Hunger/starvation. And it doesn't matter whether you have sufficient nutrients, any more than it matters that you have sufficient heroin. Without it you collapse into horrible pain and death, and your life has o revolve around preventing that. We call that a cognitive disorder, an addiction. A very, very bad one. — The Great Whatever

I don't need heroin to keep living, so I don't know what you're going on about in terms of that.

Perhaps if we were wild animals without access to a supermarket, our lives would quite literally revolve around eating.

But we are not animals in that sense (we are animals though).

I see no problem with having to eat food and drink water. Why are you making this such a big deal? Because life isn't what you expected it to be?

Let me put this short and sweet: the universe doesn't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else expects.

As soon as you come to terms with what reality is like and forget your existential narcissism (we shouldn't have to eat, wah!), you can move on and learn to enjoy life a bit. Learn to trim your sails instead of complaining about the wind.

Perhaps if we were wild animals without access to a supermarket, our lives would quite literally revolve around eating. — darthbarracuda

Your life literally does revolve around eating, though. In order to have your needs met, you must spend the largest portion of your life doing things you would rather not do, and in turn damaging your body and mind. If your physical needs were automatically met, you could just do whatever you wanted.

Your life literally does revolve around eating, though. In order to have your needs met, you must spend the largest portion of your life doing things you would rather not do, and in turn damaging your body and mind. If your physical needs were automatically met, you could just do whatever you wanted. — The Great Whatever

Biologically speaking, your life does revolve around eating. That's what life is: the transfer of energy in a very compact and efficient manner. It actually is quite remarkable how well life does this, even if it is often at the cost of suffering.

But I would stress that you can "transcend", so to speak, the basic revolving around food. Perhaps food is one of our weaknesses or our anchors, but it is certainly not usually the number one thing people are worried about in a first world country.

We could easily just say that people go through the trials of work and marriage just to be able to afford the bed they sleep on.

Also, work does not have to be a chore. You can change that.

I think I agree with much of what you have said. We are meat tubes, simple as that. We try to make all these cultural artifacts to try to cover up this truth (this is one of the reasons I do not like fashion very much - at least ridiculous fashion).

But the truth of us being meat tubes has no logical connection to how we evaluate our lives. Perhaps I rather like being a meat tube.

Furthermore, we've found some ingenious ways of making food taste good and aesthetically appealing.

It seems like you are struggling to come to terms with the fact that life is completely meaningless and filled with suffering. The inherent meaninglessness of life does not have any logical connection to how much we enjoy our lives. And if it seems to be the case anyway, then there are a plethora of existential literature on this, from the Stoics to Sartre. It's the suffering that matters and is problematic. I believe it was Frankl that said that humans despair at suffering because they find no meaning behind it; if there is no meaning behind suffering, then suicide may as well be the best option. (Frankl was a Holocaust survivor).

But I would stress that you can "transcend", so to speak, the basic revolving around food. Perhaps food is one of our weaknesses or our anchors, but it is certainly not usually the number one thing people are worried about in a first world country. — darthbarracuda

It literally, factually is. And not only those who are starving!

We could easily just say that people go through the trials of work and marriage just to be able to afford the bed they sleep on. — darthbarracuda

Sleep is another physical need.

It seems like you are struggling to come to terms with the fact that life is completely meaningless and filled with suffering. The inherent meaninglessness of life does not have any logical connection to how much we enjoy our lives. And if it seems to be the case anyway, then there are a plethora of existential literature on this, from the Stoics to Sartre. It's the suffering that matters and is problematic. I believe it was Frankl that said that humans despair at suffering because they find no meaning behind it; if there is no meaning behind suffering, then suicide may as well be the best option. (Frankl was a Holocaust survivor). — darthbarracuda

Life can't both be meaningless and filled with suffering: suffering is a kind of meaning, a bad one, which is why it matters.

It literally, factually is. And not only those who are starving! — The Great Whatever

Meh. Help the starving, it will make you feel good, or at least more than complaining will.

Sleep is another physical need. — The Great Whatever

And a wonderful one at that.

Life can't both be meaningless and filled with suffering: suffering is a kind of meaning, a bad one, which is why it matters. — The Great Whatever

You misunderstand me. When we see no reason for suffering, when we see no way of rationalizing this suffering (btw rationalizing suffering is normal, healthy and productive), that is when we open ourselves up to suicidal nihilism. If I were to give you a cockroach to eat, and as you munched you found it absolutely disgusting and you could not find anything redeemable about it, you would spit it out just as you would kill yourself if you thought the amount of irredeemable suffering was greater than what you could handle.

Meh. Help the starving, it will make you feel good, or at least more than complaining will. — darthbarracuda

The best way to end starvation is not to reproduce. You approve of the suffering of starvation because you accept that the world should continue as it is.

"But I want to help starving people! I don't like that people are starving!" <- This is a lie, because you approve of reproduction, the consequence of which, more starving, is inevitable.

You misunderstand me. When we see no reason for suffering, when we see no way of rationalizing this suffering (btw rationalizing suffering is normal, healthy and productive), that is when we open ourselves up to suicidal nihilism. If I were to give you a cockroach to eat, and as you munched you found it absolutely disgusting and you could not find anything redeemable about it, you would spit it out just as you would kill yourself if you thought the amount of irredeemable suffering was greater than what you could handle. — darthbarracuda

You can't rationalize suffering because rationalization is itself a response to suffering.

The best way to end starvation is not to reproduce. You approve of the suffering of starvation because you accept that the world should continue as it is. — The Great Whatever

When did I say this? (hint, I never did) I'm an anti-natalist because of the existence of things like suffering, although I don't dwell on the fact of birth. It's merely unnecessary.

