That means that those possible future children will be treated as a means, not as an end itself. That is wrong. — Antinatalist

I completely forgot about Kant! Thanks for the reminder. As you would've already realized Kant's people as ends in themselves is at odds with another very pressing need that seems to bother us at a very deep level viz. meaning of life, which, if one really thinks about it, is simply the desire to be of some use, a synonym for means or something like that.

Moreover, people seem to find a life as but a means to such lofty ends as abolishing suffering quite fulfilling and well worth ignoring/overriding Kant's maxim, noble thought it may be.

So the entire thread is just another way for you to argue for antinatalism … my mistake. I took the OP at face value.

Stop being a childish red herring ad hom

Antinatalist was replying what he thought about Agent Smiths reply. Don’t start picking fights for no reason.

I prefer sardines not herring ;)

Picking fights? :D

Bye bye silly person

Statistics? Tyranny of the majority? :chin:

There's got to be an overall trend, a widely-held opinion on all matters, including antinatalism/natalism, oui? — Agent Smith

Sure, but a trend is very different from a widely-held opinion, wouldn’t you say?

The idea is not to formulate a recommendation for ALL but for MOST! Surely, you're in the know about the Champagne glass effect! — Agent Smith

Pareto’s principle is about the distribution of quantitative value, which is only part of the picture. I find it interesting that so many people experience quite an affected relation to the graph. The basic feeling is that it should at least be more of a normal distribution - a bell curve - and that it should be someone else making the change.

Sure, but a trend is very different from a widely-held opinion, wouldn’t you say? — Possibility

In the vernacular "trend" is near synonymous with "widely-held opinion". Loose usage I'd say, but nothing to be concerned about.

Pareto’s principle is about the distribution of quantitative value, which is only part of the picture. I find it interesting that so many people experience quite an affected relation to the graph. The basic feeling is that it should at least be more of a normal distribution - a bell curve - and that it should be someone else making the change. — Possibility

Sorry, I don't follow. My point was one doesn't need to aim for universality, a majority will/should suffice. We need someone to conduct a poll, pronto! You know, to settle the matter once and for all!

“Don’t complain, just kill yourself” is the message that people are seeming to say. Comply or die. There is no peace even in trying to vocalize the pessimism. That’s all I’m getting. Double disrespect to the player of the game that doesn’t want to be played. It’s all fucked.

Don’t complain, just kill yourself — schopenhauer1

Watch your words. You could be charged with aiding & abetting suicide! Weren't there highly publicized cases of such happenings? I'd better edit that post before something untoward occurs.

Don’t complain, just kill yourself is the message. — schopenhauer1

Better? Wasn’t saying it as a directive but a description in it’s context as in this is what is going on, not what you should do.

:smile: With this clarification, yup, it's better.

That means that those possible future children will be treated as a means, not as an end itself. That is wrong.
— Antinatalist

I completely forgot about Kant! Thanks for the reminder. As you would've already realized Kant's people as ends in themselves is at odds with another very pressing need that seems to bother us at a very deep level viz. meaning of life, which, if one really thinks about it, is simply the desire to be of some use, a synonym for means or something like that.

Moreover, people seem to find a life as but a means to such lofty ends as abolishing suffering quite fulfilling and well worth ignoring/overriding Kant's maxim, noble thought it may be. — Agent Smith

Maybe so, but those fulfilling sufferings need to be taken by a person´s own free will, not after someone is forcing her/him to the "game" of life.

