Relationships- Are They Really a Source for Meaningful Life and Optimism?
This topic is a break off from a discussion in the technology thread involving @Bitter Crank. (I thought it worthy of its own topic)
Just like "good work", "good relationships" are not a guarantee in life.. Oddly enough, while relationships, and specifically good intimate relationships are on the top of people's lists of examples of what makes life meaningful, it is among the the least guaranteed and most fickle of phenomena we encounter. Circumstances make some people more "satisfied" in the quantity and quality of their relationships just like some people are more "satisfied" in their work life. It might even be the case that even as hard as it might be in finding (at the least) an adequate job, adequate jobs may be more readily available in "modern" society than adequate relationships.
Of course, this unequal distribution of true friendships and intimate relations are not even taking into account that other people, though creating opportunities for happiness, might equalize the situation out by, in turn, being a source of immense frustration, disappointment, and any number of painful experiences.
Also, there is a tendency for novelty and boredom- people get tired of other people which causes them to look for more novel people to spend time with, and in a weird way mimicking our addiction to mindnumbing technologies. There is always a new high with some other new gadget or person. Just like mindnumbing technologies, our reliance on the trivialities of short term encounters are valued more than cultivating long term but less novel social bonds.
So to put these ideas together.. humans are screwed in two ways in regards to what seems high on many people's list of what gives meaning to life:
1) Good relationships, a candidate for one of life's most meaningful phenomena are not guaranteed for all, and unlike commodities like "bread and circus" could not even be something provided to the masses like in some weird hypothetical totalitarian regime. You cannot force relationships, just force proximity to others. Relationships, and especially cultivating strong ones, are organic and highly subject to context. They are their own ecosystems which cannot be created out of fiat. Therefore, this candidate for an intrinsic "good" of life, even if it should be cherished is highly circumstantial and is unequally distributed such that some people may have it in abundance and others experience varying degrees of its deprivation.
2) Good intimate relationships are hard to cultivate, when they do persist they lead often to frustration, annoyance with the other person, boredom, etc., and are easily lost.
How can something that is unequally distributed and has the potential to be a source of even more suffering in the short or long run be a reason for embracing life or providing new life to other individuals (i.e. reason for procreation), or being in any way a reason for having a positive outlook in regards to the lot of the human experience?
Just like "good work", "good relationships" are not a guarantee in life.. Oddly enough, while relationships, and specifically good intimate relationships are on the top of people's lists of examples of what makes life meaningful, it is among the the least guaranteed and most fickle of phenomena we encounter. Circumstances make some people more "satisfied" in the quantity and quality of their relationships just like some people are more "satisfied" in their work life. It might even be the case that even as hard as it might be in finding (at the least) an adequate job, adequate jobs may be more readily available in "modern" society than adequate relationships.
Of course, this unequal distribution of true friendships and intimate relations are not even taking into account that other people, though creating opportunities for happiness, might equalize the situation out by, in turn, being a source of immense frustration, disappointment, and any number of painful experiences.
Also, there is a tendency for novelty and boredom- people get tired of other people which causes them to look for more novel people to spend time with, and in a weird way mimicking our addiction to mindnumbing technologies. There is always a new high with some other new gadget or person. Just like mindnumbing technologies, our reliance on the trivialities of short term encounters are valued more than cultivating long term but less novel social bonds.
So to put these ideas together.. humans are screwed in two ways in regards to what seems high on many people's list of what gives meaning to life:
1) Good relationships, a candidate for one of life's most meaningful phenomena are not guaranteed for all, and unlike commodities like "bread and circus" could not even be something provided to the masses like in some weird hypothetical totalitarian regime. You cannot force relationships, just force proximity to others. Relationships, and especially cultivating strong ones, are organic and highly subject to context. They are their own ecosystems which cannot be created out of fiat. Therefore, this candidate for an intrinsic "good" of life, even if it should be cherished is highly circumstantial and is unequally distributed such that some people may have it in abundance and others experience varying degrees of its deprivation.
2) Good intimate relationships are hard to cultivate, when they do persist they lead often to frustration, annoyance with the other person, boredom, etc., and are easily lost.
How can something that is unequally distributed and has the potential to be a source of even more suffering in the short or long run be a reason for embracing life or providing new life to other individuals (i.e. reason for procreation), or being in any way a reason for having a positive outlook in regards to the lot of the human experience?
Comments (236)
Of course you also have to work at achieving those things in the first place--employment/a career, friendships, romantic relationships, etc. You can't expect them to just fall into your lap.
And sometimes those things will be a problem to an extent where you have to abandon them, but you have to get right back up and develop more of them, without shifting to a bad attitude about that stuff. Again, this requires some effort on your part.
And so why is the struggle to achieve career, friendships, romantic relationships.. worth the struggle? Quoting Terrapin Station
Why does simply trying to say "work harder" become a remediation of the problems I brought up? You are simply restating truisms as if this diminishes the two points I brought up in the OP:
1) Good relationships, a candidate for one of life's most meaningful phenomena are not guaranteed for all, and unlike commodities like "bread and circus" could not even be something provided to the masses like in some weird hypothetical totalitarian regime. You cannot force relationships, just force proximity to others. Relationships, and especially cultivating strong ones, are organic and highly subject to context. They are their own ecosystems which cannot be created out of fiat. Therefore, this candidate for an intrinsic "good" of life, even if it should be cherished is highly circumstantial and is unequally distributed such that some people may have it in abundance and others experience varying degrees of its deprivation.
2) Good intimate relationships are hard to cultivate, when they do persist they lead often to frustration, annoyance with the other person, boredom, etc., and are easily lost.
How can something that is unequally distributed and has the potential to be a source of even more suffering in the short or long run be a reason for embracing life or providing new life to other individuals (i.e. reason for procreation), or being in any way a reason for having a positive outlook in regards to the lot of the human experience?
Psuedo-pragmatic posturing aside, these are still problems with a cherished notion of what makes the human experience meaningful.
Though one can provide the the usual stock answers of "just work harder!" and "the tragedy brings with it the meaning as the flip side of the joy.." these somehow seem to fall short as ad hoc justifications and ways of saying "nothing to see here".
First, it doesn't have to be a struggle. Looking at it that way is already entering with an attitude that probably won't be beneficial.
