Is the real world fair and just?
I added the word "real" to the title of this thread in order to eliminate an ideal Heavenly realm from consideration. Some people, when faced with the moral ambiguity and uncertainty of personal or world events --- especially when bad things happen to good people --- will express the belief or hope that "everything happens for a reason"*1. And they don't seem to be concerned that the "reasons" & purposes motivating Cause & Effect are seldom obvious, and must be taken on faith.
The topical question was raised in my mind by an article in Skeptical Inquirer magazine (vol48), authored by psychologist Stuart Vyse, in his discussion of Skepticism and tolerance for Uncertainty, as illustrated by movie plot spoilers. In his preface, Vyse noted that "religious and spiritual beliefs promote the assumption that the universe is fair". Then, he adds, "they find solace in the belief that they will be made whole in this life or the next". Perhaps, a non-Christian source of solace is the Eastern religious concept of Karma : that Good & Evil acts in this life will be morally balanced in the next incarnation. Ironically, both approaches to a Just World seem to accept that the real contemporary world is neither fair, nor balanced. As Vyse summarizes : "The universe has no interest in your success or failure, and things don't happen for a reason --- they just happen". For example, the current hurricane in the Caribbean is indiscriminately destructive. But is the obvious bad stuff offset by punishing an evil group of people : e.g. Jamaican politicians, oligarchs and landlords ; while poor innocent Jamaicans are just collateral damage? Are blessings & curses proportional?
Although I'm not comforted by scriptural assurances that "all things work together for good", I do infer a kind of Logic to the chain of Cause & Effect in the physical world --- and an overall proportional parity between positive & negative effects. Of course, that mathematical & thermodynamic symmetry may not always apply to the personal & cultural aspects of reality : to people's feelings about those effects. I won't attempt to prove that vague belief in balance, but it seems that philosophers have always been divided on the question of a Just World*2. Plato was not conventionally religious, but he argued from a position which assumed a Rational*3 First Cause, that he sometimes referred to as Logos*4. That philosophical principle was not necessarily concerned about the welfare of individuals, but only that the world proceed in an orderly manner toward some unspecified teleological end point. Rational humans are able to detect the general organization & predictability of physical events, and often refer to the regulating principles as Laws --- as-if imposed by a judicious king. Ironically, modern science has detected some essential Uncertainty at the foundations of Physics. So, we can never know for sure what's-what & where & when.
I get a sense that this forum has some moralists who feel that the physical world is morally neutral, yet organized human societies should be scrupulously fair & balanced toward some ideal of Justice ; and some amoralists or nihilists who think its all "just one damn thing after another" ; plus perhaps some nameless positions in between. Since my amateur position typically falls in the muddled middle, and as part of my ongoing education in philosophical thinking, I'd like to hear some polite, non-polemic, pro & con discussion on the topical question. :smile:
*1. Everything Happens for a Reason :
Firstly, it can be used to suggest that there is a cause-and-effect explanation for why something has happened. Secondly, and more commonly, it is often used to suggest that there is some greater purpose or meaning for what has happened which is determined by fate, a higher power, God, or the universe.
https://12stepphilosophy.org/2024/03/30/everything-happens-for-a-reason/
*2. Just World :
The just-world hypothesis refers to our belief that the world is fair, and consequently, that the moral standings of our actions will determine our outcomes. This viewpoint causes us to believe that those who do good will be rewarded, and those who exhibit negative behaviors will be punished.
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/just-world-hypothesis
*3. Rational :
Synonyms: sagacious, judicious, wise, intelligent.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rational
*4. LOGOS :
By using the term logos, he meant the principle of the cosmos that organizes and orders the world that had the power to regulate the birth and decay of things in the world. The cosmos was, as he saw it, constantly changing, and he conceived logos as the organizing principle of change.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Logos
The topical question was raised in my mind by an article in Skeptical Inquirer magazine (vol48), authored by psychologist Stuart Vyse, in his discussion of Skepticism and tolerance for Uncertainty, as illustrated by movie plot spoilers. In his preface, Vyse noted that "religious and spiritual beliefs promote the assumption that the universe is fair". Then, he adds, "they find solace in the belief that they will be made whole in this life or the next". Perhaps, a non-Christian source of solace is the Eastern religious concept of Karma : that Good & Evil acts in this life will be morally balanced in the next incarnation. Ironically, both approaches to a Just World seem to accept that the real contemporary world is neither fair, nor balanced. As Vyse summarizes : "The universe has no interest in your success or failure, and things don't happen for a reason --- they just happen". For example, the current hurricane in the Caribbean is indiscriminately destructive. But is the obvious bad stuff offset by punishing an evil group of people : e.g. Jamaican politicians, oligarchs and landlords ; while poor innocent Jamaicans are just collateral damage? Are blessings & curses proportional?