Maybe so, but those fulfilling sufferings need to be taken by a person´s own free will, not after someone is forcing her/him to the "game" of life. — Antinatalist

You're on target, sir/ma'am! However, who's coercing anyone to save the world? Do you think Alexander Fleming was bullied into discovering antibiotics? Are all the folks engaged in cancer research under some kind of duress? :chin:

Because you are making that genetic (or something akin) fallacy again. Even if the world was really a big illusion as an appearance (the devils playground) the appearance persist. It doesn’t go away because one knows the situation. The “feels like” ingrained aspect remains despite its “illusory” origins. And yes, that is assuming I even buy into that metaphysics, which I don’t. But even if I did he would never say that “knowing” this (or connection, collaboration, or awareness for that mater) brings an end to the illusion. — schopenhauer1

I’m well aware that the illusion doesn’t go away. The horizon doesn’t go away, either, but it ceases to be a limitation once we understand the situation. We can set out towards it without fearing we might fall off the edge of the world, even though it still appears that way. I’ve not said anything here about ‘bringing an end’ to the illusion, so enough with this strawman.

If anything the dichotomy would between illusion of the will and denying of the will. Complete "annihilation" of the will is near impossible except for the saintly ascetic (representing a fraction of a fraction of people can actually attain this in his view and he believed only certain characters can really achieve this). — schopenhauer1

Again, you’re assuming that the world as will must be denied, but Schopenhauer is talking about individual will as the illusion - the world as will is reality as it exists in itself, the world as representation exists relative to the notion of an individual.

As for my own view, we don’t need to deny individual will, anymore than we need to deny the horizon. I imagine it would have been only a fraction of a fraction of people who didn’t think Columbus or Magellan were insane when they set sail, including their own crew. They didn’t need to deny this optical limitation - they simply recognised that appearances were deceiving.

Also understand that appearance and will in his conception are one and the same appearance does not give way to bare will or is in some sort of opposition of it. Rather, the appearance is the double-aspect of will. It is its flip side. If one extirpates the appearance, one extirpates will and vice versa. — schopenhauer1

No, appearance and individual will are the same in this sense. The world as representation and the world as will both refer to the world, but not the ‘flip side’ of each other. The world as will has an additional aspect which the ‘individual’ only perceives in its linear relation to the world as representation. There is no need to extirpate the ‘individual’ will, but even if this did (or could) occur, the world as will would persist, although the particular appearance would not.

No, studying the mechanisms of sleep apnea does not make the the actual suffering to the sufferer go away. Let's go further, scientists writing papers on the systems involved in sleep apnea, will not stop a person with an extreme case from possibly getting a heart attack due to the breathing problems. That's just obviously wrong and not even worth me writing to say this. — schopenhauer1

That’s not what I said. I said awareness helps us to determine an effective reduction in suffering, not that it makes the experience of suffering go away all on its own.

But you did just say this.. and you are contradicting yourself.. — schopenhauer1

No, you’re interpreting a conceptual restructuring of potential as action. But I get the confusion - language structure doesn’t really accomodate a discussion that crosses back and forth between descriptions of actual and potential reality. If you’re going to keep denying conceptual structure, and ignoring the science that supports potentiality as more than a linear value relation to actuality, then there’s not much more I can do here to help you understand.

It is true, I cannot take a position or even evaluate vague language that contains neologisms or words used in novel ways. If you are going to say things like "complex structure" and "find ways to collaborate" and then deny that you are talking about "working together to solve problems" which I interpreted it as, and took a position against (as a solution to the problem of suffering itself)... then you have to be very precise on how you are using language like "complex structure" and "find ways to collaborate" cause that's how it sounds prima facie. — schopenhauer1

I’m not asking you to evaluate value structures - that’s your problem, not mine. I don’t see the point, tbh. Potential, value, significance - it isn’t possible to be precise here without reducing the complexity. Finding ways to collaborate is a conceptual process, not an actual one. I already explained how I’ve found ways to collaborate with your perspective, regardless of whether you intended us to ‘work together’, or were even aware of the conceptual process.

But it seems to me, after all I’ve written here, that your insistence at this point on ‘prima facie’ interpretation is being deliberately obtuse.

