Isn't that a reflection of how much people love life? For those to whom life does not matter, then the end is of no consequence - wholly beneficial even, if it results in an improved world (no suffering).

On the other hand, for those who love life, who are interested in living it, the idea of suffering cannot be avoided - except in death - and is nothing but depressing. In their heart, they would know that what they love so much just means misery for others and themselves.

Would you be happy knowing that what you wanted (life) meant the necessary suffering of yourself and others? And that there was no way to have what you want without suffering?

Well, I certainly don't think life is of no consequence to anyone. It's really, really fucking bad, and extraordinarily and gratuitously painful; that's clearly a consequence, something that matters.

There may be a tension in realizing that what they love is violence and suffering and ultimately making other people and themselves suffer in perpetuity, and it's hard to overcome the cognitive dissonance and say, 'yes, I love violence, and I want everyone to suffer forever,' which is essentially what one is saying if you give the old 'seal of approval' to life. Yeah, I guess I buy that.

Reading about medical conditions is actually interesting in that regard -- how pointlessly painful it is just to exist, even bracketing any external threats. And if you listen to people day in and day out talk about life, it's mostly complaints -- day to day, there's just obvious suffering, but not much if any joy. It's only when you ask them whether they love life 'in the abstract,' where it means nothing, that suddenly they get misty-eted about it and so on.

To my mind "love" is the problem there. It is always an after-the-moment abstraction used to assert that something is important. People don't "love" life per se. Meaning and enjoyment is found in friends, family, eating, laughing, pleasure, creating, joy, drawing a picture, colouring in a book, hearing music, eating raspberries, etc., etc., etc. To compare life with the immediate visceral experience of "suffering" is just unfair.

The tension is not so much in that people love violence (most people don't to a large extent), but rather in that they cannot have what they want without the presence of suffering and violence. I can't have my cricket team and spin bowling without life. To have the joy I do (even when we lose), myself and others need to live. Some suffering or violence will, in the end, result in these lives. No matter how much I don't want it to, or how good my life happens to be, what I want can't be given without suffering.

Here, the problem is not so much cognitive dissonance: one can easily own the idea that what they want results in the suffering of others. It isn't that hard. Even antinatalists do this frequently, in recognising that there is no way to end everyone without causing horrible suffering, such that we ought to put-up with some suffering in life, even though we have ways to eliminate it all quickly if we really tried (Nuke everything).

What is upsetting is, rather, the destruction of the idea that life can be without a horrible cost. It is depressing to find out that the idea you had, that life is wonderful, to a point that it is always a joyful experience worth seeking, is wrong. It is not prescribing suffering for others which is upsetting (no-one really does this in the context in which we are talking; I did not chose that you would live or that you wouldn't die, as of today), but rather coming into the knowledge that there is no life without suffering. With such knowledge, you know that the joy of life will never overcome its suffering, even if you happen to have it almost constantly. It is the mourning of a "perfect" world which someone believed in, but which never existed.

What is upsetting is, rather, the destruction of the idea that life can be without a horrible cost. It is depressing to find out the idea you had, that life is wonderful, to a point that it is always a joyful experience worth seeking, is wrong. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think any adult actually thinks that, though. Usually their nominal opinions are instead summed up with dumb aphorisms about how life is 'good and bad,' and you take both of them in stride, or about how suffering makes you appreciate the good, etc. Of course none of that is true, it's just what you say. You sort of revert to thinking in terms of Hallmark cards because that's all you've got -- you recapitulate whatever the culture's told you, there's no real filter through actual life experience there.

We weren't talking about such a situation though. My point is why discovering the inevitability of suffering in life is upsetting for those who understand it to be joyful.

Moreover, those dumb aphorisms aren't a description of anyone's life, joyful or not. They constitute a normative demand for people to put-up with suffering and make the most of whatever joy they experience. As if either of those ideas make sense or are even possible. Someone experiencing joy isn't worried about ensuring they make the most of it. Joy is felt, not meticulously planned to be productive as possible. And suffering, well, it is constituted by feeling horrible such that people want to get away from it as soon as possible. People put-up with annoyances, not suffering.

