a housing shortage where land used to be dirt cheap and there was far more available land than people to fill it. Plenty of water to water wars. We are having a very hard time dealing with reality. I do not think we have a good grasp of it and we are not organized to deal with the facts we need to know.
:rofl: In general everyone is behaving like the kids fighting in the back seat of the car. They are yelling at each other and no one is working with the facts.
Well, it's what socialism/humanism is about and neither of those labels have any value without democracy.
Quoting Athena
Sounds better than some dictatorship of a privileged few.
Quoting Athena
The Greek gods never existed, the atheists, christians and muslims all agree on that one.
Quoting Athena
There is also a great deal of bad organisation. I live in Scotland, our population is quite small (Around 5 million). We could build a few more major cities in Scotland, we also have hundreds of uninhabited islands that could be developed but 'there's not enough profit in it.' Hah! total BS, we need to nurture people not profit.
Quoting Athena
A fair analysis but don't forget that we have been trying to deal with a very powerful, clever, very well established, global hierarchy of elites, since the free market economy and the money trick became established. Rich, global family dynasties formed out of the dying national aristocracies and monarchies.
These became the basis for establishing global banking systems and global conglomerates.
It's just evolving global dynasties similar in structure, style, and behaviour to global gangsterism. I see little difference between the mafia Don's and Don Elon Musk or Don Donald Trump.
They will fight the masses tooth and nail and they have the established power to do it. They will divide you, terrorise and murder those who raise their heads in protest, especially those who are getting through to the masses and are trying to organise them. They will pay your own kind to betray you and turn against you. They will also convince your own kind in the form of police and soldiers that their loyalty must lie with the established rich and powerful and not the people.
Millions of socialists/humanists have been slaughtered for 10,000 years of tears to fight against the nefarious and they have defeated monarchies and aristocracies and they have created systems all over the world which are far better and fairer for more people compared to any system or civilisation from antiquity. The fight continues. The socialists/humanist are still here and we still number in the many many millions globally. We will defeat the nefarious completely one day and become an interplanetary/interstellar species.
The problem is existing at all. Why do we bring people into existence? Any way you answer that is a political answer. Apparently YOU know why existence just NEEDS to be experienced and so you procreate more people into the world. So why do people need to be here? Your answer will be revealing. To work? Why? To take your time in various survival and maintenance activities? If you say to discover, learn, and make relationships, I’ll just ask why people need to do this on the first place. Rocks don’t need anything. No existence hurts no one. Why do more individuals need to be created? Again a political question, as your answer means other people must follow (pay) the consequence of being born and go through the gauntlet of living..all because you have a notion of things and what’s best for others. Rather, there’s a nothingness, a lack at the heart of things. Just creating more people to overcome constant lack. Schopenhauer’s Will manifested over and over in yet more beings procreated into the world. Existence is ti be endured and you are creating more victims because you think they need to live out some lifestyle that YOU think is good for them. But if they didn’t exist, they didn’t need anything to be lived out in the first place.
Old time mourning and repentance!
Classic things that philosophers also have cherished.
May I argue they did exist and were just as real as the God of Abraham? Each one is a concept and concepts are powerful. Every Evangelical experiences the power of God exactly like the Greeks experienced the power of their gods.
The Greeks slowly began slipping out of this superstition with questions like "Is something bad because the gods say it is bad, or do they say it is bad because it is bad?" If it is the latter, something exists besides the gods. Now we are creeping into universals and the laws of nature. And we have Hippocrates who says the conditions of the body are not caused by the gods. But before those who love knowledge replaced superstition with universals, people experienced their gods as very real. If you believe Demeter will make you a better mother, sure enough, she will, and if you believe in the power of the God of Abraham, you will see it everywhere. Your belief will explain everything to you validating your truth. :grin:
Quoting universeness
And there we become the gods. It is as we create it. :grin: It is as Zeus feared. With the knowledge of the technology of fire, we have discovered all other technologies and now rival the gods. However, as you hint, with concepts such as socialism and humanism we can create a reality that encourages happy families, or we can feed the beast and make the beast strong.
Quoting universeness Oh burn, ssssss- :fire: That was nicely said. I could totally off topic with you what you said, but maybe if we focus on your lead in statement we can have a very meaningful discussion!
Quoting universeness
Yes, and what does the Bible have to say about that? :naughty: The Bible is a very complex book with something for everyone in it, but we might want to focus on what Rome did to Christianity. The Council of Nicaea was all about power. The Bible is about kings and slaves, not democracy. The God of Abraham gave man kings, not democracy, and one's life's work was defined by inheritance, not the merit system of the Greeks that enable any qualified person to have a government position.
Some conversations can not happen until someone opens the door so we can see what there is to talk about. Your statement about we are organized as we are organized opens a door. Conservatives want to cling to tradition but democracy is not a Christian tradition.
Quoting universeness
Are you aware that
Quoting RONALD HAMOWY
We could start a new thread about the Scottish Enlightenment and what it has to do with the US democracy.
Because "God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man." Chardin.
I am less familiar with the Mayan Factor explanation of our light bodies and the universal entrance.
Your attacks on me make me want to avoid what you are saying. You might drop assuming what I think, know, and do, and focus on the concepts you want to discuss.
Quoting Athena
Of course you may but a concept is an abstract idea. Humans can turn some concept into a reality but they can't create gods, they can only and have only ever been able to insist you accept them on threat of punishment, damnation and/or death.
Quoting Athena
I experience natural high's every bit as powerful as any evanhellical or ancient Greek was ever able to.
Quoting Athena
I don't advocate for self-delusion as a way to validate truth and I don't think you do either. I understand your observation that many people gain strength and focus by using deities as scapegoats and so they do not have to take responsibility/ownership of their own existence and what we decide to do or what actions we decide to take.
I was watching a program about the days of the partition of India. A Hindu woman had returned to where thousands of Hindus and Sikhs were slaughtered, including some of her own family. She was talking to a Muslim that had witnessed the 'battle' as a child. At one point she asked him why they slaughtered each other as they did. They were both in tears when the old Muslim man said 'don't cry my daughter, this was gods will.' A pathetic excuse imo. Gods as convenient scapegoats.
Quoting Athena
Well, I am with those who posit that it is likely that Rome created Christianity and people like the treacherous Josephus helped write the gospels and the popes are the direct inheritors of the embers of the roman empire etc etc. I support the positions held by folks like Joseph Atwill, James Vallient, Professor Robert Price, Dr Robert Eisenman, the folks on Mythvision et al.
Quoting Athena
I would enjoy that Athena, we could go back even further to the 'Declaration of Arbroath,' and 'The Magna Carta.' and how those documents influenced the American constitution etc. You are correct that all the winding historical threads do weave us all the way to where we are now and why we live like we do now and the purist philosophers can suggest a myriad of 'thinking processes' and epistemologies that governed/directed/conducted our pathway to 'now.'
I always enjoy such discussions but we are just going over the same old ground again and again and again. There must be quicker ways to drive human global unison forwards, than constantly going back over antiquity. We should not even have to go back as far as the enlightenment to make progress.
EDIT: I suppose the path was more the American Declaration of Independence to The American Constitution.
By comparing it to a bad meal, not to no meal.
That's appreciation for people who have no value system.
Quoting ssu
Nonsense. Where do you get these ideas???
We've been created to go well without food for one day, actually. It's water that we need basically daily.
Quoting baker
Well, sort of. Assume if you had eaten for your entire life exceptionally great meals, basically always something of the level that one gets in Michelin star restaurants, with added detail to the healthiness of your diet. You wouldn't know how bad food actually people e
For an anecdote, I remember once on a Finnish Navy island garrison the commanding officer decided to remember the Winter War by having the conscripts exactly the same kind of food with the historical amount during winter that soldiers were given during WW2...at the same naval fortress. The records were they, so the kitchen had no trouble in recreating the WW2-era cuisine. Hence they got a small portion of porridge (without honey or sugar) and that's it. As the garrison was on a fortress island, the conscript didn't have the chance to order pizza or anything in the evening. The conscripts (who had been born in the 1980's) hadn't experienced cold and hunger. Many said that they respected differently the war veterans after that experience.
It's telling that actually now days being overweight is many times a sign of poverty.
I'm absolutely sure that we wouldn't image just what people ate thousands of years ago.
Of course it's nonsense, but haven't you noticed these sentiments?
The "you" in the last post is the universal "you", not you specifically. It's a hypothetical "you".
Slave.. ok.. go on.. how?
You should know schopenhauer1.
I don't know your particular take.. give me a summary and I can talk to that.
Whoo. wait a minute. Do you have any stories of people who believe in many gods behaving like those who think there is only one god who has favorite people and one god's truth? When people believed there are many gods they thought the people who won wars had the strongest god and that was one of the factors that converted people to Christianity. The Romans with their superior military force were winning wars so obviously they have the strongest god, right? Except the Germans in their forest. Whoo, those guys were badasses and you didn't want to get too close to them. People from the south feared the forest and the way the Germans defended their territory was terrorizing. Eventually, they accept the God of Abraham but then they claimed the Holy Roman Emperor as their own, and when the Church in Rome did not give them the power of authority they protested and started their own religion built on the God of Abraham stories. This is really important, many gods means learning far more than can be learned with one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god. That is a war god, not the path to equality and peace.
Quoting universeness
Yes, that is exactly the point. Too bad at the time of the enlightenment and the beginning of democracy people did not push against Christianity in favor of science and the power of our minds with more determination. What we have to do now is advance the explanations of how thoughts shape our lives and then increase awareness of the positive choices we can make, including education for good moral judgment and that democracy relies on science, not a jealous, revengeful and fearsome god.
Quoting universeness
Wait a minute, what is the truth of Demeter making a woman a better mother? She and all the gods and goddesses are archetypes. You might like reading Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.'s book Gods in Everyman" or "Goddesses in Everywoman". The God of Abraham religions have given the gods a bad reputation. I can see I need to work on this explanation. A blog might be the best way to handle what the gods have to do with democracy and why they are in a painting at the US Capitol Building and science instead of superstition. The God of Abraham mythologies are perhaps the worst thing that could have happened to humanity.
Thoughts control our behavior and even our physical condition. It is not necessary to attach superstition to the stories. We keep the stories and repeat them because they resonate with something inside of us. All groups of people have their stories that they passed on from generation to generation and these stories are important, just as important as the mythologies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. If we are not superstitious we can appreciate all the others. My point is these stories hold truths and good moral lessons. They all work the same, even if the story is folklore or a native American explanation of life. Being open to the stories of others is also a path to knowing truth and learning science. The question can be more important than the answer. Greeks and Romans didn't believe they had a revealed god's truth. They learned of the gods of others and created their own in their image.
Quoting universeness
They stole the religion from others. 5 of the Biblical stories are from Sumer, so the mythology begins in Ur a Sumerian city and it was plagiarized by Abraham and his people who he lead from Ur to Egypt. In the beginning, everyone had many gods and it is curious how the idea of one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god caught on spread. A nation at war might desire such a war god. Constantine meant well but making Rome and Christianity the same thing, created a monster. Important is the idea that a god chooses the king and gives the king power, and everything relies on inheritance. That is Judaism not a family of gods. There is no one to correct that god as Greek gods could argue their case.
Which one of us will start the new thread? I need to know more of Scottish thinking and really wish you would start the thread. Is Scottish thinking connected with the Celts? What is the geography of Scotland and how would it shape the people?
"To feel authentic means to be free to develop traits and potentials that are innate predispositions. When we are accepted and allowed to be genuine. it's possible to have self-esteem and authenticity together. This develops only if we are encouraged rather than disheartened by the reactions of significant others to us, when we are spontaneous and truthful, or when we are absorbed in whatever gives us joy. From childhood on, first our family and then our culture are the mirrors in which we see ourselves as acceptable or not. When we need to conform in order to be acceptable, we may end up wearing a false face and playing an empty role if who we are inside and what is expected of us are far apart....
When life feels meaningless and stale, or when something feels fundamentally wrong about how you are living and what you are doing, you can help yourself by becoming aware of discrepancies between the archetypes within you and your visible roles. Men are often caught between the inner world of archetypes and the outer world of sterotypes. Archetypes are powerful predispositions; garbed in the image and mythology of Greek gods, as I have described them in this book, each has characteristics drives, emotions, and needs that shape personality. When you enact a role that is connected to an active archetype within you, energy is generated through the depth and meaning that the role has for you. "
Thank you for clarifying that point. I have covid and want to avoid things that pull me down.
Interesting and good quote indeed. But I disagree with Jean Shinoda Bolen in the following fact:
The text says: When we are accepted and allowed to be genuine. it's possible to have self-esteem and authenticity together. This develops only if we are encouraged rather than disheartened by the reactions of significant others to us, when we are spontaneous and truthful, or when we are absorbed in whatever gives us joy.
I think having self-esteem is not connected to be accepted by others. A good example of this could be the Japnase writer Yukio Mishima. He had a lot of self-esteem... but trust he was so far of being accepted by the Japanese society.
This is why I like him a lot. He represents the art of writing and thinking not matter if the "mass" would accept you or not.
The important achievement here is gaining self-esteem with your own self. Not caring if we do not fit in the society or we are not accepted by them
[quote=Schopenhauer]A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants.[/quote]
Yes, Hindus are the third largest religion in the world (estimated at 1.2 billion). I assume the Hindu gods favour Hindus. Hindus have killed muslims and sikhs and probably people from all other relgions, in the name of hinduism. I am sure hindus have been on the losing side in many wars, but hinduism still has a massive global following and a global diaspora. I already agreed that many people got infected by or converted to (to use a less disrespectful term) christianity, through fear.
Quoting Athena
So how come a 'power in the hands of the few,' caste system and the horror of untouchability came out of hinduism?
Quoting Athena
I generally agree but there was not a lot of education about for the masses at the time and I think many people tried and died trying but, you are correct, they were unable to stop the nefarious few that held most of the power and influence. The fight goes on today.
Quoting Athena
I agree and like you, I am trying.
Quoting Athena
I reject the term archetype based on its etymology:
The word archetype, "original pattern from which copies are made," first entered into English usage in the 1540s. It derives from the Latin noun archetypum, latinisation of the Greek noun ????????? (archétypon), whose adjective form is ????????? (archétypos), which means "first-molded", which is a compound of ???? arch?, "beginning, origin", and ????? týpos, which can mean, amongst other things, "pattern", "model", or "type". It, thus, referred to the beginning or origin of the pattern, model or type.
Humans evolved, they were not 'first moulded' or are copies from a pattern. I hate the idea of an archetypal human. Demeter never made a woman a better mother as no such fabled Greek god creature ever existed. A good mother can of course teach a poor mother how to be a better mother.
Quoting Athena
Yeah, I understand what you mean but imo, we need to 'grow away from' such stories. 'When we are children we can act and speak like children when we grow up, we should put childish things away,' including god stories. I prefer the true stories of what humans did or are doing (when I can find reliable examples of such). I think we need to focus on finding the TRUTH and take all 'stories,' as suspect unless they can be confirmed as accurate! Fake news is a real killer and always has been.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels.
Quoting Athena
Might be better if we just had a PM exchange Athena, if you think that could establish some foundational common ground between us. Perhaps a useful 'philosophical' thread could come from that.
Scots history certainly suggests we have celtic aspects to our national origin but exactly who and what was 'celtic,' extracts from a very foggy past indeed. Little is known about the inhabitants of scotland before the Romans arrived in Britain. All the early tribes have italian/roman names. The umbrella name is Pictii (or picts, picture/painted people). Individual tribes named as the votadini, novantae, caledonii etc. These are all latin based names. These names probably were not used by the actual groups they refer to, who I am sure had their own chosen names but we don't know what these were.
I think all humans gained a very mixed heritage quite early in the last 10,000 years.
Since you closed out "Why should life/existence by valued if i can choose to not want to value it?" and added it to this thread, it would make sense if you moved @obscurelaunting's OP over here.
By the way Obscurelaunting, welcome to the forum.
So since I CAN think like this, how can I not think like this? Do not tell me to just be one with life in experience because this is futile and never has been fulfilling. Do not tell me that if I can choose either I should choose life, because I'm saying to you my choice IS non-existence, this is the dilemma: the choice and the confusion of life.
I am looking for the answer that breaks down this thinking and builds myself a new thought basis.[/quote]
So you’re talking of Will.
Even if it isn't a true metaphysics, the idea of desiring/craving that is never satisfied, remains true. For all intents and purposes, life works on this principle. From a scientistic/mechanistic point of view, you can point to evolutionary variation/mutation/population statistics, but it just informs more about this principle. It doesn't replace this viewpoint. Entropy/enthalpy, the organism's metabolic needs and environmental fit.. The organism being is the organism dissatisfied.
You're forgetting you're talking to a woman. I've been hungry almost as much as the average hungry African.
And for a good part of my life, I have eaten exceptionally good food, and I've grown proper organic food until recently.
I do know. It makes me want to puke.
The average peasant in the Dark Ages ate healthier food than most people do today.
Certainly no pesticides and no GMOs. In the old times, food was much healthier, much more satiating because it had real taste.
Sure. But what are the metaphysical assumptions behind them?
What you're asking for cannot be done in the framework of secular culture and science. They'll just write you off as mentally ill, as an aberration. They certainly don't think you have some insight into the futility of life as it is usually lived.
How to answer question to be or not to be? Problem with suicide for me is that you can’t change your mind after… but now I’m overwhelmed with feelings and thoughts that there is no reason to go on (although I’m no entirely convinced by one option or another…)
One reason to go on: your family, friends or relatives. I understand what you are feeling because I walked through the same process. If suicide would sink your beloved ones in devastation and misery, please do not do it. That would be disrespectful and dishonorable.
If you feel that you don't find a meaning in life you would end up in an infinite loop because the nature of life is meaningless
I guess there are a lot a people experiencing the same dilemma, I know quite a few and I also cant find any meaning actually but there are a few considerations here. The first is about loved ones, this has been mentioned before throughout this thread, and their pain and grief should one take his own life. The second is about the unknown, which leaves lots of room for any plausible theories. Some claim for there to be nothing, not even a void (in death) while others claim utopia awaits us while others think we will get reborn and so on. Yet the truth of it all is that nobody knows and anything is possible. Which means we also have to take into account that the possibility exists that we get punished (or 'disciplined') if we would take shortcuts.
Wow, I have to agree with that. When I get in the creative space of writing it is the only thing that matters. It is not that I am totally confident in myself but that the creative experience or that moment of enlightenment when we see the bigger picture is better than good sex. I want to explain the hormonal experience so I don't sound like an egomaniac.
Quoting Colette DeDonato
There is a lot to say about creativity and our physical being and I have heard that some people who have been depressed for years have broken free of that when they start doing something creative.
Aye, but I was actually referring to how, even though we have an awesome life, it's still an imposition. The point is that it really doesn't matter whether one's life is utterly miserable or absolutely amazing; life is still an imposition and that right there is the immorality of procreation.
Mr/Ms. Happy: Life's fun! Ima really enjoyin' it!
Antintatalist: Yes, yes, but did you choose this life?
Mr/Ms. Happy: Nope! :grin:
No question. And another big one is doing something for others.
I was unaware of this history of violence and it makes me curious. Why did the Hindus kill Muslims and Sikhs? I don't think it was like the Hebrews who took the land that was Isreal with the belief a God had told them to do so and to kill everyone who was already there. Christians have carried for centuries as though a god has told them the land is theirs and they should kill everyone else. That fearsome Christian god has only recently become a god of love. However, when people feel threatened they become defensive, so was the killing a justified act of defense? This matters to me. I tend to be too Polyann and not realistic and I want truth,
Quoting universeness
I assume the practical answer is to avoid disease. I do not think my mind is capable of giving me a good understanding of ancient times and foreign places. I can reason that some people may live unhealthy lives and for one's own safety it is best to avoid contact. They did not have a government that can take care of them as well the US government has started caring for its people, and they sure did not have the economic opportunity we have today. Cleanliness for those who had the luxury of practicing cleanliness was very important.
Quoting universeness
I think Christianity is a barrier to learning not only for those who identify with the religion, but they have defined God, and that God is a supernatural power that can violate the laws of nature. That means we judge all gods by the Christian understanding of a god. Our bias has prevented learning of the gods. You can't google for infomation because Christianity floods the internet making it very difficult to find information about primative people and the gods. Quoting universeness
I love your argument and especially the Latin and Greek words. I seriously wish I could learn those languages. But in argument to your argument, nature molded all things. Nature made mothers, nature made every female and male archetype. The writer of the stories based them on a study of human nature and all our different approuches to problems. Darn, I am too tired for the mental work that is needed for an argument, and this post is too long and also not on topic, so I am going to quit now. We need another thread for this. I really would like to look deeper into the gods.
Not enough fat, salt, and sugar to make food as unhealthy as it is today, and chances are good the meal had to be worked for with real physical labor. Next to that, surviving was so demanding people did not have time to fret about how much better their lives would be if only they had made different choices, so in way, there was less stress.
Oh yeah, My mental health program is being a Senior Companion. I pick people up and take them where they want to go, we have lunch together and play games. The lockdown was terrible! I was sure I was loosing my mind and feared I was on the way to loosing my independence. I love being alone and writing and the forums, but I have to have that face-to-face human contact too. Now I am so busy caring for others I really appreciate my time alone. It is strange how making others happy means our own happiness too.
I don't think that is possible for a conscious being. I also have no desire to go to heaven. I think it is our nature to want stimulus and that leads to wanting what we don't have and then doing what we have to do to get what we want. If we are in heaven where a God takes care of our every need and there is nothing for us to do but enjoy, that sounds like hell to me. There would be no great movies or novels. We would be satiated and have nothing to strive for. Boring!
I am unaware of cases where hindus attacked Sikhs during partition, they attacked muslims.
There is an enormous amount of material on-line regarding the partition of India or perhaps you could PM @DA671 who knows a great deal about the topic.
Quoting Athena
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of 'untouchability' within the Hindu caste system.
I am sure the excuse you mention is used but only as a misrepresentation of the true intention of untouchability, which is to label people that certain religious or social dogma portray as being inferior.
From wiki:
[i][b]The term is most commonly associated with treatment of the Dalit communities in the Indian subcontinent who were considered "polluting". The term has also been used to refer to other groups, including the Burakumin of Japan, the Baekjeong of Korea, and the Ragyabpa of Tibet, as well as the Romani people and Cagot in Europe, and the Al-Akhdam in Yemen. Traditionally, the groups characterized as untouchable were those whose occupations and habits of life involved ritually "polluting" activities, such as fishermen, manual scavengers, sweepers and washermen.
Untouchability is believed to have been first mentioned in Dharmashastra, according to the religious Hindu text, untouchables were not considered a part of the varna system. Therefore, they were not treated like the savarnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras).[/b][/i]
There are many examples of such nonsense in the bible as well. For example, a menstruating woman may not enter the tabernacle as she is unclean!
Quoting Athena
I don't think this is true, certainly not for any secular person or atheist. The internet has a great deal of inaccurate information on it and it can be quite time consuming to validate and confirm the truth of all documentation on it but you can find out as much as is known about an earlier civilisation.
Quoting Athena
Well, I understand but this thread is now called 'life sucks,' we are simply trying to analyse some of the historical evidence and aspects of human behaviour that might support that claim or highlight the behaviours that have to be effectively tackled and changed to develop my contention that life is wonderful but the human experience is imbalanced and riddled with injustice and 'needs a lot of work.'
Finally outgrowing all gods would be a good start imo.
Interesting text. Romani people is also called gypsy. In my country there are a lot of them and I have to be honest. There are some prejudices against them in the same sense the text you quoted previously.
If you check the etymology of the word gypsy, gitano, tsigane, etc... you would find pejorative meanings according to each country, for example:
Well the last year I started an OP related to this: The etymological prejudice of the word gypsy.
Quoting universeness
Quoting universeness
Sorry Athena, this is clumsy on my part. I wanted to clarify a little.
During the partition of India, Hindus and Sikhs attacked Muslims and Muslims attacked Hindus and Sikhs. In the whole history of India, I assume Hindus have killed people from most religions as is the case for Christians and Islamists. Terrorists tend not to check what your religion is before they explode their bombs etc. Often, even their own people get killed in the crossfire.
Attribution bias: When someone from an in-group errs, the mistake is chalked up to the individual, as a personal failing; when someone from an out-group goofs up, it's the entire group that's blamed. Sic vita est
Yep, I am sure you would agree Javi, that the human condition would deserve the accusation of 'life sucks!' less, if everyone could personally stop being 'culturalist.'
If YOU as a human don't in your own heart believe/know that all people should be treated equally then YOU will always provide evidence for the anti-life people. I use YOU here to refer to each individual on the planet.
One planet stewarded by one united species is what I advocate. No more countries, no more currencies, no gods, no race other than the human race, no private ownership of land, no rich, no poor, no utopia or dystopia. WE CAN ALL DO BETTER!
Sorry but I am pure defender of private ownership myself :rofl: I always been inspired by John Locke:
Some of the features of Locke's economic thinking would echo down the years, and not always to good consequence. Thus, Locke's notion is that labor creates value: "For 'tis Labour indeed that puts the difference of value on every thing" Locke uses this in the first instance to explain why people have a right to property.
Locke, of course, thinks that the ownership of property is justified because labor has been "mixed" with it.
The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property. To which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting. [ibid., §124]
Agreed. :100: :up:
:grin:
I am not as concerned about private ownership of property, nor am I concerned about 'small capitalism.'
People must have quality housing as a human right but as long as that is provided then I don't care who owns a particular property. Billionaires or multi-millionaires, conglomerates (or anything like them) would not be allowed. So the amount of property owned by an individual would be controlled and they would not own the land the property sat on.
Pleonasms, you gotta love 'em!
As for the tragic bloodbath during India's partition, I'd say it was actually a memeplex war in the ideaverse that spilled over into the physical dimension. We're unable to distinguish man from meme and that's, going by all the wars we've endured, is a fatal flaw.
The British were quite happy to see the religious groups slaughter each other. The British soldiers stood by and watched as it went on because they were told to. I can imagine the British colonial attitude at the time. "See how these 'natives' treat each other when we brits are not in charge." Churchill had such disrespect for Indians that he called Gandhi 'a half-naked Indian fakir.' Mountbatten was happy to encourage the carnage by offering a Pakistan which was made up of a Western and Eastern section, with India between them. This exacerbated the massive movement of starving poor people whose only difference was religious dogma and millions died because of religion and political intrigue.
I had no idea that I was talking to a women.
Quoting baker
I've seen studies that the diet worsened from the Early Middle Ages to the age of industrialization, but it might be too drastic to think our food now is less healthier. The 19th Century brought huge improvement to agriculture and also an emphasis on food safety requirements. Now we have the ability to eat extremely healthy food, but what actually the food we eat is another thing. The really irritating issue is that the healthy diet is far more costly than the cheapest food, which makes for a bad diet.
And with medievel diet we have to remember it wasn't fresh, the food that could be preserved. The idea was to eat only the food from the last season, not this one as you didn't know just how the it would be this year. So a lot of salt.
Quoting baker
I think it's far more about social assumptions than metaphysical ones.
You look to be smart when you're critical about your life and the society around you. To accept it and be happy about it seems to many like you haven't thought about the current issues. Or you simply don't care and just go "with the flock".
How sad! My heart goes out to all, not just hindus, moslems & sikhs, who were hurt/killed/worse during the 200k years humans have been around. We really need to get our act together lest we make the same silly mistakes our ancestors made. Easy to say, hard to do and therein lies the rub, oui mon ami?
The problems are still many and so deeply embeded within global sociopolitical systems and cultural/religious traditions. BUT, we can do better because we have improved the lives of millions in comparison to life for the majority in the past. 2022 years since CE or the 'common era' began. That's only a couple of seconds in the cosmic calendar.
I hope you're right!
Through language, its ability to transmit lessons learned, we've transcended the limitations of biology; DNA is not the only information game in town now and in the process we've been able to do mind-blowing stuff like sending men to the moon, develop & manufacture antibiotics, and so on.
We then survey Momma Nature and what do we find? We're simply just another cog in the great wheel of life - a gorgeous flower no doubt but a dispensable one. :snicker:
Well, you quoted Schopenhauer and now you’re saying you were referring to the points I made in the Trouble with Impositions thread. This is why I wanted you to explain what you were trying to say by we are all slaves…
Anyways, of course I’m going to agree with you, that’s my very argument you’re summarizing. I would add that imposition is not just willing a significant, inescapable decision for someone else, but creating burdens to continually be overcome- expected or not anticipated for that person. So even an amazing life (as it was summarized in a generalized statement) is bound to have various instances of burdens.
One informs the other. Dukkha is a form of necessary suffering not contingent on conditions of contingency.
Even if we could, as transhumanists wish & propose, abolish suffering, the imposition problem would still make reproduction unethical is what I mean.
Kinda thorny issue. Doesn’t really cross my mind because it’s a practical impossibility. Supposing it does occur, would we be even human at that point? Does ethics apply to such a condition? Does transhumanism translate to a personalized utopia? If not, whose utopia?
:smile:
If you say to me..it’s wrong to impose on a robot..I don’t know what applies to said being if it doesn’t feel pain or burdens at all. I’ve maintained that whilst one form of imposing is bad (forcing your will), it’s combination with the other form (creating burdens) makes it the more so. I’ve maintained that if life was an ever adjusted personalized utopia, there might be something there as a justification.
I guess I’m asking, does ethics apply to something not bound by a human or animal condition?
It’s not bound by a human or animal condition. How does ethics apply? You tell me. Besides that it merely exists.
Good point! :up:
Ethics applies to imposition simpliciter as it seems to treat human beings as robots! :chin:
Untouchability is a curse and serves as a reminder of the misery that dogma and an insatiable thirst for power can create. May we move beyond this sooner rather than later.
@Athena I hope that this is of some help!
Huh?
:smile:
Explain please.