That is gaslighting BS. Telling someone who is suffering, that you are looking at it wrong, you are part of a big system, doesn't negate the suffering for the individual. You think consoling language that you are part of a bigger universe magically makes things go away? Nope. You are trivializing people's experience by trying to hijack it with this "we are part of a bigger picture" crap. It is all part of contingent suffering that is part of existing at all. — schopenhauer1

Here we go again. This is not what I said at all. And, once again, I’m not talking about using language to ‘solve the problem’ or to ‘make things go away’ but to simply change how we perceive the situation - not action as such but conceptual process. The perception that we do exist as part of a broader system (not ‘bigger picture’) is not meant to be consoling. It’s meant to open our minds to this potential that has people like you so afraid you’d prefer to not exist or begrudgingly comply than acknowledge it.

You are trying to take the pessimism out of Schopenhauer. You are trying to make Schopenhauer fit into your sanitized version. Schop thought that Will, and its appearance were negative- causing/entailed suffering. There was no working with it for any good. Existence was fundamentally not a good thing to exist at all. So "value in participating.." is misrepresenting anything he is saying. Denying will would be more like it. And again, because you choose to be vague, you aren't saying much at all when you say "participate" either. — schopenhauer1

No, I’m trying to explain that Schopenhauer’s pessimism was just a starting point. Philosophy is not about describing a ToE (what appears to be), but about actualising wisdom (how to live). Schop argued that our preference for and actualising of this apparent ‘individual will’ entails suffering, and that because of this we tend to evaluate a living existence as negative overall. But the world as will is neither negative nor positive, and denying this ‘individual will’, even temporarily, enables one to conceptually process the world as will more accurately, even if we’re unable to describe it precisely using language.

And once again, I’m not saying ‘value in participating’ at all, but rather value (if any) in our capacity to be aware of and participate in an otherwise non-conscious process. Stop twisting my words around, it’s getting really old.

Maybe so, but those fulfilling sufferings need to be taken by a person´s own free will, not after someone is forcing her/him to the "game" of life.
— Antinatalist

You're on target, sir/ma'am! However, who's coercing anyone to save the world? Do you think Alexander Fleming was bullied into discovering antibiotics? Are all the folks engaged in cancer research under some kind of duress? :chin: — Agent Smith

Maybe we are speaking about different things. By ´forcing´ in this particular point I mean reproduction. I thought it was quite clear.

Are all the folks engaged in cancer research under some kind of duress? :chin: — Agent Smith

Metaphorically, death, discomfort, and boredom are the gun to the head. That is part of my OP about dissatisfaction. That is part of complying with the game.

Maybe so, but those fulfilling sufferings need to be taken by a person´s own free will, not after someone is forcing her/him to the "game" of life.
— Antinatalist

You're on target, sir/ma'am! However, who's coercing anyone to save the world? Do you think Alexander Fleming was bullied into discovering antibiotics? Are all the folks engaged in cancer research under some kind of duress? :chin:
— Agent Smith

Maybe we are speaking about different things. By ´forcing´ in this particular point I mean reproduction. I thought it was quite clear. — Antinatalist

I'm not sure, but your concern seems to be consent, the lack thereof, in birthing children. While it's true that there are many of us who'd have wished to remain unborn, the catch is would-be parents are in the dark about that - they didn't know if the child they're now busy bringing up would've preferred nonexistence over life. Plus those people who manage to do well in life are likely to say "yes" to life.

As you might've already realized, starting a family then requires you to accurately predict the future (of your children), something notoriously difficult to do! Some of us then resort to what is essentially a gamble - we have children, hoping they'll have a good life and we do our best (grooming, educating, assisting, etc. them) to give them a decent chance at success, knowing all the while that life may throw them a curve ball with catastrophic consequences. The sentiment is noble (a person could enjoy life) but also ignoble (we're basically gambling with someone's life).

Frankly, I have a feeling that people hardly think so deeply about bringing other peeps into existence! They should, right?

Metaphorically, death, discomfort, and boredom are the gun to the head. That is part of my OP about dissatisfaction. That is part of complying with the game. — schopenhauer1

I sometimes feel that given the givens, only a fool would opt for life!

Also, what do you make of how spirituality, some strains, recommend, as a practice, denial of life as most people recognize it. There's something unclean/impure/unsatisfactory about physical existence seems to be the message!