You won't necessarily feel that they are worth the "struggle" once you have them and compare that to your other options. But most people who have them, and especially those who do accept them for what they are rather than assessing them on some narrow, preconceived notion of what they should be, do feel that way about them compared to their other options. Of course, if you don't have those things in your life and you're perfectly content with that, then there's no need to worry about them so that you're even wondering about whether, and in what contexts, they might offer something to you.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm just emphasizing that careers,, relationships etc. are something that one needs to put some effort into. That's not to say that you're thinking otherwise, but just in case anyone is thinking otherwise.
Also, if what I'm saying is just "repeating truisms" then there can hardly be grounds for disagreeing with me. We should all hope to say things that are true, and truth isn't correlated with novelty.
Understanding posts often requires some effort, too, by the way. A large part of my point is that good relationships aren't about the details of the relationship. They're about how you look at them, your attitude towards them, and whether you're making any effort towards them or your attitude towards them.
This is from how you were describing it.. I was just mirroring that. As you stated:
Quoting Terrapin Station
That seems more a struggle.. of course my point was for some people it is less a struggle than for others.. easier.. unequally distributed, circumstantial.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Your hypotheticals here don't seem to conform with reality. You are minimizing the harm that I brought up that comes with the relationship phenomena. The person who does not care can exist in small batches, but most people are pretty damn social animals.. Again, downplaying this to make some point that there is no point seems like a good way to pretend the problems don't exist. I can say the same about a number of events that are actually harmful.. It doesn't make them less harmful because I claim it isn't so.
Quoting Terrapin Station
No, truisms but in the way that "working harder can lead to getting things" says anything.. That doesn't say much for the harm that exists in the "hard work" in getting, obtaining, and falling out of various relationships. It is to downplay and dismiss a bigger problem.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Again, whether this is true or not, does not take away the pain involved in this "meaningful" phenomenon. It is on the top of many lists of meaningful things (along with learning, achievement, etc.), but can be quite problematic. Ad hoc justifications of tragi-comedy.. seem like lesser versions of Nietzschean eternal return.. the sufferer who accepts all suffering..The meaning in the suffering of relationships, etc. One can use this type of hallow excuse for any number of phenomena of suffering..Change your attitude so you can deal man.. But the harm exists in the first place.
Maybe you downplay any harm as just attitude and hard work.. Which is to dismiss the negative aspects in the name of whistling dixie.
It depends.. I qualified it with this: of course my point was for some people it is less a struggle than for others.. easier.. unequally distributed, circumstantial.
So for some it is much harder work than others..
But this picayune back and forth is now making your statements troll-like.. Either say something substantial about it besides hard work and attitude makes this not a real harm, or move on..
You said that what I described was a struggle, right?
You are leading me down the troll-den.. Yep.. struggle.. hard work, difficult task.. And I said it is harder work for some than others.
(Re "trolling," I define that as someone (a) saying things that they don't believe, where (b) they're not doing so for comedic purposes, and (c) the motivation is primarily to get other people upset/worked up. I suppose you define it differently though.)
I'm not sure you went into this argument with good faith. You said:
Quoting Terrapin Station
Quoting Terrapin Station
Quoting Terrapin Station
Already you framed the debate in very personal and provocative terms.. which really wasn't what I was looking for. If you want to play pseduo-pragmatic "Your philosophy is nothing but personal failings and thus no argument.. now here's some therapy now cram it up your ass you damn fool" then do it on another thread.
The issues here are personal--we're talking about relationships, how we interpret them, our expectations about them, etc.
I'm simply stressing for anyone reading--this is a public forum in the sense that anyone can come along and read it, that the success of relationships has to do with our attitudes towards them; it has to do with appreciating them for what they are, going with the flow of them, etc. One is going to increase one's problems with relationships if one has narrow preconceptions about what they should be like. You can have good relationships and that doesn't have to be difficult. The key is the way you look at the relationship, the way you look at relationships in general.
It's not that different than the key to happiness in general. It's not at all about the stuff you have, the statuses you have--anything like that. It's about one's attitude, one's disposition, towards whatever one's situation is. People see the key as being "if only I had this and that, if only this part of my life was just like so," etc. That's not the key. The key is one's attitude towards what one has, what one's life is like right now.
So it's the same thing if we think "This relationship isn't good unless the other person does this, and doesn't do that." We're going to have a lot of problems right off the bat in that case. The adjustment should instead be to our attitudes, our preconceptions.
So if there are ten apple trees in your orchard and three of them have sour or rotting apples for whatever reason, you don't harvest the other seven? If we do nothing that has the potential to hurt us or where success is not guaranteed we do nothing at all. All good is unevenly distributed. That's the very nature of the Universe. You can elect to have nothing to do with it and die of starvation (cutting your nose off to spite your face) or embrace whatever good there is to be found in it and live.
Yes, so with all the flaws and harms of relationships, is it a good reason to expose new people to life? I say this because, it is often used as a way to justify why it is a good idea to continue more people.. relationships, advancing science, technology, knowledge, art, music, achievement, honing abilities in this or that talent..etc.
(If that was the ulterior motive, I can understand your response to my comments better)
So things are unevenly distributed.. some people will be successful in relationships (regardless of hard work or not), some will not.. Some will be exposed to good relationships, some will not.. Relationships that are gained are often lost, and lead to more strife.. these are the inherent harms of relationships.. their uneven distribution, and the possibility of harm that comes from gaining them anyways.. If relationships are such a large part of what makes a meaningful life..exposing a new person to a phenomena that is so vital yet so unevenly distributed might be cruel at best..
Just like having a child which will knowingly struggle with adequate job satisfaction.. having a child that will knowingly struggle with relationship satisfaction (or varying degrees of success depending on circumstances and individuals) seems to need more justification. The lengths we go for therapy alone.. seems to indicate that we are far from ideal.. reframing the debate that its YOUR fault. not the universe.. how is that an airtight argument against someone coming along and accusing you of turning the tables to try to make the idea go away by putting the onus on the person who was exposed to the harm's shoulders?
At any rate, it's obviously a matter of how someone is looking at things, how they're assessing them, etc.--that's all that harm, suffering, and so on are in the first place.