These dumb aphorisms sometimes work as a distraction from suffering, but that's really all they are. On occasion someone might, for example, find "solace" in the idea of "suffering making you appreciate the good," but all that's doing is building a moment of respite in the present. It doesn't actually undo any suffering of the past or make any suffering in the future go away. But then that's all people want in many instance: anything to forget the despair of suffering for a moment. Often the need to feel better in the moment outweighs any concern for accurate description of suffering.

We weren't talking about such a situation though. My point is why discovering the inevitability of suffering in life is upsetting for those who understand it to be joyful. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think anyone takes seriously the idea that life is not full of suffering. What may be more disturbing to people is, having realized this, coming to understand that they approve of life in spite of this, and therefore approve of other people's suffering, as well as forcing that suffering on further generations, perhaps in perpetuity. In other words, their ideals are internally inconsistent, which causes a Socratic pain: they nominally 'don't want people to suffer,' but deep down there is a very real sense in which they do want that.

These dumb aphorisms sometimes work as a distraction from suffering, but that's really all they are. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ha. I doubt they even work on that level. They're just dumb phrases. It's like Ba da ba ba ba, I'm lovin' it. Nobody 'loves' McDonalds. That's just something they say in the commercials. Likewise with the aphorisms about suffering.

@The Great Whatever

Why do you continue existing? And could you define if there's anything you 'like'? I'd hesitate using the word 'love'.

Interesting that antinatalist philosophy made your guys depressed. I would think it would come as a sort of relief, or hope (no matter how false that hope might be), that there is a way to end suffering, that we don't have to live. That realization is liberating, even if ultimately unrealistic. — The Great Whatever

It's depressing because we're already born, and because it counters the natural optimism bias. What I can't be sure about is to what degree it's correct, because a lot of times, whether life feels worthwhile is a matter of attitude, to me. If I start feeling depressed, then the negative thoughts come. But what makes the negative thoughts more true than the positive ones? It's just a different interpretation of life.

I don't think any adult actually thinks that, though. Usually their nominal opinions are instead summed up with dumb aphorisms about how life is 'good and bad,' and you take both of them in stride, or about how suffering makes you appreciate the good, etc. Of course none of that is true, it's just what you say. You sort of revert to thinking in terms of Hallmark cards because that's all you've got -- you recapitulate whatever the culture's told you, there's no real filter through actual life experience there. — The Great Whatever

This feels like you're projecting your own pessimistic view of life on others. Maybe most of us find it worth living, most of the time. Or that's how it feels to us, not always, but enough of the time. Or at least that's the case for me. It's only when I'm depressed or facing something dispiriting that I wonder if life's worth it.

This feels like you're projecting your own pessimistic view of life on others. Maybe most of us find it worth living, most of the time. — Marchesk

Alright? But what we don't have anything to do with tends not to bother us, and from my experience the way people react to antinatalism is not the way they react to conspiracy theories about lizards ruling the earth.

But what makes the negative thoughts more true than the positive ones? It's just a different interpretation of life. — Marchesk

It's always been interesting to me how when it's a matter of finding food or getting a plane to fly, one's 'interpretation' doesn't seem to matter much. But suddenly when it's a matter of much more importance, it becomes omnipotent. Why is that? It's a good thing we have our 'interpretations' to save us from life's misery, huh. We'd be in a real bind if that trick didn't work.

Why is that? It's a good thing we have our 'interpretations' to save us from life's misery, huh. We'd be in a real bind if that trick didn't work. — The Great Whatever

Isn't life being miserable a matter of how one feels about life? Person A feels that the various sufferings of life make it not worth living, but person B does not. What makes B wrong about their own life?

The antinatalist position seems to be saying that the B people are fooling themselves, and the A people see things as they are. But I don't see what makes the pessimistic view true, at least in so far as to how people experience their own lives.

