schopenhauer1

While I agree perhaps about certain things about the community (perhaps not fully though because it seems like your rule makes a slippery slope conseq...

I don't see how you can't replace the word and the logic not be the same. Just replace meaning with good then. I'll allow you that if you want to make...

@"Tzeentch"@"Agent Smith"@"Isaac" But beyond the idea of the gamble, which is mainly about the "unforeseen harms" (third point), the first two are int...

Whence the tree? Whence the leaves? Whence the verb "has"? Clearly properties don't seem to exist on their own in Witt but as something kind of inhere...

What makes them dead ends? Circular reasoning may follow...

But Schopenhauer didn't mind (actually most of his writing was about) going into the noumena/thing-in-itself (i.e. Will), the epistemological limitati...

You have almost grasped it. When you say "the knife cuts both ways. The antinatalist too is unwarranted...to assume.." However, it doesn't cut both wa...

This is more to the spirit of the OP.. Great arguments going on here, but this specific thread is about if/when/the right to make impositions on other...

Does that sentence count for a true state of affairs? The tree has leaves.

:fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: …oh shit you just started a forest fire

See my post about the lava pit. Why are you so off the rails hostile? Kill yourself is callous. I don’t even jokingly say that.

That tree has leaves. I say this pointing to a tree that has leaves. Would you count this as an example of a true proposition because it mirrors a tru...

And facts are broken into states of affairs that are broken into objects and their relations to other objects.

So are you making his argument for him? Where is this stated? Oh, right see.. "Where one cannot speak one must be silent.." It's implicitly (it seems ...

I guess I'm trying to understand this game. Are we trying to understand early Witt's ideas (good, bad, or ugly) QUA early Witt, or understand his idea...

It comes down to even, "What is an event?".. Whitehead had a lot to say on that, as you probably know.

I do get that you are mixing PI and Tractatus in your analysis, but is it appropriate to use later Witt here to give exegesis on Tractatus when he did...

Remember, this is about a rule. The rule is: 1. Don't assume that you should create unnecessary impositions on others on conditions like: a. the param...

Do you know how procreation works? Do I need a diagram?

Huh? Are you asking how simple cause and effect works? Like a past action can have consequences on someone in the future? In this case, a past action ...

You make it seem like it's an inevitability to make people pay this price :brow: Right, but why are you assuming you should be making those choices fo...

Why is an action's you do presently not matter just because the consequence will be in the future? Would you create an unjust situation in order for t...

Your right to say/think/feel that. Though your right to say it, to act upon it and presume this is or should be the case is the exact damage I speak o...

A good point. That too.

Then we are already at odds because you are bringing it back to utilitarian calculations and not deontological considerations. Rule-based if you want ...

I'm not so sure though. Because antinatalists are not doing anything to "any one", there are no restrictions taking place (nor freedoms for that matte...

You can't nullify the asymmetry though as the argument rests on precisely the idea of imposing on others. You are talking utilitarian language game an...

Haha, so eluding my whole point. If what he is writing is nonsense, then why not write nonsense on metaphysics.. It's all nonsense. If because it ties...

Right, but then why take it seriously? If he intended for you to take it seriously then his nonsense is supposed to be genuine nonsense. Since its ALL...

So it’s one long troll? I don’t think he was that deliberate about it. I think it’s more like “it’s all nonsense but this is the most accurate of nons...

I think it was his genuine theory and he didn’t want to contradict himself so had to claim it as nonsense. I don’t think he wrote it to show what nons...

Even the claim of objects unnamed is a claim to be justified. I keep having to repeat this quote:

What does he or you mean by we cannot name them. What is it mean to name in this game? I would say rather, if we cannot demonstrate them, we cannot…

So we can make ontological claims without defense in philosophy now? Yes, any ontological claim can be denied and not just taken as fact. That is what...

Why are there objects and relations without justification? He is exempt because he said something about nonsense? See my above quote used several time...

I’m not against the idea of something fundamental but rather that Witty isn’t doing anything to defend his claim. Just assuming it with no further exp...

:clap:

It means it is a sort of lame-duck theory. If he is trying to explain something about the world, then he better be prepared to explain the very founda...

He doesn't make any explicit connections, so again, why are you doing more legwork than himself? Schopenhauer's writing is clear and ties his thinking...

So, "Who" loses if they are not born? Paying attention to "Who", the actual referent? Also, "Who" is the beneficiary of the "greater number of people ...

No but I’m serious. Look at the question again. Also this utilitarian calculus… “Who” benefits from greater blah blah?

Slippery slope Cherry picking Hasty generalizations We must fear leftists because some crazy minority might agree with Stalin or Mao. :roll:

Yet he mentions none of them, not even a “See Russell. See Schopenhauer. See Kant for the foundations of what I mean by object”. Objects are just assu...

What’s the price paid for a non actualized happy life? And now the price paid for the other? Who bears the collateral damage?

Those two shouldn't go together, so the first clause is not supported by the second :wink: .

Are you a troll? I am not addressing you and we have been through all of this. If you can't predict what I am going to say by now, so be it.

Utilitarian becomes a guise for backing ones preferences. Oh... not THOSE conclusions.. but just THESE conclusions. Even more striking is how people d...

I'm not going to let you get away that easily :wink:. The Tractatus is wrong if it fails to prove the very foundation it stands on. It never even set ...

Right, so that's a conclusion from your um, ethical reasoning :roll:? Part of the harm actually of putting someone into existence so actually adds to ...

A lot of the basis for your current argument with DA671 is deontology versus consequentialism (seemingly here of the utilitarian variety). DA671 is on...