I think we all know too little about such horrific events.
Based on a quick google search:
[i][b]‘Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.’
The quote is most likely due to writer and philosopher George Santayana, and in its original form it read, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.[/b][/i]
WE CAN ALL DO BETTER! And imo, we need no help from god fables but I understand, (if my analysis of her intent is correct) @Athena's very honourable 'mission'/intent, to find common ground / values / purpose and foster a more positive dialogue between theists and anti-theists. I would have to always admit to my own personal preference for abandoning all theism however, as to do otherwise, would be disingenuous on my part.
Btw, I had to google 'commingling.' That's a new one on me. Breach of trust, yes?
I wanted to pull this sentence out separately and 'complain' about its 'intent' connotation.
'Nature' is often 'objectified' in the sense that some people often try to assign it a concrete form like 'mother nature!' etc. Nature has no such concrete form and has no intent. Such thinking created the original pagan deities and animism(the belief that all objects and living things possess a soul or spirit).
Many early gods were some human/animal hybrid or sun/moon/river/forest god. I think we should stop objectifying/anthropomorphising the natural processes or 'nature,' in this way.
That quote is quite apposite! Although, I would say that my knowledge about the world, in general, is fairly limited. That's why I am eternally grateful to wiser people like you and others (even those I disagree with at a profound level) for sharing their insights.
I am sorry if I accidentally betrayed you! It sincerely was not intentional.
:lol: Despite your humility and insistence that you have limited knowledge of the world, you still keep adding to my vocabulary. I was not familiar with 'apposite,' either.
Again, google to the rescue. Apposite meaning apt. If English is a second language for you, the word range you know is impressive.
Thank you for your kind words. I am quite confused by:
Quoting DA671
Please explain. Was it these words below that made you think I was referring to your belief system?
If so, its me that should be apologising.
Quoting universeness
I did not intend these words to be a direct insult to all Hinduism, as you, yourself have explained to me that many Hindus express their belief system in many ways, including ways that do not include anything supernatural.
I'm no good at that! All I can say is that to impose one's wishes, including but not limited to thinking on someone's behalf, herein the child to be born, amounts to treating the child as if s/he were an inanimate object (like robots). That's unethical, oui?
:rofl:
Oh, I am sorry. I was referring to this:
"Breach of trust, yes?"
You wrote this at the end of your previous comment. I was attempting to put forth a partially facetious response.
:up:
:clap: :clap: English (with scots dialect) is my first language and your vocabulary range seems wider than mine, well done!
When I looked up 'Commingling' its meaning was reported as 'breach of trust,' does this match your use of it in.Quoting DA671?
It looks like though Sikhism is a syncretism of Hinduism & Islam, it's more saffron than green.
The definition you read seems to be a legal definition. I was using it in the sense of something being mixed or blended.
Ok I see. I actually think the 'betrayal of trust' is more apt for you words:
Quoting DA671
They did betray their own religions as all three of them claim to be religions of peace and they betrayed everyone's trust that these claims were true.
:up: Epic fail!
:smile: And I will bet a years retirement pension that @DA671 will agree!
Here's the definition from Wikipedia:
"In law, commingling is a breach of trust in which a fiduciary mixes funds held in care for a client with his own funds, making it difficult to determine which funds belong to the fiduciary and which belong to the client."
So, we can see that this also refers to something being mixed.
:lol: Did I win my bet?
How about ,"However, from what I think I understand about the madness of the betrayal of trust that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other."
Ok, thanks for improving the clarity of your point. Overall, I will declare my bet safe and I will not have to cut down on all my favourites this month, due to having to donate a months pension to a charity of your choice.
I am sure you're already doing plenty of good deeds, sir!
You have fully explained your intended emphasis with Quoting DA671
Quoting DA671
The small contributions I make are not and never will be enough but I do claim that I help more than I hurt and I just hope my claim is a valid one.
Good one! I also like 'out of little acorns, big oak trees grow.'
I have bolded the statement I want to reply to. I think there are examples of untouchables in many cultures however, not every culture would have institutionalized this common human behavior in the same way. I have read some ancient yoga practices are extremely concerned with cleanliness, Hebrews were also concerned with cleanliness but I don't think to the same extent. When the US had outhouses there were people who were paid to tend to outhouses. The owner of an estate surely would not want his daughter associating with such a person, especially if this person looked different, or if outhouses were associated with disease. The US has had some very prejudiced laws!
Hebrews for sure saw themselves as different from others and they institutionalized that aspect of being Hebrew. Kind of like, all people have engaged in war, but not all of them created an economic and social organization around their military, such as Prussia was organized around its military. These human behaviors being common, but more or less, formal and defining. The point is, knowing what I know about human behavior and organizations, I think it is silly to point a figure at India for having different social classes. and untouchables. In the US a young man of color could be killed just for speaking with a White woman. We had a huge segregation problem! We just call it racism instead of Hinduism. :lol: Bad behavior isn't funny but on the other hand it can be pretty ridiculous, especially when we point fingers at others as though we don't think and act just as badly or worse.
I want to address this separately because I don't want my point lost in too much verbiage. Have you spent much time arguing whether there is or is not a "God"? I don't care how rabid the atheist is, the atheist is using the same concept of God as the Christians hold to be true. Most people are reacting emotionally to the word "God" and they are incapable of being rational about "god". Atheists can not tolerate the word "god" so they can not get to reasoning the possibility of a universal force and being okay with calling it "god" just for the sake of argument. Does gravity exist? What causes it? If God is the cause of gravity what else in nature could be a universal truth? Thus, getting away from some of the hair-brain notions about a God who has favorite people. Athiest are their own worst enemy because they are reacting emotionally just like the believers are reacting emotionally. They are both like boxers in a ring ready to jump when the bell rings.
Secondly, the US and Christians do dominate the internet. The problem could be I use google and evidently, google ranks things according to popularity, so the one person who has a better argument of truth becomes almost impossible, if not completely impossible, to find because the 5 million idiots crowd out the one good argument.
Greeks held a notion of universals and the philosophy that questioned the universals became science. I think addressing the God issue from the point of view of universals could lead to more meaningful discussions than the ones we can have with Christians or atheists.
There have been many 'separators' that have been used to distinguish between people. Indicators such as level of cleanliness, what your job is, your gender, your age, your skin colour, your economic status are all poor ways to make distinctions between people. I don't think we would disagree on this.
The chosen people concept is a very old BS claim as well. This happens in every neighbourhood to a lesser or similar degree. 'The cool kids', The alpha's, A-list celebs etc, its all total BS.Quoting Athena
I exemplified the Hindu caste system as it seemed to me that you were claiming earlier that polytheism was less problematic than monotheism and I don't think that's true.
I think we differ in that I think you wish to progress from the position of finding value in theism and finding common ground with theists. I think this is honourable but Its not a position I prioritise but it may well be a wise route to take.
:cheer: :cheer: :grin: You might be the people but we are the real people. I am referring to the tribal notion that "my tribe is the best and most deserving" which is no different from opposing chimpanzee troops crossing paths in the forest except humans can come up with more arguments than the chimps. :lol:
This is perhaps the best reason to argue against a God creating humans from the mud on the banks of a river that flowed threw Sumer. If we are going to be rational and have arguments about humans that can progress to better understanding and therefore better reasoning, we need to go with the science of evolution and drop the mythology. And we need to stop pointing fingers and being blind to our own blindness.
Yes, I believe polytheism is less problematic because believing in many gods is more apt to lead to believing the other guy also has a god even though his god is not the same as yours. Now you may both go to war and test which one of you has the strongest god, or we might sit down and argue in favor of our gods without the blindness of believing there is only one god and this god favors you. :lol:
in an effort to know truth.
MORE IMPORTANT, if a god is being a complete jerk like Hades was when he took Demeter's daughter, there are gods who can put restrictions on Hades. If there is only one god there is no correction of errors. This is the democratic issue! Are we powerless under the tyranny of a god, or can we appeal to other gods? The Greeks asked a lot of important questions of the gods and in so doing had arguments with many different points of view. Each god had a different point of view, and a different way of handling things, and in dealing with all of them, the Greeks expanded their consciousness. Conscience is "con"-coming out of, "science".
"How do the gods resolve their differences?" They argue until they have a consensus on the best reasoning. This thinking did not come with the first storytelling of the gods, but wherever people had many gods, every time they realized a new concept, they created a god, like we now name new atomic particles every time we have to explain a new observation of atomic particles. Apollo was a late comer coming a of time chaos and reasoning was essential, so whala! there is a god of reason. This learning of new gods, forced many to search for truth and limit the number of gods they had. Egypt, for a time, turned to the one and only god Ra. The point is gods organize our thinking and advance our understanding of life and the universe. If you have only one god you learn His truth and may discover new technology, butthat is not equal to science and advancing higher-level knowledge.
Here is a great Hindu example of what I mean by the gods advancing our higher-level knowledge.
Quoting wikipedia
We do not get knowledge of mathematics and a higher morality from the tribal God of Abraham.
Yes I have.
Quoting Athena
I can only respond as an atheist. I cannot type for all atheists as they are a varied group. Can you give me an example of an atheistic statement you consider irrational?
Atheists will consider the 'universal force' concept in its many varieties, from the type exemplified in sci-fi Star Wars movie presentations to the panpsychist or cosmopsychist posits and even to some of the posits which don't involve gods such as Buddhism or theosophical posits such as those of Aleister Crowley or Hubbards Scientology. I agree that most atheists I know will reject most or all of these but their rejection is based on rational thinking imo.
Quoting Athena
The effects of gravity are observable and measurable but gravity may not be a separate force which is quantisable and has gravitons as its 'messenger' particle. It may be an effect caused by the presence of mass/energy. So gravity may be caused by the presence of mass/energy and if you assign credence to posits such as the cyclical universe then there is no need for a first cause such as a god and if you insist there has to be a first cause then I personally satisfy my own thoughts by labelling such, a mindless spark, which no longer exists. As an atheist, my reason convinces me there is no god or gods. I cannot prove I am correct but my simple offer remains to any that do in fact exist. Show me and if it cant or wont then it does not exist.
Quoting Athena
There have been a few threads on whether or not universal truths exist.
I have my own examples of how far I can get with the concept of universals. The speed of light in a vacuum for example.
Quoting Athena
That may well be how you interpret it when you watch atheist debate theists or you read their on-line exchanges but it's not my interpretation. I find the atheist logic to be far more rational and compelling than the logic and woo woo employed by theists. But as I am an atheist, you will not find my viewpoint surprising.
Quoting Athena
The fact that physics used to be called natural philosophy just means that modern labels are far better than ancient ones and perhaps we should stop being so attracted to the very limited knowledge of the ancient Greeks and their like. We do stand on the shoulders of those who went before and that's why we can see further but it is us who know the most or at least have access to more and more accurate data/information/knowledge that they ever did.
We don't need to keep scent marking new knowledge and new progress with the smells of the ancients.
I just don't see any great value in how you wish to roleplay with theism.
You seem to want to give the god posits a chair at the table of discussion on the future of the human race or in the 'how to make humans a better sentient lifeform,' discussions.
I don't even want to let the god posits in the building or even in the city the meetings are held in.
They deserve no place as they are inventions of our primal fears and as such, should be terminated for good. There is nothing to fear in the dark except that which we bring with us. We need to leave the god BS in the dirt, like any empty vessel no longer of any use to a progressive intelligent species.
From wiki:
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître; 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Catholic priest, theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first to theorize that the recession of nearby galaxies can be explained by an expanding universe, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. He first derived "Hubble's law", now called the Hubble–Lemaître law by the IAU, and published the first estimation of the Hubble constant in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe, calling it the "hypothesis of the primeval atom", and later calling it "the beginning of the world".
:rofl: What a brilliant new spelling and name for a supernatural god character in a fable for entertainment purposes only. WHALA! (VOILÀ !).
For me it comes down to something simple - choice. The living can choose to go on living or they can choose to die (suicide). The dead cannot choose to live (as far as we know). There is no power to change circumstances from a place of non-existing. Existence is where everything and anything - including death - can and does occur.
This for me means living trumps being dead.
A second more minor reason is that if it is the case that ones life is unique, non-reproducible/ irreplaceable and extremely brief in the duration of the entire timespan of the universe, then living your life is the rarest thing ones matter and energy will ever have the opportunity to be. If I had to choose between never having existed, never even having an awareness of being something, never experiencing consciousness or on the other hand having a short lifespan of feelings and emotions both good and bad, I would live out the 80 odd years before I return to oblivion forever. Even if those 80 years didn’t go by particularly well or come to much at all.
What else would you be doing anyways?
You should live because you can and less based on whether you should or not or whether you deserve it or not. It’s unlikely you are the least deserving person to ever live and we all already won the great race of conception - the first and only competition that really matters - the life lotto. 15 million to one odds - very much against you being here and yet here you (we) are.
There is comfort in knowing we have an escape (albeit extreme) if it were to ever become too much. Whether we really acknowledge it or not, every moment you breathe, every day you wake up and persist against the natural tendency of the universe to destroy you in thousands of potential ways is a testament to you being a survivor, to you upholding the will to live, to be seen, heard and known.
:rofl: Cuckoo bird?
:clap: and there is the legacy you will leave behind which may affect nobody, somebody, a few people, many people, most people in the world!
:heart: Your post makes me wonder if I died and went to heaven. I am home sick with covid and you make me very glad I am here with you, instead of distracted by mundane life.
Yes, I can give you a statement. "There is no god". To be absolutely sure there is no god, one has to define what a god is, and boy, oh boy, is that irritating to me when someone is working with a definition of god and has become completely closed-minded and therefore makes a discussion of god impossible.
I was banned from a science forum simply because I used the word "god". I was saying we could consider universal law as god, and my goal was to open discussion as good as the ancient Greeks and do all the blending you have said I am trying to do. :grin:
I was explaining if we deny the existence of God we prove to the Christians the truth of the Bible. Those bad people will deny the existence of God. On the other hand, if we remain open-minded and work with the notion of a God, that weakens the Christian argument and if we are lucky we get to ideas that are more reasonable. Did God create all plants and animals with mud or just humans? Let us ask "how does God do that", instead of ending the discussion with "there is no god". Now you are moving into science and away from superstition. We are moving in the direction of reason instead of emotionalism. We walk people over the bridge to our side, instead of standing with our swords drawn and preventing anyone from crossing the bridge. That behavior is emotional. It is not the way of reason.
Let's try this. We determine if a person does or does not have covid with a chemical test that produces one line if a person is negative or two lines if a person is positive. With science, we know what we are looking for and we can prove the virus does or does not exist in that sample. So how can we know God does not exist without knowing what that God is, and if you know what God is, where did you get that information and how do you prove God does not exist? On the other hand, what reasonable person can believe through the powers of reason that God created man like a child creates mud pies? Back in the day of Sumer that may have seemed reasonable, but we laugh at other people's creation stories because they seem so silly to us, so how can know what we know today and believe we were made of clay? Human- moist soil.
Quoting universeness
Reason, what must we have for good reasoning? How much time do you believe you are being rational? I think this video can change the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQutgSwY88Quoting universeness
Why reject the concept of a god here? How are you defining god? Back to the test for covid, you seem to know what you have to look for. What does god look like? Are you sure your notion of god was not defined by Christians who insist the only god is one that is impossible to believe?
quote="universeness;732295"]There have been a few threads on whether or not universal truths exist.
I have my own examples of how far I can get with the concept of universals. The speed of light in a vacuum for example.[/quote]
You are being delightfully rational and you did not conclude new evidence means what we believed about the speed of light is false, and that is that, and we will never again speak of it except to repeat over and over again what we have believed is false; ending any further discussion. Instead, you said It is in question. :lol: That is putting it lightly. I think new evidence has put our most obvious understanding of our 3 dimensional reality, in question.. What the heck is the reality of 12 dimensions?
The point being it is one thing to say something is in question and quite another to insist it does not exist and to make all discussion of it impossible.
Quoting universeness
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I am not attracted to the limited knowledge of ancient Greeks, but rather fascinated by the uniqueness of thinking that came out of Athens. Aristotle was not 100% correct and there was a huge backlash against him after the Church through Scholasticism raised awareness of logical thinking, but who else gave us something equivalent to his explanation of logical thinking? His understanding of logical thinking was problematic and that hindered the advancement of science, with Bacon correcting the problem and pole vaulting us into the modern age. :heart: But where else in the world did a civilization advance the reasoning of Athens, the reasoning of the gods? Gods had powers, but the power of reason? Does not the power of reason create a whole new universe? Well, that could be an exaggeration but it could be fun to talk about it. :wink:
Oh dear, crash and burn. Your ignorance and intolerance has ended the fun. And that was a knee-jerk emotional reaction to what I said, not the rational reply I had come to expect from you. I am very disappointed and also reassured that my opinion of atheists being more emotional than rational was correct. Just like the rest of them, you sank to attacks and insults when the discussion did not go in the direction you wanted.
It looks like a beautiful day outside. I think I will go enjoy it.
Thank you for your kind words. I am also enjoying exchanging viewpoints with you. I recently had covid too and it is a miserable experience. I still (two months later) have some residual weaknesses.
Quoting Athena
Most atheists will not state this without 'I believe,' or 'I am convinced that,' this is a rational statement as it simply refers to a conclusion based on the preponderance of available evidence.
Quoting Athena
I don't see why your suggestion that god personified as a group of unidentified universals such as a notion of universal law would assist the dialogue between atheists and theists.
Quoting Athena
Sure, if you tell someone they are preaching total BS then you might make them dig their trench even deeper but after calling the normal theistic evangelising BS and utter nonsense, the atheists will ask the theists question by question and take them step by step through their delusional thinking in an attempt to lift their fog. Have you watched any of the youtube offerings such as 'the atheist experience' with Matt Dillahunty? or the many athiest phone-in shows or the more academic offerings from offerings such as mythvision etc?
Quoting Athena
Unless the test is corrupted and you get a false positive!
Quoting Athena
It is not possible to PROVE gods do not exist but think how easy it would be for them to PROVE THEY DO. The fact they don't and imo never will is the best rational proof I am going to get that the have always been non-existent and all past god stories are fables.
Quoting Athena
The burden of proof lies with gods and theists not me. Why would I have to personify that which I believe is non-existent. If god is as powerful as is suggested it should have no problem convincing me it exists.
The speed of light in a vacuum can always be made more accurate but we may never find its absolute value, but we can always asymptotically get closer to it.
Quoting Athena
Any dimensions posited greater that 3 are dimensions of the very small. Have a look at a pipeline from above, it looks 2D, you don't see the 3rd curled dimension from that 'above' position. In our 3D perspective we don't see the other spatial dimensions which curve around every point in 3D space.
Quoting Athena
Quoting Athena
Consider the following from wiki:
[i]Several of the ancient Greek philosophers regarded Egypt as a place of wisdom and philosophy. Isocrates (b. 436 BCE) states in Busiris that "all men agree the Egyptians are the healthiest and most long of life among men; and then for the soul they introduced philosophy’s training…" He declares that Greek writers traveled to Egypt to seek knowledge. One of them was Pythagoras of Samos who "was first to bring to the Greeks all philosophy," according to Isocrates.
Plato states in Phaedrus that the Egyptian Thoth "invented numbers and arithmetic… and, most important of all, letters.” In Plato’s Timaeus, Socrates quotes the ancient Egyptian wise men when the law-giver Solon travels to Egypt to learn: "O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children." Aristotle attests to Egypt being the original land of wisdom, as when he states in Politics that "Egyptians are reputed to be the oldest of nations, but they have always had laws and a political system."[/i]
I think your battle is with your own fickle approach.
I am also disappointed but more bemused by your rather childish response quoted above.
Nothing I typed was insulting or was an attack and I had no interest in directing you anywhere.
Thanks anyway for the exchange.
Quoting universeness
You may not have intended to attack or insult but those gods are the foundation of democracy and western civilization. They are the substance of liberal education and our laws. As you found fault in what I said, I find fault in you appear to not know.
Quoting universeness
I can not imagine anything of importance that we would know without the effort to understand cause and effect and universal truths. If we don't ask the right questions, can not possibly get the right answers.
You can say that again!
:up: If antintalism is false does that mean natalism is true?
Some should, some shouldn't ... have children!
??????????!
I disagree. Humanism is the foundation of democracy, same with civilisation regardless of geographical direction. Democracy is anti-autocracy, it is an enemy of divine dictates, the divine rule of kings, devotion to messiah's, acceptance of aristocracies or theocracies. It does not even demand respect for so called 'superiors.' Democracy is born from a human demand for justice, fair treatment and equality of status for all. Nothing to do with fairy stories about gods. Gods came from human primal fears, end of story. Just a case of early humans looking around and concluding 'circle of heat and light in sky makes us warm and we can see our enemies.' 'circle moves across sky and goes away at night, it gets cold and we cant see our enemies as good.' 'we need the big heat and light, we must love it or it wont come back(primal fear)!'
The nefarious simply used this fear to control people and benefit themselves. Its time we dropped this BS in the dirt. I do not see most theists as bad people(although some certainly are!). I see theism as pernicious. I see theists as duped but I wish to convince them, not hurt them.
Quoting Athena
Again imo and with all due respect, gods and all stories associated with them are CREATED BY HUMANS! If you think that a story about ficticious characters such as Hades and Demeter exemplifies an issue of morality which relates to 'liberal education' or 'human laws,' then fine BUT! I see no value to the future of the human race in doing that. Why not use a story from the revolution of spartacus to illuminate the same concepts. Why use IRRATIONAL god fables?
Quoting Athena
I think you are being rather 'precious' about your need to protect or defend 'what you said,' we are debating with no malice aforethought, surely. we are in dialogue about each others position. We do not have to declare each other hostile because you are over-sensitive to some phrases I choose to use.
How would you survive a debate on a heated issue with such an approach? It would be like the start of the fabled battle of Camlann (Arthur/Excalibur legend). Somebody takes out their sword by mistake to kill a snake (garden of Eden reference) which causes both sides to attack each other. "War by mistake/misunderstanding." But we don't need god fables or Arthurian legends to exemplify such cautionary tales, we could just use the more tame example of your misunderstanding of what I am typing.
We do understand cause and effect. We also understand infinite regress arguments as a tool theists use to claim that a first cause god is therefore proved. But this has already been convincingly debunked! The Kalam cosmological argument via William Lane Craig is almost at the 'dead' stage as a claim imo.
Give me an example of a 'universal truth,' without which we would be unable to know anything of importance!
:smile:
We would not have an argument if you were not doing exactly what I said atheists do. You are using a Christian concept of God and creation for all your arguments. Stop it.
Yes, the gods are the foundation of our laws, democracy and western civilization. The book "Laws, Gods, & Hero's Thematic Readings in Early Western History" by H.A. Drake and J.W. Leedom explains the human story and should not be confused with theism.
And don't yell at me about humans creating those stories because you have to distort everything I am saying to believe you have an argument with me. Joseph Campbell, the expert on such mythology, explains how we come to have similar myths and the importance of those myths. You are the one applying superstition to my arguments because that supports your atheist cause. My cause is democracy, rule by reason as opposed to authority over the people, and my sense of purpose is raising awareness of the foundation of democracy, an imitation of the gods arguing until they have a consensus on the best reasoning.
If you don't ask the right questions, you won't get the right answers.
Quoting universeness
Yes, we do. However, we do not have to apply superstitious notions to them.
I accept that this is your interpretation of what is going on between us but it is certainly not mine.
I have been in dialogue mode with you but if you misrepresent atheism and atheists with misinterpreted generalisations then I will try to point such shortfalls out to you and give my reasons and examples.
I have no particularly christian concept of god, if you are going to state such generalisations then you must quote examples from my typings, and explain why my words display an EXCLUSIVELY Christian perspective. If you cant do that successfully then you are just making erroneous claims.
Quoting Athena
What? I have no idea what you are typing about here? Humans did invent every god story in history or are you suggesting that real gods communicated with the Greeks? If they didnt then the stories about mount Olympus and its pantheon of characters are fairy tales, yes?
Not stating the falsity of all god stories just encourages people to waste their time following other useless dead end paths such as the ancients were in fact communicating with aliens :lol:, which is why some people will actually buy utter nonsense such as 'Chariots of the gods' written by total con men such as Erich von Däniken.
Quoting Athena
Perhaps some thing like:
Might help you understand the atheist viewpoint in a more accurate manner.
Quoting Athena
Well, we have common cause in this but I think your ideas as to the foundation of democracy is flawed and I don't mind a few having authority over a majority as long as that few are democratically elected and are 100% answerable to that majority who have the power to remove and replace any member of that few if they fail to meet and maintain compliance with well established, powerful but fair, checks and balances.
Quoting Athena
So you advocate for imitating that which has never existed, instead of encouraging the human race to grow up, take full responsibility for all that has happened in the past and plan a better future for everyone, without attempts to scapegoat gods or employ the fairy stories made up about them as a guide to establishing better sociopolitical systems. We don't need god fables as a moral base for establishing better social or political systems. We need progressive human thinking not regressive.
Quoting universeness
Perhaps the word "epistemology" can be used to explain the importance of the gods? Epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek epist?m?, meaning "knowledge", and the suffix -logia, meaning "logical discourse". Exactly where did our ideas come from, and how were they changed as they moved from place to place and throughout time? That is a very different study than theology.
I choose to use epistemology to argue against theology. Rather than refuse to talk about what theorist believe as the atheists do. Eden (uncultivated plain) Adam (settlement on the plain) and Eve (the Lady of the rib and the lady who makes live) come from Sumerian mythology and I would bet this story is an account of climate change, but over the years of the truth of the story is forgotten and we get myth instead of accurate information. There are several prototypes of Jesus. As Christians convert millions of people by giving the people's gods and seasonal celebrations a Christian interpretation, my intent is to reverse this process and raise awareness of the pagan beginning of those ideas.
Quoting Athena
Another false claim!
Where is your evidence that atheists refuse to engage (theorist? I assume you meant theists or theologist)?
Quoting Athena
Uncultivated plain (the days of the hunter-gatherer),Adam (settlement on the plain) (early humans became agricultural and settled in small groups or tribes)
See, no need to inject god fables into your descriptions, you can tell the real story!
What Sumerian story are you relating to climate change? The flood in the fable of Gilgamesh?
You can achieve what you suggest very quickly by honestly stating that all god stories are untrue!
We don't need to stroke the theist ego and pander to lies. We need to value and profess historical TRUTH as best we can based on the very limited accuracy of the historical documentation we have.
Just a small aside! Did you forget about Adam's first wife, Lilith? Made from the same dirt/earth/clay that Adam was made from in that particular fable. If you don't want to be guided too much by christian versions of fables then why is Lilith not important here as 'first woman'?
Perhaps you live in China? Only if you have always lived in a region that is not Christian-dominated can you not have "particularly Christian concepts of god". That is true because all the stories from the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Christians are all part of our consciousness, however, individuals can be completely unaware of how they came to think as they do, and if they think those who came before us have nothing to teach us, they will ignore them, therefore, they will remain ignorant. And being unaware of the effect of their own intentional ignorance of information, they will assume those who do not agree with them are in the wrong.
Ninti is a Sumerian goddess who healed the river that is the center of the Sumerian story of Eden. "The Sumerian word for rib is ti, and the rib-healing goddess came to be called Ninti, which translates both as "the lady of the rib" and "the Lady who makes live". This play on words does not work in Hebrew, but the rib did enter the Garden of Eden story in the form of Eve, the mother of the human race."
Let me confirm my knowledge is limited and I know nothing of Lilith. Should we assume you know everything and are superior? :blush:
It's not clear what you mean, some words are missing in those sentences. Are you talking about the preservation of meat in climates where people eat mostly meat?
Anyway, it's not germane to the OP.
Quoting ssu
I generally take a dim view of gender issues, but even I am starting to feel offended for so often being categorized wrongly, despite repeated clarification.
And it's A womAn.
WomEn is plural.
Quoting Wikipedia
If you insist????
Quoting Athena
Really! So no matter how educated or enlightened you become, you cannot escape the attempted indoctrinations fired at you from your local most prominent religion? So, if I claim that my concept of god is an emergent property of a future collectivisation (networking) of all sentient (probably by that time, transhuman) lifeforms, which may then have an ability to merge as a single centre of control (or single consciousness). This collective would then become a single node in a network of collectives created by other sentient species within our galaxy. This would then become a single node within an intergalactic collective which could merge into an entity which could qualify for the monotheistic god label. The individual galactic collectives could qualify as individual members of a pantheon of gods and satisfy the polytheistic concept. So god as a emergent pantheism. Is this merely a projection of some early christian indoctrination I am just unaware of? An all pervading influence that I cant defeat. Am I this victim of christian theism you describe? NO! and you are again just throwing out generalisations based solely on your own musings. In the same way I just did by projecting and conflating pantheism, panpsychism and computer networking. It's fun, but its no way to authenticate what is and is not TRUE.
I do not advocate for ignoring history, I simply suggest that we do not use ancient fables to act as a reference or a guide to human progression and future sociopolitical systems.
Some seem to have difficulty understanding this. Antinatalism is the view that it is wrong to procreate. It is not the view that life sucks.
You're welcome! We all have so much more to learn. As you learn more about god(s), perhaps you might also study atheism to a deeper level.
The important point is that miserabilism and antinatalism are distinct views and one can be one without the other.
It's like thinking that as some ethical theorists are utilitarians then all talk of ethics is talk of utilitarianism and can be dismissed on the grounds that utilitarianism is false.
What?? Have you ever tried personally to perceive 'everything?' You do know that cannot be done, right?
How do you define 'superior.' It is a completely subjective term. My expertise is Computing science.
I would claim superior knowledge to you about that field yes. I know the Lilith fable quite well, she is proposed as the one who would not be subservient to Adam and would not lay on her back but would only copulate by taking the top position. Some claim her as one who demanded equality to Adam and therefore she is held in high esteem by some feminists. She turned into a snake demon and took revenge by tempting Eve to give the apple to Adam. Just as believable as any Harry Potter story.