And how do people experience their own lives? Or is that a matter of 'interpretation,' too? Certainly it would be helpful to me if I could 'reinterpret' all my problems, and if, unlike whether a plane flies, they weren't real!

It's not that problems aren't real, it's whether those problems make a person's life not worth living. I don't think that suffering and problems alone make life miserable, although it can depend on the nature of those problems and the degree of suffering. But if we're talking about your average life in the developed world, I'm not sure I buy that life is so terrible.

I don't understand the sense in which you think it's somehow 'up' to a person to decide whether certain problems make life worth living or not. What do they do, just snap their fingers and make things, even though they're bad...not bad? There seems to be this idea that on the one hand, there's how your life actually is, and then there's some impenetrable magic lens, and on the other side of that there's you, and you can swap out that magic lens to make things different. But that's just nonsense, if you think about it for any amount of time.

As for the 'developed world,' well, first of all I disagree (hedonic treadmill), and second, the developed world depends on the 'developing' world in unsavory ways, and there is an implicit approval of what happens 'way over there,' if you see what I mean.

I don't understand the sense in which you think it's somehow 'up' to a person to decide whether certain problems make life worth living or not. What do they do, just snap their fingers and make things, even though they're bad...not bad? — The Great Whatever

It's a question of whether a person feels that the bad outweighs whatever good they get out of being alive. You seem to be arguing that people can't actually feel that way, or honestly come to such a conclusion. That they're delusional and lying to themselves.

'

There seems to be this idea that on the one hand, there's how your life actually is, and then there's some impenetrable magic lens, and on the other side of that there's you, and you can swap out that magic lens to make things different — The Great Whatever

And how is life, actually? Antinatalists think it's shitty. Okay, but what about people who don't? My point is that a judgement is being made either way.

As for the 'developed world,' well, first of all I disagree (hedonic treadmill), and second, the developed world depends on the 'developing' world in unsavory ways, and there is an implicit approval of what happens 'way over there,' if you see what I mean. — The Great Whatever

Yes, there is that. It was more of a snarky remark that antinatalism seems to be coming from comfortable people living in the developed world than people who suffer more than having to wait at a traffic light, or being bored because nothing is on the tube worth watching.

It's a question of whether a person feels that the bad outweighs whatever good they get out of being alive. You seem to be arguing that people can't actually feel that way, or honestly come to such a conclusion. That they're delusional and lying to themselves. — Marchesk

You have to be careful about what you mean by 'feel' here. By that do you mean, for example, offer a nominal opinion about their life when asked? If that is what you mean, then that's not a great diagnostic, given that people can and do say all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the facts of the matter. Again, much of it is aphoristic and comes form a pre-determined cultural stock about what one is supposed to say about one's life. Surely when I ask a stranger 'how are you?' on the street and they respond, 'fine,' I don't really think that means they're fine, for example. They could be in any mood whatsoever given that response.

If on the other hand, you mean 'feel' in a stricter sense, as in the pains and experience that they live through moment to moment (and clearly this is what we're interested in, not the former), then the question suddenly becomes more difficult for you, first because that's harder to determine, and second it's not clear at all that people tend to enjoy life in any reasonable capacity in this sense. Again, the day to day grind is basically suffering, and only when we abstract and think about life in some detached sense does it suddenly become worthy of approval.

And how is life, actually? Antinatalists think it's shitty. Okay, but what about people who don't? My point is that a judgement is being made either way. — Marchesk

But does that mean that one is not wrong? Of course not. You can make judgments, or have opinions, about whatever you please -- but they're just that, opinions. You seem to be implying something further, like the fact that people have different opinions on this subject somehow means that one is no better than the other, or that it is up to each person in each case to decide which is true for their own case. But how would that work? Does thinking life is good make it good? Again, that would be quite convenient for all of us, wouldn't it?

