I wouldn't wish to miss the glorious station due to the mist of doom and gloom. I do expect things to turn bad, but I also believe that they can turn better. You have always underestimated the positives, and your rationalisations pertaining to the value of happiness show that, but there is certainly truth in what you say regarding the need to address harms urgently. — DA671

I don't think you quite understand what you're saying. — Agent Smith

Because of the satisfaction mystery brings.

"My reaction to Malthus being proven wrong, much like many other historical pessimists" ;)

Because of the satisfaction mystery brings.

"My reaction to Malthus being proven wrong, much like many other historical pessimists" ;) — DA671

I don't think you quite understand what you're saying. — Agent Smith

@DA671 You don't know what suffering is.

An amazing ability to describe oneself that's tragically marred by a small grammatical mistake where you is used instead of "me".

Let's talk about "not understanding".

Your reply was the ROFL emoji.
Definition of ROFL emoji: Rolling on Floor Laughing emoji
Also know as the ROFL emoji, it depicts a smiling face crying tears of joy while leaning to one side, as if rolling over with uncontrollable laughter. It is used to mark anything that is extremely hilarious.

Hilarious things are things that amuse us. Amusing things, in turn, entertain us. Entertainment is usually based upon things that aren't real and are funny. Arguments are generally not funny. Therefore, it would be reasonable to presume that you thought my reply deserved to be treated facetiously even though you did not bother to write an actual refutation.

In light of this, I replied with what I considered to be an apposite response—one that did not have much to do with the topic at hand, but instead had a lot to do with projections. You asked why I keep using the emoji if I found it mysterious. I replied that I find joy in doing so. Apparently that was impossible for you to understand. Putting on a blindfold and then complaining about the lack of sunlight is not a hallmark of comprehensive thinking.

Malthus' predictions were quite pessimistic, something that is relevant to your concerns about overpopulation. However, he was wrong because we did not witness the sort of mass famines that many pessimists had predicted. Your response makes me think that you don't understand what understanding means, just as you don't know happiness even when it is right in front of you.

I do. But you don't know what happiness is.

An amazing ability to describe oneself that's unfortunate marred by a small grammatical mistake where you is used instead of me. — DA671

Changing the subject! Well done!

I don't think you quite understand what you're saying. — Agent Smith

I do. But you don't know what happiness is. — DA671

No, you don't. If you did...you wouldn't have said what you said. Happiness is an illusion. Everybody is in the dark about happiness. All they know is pain.

@DA671 You're talking out of your hat here. I'm all out. Good day.

Mistaking consistency to be change. Strange, but not unexpected.

I would have to continue to repeat the truth, irrespective of what others might think about it. You're in (in my view) the dark about reality. It's tragic to live a life permeated by such a humungous lie, but I can only explain the reality to you; I cannot understand it for you. Happiness is real. All you know is your single-minded concern with one side of the coin, which has undoubtedly been ingrained by factors I am not aware of. Still, I am sorry they happened.

Better to use a hat than to talk from a page that does not exist. Thank you for your insightful comments, and I hope you have a wonderful day ahead!

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUK149681263220111102

I missed your claim about natalism being "wicked". Well, I am sorry that you are not able to see the truth. Antinatalism is deeply sad and fundamentally flawed (this conversation has only lent further credence to that idea). However, you're clearly an intelligent and compassionate person, so I would not say that the view is inherently idiotic. It does remain limited. Nevertheless, thank you for sharing your thoughtful perspective.

Mistaking consistency to be change — DA671

Mistaking an illusion for the truth. As expected.

You're in (in my view) the dark about reality. — DA671

:ok: I'm sorry to say your view is not the samyak drishti.

It's tragic — DA671

Yes, life, everyone's, is tragic.

All you know is your single-minded concern with one side of the coin — DA671

The coin in question has heads on both sides. Again, you've failed to understand antinatalism.

Nevertheless, thank you for sharing your thoughtful perspective. — DA671

:ok: Glad that we can disengage on a positive note.

Mistaking the reality for an illusion, as expected.

My दृष्टी appears to be more व्यापक than yours. Samyak gyana is also quite important. It's amusing to use these Jain terminologies, considering they also believe in rebirth, which makes antinatalism utterly pointless (there are other deeds besides a lack of procreation that are necessary in their view). Also:
"Real happiness is a matter of experience, not of speech, not of demonstration. It can be had only by being introvert, cutting ourselves from all the non-self entities and being one with our soul itself. Since the soul is full of happiness, experience of the soul is the experience of happiness. Just as one cannot achieve the soul without experience, in the same manner one cannot get real happiness without the experience of the soul."
—Jainworld.com
Happiness might indeed be real if one has the right perspective.

The inability to look at things that are ineffably meaningful is certainly tragic.

Thankfully, not everyone is carrying counterfeit coins. Again, you failed to understand my viewpoint.

