• Inyenzi
    54
    But I don't think any life is free of unavoidable conditions. What if just surviving in general is bad, in ANY manner- Robinson Crusoe, advanced post-industrial economies, any of them?schopenhauer1

    If we conceive of the absence of our existence (and likewise, the unborn/unmanifested) as the ultimate peaceful 'state', anything manifested appears "bad" in comparison (if we judge that 'unmanifestation' is the ultimate good/peace). But this 'unmanifested' is only coherent if one views their existence as if a separate self/ego, brought from the ultimate peace into manifestation, somehow, because their parents had sex - and it is to this 'state' that one will return to at death. But this strikes me as almost delusional - the world appears monist to me - 'unmanifestation', 'unborn', 'absence of being' - are just incoherent ideas, no? There is just a world/being - no separate selves that blip into it and out of it. It's as if the thought train is, "the ultimate peace is the absence of my existence in this world", but in reality there is no separate "you" from the world to take leave, in my opinion. This is not an argument against antinatalism, though.
  • Tzeentch
    415
    Oh certainly. Buddhist and Taoist philosophy are seen by many as complementary teachings. Zen or Zen Buddhism is a well-known example of a branch of Buddhism that is heavily influenced by Chinese philosophy.
  • schopenhauer1
    3.5k
    But this 'unmanifested' is only coherent if one views their existence as if a separate self/ego, brought from the ultimate peace into manifestation, somehow, because their parents had sex - and it is to this 'state' that one will return to at death. But this strikes me as almost delusional - the world appears monist to me - 'unmanifestation', 'unborn', 'absence of being' - are just incoherent ideas, no? There is just a world/being - no separate selves that blip into it and out of it. It's as if the thought train is, "the ultimate peace is the absence of my existence in this world", but in reality there is no separate "you" from the world to take leave, in my opinion. This is not an argument against antinatalism, though.Inyenzi

    I see what you are saying. This has more to do with what is consciousness? If a consciousness does not have the physical components to manifest a consciousness, wouldn't there be an absence of consciousness? But I can also see how this is a point of view question. What is the point of view of a "self" in a world that has any consciousness? I would still say that procreation increases the POVs to yet another individual to bear the burden of living. Not procreating prevents another individual from this. That is to say, potentially a person has to experience, but that potential is not being actualized as someone who will experience. The potential is there, but not the actuality. The people who already exist will still have to endure, and it doesn't negate their suffering. Thus, antinatalism is always about preventing another, but not as much about what to do with the already-existent. The already-existent can come together communally and discuss the implications of antinatalism- the conditions of existence which make it so future people should not exist. Maybe this will at least bring about some sort of empathy, etc.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.