Is Never Having Come into Existence the same as Death?
  • Riveting One
    4
    Both involve nonexistence, but there should be an obvious distinction in how the end result of nonexistence was reached.

    I ask this question in response to a YouTube debate I was having with someone. I claimed that nonexistence (never having ever been born) was a neutral since it brings neither pleasure nor pain. The reply from them included an example, I quote:

    "If some people had a seemingly incurable disease that made them suffer like hell, the "good" thing to do would be to try and advance medical knowledge in order to find a cure. Killing them wouldn't be a "better" solution than letting them suffer in regards to their potential well-being, it would be the removal of any potential. "

    To which I immediately pointed out the false equivalence of death with never having been born. In this context, would it not be disingenuous to equate the two, since one involves a deprivation of life, while the other does not involve any such deprivation (the nonexistent cannot be deprived).
    Riveting One Options
  • Qwex
    366
    To whom?

    Isn't this thread about nihilism? Is no life better?

    I can't get my head around what it's like non-existing.
    Qwex Options
  • Marchesk
    4.6k
    Agreed. But it's the deprivation of life, not the death itself for that individual, since they stop existing.

    The deprivation of life often effects others people still living as well, whereas never existing can't do that.
    Marchesk Options
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    I'm sure we can all agree that one thing everyone shares is: At one point, we've all been children. At one point we all were infants...then toddlers...and things moved on from there to where we are at the moment.

    One other thing we share is that at one point, we were not in existence.

    Not sure of the significance of that to this discussion...or even IF there is any significance, but it came to mind as I read the OP.
    Frank Apisa Options
  • Riveting One
    4
    ↪Qwex
    To whom?

    Isn't this thread about nihilism? Is no life better?

    I can't get my head around what it's like non-existing.     — Qwex

    To whom it may concern. Either the subject himself or to the general population that would attribute a positive utility to pleasure and a negative utility to suffering. The topic is not nihilism and nowhere do I think it was implied to be such.
    Riveting One Options
  • Riveting One
    4
    Agreed. But it's the deprivation of life, not the death itself for that individual, since they stop existing.

    The deprivation of life often effects others people still living as well, whereas never existing can't do that.     — Marchesk

    Thanks. That is all I need. A straightforward answer.
    Riveting One Options
  • Riveting One
    4
    I'm sure we can all agree that one thing everyone shares is: At one point, we've all been children. At one point we all were infants...then toddlers...and things moved on from there to where we are at the moment.

    One other thing we share is that at one point, we were not in existence.

    Not sure of the significance of that to this discussion...or even IF there is any significance, but it came to mind as I read the OP.     — Frank Apisa

    You did not answer the question. The question is about whether it would be erroneous to equate death to not being born. Why or why not?
    Riveting One Options
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    You did not answer the question. The question is about whether it would be erroneous to equate death to not being born. Why or why not? — Riveting One

    Oops. Sorry. I actually feel your opponents position is so untenable that it seems almost as though he/she is joking.

    The difference between never having been in existence and having existed and dying...is like the difference between a fictional character and someone who is (has been) alive. It is the difference between Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Button; between Mickey Mantle and Mickey Mouse; between Nancy Pelosi and Nancy Drew; between Donald Trump and Donald Duck. (Well, maybe not that last one.)

    If one cannot acknowledge the difference between the pie in Simple Simon (never existed) and the pie one is biting into (soon to stop existing as a pie), the problem is not one of communication...it is a problem of obstinacy.
    Frank Apisa Options
  • Virgo Avalytikh
    178
    What is the subject of the non-existence?

    Suppose you say 'Socrates dies'. This means that there exists a thing, Socrates, which dies. But we cannot understand 'Socrates has not come into existence' in this way. If 'has not come into existence' naturally implies 'does not exist', then we cannot say that there exists a thing, Socrates, which does not exist.

    We cannot speak of denying something its existence because, if it does not exist, then there is no thing, no subject, to which existence is being denied.

    (This is just a metaphysical observation; I don't think it has much purchase in a debate on abortion.)
    Virgo Avalytikh Options
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.

Sign In Create Account

Categories