Although I'm not comforted by scriptural assurances that "all things work together for good", I do infer a kind of Logic to the chain of Cause & Effect in the physical world --- and an overall proportional parity between positive & negative effects. Of course, that mathematical & thermodynamic symmetry may not always apply to the personal & cultural aspects of reality : to people's feelings about those effects. I won't attempt to prove that vague belief in balance, but it seems that philosophers have always been divided on the question of a Just World*2. Plato was not conventionally religious, but he argued from a position which assumed a Rational*3 First Cause, that he sometimes referred to as Logos*4. That philosophical principle was not necessarily concerned about the welfare of individuals, but only that the world proceed in an orderly manner toward some unspecified teleological end point. Rational humans are able to detect the general organization & predictability of physical events, and often refer to the regulating principles as Laws --- as-if imposed by a judicious king. Ironically, modern science has detected some essential Uncertainty at the foundations of Physics. So, we can never know for sure what's-what & where & when.
I get a sense that this forum has some moralists who feel that the physical world is morally neutral, yet organized human societies should be scrupulously fair & balanced toward some ideal of Justice ; and some amoralists or nihilists who think its all "just one damn thing after another" ; plus perhaps some nameless positions in between. Since my amateur position typically falls in the muddled middle, and as part of my ongoing education in philosophical thinking, I'd like to hear some polite, non-polemic, pro & con discussion on the topical question. :smile:
*1. Everything Happens for a Reason :
Firstly, it can be used to suggest that there is a cause-and-effect explanation for why something has happened. Secondly, and more commonly, it is often used to suggest that there is some greater purpose or meaning for what has happened which is determined by fate, a higher power, God, or the universe.
https://12stepphilosophy.org/2024/03/30/everything-happens-for-a-reason/
*2. Just World :
The just-world hypothesis refers to our belief that the world is fair, and consequently, that the moral standings of our actions will determine our outcomes. This viewpoint causes us to believe that those who do good will be rewarded, and those who exhibit negative behaviors will be punished.
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/just-world-hypothesis
*3. Rational :
Synonyms: sagacious, judicious, wise, intelligent.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rational
*4. LOGOS :
By using the term logos, he meant the principle of the cosmos that organizes and orders the world that had the power to regulate the birth and decay of things in the world. The cosmos was, as he saw it, constantly changing, and he conceived logos as the organizing principle of change.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Logos
Comments (1059)
Fair enough, as the other poster said. I'll just leave you with the idea that some things are just principles, not everything in human actions have to be about some "greater good" outcome. A lot of injustice happens in the name of that mentality. Deontological basis may be seen as inflexible, but it's not when considering the procreational decision against post-birth considerations. Once born, you have a child that has rights to not die in your care, for example. I call this "mitigation ethics", as the harm is done, but now it's trying to trade the greater for lesser harms (all the "raising" part). But to create the harm, to thus mitigate it is indeed unnecessary, and thus misguided. And, as I was saying, it is aggressively paternalistic ("fascist" if you will). For some reason YOU want to see something and SOMEONE has to dance to the tune you want to see happen. With birth control, there is no real "it's just what people do" aspect (not that they had no choice or couldn't take actions prior either). It now makes it purely a political choice, even if out of negligence. One knows the possibilities.
You assume some holistic system, but these are decisions made by people within the system. Life is a choice one makes on another's behalf, it is not an inevitability to choose that someone else needs to be born into this life. Using people in order to serve some "systemic view of things", makes no sense in light of ethics that considers individuals, and their pain. People aren't pieces to be moved around such that some grand narrative plays out. That is circular logic, whereby the descriptive aspect (entropic gobblygook, etc.) becomes a sort of naturalistic fallacy and a violation of the is/ought gap.
That ain’t philosophy. It is reason eating itself.
Interesting - I would never had thought to ask this, though, I am essentially not open to an afterlife that retains any personality whatsoever. INteresting, nonetheless.