In the vernacular "trend" is near synonymous with "widely-held opinion". Loose usage I'd say, but nothing to be concerned about. — Agent Smith

But this is my point - it is the assumption that they’re the same thing that results in prediction error. Just because people think or say that something should occur, doesn’t follow that they will do it. It is a widely-held opinion that wealth should be more evenly distributed across the population; but all trends indicate that this would never been the case. This incongruity is what the Pareto principle demonstrates.

Sorry, I don't follow. My point was one doesn't need to aim for universality, a majority will/should suffice. We need someone to conduct a poll, pronto! You know, to settle the matter once and for all! — Agent Smith

People don’t determine or initiate action just on what appears to be - which is continually changing and relative to their situation - but on their understanding of what can change in relation to a current availability of effort and attention. The moment a poll is taken, it’s insufficient to predict change. A poll doesn’t take into account the distribution of effort or attention - which, according to the Pareto principle, is mostly where it is least effective.

We need to find a different way to portray what is happening here more accurately. In my opinion, it’s worth looking into quantum mechanical system structures, because of the way they account for a distribution of effort and attention. But our conceptual language structure is notoriously insufficient in describing QM.

Well, with that attitude how do you get anything done in your life? I'm not saying we can't do better, but for some obvious reasons - most of them to do with practicality - we can't do things to perfection. At some point you're gonna have to make a decision and act whether you have all the information to do that or not. I guess what I'm getting at is that a certain margin of error is expected and we'd better to learn to live with it, oui?

Going back to my point. The human condition is dissatisfaction. We are constantly overcoming dissatisfaction. It is misguided/immoral to create for people a lifetime's worth of dissatisfaction-overcoming. It is immoral to give a game to someone that cannot be paused, that is de facto a play in real time or game over. We cannot retreat to the Platonic realm of a Mt. Olympus when we get tired or frustrated with the dissatisfaction. It is constant. This inescapability makes it disqualifying as moral to force onto others. None of what you said refutes that. There is nothing "there" in what you are saying. And it sounds like rhetorical tricks to hijack language and purposely be too vague so that you can't be wrong. — schopenhauer1

The baseline of the human condition can be described as ‘dissatisfaction’ by those for whom ‘individual will’ is considered the ultimate goal of being. The resulting conclusion that deliberately creating any such being is ‘immoral’ makes sense only in the context of ‘individual will’ as ABSOLUTE. Except that this ‘individual will’ is an illusion. There is no ‘will’ that we can call our own, no satisfaction or perfection to be attained as a self-sustaining identity in relation to the world.

So, your reaction to this is to double down on the illusion, and take the moral high ground against existence. There is nothing rational about this stance. You simply feel you’re being cheated out of a fantasy by an ‘individually’ conceived appearance of the world.

Sure, that’s ONE way of looking at it. I disagree that this is the ONLY way of looking at it, or even the RIGHT way of looking at it. In fact, I would go so far as to say it’s a particularly USELESS way of looking at it, giving us nothing by way of ‘how to live’. That’s my position, vague as it may be.

Well, with that attitude how do you get anything done in your life? I'm not saying we can't do better, but for some obvious reasons - most of them to do with practicality - we can't do things to perfection. At some point you're gonna have to make a decision and act whether you have all the information to do that or not. I guess what I'm getting at is that a certain margin of error is expected and we'd better to learn to live with it, oui? — Agent Smith

Agreed! And that ‘margin of error’ plays out in the human condition as suffering.

Agreed! And that ‘margin of error’ plays out in the human condition as suffering. — Possibility

True, hence antinatalism. Right?