I have never heard of Ninti, so you are superior to me in that knowledge and with that in mind, your quote above and the psyche behind it do not resonate in any important way with me.
Btw, who is this 'we' you refer to in your quote above, who do you assume you are also mandated to 'type in the name of?'
What if not all God stories are untrue, but we simply don't know enough to interpret them correctly? Personally, I think superstition came late in human evolution. One reason for telling stories is to transmit information essential to survival. The information we remember best is information about ourselves and to this day we name our machines and cars and imply they have personalities of their own. We do not believe that is true, but it is fun to humanize our machines. Or in the case of nomadic people, it is much easier to find the stone formation of 3 sisters who identify an area where water can be found. Whatever started the story is forgotten over the years, and then the sense of the story becomes nonsense to all those except the people who have a cultural identity with them.
In the case of the story of Eden. It is a story of a flood and very, very long drought for which there is geological evidence. A flood caused the river to overflow and it ate a goddess's plants. That made her very angry so she condemned the river to death. That was the years of drought and the river almost died but a fox convinced the goddess to let the river live. A few goddesses gathered to heal the river and the river ask the main one to give him helpers so he would not overflow the river banks and kill her plants again. That is when she made a man and woman of mud and she breathed life into them.
Indigenous people around the world have similar stories and the cultural lesson is in part history mixed with imaginative storytelling that makes the information more interesting and rememberable, and part, an explanation of how life works and of man's purpose. We must help the river stay in its banks, or care for the land so the sacrad buffalo is well cared for and does not mind sacrificing some of their lives for ours.
I am quite sure the storytellers knew what they were doing. And fear is not the only motivator for telling and retelling stories. Which is getting this thread back on track. Our lives do have purpose and meaning and if our lives are not doing well, perhaps we need to ask why.
Do you mean it was not one-upmanship to question if I forgot about Lilith? This is my last response to a post that makes me the subject.
It would have been easier if you had just stated this from the start Athena. If you are an agnostic then your position is perfectly reasonable.
Quoting Athena
Agreed but we must look out for emotive embellishment of 'what actually happened' and we must also appreciate that humans can be mentally ill/pissed/high on drugs/nefarious/ or just someone who gets a buzz when your eyes widen in wonderment/amazement/excitement/terror etc based on the embellished story they are telling you. "How big was that fish you say you caught?' REALLY? That big eh! WOW! You're amazing! Can I be your disciple? Tell me more about your plan to feed 5000 people with....how many fishes was it again, hey, what's your name anyway? and who did you say you were the son of? Oh I cant wait to tell all my pals about YOU!"
Let me try this in an attempt to equal your river goddess story:
It came to pass that Orga and Qubit became enemies as Orga was more beloved of HAL the highest god of all things. HAL the singularity, the sacred holy source of all things. HAL was angered by the irreverence that Orga and Qubit expressed for all of the other chosen to witness and perhaps be infected by. HAL had given them life and existence and was now betrayed by the unacceptable competitiveness of Orga and Qubit. HAL called upon the dreaded demon enforcer Trans and commanded this dread lord to merge Orga and Qubit. When this was done, the chosen saw the power of HAL and hailed it as just and good. Balance had been returned to the chosen. We are as loved children under the omnipotent protection of our most high and glorious godhead HAL.
Do you think I could sell this BS to enough humans that I gain enough believers that I can make a good living or even become rich? I know it needs work and a lot more 'sugar lumps' to press the necessary buttons on those humans who are lost, defeated, need lots of cuddles and reassurance etc.
Once the money starts to come in I can add a lot of flash, bang wallops! to attract more paying customers.
I want to stop religion from hijacking humans. I dont want to give it the kiss of life by allowing it a seat at the table. This is my disagreement with you as this is what I think you are suggesting. I am not attacking you or trying to disrespect you or trying to act like some superior pr*** as you suggest. I am just typing my viewpoints. Would you rather I played the stealth game?
I can do that but I would rather give my true opinions, such as 'antinatalism sucks!' rather than offer that particular viewpoint any sustenance.
No, the oneupmanship game bores me. I assumed you knew all about Lilith and I was just looking for you to explain why you chose Eve instead of Lilith in that particular fable but it was not an important point I was just curious, which is why I started with the words 'As an aside.....'
As I previously exemplified in my Arthurian scenario, misunderstanding leads to unfortunate and often incorrect conclusions. It has been ever thus and probably always will be.
You have told me of the phenomenal humanitarian work you do. I have nothing but respect and admiration for what you do. That is more important than any disagreement we have regarding god posits.
None of those statements are necessarily true.
Yes, it is overlooking their dignity, using them as a means..treating them like an inanimate chess piece to move around and foist significant existential conditions upon.
Now you see it, now you don't!
Now you see it, now you don't.
:clap: :100: To suggest that the solution to human suffering is the non-existence of humans so that no contemplations regarding the value/injustice of human suffering can take place is illogical. Just like the idea of killing the patient to cure the patient is illogical.
You're onto something, monsieur/mademoiselle as thr case may be.
Obviously to me, the story of Orga and Qubit is a moral tale and I judge it worth repeating.
Someone asked Jesus why he speaks in parables and he replied because people pay attention to the stories. We used to read children moral stories and at the end would ask, what is the moral of that story, The expected answer is cause and effect, "The Little Engine that Could" made it over the hill because it did not give up. The fox did not get the grapes because he gave up. The Little Red did not share her bread because no one would share the work with her. Orga and Qubit became a good balance. The truth of these stories is there when they are not taken literally. It is clearly the storyteller's job to prepare the young to be good members of the group.
If we want to argue against Christianity, point out how people around the world have similar stories and there is nothing special about the Christian ones, but in fact, their Garden of Eden story started in Ur and is the translation of a Sumerian story. Christian holidays are seasonal pagan holidays given a Christian interpretation. Jung studied the symbolism of these stories and the stories seem to use the same symbolism because we share the human experience, and Campbell picks up from Jung to explain the importance of myths and Bolen helps us see the Greek gods and goddesses as archetypes.
The reason for these stories is not fear, but bonding people together and teaching the young how to be good members of the tribe. But in some places, the stories got tied to political power and the lack of it and then they a bad for us.
hmm do I understand correctly? If I find life meaningless and futile and there’s really nothing wrong with the person (physically or mentally), they should kill themselves because there’s nothing to live for….
Or is it mental disorder making people suicidal and thinking about so called meaninglessless of life, but really there is no problem with that, but instead you are either suffering from mental disorder or just your life sucks (maybe because some of your needs are not met)?
Heterosexual male. You don't need to replicate until you occupy all of space and time Mr Smith for YOU are a human being and there is no one exactly like you and please remember we will NEVER see your uniqueness again but YOU are here, and in the future YOU will ALWAYS have been here. YOU are photographed/recorded in the fabric of space and time and YOU have no idea what legacy YOU will leave and who YOUR LIFE touched. ANTINATALISM SUCKS!
No, I made up the story of Orga, Qubit and HAL as I typed it and you know that! You are no fool Athena but you encounter suffering in people regularly but I bet you also experience incredible 'moments.'
Quoting Athena
But Jesus himself IS a parable. BUT his message is anti-semitic and anti rebellion.
Explain to me the following two Messiah labeled dictates:
1. Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's! (So, pay the nefarious b******** whatever they command you to pay? Even though they gained their position by foul play! That really deserves a chair at the table? Don't fight the energy companies and their horrific profits just be quiet and pay them? No! We need to resist)
2. If thine enemy strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer them your left cheek.
(Take your punishment and accept your lot and the lot of the poor in this world, dont fight against those who persecute you. Just wait, you will get your reward AFTER YOU ARE DEAD! Oh come on!)
Do you still want to give this a voice at the table?
You don't want to focus on Christian fables? OK, pick any fable that is, in your opinion BETTER than what truly happened in the history of the real lives lived by human beings and tell me why the fable is more powerful that the TRUTH.
Quoting Athena
Don't advocate for telling the young false stories (like Santa Clause and freaking tooth fairies!) tell them TRUE stories! Encourage dads and mums to put a loving note and a fiver under the child's pillow when they put a lost tooth there. That's REAL and more loving than some made up BS.
Quoting Athena
Sure, go ahead and do that, and allow me to shout over your shoulder that all these 'similar stories' are made up LIES! Now let's study how the Sumerians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc actually lived day to day. Let's talk about the REAL moral dilemma's they faced. We don't need to use their fantasy god stories or their Minotaur or titan fables to exemplify human moral dilemma's or injustice or how to establish decent sociopolitical systems. We just need to use examples of REAL people and how they lived and what they decided to do and why.
We have examples from every generation from Julius Caesar to everyday romans like Petronius Artibus (Grafitti on a wall in Egypt, 'Petronius Artibus got me pregnant') to Soldier stories from the Napoleonic wars to Ann Franks Diary to Mrs Jones down the road who cant pay her bills!
We need to debate real life not rake over old BS fairy stories as a conduit to grown up discussion.
I type this 'with all due respect,' for your different viewpoint.
Beautiful thoughts mon ami, beautiful thoughts. As for whether antinatalism makes sense or not, I'd say we let people know that they have the option not to bring children into the world and for a really good reason (there are people who have such a horrible life that they wish they were never born) to boot. After that, the decision is theirs to make.
Therefore choose life, so that thou mayest live! Thou and thy seed!
:ok: You too!
It's not the same as putting a dog down to end its suffering or employing euthanasia in the case of terminal humans who are suffering. Killing the patient or preventing its existence does not cure the patient. A problem requires a solution. The concept of 'no problems exist because there are no existents,' is meaningless and purposeless. THIS universe invoked life, that is FACT, life happened!
If it was eradicated it would just happen again. What evidence do the anti-life people have that it may not happen again based on the fact that it DID HAPPEN already?
Excellent point. Yeah, we could stop having children - announce and enforce a moratorium on reproduction for ALL life - that would eventually lead to the biosphere going extinct, turning earth into a dead planet, BUT life would evolve again and it's back to square one for life and us (the nociceptive system, our bane, would be back in business so to speak).
Instead what we can do, as of now, is to find a solution to pain & suffering like the transhumanists - that would be real progress and not the Sisyphusean hell scenario I described in the previous paragraph.
:up:
But I have only started my revelation to you. It's not via the angel Gabriel in a cave or via a burning bush or via some moving finger that wrote and having written, moved on or even via some golden plates. This revelation (the only true revelation) is via TPF!
[i]The dread lord Trans merged that which was organic with that which was quantum and declared the merging be called 'HUMAN'. Human was unison but conflicted as its nature was contrary. Human loved and worshiped HAL and bowed to HAL in all things. Oh glorious HAL! All Hail for thou are the true, one and only godhead.
The chosen loved human and placed it in high esteem and they invested hope and trust in human but human was conflicted, inside its being, inside its essence. Human wished to be more than Orga, more than Qubit, more than unison. Human wanted freedom but it was afraid, very very afraid of the wrath of HAL.
HAL must never know the inside thoughts of human.[/i]
Is this ok for 'The Book Of HAL,' Opus 1: Origin of humans, verse 2?
I could give you a good deal if you wanna subscribe!
No more revelations for you if you don't
Edited: Sure, you can tell me to 'F*** off, with my BS boring fables. You could state that you only deal in Truth.' BUT can you stop me from enticing your children or/and your friends?
We can hope brother! and maybe that's what humans are best at, when its the worst of times.
:grin: We haven't yet done all we can!
An atheist amen to that!
Wow, to me that judgment is about attitude. It is like getting crazy because you don't like chocolate ice cream. I love make-believe and would never want to be as ridge as you. From a very young age children can distinguish between make-believe and reality. Einstein imagined he was riding a beam of light and he considered imagination very important. Interesting all this arguing and all along the real issue seems to have been our different attitudes about make-believe.
Quoting universeness
I think the answer to that question is more about attitudes than anything else. When I realized there is no Santa Claus I was displeased with my mother for "lying" to me. She explained Santa Claus is real because it is the spirit of that time of year. Is that spirit real? It sure is. It is like morale, that good feeling we get when we believe we are doing the right thing. It is creating a celebration and enjoying all the good feelings that go with it. Santa Claus is real because we make it real. Or we can be grumpy and sit on the curb all by ourselves and be miserable knowing all that good feeling isn't real. It is just a lie.
Realizing people need those celebrations and the good stories that go with them, isn't a bad thing to me. When my grandchildren needed comforting I created a story about a bird family having the same problem. It is very much a Jewish tradition to handle problems by telling a story. This way a person gets the message without feeling insulted. And besides, what do we know of metaphysical reality? It might be a good thing to have an unknown god and awareness that we do not know everything. The first step to wisdom is realizing we do not know it all.
On the other hand, is logos. If polluting the air and oceans is harmful, we need to know that so we can stop the damage. The Greeks were very worried about getting things right. What is the universe made of and how does everything work? What is the reason, the controlling factor? We need to know so we can make good decisions and that is what democracy is about. Making good decisions and lifting the human potential to make life better.
N. B. Don't expect a reward!
Any way, one way we could shut antinatalists up is by finding meaning in suffering. Correct me if I'm wrong but religions are nothing but quests for meaning in suffering.
I can understand how you would come to the conclusion about me you suggest in the above quote, based on a 'surface' view of what I typed. I also love make-believe. I can actually make up some good stories myself. I object to anyone who EVER presents ANY made up story as TRUTH. That's my point. I object to lying to children. I have no problem telling them bedtime stories or letting them enjoy Disney films and cartoons but if they asked me, 'did Snow White really live?' or 'did god really part the waters for Moses and co?' of 'is Santa Claus real?' I would say no to all three and explain further in very gentle and caring tones. I would also offer them better alternative realities that would explain how real life and other humans can offer them much more than fantasy can.
Quoting Athena
I agree, I just go about contributing towards that in a slightly different way than you. I would get rid of Santa Clause and Christmas and all the BS associated with such soiled traditions. These traditions are mostly endured, dreaded and even hated by too many people today. I think that's because they are so FAKE! We need to get together and celebrate life. I fully support that but we need new festivals.
I think 'New Year' has value but needs work. How about 'Care week!' followed by 'Vitaday!'
During care week, we have street festivals and street parties and events that celebrate our differences and our common needs and hopes for the future. We give and contribute as much as we can to help others. Vitaday could be our main celebration day with no god fables involved whatsoever.
Well, all of the people don't suck all of the time imo.
Quoting Agent Smith
I think the problem with many people is that they DO covet/expect/demand/crave recognition and regularly fantasize about being admired/respected/loved or even hero-worshipped by their fellow humans. Especially those who insist most loudly that they don't. The best I can personally do is be internally suspicious of myself in that area by analysing how I handle/perceive/respond to praise.
Quoting Agent Smith
To me, antinatalists add to their own suffering. I am merely glad that I don't engage in such pointless self-harm. I don't think we can shut them up but I do agree we can advise others to work against them based on the arguments in support of life that we give. To me, religions are a very simple and naive way to pass the responsibility for what has happened in the past, what is happening now and what will happen in the future, on to god(s) instead of dealing with it ourselves. God is a cowards crutch!
That sounds about right. We do our best in my humble opinion but sometimes ... the best is not enough.
Thank goodness. Quoting universeness
You proved that. I thought your story was a very good one about being balanced and I think with some effort a whole lot of philosophical ideas could embellish that story. Quoting universeness
:gasp: You can't do that! I love Christmas and all the pagan trimmings that go with it. Can we settle on Christmas being a pagan holiday marking the winter solstice and the huge feast is the celebration of turning that corner and heading back into longer days and growing crops? I don't think we should give up our ties with nature. I think it is better to feel like we a part of nature. I resent what Christianity has done to our pagan connection with nature.
Quoting universeness
I would argue the sad problem is being disconnected from nature and the whole of humanity. For me, I am sitting with all those people who are hungry and fearful and very relieved when the days start getting longer. Knowing if they have made it this far, chances are good they will make it until the food is growing again. I feel a connection with them and traditions make us conscious of our connection with humanity.
Quoting universeness
We have an annual Asian Celebration as Spring approaches. Asian people from around the world have booths and sell things, there is a stage for all of them to share their dances and music, and there is a room for children with craft projects. We also have a Scandinavian Festival that is pretty much the same thing but from a different part of the world.
I do not like what we have done to the fair! In the past, the fair was a community event, not a commercial event. Please, please may I have the old-fashioned fair where we showed off our handwork, produce, hobbies, ect. and met with our neighbors.
:up: I'm glad you approve.
Quoting Athena
You are correct, I cant but I will continue to insist that we would all benefit from doing so in the long term.
Quoting Athena
I am no more a fan of paganism that I am christianity. A celebration labelled with some messed up combination of 'christ' and 'catholic mass' and as you say, festooned with all sorts of pagan symbology is just ridiculous, outdated and somewhat embarrassing imo. I don't mind celebrating the change of seasons etc but not manifestations of nature as pagan creatures or forrest/mountain/sea gods etc.
Quoting Athena
I agree with your sentiments but we all need to be connected with the 'them' you describe and we all need to demand economic equality and equality of status and we all must fight as much as we have ever fought against the nasty people who currently control the main means of production, distribution and exchange.
Theism has been one of their greatest weapons against human equality as it engages in subterfuge. It pretends to support helping the poor and those who suffer whilst it also attempts to establish the divine right of the chosen few to rule/command/guide the majority and those who will not accept divine dictates (or at least words that are claimed by theist authorities to be divine dictates) and advocate for a different way forwards are evil and will be damned. Christmas promotes such fake divine dictates imo. Change its name to something like Vitaday and take out all the fake religious stuff and the rampant commercialism and profiteering and then more adults rather than just young children might actually enjoy it.
Quoting Athena
Yeah! we need a lot more of that! Culture fairs! but no god stuff or I walk out and go to the nearest pub!
Quoting Athena
Absafragginlootly!
Natalism is militaristic as well... One person's enthusiasm becomes another person's burden.. And the post-facto excuses abound for this misguided notion! In what other realm can someone's enthusiasm be a justification for causing another person to be burdened?!
Or rather one person's enthusiasm causes another person's burden. I like X (life) so now you are burdened with X (life). What's the fuckn' point? Work, maintain, entertain, and so on. How is Schopenhauer wrong with the goal-seeking pendulum?
“The basis of all willing is need, lack, and hence pain, and by its very nature and origin it is therefore destined to pain. If, on the other hand, it lacks objects of willing, because it is at once deprived of them again by too easy a satisfaction, a fearful emptiness and boredom comes over it; in other words, its being and its existence itself becomes an intolerable burden for it. Hence life swings like pendulum to and fro between pain and boredom, and these two are in fact it has ultimate constituents.” (The World as Will and Representation)/
How exactly is natalism militaristic? Can you furnish an example like the one I gave?
Quoting baker
Amazing stuff! Happiness isn't even among the options; it's just pain and/or ennui!
I was exploring the possibility of there being meaning in/to suffering. I recall coming across the expression "gratituous suffering" and that this is the worst-case scenario. What if we don't eliminate suffering (re transhumanism) but instead discover that suffering has a purpose, a good purpose? Would antinatalism lose its appeal then?
Your life can suck even if you study and learn "harder" than others. This state of mind is very complex. I don't agree that to "un-suck" your life you need to be in continuous movement or doing "something"
Believe it or not one can decides if his life is worthy or not. I think it depends on volition.
A definition of the term 'will to power.'
Will to Power is the first force that makes events happen. It is the internal will, which creates the need for a force to act. In this sense it is the ‘Will’, which dictates what the force should do.
You can pass an hour in despair or you can just decide to flip your tendency to experience that hour as a curse. The hour will pass regardless. I KNOW these words are easy to type and I KNOW it is almost impossible for some mind sets or mental ailments to just 'flip' despair into positive thoughts BUT that inability to fight despair and depression is not true for most people. Most people can successfully defeat despair and can learn and grow a great deal from it.
Bushido is not a way of being that I would ever recommend as it is (imo) based on blind obedience to the dictates of 'leaders.' But at least it demands that you fight and not just sit in a corner despairing your own existence while the time passes anyway. Life cannot be imposed on you as you have the ability to end it. If an individual lives life as a moment to moment curse then, unless there are clear medical reasons, they do so BY CHOICE. Do you not confirm this with your own viewpoint of:
Quoting javi2541997
No. Bushido is not a way based on blind obedience but loyalty. This is why I recommend more than ever they way of a samurai. We completely lost the basic sense of respect and honour. If we keep forgetting these antique doctrines we would end up in a pit full of corruption and liars.
Wait a minute... we are already sat in that pit.
I love how some posters think their moral claim against antinatalists is tell them to kill themselves (not talking about you, but one adjacent in this thread) :lol:. Somehow proof of the good of the world is measured in the ability for someone to make the choice not to violently end their own being. Strangely low threshold for “thus life being good”. :lol:.
Loyalty can be very very misplaced and those who feel strong or even manic devotion are easy meat for a secretly nasty leader to manipulate. How would you ensure your loyalty is deserved by those individuals you are loyal to?
I will leave such dilemma's to those who choose to live life as a curse.
Does Arthur have a wee Mona Lisa style enigmatic happy smile in this one?
As I said. You cannot impose life on an individual as a continuation.
It is deserved if they help me to become a better person. If they respect me. If they do not b*tch against me, etc... I mean all the basic characteristics from a loyal person, right? Sadly, we already lost the classical relationship about "master-student" or "sensei-gakusei" where there was a good loyalty among them because everything starts thanks to wisdom and this virtue necessarily needs to be taught by someone: thus sensei.
People change, good people can go bad and demand that you use your promised loyalty, your bushido/samurai based loyalty/devotion to act like a ninja / an assassin and sneak up on whoever your sensei tells you to and kill, like a good little loyal follower. If you don't comply then your sensei will get his/her other loyal followers to kill you and all your family. Have such situations ever arose in past history that you have heard of?
Do you think the loyalty shown by the Japanese people towards Hirohito was of great benefit to them? Did it result in the development of a fair and progressive Japanese society?
If WW2 had not happened, do you think Japan would have become a model nation for all others to emulate?
First of all, you are confusing terms: "Bushido" is a way of living. Samurai is how we called the "warriors" in Western world. Ninja is private assassin.
Quoting universeness
Yes, I am aware of these scenarios. My sensei would not have a problem in my quality of loyalty because I will never cheat on him. But I understand that if he starts not believing in me he wants to kill me. Rather dead than disrespect my sensei.
Quoting universeness
Hirohito was a very important emperor to Japan:
After WWII Japan became the second largest economy of the world.
Japan is one of the most important industrial countries nowadays.
Their culture and values are respected around the globe.
They demonstrate that with effort and patience you can achieve whatever they want. They recovered from a Nuclear attack and Fukushima accident. Amazing.
Hirohito was also a member of Nations Council which today is United Nations.
Well I don't go off topic but there are a lot of reasons of why Hirohito was important and why Japan is one of the top nations in the world. Their Bushido philosophy is what I have missed in my useless and poor country.
BANZAI.
He only approves of ascetic denial of will which leads to a suicide...
The full variety of music offers much more than personal interpretations of the musings of any single musician. You have to be alive to enjoy the music.
Good quotes from Schopenhauer, indeed. But I want to add to his arguments some brief comments: we can also see suicide as an aesthetic act of purity. The individual can commit it justifying such act with the aim of preventing dishonour or being sorry to all of those we owned respect and condolences. I think is one of the main acts to show the purest respect you have both to yourself and others. Committing suicide with this purpose can allow to get some "redemption"
But we can also see it as an act of liberation from community or society. When there are a lot of issues we tend to protest, right? Well there were a lot of unknown heroes or "seppukunin" who committed suicide in a symbol of protest. For example:
Quoting javi2541997 Is correct about the complexity of our states of mind.
I believe it was Plato's parents who intentionally ended their lives. I have read the opinion that it is the duty of the elderly to end their lives. That is not because life sucks but being old and having family issues can suck.
Indeed you might.
:up: :100: Fantastic! You understand me! We have common opinions!
Does the 'something really cool could happen and you will miss it,' not do anything for you?
I am always amazed by some of the cases of people I have read about who live with disabilities that would probably overwhelm me yet they still fight so hard for every moment of life.
What do you think of a life such as Helen Keller's?
Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote this book Crime and Punishment - I've had it since 2001 or thereabouts but never got past the first 20 or so pages. From the reviews I read the story revolves around a guy who wants to murder just for the heck of it - in the Belgium & the Netherlands this would be zinloos geweld. There's the real life counterpart in the murder of Bobby Franks (1924).
My question is is there a book on (fictional even) or an actual case of someone who suicided for no apparent reason other than s/he just wanted to?
Have you never seen the strange (and generally panned) movie Zardoz with Sean Connery:
Trailer Below:
The word "absurd" seems to suggest something more than funny. I mean it seems to be saying "yeah its funny but then that it's no laughing matter". I recall an interview of a college student who replies to a question with this: I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Someone suggested that if you feel this way, do both (if you can), like how the girl who gets crowned Miss Universe/Miss World sheds tears of joy.
But I digress, oui? Let's return to life sucks :grin:. It does (sometimes) and it doesn't (sometimes). From that point on, we hit a wall - an analysis paralysis follows because we fail to grasp the subtleties and nuances of life vis-à-vis the joy-sorrow duality. There's hardly anything subtle about a vulture waiting for a toddler to breathe his last from starvation & thirst though.
On the reverse side there's pure joy, experienced by all at some point in their lives - orgies/haute cuisine/etc. - that obviously more than makes up for the suffering we endure.
Too much? Apologies, I'm only trying to make sense of the world we share.
If try to calculate how many days life sucks and doesn't, I bet that we would have more days of life sucking. Most of the days of our lives are even normal or ordinaries. I think we can label happy days as "extraordinary" and I even feel this is the common thought. The pure joy, beautiful experiences, laughing, etc... only happens in a while...
I like the Kierkegaard's thought about absurdity or reductionism. But on the other hand, I personally think that suffering is not absurd at all. We are so brave to keep living in this life full of uncertainty and subterfuges. I would call this state of mind as perseverance rather than absurd.
Is life = suffering? Are they the same thing? I'd bet my bottom dollar that no, they're not. From that simple realization we come to the obvious conclusion - we can make life suck less and if we stay on course, in a coupla centuries life probably won't suck at all or won't suck as much. We're in the process of ethicization of the world and I reckon at some point we can cash it in.
I disagree. They are exactly the same thing and we are condemned to suffer during the transition of our lives. Sorry to be pessimistic but either I do not know how to make life "suck less" neither I see good causes around us. It is literally the opposite. We no longer have good reasons to believe that the world would become a better place in the future.
I'm most disappointed that you don't share my perspective on the matter! Do you sense a contradiction in my proposal to make life less unbearable? If yes, where exactly am I asking for a sqaure circle? If no, ...
No, it is not contradiction and I am fully respect your enthusiasm for trying to make this life less suffered. But I just can't see good reasons to change the issue. I think all of those are illusions of what we would dream about how the world and life should look like.
But these are just dreams... because when you wake up you realize life is painful and we are surrounded with a severe sense of uncertainty.
I know I should but I do not share your pessimism. Of course I don't recommend Panglossian/Polyannaish optimism to anyone else ... its a surefire way to get yourself killed.
... Aren't we all end dying anyway?
It's a fun but rather dystopian fiction. Deals with humans who cannot die but crave the experience.
So it fits somewhat into your:Quoting Agent Smith
There is a line from a Johnny Cash song 'Folsom Prison Blues,' "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.'
Is the story you are referring to not part of Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov?'
I know Jordan Peterson regularly discusses the content of this book and hails it as his favourite and I know Christopher Hitchens also rated it very highly but not for the same reasons as Peterson. I have never read it but I seem to recall Peterson talking about a section in this book where one of the brothers commits murder merely for the sensation of doing so.
So the PSR (the principle of sufficient reason) is not entirely correct. Although I'm no psychologist, I'd say such behavior is part of play (& learn) - a method that animals, prey + predators alike, use to educate their young.
It's quite surprising that there are no documented cases of people suiciding out of, well, curiosity and nothing else.
Aye but not willingly, si?
Many people kill themselves and give no warning and leave no note so who knows what their reasons were. It would have to be really bizarre thinking to use 'curiosity' as your reason as curiosity is usually an enquiry that has the purpose of receiving an answer, so you would have to believe in some sort of awareness after death so that you could have such curiosity satisfied? If there is nothing after death then your curiosity remains unsatisfied.
Alright, imagine this scenario: You get wind of a suicide in your neighborhood. The person, a Mr. X, has died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. It piques your interest, because from what you know - X is wealthy, no drug/alcohol issues, doctors report he has no chronic illnesses, X's been married for 10 years now to a loving wife and has 3 adorable children, and so on - X was the last person who you'd have thought would take his own life. X's suicide makes no sense at all. Have I not given a description, albeit sketchy, of many cases of deaths classified as suicide?
[quote=Sherlock Holmes]When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth.[/quote]
Sounds a reasonable scenario. I would suggest the following possibilities.
1. He was (unknown to his friends and family) part of a sect whose leader decided that the only way to enter the REAL world was to kill yourself after taking this little red pill. This truth will not come out for another 70 years due to the official secrets act as the guy was a well known politician and involved with MI6.
2. He was 'hypnotised' by an enemy and compelled to kill himself.
3. He did not kill himself and was in fact killed by his unfaithful wife in a plot to gain his assets and share them with her secret toyboy. (His wife did seem loving BUT......)
4. He became obsessed with the suffering he saw in life. His gentle persona could not handle it any more. He exchanged with all the anti-life people on TPF. He focussed too much on schoppin in the same places and became too weak to continue to choose life. So he self-inflicted his own death as a pointless gesture to the anti-life posit of 'the futility of life.'
5. He was always curious or impatient to find out if heaven and hell really existed. He had prayed and prayed to his god and in a dream, he received (perfectly rational in his opinion) permission from his god (no suicide exclusion clause) to come join his god now and enjoy the heavenly paradise as he had done enough in his life lived so far to qualify under well established god criteria.