Yes, there is that. It was more of a snarky remark that antinatalism seems to be coming from comfortable people living in the developed world than people who suffer more than having to wait at a traffic light, or being bored because nothing is on the tube worth watching. — Marchesk

I do not think that being bored at a traffic light or having nothing to watch on television exhaust the problems people have in the developed world, and the received opinion that basically nothing happens to anyone in the developed world (that people living there have no 'genuine' problems, or perhaps even no 'genuine' life experiences) is troubling in its own right. That said, it's not surprising that anti-natalism comes from a position of development, since that's also where philosophy as a specialized practice comes from.

Does thinking life is good make it good? Again, that would be quite convenient for all of us, wouldn't it? — The Great Whatever

What else would make it good or bad, as far as living one's own life is concerned? Are you arguing that there is an objective criteria for judging how life is experienced, such that those who disagree with antinatalists, at least regarding their own lives, are wrong?

But does that mean that one is not wrong? Of course not. You can make judgments, or have opinions, about whatever you please -- but they're just that, opinions. You seem to be implying something further, like the fact that people have different opinions on this subject somehow means that one is no better than the other, or that it is up to each person in each case to decide which is true for their own case. But how would that work? Does thinking life is good make it good? Again, that would be quite convenient for all of us, wouldn't it? — The Great Whatever

It's not that thinking life good makes it good but that some people find that life is good, just as it's not that thinking liquorice tasty makes it tasty but that some people find that liquorice is tasty. It's not somehow up for decision but at the same time it's not something for which there are objective truth conditions.

What else would make it good or bad, as far as living one's own life is concerned? Are you arguing that there is an objective criteria for judging how life is experienced, such that those who disagree with antinatalists, at least regarding their own lives, are wrong? — Marchesk

I'll answer your question with another question. If there is no criterion as to how good or bad your life is, apart from your opinion on the matter, then why do people have any problems at all? Why don't they just not get bothered by anything, by thinking that they're doing alright, by changing their perspective? Is it that they can do this, but just don't (don't know how, maybe)? Whence problems?

It's not that thinking life good makes it good but that some people find that life is good, just as it's not that thinking liquorice tasty makes it tasty but that some people find that liquorice is tasty. It's not somehow up for decision but at the same time it's not something for which there are objective truth conditions. — Michael

And what is it that you are talking about when you say that people 'find that life is good?' With 'tasty,' it's not too hard to see what you're talking about: to find something tasty is to experience a pleasant gustatory sensation when exposed to it. What is the analogue for life? Surely, it's something like: being alive, or being exposed to life, is somehow similarly -- what, pleasant? But clearly that's not going to work well for you, since life is extremely unpleasant in the main. So what are you talking about?

I should also point out that even if you think there are no 'objective truth conditions' for such statements (which is a complicated issue), surely statements like 'X finds Y good/tasty/etc.' have objective truth conditions. So, what are they?

And what is it that you are talking about when you say that people 'find that life is good?' With 'tasty,' it's not too hard to see what you're talking about: to find something tasty is to experience a pleasant gustatory sensation when exposed to it. What is the analogue for life? Surely, it's something like: being alive, or being exposed to life, is somehow similarly -- what, pleasant? But clearly that's not going to work well for you, since life is extremely unpleasant in the main. So what are yo talking about? — The Great Whatever

What I'm talking about is that I enjoy life, in the same way that some people enjoy reading or playing sport or listening to music, and so on. It's an emotional disposition that people find themselves in. Not everybody is chronically depressed, like you. The problem is that you're treating your emotional disposition as reflective of the objective worth of other people's lives. It just doesn't work that way.

I should also point out that even if you think there are no 'objective truth conditions' for such statements (which is a complicated issue), surely statements like 'X finds Y good/tasty/etc.' have objective truth conditions. So, what are they?

I don't know. Is it relevant? There may be objective truth conditions for "X finds life worth living" and "Y finds life not worth living". How does that help your case?

Here is a quick rundown of what I think about this issue:

According to tradition, during his trial in Athens, Socrates muttered: The unexamined life is not worth living.

I completely agree. To be a person who just runs through life without analyzing it lives a mediocre life.

But a person who spends too much time ruminating about life and not living life ends up ruining their life.