And for most folks, there's a degree of malleability in how they look at things. They don't HAVE to look at things in a negative way. They can have positive attitudes, they can enjoy things for what they are, etc.
There's also people's biochemistry, and the underlying needs and wants that all people have that are never satisfied..
Quoting Terrapin Station
This is a bit pollyanna.. Many people end up in the throes of this or that and do not even look at the bigger picture.. Rarely are people provoked to answer questions of their overall well-being, and when they are.. it is skewed as people generally want to look like they enjoy their life, despite whatever they actually thought in this or that moment of pain or suffering..
Not looking like a "debbie downer" is a good way to save face.
If you're that miserable, get counseling. Except for extreme situations, you can be helped and you don't have to be so miserable.
Again, it's this kind of rhetoric that makes me not want to respond, because you personalize it.
Believe it or not, there has been a new phenomenon of people shopping at Walmart for one night stands. The sad truth is that, while money can't buy happiness, it certainly helps to avoid misery and, while relationships can't guarantee happiness, when they work they can extend your lifespan. One study concluded that those who nurture contentment over ambition tend to fare better in the long run in spite of Hollywood promoting such ideals as fighting the good fight and that love should be all about finding that perfect match.
How everyone else who can't paint to save their lives are supposed to live is beyond me.
It is true that good work, good relationships, good housing, good food, or a good death are not guaranteed in this life, and it is also true that nothing lasts. The Appalachian Mountains were once as rugged as the Rockies. Not any more.
If not guaranteed absolutely, relationships are practically a certainty, though, and most of them are good. Every child must be parented and socialized in a community, and that entails a host of nurturing relationships. One has caring teachers, playmates, buddies, friends, and lovers. True, they do not all last and many are not meant to last.
In the related thread I mentioned the four different kinds of love -- agape, eros, filio, and storge.§ Eros is not 'elected' we are struck by it. But we decide in favor of universal love (agape), and can extend filio (brotherly love) to a wider circle. Extending our love to others engenders relationships. Is there disappointment, rejection, betrayal, suffering? Sometimes.
Like metal and glass, we are strengthened by tempering. Suffering is the medium in which we are tempered -- made strong. No, suffering need not be catastrophic, devastating, or severe, but without suffering we are weak and easily broken.
You do not make distinctions among sufferings. Life is suffering, suffering is a bad thing, and it is no kindness to bring children into this world.
§Storge—empathy bond. Storge (storg?, Greek: ??????) is liking someone through the fondness of familiarity, family members or people who relate in familiar ways that have otherwise found themselves bonded by chance. An example is the natural love and affection of a parent for their child.
They become critics.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Still are rugged.
Quoting Bitter Crank
For you they might have been.
I think you undermine your case by stapling those two issues together.
Given that an individual is here, alive and conscious, there is every reason to make the best of it, regardless of how much one may have thought it would have been better never to have been conceived. And IIRC there is no end of empirical evidence that maintaining plentiful strong relationships is conducive to happiness.
The issue of procreating however is far more complex and multi-faceted. It is possible to be the world's cheeriest person, with the best imaginable circle of friends, and still believe it is better not to procreate. And it is possible to be the world's most miserable, pessimistic curmudgeon and yet either want to procreate or believe one has a moral duty to do so.
It's just I have a theme here lately.. the big REASONS of modern society are unsatisfying for meaning... Science, technology, the group, relationships, etc. etc. What sounds meaningful when seen from afar is really just bumpy and more chaotic up close. When people are asked to sum up meaning, the analog of life becomes a digital response (0 or 1).. Relationships, technological advancements, learning.. etc.. The analog of the everyday and actually living through life reveals that it's really a lot of energy used up in various strategies of cultural upkeep (cultural survival and maintenance through job, consumption, maintaining premises and property, etc.) and boredom. All of these motivations cause many problems in their own right... and the spin offs continue into other spin offs.
I don't understand how this is possible. Surely if you are starving, or dehydrated, or overheating, or lonely, or fearful, you can't honestly consider yourself "happy". It's not sustainable nor is it even possible to instantiate while these needs are not met.
The point though is, despite the fact that this particular phenomena is picked out as one of the top reasons for meaning, it is so fraught with its own negative downsides, this pinnacle of human meaning is also a great cause of suffering due to its uneven distribution and harmful aspects.
Quoting andrewk
This may be true, but only one outcome leads to certain suffering- disposition happy or not. Anyways, the point is, whether from the disposition happy or the disposition curmudgeon perspective, relationships can be of high quality and/or abundant for some and it could be quite barren, and not the right circumstances for abundant or quality relationships with others.. Also, whether relationships are quality/abundant or not, the harm of cultivating, maintaining, and losing them are their own world of frustration, woe, disappointment, tediousness, etc. etc.
So we got a double whammy bad situation here. One supposed candidate for meaning to life becomes something that some people can enjoy and others cannot and that even if enjoyed, become a source of harmful experiences anyways. This supposed font of meaningful experiences is not had by all, and may never be for some. How sad it is that something that is supposed to be so quintessential can ultimately allude many due to various circumstances, contingencies, and perhaps even personality types. Again, my theme here is that all these reasons become moot for justification of the pollyanna enthusiasm for life (happy disposition or not).
My guess is many people have a hard time peeling away the actual raw sadness of this situation because they are fed puff stories in media (movies, news stories, books, etc.) that seem to provide some sort of consolation through art/achievements that individuals under bad circumstances somehow sublimate through their pain. These people supposedly turn their grief into some sort of great achievement or other. I have a feeling this is very few people that really achieve this sort of salvation through pain (if really this is a thing). Rather, these aesthetic sublimation stories and seem to be in the romantic vein of what I call the "Nietzschean idea of transforming the pain of life into meaning". This seems like ad hoc justification.. some sort of after the fact excuse needed to make pain seem necessary, transformative, or otherwise..
So we got strands of thought from very different directions trying to cover up this mess of the harms from life (including from relationships or the lack thereof).. the boot-straps people.. "work harder...it's YOUR fault".. the Nietzschean types "Hey, you were given lemons..but look at all this tragic comedy fodder you can have from your tragic-comedy kind of absurd life".. and probably a few more.