Quoting apokrisis
Is a more apt description. You may still think this is inapt for life in general, but it is certainly bad faith to attribute behaviours you're, in the sentence, deeming problematic, when that's not established - its just an appearance from your POV :)
If you think looking for only problems is not a problem, then you would have to supply your argument for why this lack of balance is not in fact problematic.
Quoting apokrisis
Quoting AmadeusD
Your POV that we're 'looking for problems' is simply not the case. ANd, it is not for you to decide whether or not it is. We see things differently. You are not right. We are not 'right'. You are, however, wrong about the motivation. Recognizing, not seeking. If you do not accept this, that is pure bad faith. There is nothing to explain, from our position. You are simply wrong about what we are thinking, or motivated by. And you couldn't possibly know, so... yeah.
It could have been better written.
Quoting AmadeusD
Well who gives a fuck when you put it like that.
LMAO, possibly, but your response seems to just be inapt, even on review. The core point was missed.
Quoting apokrisis
You're trying to assert that mind-reading is a sound practice. Far be it from me my friend :)
Quoting apokrisis
If one is simply recognising problems then that is a quite different mindset. But once you declare no line can be drawn, no balance of interests can exist, then that becomes reason eating itself.
If you have an argument against that argument, rather than some further deflection, I’m happy to hear it.
So you say you are a signed-up member of the AN charter. Being responsible for a birth is deemed a sin as it is impossible for the resulting infant to have given its explicit consent to this reproductive act in advance of the fact.
But having sex is always going to carry this risk. Even contraception – as a sign of your good faith – can fail. So does your AN charter need to add the clause of no sex at all as that is putting you at risk for breaking the faith? Do you need to go out and get sterilised because you could always get drunk one night or duped into performing a service for some cunning natalist?
One could go on seeking such risks to your hardline AN stance. The risks might be diminishing, but even a vasectomy fails 1 in 10,000 times. At some point do you not eventually get a pass on this? Does even the AN extremist accept that imperatives have their pragmatic limits?
Well if reason is allowed back into the conversation, this becomes the point where we can start winding back towards the practical notion of risks being balanced against rewards. We can get back to my commonsense position that what matters in regard to approaching reproduction ethically is not whether the prospective parents can have the baby sign off on the whole exercise in advance, but that the parents are wholeheartedly engaged in making it a turn of as a positive choice.
One can have a productive ethical debate where there are two complementary imperatives in play – like risks and rewards – and so the way that we "ought to behave" is in the way that aims to arrive at an optimised win-win balance.
But if you set up your ethics on the side of a slippery slope fallacy, then why would you expect that to be useful or persuasive?
:up: :up:
ANists hysterically confuse 'preventing possible lives' with 'preventing (and reducing) harm to / suffering of actual lives'.
You've already started off the argument then in bad faith argumentation as its about the normative. 1st degree murder isn't 2nd degree murder isn't manslaughter isn't a random accident. None of your scenario matters to the normative claim of the deontological basis being presented.
Quoting apokrisis
No, this isn't a slippery slope fallacy because the debate is at the normative level. Murder isn't somewhat wrong, it's wrong. That different scenarios can occur surrounding murder doesn't make murder itself NOT wrong.
But that is because I am sensible and don't buy that as a basis. Wrong premise and thus a pointless argument.
It would be bad faith to pretend I went along with your scenario for any other reason than its passing curiosity value.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But what is murder? What acts fall into that category without involving shades of grey?
Perhaps you have a conviction in black and white thinking to a degree I cannot even fathom? I sort of suspect that deep down you must be kidding. That a little reasonableness will soon penetrate the pose. I'm still kind of giving credit to the possibility that you aren't completely in the grip of your own rhetoric.
The point is that you would not WANT murder because it's wrong, even if, for practical purposes, such as law, we can differentiate punishment and blame based on various pragmatics surrounding the normative principle.
One doesn't WANT to cause another unnecessary suffering is the normative principle. That there are various scenarios of degrees for which negligence towards this can be hashed out, doesn't take away from that core principle.
What you are trying to do is deny that there is a core principle, but that is exactly what I am pushing back on. Negligence and pragmatics are de facto how things play out in the world, but that doesn't change the principles.
But that is just your failure to understand my position. My core principle is that there is always a dialectical balance in anything that could matter. A trade-off. And trade-offs ought to be optimised in a win-win fashion. That is the answer that is worth seeking.
