schopenhauer1

But your employer knows what's best for your health better than what the general scientific consensus is? Do they have that right? Putting the cart be...

It is basically the ground of the ethics. It is taken that suffering should not be unnecessarily forced on another person. At some point, there is a g...

No, so that's why Benatar wrote his whole book, to unpack all that misunderstanding. Never existing prevents negative experiences, which is good wheth...

Your assumption is that people should be brought into existence at all. Antinatalists would argue that this is false. Due to reasons of suffering and/...

The policy would be for the manager in this case.. But I guess other employees not screwing each other over either. It's like you live in a dream worl...

So I've mentioned before how birth is the only case where one can perfectly not cause harm and force. The simple act of NOT doing something (negative ...

Things can change is so vague. As I've said previously: But the answer is that in a world where "de facto" people can't just leave their job on a whim...

Ugh, if life just fit your "liberty" model so easily.. You don't recognize de facto unfreedoms, so we probably have nothing more to say to each other....

Civic duty was supposed to be a part of the the whole freedom thing, and that is inherently community-oriented. But, it's going to take more than just...

Interesting, as I agree partially with the idea that parents/communities think that their abstract reasons to have a child make it okay to actually bi...

It's all about enshrining narratives. It is ironic that the sacrifices and community-oriented nature of WWII are seen as patriotic, yet by some of the...

Neologisms stabilize in order to better communicate concepts in shorthand. Interestingly, in groups, neologisms could be dogwhistles in order to have ...

I think people need to learn how to communicate more constructively in general. This forum would do better from it. So much communication here reminds...

One can argue perhaps against the necessity of Kripke.. I was just putting it out there. For example, even if I am essentially me in some way that can...

That's your argument it seems.

Prove to me he meant for a rigid designator to point to a completely open or empty set.

That is an implication you picked up on.

My arguments are not about how to identify identity. Rather, it is a sort of claim of causality. There could never be a situation where "you" were bor...

And this means?

Yes, you often misconstrue my antinatalist arguments, but this is a good representation of what I mean. Yes, there could not have been a you with a di...

I also want to add, that the implication is that there is no being born "as something else". You could only have been born as you.

It's probably a modern invention. You need the characters for the foil itself to exist. Satan, just means "adversary" in Hebrew and first shows up in ...

Yet there is something that is the same in all possible worlds. Perhaps it is something like the DNA.

Needing and wanting and all the underlying desires that go into that. All the work needed to sustain. There are literally billions and billions of int...

Yes, then, you would be no more. So then what is the you that is the same in all possible worlds? That is the you I am talking about. Above and beyond...

So the point is that, a proper name is more than a description like "the person who wore X" or "identifies as Y". Rather, in another possible world, t...

You are using rational as a vague signal that means nothing. Its a weasel word that stands for "what you believe to be right and true". Certainly, if ...

I think youre hitting many of the things I'm getting at. No one had a choice for this surivival, comfort, entertainment game, nor many contingent circ...

You mentioned choices to not suffer, but the choice never to be put in the game of making choices to not suffer is never on the table. That is often t...

But the choice to not make a choice is never available. Again, we are always ameliorating after the fact. Somehow it is never questioned by some why w...

And again, I'd like to bring up Kripke..

So this kind of leads into Kripke's Naming and Necessity a bit. You could not be anything but you, but it can possibly be the case that someone else b...

I would disagree that neuroscience takes over metaphysics, but I agree with your main argument. I am not saying that we cannot use counterfactuals to ...

Sure, because there is a "you" there to have shorter hair. No, because if born differently, she would not be her, she would be someone else. That is p...

But I find it interesting that we are always in a position to "ameliorate" this or that in the first place. Why is it, that we we weren't "being" to b...

So are you making an argument for a soul that can be embodied by anything? There is an essence outside the physical substantiation? If so, then there ...

My approach is similar yet different. I am also a philosophical pessimist. I like your picture by the way Augustusea! Anyways, a major difference betw...

There is no counterfactual where you were born something else. That other thing would not be "you". It's not an aversion, just an understanding of wha...

Oh, the soul thing. Well, yes it is assuming there is no such prior entity waiting to enter a body. This is an argument based on the assumption that t...

Why is it insubstantial. One case is you born, the counterfactual, would not be you.

The point is, that there is no "could have been born a..". That would not be you then. It invalidates that kind of counterfactual line of thinking.

In a way, Kripke's Naming and Necessity might be informative here. First off, this isnt an anti-abortion argument or anything like that. Inevitably, i...

Once you are conceived, you could not have been conceived as something else, whatever dynamical changes take place or don't from there. You could not ...

Yes true.

Is that like development of an identity? The fact is, you are you, and not someone else. That identity is attached to someone born that could not be a...

Just wasn't sure what you were saying. You agree. Got it. Thanks.

Not sure what "you" mean here. Can you be anything else but you? If someone else was born from different parents, that is not you.

That's fine, but it's still not true that you could be anything else but you. It is just a turn of phrase in the way you describe it, but not an actua...

Not quite getting "you".

Why do you like to straw man my argument? You know very well that it is from the perspective of not causing suffering to begin with for a future perso...