That's just anecdotal. One might as well say 'sometimes food tastes nice and sometimes it doesn't, so there's no point in eating it'. What matters is not whether there are sometimes bad relationships or bad food, but whether having food or relationships is in general conducive to our flourishing, and in both cases the evidence is an overwhelming Yes.
There are people in life who have no relationships. They are those who because of bad luck or bad management have ended up isolated in life - living alone in an apartment on a pension, with no visitors or people ringing their phone, nobody that they go out to meet and talk to. The option of living like that is available to anybody that is retired on a pension, and for those not yet old enough to retire, there exists a halfway house of going to work to earn a salary, talking to nobody there except where necessitated by the job, going straight home and having no social contact.
Almost nobody chooses such a life, because for anybody except somebody with a very unusual psychology, it would be a desperately sad, lonely, miserable, despairing life.
I'm glad to see that darth has quoted that famous Sartre saying about other people. I quite like Sartre but that is one of the stupidest, most ignorant and dishonest things I have ever known a philosopher to say. I can only hope that, like many sayings attributed to famous people, he never really said it.
But that's a false equivalence. Food is pretty easy to find these days.. one's that are easier to satisfy tastes than presumably something as substantial as a relationship.
Quoting andrewk
What is flourishing here? And what is general? The so-called "majority".. this committee of people that become the standard for others?
Quoting andrewk
Indeed this is just one example of circumstance.. but it does not have to be so black and white.. How about situations where you can meet people but there is no quality relationships and the second major reason.. the harms from relationships that do form.. Your underlying assumption is the boot-strap approach.. that person isn't following some prescribed method that these others are doing.
So to put your two thoughts together.. 1) some people's suffering is ok because at least the vague "majority" doesn't suffer in such a way 2) these people are not doing the relationship thing right anyways, so they are a poor example.. Or is there something else you are saying that is more nuanced and perhaps agrees with my argument more than I seem to be picking up here?
Quoting andrewk
He may have been trying to get to a point.. I never really read the book it came from but I think that was more about his existential view of authenticity.. Other people make you the "other" and transform you from your subjective freedom into an object.. or something along those lines.. but again, I could be off on that.
Relationships aren't a source of optimism but they can reinforce that outlook. Better to have loved and lost, is an optimistic look at love relationships. My old relationships were positive experiences in the end, where a pessimist going through the same wouldn't agree.
My relationships to others (and things and ideas and events) make up meaning. That's not The Meaning as I understand the OP to ask but I'm comfortable with life having no meaning.
I think Sartre was focused on how the expectations of others and the need to conform to the group makes acquaintanceship with other people hellish, not that other people literally are devils from Hell.
At that level of individuation, though, phenomenology and psychology in general fails, because no system can be made out of a radical presupposition of the uniqueness of an individual.
Shouldn't theory be subservient to reality rather than putting blinders on and making things subservient to theory just because? The latter emphasizes why "theory worship" is a negative thing. If we have a theory that concludes or predicts something obviously incorrect, we need to change the theory. If it can't be changed, then that's not a problem with reality.
What I was referring to was personal experience. I can't really show you that.
I didn't say either of those two things, and I don't believe them, so I'm not interested in what happens when they're put together.
Do you really believe that you are better off without any relationships? Do you live out that belief, avoiding friendships, avoiding human contact and keeping solitary as much as you can? Unless you do that, it seems that you are arguing for a position that you do not believe.
If you do think you live that out, have you reflected on why you participate in a forum like this rather than just reading philosophical books and papers? Are you sure that wanting human interaction is not a part of that?
This started off more about intimate pair-bond type relationships (or more for the polyamorous type?). But it isn't too plausible to stretch this out to any type of relationship. I'm not saying I personally avoid people at all. However, it is not inconceivable that many people do not find good "partners" or any "partners", have but shallow friendships, find themselves alone amongst other people because there is not much common ground, etc. etc. There are a multitude of ways that people simply don't, cannot, or are not in the right circumstance connect with others.
Quoting andrewk
My claim is not that people do not or should not seek out relationships.. quite the contrary. It is rather that because it is such an important thing in our lives (to be social.. to have intimate partners, to have friends) that it is
1) highly circumstantial in organic nature of development (it is not something that you just "will" it sort of happens out of repeated events with the same person that you have mutual interests, proximity to, and other connections) and unevenly distributed.. This is especially so with intimate relationships but again, can be expanded to simply "good friends". Thus some people seem to have a lot of strong connections with intimate lovers and friends, and others do not.
2) Good intimate relationships are hard to cultivate, and even when they do persist, they lead often to frustration, annoyance with the other person, boredom, etc., and can easily be lost after much hard work in gaining and maintaining the relationship.
A phenomenon that I find really interesting is that, over the last fifteen years, it has become quite normal to apply the same sort of deliberate relationship creation to erotic relationships as well. Twenty years ago there was quite a stigma associated with seeking a mate through a dating service or the personal ads in the classified section in a newspaper. Although it is decades since I have been 'in the market' my observation is that with young people it is now considered perfectly normal to seek a partner through an online dating app.
That's by the by though, as I am interested in the pros and cons of friendships rather than of erotic relationships. I agree with you that, for many people, erotic relationships cause more harm than good, whereas I think there could be only a tiny minority of people that would not benefit from friendship.
If Arthur were here today I wonder if he'd join a musical ensemble, for the joint benefits of companionship and culture. He really did love music, after all. I joined a local choir a couple of weeks ago and am really enjoying it. We're singing the Nelson Mass on 20 November, and the tenor part is challenging for somebody that has not sung publicly for 25 years.
I get that there are numerous modern avenues to try to make friends and meet partners. This is certainly not guaranteed. Again, I maintain my original premise that relationships are unevenly distributed whether people seek it out, or it just happens organically. And as you acknowledge, many times relationships are a source of harm once obtained, so there's that too. We play at trying to disturb life's dull void with this and that.. and it leads to suffering much of the time.. We cannot stand the void, and we cannot stand the flux with disturbing the void (whatever pursuits we seek).. But always avoid the Noid.. whoops.. I got carried away there.
We are born and the void is disturbed.. we must further disturb it with our goings about with various cultural pursuits of survival and entertainment goal-seeking. Is the void real or just a placeholder for the ideal of calm/tranquility which is rarely obtained? Obviously the latter so don't start bringing up ideas that I am not trying to make..the literalists in here.. you know.. the people who will immediately call out that there is no void without someone to perceive it yadayada.