Well, with that attitude how do you get anything done in your life? I'm not saying we can't do better, but for some obvious reasons - most of them to do with practicality - we can't do things to perfection. At some point you're gonna have to make a decision and act whether you have all the information to do that or not. I guess what I'm getting at is that a certain margin of error is expected and we'd better to learn to live with it, oui?
— Agent Smith

Agreed! And that ‘margin of error’ plays out in the human condition as suffering. — Possibility

True, hence antinatalism. Right? — Agent Smith

I do think the ultimate imperfection of any being is sufficient reason NOT to create another one, and any expectation or hope that we could ever create a perfect being who doesn’t suffer is misguided at best. But antinatalism is presented here with the attitude of ‘we can’t do things to perfection, so there’s no value in doing anything’. I don’t agree with this, because I don’t believe the ultimate goal of any being should be to ‘do things to perfection’.

I will point out that living with an expected margin of error is not necessarily the same as equating the human condition with suffering. When we equate this suffering instead with prediction error, it creates opportunities to learn from it, and improve accuracy in understanding this universal faculty by which all action/change is determined and initiated.

Maybe so, but those fulfilling sufferings need to be taken by a person´s own free will, not after someone is forcing her/him to the "game" of life.
— Antinatalist

You're on target, sir/ma'am! However, who's coercing anyone to save the world? Do you think Alexander Fleming was bullied into discovering antibiotics? Are all the folks engaged in cancer research under some kind of duress? :chin:
— Agent Smith

Maybe we are speaking about different things. By ´forcing´ in this particular point I mean reproduction. I thought it was quite clear.
— Antinatalist

I'm not sure, but your concern seems to be consent, the lack thereof, in birthing children. While it's true that there are many of us who'd have wished to remain unborn, the catch is would-be parents are in the dark about that - they didn't know if the child they're now busy bringing up would've preferred nonexistence over life. Plus those people who manage to do well in life are likely to say "yes" to life.

As you might've already realized, starting a family then requires you to accurately predict the future (of your children), something notoriously difficult to do! Some of us then resort to what is essentially a gamble - we have children, hoping they'll have a good life and we do our best (grooming, educating, assisting, etc. them) to give them a decent chance at success, knowing all the while that life may throw them a curve ball with catastrophic consequences. The sentiment is noble (a person could enjoy life) but also ignoble (we're basically gambling with someone's life).

Frankly, I have a feeling that people hardly think so deeply about bringing other peeps into existence! They should, right? — Agent Smith

I will borrow my text from other thread.


It can be further argued that what we call non-life is in fact not that: it is possible that before turning into a human person, there is an entity that truly lives but in a form that is not evident to humans. Consequently, one could express the same argument that this non-human life ”can be an even worse fate than the two previously mentioned fates” (those of a test animal in a brain pressure chamber and the rape victim of a wolfhound).  This is a very speculative and perhaps unrealistic statement,  but I do not deny that this would in theory be possible, nor do I deny the characteristic similarity of the counterexamples I have presented.

 

Finally, what can we say about this side of the matter? The answer is strikingly clear. Even if it was the case that we cannot say anything about the supremacy of life or non-life – even in the case that all the world’s current and forthcoming human beings were to experience the fate of those two! – there is an important,  fundamental difference between having a child and not having one (as this is finally the focal issue here): not having a child leaves things as they were. Let us assume that unit A is making a decision on whether or not to have a child.

In case A does not have a child – and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A having a child – A will still not have actively influenced the occurrence of this bad.

Let us now assume the opposite: A has a child, and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A not having a child. In this case, it is unquestionably clear that A has actively affected the materialization of this bad.

You have a point!

That's what @Possibility was driving at. Nirvana fallacy it's called if memory serves. Quite an apt name taking into account how Gautama was like life is suffering - he was aiming for perfection and it didn't take him long to find out that that was impossible in the world as we know it. Hence, the fact that no one knows where exactly a buddha goes to (neti neti).


Too "Speak for yourself" is an expresssion that's alive and well you know.

Believe you me, we'll never make any progress just bandying words about as long as we have no means of getting childrens' consent with regard to being born in this world, in these times.

It's clear as crystal that the best-case scenario is to be able to get a child's prenatal permission. Hold on! Last I checked, children don't get to make decisions until they're 18+, legal guardians (parents, elder siblings, etc.) speak for them until autonomy at 18 is attained, oui? If so, isn't it odd that antinatalists demand that consent is a sine qua non for bringing children into this world? A fortiori, pre-birth, children are less able to make decisions.