Your approach drives you to angry dogmatism. My approach leads me to pragmatism. We do the best we can by reasoning. We should always expect a complementary balance to exist in nature. Complementary balances is after all how nature can even exist.
So my approach is rooted in natural philosophy. That is its metaphysical basis.
Yours seems to be some kind of Platonic notion of perfection. A one-note "good". A leap to an extreme that ends all debate.
The slippery slope fallacy, as I say. All answers must arrive in the one place, whereas for me they have many possible balancing points between two complementary notions of "the good".
It is good to take risks as it is good to get rewards. Pain is good as pain tells you what to avoid. Life is good because after that you will have plenty of oblivion in which to rest.
Nature has set us up genetically to think in this natural way. To understand life as a spectrum of possibilities that we must then navigate in a reasonable fashion.
The primary dichotomy of human social organisation is the balancing of competition and cooperation. Individual striving and collective identity. Both of these imperatives are good to the degree they are in a fruitful balance.
So perhaps my way of thinking is a little more complex. But not sure I have to make excuses for that.
This might be a fatal mistake in your reasoning as it is literally the naturalistic fallacy, but not even hidden, but embraced. You'd have to seriously qualify this for me to show which version of the fallacy this would be violating..
Quoting apokrisis
Deontology generally seems to work this way, yes.
Quoting apokrisis
So then, can you balance murder being wrong? You would not want murder, whether 1st or 2nd degree, surely. There is something that makes the core principle behind it a bad act, and it isn't because of a negotiation or balance. If you jump to manslaughter, that isn't murder. And surely, if someone was very negligent to cause manslaughter, you wouldn't want that either, even though that is perhaps less "blameworthy" or would be in need of a "lesser punishment". That is to say, with all these principles, whatever feels "just" in a pragmatic sense, there is a core with which you at some point say, "This should or should not happen".
Quoting apokrisis
But at this point, we are then arguing about the core principle of "Do not cause unnecessary suffering", or "Do not use people if it can be avoided". Or perhaps, "Don't allow your version of what is good violate someone else's negative ethic to not be harmed unnecessarily".
Quoting apokrisis
No, humans are deliberative creatures. You make it seem like what we choose is a foregone conclusion.
Quoting apokrisis
It just seems you are taking appeals to traditional values as THE values one should follow. Tradition is not "nature" per se, but contingent upon a bunch of choices made, which even if helped with survival, is not anything like "nature" in the sense of pure instinct. It would simply be "what takes place" making nature a rather impotent idea then.
:100: :fire:
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD (this one I've picked, because it clearly shows me saying something stupid, but still attests to your error.
There are plenty more i recall, but I don't want to go through pages, and pages when the search function isn't picking everything up...
Quoting 180 Proof
So, in light of all the above, it is clear you're either misinformed or trolling, as these are standard AN fare. The suffering of those alive doesn't lead to any position for hte AN-er, other than to say most people already living have a rational interest in continuing to exist. For the most part, that isn't part/parcel of the AN position any given person might hold. It's an externality due to the A-symmetry argument. It seems you either reject, or don't understand it. It makes it almost impossible for an ANist to be motivated by extant human suffering because the purported results of hte view have nothing to do with those living people (except to the extent one might want to discourage procreation - but that's clearly not a motivating factor for the view). Perhaps it's just time you step away from a thread all you do is drive-by and say things that aren't quite right in lol.
Quoting apokrisis
It has literally nothing to do with what's going on in this discusison. Its a total non sequitur. 'argument' against is inapt. You are simply putting words in people's heads. Sorry to tell you, but I don't look for problems. YOu need to just accept that, or accept that you're trying to mind-read.
Quoting apokrisis
True, and completely irrelevant. The balance is in the a-symmetry, for most ANists.
Quoting apokrisis
One of those options would be preferable. This is not controversial. Non ANists do these things all the time for plenty of reasons - many, ethical (are you(not you, but rhetorically) aware you child might be missing a chromosome? Likely, you wont procreate. What's the difference there, but degree?)