@Bitter Crank
I think I lost my own point amongst all this pragmatic "solutions" to the problem.. My point was that if pair-bonding (or some sort of intimate bond relationship) is such a vital and meaningful part to our social existence, life certainly does not provide a guaranteed, easy, or even clear way to attain and keep such a high priority.
My point earlier about technology/science is how that too has nothing about it which makes life meaningful. There is no reason to have children so that they can experience or contribute to technology, despite the rhetoric by some that this must be so.
My point earlier about the group (and specifically work) I said:
"As far as life is expressed by the work we do.. I don't know, that's a pretty romantic vision of work. It seems like an ad hoc justification for a forced activity. Saying "Hey, we all have to work, but maybe you can find work that expresses your creativity", does not take away the fact that we are FORCED to work, whether there is a benefit we might get out of it or not. The forced part might be the sticking point here.
You also mentioned luck which is a good point to bring up. Free labor markets have an element of luck to it. There is no way to know what jobs might have been the most optimal, where they are available, and how good they will be once you actually start working there. Also, some people just might be at the right place at the right time, and some may not leading to two completely different career paths- one more to the liking of person a one not as much to the liking as b. Moving from one job to another is stressful and has many costs so it is not just about "jumping ship and leaving". However, the luck aspect which you brought up is really secondary to the main problem which is that work is a forced situation."
Anyways, the point is that we are forced into life, and we make ad hoc reasons why it must be meaningful since, you know, we are already here.
This is where antinatalism can be a philosophy of consolation.. Not out of its practical implementation, but more out of an embracing of one's own dignity as an individual.. Understanding this pessimistic/antinatalist ethic instills in the individual the understanding that even though they find themselves in existence and are trying to make meaning and dealing with suffering, and are told that they are given the the "opportunity" to pursue personal ends (like contributing technology, meaningful work, intimate relationships, "flow" activities, entertainment, , etc.), that none of these things are guaranteed, and that much of them cause harm, and that we are all just coping at this point, swinging the pendulum between survival through cultural upkeep and maintenance, and turning boredom into entertainment goal-seeking.
That said, I'm also a fairly happy person. Sure I feel down every now and then, and I recognize the constant 'background' suffering that motivates my actions (eg, I seek entertainment out of boredom, relationships out loneliness, food out of hunger, etc), but I still enjoy things by and large. I have some good relationships, I'm optimistic about the future, I enjoy my interests, my work is bearable, food is good. One can be a philosophical pessimist without being psychologically pessimistic. Of course I don't know you and might be totally off base, but from what you write it sounds like you hardly enjoy anything, or find anything to be worthwhile and meaningful. You might be clinically depressed and are gravitating towards philosophical pessimism and anti-natalism, because it's a way to justify and explain your horrible experience. ''I feel horrible because life itself is horrible'' kind of thing.
Being depressed can feel like you're seeing the truth of the world - that life is actually just constant psychological and physical suffering, meaninglessness, and has no value. This is simply not true, there are plenty of joys in life, but you can only experience them if you're not suffering from clinical depression. I would be very careful to not fall for this 'truth' aspect of clinical depression. It really feels like you're seeing and experiencing the world how it truly is deep down, almost like you're enlightened to the fundamental nature of reality (suffering, void, worthlessness). Happiness experiences can feel fake and unreal, and you can feel as if you only feel happy about x or y thing, or are only having z enjoyable experience because you're not experiencing some suffering or another as much. For example, you might feel that the 'joy' of eating is nothing more than a reduction in the suffering of hunger, and you might as well just not have felt hungry in the first place because all you've achieved is reduced your suffering to the same neutral level of suffering the dead are privy to. What was the point, you'd be better off dead.
This is not true. There is plenty of joy/enjoyment to be had in this world. Actual pleasurable and net positive sensations do exist and can be experienced. Relationships truly can be a great source of meaning and fun - you just have to find someone you like, and not be suffering from clinical depression. It's hard to see the worth in life when it's literally impossible for you to enjoy anything because you're depressed.
I mean how much deep down do you really care about preventing the suffering of non-existent unborn people? Not saying you're lying or not being genuine, there just might be other motivations at work here aside from just empathy in espousing and convincing others of anti-natalism. For example, it might bring you psychological comfort to have other people confirm and validate your pessimistic views.
So, yeah you have a choice to try to emulate the detached stoic.. or you can realize that human psychology pretty much sets things at the usual bar of "when things are going well, I forget or want to forget what it was like when things did not go well"..
Quoting dukkha
I agree.. One can think that the logic of antinatalism is such that suffering will occur, etc.. and still be quite happy with current circumstances.. Of course, hope can be a tricky thing as well- it sets up disappointment, but also provides the carrot and the stick.
Quoting dukkha
You are correct in not knowing. I've written many things, mainly in the old Philosophy Forum about being a Philosophical Pessimist without being depressed as you explained above.
Quoting dukkha
No, I quite enjoy eating.
Quoting dukkha
So, did you read the posts as to WHY these broad themes like "relationships" are not as pleasurable? It is not that I don't think they can be, but it is the difference between analog and digital.. The digital response when asked post-experience or in summary is "relationship yay".. the analog of living through the seeking, cultivating, maintaining, etc. can be quite different and more nuanced.
Quoting dukkha
Yeah, you are not uncovering any underlying truth here about my motivations.. I even say it quite clearly in my last post:
Quoting schopenhauer1
But how do you appreciate it for what it is without preconceived notions about what it is, what you expect and where it sits in with those expectations?
To appreciate it for what it is means to value it truthfully and truth is just a term used in this context for relative worth compared to other circumstances your life, your job, your girlfriend could be in.
No it doesn't. There is no "valuing something truthfully."
How could you know if this were true?
By observing that no matter where one looks, there is no objective/extramental value to be found, and thus no value to get right, or to know the truth about.
Maybe try saying why you don't consider the earlier response to answer the question? Otherwise I'd have to try to make wild guesses about why you'd be playing "poorly programmed AI bot."
So basically your are saying it is your subjective opinion.
Why should any one care about your subjective opinion?