However, the problem doesn't go away, does it? Even if we're supposed to think for unborn children, we can't ignore the suffering that stares us in the face every single day of our lives, ja?

the ultimate goal of any being should be to ‘do things to perfection’. — Possibility

Why? The world's a messy place, because? It's all your fault Fortuna, damn you! Damn you and your dice and your coins and your cards and your quantum mechanics! :grin:

Again, you’re assuming that the world as will must be denied, but Schopenhauer is talking about individual will as the illusion - the world as will is reality as it exists in itself, the world as representation exists relative to the notion of an individual. — Possibility

This actually gets tricky. Schopenhauer was an idealist, so the world as appearance is just internal, not "out there". In fact, Schop is a true Idealist in that there is no "out there", just grades of will-objectified. He is no Materialist.

On this I must first remark, that the conception of nothing is essentially relative, and always refers to a definite something which it negatives. This quality has been attributed (by Kant) merely to the nihil privativum, which is indicated by - as opposed to +, which -, from an opposite point of view, might become +, and in opposition to this nihil privativum the nihil negativum has been set up, which would in every reference be nothing, and as an example of this the logical contradiction which does away with itself has been given. But more closely considered, no absolute nothing, no proper nihil negativum is even thinkable; but everything of this kind, when considered from a higher standpoint or subsumed under a wider concept, is always merely a nihil privativum. Every nothing is thought as such only in relation to something, and presupposes this relation, and thus also this something. Even a logical contradiction is only a relative nothing. It is no thought of the reason, but it is not on that account an absolute nothing; for it is a combination of words; it is an example of the unthinkable, which is necessary in logic in order to prove the laws of thought. Therefore if for this end such an example is sought, we will stick to the nonsense as the positive which we are in search of, and pass over the sense as the negative. Thus every nihil negativum, if subordinated to a higher concept, will appear as a mere nihil privativum or relative nothing, which can, moreover, always exchange signs with what it negatives, so that that would then be thought as negation, and it itself as assertion. This also agrees with the result of the difficult dialectical investigation of the meaning of nothing which Plato gives in the “Sophist” (pp. 277-287): Την του ἑτερου φυσιν αποδειξαντες ουσαν τε, και κατακεκερματισμενην επι παντα τα οντα προς αλληλα, το προς το ον ἑκαστου μοριου αυτης αντιτιθεμενον, ετολμησαμεν ειπειν, ὡς αυτο τουτο εστιν οντως το μη ον (Cum enim ostenderemus, alterius ipsius naturam esse perque omnia entia divisam atque dispersam in vicem; tunc partem ejus oppositam ei, quod cujusque ens est, esse ipsum revera non ens asseruimus).

That which is generally received as positive, which we call the real, and the negation of which the concept nothing in its most general significance expresses, is just the world as idea, which I have shown to be the objectivity and mirror of the will. Moreover, we ourselves are just this will and this world, and to them belongs the idea in general, as one aspect of them. The form of the idea is space and time, therefore for this point of view all that is real must be in some place and at some time.Denial, abolition, conversion of the will, is also the abolition and the vanishing of the world, its mirror. If we no longer perceive it in this mirror, we ask in vain where it has gone, and then, because it has no longer any where and when, complain that it has vanished into nothing.

A reversed point of view, if it were possible for us, would reverse the signs and show the real for us as nothing, and that nothing as the real. But as long as we ourselves are the will to live, this last—nothing as the real—can only be known and signified by us negatively, because the old saying of Empedocles, that like can only be known by like, deprives us here of all knowledge, as, conversely, upon it finally rests the possibility of all our actual knowledge, i.e., the world as idea; for the world is the self-knowledge of the will.