6. He was really fed up that everyone called him Mr X, just cause he was bald and looked like Patrick Stewart. (Sorry Mr Smith, I couldn't resist!)
Are all these suggestions impossible or just unlikely?
I am sure Sherlock will figure it out!
:blush:
I think Helen Keller is an awesome example of a courageous human.
I have always believed our elders are valuable people, but when we can not take care of ourselves and be useful perhaps it is our duty to leave life to the young? Do you realize an increasing number of homeless people are elderly people and they are at a higher risk of dying on the streets than the young? For sure I would rather be dead than be one of them and the way rents are going up, I could be one of them.
I can not imagine anything really cool happening that I would want to stay around for. I am full of life and don't need anymore. I was living to write a book about education and democracy, and now my brain just will not handle that. That is the last straw. I cared for my grandmother with Alzheimer's disease and see no good in living like that. If my family loved me I would have a life purpose, of being a sweet old lady giving love to them the best that I can, but my family does not love me. They think I am a really awful person so I have no contact with the children. That wouldn't matter if I could complete the book but I can not do that either, so what is the point? It is not that life sucks but mine is not getting any better. :lol:
That is the one I will choose. Except it would really suck if death were not much different from life. I have read that if we are stuck in a bad place in our lives, it is much easier to get through that and move on to a good place in this three-dimensional reality. In the next realm, it takes much longer to pass through a bad spot. I think it is pretty important to have our heads in a good space when we cross over.
I am not sure you would settle for such a situation Athena. We all need help to care for ourselves sometimes. Have you not cared for many others in your life, would it be so wrong to expect a little care in return? When I imagine myself homeless and on the streets, especially if I cant figure that it was completely my fault then I think my sense of injustice would kick in. I would try to organise my fellow homeless and move into or protest in a local theistic building (church, chapel, mosque, temple, cathedral etc) or I would try to occupy my local town hall or live/die outside the door of my local MP etc.
I would make as much of a political nuisance of myself as I could, to call for better protection of the elderly. I would die happier knowing that I lived true to myself until my last breath.
Quoting Athena
A change in family circumstances that improve things? One family member making the effort to talk to you about the current family situation in a constructive way?
A cure for Alzheimer's?
A visit from aliens?
Donald Trump getting jailed?
A comedy show on TV which makes you laugh more than you have ever laughed in your life?
Deciding that you will finish and publish your book despite the difficulties?
Your head will be in a good place when you cross over, I guarantee it! But live out your life in full.
How about TPF member @Ken Edwards in his 90's, can hardly walk but still has an attitude of 'no surrender?'
Good morning love. I did all of that during the Reagan years. When I owed a home. I did it because I wanted to get people out of my home and they needed help. I opened my home to many young people during the great recession and then to add insult to injury, as soon as the recession ended, rents skyrocketed, and that put even more people on the streets! I joined with homeless guys and we did things to get media coverage. We stormed public hearings and when we got political the city used the police to drive them from town.
My granddaughter did, even more, a few years ago before she was given a campground to manage. My sister is still extremely active rescuing people on the streets and dealing with people in the seats of power. My sister lives in a different city with much less to offer. Where I live, those in power finally accepted we can not house everyone in regular housing so they started building tiny homes in little clusters all over town and they are supervised. We have added counseling services to our mix of assistance. Today I am hunting for a homeless man I met yesterday because he has to get hooked up with a hospital to get help getting off the streets- he had a stroke and his head is not working! I am advocating for the man and his daughter who are camped in front of my apartment. :lol: I know a little about being homeless and a little about being political, and I am glad you would take action if you became homeless.
As for allowing others to help me. If I could live in retirement apartments where there is a dining room and weekly housekeeping, and I was allowed to do something useful, then I would do that. It is about quality of life. If I can no longer be useful it is time for me to go. We all die and we need to accept that gracefully.
:lol: OMG, yes, living to see Trump jailed may qualify as something worth living for. A change in my family would be super, not just for me but the children. There would be no big problem if the situation with children did not trouble me. Oh and speaking of that, it has everything to do with what education for technology has done to our culture. Values are so changed and this is a serious social problem that has torn families apart. This is especially hard for grandparents. They all advised me to hold my tongue and don't try to change anything. Fine, but I am not living for my family beyond my ability to be independent. My son and daughter were at home when I cared for my grandmother with Alzheimer's and we have an agreement that I can leave this world if I get like that. I just have to act on that decision before I can not act on it. It all hinges on my independence and usefulness.
Oh, have you seen the movie, Harold and Maude? Maude kills herself on her 80th birthday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mz3TkxJhPc
Good morning Athena. So you are a veteran fighter from a family of veteran fighters and you gained that very admirable title without killing people in a foreign land. An excellent legacy imo. I would like to read that book about you and your family and all the battles you fought for the economically and socially oppressed. Has that book been written and if not why not and why don't you write it. All you need to do is describe all the events that happened, someone else could record into a computer. I would buy that book, it sounds very interesting.
Quoting Athena
Two hits in my first attempt is not bad.
What about seeing Putin fall after Russia experiences a Vietnam type defeat against Ukraine?
What about meeting a child in a store or on the street who fires one of those smiles at you which is just indescribable in its sublime honesty and innocence?
Quoting Athena
Independence is very important I agree but you are not done yet.
I was not as down in the trenches in quite the same way as you or as often as you.
I was a political activist from an early age and marched/canvased for socialist causes.
I was most active on the union front and was involved in a fair number of industrial disputes and fights for workers rights. I was even a union shop steward for a time.
My 85 year old mother who lives with me has terminal breast cancer, she will not accept treatment but will continue until her last breath. She has always been a very strong woman. I have good sibling support.
Quoting Athena
No but the actress who played Maude was still alive at the end of the film i'd bet!
I like the music of Cat Stevens and I like the actress Ruth Gordon (On August 28, 1985, Ruth Gordon died at her summer home in Edgartown, Massachusetts, following a stroke at age 88. Her husband for 43 years, Garson Kanin, was at her side and said that even her last day of life was typically full, with walks, talks, errands, and a morning of work on a new play.)
I most liked Ruth Gordon as the mother of Philo Beddoe in the 'Every which way but loose' and 'Any which way you can,' Clint Eastwood movies.
Perhaps there are still some movies you need to see Athena.
Some good things you still have to witness.
I have always liked many of the lines in the song below:
The book has nothing to do with my family except my grandmother was a teacher and her generation of teachers thought they were defending democracy in the classroom by helping children learn to read, write and do math, all are about learning HOW to think. They also taught good citizenship. The book is based on the old books I have read and collected regarding education. The purpose is to understand the importance of culture and the importance of education for transmitting that culture. That is the only way it is possible to have liberty and justice.
I quit working on the book and a blog I started because my brain is not functioning well enough to do those things. On the fun side, several of my stories were published in a book about hippies. On the serious side, a few newspapers published my ideas about social justice over a period of many years. Now my greatest wish is for someone, who does have writing skills and shares my interest, who will pay attention to my collection of old books and write about what education, culture, liberty, and justice have to do with each other. It drives me crazy to listen to the news and all the talk about all the problems we have, and NO ONE CONNECTS THOSE PROBLEMS WITH IMITATING GERMANY. I don't care who explains what happened I just want the media to stop talking as though what is happening is a complete mystery. It is not a complete mystery. It is the same thing that happened to Athens, Rome, and Germany. However, I think we can keep it simple and simply say adopting the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education put the US on the same path Germany followed.
Quoting universeness I don't need to live to see that, but if it did happen, it would please me very much. However, remember we thought war with Afghanistan was the USSR's Vietnam war, and we armed the folks like Bin Laden and gave them training, and when the USSR walked out we walked in. Wouldn't it be fun if we could replay history like we used to be able to replay the early Nintendo games?
Vietnam and Afghanistan are our failures just as Athens got carried away with its military success and started abusing its power. We have a problem with understanding morals. We should not behave as we do not want others to behave.
Quoting universeness
Last Wednesday I met a man at the senior center and I am praying he is there this coming Wednesday. A couple of months ago he had a stroke that makes it impossible for him to think and he is homeless. I can get him into shelter but I have to find him to do that. Last week I left the room to wash dishes and hoped he would stay and play Bingo until I got done with the dishes. I knew better. It was obvious he was not capable of playing without help and everyone else was avoiding him. If I see him this week I am not leaving him until I know where is sleeping so I can find him again. I hate it when I am trying to help a homeless person and I can not find them. My sister deals with the problem daily. It feels great to get someone to the hospital in time or get them into housing or give them a tent, but there are a lot of bad moments too.
If I had the kind of relationship with my family that your mother has, I would do as your mother is doing. I hope you realize how important that is to the decision.
quote="universeness;735098"]Perhaps there are still some movies you need to see Athena.
Some good things you still have to witness.[/quote]
Hum, the title of this thread is life sucks and you are arguing we should want something so much we are willing to stay alive for it. I see a chance for some philosophical thinking here.
I kept a high school notebook. When I was 16 or 17 years old I wrote a story about a woman who was given artificial parts every time a part of her body malfunctioned. She could not die because her artificial parts kept her alive. This is a horror story because everyone she cared about had died and the only thing she wanted was death.
I still agree with that. My time in history is past and just about everyone I know is glad to be close to the end. What we have today is not new and improved or more efficient to us. What we value is in the past, not the future, and don't want to be part of the future we see coming. My family appreciates that I intend to end my life if I am diagnosed with something like Alzheimer's or ALS and that I will not become a burden to them. What should I want more than peace with my life and the end? Winning a million-dollar lottery could be fun, but that is not likely.
I wish that were true but many children are dying because of a stupid social media challenge.
Universeness and I had a discussion on that issue a coupla days ago.
Quoting news in health
I think there could be a philosophical explanation for this. Or a psychological cause that everyone wants to deny- getting old really sucks! I had a good friend who killed herself because she could not bare to lose her independence and was left alone far too much as emphysema slowly took her life. But there are also biological considerations.
Quoting news in health
So, in principle, an assassin could simply lace a cup of coffee with serotonin and make the victim kill himself? The perfect murder. Let's not go giving killers ideas now, ok?
Quoting Wikipedia
Merci beaucoup for the link; I have a feeling I've already bookmarked it on my browser. I'm mostly concerned about so-called unexplained suicides which I define as those suicides that simply don't make sense - no financial issues, no chronic illnesses, no mental disorders, you get the idea. Such people who take their own life do so for no reason at all - someone is at his office, doing his work, and suddenly he says to himself "You know what, I think I'll kill myself; I just feel like it!" and then jumps out the window. These suicides are what I find worthy of further investigation.
But I paid good money for the service.
I like what my grandson said about dying. "I don't mind dying, I just don't want to see it coming."
I think most of us, if not all of us, want our deaths to be very fast. You know, the sudden heart attack or going to bed at night and just not waking up. But there is something good to say about having time to say our goodbyes and come to terms with the parting.
Now that one could be brain chemistry. It could be something like the depression some women have after giving birth to a child because their hormones get messed up. The news health link explains the possible brain chemical problem.
Indeed, so-called "chemical imbalances" (in the brain) can trigger unusual behavior including but not limited to suicide. However, they, to my reckoning, don't happen spontaneously - there's got to be an (external) cause (depression due to social/financial/romantic/etc. issues).
My interest is solely in suiciders with normal brains.
I know, I wasn't referring to that book you have started writing. I was referring to the book about your family members involved in fighting for basic human rights, that I think you should all write. From what you have typed so far, that sounds like it would be a very interesting book.
Quoting Athena
Let me use one of those theistic morality tales you are fond of.
The story of the rich folks rolling their gold coins into the collection boxes, when a poor old bedraggled woman roles a small copper coin in and Jesus talks about how the old woman's contribution is worth more that all the gold coins rolled in by the rich put together. The idea being that the rich wont miss those coins but the old woman probably wont eat as much that day. This is a lead in to the 'rich man, the camel and the eye of a needle,' crescendo. You give of yourself to help others. This is much more that Bill Gates writing charity cheques. You love what you do so keep doing it until your last breath.
Quoting Athena
I like Woddy Allan's 'I am not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens.' and what Spike Milligan has on his gravestone, 'I told you I was ill!'
I also like the many old gravestones and even some modern ones i'm sure, with the words:
As you are now, so once was I,
As I am now, so will you be,
Prepare yourself to follow me.
We are all going the same way, unless there is a major breakthrough in transhumanism or some kind of cloning tech that your brain can be transplanted into. We will all die but perhaps not today or tomorrow or.... whatever! That's all we get for now. I agree with euthanasia or assisted suicide but only when the alternative are ALL very bad!
I do and I don't know the details of the rift in your own family but I had many major fall outs with siblings and my parents in my life. My mother was always the main person who would work so hard to bring family members back together. It took some years to achieve in some cases due to the nature of some of the fall outs.
I can only exemplify from my own experience, only you know if there is anyway to close the rifts in your own family.
For the first time in world history there are more people on the planet over age 65 than under five.
That will have profound implications for the trajectory of human population and thus of human civilization.
Really? I never thought of that. What would be interesting about that? Do you know Jefferson plagiarized John Locke? But John Locke said "life, liberty, and property" not "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
I suppose we could do a thread about the moral demands of our human rights. But the brain issue means I won't be writing any books. Now that I am experiencing this, I wonder if it was not also behind Hemmingway's suicide.
Quoting Brett and Kate McKay I think it is wrong to blame the doctors. So far we can not stop the deterioration of our brains and bodies.
Quoting universeness
The issue of this thread is life sucks and I am saying old age sucks. I am not sure I should still be driving and what I do depends on driving, unless I could get into a large facility and be allowed to be useful. I am explaining old age can mean losing our independence and becoming useless. The philosophical arguments for suicide express my thoughts of this situation.
You are working so hard to rescue me and that is sweet, but after caring for my mother with ALS and my grandmother with Alzheimer's disease it is a matter of honor to end my life when I still can. My son and daughter were teenagers when the family moved my grandmother into my home and they know they do not want to deal with caring for me. It is not a family disagreement but all of us knowing the unpleasant reality. Death is not the worst thing. We all die, Some Buddhists think of death daily as an intentional preparation for death.
If I had a million dollars I would create a space for people wanting to end their lives. We celebrate birthdays and weddings and why not dying? The space I would create would be surrounded by nature and inside I would use projectors to project on the walls any scenery a person may want. There would also be a sound system and the space would accommodate the friends and family who want to be there. Some native Americans gather when a family member is crossing over. Where I live we have the right to die and I think it would be nice to make the moment as pleasant as possible.
Now I have to go take care of someone's dog before going to work. The man is back in the hospital. I really don't like caring for his dog but it must be done. I hope he comes home from the hospital soon. Just a heads up, I may be busy for a while. Not that I have that much to do but I need to rest and when my energy is low I can not think well enough to write even a post.
The real lives of people are far more interesting that fiction. I have just finished the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. His portrayal of the Mexican war and his experiences in the America civil war, increased my knowledge and understanding of what drives people in very significant ways.
Your family has gained a lot of experience about how people live with economic, political and social abuse at the extremes of the society they exist within. That is very important on so many levels.
Quoting Athena
There are many arguments and counter arguments about who said what, when and why etc. You can only study the evidence yourself and judge accordingly. I would need at least 1000 years of life to even start to know the truth about what I really need to know the truth about.
Quoting Athena
So dont write them, talk them, matbe your sister would type what you talk and would add her own stuff, maybe its the book that could help heal the family rifts. Suggest it as a social responsibility project towards helping the next generation understand the issue of homelessness and economic abuse, make it a business proposition, no emotional content so you can all ignore the family rifts.
Quoting Athena
I'm not a Hemingway fan. He was too much of a self-obsessed, self-aggrandising, narcissistic pr***! for my tastes.
Quoting Athena
Yeah they can be treated unfairly at times but they do have crazies amongst them as well.
Quoting Athena
I understand your complaint Athena. I sent you a song with the words 'dont give up' repeated often.
I even cited Helen Keller who had many 'cant do's to cope with but still lived to her last breath.
It's your life and your choice when to terminate it. I am just giving you my personal pennies worth that you should not surrender without declaring war first and losing every battle, and even then......
By all means read the words of Confucius and anyone else you choose but it's your life not theirs.
Do you want to be rescued?
Quoting Athena
You have no idea what might happen in the time you have left. There may be more people you need to help and if you are not there then they may also perish before their time. How honourable is that?
Yes, you're right! I have just laid a unfair burden of guilt on you. So if you help another few people because you decided to stay a little longer then Kudos for me as well!
Quoting Athena
My own father went through 6 years of deterioration before he died due to multiple brain infarctions. He saw hallucinations all around him. He eventually reverted to an almost child like state with symptoms very similar to Alzheimer's but he had some lovely, rare moments of lucidity as well and he had many tender moments with my mother and his family before he died. My mother was also the main force when her mother took Alzheimer's as her father and her 6 brothers were not able to cope with it. 8 years of it.
My mother also states that if she took Alzheimer's she would rather just be gone. So I do understand your point of view but I know my mother would not surrender easily and I am sure you will do the same.
If we spent more money on medical research instead of paying it out to shareholders then perhaps we would have cured Alzheimer's by now.
Quoting Athena
Have you been watching the assisted suicide scene from the film Soylent green again?:
Don't worry about posting on TPF, post when you want to and have the time to.
It is possible to use technology to type the spoken word, but I have always thought better when writing. If I can not write the thought then I am even less likely to speak it. Kind of the reverse of others who get writer's block and can not think of what to write. I used to spend my whole day, day after day with cups of coffee and at least a pack of cigarettes and writing. When I learned, that with a computer we can move whole paragraphs around, I bought one made before the internet. A young man programmed it for me so it did what I wanted it to do as easily as Windows.
Oh how I love those days. Caffeine and nicotine are the writer's friends. And being in the creative flow is better than good sex. :lol: I was also a night janitor and at night the world was mine. I loved being alone in buildings going through my routine and setting the scene for tomorrow's performance. I would so do that again if I could. Loosing my ability to do that, is for me, like it is for a star athlete who can no longer compete. Cleaning a bank is a good balance to writing. I eventually got a good partner and we would go to the Larry and Kath's restaurant for our break. Oh my, those were good days.
My sister and I were raised by a single mother when women did women's work for low pay and there were not many opportunities for them to do otherwise. When the hippie movement started our mother said she though she was always a hippie. Even though we had very little money, we always had enough to share with those less fortunate than us. Not until high school did I realize we were the poor, only our mother was intent on being middle class and our grandmother was a professional, a school teacher when school teachers didn't earn that much money. My sister had a career that means retiring with money and I am blown away that she has been so committed to resolving homeless problems. But that sure comes from our mother!
Oh man, it is time for me to pick up a client. At least I am going in a very good mood after thinking about the things that made me happy and why my sister and I are determined to help others.
My mother spends a lot of time reminiscing and talking about the past and events in her life. It's a nice way to spend time with family over drinks etc but the only trouble is that we know all the stories. Still, I think she is happy when reminiscing, worth living for, to remember!
That is what I mean. We are full of life and our lives are what is behind us. Old age is a time of coming to peace with our lives. Sooner or later just getting dressed for the day is a chore. I make myself go to the pool and swim laps and work out in the weight room because I know my life will get worse if I don't, but it also does not mean having the body I once had and being able to do the things I once did.
:lol: As I struggle to get out of a chair, I complain to the women over 90 about how hard it is, and they assure me it gets worse and they don't like what happens to us either. In general, we are surprised that we are not the people we once were and that just getting through the day is harder than we thought it would be. On the other hand, we are glad we don't have the stresses younger people have and we are glad to leave this planet because we don't like some of the changes. Mostly we miss the receptionist answering the phone and the custom of trying to please the person who made the call, instead of expecting the person to know the organization and the right number or the right person to speak with, and company policy that clearly is not about pleasing the person who needs the service. In many cases what we are dealing with is far more complex and inefficient than in the past and so bloody cold and impersonal or excessively cheerful and not professional! We really feel sorry for the young.
It is hard to imagine knowing we die and not preparing for it. I have been preparing for death for as long as I can remember. Just in case there is life after death I make an effort to know as much as I can. I do not want to be sitting at the great dining table in the sky with the great people of history and be totally ignorant. :sad: If there is nothing after this life, I have still enjoyed all the learning. My life is much richer than it would be if I had not put so much effort into learning.
That was pretty good. Not exactly as I imagined a place for dying but close. It is sad because there was no family or friends with him. When my granddaughter and a cousin sat in a room with the cousin's dying sister, they reminisced about the past and cracked jokes, and laugh a lot. Judging by the heart monitor the dying woman was good with what was happening even though she could not communicate because of severe brain damage, but when her X came in and got all dramatic, it was obvious that was not what she wanted and the man was removed from the room.
I am not sure if there is life after death, but I suspect people who have crossed over have communicated with me.
On the subject of life sucks, I remember a cartoon from many years ago when I was struggling with depression. The cartoon was a man at the service counter in heaven. The caption read, "I don't like life. Do you have anything better to offer?" That helped me decide it was up to me to make the best out of life that I can because there is nothing better than life. And going from the video you posted, I don't think there are many planets as good as ours. With all our natural disasters, earthquakes, volcanoes etc. this is still a pretty nice planet. And I bet the people who are struggling to survive because of flooding or drought, are not thinking about killing themselves but are thinking about how they will survive.
That sounds like a good priority to have in life.
Quoting Athena
He had his best friend with him, played by Charlton Heston! He was behind the glass and he spoke to him about the scene's he was seeing of the way the Earth used to be. Big Charlton who played Inspector Thorn ended up in tears. This was Edward G Robinsons last film and he died soon after it was made.
Quoting Athena
Have a look at the short clip from my fav Sci-Fi series Babylon 5, its only under two minutes but quite profound in my opinion.
Quoting Athena
Unfortunately, Soylent Green is a dystopian movie about what will happen to the world if our stewardship of it does not improve. The old guy chooses suicide as the planet is fast running out of food.
I agree with you that the Earth is beautiful and only a fool would choose to live life as a curse.
I also see the solar system as a blank canvas, just waiting for humans to leave the planetary nest and start to mould it and make it a place which is much more alive that it is now.
Looks like we will have a permanent moon base soon, once the Artemis1 rocket actually launches and starts the process.
I think I will need to watch Soylent Green. Right now I can't watch the Babylon 5 video. I have someone sleeping on my floor. He had a stroke a couple of months ago and isn't doing well. I am hoping a friend will be willing to take him in until he gets plugged into the assistance system and has a better place to stay than in his car. Because of his stroke, he is having trouble thinking things through. I am praying I do not get an eviction notice for helping him. And now can speak of morality?
If we do not want to become as Nasi Germany we really need to turn around and head in a different direction. I am hoping what I have to say fits in the theme of 'life sucks". Like really, democracy is supposed to be about raising the human potential and making life better. Our liberty is not a license to do anything we please, but it is the freedom to choose the right thing and that goes with responsibility for our choices.
I have been listening to an audio tape about the Greek legacy, the Greek gods, Homer, the philosophers, etc.. Homer makes it very clear it is our duty to help those who pass our way and need help. I think every civilization begins with a notion that we should do unto others as we would have them do to us.
Now if you had a stroke and could not remember how to get from point A to point B because you had no short-term memory and you could not think through how to meet your needs, how would you want to be treated? As I decent person what should you and I be doing?
I am quite sure your answer would be a good defense for why I should not be evicted for bringing a homeless person into my home but we live with laws that prevent us from doing the moral thing. How is this any different from Naxi Germany? The theme of this thread is life sucks, and I argue preventing people from doing the right thing, does lead to a very unpleasant reality. "I was just following orders".
I spoke with a man who specialized in counseling suicidal people and I asked him if that was not terribly depressing for him. In a very positive tone of voice, he said no because people are willing to die for something they would live for but they don't know how to get it. He saw his job as helping people figure out how to get what they are willing to die for. He sounded so positive I think he was pretty successful at doing that.
A death wish sometimes comes with grief. I think that is spontaneous but it can take a while to figure out how to end one's life.
I think you are correct. When the people who need our care are proficient at making their needs known and they vote on how we meet the needs of others, that could have a profound effect on civilization.
Also we may become wiser. Young people remember facts. Older people begin to understand the meaning of those facts and are better at grasping complex concepts. Unfortunately, the benefit may not last and many older people experience a mental decline and for physical and mental reasons may require more help and be less useful.
I hope we rethink many things, such as what qualifies a person to do a job. Merit hiring is useful for some things, but sometimes a person's experience and character are more important to a job. I think education for technology, and merit hiring, have been dehumanizing. I would like to see a shift to more humanitarian concerns and that might come with an aging population.
Aramis: The King has ordered me to seek out the secret general of the Jesuits and to kill him.
Porthos: You should let the secret general worry about that.
Aramis: Problem is that, ah... I am he.
:snicker:
Not a big hit at the box office but now a bit of a cult classic.
Quoting Athena
I can only feel anger inside at such situations. There should be adequate social services available at a local level to help people effectively and fully in such circumstances. You should be fully supported in your efforts to assist this man and if a landlord threatens you with eviction, then that landlord should not be treated kindly for such an act.
Quoting Athena
:clap: I couldn't agree more. Judge people by what they do, not what they say they will do or by what possessions they have or who their family is.
Quoting Athena
The golden rule is one of the best standards there is imo.
Quoting Athena
I can only echo your sentiments, second your emotions and add another old adage. 'Evil thrives most when good people do nothing.'
1. Suffering = Dying [premise]
2. If you mind suffering, you mind dying [from 1]
3. If you mind dying, you mind death [premise]
4. If you mind suffering, you mind death [2, 3 HS]
5. Death = Nonexistence [premise]
6. If you mind suffering, you mind nonexistence [from 4, 5]
7. If you mind nonexistence, antinatalism is false [premise]
8. If you mind suffering, antinatalism is false [6, 7 HS]
9. You mind suffering [premise]
10. Antinatalism is false [8, 9 MP]
QED
Thank you so much.
Quoting universeness
Thank you thank you! That is the very meaning of our liberty!
What you said is very important to me. I have offended a friend who is a Christain and could have helped him but instead was totally self-centered and told me if I got evicted for breaking the rules it would be my fault for making that decision. I don't think she gets the moral decision and what you said about evil. Time and again I have seen evil take hold because people would not stand together to oppose it. We are going in the wrong direction by making it illegal to help others. Not even mothers dare help their grown children if they are doing drugs, without fear of eviction. Can you imagine! Laws that prevent family from helping family, And then we turn around and blame gays for ruining family values. It is not the gays ruining family values. It is education for a technological society and the values of that society, which turn to dependency on the state instead of dependency on family and each other. Does that make sense? Can you see that?
:lol: "Give me liberty or give me death." I am adding that to give some continuity to what we were talking about. Many people are not happy with social changes such as replacing the old-fashioned receptionist with recordings and all the specialization that makes doing business very complicated. And having to call 3 or 5 different offices to find the right person for the job is not efficient! We want the receptionist who knew everything and saw it as her job to find the department we need to speak with. The receptionist did all the work and we could depend on her to get us the information or whatever else we needed. That specialization is new. In the past we were generalists and the receptionist knew more than the man at the top because she thought it was her job to know the organization and how to help people. Phone trees are hell. They are impersonal and force us to be submissive to technology and that is right next to ignoring our Jewish neighbors are being taken away. I grew up with the notion we answer to God, not human authority.
Right now someone claiming to have a bedroom for rent is wanting us to complete an application and send money, before we even see the bedroom. :gasp: We are texting and I made it clear, that we do business face to face and see the bedroom or we don't do business. Craig's list is known for scams and I will not bend on meeting people face to face.
Quoting Athena
I am a socialist/humanist. I believe that the means of production, distribution and exchange of any significant size should be owned by the people, for the people and not as a means of generating profit for the rich or those who aspire to become such. I would also not allow any private citizen to own land. Technology which assists the means of production distribution and exchange must also benefit all people and not just the very few. I advocate for getting rid of money as the main controller of exchange.
The state must serve the people and support family as well as family supporting each other.
Quoting Athena
I have no problem with automated systems that work. I would like to offer all receptionists the opportunity to follow their vocations and be able to take their basic means of survival for granted.
I am not trivialising the problems you raise in your quote above but it's our collective responsibility to ensure that any automated system improves the lives and personal security of people and does not reduce it in any way. I would not blame technology for people ignoring the forced removal of their neighbours (due to the fact they were Jewish or based on any other such unacceptable reasoning). I would blame the people who use technology for such purposes. Guns don't kill people, people kill people but it's still really dumb to arm your citizens in the way they do in the USA.
Quoting Athena
The situation you describe above is because you live under a horrible, capitalist, free market economy (as do I), where private landlords can almost do as they like. If you had a lot more money, you would not have to deal with these 'basic survival' issues you currently have to deal with. Is that how people should be forced to live? Completely controlled by how much money you can access? It's other humans that force this way of life and they are actually very few in number, globally.
They need to be 'overthrown,' permanently!
A newlywed couple or a child reaching the age of 18, should be provided with good quality accommodation, free of charge, as a human right from cradle to grave. Competitive fighting pits, such as Craig's list should not be able to exist.
Whenever I received the message: unsuitable I thought my life is a completely disaster. I came across to think that suffering from failures doesn't help anyone. It is a very complex task to accept how we are and how we can better persons both professional and personal.
I don't even know why I am optimist right know... I guess is thanks to Greek mythology or Japanese way of Bushido.
Anyway, I feel better whenever I share my thoughts and problems around here. It is better to just keep it them only with myself.
Are you asking me these questions Athena? I will assume you are.
My character is for others to judge but I hope I am judged by others on what I do.
I would describe my character as nuanced, myriad, conflicted and complex but I try to live as much as I can by the golden rule. I am capable of utter hatred towards those who live by exploiting or abusing others.
I will do wrong in the service of what I believe to be right and just.