Quoting apokrisis
It is almost certain you're arguing with a ghost. I've already addressed this. Certainty is not involved here. You are once again, wrong about the position and are arguing with no one
Quoting apokrisis
I don't think even you know what you're talking about now. The only relevant point I could make, though it actually isn't relevant to what you've said - is that an ANist is concerned with not causing more suffering. Nowhere in AN does it posit that there is a 100% fool-proof way to do this. If your point comes down to the infantile suggestion that we can't guarantee that sex wont result in a birth, I have no idea why you think this matters. I can't answer for the extremist, but as Weinberg put its "the risk of a life time" is the risk we're talking about. The risk of sex resulting in a birth/pregnancy is irrelevant unless you're already an ANist. So, perhaps stay on topic. It is getting really tedious having to bring you back to something sensible in every reply.
Quoting apokrisis
Hooo boy haha, there isn't a heads or tails to reply to here The bolded (whcih is the distilled claim from your POV) is absolute fucking nonsense and so the paragraph is empty. (no, I don't "not get it". You are literally talking non-sense).
Quoting apokrisis
This is one of hte stupidest claims about ethical discussion i've ever seen in my life. That's... that's cute.
Quoting apokrisis
Haven't. You just are wrong in pretty much all the meaningful ways one can be in this discussion. You literally don't understand (or care) by your own admission what's being discussed. And your replies make this extremely clear. It feels like a child at the adults table, tbh.
Quoting apokrisis
You don't understand, or apparently care about ours... Yet you're constantly making sweeping, general proclamations about it, and then saying pithy but empty nonsense like this:
Quoting apokrisis
Sorry to say, but this is the form preaching takes. The bolded doesn't actually present any sense whatsoever. It's metaphysical speculation in the most strangely uninteresting form i've seen in a while. It's impossible to know why you're doing this, but it's enough now kiddo. Either get educated (and actually give a fuck) about the subject, or post in another thread. It is utterly bizarre that you would, several exchanges ago, point out that you don't get, or care.... and continue replying. I smell some rather obvious self-loathing, or dishonesty.
Or else you have no idea what natural philosophy is - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/
The rest is just too dull to address.
Oh yes, THAT natural philosophy :roll:. This is a non-sequitur. Besides the fact that you would then have to justify Aristotle's philosophy in regards to causation as somehow "THE" metaphysical view (less interested in that debate so don't worry), this just shows your disregard for the is/ought gap if you're somehow trying to justify these ideas in some overreaching way as it applies to ethics. I'm not going to try to fill in what I think you're implying, that's your job. Even so, after your whole explanation, my guess is that is/ought gap will be violated yet again as is your wont.
Quoting apokrisis
Ah yes, just dismiss. This is one way not to engage (dodge?) the issues I raise. You haven't even explained why it's "dull", so your comment falls flat and dull. My guess is because I do not mention your entropic yadayada philosophy and shoehorning of the notion of "balance" and "two complimentary sides" to create a basis for ethics. But I already addressed that in the last post. And I think what I brought up suffices as an objection to this non-foundation that you propose. You will call it "black-and-white" thinking, but that is misconstruing what normative ethics is. Ideals can be separated out from pragmatics. You don't ditch the ideals though. And that is the crux of the debate. Are ideals the basis for normative ethics? And from there, you are most likely going to go into a relativistic aspect to it. At the least, you can go with some Hegelian "revealing" of ideals which I would entertain. But to simply be a Sophistic relativist to the extent that you seem to be will reveal our main disagreements.
Even the Hegelian ideals would be "real", even if revealed in stages, to the extent that it reveals itself over time. Slavery was seen as tragic but perhaps, a part of life in the not-to-distant past. But various beliefs and events coalesced around the idea that freedom to not be enslaved is not just pragmatic, but the ideal. The same with many ideals we cherish. So, you can justify perhaps a systems approach, but it would odd to then ditch the ideals that come about from it, and either willfully or unintentionally replace the negotiation process (as revealed over historical time) itself with the ideals that come from them.
However, at the bottom of this might not even be Hegelian idealism, but simply idealism simpliciter. Equality and fairness and non-harm and autonomy can be said to be very ancient notions competing with other things. Negative ethics battles positive ethics in various ways. Your positive ethical impulse for X might violate someone else's negative impulse to be prevented from Y. But there are times when this conflict itself doesn't simply "balance out" in an equation.