If, however, it should be absolutely insisted upon that in some way or other a positive knowledge should be attained of that which philosophy can only express negatively as the denial of the will, there would be nothing for it but to refer to that state which all those who have attained to complete denial of the will have experienced, and which has been variously denoted by the names ecstasy, rapture, illumination, union with God, and so forth; a state, however, which cannot properly be called knowledge, because it has not the form of subject and object, and is, moreover, only attainable in one's own experience and cannot be further communicated.

We, however, who consistently occupy the standpoint of philosophy, must be satisfied here with negative knowledge, content to have reached the utmost limit of the positive. We have recognised the inmost nature of the world as will, and all its phenomena as only the objectivity of will; and we have followed this objectivity from the unconscious working of obscure forces of Nature up to the completely conscious action of man. Therefore we shall by no means evade the consequence, that with the free denial, the surrender of the will, all those phenomena are also abolished; that constant strain and effort without end and without rest at all the grades of objectivity, in which and through which the world consists; the multifarious forms succeeding each other in gradation; the whole manifestation of the will; and, finally, also the universal forms of this manifestation, time and space, and also its last fundamental form, subject and object; all are abolished. No will: no idea, no world.

Before us there is certainly only nothingness. But that which resists this passing into nothing, our nature, is indeed just the will to live, which we ourselves are as it is our world. That we abhor annihilation so greatly, is simply another expression of the fact that we so strenuously will life, and are nothing but this will, and know nothing besides it. But if we turn our glance from our own needy and embarrassed condition to those who have overcome the world, in whom the will, having attained to perfect self-knowledge, found itself again in all, and then freely denied itself, and who then merely wait to see the last trace of it vanish with the body which it animates; then, instead of the restless striving and effort, instead of the constant transition from wish to fruition, and from joy to sorrow, instead of the never-satisfied and never-dying hope which constitutes the life of the man who wills, we shall see that peace which is above all reason, that perfect calm of the spirit, that deep rest, that inviolable confidence and serenity, the mere reflection of which in the countenance, as Raphael and Correggio have represented it, is an entire and certain gospel; only knowledge remains, the will has vanished. We look with deep and painful longing upon this state, beside which the misery and wretchedness of our own is brought out clearly by the contrast. Yet this is the only consideration which can afford us lasting consolation, when, on the one hand, we have recognised incurable suffering and endless misery as essential to the manifestation of will, the world; and, on the other hand, see the world pass away with the abolition of will, and retain before us only empty nothingness.Thus, in this way, by contemplation of the life and conduct of saints, whom it is certainly rarely granted us to meet with in our own experience, but who are brought before our eyes by their written history, and, with the stamp of inner truth, by art, we must banish the dark impression of that nothingness which we discern behind all virtue and holiness as their final goal, and which we fear as children fear the dark; we must not even evade it like the Indians, through myths and meaningless words, such as reabsorption in Brahma or the Nirvana of the Buddhists. Rather do we freely acknowledge that what remains after the entire abolition of will is for all those who are still full of will certainly nothing; but, conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and has denied itself, this our world, which is so real, with all its suns and milky-ways—is nothing.[28] — WWR Book 4

So in that passage Schop seems to be contrasting Will with nothingness, while at the same time trying to overcome objections at getting at "nothing" that has been a topic of discussion since the pre-Socratics. Barring a lengthy discussion of the sticky subject of "nothingness" as an absolute term (rather than what is not), he seems to say that once one lets go of will completely, there is something of what it is like to be absolute nothingness.. And we should not romanticize it with myths of union with God, or even states of Nirvana. He seems to like the idea of bare nothingness as a better, less obfuscating understanding of what is opposed to the will to live which is the regular course of things.