The trick is to figure out how to deal with pain. I said it before and I'll say it again: For the most part, pain is inevitable, but suffering is theoretically optional.

Additionally, there is no mutual exclusivity between suffering and happiness.

The existentialists felt that the truly free man makes a conscious choice to not commit suicide every day he wakes up. And if a man is not making a conscious choice, then he is not authentic, but of bad faith. I honestly do believe that most people on Earth do not really understand why they keep living, they just mindlessly go through the actions, rocking back and forth between suffering and boredom without even realizing it. This is why Socrates was correct. To analyze one's life and to continue to live regardless has the chance of procuring a truly meaningful existence. To be extremely familiar with the sense of one's mortality is authentic and pure.

What I'm talking about is that I enjoy life, in the same way that some people enjoy reading or playing sport or listening to music, and so on. It's an emotional disposition that people find themselves in. Not everybody is chronically depressed, like you. The problem is that you're treating your emotional disposition as reflective of the objective worth of other people's lives. It just doesn't work that way. — Michael

While there's nothing I can say to you here to disprove this claim, it's rather empty. Of course if you said something like this about say, being beaten up, it would sound stupid. What I am saying is that this sounds just about as stupid to me (I'm exaggerating a little, but you see the point I'm making). Watching how people actually behave, instead of listening to what they say, is illuminating here.

I don't know. Is it relevant? There may be objective truth conditions for "X finds life worth living" and "Y finds life not worth living". How does that help your case? — Michael

If this were what we were talking about, you would need to spell out what those conditions are in order to know whether they hold, and so for your claim to be worthwhile.

The trick is to figure out how to deal with pain. I said it before and I'll say it again: For the most part, pain is inevitable, but suffering is theoretically optional. — darthbarracuda

Theoretically optional? As opposed to actually optional, I suppose...

The existentialists felt that the truly free man makes a conscious choice to not commit suicide every day he wakes up. And if a man is not making a conscious choice, then he is not authentic, but of bad faith. I honestly do believe that most people on Earth do not really understand why they keep living, they just mindlessly go through the actions, rocking back and forth between suffering and boredom without even realizing it. This is why Socrates was correct. To analyze one's life and to continue to live regardless has the chance of procuring a truly meaningful existence. To be extremely familiar with the sense of one's mortality is authentic and pure. — darthbarracuda

Existentialism is a holdover from Christian ideas of the will. Those aren't tenable in the face of everyday life, imo.

Theoretically optional? As opposed to actually optional, I suppose... — The Great Whatever

What I meant by theoretical was that it is not guaranteed to eliminate all suffering, otherwise that would be the nirvana fallacy. It is perfectly conceivable, however, to minimize the amount of suffering one experiences.

Existentialism is a holdover from Christian ideas of the will. Those aren't tenable in the face of everyday life, imo. — The Great Whatever

I would like some clarification on this.

What I meant by theoretical was that it is not guaranteed to eliminate all suffering, otherwise that would be the nirvana fallacy. It is perfectly conceivable, however, to minimize the amount of suffering one experiences. — darthbarracuda

I'm not sure what that would mean, unless it means being dead. I don't know what being alive entails, if not suffering in the broad sense (feeling pleasure and pain), and I don't know I can imagine a life that is somehow only pleasant. To experience seems to bring with it the possibility of disappointment and suffering.

I would like some clarification on this. — darthbarracuda

In the Sartrean sense, anyway -- there's even a direct lineage from Sartre's notion of the will back to Descartes' in the Meditations, who in turn relates this explicitly to the will of God. The idea that the will is free from external influence and acts as a sort of force doesn't make much sense out of the context of that tradition.

I'm not sure what that would mean, unless it means being dead. I don't know what being alive entails, if not suffering in the broad sense (feeling pleasure and pain), and I don't know I can imagine a life that is somehow only pleasant. To experience seems to bring with it the possibility of disappointment and suffering. — The Great Whatever

I reject the idea that pleasure is synonymous with happiness. Happiness, for me, is synonymous with contentedness and eudaimonia, and although pleasure often does accompany happiness, it is itself a completely separate feeling that cannot cause happiness by itself. Empty pleasure is suffering in itself, merely a distraction from the discontent.