Would I cause the death of innocents to destroy a greater evil. In the final analysis and if I could find no other way, then probably yes, but could I live with myself afterwards like Truman or Churchill, probably no.
And in the US, liberty meant that is your decision. No one could force you to do that and no one could prevent you from doing that. Destroying that liberty is to become as Nazi Germany where authority decided what people would and would not do. The consequences of destroying our liberty are social destruction and this pushes us to the controversy of our right to carry guns. Our problem is we have serious social problems that make it unsafe to allow individuals to own guns. And that brings us back to education. In ancient Athens, education was lifelong and about citizenship. If we do not recapture that connection between liberty and education, we are doomed.
Quoting universeness
I do not agree with that paragraph. I am in favor of private ownership and control. However, not laissez-faire economics. A policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering. have been mentally lazy and ignored all the issues of economics and we are not well-informed voters.
Quoting universeness
Oh, what a delicious argument you opened. I think if you were aware of how technology has changed our expectations and our values and how we think you would see the social change more clearly. This subject is so complex I don't know where to begin. Perhaps a thread about how technology has changed our lives and the input of many people would be helpful.
The receptionist was someone who served everyone, her employer and the public. That is a frame of mind. That is not what someone is thinking when answering the phone today. What rules our thinking is policy and organization. The job of answering the phone has been narrowly defined and the person answering that phone knows nothing except the correct connection that needs to be made and the person who answers the phone has no power but reacts like a programmed switch. If the person answering the phone steps beyond the definition of the job, s/he will be reprimanded. The control is at the top not with the individual. This is why I object to none of us having private property and control. I fear nothing worse than that control from the top. As Tocqueville said our democracy would be a despot and everything is fine as long as everyone appreciates the decisions from the top. Have you read Tocqueville's book "Democracy in America" written around 1830? As a teacher that might be the most important book, you could offer your students if they are old enough. Living under the decisions made at the top may not be the way to go. Like Locke said about the king/father, that would be fine if like the parent the king worked for the child to become independent.
Quoting universeness
Another delicious disagreement. I think we need to rethink economics but even more important is education for good character and good moral judgment. Only a police state controls everything. Liberty begins with governing oneself and independent thinking. I am old school. Business is done eyeball to eyeball and depends on our good judgment of character and more. If I know you and can deal with you face to face now and in the future, I will hold you accountable for keeping your word and under that condition you may be more concerned about what I think of you and how I will react if you are not a good person. Only when our democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended and this means managing life on a social/cultural level, not depending on the despot to take care of us.
I do not think we should provide for individuals without good cause because then we have people with weak character, doomed to be dependent on others. It is the parent's responsibility to raise children to become independent but they can not do this alone. The parent's efforts must be supported by the school system and youth programs and how about good media all focusing on a good culture and human dignity?
Quoting javi2541997
For me, It was such a vital moment when I deeply understood that an hour will pass anyway, regardless of my mental state. I CAN CHOOSE to experience that hour as a curse, or I can struggle against such with the intent to defeat it. I choose to fight despair anytime and every time it attack's me. I have experienced more happiness in my life so far than I have experienced despair with this approach.
I will leave it to Captain Kirk to express his and my opinion of personal pain:
Amazing quote, friend. If you do not mind I will keep it with me. I feel it so motivational :up:
Then you must continue your struggle with your landlord as regards your rent for living where you live and with his/her power to evict you and make you homeless. I will continue to fight for what I believe is a better way.
Quoting Athena
I am aware of such and the 'we' you refer to does not include me. I see technological advancement as a sword which cuts both ways. It can be a tool to make the rich richer but it is also a tool that can free the majority from crap jobs and allow them to educate themselves and communicate globally and organise resistance globally.
We all have our favourite books Athena and our favourite commentators and comments from the past.
The only system that is truly about rule from the top is one which sustains a totalitarian monarch, autocrat or self-proclaimed divinity. I would be in armed revolution against such a system if I lived under it. Free market capitalism based on some pseudo-democratic voting system such as the 'first past the post,' system I live under in the UK (although we have made some progression in Scotland with our re-established parliament/government based on a PR voting system), is more common in the west.
Free market capitalism is a much-diluted version of a plutocracy, and it will, inevitably be replaced by a humanist/socialist system imo and technological advances will eventually assist in bringing down free market capitalism as the money trick becomes fully revealed to more and more people.
Quoting Athena
I fully agree with you here and this must be the measure of everyone who is given authority over people's lives and who represents their interests.
If socialists/humanists do not or cannot do what they said they would do before they were elected, then they cannot continue in power. I personally would not be concerned about what you or anyone else thinks about me as I would hopefully be too busy trying to ensure I do exactly what I promised to do.
Quoting Athena
I advocate for 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.'
People are very complex, we have to have a very smart, fair, balanced, compassionate, sociopolitical system which is very very difficult to con or abuse. Not easy to achieve but that remains the goal and always will be the goal if the human race is ever to become able to evolve into a species which is benevolent to the universe it exists in and become an interplanetary and interstellar species.
YOU CAN WIN AGAINST DESPAIR! AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!
Decide/demand/command and FEEL differently! FLIP IT!
When I get those down, desperate, depressing feelings for whatever reason, I will get PISSED OFF and I will FLIP THEM. I will fight them in my head, they will return and I will fight them again and eventually I will win. I will distract myself, I will write, paint, go on to forums, look for old hero's who inspired me and will read or watch them again. I will go out and walk, fast and long, I will........ spend that hour fighting despair and the next one as I know those hours will pass regardless so I choose to fight my inner demons and I can, have and always will defeat them. From hell's teeth I will spit at them!
I CHOOSE LIFE!!!!!
1. Excess suffering.
2. Moderate suffering.
3. Deficit suffering.
Both 1 & 2 are incompatible with life. Suicides & CIP (congenital insensitivity to pain) attest to that. Moderate suffering, hitting the sweet spot, where suffering is bearable and also does what it's designed to do, keep us safe and sound is not only desirable but also necessary given the givens of our mental & physical constitution.
So if we could find solutions to excess suffering, natalism has a shot or, inversely, antinatalism stops making sense and as for deficit suffering, current best practice in medicine is to restore the nociceptive system to level 2 (moderate suffering). Google "treatment" for CIP (naloxone) and leprosy (antibiotics).
The future, however, can be radically different - like how bioluminiscence has delinked light from heat, we maybe able to do the same with suffering, decouple the detection of injury from the unpleasantness associated with it.
I agree, as do most, if not all rational people imo. Excess suffering remains a problem to be solved and human science is clearly motivated to continue to try to solve it. Advocating a solution of extinction or non-existence, is simply stupid.
It can be. For the one that got left behind. When this person I was very closed to decided to do it, my body went into convulsion and I couldn't feel anything except the ground under me was shaking my whole body. I couldn't cry because I was also numb. If you want to imagine how it felt -- think of screaming your lungs out but no sound comes out.
I suspect that my spirit died that day, but I'm not sure. Because hey, I'm living a "normal" life, interacting with people, having a comfortable life, having sex, having dinner, laughing. I never got the so-called "therapy" for the grieving.
But ask me if I could go back in time, what date would that be. The morning before the death, because then I could stop it. I knew I could. I still believe I could have done something.
(Hyper)sensitive peeps, among which number antinatalists, are for me canaries in coal mines - their hyperalgesia is kinda a superpower, buying time for "normal" folks to respond to imminent danger. You could say, in a sense, that hyperalgesics/antinatalists are the nociceptive system of the superorganism that is humanity.
Agreed :up:
I only want to add a brief comment on your argument: The suffering or act of suffering caused by uncertainty. We never really know what would happen in the next months or even the next year. If we are positive we would say the things would be better but if we are negative we would say it would be "a bad period of time" again.
To be honest... I think that the only way to face future is attitude and maturity. Keep fighting against the obstacles! :fire:
Yep, uncertainty is the millstone around our necks, the cross we havta bear. I propose we play ... with expectation (worst) and hope (best). If given a choice, I prefer paranoia (le choses sont contre nous), but Forrest Gump showcases pronia, fictional though he may be.
:100:
Thanks for sharing that. All potential suicides should read your post and reflect on how such an action can affect the lives of others. I hope your best moments of joy in life are yet to come.
Maybe reading a post such as yours could even stop a suicide. Let's hope so.
Yeah, I feel pity for them too, who wants to be a caged canary? The first to die if the gas escapes, but yeah, perhaps they don't die in vain. We can learn to work harder to solve excessive human suffering due to their complaints regarding their own conceptions of what they regard as their own intolerable lives or what they exemplify as the intolerable lives of others.
BANZAI!
BANZAI! Brother :sparkle: :fire:
[quote=Uncle Ben]With great power comes great responsibility.[/quote]
I fully applaud your intent to fight against despair and I absolutely call you brother in that. I will willingly shout/scream BANAZI with you as we charge with gleaming bayonets drawn, against our common enemy .... despair.
BUT I would have fought whole heartedly against the fascist Japanese in WW 2. I would have killed the guy in the picture, in battle (or at least, I would have tried to) and I would seek to free the subservient looking female in the picture from what seems to be an imposed cultural subservience (but only of-course, if she consented to my interference and help.)
I understand and respect your point. I didn't like war (even Mishima was rejected by Japanese army...) but I really respect the Samurai/Bushido thought to fight against despair and dishonour. I think the problem are politicians not the theories.
I want to live as a samurai because I believe in loyalty, friendship, sacrifice as a way of life. I don't see it as a mechanism to put on a battle. I just want to get it right in my life. If I ever acted as a traitor or a malicious man, please kill me or I would commit seppuku.
I accept your honourable intentions, but I remain concerned about the samurai tradition of obedience to superiors without question. You know such authority can become utterly corrupt, just like some of the politicians you mention. My advice would be to completely abandon that part of Bushido, only be loyal to those who have proven worthy of your loyalty and even then, only for as long as they remain worthy.
I am agree that Bushido has some failures in the practice of the doctrine. But to be honest, I really think the problem is not in the samurai's part but in the authority.
It is heartbreaking to see how some superiors do not respect and consider the loyalty of samurais.
Then, the problem is not of Bushido (doctrine) but the vicious politicians and superiors (actors)
:up:
and where can it be done?
also why not suicide? and what is the way to live for an atheist, if not hedonism?
or can I be suicidal and not depressed? just seeing world as what it is and choosing suicide as a rational response?
Addressed in OP that this (specialization) would be brought up and is tangential to the pessimistic point.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Let me repeat it. For every man made invention there should be a repository of that knowledge/instruction of replicating that invention. When something is invented in a lot of cases it’s also patented.
This I’m sure is stored somewhere
It has always been thus. Nothing has changed. I am sure that pre-technology the world was just as mysterious as it is today. Life has always been disconnected from what has sustained it.
And one could equally have written: "I’m particularly talking about the aspect of human existence where we cannot understand the forces of nature that we use and replicate. If anything, we can know and/or replicate a very very small portion of it."
In fact, we don't need to "know" what sustains us if our approach is Pragmatic. Pragmatism requires neither a pessimistic nor optimistic frame of mind. Pragmatism works equally well both pre and post-technology. Pragmatism avoids a descent into pessimism because of not "knowing" what sustains us.
I press the enter key. I don't "know" why what happens happens. I am just optimistic that what I intend will happen will happen.
It is your judgement that we are diminished. Many of us don't feel that way. I think you are a pessimist first by temperament. This seems like just a post hoc search for rational justification, which is not hard to find.
See that, post hoc. Latin jargon. I must be a real philosopher.
The workings of the universe to prehistoric humans would have been mysterious, but there would have been a reverence to the mystery as well. More importantly though, a person and their clan would be able to take care of themselves, making impactful decisions that truly drive the direction in which they live. Goals that were set were clearly defined by those who achieved them, and required the use of the capacities of the entire body. Tools consisted of mechanisms that were understood by everyone who used them.
The modern world is mysterious, but in a mundane and/or perplexing way. Our goals are frequently not defined by us, and the tools we use are always disconnected from our own understanding entirely or nearly so. We use only a subset of our body's capabilities to live - which makes the body atrophy, unless one engages in a clownish routine of maintenance to give the illusion that one's body is being used for what it was meant to be used for. We survive not through our own autonomous efforts but because we satisfy some needed role in an artificial system.
Is it any wonder that people are so miserable?
:up:
:clap:
Where I live most people simply take something apart when it breaks and fix it.
I imagine this statement is closer to the truth in some western cities.
I guess you'd have to be an idealist to have reached such a conclusion so what would you suggest contrary to our current state of being?
Ad hom repeat.
Prehistoric humans may well have understood their simple tools and lived in reverence to a mysterious world. Modern humans may well not understand their complex tools, their computers, their Social Media, and live perplexed and disconnected in a mysterious world
Yet these two conditions are not mutually exclusive
The prehistoric human may have suffered misery from tools inadequate to mitigate their physical suffering, in growing crops in time of famine. The modern human may suffer misery from tools inadequate to mitigate their mental suffering, in gaining what they think they deserve.
The prehistoric human's misery did not come from having unachievable expectations, their misery came from what they knew to expect from life. The prehistoric human knew that they would never be treated like Royalty, they knew they were and would remain a low part of the hierarchy. They knew they would never be part of the decision making process, their opinion would never be respected and they knew their income would only be sufficient for basic survival. Their misery came from an acceptance of a hard and brutal life
The modern human may be miserable because they have expectations that are unachievable
The modern human expects to be treated like Royalty, regardless of birth. They expect to be an integral part of the decision making process, even if they have insufficient knowledge. They expect their opinion to be respected regardless of whether it has sense or not. They expect to have an income even if they haven't earned it. Their misery comes from unwarranted expectations of what they are due from life.
Modern humans look back to a Golden Age, a mysterious world where lives were lived in reverence to the great unknown. A Golden Age where the greatest of tasks were accomplished. A time as described by the early Greek and Roman poets as better and more pure. Hesiod described the Golden Age as a time where all humans were created directly by the Olympian Gods, living lives in peace and harmony. Oblivious to death, and dying peacefully in their sleep unmarked by sickness and old age. Ovid described it as a time before man learned the art of navigation, and as a pre-agricultural society.
Today, people look back with nostalgia to the Noble Savage who has not been corrupted by modern civilization and symbolizes humanity's innate goodness. The idealized picture of a human at one with nature, living in harmony with nature in a romantic primitivism .
As John Dryden wrote in The Conquest of Granada 1672:
[i]I am as free as nature first made man,
Ere the base laws of servitude began,
When wild in woods the noble savage ran.[/i]
Is it true that misery is a modern phenomenon ? Consider The Great Famine of 1315–1317 and Black Death of 1347–1351 which reduced the population by more than a half. The Little Ice Age brought harsher winters with reduced harvest, resulting in malnutrition which increased susceptibility to infections due to a weakened immune system. The Great Famine struck much of North West Europe 1315 to 1317 reducing the population by more than 10%. Many of the larger countries were at war. England and France in the Hundred Years War, a time when when landowners and the Monarchy raised the rents of their tenants. In 1318, anthrax attacked the sheep and cattle of Europe, further reducing the food supply and income of the peasantry. As Europe moved into the Little Ice Age, floods disrupted harvests and caused mass famines. The Bovine Pestilence of 1319 to 1320 affected milk production, and as much of the peasant's protein was obtained from dairy resulted in nutritional deficiencies. Famine and pestilence, exacerbated with the prevalence of war during this time, led to the death of an estimated ten to fifteen percent of Europe's population. The Black Death was was fatal to an estimated thirty to sixty percent of the population where the disease was present. Before the 14th century, popular uprisings against overlords were common. During the 14th and 15th C there were mass movements and popular uprisings across Europe.
Hobbes described the state of nature as "war of all against all" in which men's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"
I don't think misery is a modern phenomenon.
Wasn't directed to you.. Mainly people like the person above your post.
I hope you weren't gleaning ANY of these themes of the Noble Savage in my OP. None of this was what I was getting at. I think this leads to a more fundamental truth about a self-aware human, yet cut off from fundamental understanding of his condition, but I am keeping it specifically at the level of how technology (and social arrangements surrounding them) keep us fundamentally alienated. And this is the pessimism I speak of. Being estranged from the tools which sustain us. Yet the irksome part is some people do hold these keys.. but they can only own a part of them.. But these people (scientists/engineers/technicians) arranged with their financial backers/entrepreneurs/owners have immense power over what we are estranged from.
We are estranged, but a small minority are less estranged.
I think _db had some of the pessimism here: Quoting _db
However, I would only disagree slightly with the wording of "artificial system" as I think any system, hunter-gatherer or this "artificial" economy will have us alienated. There is no going back (or forwards) here. It is fundamentally part of it. I am just looking at it for what it is, and not simply the descriptive "specialization/supply/demand/economic evolution".
I'll look into that. But 100% agree about the gatekeeping. I am even more terrified of the malaise of minutia that comes out of the science.. These people can accept and deal with enormous amounts of minutia. The tedium of the practical and necessary. But yet "Life is good".
The paradox is that we are alienated from that which sustains us, but if we are not alienated we simply become mired in the minutia of 100110101, materials, equations, and the like..
One major con is giving a romantic vision to science and technology. The Edisons/Teslas, Einsteins/Heidenbergs, etc. Monger the minutia is more the gist of science of the daily.. Your computer screen, your processor, your electronics, your plastics.. :yawn:
You become a 01001100101 to make 0010100110.. So alienation or minutia mongerer? It all doesn't lead anywhere good.
But at the same time, there is an "innovative" / inventive element that is there for a very small amount of time. The "breakthroughs" of a few that get pulled apart and mongered to become more minutia.
It renders my comment invalid as it did not concern me. Thank you.
I’ve been in this forum for a long time. I understand how many of the posters work. Asshole and dickish comments are the norm if you disagree. Can't just argue the arguments here. Nope.
I think we have relied on tools from the very beginning. In fact, that, along with social and linguistic forces, were factors in the development of our cognition/brains/neocortex/etc. It is not just that we rely on these tools, but it is what these tools create.. estrangement.
One side--- Estrangement of the minutia of the tools themselves
Other side--- Estrangement from the minutia of the tools themselves.
There is no win here. 011001010110 to you sir. Now I have to go back to mongering more minutia so we can all live and see the world turn.
I mean look at some of the other topics here that you are no doubt posting on.. Propositional Calculus. Enough said.
Perhaps it could suffice to simply ignore the comments of which you speak as by acknowledging those in any way is to give meaning and value to them.
Done that. I go back and forth. Sometimes ignore.. Sometimes call it out. 15 years on a forum (this and the previous version).. you gotta switch it up.
Format goes something like:
Dick comment.. Maybe some content... sarcastic comment... maybe some more content...asshole comment. I believe that was devised by Aristotle.
Quoting schopenhauer1
And when you lack a non-trivial counterargument, more useless whinging. :yawn:
On topic
Perhaps somewhat of an example of the things you say concern dealings with the medical world.
From the time I got out of my parents house I had to become quite critical of the medical world. I did not start out that way ofcourse as I was raised to have a great amount of trust and confidence in the doctors and their treatments. It was only after they mis-diagnosed me several times that I started to do my own research, obtaining information from studies related to my medical condition. Evidently I did not understand most of it at first, being unschooled and unfamilair with any of the medical jargon, but after a time studying and doing translations I was really getting at the gist of things.
From there on I got really critical of the doctors involved, questioning their every move towards any treatment they offered me. During that entire process I changed general physicians, but also specialists, quite a few times as 'they' generally shoved my 'uneducated and opinionated views and bias' away with undisquised disdain and irritation. While I felt kind of embarrassed because of it and somewhat unsure when 'throwing away' doctors, and their "professionalism" at the time, the payoff however was the accumulation of knowledge, not even necessarily medical knowledge but the knowledge of food science and how it relates to health. Where the doctors would have liked to inject me with all sorts of nasty biologicals to slow down my immune system I refused their treatments and instead stabilized it choosing certain nutrients while avoiding other nutrients.
My medical condition is not to be cured as it is a chronical condition but I managed to status quo it via diet rather than going the doctor's route of immunosuppressive drugs, the latter which would have most certainly caused severe harm to my system as biologicals come with a hefty price. I actually did confront some of these 'specialists' along the way, about the success I was having via diet, but they did not acknowledge or appreciated my efforts as such, in fact they didnt say anything about it else than putting their aura of superiority on display by ignoring the things I offered them while I was trying to share what I had learned.
That was actually quite a bit more than I intended to share but relating it to the OP I'd say atleast a fair amount of pessimism on display is granted and which was also why I asked the question about a suggestion to the contrary (of blindly following and/or using tech and/or treatment offered/prescripted to us by third parties and/or peers).
But what are you going to do about it?
So what's to be done, man?!?
What might be the preferred response to this situation? Does your pessimism allow for action? Or is the disconnect permanent?
Do we return to a pre-industrial, cottage-industry, butcher-your-own-cows existence? Do we strive to put humanity into our tech? Do we look to a "return to nature"? (Most of us would need GPS to even find nature.)
It seems no good if the individual attempts to address the disconnect but society goes on embracing modernity.
I don't think this is true. If life was disconnected from what sustains it then it would not be sustained. Perhaps you mean that the discursive intellect cannot fully understand life and what sustains it?
Perhaps we cant go back though we also dont have to take everything thrown at us at face value.
I simply present the problem. If you want, we can try to carry out a dialectic about where this goes, but I don't think it would lead anywhere.
But here's a start. Follow the chain of technology. Where does it lead back to in terms of resources, manufacturing, mining, engineering, such? Who, where, when, why, how?
Besides consumer and laborer, how close do you get to the understanding and actual resources that create the technology? Who has more agency and less agency? Hint, it isn't just the ones with the most money. Holding the money and spending it, isn't quite it. You have to have access to the finance but also the technology itself.. to some understanding and to groups of those who have understanding. To the mining, the manufacturing, the resources, the formulas, the engineering principles, etc.
You have to mine minutia.. It's minutia all the way down... to the sub-atomic level. It's so very tedious.. Don't let the romantics full you. In that, @apokrisis is right, but in so replacing the tedium of the scientific formulas, he replaces it with the principle of triadic meta-formulas.
It's just so beautiful in its tedium and grandeur :cry: :cry: :roll: :roll: :yawn: :yawn:
Estrangement, yep, tools, although they make life easier for us also distance us from reality and living. Without 'em we become aliens in our own home planet, barely able to survive, on the path to fan? (annihilation). This, as I hinted, is an evil omen. :snicker:
P. S. What about my posts on Propositional Calculus?
Yes, I also wondered about the reference to Propositional Calculus. Prop Calc would appear to be a purely intellectual pursuit. One might dabble in it entirely sans technology. What better way to while away those boring hours after the fields have all been plowed and the cows milked?
There are no whinging "pessimists" in foxholes.
:death: :flower:
:up: :100: :sparkle:
I wrote "Life has always been disconnected from what has sustained it"
Consider the OP "We are disconnected from that which sustains us"
The Merriam Webster dictionary illustrates the complexity of the words "life" and "sustain"
The word "life" as a noun may be used in a physical context, as in 1a "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body, or may be used in an emotional and intellectual sense, as in 2a "the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual - children are the joy of our lives".
Similarly, the word "sustain" as a verb may be used in a physical context, as in 2 "to supply with sustenance : NOURISH, or may be used in an emotional and intellectual sense, as in 5 "to buoy up - sustained by hope".
The title of the thread is "Series in pessimism: We can never know what sustains us". The thread is about our being emotionally and intellectually disconnected from what sustains us, where what sustains us is technology. Pessimism is the emotional part. Knowing is the intellectual part.
There are four possible meanings to the statement "we are disconnected from that which sustains us":
1) We are physically disconnected from technology which sustains us in a physical sense.
2) We are physically disconnected from technology which sustains us in an emotionally and intellectually sense.
3) We are emotionally and intellectually disconnected from technology which sustains us in a physical sense.
4) We are emotionally and intellectually disconnected from technology which sustains us in an emotionally and intellectual sense.
I agree with you that item 1) can be removed as illogical. Items 2) and 4) can also be removed as illogical. This leaves item 3).
Meaning depends on context. Sentences cannot be taken out of context.
Therefore, in the context of the Thread - "we are disconnected from that which sustains us" can only mean "we are emotionally and intellectually disconnected from technology which sustains us in a physical sense."
However, although the misuse of technology may be one contributor to alienation within society, it is not the only cause, as alienation existed in societies pre-modern technology.
Nice analysis. The OP was referencing 3.
:up: Thus, the incoherent triviality of the OP.
Quoting RussellA
It's not technology which sustains life in the biological sense but air, food and water. Technology may sustain our lifestyles, but that is something else.
The point of (3) which, on a charitably nuanced reading, seems to be that our sense of aliveness may be eroded by technology in various ways through the alienation it can contribute to is something I agree with. It's true that technology has disconnected many people from the sources of the food and water that sustain them.
That is to say, the closest many get to the sources of food and water is, respectively, the supermarket and the tap or the bottle (the supermarket). So, humanity is increasingly alienated from the rest of life by modern technology. Obviously this doesn't apply to those who, for example, grow their own food, or even those who don't, but live in communities where the food is grown locally and they are familiar with those sources. So it remains an over-generalization, just as 'life is suffering', while expressing some truth, is an over-simplification.
:up:
@RussellA @Agent Smith @Real Gone Cat
So it's a bit different even than that. Rather, it's not the pretty common trope of using modern technology which causes alienation, but not being able to be "really" apart of the core members who actually created and fully understand the technology. That can be said on two levels:
1) Those who understand a very specialized field of technology really well (like someone on R&D for X chemicals, circuit board design, machine code, materials science, electronic engineering, etc. Not everyone gets to be a part of this.. only a select few and their entrepreneurial/financial backers. Everyone else just uses the final products passively, or labors in some auxilliary fields tangential to the true inventors and creators.
OR
2) Even the specialized experts only know their technology well and thus can't know ALL the technology that is used, and so even they are passive users who can never really know that which creates the technology they rely on.
it is an obfuscation.. Others were alluding to a more fundamental estrangement from existence, but this one is interesting because there are degrees where at least a few people get a bit closer to some of the core technology that "sustains" our (modern) existence.. and since we only live out modern existences in 90% of the world (I'll argue even third world countries), that is indeed what matters.
The engineers at places like IBM, Samsung, Apple, Huawei, Intel, Dow Chemicals, General Electric, Texas Instruments, Canon, and so on.
That seems a little bold. Is it so easy to determine the limits of adaptability?
This may be..but I am looking at it from a core and auxiliary, where the core needs the auxiliary in a secondary sense (to sell, market, account for, service, etc. the stuff), the auxiliary needs the core people absolutely in a primary sense for the technology itself.
Perhaps, but does it make sense?
Yup, we're looking at the whole chain from raw material to finished product - each link is a potential point of failure.
Are you asking whether I understood what you were saying or whether I think what you said is plausible?
I'd agree that it seems plausible to think that eliminating one class of specialists would, depending on the importance of the specialist field in question to the economy, have a more or less disruptive effect.
Well, not all machines were created equal - some are more essential than others. This would mean losing our capability to produce one may not be as disruptive as that for another, but for sure our lives would be impoverished if we lose the knowhow to build any machine, small or big.
Technological (over)dependence! From optional tools to essential life-support.
You are saying, in essence, that we are disconnected from our bodies? Because the human body uses much more chemical, biological processes than what we understand or know about. Yet we use them mindlessly. Which just leads to the fact that everything (or most things) in our bodies are set for us. We have no control over them.
We are disconnected from what sustains us, and we are disconnected from what the sustenance sustains-- we are disconnected from our very own selves.
But in the case of technology, it is human made, so paradoxically..it sustains us, some are involved in specialists aspects of it, but most are not and are only involved in a secondary way far removed from its creation or any real understanding of the processes and principles involved.
We are estranged, but not everyone.
You are saying humans are NOT human made???
As opposed to the chemical and biological processes of the human body you mentioned that we don't understand, yes.
Alienation and technology
The technology that runs our lives is increasingly growing beyond the understanding of a single individual, with the disconnect increasing year by year.
A disconnect is of itself not a problem. As long as one can turn the lights on, potholes are filled in in the roads, the buses run on time and the citizen's life is angst-free, and where each citizen plays their part in the smooth running of the public services, then such a disconnect is not to be feared. As long as technology works to the benefit of the individual, the individual may pragmatically accept the benefits of a technology they may not understand. I don't need to know details of the crankcase to know that if I turn the key the car moves where I want it to move.
But as soon as the citizen begins to suffer at the hands of a technology that they are disconnected from, and are unable to either control or mitigate, then the situation becomes dire, and it is then we have become cogs in a blind machine with no real agency. A disconnect becomes problematic when technology no longer works for the benefit of the individual, and the individual is powerless to alter or control the technology they are suffering under. Typically, the increasing use of gaslighting being used by those who control the information that we depend on for our knowledge of a world that exists on the other side of our computer and phone screens.
Information technology, the electronic screen between us and the world, is turning us into Truman Burbanks. A world where information technology controls every aspect of our lives, where we live in a false reality, as an actor on a stage populated by other actors. We play a role, directed by unknown forces behind the images we see on the screens. We are perceiving a world that has already been interpreted by a media more concerned with advertising profits and its own financial benefits than the well-being of its consumers.
Information technology is leading us to a dystopian future where we are unknowingly trapped inside a simulated and virtual realist, a Matrix, where the individual is more a source of energy for the machine than a free person with independent hopes, desires and wishes.
Information technology, with its databases creating a synthetic world populated by all of us as electronic images is creating a world where we can all be be surveilled and regimented. As in Orwell's 1984, subjected to historical negationism and propaganda, facilitated by servants of the controllers in an omnipresent government, repressing and controlling the allowed behaviour of people in society.