And with all this being said, we are indeed sidetracked, as AN represents a uniquely different scenario than almost any other one that happens, as everything else that happens happens AFTER someone is already born. Thus they are in "mitigation ethics". Now, indeed the ideals have to be engaged in a sort of trading of greater for lesser harms. But uniquely, prior to birth, in consideration of future people, the ideal becomes much more stark as a "Yes" or "No". Do you cause unnecessary harm? There is no one alive already for that consideration to matter for. This changes the pragmatic aspect of the ethical consideration, and indeed does move it to a more digital ideal than the usual negotiations one must play between people's positive and negative ethics. Now, indeed we are in "preventative ethics". You can uniquely prevent ALL harm, with no collateral damage to an individual.. the one in question being so harmed. And here there will be more disagreement, as you will somehow consider positive projects more important than negative harm in these considerations. Thus the ideal rears its head again, "Do you use people to the extent that you can harm them when you don't have to because you want to see X positive project play out?". And of course your answer will be in the affirmative. But then, you this is where you play 'fast and loose' with ethics to allow for such things by ditching the ideal of non-harm for some positive project, which is not justified other than circular logic whereby the whole system justifies what is done to an individual by using the very system itself as a basis, which again, is circular logic.
This question addresses the subject of moral concern: actually living, present persons, n o t possible, future persons (which is AN's category mistake).
AN's "asymmetry argument" is based on a misconception of ethics ... which your trolling is too lazy to pick-up on or too disingenuous to acknowledge my references elsewhere in this thread (as well as on @schophenhauer1's other "AN" threads), so STFU, STFD and maybe you'll learn something, kid.
I think AN can only be understood as a social tactic to justify ineffectuality. One is a victim of life itself and so can't be held responsible for ... anything.
The choice to have children is a big responsibility. So let's reframe that as a fundamental ground of victimhood. The original sin of society and its large collection of consequent responsibilities. All that must follow from being born.
Dude, your point is not valid. Buck up buttercup. Future people can be considered. It’s just how things work. If a future person could exist, they could suffer.
Quoting 180 Proof
:lol: clearly triggered. If you see trolling, look in the mirror. All your posts are drive by troll posts. I’ve never seen you make an attempt at civil dialogue. Toxic AF :mask: :death:!
keep avoiding my arguments for a straw man argument no one made.
It’s here if you need it:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/928608
My sense is similar, namely that anti-natalism is a kind of second-order malady rather than a first-order thesis. It seems to stand on the circumstantial situation of the proponent rather than on its own intellectual legs, and my guess is that anyone who holds it on purely intellectual grounds could be dissuaded in time. It's hard to understand it any other way when the arguments are not sufficient to justify the conclusion, nor the tenacity with which the conclusion is held.
I think this would be one man's assertion without intellectual "legs" to refute it. You say that AN isn't intellectual but a symptom of a diseased mind or whatnot, but then anyone can believe anything they want. I provide my justification. Where's yours?
You have proved yourself incapable of reading a simple response. AS always, proving you're not a serious person. It gets easier and easier. Maybe if you stopped behaving in a way that squarely fits th definition of trolling, you'd say something sensible.
Quoting Leontiskos
Why not just admit you don't get it? That's what all of what you've put forward in this thread amounts to. As those who hold the view attest, consistently.
@schopenhauer1 would seem proof this ain't so. :grin:
You say this kind of thing so much that it has no bite. You can't seem to decide whether to love everyone or hate everyone. And all your accusations seem better fitted to describing your own behaviour.
Why not just chill and enjoy the friction of lively debate? Let the quality of your arguments be your testament. It is not as if anyone can win or lose in an internet forum where no one is really invested in the outcomes or any independent party keeping score.
Presumably where I left them, and whatever other threads you were then drawing anti-natalism into.
I do.
Quoting apokrisis
We often turn to shoot the messenger, don't we :)
Quoting apokrisis
For sure. Which is why I woulkd ask again: Given you're (by your own admission) not understanding, or caring about what this thread is about - how come you're here laying out post after post of stuff that doesn't seem properly on topic? Surely it would make more sense to spend your time elsewhere on this forum?
Quoting apokrisis
Neither. I don't know any of you. As a general disposition, Love is far closer to the mark though. I certainly enjoy my time here, and most interactions I have.
Yes, but it should go without saying that schopenhauer1 is the exception to that claim. :grin:
I enjoyed your recent posts, beginning on page 32. I suspect schopenhauer1 regrets pulling you into the thread.