If you can learn to prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and expect the mediocre, then you can live your life in such a way that minimizes disappointments and suffering, and even take some enjoyment out of life.

In the Sartrean sense, anyway -- there's even a direct lineage from Sartre's notion of the will back to Descartes' in the Meditations, who in turn relates this explicitly to the will of God. The idea that the will is free from external influence and acts as a sort of force doesn't make much sense out of the context of that tradition. — The Great Whatever

Why does it not make sense? Is this related to determinism/fatalism?

I reject the idea that pleasure is synonymous with happiness. Happiness, for me, is synonymous with contentedness and eudaimonia, and although pleasure often does accompany happiness, it is itself completely a completely separate feeling that cannot cause happiness by itself. Empty pleasure is suffering in itself, merely a distraction from the discontent.

If you can learn to prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and expect the mediocre, then you can live your life in such a way that minimizes disappointments and suffering, and even take some enjoyment out of life. — darthbarracuda

Maybe we can't get into this here, but I don't see a reason for the distinction. It seems to me that pain and pleasure are bad and good on their own terms, whether you think so or not, and that nothing else fulfills these criteria. So insofar as there's a notion of eudaimonia, joy, happiness, or contentment that is not about pleasure, it either doesn't make sense or isn't worth pursuing if it does.

Why does it not make sense? Is this related to determinism/fatalism? — darthbarracuda

It is certainly related to the hypostatization of the mind as a substance with an active faculty of willing, as in Descartes' philosophy, which is probably related to the Christian notion of the soul. It's a historical question. The more important thing is just that I don't think this notion of an existentialist heroic free will is at all true to life. That's all.

Yup, no one is truly happy, and everyone that claims to be is full of shit, or tucking their doubts, longings, fears, and sadness into that big gaping empty hole in their soul. So what? Big whoop. The problem isn't that no one is happy, the problem is that so many people think that they're supposed to be.

We're playing a game, a game that involves strategy, and to play the game ethically is to not cheat, steal, use underhanded tactics, and make low quality moves.

Not playing the game at all doesn't make one ethical, and certainly burning the game to the ground so that no one can play doesn't make them like fucking Jesus, the most ethical of all! Ethics and morality only apply within the context of the game.

Maybe we can't get into this here, but I don't see a reason for the distinction. It seems to me that pain and pleasure are bad and good on their own terms, whether you think so or not, and that nothing else fulfills these criteria. So insofar as there's a notion of eudaimonia, joy, happiness, or contentment that is not about pleasure, it either doesn't make sense or isn't worth pursuing if it does. — The Great Whatever

Pleasure and pain are indicators of general well-being. The value placed upon these feelings, and others, such as meaning, eudaimonia, happiness, etc, is up to the person themselves to determine. For example, I think there are different types of pleasures, one that simply stimulates the nerve endings, and one that is actually meaningful. The former leaves the person in a state of emptiness after it goes away, while the latter is something that simply complements the feeling of happiness. But perhaps you are right in that this belongs in a different thread.

It is certainly related to the hypostatization of the mind as a substance with an active faculty of willing, as in Descartes' philosophy, which is probably related to the Christian notion of the soul. It's a historical question. The more important thing is just that I don't think this notion of an existentialist heroic free will is at all true to life. That's all. — The Great Whatever

Pre-Socratic philosophy explored the ideas of free will long before Christianity. In fact (correct me if I am wrong here), Christianity's "free will" ideas came from the influence of the Mediterranean region.

I don't buy into classical libertarian free will either. But the fact of the matter is, we are, at the bare minimum, trapped within an illusion of having free will. There's no escaping it. Every action we do feels like we have actively had a role in it. This kind of fictionalism, in my opinion, is compatible with the existential heroism you speak of.