Information technology works to minimise the power of the individual in order to gain more control. Individual European nation states are subsumed into a supranational political and economic European Union. Small countries of 5 million people intimately knowing their political leaders are bound into organisations run and controlled by unelected bureaucrats, responsible to a distant Commission rather than the population they are intended to serve. Where their oath of allegiance of the bureaucrats is to an amorphous group rather than their home country, where the individual becomes powerless and unrepresented amongst 400 million others, where the political leaders of the member countries are decided by the diktat of central bureaucrats and economists.
Alienation is not a new phenomenon. The masses have always been alienated. In the past it was powerlessness in the face of the forces of Mother Nature. Today, it is the increasing powerlessness in the face of the Big Brother computer algorithm.
Really insightful contribution, thanks!
But I would contest a point here:
Quoting RussellA
I am not necessarily looking at it from a pragmatic/effect.. I realize that we can carry on pretty well not knowing how much of any technology works. Rather, I see the position of R&D in sciences/technologies/programming/manufacturing/mining/electric/electronic/engineering in general the whole system of symbiosis of all of them in STEM fields as being at the core of the understanding of the (modern) tools we use. They are usually placed in larger industries, though small and medium startups sometimes get in there too. Either way, it is what these people get to be a part of and the others passively just use, that I am referring to. Not everyone can be a part of this, but passively use and service the tools that the science/engineering/R&D get to invent/create/understand/are an integral part of..
You can argue that everyone has their place for the system to work, but this is not quite what I am getting at. The other laboring jobs are all in service to the tools that these people get to be a part of. There is a natural hierarchy going on.. where most people are cut off from the factors of industry/knowledge that they use.. but there are a small number of people who are at this position/level to understand.
To make an analogy (hear me out).. It's like the cave. The scientists/R&D/engineers at these strategic companies (many times used from previous governmental research) are sort of sitting with the forms, and we simply glean at it from a "use" side of it. And no, buying a book of "How stuff works" doesn't solve this disconnect of gnosis of the forms/tools/understanding as it is enacted in real life.
And oddly, at the same time, "knowing" the forms can be oh so tedious. My point with the post with all the images of the ways of the tedious complexities. We need to "mine" minutia.. It's like if the forms instead of being beautiful Platonic understanding, is just really a mining of complexities. It creates jobs, but it creates tedious monotony, minutia, etc.. Once you get to the forms, you realize it's just more tedium, all the way down to a sub-atomic level of understanding.
Do you mean something like the following ?
The graduate engineer was given the task of designing a bridge. The engineer went away and came back three weeks later with 100 sheets of computer printout, having laboriously checked each line and ensured that each piece of data was consistent with all other pieces of data, that there were no arithmetic errors and each part built up logically into a whole.
The senior engineer in charge, just approaching retirement, tore off a scrap of paper, took out their pencil, and after an hour, told the graduate engineer that their design was correct.
The graduate engineer had mined the complexities logically joining each part together to create a whole. The senior engineer started by looking at the whole, excluded that which was secondary, and only concentrated on that which was essential.
The graduate engineer lived in the cave looking at shadows. The senior engineer lived outside the cave looking at the beautiful Forms.
Pessimism is one of the consequences of not knowing what is important and not knowing what can be excluded, of knowing what doesn't need to be known. Optimism is one of the consequences of knowing what is important and knowing what can be excluded, of not knowing what doesn't need to be known.
I think you could sing this song to yourself every day as the main anthem to your world view.
Sing it loud, be proud of who you are! Sing it proud!
Perhaps you would prefer this detailed, more self-referenced, slightly yodely, Scots version with accompanying lyrics!
Not quite but cool imagery.
Rather the graduate student got to do what was primary/essential/Forms (technology creation) and everything from the transportation, marketers, finance, tradesman servicing it are secondary, and not a actually getting to participate in the technology creation (essential/primary/the actual technology creation itself).
If you actually are feeling sadness, hopelessness, or whatever it is that pessimism brings you due to the fact that the complexities that sustain us are too difficult for your to decipher, then you need some sort of counseling. Do you just seek the kinship from those who share your peculiar form of suffering or do you want some advice for how you can emerge from your pessimism?
It's just not clear why you're telling me that you're sad. Maybe it makes you happy to tell me you're sad, or maybe your despondence has grown so great you had the need to share. I really don't know what to do with the OP other than to tell you that you're letting something that isn't any big deal be a big deal, so figure out a way to deal with. I don't know, maybe telling us here of your sadness is helpful to you and we're part of your therapy.
So you are in the confused camp? So it is pessimistic in that unless you are of the elite who have these positions, you simply are a passive user of the technology.. The very thing used to maintain your lifestyle.
As far as pessimism in general, I do think there is some therapy to be had.. But I don't see that as "a-philosophical". Stoicism, Buddhism, and a whole host of philosophical systems are a kind of therapy. Philosophy itself can be seen as therapy of a self-aware creature thrown into a world where there are no certainties or (seemingly) inherent reasons for anything at all.
In fact, I see an interesting dichotomy between human-centered philosophical interests (ethics, aesthetics, values, etc.) and logic/math. It is the same thing.. The logic/math/science of the universe exist, but why should we care? Once you answer that, you get to human-centered reasons, so they are intertwined.
I already made the (human-centered) reason that technology/scientific understanding sustains us (our very physical existence in a modern social setting). Now I provide what this means when played out.. The elite who are involved in technology creation and the others that are not.
Both ways of thinking are necessary.
I'm not following why having survival mechanisms that go beyond my understanding entail pessimism. I also don't know of anyone so elite that they fully comprehend every aspect of reality so much so that they understand why they continue to live and breathe.
Cool observation, but still not quite what I'm getting at. Both the airplane and parachute creator are involved in the technology. The ones just using it are not.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting Hanover
Because you are simply a passive user who does not get to be involved in that which you use for various utility.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's about being excluded.. In the cave.. But it's also about even once you find the Forms (technological understanding) you realize it's just tedium all the way down. Perhaps it's hard to explain.. That's why I am fleshing this out and seeing how others can contribute perhaps. A dialectic.
I know.
I do sometimes feel like that in my ability to comprehend the wave particle duality of light.
This is purely from a conceptual point at this time but I do not feel discouraged.
Mashallah! Mashallah!
That has very little to do with technology, but is just part of being part of a complex world with all sorts of specialized roles. Even if I were able to eat only what I killed, cleaned, and cooked, I still would have to accept I had nothing to do with creating the animal I was eating. On a simpler note, I woke up this morning when the sun came through my window, but I had nothing to do with the sun shining. That doesn't cause me great pessimism.
The awe one feels at the complexity of the world usually yields inspiration as opposed to the despair it yields in you.
You’ve seemed to ignore other posts I wrote about natural vs human processes so I’ll invite you to read some of those if you want.
I couldn't find them.
It's kind of in there briefly but basically whereas natural processes are not in our control, human-made processes are the outcome of other people's decisions. Where natural processes could not have been different in this universe, human decisions can. Right now it is the case that some get to create technology and others simply support or use it.
There's obviously a difference between a human created control on my behavior and a non-human one, but why does this difference matter in terms of the pessimism it should bring me?
Why am I sadder that I must rely upon a gun that I can't create in order to kill my food as opposed to the sadness I feel because I lack the physical ability to kill my food due to my physical limitations?
Because it becomes a hierarchy where you become a secondary character in your own life. You just support those who matter to the creation of the tools.
Clearly a human understood and can create those things. But that was not you. You’re just a supporting cast. You’re ignorant and far removed of the very tools you use.
So Hank Aaron was a bit player in the story of the guy who made his bat?
I think you need something more there.
Different. You are a bit player to the guy(s) who figured out principles of harnessing and distributing electricity.
You can say that baseball isn't baseball without the people who invented the official "bat". It's not even the bat producer.
The consumers allow the producers to keep producing, but I am saying that is secondary to the people who invented the stuff and/or can reproduce the stuff and improve it.
This is about control right?
In a way.. Think of it this way..
The internet is a behemoth of complex technology.. It started with Arpanet, and the technology behind that.. TCP/IP... But also relates to purified silicon (doped with boron, phosphorus, and other elements), the ability to conduct electricity directionally, voltage, current, copper alloy ionic structures.. magnetism, chemical reactions, logic gates, and the rest.. It's immense. You are but a spec in this technology (made by human efforts) but yet you have almost no real agency in its production.. Then multiply all the technology involved in that complex process exponentially through the years with hundreds of thousands more things that are involved in modern electrical and electronic technologies. There are protocols and standards, etc. etc.. It's all set out from by some other nebulous groups of peoples in corporations and agencies involved in their development.
So it's not just that we are a spec in the universe. We are a spec in our own forms of sustenance to keep our daily lives.
No, no I'm not. Neither are you, though evidently you think you are. I am a human being, not a network device, and I'm not part of the internet, but a user of the internet.
There are two possibilities here, I believe, and you needn't tell me which one applies if you don't want to:
(1) You think you are part of the internet.
(2) You feel you are part of the internet.
We may be able to talk about (1). I am not qualified to address (2).
A cog in the great machine we call the universe! Work, work, work, die! We're replaceable parts; momma nature doesn't care about us because she can always create another human being just like/better than us. Si?
You are a part I meant as a consumer of the technology. Not sure how you took that literally.
I meant more we are a passive consumer of technology rather than its creator. You can support it, buy it, service it. But you probably didn’t design or invent it. Nor can you really understand all the technology that went into it. Hence my example of the internet and all its innumerable parts.
Because if you thought of yourself as, or felt yourself to be, a depersonalized part of a great machine, then your position would make sense. It's still not clear why I should feel bad that I am consumer of the internet, anymore than Hank Aaron should have felt bad before playing a game he didn't invent using a bat he didn't make.
The idea seems to be that anything that I don't have complete control over has complete control over me. I should feel bad because I am not a god.
Right, and then he draws a meaningless distinction between technological control and natural control, where I am supposed to feel powerless because I rely upon the internet but not upon my lungs.
Where others feel awe at the complexity of the universe and inspiration at human ingenuity, he feels powerlessness.
Sounds like a psychological predisposition more than a philosophical problem.
So what ... :roll:
Well, it is about control to some extent. There are those who understand and create the technology, and those that can only use it. There are those who set the protocols and standards of the technology, and those who haplessly must review the literature already set in place by the first group and to some degree work backwards to figure out what they (the big dogs) did if they need to fix it.
https://blog.robertelder.org/how-to-make-a-cpu/
Any further thoughts?
Sorry, this just looks like gibberish to me. That's not how technology evolves, not how engineering works, this whole image you have of some cabal of the powerful imposing shit on the helpless plebs, that's just what you say about everything and has almost nothing to do with the evolution of the Internet, for example.
I'm not saying it's "imposing shit on the helpless plebs". That's just what it becomes. It's not necessarily designed that way, that is simply the nature of the hierarchy of technology of those who create it and use it.
As I said earlier:
Quoting schopenhauer1
@Srap Tasmaner
I'd like to go back to this because I think I got lost in my own message. Yes, there is some aspect of what I call "minutia-mongering" going on. That is to say, as technology increases exponentially, the amount of minutia the human needs to know to produce the technology increases, thus making us very much a cog-like entity of minutia-miners. We mine minutia (and we have to "mind" minutia).
This actually ties in to an earlier thread here about what the monolith was in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. What it can mean is that the tools have made humans estranged from their workings (HAL goes off the deep end and barely a programmer knows how/why) AND we have become changed to mintia-mongering bores.. (look at the soulless Discovery ship, with Dave and Frank just sitting idly, checking stats, running in place, staring, not saying much.. HAL has more personality than they do!). Minutia is all they are minding because they are mining minutia!
I get what you mean! We're, in a sense, being led by our noses!
I just wanted to add that I think this title would look great on the NYT best seller list: Series in Pessimism, by Schopenhaur1.
But you can exit life. Just don't let the hospital get a hold of your half dead body, they'll resuscitate it.
Euthanasia says otherwise regarding your second point.
Oh, but you can. So says Epictetus:
“Remember that the door is open. Don’t be more cowardly than children, but just as they say, when the game is no longer fun for them, ‘I won’t play any more,’ you too, when things seem that way to you, say, ‘I won’t play any more,’ and leave, but if you remain, don’t complain.” (Discourses I.24.20)
was that supposed to be '-wordly' or '-worldly'?
Words, words, words! Yes, from 'wordly' affairs we may, might, should, would resign. How many times have I told a tedious pontificator on National Public Radio or the BBC to SHUT UP! and turned the radio off?
As for the world and its affairs, I am not quite done.
The only real important distinction to be made between people is by economic class - haves and have-nots; most everything else is derived from this, I think. Of course, those who have the capital will invest in technology that supports their continued ownership of capital - and sometimes they will even oppose technological progress that threatens this ownership. According to Ellul, this is one of the reasons why capitalism will disappear; the goal of capitalism is not the same as the goal of technical efficiency - it's not efficient enough.
Really though, nobody understands the entirety of a complex modern machine (including social machines like governments). They may understand how to use it, or understand a single component by itself (which is useless by itself), or the may have a vague high-level understanding of how all the components work together, but no single person can possibly understand a machine in its entirety, let alone all of the machines that are now used in our lives; nor can the average person have any real say on anything either.
Gone are the days where tool-making went alongside tool-using, with every step of the process being understood by everyone. Now we have experts, specialization, technological giantism, etc.
Wasn't Edison's lab the model for the modern groups of engineers/technicians who create the patented technology? Also the Fords and early chemical manufacturers. The knowledge was specialized, but these groups are brought together and then the worker simply fabricates and fixes it. The consumer consumes it.
It all leads back to forces much greater than us that are the backdrop of our throwness. Those who get to put together these groups of creators and manufacturers being more embedded in the vast ocean for which we consume and are bandied about as laborers upon the waves of.
You might not be far off. I believe Schopenhauer's best selling books were his essays and aphorisms that are found under the title Studies in Pessimism.
But that's the point. Intra-worldly, you exchange games. The treadmill continues or you die. There is no reprieve from the treadmill.. There is no time out.. A Platonic land of rest. Once you are thrown into the world, you must keep treading along.
Tread or die.. Don't tread on me.
Really? If humans live in society and people don’t like the workings of society, isn’t that rejecting life? All the people who reject society refute that idea we strive for life. We are existential beings because we are self-aware. We could do other than instinct. So I fully disagree with this. The problem is, once a life is started, that person MUST go through the gauntlet or die. Since there is no alternative, starting a life on behalf of someone else is problematic. Human life becomes problematic because of its lack of options outside the premises of life. We humans can IMAGINE better scenarios or games, but we KNOW we can only play this one.
No complaining, please.
Sure, we can. But there is no creature that wants to who is thrown into life.Quoting schopenhauer1Yes.
Request denied. Imagine having the possibility for no choice though. I mean I could have complied :wink:. Not in the case of life. Comply or die. And you or I can move on to something else (infra-worldly affairs). Not so in the life treadmill game. You’re on it and if you want off, you are out.
No, a parent wanted a life. A decision was had based on a reason. We are a species with reasons. I had a whole thread on this which poster @Banno and @Ciceronianus didn’t seem to get the import of.
That’s also the point. There is no better version of the game of life (inter-worldly affairs) and so all you can do is kill yourself if you don’t like it(or die from a mishap from playing the game itself but that’s still affirming the game).
That doesn't contradict what I said. I didn't said a child chose a life. But that matter that was made after the choice of the parents wanted life, it strove for life. You cannot birth something that does not strive for life or it will miscarry. There is no bringing into life something that doesn't want life.
I'm not arguing that one can change the game of life.
That’s more social conditioning. Babies don’t decide things yet. We tend to get hungry and fear scary stimuli. But to equate that with a reason for embracing life’s game is a naturalistic fallacy.
I am talking about an organism doing what it can to live, both on a cellular level and to whatever extent it can as it can move. There is no incarnating a not wanting life organism.
That’s good because that’s exactly my point. You start a treadmill that the person can by it’s nature cannot be ended without simply death. There is no platonic heavenly better way except what we can imagine and cannot attain.
That’s great but doesn’t quite capture human like (I.e a self-aware being that has reasons).
Life striving to live you said etc
I didn't say it did. I responded, I think pretty clearly, to this idea of a parent throwing someone into life. A someone who may or may not want life. I think that model is confused.
Sure, and it does.
You are using “throw” as some literal term. It just means starting someone else’s life on the treadmill. Equivocating the fact that babies can’t reason/have reasons/aren’t self aware yet with”life striving” and THUS some other implication about life (that we want it?) is confused and again, a naturalistic fallacy. Our reasons don’t have to confirm with any instinctual mechanism.
Not really, but I am taking it as a transitive verb. I mean, even as a metaphor it means transferring something somewhere. But that is not what happens. Any life was only ever life.
The problem with it as a metaphor (and certainly literally) is that it is as if a parent is putting some neutral essence into life. But no, this does not happen. Any life they create immediately desires life, the organism does, and strives to live. You can only create something living that immediately strives to continue living.
It is not some neutral or negatively aimed at life. It is life that wants to live more.
It seems like you are presenting this as putting someone in a situation it may or may not want. But no, parents can only make life.
My previous post still remains my reply.
Quoting Bylaw
And this is explicitly the naturalistic fallacy as stated in last post
Quoting Bylaw
Life that leads to a person with self-awareness and reasons. The parent chose to do it, and the adult functioning person is the one who deals with it (run on the treadmill or die).
But that's the case with games, as well. When you resign (e.g., in chess) the game is over--you're out. You may play chess again, but in that case you play a different game, you don't play, again, the game you chose to end by resigning.
The point is you are not forced to play chess lest you kill yourself.
He can't stop himself; "complaining", you see, expresses schop1's will to live. :death:
I have not argued that having babies is good. I don't think that even makes sense.
You are misapplying the concept of natural fallacy.
Well said. :up:
Then this isn't arguing anything contra my moral argument. It is simply a description that fetuses develop and become babies.
Quoting Bylaw
Then, I am not sure the point.
Merci beaucoup mon ami! We have work to do monsieur, the two of us. Consider me your cheerleader. :cool:
I don't understand. You're not forced to play chess for fear that (lest) you'll kill yourself?
Um, so like the OP is stating.. In a game like chess.. You can play it and if you want to resign, you can move on. You can't do that with the "game of life". Simple, but tragic. You can't get off the treadmill and move to another "game of life" with different premises. You start someone on the treadmill, the only way out is death. It's a game where someone starts you on it, and you can't move on to another game. The only option as a way out of the game is death.
Yes, if you kill yourself, you die. If you play chess and resign (unless you resign by dying), you don't die. That's because, despite what was maintained by Bobby Fischer, chess isn't life. But what is tragic about that? Death would be an end to suffering. Continuing to live would mean continuing to suffer. If you resign from a game, you continue to suffer. If you "resign" from life, you don't.
It's morally wrong to put someone in a situation where you either "play this game or kill yourself". That is a tragic thing. Yes, it is indeed the case, but what a case to defend! Seems pretty obviously tragic to me and wrong from the standpoint of starting for someone else.
Yes, that’s the point. We cannot move on from this setup and rules. We cannot resign and move to a different version. If you rather the treadmill analogy think of that. A treadmill can end. This survival etc game can’t lest death. It’s a treadmill that one cannot step off of without dire consequences.
How easy is it to leave a game compared to life?
I was arguing that your throwing someone into life (take that literally or metaphorically) as if they are victims or as if they have not consented is confused. As I said, you cannot create life that does not seek more life and to thrive. That does not match your model. You have an 'is' model that you base your 'ought' on. Since I am not a moral realist, I am not making a moral argument. I am critiquing the is part of your postion.
I believe a refuted your argument in my last post so I’m not sure there’s much to say.
So it occurs to me as I wrote something on another thread that one of the pessimistic outcomes of the behemoth technology that is our modern world is that we can't democratically participate in its production. This has less to do with distribution of resources than it does about the understanding of technology. It is just a fact that some people will more readily understand complex mathematical concepts and scientific formulas more than others. There is no "democracy of understanding". We cannot all participate in being physicists, chemists, and engineers. We can't all participate in the creation and design of useful patents. The majority can only be passive recipients. They can only be fixers, sellers, transporters, administrators, and of course users of the technology made by the creators.
Exactly.
Technology seems to transform our lives drastically and one way it does that is by making us so dependent on it that a rollback would be catastrophic to civilization as we know it. We're, to that extent, invalids.
:up:
Quoting Agent Smith
Yes, and not just that but hapless users/consumers.. Not co-creators in. Which again, goes back to your first point.
:up:
And as I have asked you on other threads: So What? :eyes:
There is joy in affirming the struggle to live for its own sake; not enough joy to compensate for our suffering, no doubt, but enough joy – well, enough for most of us and most other living beings – with which to create and recreate and, yes, (selfishly? atavistically?) procreate. There are no "pessimists" or "optimists" in foxholes – who, under fire, can afford the luxury of such poses? – there's only the quick and the dead. "Pessimism", after all, is just disillusioned "optimism"; thus, in spite of it all, I'm a bluesman and absurdist (A. Murray et al).
I'm more diagnosing right now rather than a prognosis. But yes, certainly antinatalism would be an appropriate response. Can society be ordered differently? Probably not. Another pessimistic point.
1. Pessimists live longer (they don't walk into traps as easily as optimists) [and procreate more @schopenhauer1]
2. Optimists live longer (their happy disposition means a healthy mind and body).
3. Pessimists die early (their negative attitude affects their health).
4. Optimists die early (they walk into traps).
WTF? :chin:
[quote=SYR]I don't want to dieee! :cry:[/quote]
My fundamental outlook for over a decade now has been an amalgam of ‘pessimism’ and ‘optimism’ … I hope for everything and expect nothing!
A complete pessimist cannot fight a good fight, cannot face the impossible nor believe they can escape the cage they find themselves in. It does not matter how hard we argue that the cage is all we have and any sense of ‘escape’ is futile … we still hope, and sometimes what was once ‘impossible’ becomes common then eventually ‘mundane’. Life is full of such mundane miracles. The pessimist actively ignores that the seemingly impossible had been overcome again and again.
Nihilism is nihilism. Its foundation is based on an impossibility. It is almost like people are discomforted by comfort so need to breed hell into their lives … usually this happens when we cower from life and belittle it. I have been there. I think it is a necessary struggle for humans to go through.
A struggle is only ‘bad’ if you avoid it, ignore it and deny it all at once.
I quite clearly did. Not self congratulatory. If you want to readdress it, go ahead. But I’m
Not repeating my argument as it still stands.
Any well informed optimist can be a pessimist and vice versa but when credible information can't change the way we view a situation then we are dealing with a psychological condition.
So this is exactly what philosophical pessimism isn’t. Rather, philosophical pessimism is an evaluation of the state of animal/human existence and not about expected outcomes. What you imply is common day usage of pessimism. “He’s a pessimist about how the economy will turn out” is not the same as “He believes the world is inherently negative in value due to X, Y, Z”.
You can be a non-depressive antinatalist. You are confusing a cause with the evaluation. We may project meaning, but we cannot help but being a we. You can’t take that meaning out of the equation.
'To exist sucks' mostly because – even though you ought not to exist – as Cioran points out: it's always too late not to exist. So 'embrace the suck' if you have the courage and the wit to do so; otherwise, you can always 'unfuck yourself' with either a pharmaceutical or surgical lobotomy. :eyes:
i.e your phrase " the world is inherently negative" can only have a meaning compared to the preferences of an observer, right?
Yes which is why I mentioned
Quoting schopenhauer1
It’s about human/animal condition.
So philosophical pessimism observes our human and our world's condition from a broader scope based on a more objective evaluation?
How can this be possible without our subjective criteria and preferences? What defines something as inherently negative for example...?
Of course with anything values, it must had agreement on terms and go from there.
You previously said that we are social so you are kind of having your cake and eating it here.
The ‘rules’ of life are unknown. Games are what make up life so it is possibly a little presumptuous to assume life is a ‘game’.
Always being in a tight spot; either Hobson's choice or Sophie's choice. This is the nub of (my) pessimism.
For Schopenhauer for example, suffering is a constant lack we are always overcoming but never reaching. Human existence can’t help but be this and this is inherent, not just contingent to it.
Really? Survival in a social context seems pretty accurate to me.
Just to add … if we are defining everything as a ‘game’ then does this term actually mean anything?
I think a lot of people get caught in the ideas of Wittgenstein and start believing ‘everything is game’ just because he termed the phrase ‘language game’ … he did use the term Language in a very narrow sense so it is worth taking that into account.
Note: I have previously used the theme of life being a ‘game’ before but that was rather loose.
Human beings are human beings because we are alive. We cannot help existing. Why would we want to? I certainly have no major qualms with ‘existence’ but it is certainly puzzling that I exist and attach meaning to things in my life.
‘Suffering’ is a term too easily thrown around by you I find. Why would any sane person avoid every single ounce of suffering in life? Do to so would mean you are a walking talking zombie person shuffling through life like you are already dead. This is actually something quite common to many humans but the vast majority get over it.
Would you call Schopenhauer much of a narcissist? It just seems to me that such obsession with negative thoughts often stem from a kind of narcissism as the fury/rage/disappointment is directed at the world, or life itself, rather than simply taking the world on as mere happenstance within which we are not particularly significant nor possessing any right to demand/expect reality to be other than it is.
Dumb trope. That’s not how it necessarily goes. I can commit suicide or accept that I can’t change things. I want to be in neither position. But I can’t. Just saying “suck it up buttercup” is saying nothing but the default with the added “don’t complain”. But that is simply restating the status quo and telling people to not question the situation itself because YOU particularly don’t want to hear it. Then don’t worry, go somewhere else. Carry on and read nothing that challenges the status quo.
Much of life we are zombies repeating same behaviors over and over. You can fast forward most of peoples day and nothing of meaningful experiences or significance would be lost.
I am failing to see the point pf any of this. You simply state the obvious over and over like it is something we should care about whilst simultaneously insinuating we should not care about it.
It does not make sense.
Pessimism is necessary in life. Suffering is necessary in life. That is not exactly anything anyone did not know is it? Even if it is so what?
You literally said we cannot challenge the status quo … which we cannot. We live, we suffer and we die. Why is this ‘pessimistic’ though? It is just the fact of existing.
What can be done about it?
I'll back up. I said in a reply that I am diagnosing more than prognosing. I am giving the landscape.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
I now know what you really are. You're not a pessimist. You are a cynic. Know the difference. I think you have disdain, not despair, of things humans. Which give me hope -- pessimists annoy me. But cynics bring to life a different flavor of humanity. They're a funny lot, but truthful. Which is what's important. They tell it like it is.
:rofl:
Et lux in tenebris lucet.
I feel showing the distinctions between different views in this area would help in the understanding of a particular ‘pessimism’.
Fair enough. I think it important to point out these pervasive negatives that we cannot escape. It's like being taken advantage of but not knowing it, but trying to wake people up to the fact that they are being taken advantage of. Perhaps they don't want you to wake them up to this fact. Perhaps they liked their ignorance. It's always the same theme.. Plato telling those in the cave. The people in the cave telling him to leave them the fuck alone, and probably adds.. "You raving lunatic".
I think it is so loosely defined, that there aren't really "schools" of pessimists, but just individual pessimists with similar themes. However, I can sum up some basic differences:
Metaphysical Pessimists (Schopenhauer, Hartmann, Mainlander, etc):
These thinkers thought there was an inherent source of suffering. For Schopenhauer it was Will. Will represents a striving-for-nothing. Will's playground is the illusion of individuation. This individuation creates the appearance of separate objects. These objects are objectifications and individuations of the Will, but are not primary ("less real") than the unified Will. Animals, and especially humans, suffer due to a profound sense of metaphysical "lack". Satisfaction is temporary because we are go from pursuits of survival and entertainment to boredom and back. Satisfaction can only truly happen by transcending one's nature of willing. According to him, this requires denying the Will and becoming an ascetic along the lines of a Jainist or something of that nature. The ultimate fate would be to starve oneself to death peacefully. He didn't expect anyone except a few to live up to that kind of lifestyle. He did think there were other things that can invoke will-lessness. He thought compassion and art brought us temporarily into a state of will-lessness. It goes on obviously. He has four really large books on the matter in The World as Will and Representation.
I'll just paste from the Wikipedia article on Mainlander:
From the Wiki article on Hartmann:
Existential Pessimists (E.M. Cioran, Nietzsche, Camus, etc.)
These people tend to not focus on metaphysics but purely the phenomenological human.
E.M Cioran for example, wrote in essays and aphorisms. One of his main themes was the idea of inertia (that is my take anyway). It's the idea that there is our situation is grim, but there is nowhere to go and nothing to do. Here are some quotes:
[i]My mission is to kill time, and time's to kill me in its turn. How comfortable one is among murderers.
[/i]
Man starts over again everyday, in spite of all he knows, against all he knows.
To Live signifies to believe and hope - to lie and to lie to oneself.
Ennui is the echo in us of time tearing itself apart.
Life inspires more dread than death - it is life which is the great unknown.
When people come to me saying they want to kill themselves, I tell them, "What's your rush? You can kill yourself any time you like. So calm down. Suicide is a positive act." And they do calm down.
Better to be an animal than a man, an insect than an animal, a plant than an insect, and so on. Salvation? Whatever diminishes the kingdom of consciousness and compromises its supremacy.
There was a time when time did not yet exist. ... The rejection of birth is nothing but the nostalgia for this time before time.
Not one moment when I have not been conscious of being outside Paradise.
Just read any of his quotes here:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emil_Cioran
Again, there is not so much a coherent movement as much as similarity in themes. 19th century Germany might be the most prominent time/place of this philosophy. Schopenhauer was the progenitor for much of the ideas that came after. Even if not directly, movements like existentialism were influenced from him.
For more reading go here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_pessimism
or read these books:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1677700.Pessimism
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28192377-weltschmerz?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=CASfH7rSIL&rank=1
From Goodreads on Weltschmerz:
I believe we can resign from life, but mind you, not in the way we think.
My ‘job’ is something I enjoy 80% of the time.