Well no shit that it can't be objectively true, since nothing is objectively true. When you ask how one can know if it's true, you're asking how one arrives at a subjective judgment about the relation of a proposition to the world ("to the world" since I use correspondence theory). That's what I answered. So why ask the same question again?
Why should you care about my subjective judgment re truth? I wouldn't say that you should, but after all, you asked, didn't you?
There are a bunch of different reasons why one might or might not care about someone's opinion. It's up to you ultimately.
You say this as if it could be objectively true.
It is just your opinion, you realize that right?
How the heck do you "say it as if it's objectively true"?
You mean, "I read that as if (you're saying) it's objectively true, because I have a difficult time not assuming that truth is objective."
Quoting m-theory
The fact isn't just my opinion. Whether it's true is.
At any rate, why are you derailing this thread so that it's a rehash a discussion we've already had? If you want to continue truth as a topic why don't we move this over to the thread where our previous discussion about it took place, the thread asking whether truth is mind-dependent?
It is not an objective fact, it is just a subjective fact that it is your opinion.
I did not derail the thread, you mentioned something you believed as though it was an objective fact or somehow objectively true.
It is not, it is just your opinion.
Is J. P. the devil?
On your view you mean? Because it's not on my view. On my view, that nothing is objectively true is an objective fact. It's just that it's not objectively true.
Assuming that's written as you intended to write it, I agree with that. It's not an objective fact that is (what's) true. What's true is a judgment between propositions and facts, and as a judgment, we're in the realm of the subjective.
Again, though, can we move this discussion to the "Is truth mind-dependent" thread?
The story is "No Exit" and the passage is:
“All those glances that I eat … Ha, you’re only two? I thought you were much more numerous. So that’s hell. … I never thought You remember: the sulfur, the stake, the grill .. Oh What a joke. No need to grill: hell is other people”.
We agree.
Right. So what was the point of all of that nonsense?
Not objectively true.
Sure. But whether it's an objective fact in no way hinges on truth (judgments).
It's just like noting that the existence of a banana has nothing to do with what you think about the taste of it.
And it is only your judgement that it is an objective fact.
You can't move from your judgement that it is true to that therefor it is an objective fact.
No. Not at all. Something being an objective fact has nothing to do with my judgment. (Normally at least--there are cases where this differs, but not for the vast majority of cases.)
Quoting m-theory
I don't know what "move from" refers to, really. My judgment is about the relationship of a proposition to the facts (since I'm a correspondence theorist).
Exactly.
Your judgement does not matter.
That was my point.
What is the objective fact is the case regardless of what you believe is true.
It doesn't matter in the sense that it has no impact on most facts, sure.
The facts are the facts, regardless of subjective truths.
Right, at least in the vast majority of cases.
Also you don't need "subjective" in front of "truth," since all truth is subjective.
It does have something to do with what's objectively the case if we're using correspondence theory.
Statements aren't objective period. You can simply be referring to the ink marks or sounds or whatever, but they require meaning to be statements (or propositions).
That statements aren't objective has no bearing on the fact that truth-value has something to do with the objective world if we're using correspondence theory.
And they only correspond to the subjective case.
For example "All truths are subjective" only corresponds to the subjective, by definition.
That's correct. Statements are not objective facts, but they can be about objective facts. That's a matter of how someone thinks about the statement in question.
Quoting m-theory
I don't know what "the subjective case" is, but this not the case re correspondence theory. Correspondence theory is a matter of assessing propositions with respect to (most often) objective facts.
Quoting m-theory
No. It's an objective fact that all truths are subjective. It's not, however, or objectively true that all truths are subjective. What makes it true (on correspondence theory) is someone judging how the proposition ("All truths are subjective") matches objective facts (namely, that all truths are subjective).
And by definition the subjective part does not correspond to anything objective.
The statement "All truths are subjective" does not correspond to any objective fact.
Right. There are no objective truths and nobody is saying that "the truth part" corresponds to something objective. (If they were saying that, it would amount to saying "Its true that it's true . . . " ad infinitum). The correspondence in question is between "All truths are subjective" and the fact that all truths are subjective.
Quoting m-theory
I don't know what definition you're using but it's certainly not a standard one. "Corresponds with" is not "is identical to." Correspondence is a matter of how the proposition "matches" the facts. That's the whole point to focusing on judgments. Correspondence only obtains via judgments we make by way of assigning meanings and so on. That's what correspondence is. So the subjective part (the proposition) corresponds with the objective stuff (the objective facts) just in case someone judges there to be a match with respect to their meaning assignments. That's what truth is (on correspondence theory, by way of my functional analysis of truth.)
Quoting m-theory
Yes it does.
If your judgements don't correspond to something objective, they are not facts.
None of the statement "All truths (which are subjective) are subjective (which is not objective)" corresponds to anything that is objective by definition.
No one is saying that the judgment itself corresponds to an objective judgment. So no one is saying that the judgment is an objective fact--in fact, it's just the point that the judgment is NOT an objective fact, hence that truth-value only occurs in minds. The correspondence issue is one of the porposition and facts. It's an issue of whether the proposition corresponds to objective facts.
Quoting m-theory
Yes it does correspond to something that is objective. It corresponds to the fact that truth-value is something that only occurs in minds.
It's ridiculous how confused you are about my views, by the way.
What part of truth value or mind is objective?
No part, and what you're quoting from me in no way suggests that I'd say any part is objective.
Am I saying that the truth-value itself corresponds to an objective fact?
You are saying that the term "truth" and the term "subjective" mean the same thing, but that is not an objective fact
No I'm not saying that truth and subjective are the same thing.
It seems like you're not really interested in trying to understand what it is that I'm saying. Either that or it's extremely difficult for you to understand.
Is not an objective fact.
Are you presenting your view now?
Do you agree.
"All x are y"
This is not an objective fact is it?
It does not correspond to anything objective.
Depending on what's plugged into the variables, that could very well be an objective fact.
There are tons of objective facts of that form.
So is it an objective fact or not?
Quoting Terrapin Station
Quoting m-theory
Quoting Terrapin Station
And this, boys and girls, is an example of a meaningful life relationship for philosophers. Were they not separated by the chasm of cyberspace, they would, about now, be ready to fall into each other's arms.