Schop keeps requesting my presence. No matter how many years it’s been. It seems to energise him judging by the caps lock shouting.
(And this thread wasn’t even about antinatalism.)
Quoting Leontiskos
He loves it. It feels like old times. :grin:
I'm not an antinatalist, but x has to exist before it can suffer.
That you made a mistake
Well assuming that autism is an essential feature of 'who you are', it might be possible that autism is not a cause of suffering in an afterlife, eternal or not. Not sure why you think it is necessarily bad, unless you think that the 'future life' will be very similar to this life (as I said before, I think that an eternal 'earthly life 2.0' would be bad for everyone, not only for some people)
I'd recommend avoiding such stereotyping, unless your goal is to be seen as an insensitive douche bag, in which case :up:
I see... Again, fair enough lol. No idea about your history
Quoting wonderer1
I thought it was really funny. I'd recommend he keep making jokes.
I'm not much inclined to use the word "essential" because of the amount of baggage that tends to come with it.
"Autism" is an apt word for describing an aspect of my particular biological nature. Evidence suggests that (from a certain perspective) it looks something like:
Given I've read relatively few posts from you, I don't suppose that image means much to you. However someone who has put some thought into how information processing occurs in neural networks, might recognize that image as pointing towards some substantial differences in thought for the possessors of those different brains.
Now I'm certainly 'less autistic' than Temple Grandin. I can pass as normal enough, and have even had to deal with skepticism towards the idea that I'm ASD on the part of people who know me well. Still, I know what Grandin means, although the social effects have been less profound for me than for her.
Anyway, I know I'm getting longwinded. I feel that since I'm on the autism spectrum and can speak out about it, I should do so in the hopes of greater understanding for people less or unable to talk about it.
Getting back to speculating about an afterlife...
Are we imagining a situation where social interaction between people plays a prominent role? If so, what reason would there be to not expect autistic people in this afterlife to experience a painful sense of being an outsider? How do you imagine things being different?
Well thanks for the interesting info, actually. Anyway as a personal note, I was strongly suspected to be autistic when I was a young kid but I wasn't formally diagnosed (...it's a long story. I am not really interested to getting diagnosed nowadays, although for a 'self-understanding' it would be cool,but for adults the diangostic process is demanding.). BTW, I actually believe that studying the brain can be insightful to understanding our minds. I do not accept physicalism, though.
Quoting wonderer1
FWIW, I also related very strongly with the 'anthropologist on Mars' analogy. I do feel 'estranged', 'out of synch' with others etc. So, I think I can 'get' the feeling (although this 'alienation' can be caused by other factors). I also do 'appear normal' but I do certiainly live in an 'atypical' way, so to speak. I also notice that I 'socialize' in an atypical way etc.
I did in the past read info about autism, took some tests (and actually got scores compatible with autism).
As I said, however, other reasons can explain that and I am not formally diagnosed...
Quoting wonderer1
Well, actually, I only hope that it will be 'good' (and BTW, I am agnostic about that). But even despite my own social difficulties, I recognize that some of the best moments in my life have been when I interacted with people (either online or IRL) and I do have a deep yearning for be part of a comunity (despite often seeking solitude because, well, company is overwhelming, and what seems natural for me is alien for others and viceversa. This 'disagreement' is actually exhausting and can be painful). So, I believe that discomfort/suffering that one can feel due to social interaction is due to contingent causes.
Hence, I believe that if the afterlife will involve a 'communal life' of some sorts this doens't imply that people who have social difficulties right now will suffer.
I've actually been through testing twice. Once in my mid twenties, after having a physicalist epiphany that lead to me thinking I should have myself tested for learning disabilitites. I brought up social issues with the person conducting the testing, but his response was, "I think that is just your style." I don't think knowledge of Asperger's or high functioning autism was very widespread in the US yet.
The second time was in my late forties after my wife recognized that a diagnosis of Aperger's made sense and I (somewhat reluctantly) came to agree with her.
The first round of testing, even without a very informative diagnosis, was very beneficial for me. The way I saw it then, is that I had been going through life walking into glass walls that everyone else seemed to walk right through. As a result of the testing I was able to get at least a sense of where the glass walls were, and develop work arounds. So I'm inclined to recommend getting the testing, despite it taking some substantial time, and possibly money.