The baseline of the human condition can be described as ‘dissatisfaction’ by those for whom ‘individual will’ is considered the ultimate goal of being. The resulting conclusion that deliberately creating any such being is ‘immoral’ makes sense only in the context of ‘individual will’ as ABSOLUTE. Except that this ‘individual will’ is an illusion. There is no ‘will’ that we can call our own, no satisfaction or perfection to be attained as a self-sustaining identity in relation to the world. — Possibility

So this is just a follow up to my lengthy Schopenhauer quote..
What I think I disagree with most in your approach is that you are championing Schopenhauer while not really championing what he actually believed. Yes, the world of appearance is an illusion, and for some very small minority of people (saints), will may become annihilated. However, just us sitting here "realizing this is an illusion" does nothing more than intellectualize this understanding. Just "knowing" we are all Will and this this is an illusion doesn't have any or much force in Schopenhauer's conception. Actually being an ascetic of some saintly variety does. You cannot skip to the end by fiat of some understanding of the oneness of things. That is not how Schopenhauer's idea on ascetic denial of will works.

That beings said, I explicitly showed all my cards as it were in the OP by saying that whilst admiring Schopenhauer's system, I do not particularly agree with his assessment that we can even get out of this suffering situation by even ascetic contemplation. In other words, I don't think a state of peaceful "nothingness" is a thing. "Serenity now" permanently doesn't seem like a thing to me. Rather, it is a nice romanticized idea of what people would like. A permanent state of rest, but not quite dead. Platonic peace, without the becoming of the changing flux of this world. It's a nice notion, I just don't buy it.

Besides not buying the notion of this "escape hatch" of asceticism (or even aesthetic contemplation for that matter), I think there is the very real of having to survive at all. I am not doubling down on the illusion, but rather acknowldging the realities of how the human condition works.. That is to say, we are willful beings for sure, but that we are also situated in a socioeconomic context, and inextricably tied to our individual selves with this society. HOWEVER, this does not signify anything more than precisely that.. We are individual SELVES that INTERACT in a historically-contingent, socioeconomic-political SETTING. That is it... There is no higher way-of-being of "connection, collaboration, and awareness" one must do for a better of way of life.. Rather, one must be involved in the things described by Schopenhauer (the goals and hardships related to survival, discomfort, and dissatisfaction in general), to or turn against it and die. He added an extra category of "turn against it and be an ascetic", and that is the part I deny is a thing.

So, what to do? There is nothing to do except, as you state, "vocal pessimism". To me, that can mean communally recognizing the situation we are all in, and easing the suffering as a group in the context of this recognition. Like a soldier going on a suicide mission, who knows their fate, we the living, should understand what is going on here, and cope with it through cynical/existential humor, lowering of aggression and expectations, resignation in our fate, and the rest. It is understanding that we simply have to play this game out until we are dead.

↪Antinatalist Believe you me, we'll never make any progress just bandying words about as long as we have no means of getting childrens' consent with regard to being born in this world, in these times.

It's clear as crystal that the best-case scenario is to be able to get a child's prenatal permission. Hold on! Last I checked, children don't get to make decisions until they're 18+, legal guardians (parents, elder siblings, etc.) speak for them until autonomy at 18 is attained, oui? If so, isn't it odd that antinatalists demand that consent is a sine qua non for bringing children into this world? A fortiori, pre-birth, children are less able to make decisions. — Agent Smith

You got a point there, I have to admit.

However, those are decisions that people make after the child is already born. It is a different kind of scenario when there is nobody who already exists.

There is asymmetry in procreating. I don´t believe there is a moral obligation to bring human life into the world, even if we somehow could find it is a good thing for becoming a person (and if we do have that kind of obligation where does it end? Do we then have a moral obligation to bring as many human beings to life as we can, does the obligation stop somewhere?).
On the other hand, I do believe that we don't have a moral permission to bring a human life to this world, if we do not surely know that this life would be a good thing for this potential human being - with no exceptions. And that kind of sureness we can not have.

However, the problem doesn't go away, does it? Even if we're supposed to think for unborn children, we can't ignore the suffering that stares us in the face every single day of our lives, ja? — Agent Smith

I agree with you that everyday suffering don´t go away. As long as there is life, there is suffering

17 people + 1 guitar (in one piece) in a saloon car meant for 5 max!

I suppose we'll all fit on this planet! All this hullabaloo about overpopulation is just hype!

I like the music!