When I write, "Depending on what's plugged into the variables, that could very well be an objective fact" in response to that, what happens that causes you to ask the above question?
x and y.
Is it an objective fact that all x are y?
It's not any sort of fact that all x are y where we don't plug anything into the variables and where we have no context, like a logical argument.
It's like asking whether m=2 where we have absolutely no context for it.
You're saying, by the way, that you're not using x and y as variables? If so, then no, that's not a fact, objective or otherwise.
But you said it was a valid form for an objective fact.
Why should it not be an objective fact?
You are just funny, that's all.
It could be both if the expression wasn’t a willfully given deception: the emotion expressed is an event of the world pertaining to aspects of mind—therefore a subjective fact—while the expression of the emotion “lol” corresponds to an objective, momentary state of being (that of finding something funny—no matter what anyone’s opinion concerning it might be), thereby also making the proposition expressed an objective truth.
Then again … eh, why not?
What I said was: "Depending on what's plugged into the variables, that could very well be an objective fact. There are tons of objective facts of that form. "
Prove that all x are y is not an objective fact.
What is it even referring to? Are you saying something about letters of the alphabet qua letters of the alphabet?
In other words, what is x referring to--the letter of the alphabet?
What objective fact?
So the sentence would be "All all x are y are y?"
And then maybe "All all all x are y are y are y?"
Etc.?
No I didn't. I asked you what x was referring to.
Can the broken record say what x is referring to?
I'd have to have some idea what x is referring to in order to start.
So what is x referring to?
The letter of the alphabet x?
Okay and then y likewise refers to the letter of the alphabet y?
but I am not saying that x and y are the same thing
just like you are not saying that truth and subjective are the same thing
Are you saying that the letter of the alphabet y is somehow a property that the letter of the alphabet x can have?
Yes, of course. Saying that something is subjective is simply saying that it has a particular locational property.
Okay. So on your view some letters of the alphabet are properties and some are not?
That's nice, but it's not what I'm curious about.
I am saying that "All x are y" refers to an objective fact in exactly the same way that "All truth is subjective" refers to an objective fact.
Unfortunately it doesn't at all address what I'm curious about.
It's difficult to have a conversation when one of the participants has that sort of attitude.
I have been clear about what I am saying.
Clarity is different than attitude. By the latter, I'm merely referring to a "that's too bad" response to not addressing what I'm curious about.
You said it was unfortunate.
You can read the post as "yes it is unfortunate"
Sure. Then what happened to asking what I was curious about and trying to answer it?
Presumably you understand why your claim refers to an objective fact.
The same applies to all x are y
I didn't think you did, did I?
Sorry, I should have hit quote on that one rather than just hitting "reply."
You had said:
Quoting m-theory
To which I responded, "I didn't think you did, did I?"
Let me try again
Presumably there is some reason or argument which demonstrates that "All truths are subjective' is an objective fact.
My position is that we can then take those reasons and arguments and plug x in for the term truth and y in for the term subjective such that they are exactly the same.
And thereby we can also demonstrate that all x are y is also an objective fact by precisely the same methods.
It would only be exactly the same if x were a variable representing "truth" and y were a variable representing "subjective."
It depends on what we're referring to.
I'm not forwarding a mathematical or logical argument in the context of a particular species of mathematics or logic. I'm referring to contingent, empirical facts.
So "all truths are subjective" is contingent on empirical facts, that is your position?
Yes, of course.
Consequences on a statement??? (In other words, I have no idea what you'd be asking)
What does that imply about what truth is contingent upon?
Above, I wasn't saying something about truth value of statements first off.
Then we actually agree.
Truth value is contingent on facts.
Haha--I'll be away for a bit, but I can continue later.
Back for a minute.
Is that what you're striving for--for us to agree?
That is basically what my position is as well.
You know there was more to my sentence than that, right?
It depends on the truth theory someone is using.
You assume truth is objective. If I perceive something truthfully then that means as close to a true subjective interpretation as possible, nor marred with false interpretation, delusion or prejudice etc.
This is what I was saying to you the other day about all facts being an interpretation but yet you still disagreed with me. You insisted you were 6-foot tall, 6 foot tall where? in your mind? or in my mind?
Doesn't matter whether it is volentary or not, this is not about freewill. All you have is your observation of 6 foot and other peoples observations of 6 foot. You infer truth from the fact that other people are telling you you are 6 foot, if everyone told you you were 2 foot tall and you looked 6 foot, you would be in quite a mess.
THEREFORE, we don't really know how tall you are... we can only guess by what we see. Which is all we are actually describing anyway. When I say you are 6 foot tall, what is implicit in that is that "to my sensory experience and possibly others" you appear 6 foot tall, or at least that is what is being show to me from external reality. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH THAT IS READILY PERCEIVABLE, IT IS ONLY AN INFERENCE. Come on man, you know better than this bickering nonsense, you know this!
Others, nor myself, cannot simply decide that this is not what I will measure.
It is not subject to interpretation as far as the measuring mechanism is concerned.
Yes it is, EVERYTHING is subject to interpretation. You measure your height WITH YOUR MIND and not with an objective computer than confirms absolute objective truth which would be impossible because you are stuck in subjectivity.
You say "I am 6 ft tall in the sense that this is what I will measure." and don't even realize that by saying "I measure" confirms you to a position of complete subjectivity. To say "I measure" means to say I am subjective and I will subjectively measure this height.
What that tape will measure does not depend on it's mind, it has none, so it does not interpret what I measure.
Omg, are you stupid man? The tape is IN your mind? ffs! EVERYTHING is just interpretation.
If so wouldn't you agree that is the very reason for using a tape, so that when I say 6 ft, and you say 6 ft, we can refer to something that is not just an interpretation but a thing which is consistently a given finite length?
How, exactly, does "your mind" measure anything all by itself?
What you are experiencing in this pointless discussion is what passes for pussy (errr, meaningful relationships) among philosophers. Actual pussy is not interested in this kind of intellectual pusillanimous pussyfooting.
Very simply, tape=sensory information -> You = Your brain -> Tape goes in to your brain and then you infer that there exists an outside world with "objectively measurable quantities".
Then you end up posting on forums that objective states actually exist because "I CAN SEE THEM WITH MY EYES" Therefore they are objective lol
Do tapes interpret?