Despite everything, so am I :)

If there's a message in my posts, it's this: Happiness is an illusion. With that natalism collapses like a house of cards.

An illusory collapse is fun, but not as fun as the actual collapse of the arguments that have been presented here for antinatalism, which remains a flawed ideology. Happiness is real, btw.

You will realize it (the truth of antinatalism), the easy way or the hard way. Seems like you've made your choice. Good luck!

I also hope that you will not spend the rest of your life living a lie. As for me, I would not wish to be myopic enough to let my hardships change the truth. But thanks for your kind words. I made the choice to look beyond my biases a long time ago. Best of luck to you for your future endeavours!

Question: What if we're (secret/closet) masochists? — Agent Smith

Can you clarify this question? Who are masochists and why? Then I can determine if I agree or not.

Maybe he meant that the only reason us deluded natalists could fail to see the "illusion of happiness" and the reality of harm is because we feel good about "imposing" it. I've expressed my reasons for disagreeing, so I won't repeat myself here. There are certainly some harms (such as studying hard) necessary for greater goods (like the satisfaction of passing), but I would not say that they always play an indelible role, particularly in things such as meaningful relationships. But I allegedly lack "understanding", so I am sure you will find more compelling explanations.

Btw, my phone still doesn't feel like quoting replies lol.

Can you clarify this question? Who are masochists and why? Then I can determine if I agree or not. — schopenhauer1

Masochists, last I checked, are people who are, well, mixed up about pain & pleasure. To clarify, what is normally perceived as pain is pleasure to a masochist. If so, antinatalism stops making sense; after all, it's cornerstone is pain/suffering as an undesirable state to be in.

This issue has another interesting corollary: How does God punish an evil masochist? God can't send evil masochists to hell because that's a masochist's heaven! God can't order evil masochists to heaven because they don't deserve heaven. What's left? Earth of course!

I suppose the pain in that case wouldn't be a harm in the ultimate sense, since it would lead to a greater good (which isn't illusory) that would outweigh the harm for the person. Some people might indeed crave pain, but I think it is better to avoid it if better alternatives for being happy are available.

I don't believe in hell, but I guess there would be some sort of special section for the evil person where they can hurt themselves or don't achieve satisfaction the way they usually did. It's certainly interesting!

You haven't really made your position clear, bit if I were to guess, you're endorsing natalism.

There are times when it's fun, entertaining, and "certainly interesting"; some have even gone to the extent of treating life as an enjoyable game. However, there's in the way you've tried to tackle the problem of suffering (antinatalism), in this thread at least, a deeply disturbing flippancy, an ill-considered and poorly executed attempt to downplay the real and extreme suffering that actual people - young and old - have gone/are going/will go through.

You don't know what suffering is! For people who've committed suicide and for those who can't and yet experience the same, if not more, agony, you're adding insult to injury. Very noble of you!

Nice "guess"!

You do not care about the happiness and the lived experiences of innumerable innocent people who continue to cherish their lives despite having suffered more than you can probably imagine. I am sure that people of all age groups would consider your facetious and unjustifiable remarks about the so-called "illusion of happiness" to be deeply enlightening. I never downplayed suffering; I merely did not restrict my perspective. I doubt you understood them much, my friend. There is a sense of deep-seated prejudice and disdain in the way you have treated the profoundly significant experiences had by people, which is not unexpected, but slightly disappointing.

If only you could have spent some time with those who survived suicide and feel truly grateful for having gained a second chance, but then again, one can only look where they wish to. I will continue to support a liberal right to die since I do think that everybody should have the ability to find a dignified exit if the need ever arises.

You do not care about the happiness and the lived experiences of innumerable innocent people who continue to cherish their lives despite having suffered more than you can probably imagine. — DA671

As I said, there's no happiness!

Too, guilty pleasure. There's no such thing as guilty sorrow.

Don't try to win the argument; try to comprehend and...feel a little! Our situation is very grave, very grave indeed.

Very "noble" of you to ignore the reality that has defined the lives of billions of people. There is indeed happiness, and you are probably experiencing it in some form right now. Unfortunately, you are not willing to let go of the presuppositions that are holding you back. I wish I could do something to help you see things differently, even if it meant causing harm to myself. I am sorry if I said anything unsavoury in this exchange.

Being sad over someone's happiness might be a good example of "guilty sorrow".

Happiness is real. I do not really need to "argue" for that which is usually self-evident. Our situation is grave indeed, but not for the reasons you think. We do need to comprehend that the world is not defined by our personal viewpoint. Nevertheless, hope and joy will persist.

Very "noble" of you to ignore the reality that has defined the lives of billions of people. There is indeed happiness, and you are probably experiencing it in some form right now. Unfortunately, you are not willing to let go of the presuppositions that are holding you back.