Quoting boundless
I know what you mean about communities. I tend to fade into the background (aside from the occasional smart ass remark) in real life groups. Internet forums, going back to Usenet newsgroups, have been very valuable to me because I can interact at a pace better suited to me. (Although even in internet forums I can often get involved in more discussions than I can really keep up with.)
I was telling a friend very recently how reading the book The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace has played a role in my somewhat unorthodox forum behavior. I call it practicing grumpy zebra style center's mind. :wink:
It's been very nice to meet you.
Thank you very much for sharing and for the advice. I am not american but italian BTW, and here it seems that is generally assumed by the general population that 'autism' is always a very, very serious condition. Even 'Asperger's' is seen as something that must be 'self evident' (at least in hindsight) and 'serious'. Forms of autism that are 'not obvious' seem an impossibility.
Of course, this is different for therapists, neurodiversity movements and so on. I think that here we are '10 years behind' the US, so to speak.
Quoting wonderer1
Curiously enough, I manage to both 'fade away' in 'real life' and be very talkative, sociable, humorous and so on. But even when I am talkative/sociable/humorous I still feel 'out of synch' and in fact I do not do that in a 'ordinary' way so to speak.
Regarding online discussions, yeah, I find generally easier to speak about my interests and make discussions online and I too risk sometimes to spend too much time in them. This is due to both shyness and, so to speak, a lack of motivation to speak about my interests if I am not sure that the other person shares them.
Quoting wonderer1
Thanks!
Quoting wonderer1
Thank you very much. The same goes for me.
I appreciate your response. I'm kind of in a dark place right now, and I'm not sure when I'll have the equanimity that I want to have in responding to you, but I will get back to you.
I don't think things are so different in the US, although for some time now there has been ongoing effort in the US to communicate that there is an autism "spectrum".
Thinking about this prompted me to take a look at the Wikipedia page for Hans Asperger. Not a very flattering picture. I wonder if Hans Asperger's association with Nazism and eugenics impeded the propagation of his insights.
Quoting boundless
I'd be very interested in hearing more, if you are comfortable elaborating.
I know for me there are confounding factors, resulting from being more intellectually inclined than many people I'm around, and having a reticence towards letting people see that aspect of me because of early experience with it being alienating to do so. One thing I like about TPF is that I feel comfortable here using whatever vocabulary comes to mind, rather than feeling like I need to consider whether the person I am talking to will see me as ostentatious if I am not circumspect in my use of language.
I guess I say this to point out that there may be psychological and/or neuropsychological issues involved, and it may not be easy to disentangle them.
Quoting boundless
I can very much relate to this.
Quoting boundless
I'm still experiencing occasional PTSD 'aftershocks', but I am much better now. I can't think of anything that has come along so 'out of the blue' and triggered a reaction in me the way that self defense thread did.
Well, I sort of agree with that: the difference is not so great, but IMO there is. Anyway, I don't think that Italy is 'late' because of some pecularity of my country. Actually, I think that the main problem is linguistic. Scientific research (included the one in 'neurodivergence') is all written in English. There is simply much more information in the 'anglosphere' than in other areas.
Quoting wonderer1
Yeah, agreed!
Quoting wonderer1
The way I socialize and my sense of humor are just very peculiar. They are generally appreciated and I am considered somewhat 'original'. This originality is both something spontaneous and an ironic result of my attempt to try to 'fit in' and being more like others. Consciously monitoring my behaviors, thinking about 'what I should say' to be friendly/entertain etc has the result of me being seen as 'original', weird in a positive sense, I would guess (note that I do all of that in a somewhat automatic way, I have an instict to do that...). I don't consider it a negative trait, of course it has its 'perks', but is not something that renders social relations really satisfying.
I can have friendships, having a very good time with others but the a nagging sense of 'alienation' is still present, like say if I belonged to somewhere else. There is a difference in how I communicate, what I consider natural/obvious and so on.
Well, if you want I can share something more 'personal' in PM, if you are interested.
Quoting wonderer1
I fully agree with this. How much I would like that 'real life' is like this forum, lol...
Quoting wonderer1
I see, I am sorry for that, it must be very difficult to handle.
Quoting 180 Proof
... a quick summary of a dark pandeism¹ (e.g. contra 'Spinoza's God') rather than mere bourgeois 'pessimism' (A. Schopenhauer) or ascetic 'nihilism' (Kitar? Nishida, Keiji Nishitani).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718054 [1]