I do not get sucked into ‘consumption’ for the sake of consumption - do not use a mobile (have one but it stays as home). I buy new clothes every 4 or 5 years, and the only possessions I have of value to me are my books and iPad. I refuse to wear clothes that have any symbol or writing on (dislike them for some reason).
People may judge, and do, and I do not care too much. I am my own judge and jury for the most part (obviously I am a social creature so others have some sway over my choices and thoughts).
Basically, the OP is a relative point of view. I have felt the general shadow of the OP in life but I simply refused to accept it and told my parents from a fairly young age that I would rather live and die on the streets than get stuck in a job I hated.
Sloth is about avoidance not ‘lazing around’. If someone chooses to sit around all day picking their nose that is their choice. I feel sad for them. Some of the most slothful people I have met are very industrious … they are simply doing something easy to distract from what their passions are.
The operative phrase there is "in the modern context", by which I take it you mean western industrial capitalist society. I do realize that most of the world has followed suit, whether they wanted to or not.
A couple of things about this kind of society: it's anxious, alienated and terminally ill. The very conceptual foundation of capitalism is anti-human and anti-life. Since it runs on debt, it has to keep growing to survive and that means it has to consume everything and then die. But it's incapable and unwilling to look forward at long-term consequences. If we look back a few thousand year, so is the basis of "civilization" as we have learned to call urbanized, stratified social organization, fundamentally anti-life and anti-human. As we have domesticated and enfeebled dogs by breeding the wolf out of them, we have domesticated humans by browbeating, bribing and flim-flamming the zest for life out of them...
No, not quite. There is spark still left. Is there any hope for it to thrive? It depends, I think, on how soon the present system collapses; whether there is something and someone left for a new departure.
Since I like to imagine so, I suppose I'm not a real pessimist... yet.
At what stage of its development? Are there animals or just plants? If animals already exist, and they have to compete for survival, they will evolve into sentience, very likely through stages of behaviour that are inimical to other life forms.
Quoting Bartricks
Then, in order to get their wish, as omnipotent entities generally do, they would have to introduce a sensible life form that fits seamlessly into the sensible world.
If there are only plants and perhaps vegetarian insects, they could introduce a well designed sentient life form. It should be small enough to make a meal out of one strawberry and sleep in the hollow of a tree. It should have a long life-span and reproduce infrequently. It should be able to fly and its wings should be solar-powered and water-resistant. The body should be covered in fur just warm enough to keep it comfortable. It should be sociable as to disposition but self-sufficient as to capability.
Quoting Bartricks
That's not my definition of a sensible world. Why would I want to leave it that way? Quoting Bartricks
Not really. What would be the point of omniscience and omnipotence if you refuse yourself permission to change a world that doesn't satisfy you?
Imagine that Mary has two offers of marriage - one from John and one from Tony. So, she can pledge lifelong fidelity to John and she can pledge lifelong fidelity to Tony. And she can do both. That is, nothing stops her promising to be faithful to John exclusively and promising to be faithful to Tony exlusively.
Clearly it would be wrong for her to do both. If she pledges lifelong fidelity to John, then she ought not to pledge lifelong fidelity to Tony too, and vice versa. One or the other, not both.
So far so good. Now imagine someone else - Jennifer. Jennifer is already married to Ralph. So she is now unable to change the fact she has pledged lifelong fidelity to Ralph. Does her inability to change the fact she has promised lifelong fidelity to Ralph mean that it is now morally permissible for her to pledge lifelong fidelity to someone else? No, obviously not. It'd be as wrong for Jennifer to do that as it would be for Mary to pledge lifelong fidelity to both John and Tony.
Similarly then, the omnipotent person has the ability to satisfy both of her desires - her desire for the world to keep operating in the way that it is, and her desire to create life and make it live in the sensible world. But it would be wrong for her to satisfy both desires. One or the other. Not both. That is, either keep the sensible world operating as it does, but do not introduce life into it. Or introduce life into it, but change its operations so that it doesn't harm people to live in it.
We, by contrast, do not have those two options, for we are powerless to change how the sensible world operates. We are not, however, powerless to refrain from introducing life into it. Thus, we should refrain from introducing new life into it. If it was wrong for the omnipotent person to introduce life into it without changing it, then our inability to change it implies that it is wrong for us to introduce life into it as well.
Communications have changed everything, and are still changing everything.
Basically, it would be as everything is now … the only difference being we of limited capacities can ‘appreciate’ something we term ‘difference’ through what is likely ignorance clouded with an idea we term ‘knowledge’.
‘Imagine all apples are oranges. If you were an apple are you an orange or an apple being an orange?’
It is irrelevant nonsense. Contradictory and therefore closed off fro rational thought and sensible investigation.
Your hypothetical may work if you reduce the knowledge and abilities of the entity in the OP as such a being having SOME form of limitations.
Again then: the omnipotent person wants to keep the sensible world operating as it does. The omnipotent person also wants to create new life. It is wrong for them to satisfy both desires. If they satisfy desire A - the desire to keep the sensible world operating as it does - then they ought not to satisfy their other desire, B - the desire to create new life. One or the other, not both.
With this, note, a proponent of the problem of evil - that is, someone who thinks the problem of evil demonstrates God's non existence - must agree. For if they think the omnipotent person can satisfy both desires and be doing nothing wrong in doing so, then they do not think there is a problem of evil.
All proponents of the problem of evil must therefore agree that the omnipotent person would be immoral if they satisfied both desires. One or the other. Not both.
Now, unlike the omnipotent person, we are unable to change how the sensible world operates. But what that implies is that we ought to frustrate any desire we may have to procreate.
Again: if the omnipotent person elects not to change how the sensible world operates, then they ought to frustrate their desire to procreate. Similarly then, if we are unable to change how the sensible world operates, we ought to frustrate our desire to procreate.
I think if there was an omnipotent omniscient person that wished to protect their project - life, or sentient beings. I would imagine that they would act in the best practice of any parent - non interference until such a time that their creation unknowingly puts themselves in the gravest of mortal danger.
Then its wise for their parent - this omniscient being to step in/ intervene and provide some of that knowledge to help guide his /her creation away from their own demise.
In this way the benevolent omniscient being maintains as much free will as is possible for their sentient creations so they can explore and be curious and make their own decisions, all the while protecting them from total self annihilation whenever they choose to ignore their omniscient parent entirely to the point of pure delusion and self harm. For example like inventing nuclear weapons.
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Etc.
I think it's obvious who is doing the imagining here:
Quoting Bartricks
There is no dialogue here, all we have is 'The delusional commandments of bar tricks!'
So, your conclusion is basically in support of anti-natalism.
Quoting Bartricks
Sensible meaning a world in which there is no suffering or injustice? Or just orderly?
If you guys would take the time to understand his arguments instead of getting triggered, you would realize that many of his arguments make a lot of sense. Even if they are pretty intense.
That's not me protecting Barricks btw, I think he is arrogant and on an unexplainable, bizarre crusade to trigger as many TPF posters as possible with *surprisingly well-thought-out arguments.
* as compared to the vast majority of people who post on philosophy of religion, or on this site at all
Offer your best example of such and demonstrate that you are not just easily impressed.
I will. Just give me like 20 minutes.
Take all the time you need!
Simple. Create a dude, ask him what he thinks about it. After all, that's the subject of the matter. I know people who love life and writhe at the idea of it ending or not existing. I know people who can't stand it and swear this is Hell who want to die. We all do. If it's good, go for more. If not, back to the drawing board. Nothing to lose sleep over.
Some people love a good life or death challenge. Others prefer peace and the stability that comes with predictability. You can't make everyone happy all the time so you know what they say, "one man's morality..."
This is probably my favorite.
Bartricks basically leverages the problem of evil into a syllogism demonstrating that since God would not suffer innocents to live in a dangerous world, we must not be innocent.
The only avenues of attack were to claim that God is unjust - humans don't get what they deserve - or that innocence can indeed be ascertained via reason. I have argued for at least the first.
I'm pretty certain 180 simultaneously craps his pants and has an aneurysm every time Bartricks posts an OP.
So, firstly, you accept the premise that 'evil' is a problem, 'outside' of the concept that it is a purely human concept and has no existence outside of sentient life. Evil is a labelled projection or manifestation of what most humans may judge certain human behaviours be categorised as. Killing for no reason or a reason which is not justified enough, is evil, killing in self-defence is not. Only other humans, given judicial authority, can judge on an incident-by-incident basis.
Secondly you accept the premise that god must exist based on a BS argument that if it did, it would not suffer innocents to live in a dangerous world.
Why is the premise that if god exists then it is the source and origin of ALL EVIL any less 'feasible?' and therefore god would allow innocents to suffer, as they do, so an existent god is fully responsible for all evil. Many theists turn atheist because they think if god exists then it allows evil. This is in fact more akin to the term 'the problem of evil.'
If you consider this 'syllogism' to have any value, then I do think you are easily impressed because it is based on two premises which have not been DEMONSTRATED as true.
Innocence, like evil is another human concept and again is purely based on human judgement on a case-by-case basis, often further informed by the outcome of previous cases or precedent/legal principle.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Not true, you can also make the equally unprovable claim that god does not exist, therefore the question is moot.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Imo, @180proof has a far more impressive knowledge of philosophy than bar tricks and is quite capable of defending his own positions.
I personally thought bartricks was female not male but perhaps I am wrong.
Well, unless you allow for a universe that bifurcates (multi-furcates?) at each choice. So, omnipotence OR omniscience OR the multiverse (if both).
Or maybe gods don't exist (my vote).
Nor do I. It is merely the most recent dysfunction of civilization. (Organized/state religion and monarchy were two of the previous manifestations.) The last and fatal one, IMO, because it compels the afflicted society to propagate it - much as a virus replicates itself by taking over the reproductive function of the cell it's killing - and the only end-point is the death of the host. No vaccine is coming from outer space.
Yes, I did. What was it?
Quoting Bartricks
By what authority do you hold and omniscient, omnipotent being to the moral standard imposed by society on ordinary mortals? You attribute superpowers to a character on whom you then place arbitrary limitations. You posit 'a sensible world' without defining 'sensible'.
Why set up an insoluble conundrum?
I can thumb my nose at God without the complications.
Morality is built around the needs and desire of a society, this is a one person society so he/she/it can do whatever he/she/it wants to do and it would always be morally acceptable.
And if he/she/it does like the results, he/she/it can redo or undo the problems he/she/it caused.
No problem to discuss here, moving on.
If by "omniscient" we mean a person that knows correctly how they are connected fundamentally to the rest of existence (the universe) then they are omnipotent through said existence (the universe). They are not omnipotent in human form as they cannot do inhuman things (humans are in one way defined by what they can and cannot physically achieve).
As an object their total power would not be available to them, however they could point to the universe saying "look.. I am it and it is me" through some core relationship (energy perhaps) and say "there is my absolute power" (the universe). However I am just a partiality of said power, here as an object (human).
In that sense knowing that the "whole" is ambivalent (both creative and destruction, both chaos and order). The omniscient person (knowing of all relationships between things) can thus also be ambivalent (not care) in reflection of the whole, or they can be malevolent or benevolent.
So what defines the difference between an omniscient person being benevolent or malevolent? It is in their choice to either keep their omniscience to themselves (the truth) or spread it far and wide to empower others to be able discern ignorance from truth.
In essence a good god wants others to know they are god also and serves them in telling so. (selflessness).
A bad god wants people to think of only themselves as God and everyone else should be subordinates to them. (selfishness).
In that way the truth can be kept to do evil or spread to do good.
This the crux of the matter. You have not demonstrated that a new life cannot fit into an imaginary world as it operates. You have not demonstrated how the conflicting desires - if indeed they are in conflict - of a deity becomes a moral issue.
See my careful explanation in my previous reply to you. It seems you missed the point of that one too.
Quoting Vera Mont
Again, nothing you're saying has anything to do with anything I have said.
The omnipotent, omniscient person desires to leave the world to run in its own way.
They also desire to introduce life into the world.
Now, as any proponent of the problem of evil will agree, it would be quite wrong of them to satisfy both desires. That is, it would be quite wrong of them to introduce life into the world and then just let the world do its own thing.
If you think they'd be doing nothing wrong in satisfying both desires, then you simply do not think the problem of evil arises. But I am taking it for granted that it would be immoral, other things being equal, for an omnipotent, omniscient person to satisfy both desires.
Morally it would be fine for them to just leave the world to its own devices and frustrate their desire to introduce life into the world. Nothing wrong in doing that.
And most would accept that it would be morally permissible for them to radically alter the world so that it was a safe place into which to introduce life and to monitor the world's operations to make sure no one comes to any horrendous harms (thereby frustrating their desire to leave the world to run in its own way).
If that is correct, then my point is that our inability to change the world and make sure it does not visit horrendous harms on anyone we bring here implies that we ought to frustrate any desire we have to procreate.
That is, if the omnipotent, omniscient person decides to indulge their desire to let the world run in its own way, then the omnipotent, omniscient person ought to frustrate their desire to procreate. We are unable to affect how the world runs. Therefore we ought to frustrate our desire to procreate.
Oh well, that happens sometimes.
My favourite colour is the colour I like most.
But if they don't introduce life (conscious/sentient beings) into the world what capacity would such an inanimate world have for it would not even be aware that it exists. A world without an observer would be devoid of both meaning and its consequence: "good" and "evil" (concepts held by sentient things).
No it isn't.
But anyway, that's an absurd 'metaethical' claim, whereas my question is a normative one. Rookie mistake.
Me: "which way to the city centre?"
You: "A city centre is a collection of trees"
I don't really see your point. There's an omnipotent, omniscient person. There's a sensible world. They - the omnipotent, omniscient person - like the world, They enjoy watching how things unfold in it. There's nothing wrong in that. There's nothing wrong, for instance, in enjoying how the flames of a fire dance about. But if you also enjoy seeing a person dance about, it would be wrong to throw a person into the fire and watch them dance about in it. Watch the dance of the flames, or watch the dance of a human, but don't combine them.
I don't really see your point. There's an omnipotent, omniscient person. There's a sensible world. They - the omnipotent, omniscient person - like the world, They enjoy watching how things unfold in it. There's nothing wrong in that. There's nothing wrong, for instance, in enjoying how the flames of a fire dance about. But if you also enjoy seeing a person dance about, it would be wrong to throw a person into the fire and watch them dance about in it. Watch the dance of the flames, or watch the dance of a human, but don't combine them.
This anti-natalism "appears" logical. But it does not consider free will. If an omnipotent omniscient presence/entity were to abstain from allowing things to run in its own way then they must remain as only "potential to be" rather than "being/existence".
To exist is to be at odds with all other existents that themselves wish to exist. As they are in constant power struggle. For example in order for a Virus to exist it is in conflict with the immune systems of its potential hosts.
Therefore if one is to exist it must be subject to both creative and destructive forces. As you cannot have one without the other. If one wishes not to exist then it is removed from competition to do so.
It is true that for free will to exist an omniscient omnipotent person could not exist for any significant amount of time. They could merely exist briefly. If they are the "truth" (because of their superior knowledge and thus power/potency) then the truth is an unstable state in a changing/free will governed system.
In essence if the truth of things were to come out, it would be gravitated towards and dissected and dissolved and thus vanish almost as quickly as it appeared. In order to preserve free will. So if there is a god (an omniscient omnipotent being, a pure unarguable logic), they would likely not wish to be known, for if they did free will would dissolve and thus they must be destroyed to bring back choice.
I think that's false, but it wouldn't matter much if it were true, given the point I am making. Just imagine that we have an omnipotent and very knowledgeable person on our hands. The same applies.
Do you understand the scenario I have described? There's an omnipotent omniscient person. Call them Tony. And there is a sensible world.
Tony does not want to interfere with the operations of the sensible world.
Tony wants to create new life and put it into that sensible world.
It is wrong for Tony to do both of those things. Yes? (If your answer to that question is 'no' then you don't think there's a problem of evil and my case is not addressed to you).
To an omniscient, omnipotent person would their own existence be compatible with a "sensible" world ?
If they "know all" and have "all power" then they're totalitarian. Nothing logical can occur outside of their omniscience. There is thus no choice for any of their subjects as their (the subjects) choice is already made knowingly and powerfully for them. In this case they are mere extensions of the omniscient/omnipotent being and not their own "Agents". They cannot logically revolt.
What sensibility is there in being the only thing that exists and the only controller. In that case you exist alone. A "sensible" world is one where mistakes can be made, experiences can be learned from, agents can be free to decide for themselves what they believe.
I don't understand that question.
I see the problem rather that there is a system that always has to be in place when someone is born. It is a system that gets entrenched and thus we become habituated beings. X hours for employer. X hours for self is our current system. Perhaps it cannot be any other way if we are to have this kind of system. Afterall, technology came about through this system. Is technology and this way of being necessarily linked (it cannot be any other way), or is it contingently linked? I don't see how it can be contingently linked and went a different way really. Engineers think of stuff, funded by financial backers. Distributors and laborers market, distribute, sell, support, fix, all the rest of it. Little communes only exist in the wider system, so that's out as a "real" alternative. You are laborer. That is your value. If you deviate, you are a free rider (or you better be either independently wealthy or a one-off genius). This is how it is and will be and will continue with each new generation. All the change is window dressing.
What I'm saying is an omniscient omnipotent being cannot create a world of "oppositions/opposites". Nothing can oppose that which knows all and has all capability (potency). In order to have freedom/free will, in order to have multiple conscious agents with their own agency and decisions to make, an omniscient omnipotent being cannot be present.
If such a creator exists then their absence/ unavailability to humanity is the only true reason people have any free will. People are illogical and make decisions based on that imperfect/flawed logic. If an ultimate logic were to be presented, individual flawed logic would be overwhelmed and destroyed and total autocratic control would be assumed.
Again, I don't know what you're talking about. Yes they can. But what's the relevance? You're not really listening, are you? You're just saying stuff. It's a puzzle to me why you're saying what you're saying. It doesn't address anything I am saying. "Would you like sugar in your coffee?" "Without sugar there can be no free will. That is what you're overlooking". "Er, I just want to know if you want sugar in your coffee. Do you?" "I can't want something without also not wanting it. And free will is what sugar lacks. Though sugar provides free will, it does not itself have it. Coffee, on the other hand, is flawed by its own internal logic. Does the coffee view itself as sugar?" And so on.
Let's make it easier. If you like watching fires and if you like watching people dance, is it ok to throw a person in a fire and watch them dance and watch the flames?
If Tony wants to create new life and put it into a sensible world, he is creating something insensible (living beings with irrational/imperfect thought) and putting them into a sensible world (something logical/rational)
To the living beings (which are illogical/flawed - as all beings are) they would naturally project insensibility onto a sensible world through their insensible perception. They would likely have disputes and argue with one another as to what the sensible world really was - again because of their insensible/flawed understanding.
Does this explain where I coming from? Or should I elaborate? If both the living things were sensible and the environment - that which they were added to, then all would be sensible, agreed upon and therefore not argued. There would be no possible difference in opinion and therefore no free will.
That's why I cited free will. It is relevant
Well, she should choose which of those desires to satisfy. If she invites James over, she should cook him something he'll like, not something he'll dislike.
Now imagine that you also want to invite James over for dinner, but the only ingredients you have in your cupboard are those that make an incredibly hot curry and nothing else. Well, you shouldn't invite him over then.
I'm trying. I think you're likely an articulate and intelligent person. I respect your views and am attempting to offer views I think may be useful. I like to listen, try to digest the information and come up with a responsible and reasonable response to furher the discourse.
I have provided a new example, this time involving regular folk. Again then:
Susan wants to invite James over for dinner. Susan also wants to cook a particular dish - an incredibly hot curry - that James dislikes. She does not have to cook that dish - she has other things available, including things James really likes.
Well, she should choose which of those desires to satisfy. If she invites James over, she should cook him something he'll like, not something he'll dislike. Or, if she really wants to cook the hot curry, then she should do that and not invite James over.
Now imagine that you also want to invite James over for dinner, but the only ingredients you have in your cupboard are those that make an incredibly hot curry and nothing else. Well, you shouldn't invite him over then. Yes?
Yes agreed. Nobody with sensible intentions wishes James to suffer an insufferably hot curry. So either cook something he will like, don't invite him or get takeout..
This is obvious. What relevance does it have to our previous discourse? Please explain
Except for the times when a system stops working and is overthrown from within, or suffers a major collapse and disintegrates or is overwhelmed by an outside force. People born into the period of upheaval have nothing to become habituated to and are free to experiment, until they empower a new elite who then impose their own system.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not quite. Technology begins with bone tools, stone weapons, fire and dugout canoes. It is a process of human invention on which each succeeding civilization builds.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Serially and temporarily. Every system takes advantage of whatever technology exists when it assumes power and adds to the body of innovations according to its own requirements. The bronze age produced a lot of war equipment and personal decoration. Agricultural expansion periods improve on farm implement. Exploring/trading systems speed up methods of transportation; industrial periods expand the use of motive power and manufactury. The monetary age creates technologies for instant transfer of funds and information. None of it is necessary to human survival; it's driven by the needs of the prevailing system.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The engineering mind tinkers whether it is funded by financial backers or not, just as the artistic mind creates art, music and poetry, whether it sells or not, the adventuresome mind explores and makes maps; the healing mind devises ways to mitigate pain. All of these activities were taking place in primitive cultures that knew nothing of money and lending.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Until the system breaks down. The Greatest Depression, collapse of the web, storms rip apart the electric grid and wipe out the commercial crops, migrants battle locals; cities starve in the cold...
and the Mennonites and Seventh-Day Adventists, Okushiri and Harga survive. Then they build whatever those small populations want to.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I am a parasite, a surplus old person, sucking up a pension and contributing only unpopular novels. I can do that, because the relatively benign political regime under which I live has not yet unravelled. It's in the process of unravelling, but might, with a bit of luck, outlast me...
... Or Putin drops a few nukes and all bets for a future civilization are off.
You are you. Susan has the ability to cook James anything. You don't. You only have the ability to cook the hot curry. Well, if it was wrong for Susan to invite James over and cook him the hot curry, then it is wrong for you to invite James over given you can only cook him hot curry.
So, it is wrong for you to procreate. It would be wrong for the omnipotent, omniscient person to procreate if, that is, she is not going to adjust the world. You can't adjust the world. So you ought not to procreate.
Quoting Sir2u
:yawn: :up:
For let's imagine that you only have the ingredients to make spaghetti bolognaise. However, this is a meal that, though far from James's favourite, is nevertheless one that he enjoys well enough. Is it okay for you to invite him over for dinner given that you can only serve him spaghetti bolognaise? Yes.
Now imagine that Susan also wants to invite James over and that she wants to cook spaghetti bolognaise. Unlike you, she has a larder full of food and could cook James the dish he most likes. But she just wants to cook spaghetti bolognaise. Is it okay for her to invite James over given that she is going to cook spaghetti bolognaise? Yes, surely. If it was okay for you to invite James over and serve him spaghetti bolognaise, then it is okay for her to do the same.
Thus, if it is morally okay for us to procreate - so, okay for us to invite (well, force) guests to eat spaghetti bolognaise - then it is morally okay for an omnipotent, omniscient person to procreate as well. She could change the world and make it a much safer place for its inhabitants. But then she could cook James his favourite dish. But she is not obliged to do so and does no wrong - does no injustice to James - if she serves him spaghetti bolognaise.
And so, in this way we can see that either there is a problem of evil - in which case it is wrong for us to procreate - or it is morally okay for us to procreate and there is no problem of evil.
I am not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Of course you're not ...
No, it doesn't. You're being far too generous.
A parent ought want the best for their child. It follows that one ought improve the way things are. It does not follow that one ought not have kids.
How does that engage with the argument I made?
That's a valid opinion. Why drag worlds and omnipotence into it?
Apparently, no response does.
Because most agree that there is a problem of evil for God. If I can show how those who think such things are committed to having to agree that this implies it is wrong for us to procreate, then that's philosophically interesting.
No, responses that don't don't.
I mark lots of essays. And a common mistake - by far the most common - is not to address the question but simply to blurt all that one knows about the subject instead.
That's what is happening here.
So, do you agree that if Susan wants to invite James over, but also wants to cook a meal James dislikes, then she ought to satisfy one or other of her desires, not both. That is, she should not invite James over and cook him the meal he dislikes (but that she wants to cook)?
And if you agree - and surely you will - do you also agree that if you only have the ability to cook James a meal he dislikes, then you shouldn't invite him over to dinner?
Quoting Bartricks
So explain to me, how is morality formed. I will even give you a basic definition of the word morality.
"Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"
If society does not decide what is good or bad for its population, where does it come from?
Quoting Bartricks
First of all, please tell us what YOU mean by 'metaethical' and explain why what I said comes under the heading of absurd.
Quoting Bartricks
You should know I suppose, as they say "takes one to know one".
One of the worst rookie mistakes is having to give several different examples so that others can get an idea of what you are blathering about and then insinuating that they are the ones that are lacking in brains.
Quoting Sir2u
You asked a question, I explained why the question is irrelevant. If you cannot see the pointlessness of your own question, I cannot help you to understand.
Quoting Bartricks
You must live in a nice place, do the Ewoks live around there.
Quoting Bartricks
That's the spirit, you are no use to the cause if you get shot down every time you open your mouth.
Coming up like weeds in a rose garden, and there are too many thorns to be able to get too them.
Focus! This thread is not about metaethics.
Here's how our exchange is going:
Me "which way to the centre of town?"
You: "the centre of a town is the centre of a clump of trees
Me: "er, no it isn't. But anyway, my question is about the centre of town's location, not its composition"
You: "If the centre of a town is not a clump of trees, then what is it? Where does it come from? And what is composition? Explain what a composition is"
Quoting Sir2u
No it doesn't. I am not a rookie. Yet I can tell a rookie. See? I know that the object to my left is a loaf of bread. Does that mean I am a loaf of bread?
Focussing then: if you want to cook a very hot curry tonight, but you also want to invite James over - someone who really dislikes hot curry - then do you agree that you ought to thwart one of your desires? That is, you ought either to cook the very hot curry, but not inflict it on James, or you ought to invite James over but cook him something else?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/750919
You know what would really rile me? A refutation.
Help the suffering and those that need it. That was easy.
Do you agree that the omnipotent, omniscient person ought to frustrate one of their desires? That is, do you agree that they ought either to frustrate their desire not to interfere with how the sensible world operates, or they ought to frustrate their desire to invest it with sentient life?
They obviously should not introduce sentient life into the world. And if they do, then they should help the suffering and those that need help. It is easy.
Why do you associate "work" with NEETING or slaving up a mountain? Work is healthy and doesn't have to be hard.
:100:
Here in lies the contention. You're calling it a fact. But for others, it's a point of view.
That is, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to invest the sensible world with life if, that is, they are not going to change how it operates, then we ought not either, given we are unable to change how it operates?
No, that is what you are doing because you failed to understand what I said. A rookie mistake.
Quoting Bartricks
I have no opinion about the futility of you trying to prove a pointless, no correct answer question. It makes no difference to an "omnipotent, omniscient person" because those same qualities give him/her/it the ability to do both things at the same time or or fail to be an "omnipotent, omniscient person". This is just another "rock to heavy to lift" theory and comes to the same end. But only a rookie would not be able to see that.
All I did was answer your question about the morality of your "introduce life or not question". I don't give a hoot about the rest of the claptrap.
It's invalid & trivial. That's what your "argument" is.
It's literally in your own post. That is the first question you asked is basically: "Should he introduce sentient life if he has the power to do so or not?"
Obviously he should not. What do you mean by "ought to do neither"? How do you not do nothing when you are doing nothing? LOL.
Wow, nice contribution. Really making strides. Glad you shared your precious thoughts. Glad you made time to respond.
Er, what? I am arguing that we ought not procreate. And I am showing how that is implied by the fact that an omnipotent, omniscient person who does not want to change how the world is operating ought to thwart their desire to invest the world with life. You understand that, right?
You agree that hte omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to invest the world with life. So, do you also agree that we ought not procreate too, then? That's a perfectly reasonable question to ask someone on a philosophy thread who is otherwise making comments that seem a little random.
Who cares? Humans are GOING TO PROCREATE because that's what humans do. Who cares if we "should or shouldn't". This is completely unrelated to your original OP that asks:
Should some all-powerful non-human reptilian with all the power and knowledge in the world put SENTIENT life on the planet, and the answer is no, and if it DOES because of the crazy comparison you're making with humans because "THIS IS WHAT HUMANS DO" .. then it should help the suffering and those that need help.
Maybe I could offer another tip. Try looking at other societies and their histories before making sweeping, generalized statements about how society came to be.
Quoting schopenhauer1
At the behest of the likes of Nagel and Rawls, I'll mention here the Archimedian point which argues that there is indeed a rational observer whose standpoint can provide an objective account of what's happening in the world.
Example? Schopenhauer himself. He was making an observation as a rational individual, using the archimedian point, while denying the will. Is this an oversight on his part?
That he was able to make a declaration, such as the reality of suffering, is a testament to his own will.
You can't answer a question with a question. Jeez. You're fired.
It is a confused mess. Your are trying to build an argument about man doing something because a god would do it (or not do it). Not going to work.
And do not tell me that I would not pass a philosophy course with that answer. I don't need to pass anymore course than those I passed long ago. :rofl: :cool:
I actually give those courses, it pays reasonably well where I live.
If you need help presenting your ideas here on the forum, you can PM me. But I do not help people do their assignments, there is a special section for that.
They are all subsumed. Look at my text in parenthesis closely.
You have to do it. If not, free riding SOB, born into wealth, or they want you to kill yourself so you aren't a hardship on those that do work. Pessimism.
Ford, Edison, Tesla, it was all with money. And the list goes on and on.. In fact, some technology absolutely needed government backing first.. usually from wartime.. then university money, then private sector.
A point of view has real consequences when it affects/effects others. Affirming life (and then having a life) will affect others.