Happiness is real. I do not really need to "argue" for that which is usually self-evident. Our situation is grave indeed, but not for the reasons you think. Nevertheless, hope and joy will persist.
now — DA671

I'll give you an idea of why happiness is unreal. Happiness can be an illusion, but suffering cannot! You can seem to be happy but you cannot seem to be in pain! There's a fool's paradise, no fool's hell!

I'm done here! From your frivolous treatment of suffering, it becomes crystal clear, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Good day!

:broken:

Another assertion that contradicts reality, I am afraid. There is no such thing as "seeming" to be happy. There are instances when one might be in pain and yet also be happy, but that is a situation of duality, not illusions. And if happiness can seem like an illusion, so can suffering. I have seen many people breaking down in tears over failing to win their favourite video game, all the while they can easily retry and have many material comforts, Yet, if their sadness is "real" to you, then so is happiness. It does seem like there is a fool's hell, and you are dangerously close to it. You deserve better. Avidya leads to suffering, and it is worse when it is deliberate.

Quite regrettable that denial is the path you have chosen. From the very beginning, you seemed inquisitive, yet you have let your biases shape your worldview for too long. Your attempts to diminish happiness are, unfortunately, but ultimately futile. At the end of the day, it is crystalline that you have an extremely narrow knowledge of the world. Acknowledging one part of the circle does not make the other "frivolous", but grasping this requires looking at the bigger picture.

Thanks for everything. Have a wonderful day, and I hope you can have all my happiness :)

❤️

duality — DA671

That's the only reasonable defense you have, but do note here that I don't concede the reality/actuality of happiness while the very fact that you bring up duality is proof that you acknowledge the fact that there's suffering. In other words, natalists like yourself will always be on the back foot.

illusions — DA671

Yes, vide infra.

It does seem like there is a fool's hell, and you are dangerously close to it. [...] Avidya — DA671

The Buddha: Life is suffering.

A conclusion he arrived at after nearly 2 decades of continuous hard thinking. He doesn't reserve this judgment only for souls in hell and earth, but also, make of a note of this, the gods themselves, apparently living in a constant state of ecstatic joy. Happiness, then, can only be an illusion. It's all dukkha my friend.

Please don't shoot your mouth off like this. As I said. you don't quite understand what you're saying.

denial is the path you have chosen. — DA671

I have affirmed the truth of suffering. If I have denied anything, it's the illusion of happiness. That's what we do with illusions.

Acknowledging one part of the circle does not make the other "frivolous", but grasping this requires looking at the bigger picture. — DA671

You've again resorted to duality. Try and make a case, like antinatalists, using only one aspect/side of this alleged yin-yang system . You and natalists can't. Antinatalists can and have!

Last but not the least, let's not get all bent out of shape over a matter that actually needs time to be sorted out. Let your children and your children's children be the judge of what you've said here.

I hope you can have all my happiness — DA671

Thanks. Let's hope I'm wrong!

It's one of many.
I don't need absolute perfection for life to be worthwhile, just as one doesn't require absolute suffering for some lives to be negative. You are free to consider anybody to be on "backfoot", but that doesn't mean much. It's merely a recognition of reality.

Happiness isn't any less real than suffering. Not much to see when one has not removed the curtain ;)

And Buddha didn't believe that happiness was an illusion. Mitigating unnecessary desires does lead to positive contentment.

You don't understand the Buddha, because he was never as limited in his scope as you have made yourself. Quite strange it is to think that the reality of one thing automatically makes the other an illusion. You never understood what the Buddha said, because you have single-mindedly focused on one aspect of reality. Happiness is real. Dukkha exists, but so does
sukkha (happiness). दुःख and सुख are both relevant. I don't think that you understand what understanding means. Broadening one's horizons before reaching any conclusions is important lest one arrives at one that is fundamentally flawed. It's better to not annihilate one's keyboard before it happens.
"When the Buddha said he taught suffering and the end of suffering, rather than being pessimistic, he was being optimistic. When the Buddha explained dukkha (Pali. suffering, discontent), he explicated its cause, how to eradicate its cause, and the method of practice leading to its eradication. He taught us the way to avoid suffering.

Happy will he be who knows how to bring an end to suffering. Sukha may be translated as pleasant, pleasurable, happy, happiness, contentment, satisfaction, or even as joy and bliss."
—Buddhistdoor.net

The presence of discomfort doesn't automatically imply that good isn't real, but you need to look beyond your biases in order to see that.

You have denied the truth of happiness, which is the same as affirming a lie, my friend.

I have no obligation to work under your framework. Making the "case" doesn't mean ignoring the truth, as you and many other antinatalists choose to do. Happiness is what makes life worth it, just as extreme suffering might lead to some not have adequate value. Yet, that doesn't mean that the ineffably meaningful experiences of people dont matter. You can certainly say many things, but that doesn't make them real or substantial. They certainly will be the judge of the sort of things that you and I have said. Hopefully, they would have a better understanding of what reality and illusions mean than the one that has been displayed here.

Hope will not be necessary here. No problem :)