You just asked me to explain how sensory information is integrated within the nervous system? Or to paraphrase "how can you calculate 2+2 with your mind at all".
Sensory experience is integrated and formed to make a model of reality, then stupid people like m-theory end up thinking an actual world out there exists instead of them seeing sensory information about something which we know nothing of apart from small portions of data exclusively coming through our sensory apparatuses. It is absolutely foolish to think you have some footing over what objectivity is.
Either tapes can interpret or they can not.
Which would you say is the case?
If your life depended on it.
Would you rather I simply interpret what is 6 ft, or use a tape measure?
the fact that you guess something does not have anything to say about the proof of objectivity. Where is 6 foot exactly? Is it 0.0000000000001cm above 5.9999999999?
Things don't exist how you think they do, the sooner you embrace it the better.
The sooner you embrace this fact the better off you will be.
That is true, a shadow of a shark in the water is more open to interpretation than if it is clearly attached to your leg BUT, does the shark have objective existence just because it is chewing on your leg?? This is practically less subject to interpretation... but that is only practically and that is NOT what we are talking about so don't confuse the two..
We are talking about absolutely, you are trying to say there exists objectivity and yet you can't prove it yet. You just have some failing statements like saying "does a tape measure interpret".
The fact is you can't go beyond your subjectivity, and all you have are inferences about objectivity. That is A FACT m-theory, don't you get that?
I am fine with that, as long as you agree that some things a true involuntarily and that it is practical to use measurements.
It is not an objective fact.
After all you can't go beyond subjectivity remember.
So it it isn't a fact that you can't go beyond your subjectivity because you can't go beyond subjectivity? seems circular to me.
Like you said in this thread already, these are truths about subjectivity... as are all truths. In fact can't say anything about objective truth.
Nevertheless this is a subjective truth for all people. So stop trying to make out like there is objective truth like 6foot tall.
I don't agree with you that it is involuntary and practical... I MADE THAT ASSERTION TO BEGIN WITH! You were the one who came along and tried to say that 6 foot tall actually exists in the world... but now you have been proven wrong and are too much of a piss ant to concede and say you were wrong.
Me too.
I wonder why people argue that.
Quoting intrapersona
Then you can't say it is an objective fact that we can't go beyond subjectivity.
That would be self refuting.
Like I stated in that sentence already "these are truths about subjectivity... as are all truths. In fact can't say anything about objective truth."
So of course what I am saying is subjective truth...
But no, you can't do that can you? Know why? Caus your a bigot!
Because you can't go beyond the subjective.
This means it is not an objective fact what you have said.
If it was an objective fact, then you would have gone beyond the subjective, which you cannot do.
lol, you are trolling me right now?
Pretty much, but sort of true... you did concede. First u said there was objective truth (6 foot) now u say that there is only subjective truth... there is only interpretation, no objective truth anywhere.
The sooner you admit that the sooner you can die and stop posting stupid comments on here... jk :P
At least not without being self refuting.
What that 6 foot is only an interpretation? how is that self refuting?
We can't go beyond subjectivity
is refuted
if it is supposed to be an objective fact
it is a subjective fact, as i stated already which you continue to ignore... now how about we talk about your bigotry in not conceding you were false in saying 6 foot is objective fact?
So why should I care?
It does not refute anything about objective facts.
So you should only care about objective facts? They don't exist, as far as we know any way. now how about we talk about your bigotry in not conceding you were false in saying 6 foot is an objective fact?
It is not an objective fact that objective fact's don't exist.
If it was, it would be self refuting.
No it's a subjective fact, and you won't ever find any objective facts because that is impossible via what reason can tell us. And plus, you say you only care about objective facts?? now how about we talk about your bigotry in not conceding you were false in saying 6 foot is an objective fact?
See the pattern yet?
By definition you have not refuted anything about objective facts.
At least not without being self refuting.
You keep telling me I am saying it is an objective fact that it is impossible to find any objective facts. What is wrong with you? We have already established that it is subjective fact AND have repeated that it is about 3-4 times... seriously?!?!
now how about we talk about your bigotry in not conceding you were false in saying 6 foot is an objective fact? You know 6 foot is an interpretation of sensory information and there is no objective fact about that.
Subjective facts don't prove anything about objective facts.
So what, it is a subjective fact, who cares?
objective facts don't exist. there is only subjectivity, that is all you know that is all you will ever know!
anything you claim is objective fact is a subjective interpretation.
now how about we talk about your bigotry in not conceding you were false in saying 6 foot is an objective fact?
This is not an objective fact.
Quoting intrapersona
This is not an objective fact
Quoting intrapersona
This is not an objective fact
Nothing you have here has any consequences for objective facts.
It is impossible, as you point out.
The subjective can't disprove the objective.
thats because there ARE no objective facts, there is no such thing as that. EVERYTHING is subjective. So you can't say "that is not objective fact" because such a thing doesn't exist.
now how about we talk about your bigotry in not conceding you were false in saying 6 foot is an objective fact?
This is only subjective.
Quoting intrapersona
This is only subjective.
You still haven't proven anything about the objective.
From you position, that everything is subjective, you can't prove there is no objective facts.
You can only prove what is subjective to you.
Which amounts to your opinion.
So what, in your opine everything is subjective.
Meanwhile in the real world there are objective facts which you have done nothing to disprove.
nor have you, i refute it exists (at least in the way we think it does or that it can be obtained truthfully), you postulate it does exist but can;t provide evidence for it...
looks like I win
From your position you can't know if we can or can not obtain truthfully objective facts.
Odd thing to say to me if you've read many of my posts.
Quoting intrapersona
But you don't perceive value. That's because value is simply something you do.
It seems to me that you are asking for a "universal" reason. But we wrestle with these issues passionately as individuals (even if this sometimes includes public discussions.) Some "optimists" and "pessimists" project their own experience and worldview outward, assuming that the value of life is more or less objective and therefore treating as in issue for "super-science." By this "super-science" I just mean a certain vision of philosophy that assumes that thinking person at their desk can "crack" or "solve" the most profound issues of life (including its value) for everyone, not just themselves, no matter this individual's relatively limited and particular experience.
Why are you always focusing on proof?