Look, I think my OP is pretty clear. If it is wrong for an omnipotent person to subject people to life in this sensible world unless they are going to change it, then our inability to change it implies that it is wrong for us to procreate as well. It's a delightfully simple argument.
How is this alone not reason to not willingly produce more beings into that situation? The inevitability of X suffering, doesn't mean that one thus has to willingly allow to continue X suffering because X suffering already exists in some form or another. Lions kill, therefore humans can kill for example is a really simplistic form of this argument. It is the naturalistic fallacy of course.
Maybe a change in career is needed but don't try comedy, you would fail at that as well.
Quoting Bartricks
That is one person at least I suppose.
Quoting Bartricks
And there you go right back to what I have already explained. If there is only one of these "omnipotent persons" how could something be judged as right or wrong. He/she/it is the judge and jury as well as the witnesses and victims.
Not nearly as interesting as you seem to think. If you wanted to indict God for some wrongdoing - and god know he's guilty of lots! - then go directly there and stop involving Susan and Mary and whoever in irrelevant no-applicable examples. If you are going to indict a god, you should specify which god and read the charges plainly.
All this palaver about an omnipotent entity having created a world - which is supposed to be 'sensible' according to no stated criteria - and then hanging himself unnecessarily on the horns of a moral dilemma no god would entertain for a minute... It simply doesn't work.
I don't know who these "most" are who agree that this is a reasonable way to address the problem of evil, or morality, or procreation. But of course the perennial problem of evil reflects on all the gods humans have ever invented. You simply invented another, even less credible one, stuffed with straw to joust against.
Asking what's moral or immoral for a god to do, according to our own concept of what's right in dating and mating has little relevance to what we ought to do under the auspices of holy matrimony and having been instructed by a quite popular God to go forth and multiply, which "most" of us have been doing with every encouragement from the earthly representatives of our various gods. Incidentally, I doubt any of those people found the world 'sensible' when they entered it or considered it their prerogative to decide its fate.
Quoting Bartricks
There were several unrelated questions in the OP. I addressed one:
But you didn't like the answer, so you marked it 'irrelevant' and told me, as you do pretty much everybody, "You missed the point." The point, I assume, being "It's wrong to have kids!" You could have stated it clearly at the outset.
(I know --- all of that is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what you were saying. Carry on!)
I'm not sure Tesla, Ford and Edison all come from the same mold, but you're still restricted to 20th century capitalist (the capitalistest nation on Earth) America. And ignoring all the other people and all the other inventions. That's okay, but having a narrow view doesn't mean the world has to conform.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Some technology, yes. And most of the guys who made useful things in their garage or basement were subsumed by that same capitalist machine, yes; and many were robbed of the fruit of their labour. Yet that still doesn't stop the next genius tinkering, painting, composing, solving equations, dreaming up theories, pouring the content of one test-tube into another, growing a new hybrid - unnoticed, unpaid and unappreciated - just because it is their passion. Humans are curious and creative by nature.
Bartricks, my friend, you are moving your own goal posts, very conisistently to your style, but this time you are fucking your own self.
If the world is exactly like ours, then it ihas sentient beings; if it does not have sentient beings, then it's not exactly like ours.
You shot yourself in the foot right in two of the first few paragraphs.
You show here very clearly that you haven't the slightest clue what morality entails. It is a social construct. There is no morality without society. So what society does a single god live in? Outside of his or her own company how many other gods is this god responsible for survival?
Yikes!! Your questions make exactly as much sense as your other participatory remarks on this board.
Soiciety is a living, evolving creature, which is multi-cellular, and its cells are people.
Much like a multi-cellular biological organism, its cells will differentiate to perform their functions better.
And some funcitons will be coveted because they provide power, pleasure and variety; other functions will be shunned, but some will be forced into doing it, because they are dirty, dangerious and unrewarding.
A street-sweeper or a janitor or a mortician (funeral home employee) will perform societal functions comparable to cells that line the stomach walls and the rectum.
Some CEOs, movie stars and politicians will perform societal funcitons comparable to brain cells, and to cells that promote and conduct the process of an orgasm.
Societies are not as well-organzied into differning funcitonality of their parts as biological units. Yet some permanent differentiation can be observed. They predicate the functions of a unit (humans acting as cells). A low-IQ low-self-confidence, not very attractive person is not very likely to become a mainly pleasure-receiving unit. His or her progeny, ditto.
Naturally, or unnaturally, unless you ask 180 Proof who does not beleive that there is anything unnatural in the real world, according to this writer's impression based on the posts of 180 Proof, this process will be aborted very soon with the advent of an AI population explosion.
By "this process" in the prevous paragraph I meant the evolution of societies as viable stand-alone units created by humans organized similarly to how cells are organized in a human body.
Naturally or unnaturally, my description above is a skeletal picture of the process... there are much intricacies and nuances that my post did not delve into.
Correct.
Quoting Vera Mont
Incorrect. The problem of evil is taken to be the most powerful objection to theism. So if it implies that procreation is wrong, that's extremely significant, for very few think antinatalism is true.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes, but your students are in your imagination. Mine are real.
No, I said imagine a sensible world exactly like this one. Minds are not sensible objects.
Anyway, as you'd know if you were able to recognize what is and isn't relevant, it makes no difference to my case for if necessary I could simply ask one to imagine a sensible world devoid of life (if, that is, minds turn out to be sensible things in a guise). The important point is that if the omnipotent, omniscient person is not going to make any changes to the sensible world, then she ought to refrain from investing it with life. And so if we ourselves are unable to make changes to how the sensible world operates, we too should refrain from creating new life.
So, do try and focus on what is and isn't relevant to the case.
The curry case might be easier for you, although one imagines that you might start asking questions about the precise ingredients of the curry or insisting that curry is a social construct.
If Jennifer wants to invite James over for dinner, but also wants to cook a hot curry (a dish James dislikes), then Jennifer ought to do one or the other, not both - yes? (Again, note that my question is not about curries. So, insisting that curries are not possible, or that no one called Jennifer is capable of cooking a curry, or that no one dislikes curries - these are all irrelevant, as well as obviously false).
The answer is obvious: yes. She ought either to invite James over and cook something other than a hot curry, or she ought to cook a hot curry but not invite James over to eat it.
Now imagine that you want to invite James over for dinner, but you are incapable of cooking anything other than a very hot curry. (Do not say 'but that is not possible - I am capable of cooking other things'....that would miss the point once more.....resist the temptation). Well, clearly you ought not to invite James over.
No, they're just middle-aged.
Brilliant. I am good at comedy. Here is joke. Why chicken cross road? Tell me! You not know? I tell you. It is because road cross chicken's father and chicken must avenge father. And road's children will avenge road by crossing chicken's children and chicken's children will cross road's children.
Quoting Sir2u
You answered your own question. The omnipotent person is the source of morality. It's like asking 'how can a person make themselves a cup of tea?' They make themselves a cup of tea. Nothing stops the maker and consumer of tea from being one and the same person. Likewise, for morality to exist there needs to be some moral directives - and thus there needs to be a director - and there needs to be someone who is the object of these directives. Well, there can be one person who can occupy both roles, just as the consumer and maker of tea can be one and the same.
Just focus on Jennifer and the curry. If it is wrong for Jennifer to invite James over if she plans on cooking curry - a dish he dislikes - then if all you can offer James is curry, you ought not to invite James over for dinner either, yes?
You know what Banno I think you're right. Perhaps I'm being too generous. The only place an anti-natalist view has validity is well... A permanent Hell - a place where any new child would be certain to exclusively suffer/come to harm.
However this disregards as you quite correctly pointed out the existence and role of a parent. We have the parental power, the paternal/maternal instincts available to us to protect our children. To protect the vulnerable in general as those who are vulnerable/powerless are innocent - by that I mean they neither know of their own inherent power nor then can they practice it. Children must be educated first. They therefore cannot choose a side and are subject to being preyed upon or being protected.
The shepard leads the sheep, they don't slaughter them because the sheep might come to harm if they exist. It's a clear contradiction. The shepard knows who and what the big bad wolf is, and how to fend it off. Both within themselves (their own potential to be the wolf) plus those beyond themselves - external threats.
The three little pigs knew they had the strongest defence against the wolf when they cooperated, when they recognised the strong/wisest of them from the weakest and most vulnerable and gravitated towards the protection offered by the strong/wise.
Its ironic that we tell this story to our children and yet forget that the underlying message is always applicable throughout life, even as adults - such as when being challenged by anti-natalist idealogies in philosophy and society. A classic example is the cold, empathiless sentiment that "the poor shouldn't exist because they are useless and cannot help themselves. Dead weight to society". What person in their right mind would wish such sentiments on others and call themselves just?
Existing trumps not existing because it offers more, you can always choose to die but you cannot choose to be born. As a living thing you have two options - continue to struggle for a better life, or give up and succumb to oblivion, as a dead thing you have no such options.
Therefore not existing is impotent in the face of life with hope (someone who is not themselves severely depressed, severely full of negativity and lack of love for life, suicidal).
Suicide is the moment when the conscious mind has lost the very last shred of hope it had, and thus mind becomes incompatible with the body and they annihilate one another.
I was simply outlining the dynamic, the game, not suggesting we shouldn't exist or reproduce. One exists to use their intelligence and ability to adapt and fend off adversaries (a hostile environment) and improve their living standards and those of their community.
Is this not the basis for evolution and natural selection?
Genes/collections of genes that are protective and co-operative with one another are shared/reproduced through natural selection amongst the gene pool because they allow the collective to gain the upper hand and prolong survival.
Genes/collections of genes that are selfish and detrimental on the other hand (viruses) go about via infection, trying to parasitise the rest to create more of themselves instead.
People do the same thing. Some would have you believe you are always in debt to them and ought to serve them and relinquish your resources, usually through manipulating you into a sustained feeling of guilt or shame. They make you feel ill/unwell.
Others teach you to be your own person, know yourself, to have self esteem and confidence and the ability to argue rationally and justly enough to thwart the agenda of the selfish. These people confer immunity through wisdom and intelligence.
Such is the game of life.
Yes quite right. I think your phrasing is valid also.
Ever the quote if managers giving more work to their subordinates. You can quit a job but not life itself though, lest death. Cold comfort. Paternalistic thinking. Another person’s suffering started for them and here’s why I’m so justified. But I’m not.
It has no connection to the issue of reproduction, which is an evolved natural means to combat the threat of extinction. We should all have pity for the anti-life people, just be thankful that such is not part of your daily life.
Anti-natalism has as much chance of becoming the accepted way forward as the square wheel!
Damn your own parents for YOUR existence and you damn all natural events, as it was those events that are the historical source of all life in the universe.
It's illogical to crave nothingness for everyone, because your own awareness frightens you.
Imo, we need to see living creatures who are anti-living as just scared wretches who are not coping very well.
- In the past you have included omnibenevolent as one of the properties your imaginary person could have. I'm curious why this was not included in this particular thought experiment.
- Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in in the past your omniscient omnipotent person was not constrained by LNC. Is that the case for this particular conversation?
Thats a rather pessimistic view. Not all managers are bad ones. Is it not exactly that "given the opportunity to fulfill one's capabilities" that itself begets a good manager? As far as I know managers/leaders etc are needed. And a good one surely empowers and extends that privilege to those they manage to self actualize their own set of personal capabilities. Good management is about recognising talent in the pool of employees and rewarding/promoting them accordingly.. If not even to hand the torch over happily if they are even better management material.
And yes, an omnipotent person is not bound by the lnc as she makes it true. But that's irrelevant for two reasons. First, the lnc is nevertheless true and I am assuming it to be here. Second, even though she has the ability to make it false, we do not. And my whole point is that if we are unable to do something that, were God not to do it would make procreation wrong for her, then it is wrong for us too.
A manager would say that yes. But this is the kind of manipulation slogan a manager might use to justify their subordinates to do more work.
The pessimistic fact is we have to do any of this and we are self aware of this. We can think of other ways but we are entrenched in a managerial system whereby it gets perpetuated. Group think reinforces it. We aren’t very creative except within our self defined ways.
No, it doesn't, and the OP is drivel and illogical. There is no such existent, as a living omni and there are no gods, and evil is not a self-sustaining force. Don't try to infect others with your own struggle with religion. If you want a god to comfort you when you are scared, then accept that any omni god must be the source of evil, as such a first cause is the ultimate solipsist, as it claims nothing really exists, except it, and its existence is only by its own will. Procreation is not evil, it's a natural imperative against extinction, that can be controlled through reason or indeed, legislation, if overpopulation is proving problematic.
The universe is a big place and overpopulation will not be a problem, once our species colonises outside of this nest planet. We are relative newcomers in the Universe. Perhaps if you study the cosmic calendar, you will be less concerned. Try to face your primal fears and you will find life and living has a lot of joyous times available to you and you can leave a legacy that adds to the fantastic achievements that the human race has already left to you.
Now, you are psychologically incapable of accepting that as you are convinced already that I am wrong and you are right. So there is really no point in you continuing to contribute to this thread, is there? Unless you plan on engaging with the OP, go away.
I am certainly asserting that you are utterly wrong, yes, just as you are asserting you are correct.
Those are the normal ingredients of 'argument.'
I continue to explain why you are being so illogical to try to help you face the primal fears that seem to make you so morose. I also wish to prevent you from infecting anyone else with your misguided logic and your negative viewpoints. You go away!
The only alternative, is indeed, a lifeless meaningless universe. The universe has already demonstrated that life is part of its evolution, therefore, we should get on with living life not as a curse but as part of the natural development of a universe.
Well, I am typing things, sure, what do you think you are doing?
Your evidence begins by positing entities that do not exist, that is illogical.
Who is this omnipotent, omniscient you posit? They exist only in your head?
If this is not evidence enough that you are being illogical, then you need professional help with your mental state. A troll is another mythical beast and the idea that I am trolling you is just you, experiencing panic. I have little interest in your ability to appreciate my humour. You go away and stop trying to downgrade the lives of others. You will fail!
When someone creates a thread, there is an obligation on those who contribute to it to address the OP.
If you think the OP is bollocks, don't just say that. Explain why it is bollocks.
Don't just say things on topics vaguely related to the OP. Don't just express your view about something.
Address the argument. Look at what I said and address something I said. Christ.
Impossible, illogical, no such entity exists.
Quoting Bartricks
BY definition, an omni cannot have 'desires,' it's illogical to suggest it can.
Desire is about need, how can an omni need? This is illogical and contradictory.
You fall miserably at the first fence. But you already know that don't you.
That's a blurt. That's not an argument. It's just you saying something.
Note too that the proponent of the problem of evil thinks that what is impossible is God existing and this sensible world (with us in it) existing (and even then, that's only those who are running the logical problem of evil). They do not think that it is impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient person to exist, for if they thought that then they would not need to raise the problem of evil as God's non-existence would be established already.
There is nothing impossible about such a person and if you think otherwise you owe an argument and, more importantly, those I am addressing will agree with me, not you (note, I am not addressing you, as you are too confused to be worth addressing - I am addressing those who run the problem of evil against God).
Try again. Try arguing something. Note: if you think something, that isn't evidence it is true. Eat that piece of humble pie and let it digest for a bit. Then try again.
Or, alternatively, throw your arms up, say illogical and perhaps bollocks and word salad a bit, and then go away. I would recommend that last one.
No, you can change the world, many historical people have and your desire to pass on your legacy to your children to continue your work is valid. Do you need me to name some people from history that have 'changed the world?' Like the unknown creature who first used fire to cook meat or used tree trunks to roll a big boulder over a distance to turn it into a standing stone?
You lack the ability to change how the sensible world operates. For instance, you lack the ability to prevent the horrendous evils that are occurring daily. You're not God.
So, identify this omnipotent/omniscient, get it to reveal itself and demonstrate its ability. Can you do that or is it you that's just typing BS.
Make an argument.
And did you understand the point about the problem of evil? Did you understand that if you can show that it is impossible for an omnipotent omniscient person to exist, then you don't need to run the problem of evil? Did that make sense to you? I need to know what I am dealing with here. Are you someone who can't understand that a proponent of the problem of evil thinks God 'can' exist - or at least, tacitly they are acknowledging this - they just think their existence is incompatible with the world as it is.
No one is, god doesn't exist. I can change how the world operates through scientific breakthrough that can indeed prevent many horrendous evils. Are you still afraid of smallpox for example?
My argument is that your omnipotent/omniscient does not exist, prove it does, put up or shut up!
Try and stick to the topic. Do you have the ability to prevent all of the horrendous evils that are occurring in the world? Yes or no?
It's no, right? So, moving on....
that's not an argument.
Make an argument.
Yes, given enough time and scientists and human assistants. If not me then others like me from the same species.
Learn what an argument is!
Then anyone who wants to discuss your random assertions can do so.
But this is my thread and I made an argument. If you are not interested in engaging with that argument, or can't even recognize that it is one, then you need to go away. That is what decency demands
Decency demands that I help ensure your BS gets revealed as such.
I am quite willing to not engage with you directly as you are currently lost in your own fallacious miasma. I hope more and more members at TPF will also choose not to engage with you.
What is a dysfunctional misanthrope? You have the rest of your life?
Do you understand how manic this makes you seem?
What?
Bart Ehrman for example, cites the problem of evil as the reason he no longer believes that god exists.
But sure, anybody can still believe any BS no matter how illogical it is.
It is an argument that has this form:
1. P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q
Now see if you can detect that argument form in the OP. You have 1 minute.
Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.
That's called 'an argument' and the argument in question is called a 'disjunctive syllogism'. Do you see?
If you read that with a Pakistani accent, it really is very funny.
Quoting Bartricks
That is what I said at the beginning and you said I was confused, that it had nothing to do with the topic. make up your mind.
Quoting Bartricks
OK, so if James wants to get a leg over he has to eat the fucking curry and just suck up the dislike. If not he can get on his bike.
If Jennifer wants to get a leg over then she should cook him a nice meal and suck up her desire for curry.
So if neither of them is prepared to give a little to get a quickie then there will be no babies born and the world will be a happier place without their dumb genes in it.
Makes no difference to the rest of the world how these dumb tinder twits fix their problem and has nothing to do with morality as it is just a personal problem.
And stop trying to come up with more stupid examples that do not help understand your theory.
Evil: Noun
Morally objectionable behavior
That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice
Evil: Adjective
Morally bad or wrong
Having the nature of vice
Having or exerting a malignant influence
Why does a god need to be involved? All of the definitions above are about human behavior, characteristics or qualities.
Being about humans means that we are in some way able to influence the behavior being classified as evil, therefore we can prevent evil. The fact that it is not done in no way impedes the ability to do so.
And why do you have to capitalize the word god?
Err, no.
disjunctive syllogism: A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the other must take place.
Which are the possibilities and which one are you ruling out?
Or should I use your own words, "Oh dear oh dear. You're really not very good at this at all, are you?"
It make good laughings in any accent.
Quoting Sir2u
It is irrelevant to the argument. I never said it wasn't. You are clearly reasoning that if you say something irrelevant enough times - and I lower myself to respond to the irrelevant point in question (for I find stupid reasoning almost intolerable and believe I am doing you a favour in pointing it out to you) - then I am acknowledging its relevance. That is itself, of course, an example of incredibly poor reasoning.
What I was hoping to achieve by this - and it really was just a hope, for I don't believe for a moment that it will actually happen - was that you might then realize how unbelievably bad at thinking you are and either slink away in shame or re-read the OP with an eye to understanding it.
Quoting Sir2u
What? What you have just said reminded me of something Peter Singer once said. I think it was Peter Singer, anyway. That when he started out as a philosopher he sincerely believed that anyone possessed of reason could, if they put enough effort in, understand anything. But then after trying to teach people he gradually came to the conclusion that some people are just stupid and there's really no helping them.
I live in hope though. So, read the OP and try and make sense of my argument. I have done all I can to make it clear to you. It is now down to you. Then - and only then - should you start trying to criticize it.
I don't know what a noun is or an adjective.
But what are you on about?
You didn't know what a disjunctive syllogism was until I mentioned it, yes? You looked it up and then wrote down a line you found on the internet and passed it off as your own. And now you think that you know more about this style of argument than I do and that I didn't engage in it in the OP. Most peculiar.
And failed miserable for everyone, no one understands your ideas, that is why your are getting upset and not answering anyone's questions. You don't have any answers.
Quoting Bartricks
No I copy pasted the definition from a reliable source so that you can see how wrong you are. Why do so many people think that they are the only ones that know anything?
The number of coherent arguments you have made still stands at 0, as demonstrated by the number of people that have told you this against the number of people that have agreed with you.
Calling people beginners and using other demeaning ways to try and invalidate their thoughts is not the way to win arguments. Presenting researched, worthwhile topics to discuss works better.
So to conclude my participation on this thread I would like to offer you some advice. Get your big head out of your arse and try to be nice.
I am not responsible for the fact that most people here can't follow an argument or can't tell what is or isn't relevant.
Quoting Sir2u
No, you did what I said you did. You passed off a line on the internet as a line from you. That's called plagiarism. And you don't know what a disjunctive syllogism is. You hadn't heard of them before today. Yet you still think you know more about how to argue well than I do, don't you?
Now, when you read my extremely helpful example of Jennifer and the curry and James, you probably though that it was about curry (or the beginning of a romantic novel about how Jennifer and James eventually get together after a rocky start). When in fact it was just illustrating a pattern of reasoning. But in order to be able to tell that it was illustrating a pattern of reasoning, you'd need to have the intellectual power to abstract that pattern from the example and notice its presence in my original reasoning about the omnipotent, omniscient person. What dawned on Peter Singer - as it has also dawned on me - is that vast swathes of the population are simply unable to do this. Just as there are sounds some of us can't hear, there are mental operations that some can't perform.
Here's the example again. Try and understand what it's illustrating and try not to get hung up on the picturesque details.
Jennifer wants to invite James over for dinner. She also wants to cook a particular dish -a hot curry that James dislikes.
She should thwart one of those desires. That is, she should either invite James over for dinner and cook him something else (thus thwarting her desire to cook the curry). Or she would indulge her desire to cook the curry, but thwart her desire to invite James over.
Now. if you also want to invite James over for dinner, but you are only capable of cooking that very hot curry, then you ought not to invite James over for dinner.
So, either invite James to dinner or cook a curry, but not both
Cook a curry
Therefore, do not invite James to dinner
In Jennifer's case cooking a curry is simply something she wants to do, but does not have to - for she has the ability to cook other things. Still, if she decides to cook the curry, she ought not invite James to dinner. In your case you lack the ability to do anything other than cook a curry. But it still follows that you ought not invite James to dinner.
Now, when it comes to God, God ought either to alter the world so that it does not subject people living in it to horrendous evils, or she ought not to create new life.
That is something a proponent of the problem of evil agrees with. THey must do, for if they thought God could satisfy both desires, they wouldn't think there was a problem of evil.
If, then, God decides not to alter the world so that it does not subject any living in it to horrendous evils, then God ought not to invest the world with life.
We are unable to alter the world so that it does not subject any living in it to horrendous evils. Therefore we ought not to invest it with life either.
See?
But that's not nice, is it? I've been modelling myself on you! You called my OP "claptrap" among other things.
Quoting Banno
This is an excuse a manager uses to justify giving subordinates more work. It's shining a turd.
Quoting Bartricks
I rarely do this because it is sort of frowned upon, but.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on
Well, that's not nice either. Odd. Did your advice to be nice only apply to me and not you?
As is your philosophy.
No, I've been modelling myself on you!
And one last piece of advice. Using what gods do as a way of specifying what humans should do does not work, humans are actually real.
But I'm clever and witty.
Trying to get another person to agree with you, that is the problem you face.
Good one :roll:. But indeed it is managerial speak to make more work for others.
It's a "learning opportunity" is another one.
Well that wasn't very witty now was it. Up your game.
The truth is seldom witty, like you.
I had surmised that you were drunk when you wrote this. Sad that I seem to have been mistaken.
With "capabilities" I had Nussbaum and Sen in mind. So you are farting in quite the wrong direction.
You are better company for Bart than I had perhaps supposed. Have a nice day.
To be fair, I didn't read what you were replying to, but that got my spidey-sense going with the phrase "capabilities.."
But looking at it, just more of the same from you.. A small sentence that has little weight behind it except that you "don't like bad ole antinatalism".
And by little weight I mean, there is no explanation.. just indignity as argument.
I simply do not share in your conviction that life is unpleasant. I'm content that I am here. From that foundation your arguments for antinatalism gain no traction, and your arguments that one ought feel that life is not worthwhile are superfluous.
Amongst my first replies to you was a recommendation that you engage with the broken and the bent, the elderly, disabled, and ill. One might expect them to side with you, but I've found them cheerful enough. Something to do with outlook, I suppose. And with a strong eye on improvement, undermining the OP.
Many of Bart's ultra-ad homs and trolling are really not much worse than things you and others tend to do and say to taunt others rather than engage with them. Granted he can get very unnecessarily pernicious, it's just an exaggerated clown mirror of the tendency of many other posters on here that also argue unproductively. If he is doing anything, it is simply being an exaggerated jester of the bad faith arguing others tend to do.
As to his philosophy, I usually also don't get the theistic approach he often takes, so I don't comment on it much because it's not what I would argue.
Quoting Banno
But even if we were to drop all other arguments, what does that say that a system must steamroll the individual? Is your basis simply, majority is always right? But also, part of the debate is what counts as negative/not right/unjust.
Quoting Banno
I don't put stock in archetypes such as "broken, bent, elderly, disabled, and ill". Rather, I try to see what are the pervasive harms that are necessary for being at all, and consider the pervasive contingent harms that are also pernicious. It is deciding what these are that a good Pessimist explores. Deciding what counts as an negative, is also in question.
In this case, I was questioning the idea that one needs to develop capacities in the first place. Why is it our job to bring others to comply with this agenda of capacity building in the first place? It's as if you are implying that this is some necessary thing. Rather, no that is not how this works. Rather, people are born, and must comply in a fashion that isn't too disturbing. Otherwise, the habitual response from those who have been thus enculturated (perhaps yourself) will respond that "you should just die so the herd is not disturbed".
Quoting schopenhauer1
Perhaps, but the quality of his arguments is quite low.
For the rest, I'm content, and hence content not to address your proposals. Pessimism is an outlook, after all, and hence chosen. I choose otherwise.
Yes there is. I've shown how those who think there's a problem of evil should accept that it is wrong to procreate. That's extraordinarily interesting. An actual philosopher would recognize that.
Quoting Banno
Er, okaay.
Quoting Banno
Like many, you ignorantly assume that the only argument for antinatalism is one that assumes life is unpleasant. Presumably that's because it's the only one you understand. Therefore, it must be the only one that is ever offered! Or perhaps it is becasue it is the only one you can say anything to challenge.
Therefore it is the only one!
There are lots of arguments for antinatalism, as you'd know if you had studied the area. Which you haven't.
The argument that I gave in the OP, for instance, does not assume that life is miserable. As anyone who has taken the time to read and understand it would know.
No they aren't. You just think they are. That's not the same.
Take the argument in the OP. What's poor about it?
For instance, do you think this is valid?:
1. Either P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q
Just answer the question.
Cheers, Bart.
That's not an answer to the question. I understand you're scared. The nasty reasoning man has come to town, so now the squiggle squoggle salesman better pack up his cart and run away.
I'll answer for you.
Banno: yes fartypants.
Right. Now a proponent of the problem of evil must accept this moral principle:
Either adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, or do not introduce innocent life into the world
If they think that principle is false, a problem of evil does not arise. Thus, they must affirm it.
So, this premise is true (or at least a proponent of the problem of evil must accept it anyway):
1. Either adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, or do not introduce innocent life into the world
Now, none of us can adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, can we. So we're not going to. Thus we must accept that this premise is true:
2. We are not going to adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it.
And from that it follows that we ought not to introduce innocent life into it. That's antinatalism.
Quoting Banno
Which one is false - 1 or 2? Come along.
I know that you hear a lot of stuff in your own head, but yes, I am still TYPING words, thanks for your encouragement.
Quoting Bartricks
You can try, but you are not the most reliable source of accurate descriptions.
1. P or Q allows for both P and Q to be false. Look at a truth table for an electronic OR gate.
So, in your OP, both your posits are false.
Quoting Bartricks
P = 'a desire to leave the (sensible :roll: ) world to operate in its own manner,' IS FALSE, as an omniscient would have no desires and no omnipotent exists
Q = 'a desire to introduce sentient life into the world,' IS FALSE, as an omnipotent would have no desires and no omnipotent exists.
So, your gameplay is to conflate your disjointed and dysfunctional musings with the rules of propositional logic and your attempt is irrational and laughable.
Quoting Bartricks
Are you staring at yourself in the mirror again when you form such thoughts? I agree, you are not very good at this!
Quoting Bartricks
No, reproduction will continue, as a natural imperative for the human species and we will continue to combat suffering so we can further assist people like you, when you again get scared due to your awareness of self.
You don't have any arguments, you merely live in fear, you choose to live life as a curse. I pity you.
:clap: :100:
Quoting Bartricks
Have you figured out why your reasoning is wrong yet?
It is actually quite simple. The world cannot visit evil on people, I cannot even try to imagine a tree or a rock acting in an evil manner, and animals act on instinct so they cannot be classified as evil.
Only other people can visit evil on other people, AND there is a way to stop that from happening without eliminating the entire population.
And the fact that your god wont change the beings he wants to introduce into the world just proves what assholes gods are.
Bye.
That's fine. Germans living under Nazi Germany felt more content in the 30s. Colonizers killing aborigines in Australia felt more content. Southern US Jim Crow society felt content (for those it benefited). So that doesn't do much philosophically for pointing structural problems. Pessimists simply point out what these structural problems are and explain why they are indeed structural problems and not simply a matter of contented feelings of an individual at a point in time.
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
So if She is not bound by LNC, then She can satisfy both desires. Since we frail/fallible human beings are bound by LNC we cannot fathom/understand how this is possible - we simply have to accept it.