Also, complaining won't do anything at all whereas helping people will at least keep the suffering lower than it has to be.

You can't rationalize suffering because rationalization is itself a response to suffering. — The Great Whatever

What the hell does this mean?! If you can't rationalize suffering than you must not be able to derive any meaning from it.

Also, complaining won't do anything at all whereas helping people will at least keep the suffering lower than it has to be. — darthbarracuda

That depends on what you mean by 'helping people.' Most things that you might think would help them actually won't, and those that do (like giving them food) arise due to structural problems that 'giving a man a fish' will not solve in any substantial way (they will starve tomorrow instead of today). And the structural problems all, of course, end in birth.

When did I say this? (hint, I never did) I'm an anti-natalist because of the existence of things like suffering, although I don't dwell on the fact of birth. It's merely unnecessary. — darthbarracuda

If you don't approve of life because it's not good enough to live, then you need to reconcile this with your views on your own life, which are inconsistent.

What the hell does this mean?! If you can't rationalize suffering than you must not be able to derive any meaning from it. — darthbarracuda

Meaning is not 'derived.' We do not 'make our own meaning,' that's liberal bullshit.

That depends on what you mean by 'helping people.' Most things that you might think would help them actually won't — The Great Whatever

This is a very large sweeping claim. How do you know this?

and those that do (like giving them food) arise due to structural problems that 'giving a man a fish' will not solve in any substantial way (they will starve tomorrow instead of today). — The Great Whatever

This is why you teach a man to fish. Or even better teach him to be a vegetarian. You get them back on their feet so they can live life again.

If you don't approve of life because it's not good enough to live, then you need to reconcile this with your views on your own life, which are inconsistent. — The Great Whatever

There's nothing inconsistent in saying that life has the potential of being quite bad, especially since the world revolves around the egos of the least trustworthy.

However, I enjoy my life for the most part and understand that by living I am making a conscious choice, a risk, that may not end well. But I accept this and am willing to take the chance, because I think most things that are "suffering" can be lessened to a degree that is not as bad as it would seem (of course there are exceptions, nothing is perfect).

But I will not force this choice on someone who cannot choose, especially when the consequences affect them more than me. Additionally, having a child is overrated (in my opinion) and is just one more attachment. If I really wanted a kid, I would adopt one.

So, actually, I would argue that it is you that must reconcile your position of vehement anti-birth with your conscious decision to endorse your own birth by continuing to live. It's one thing to not have a child because you fear that they may potentially experience something truly horrific (my position); it's quite another to resist having a child because you think there is absolutely no worth in living and at the same time continue to live. If you are to take the latter route, then you logically must feel suicidal to avoid being disingenuous.

Meaning is not 'derived.' We do not 'make our own meaning,' that's liberal bullshit. — The Great Whatever

lol. Nietzsche was one of the biggest critics of liberalism, and yet advocated for finding meaning in suffering.

This is a very large sweeping claim. How do you know this? — darthbarracuda

Because life's problems are structural, and individual gestures don't remedy them.

This is why you teach a man to fish. Or even better teach him to be a vegetarian. You get them back on their feet so they can live life again. — darthbarracuda

If you were actually interested in 'teaching how to fish,' then by this you would mean stopping reproduction altogether, since the source of starvation is reproduction.

There's nothing inconsistent in saying that life has the potential of being quite bad, especially since the world revolves around the egos of the least trustworthy. — darthbarracuda

Life does not revolve around anyone's ego. Again, the problems are structural: they are not caused by the whims of 'bad guys,' nor will their replacement with 'good guys' and 'happy thoughts' cure them.

So, actually, I would argue that it is you that must reconcile your position of vehement anti-birth with your conscious decision to endorse your own birth by continuing to live. It's one thing to not have a child because you fear that they may potentially experience something truly horrific (my position); it's quite another to resist having a child because you think there is absolutely no worth in living and at the same time continue to live. If you are to take the latter route, then you logically must feel suicidal to avoid being disingenuous. — darthbarracuda

Continuing to live isn't endorsing your own birth. I had no control over being born, and it would have been better if I hadn't been.

Because life's problems are structural, and individual gestures don't remedy them. — The Great Whatever

What does this esotericism mean?

If you were actually interested in 'teaching how to fish,' then by this you would mean stopping reproduction altogether, since the source of starvation is reproduction. — The Great Whatever

No, I would teach a man to fish.

Life does not revolve around anyone's ego. Again, the problems are structural: they are not caused by the whims of 'bad guys,' nor will their replacement with 'good guys' and 'happy thoughts' cure them. — The Great Whatever

Prove it.

Continuing to live isn't endorsing your own birth. I had no control over being born, and it would have been better if I hadn't been. — The Great Whatever

So why are you not suicidal again?

I'll go with this one today:

Aldous Huxley — 'Happiness is not achieved by the conscious pursuit of happiness; it is generally the by-product of other activities.'

Somehow your video reminds me of this:



I'll get back to you later. I have tickets to the Dr. Who Special tonight + an extra special bits and pieces not aired on TV.

http://cdn3.blinkboxmedia.com/i/tvseries/000/002/489/pbhyxzeb/v=316/w=215;h=306;rm=Crop;q=85/image.jpg

I'm very happy and get to play dress up. YIPPIE!!!

Meow!

GREG

In fact I found this http://www.happinesspodcast.org/how-to-be-happy-in-life/

People want to be happy living a certain kind of life, they don't simply want to be happy. — Agustino

Why does x choose to live a certain way? Simply, x wants to be happy; living a particular kind of life makes x happy. So, contrary to your POV, happiness is the goal of all human endeavor.