So the response seems to be, 'that can't be right because it's aesthetically displeasing.' Apparently we need to 'do services' to suffering? What does that mean, exactly?

OK, so the truth doesn't make a good painting or philosophy book. But our suffering is apparently now some sort of art object that needs to be cultivated and wept about in the right tactful way.

I don't think that's what I meant, or said. There's aesthetically pleasing pessimism (Schopenhauer, early Cormac McCarthy, Beckett, Laszlo Krasznahorkai) and aesthetically displeasing pessimism (Thomas Ligotti, Michel Houellebecq.)

What's bothersome is the sense that actual suffering seems to be grist for the pronouncement of an ultimate truth, for the act of pronouncing, for being one of those who pronounce.

As to doing service to suffering, I really just mean empathy - which isn't empathy unless it attends to the particular. It doesn't much interest me what Schopenhauer says about empathy because he also conveniently theorized a way to separate theory and praxis.

& to follow from that, that old chestnut about not being able to love others unless you love yourself is true. If you can't see yourself as someone who can be cared for, it's difficult to care about others, except in the abstract.

As to doing service to suffering, I really just mean empathy - which isn't empathy unless it attends to the particular. It doesn't much interest me what Schopenhauer says about empathy because he also conveniently theorized a way to separate theory and praxis. — csalisbury

What passes for empathy seems to me to be this aestheticized horse crap, though, which ultimately always finds convenient excuses for why the suffering ought to be perpetuated. Some days I feel that if the empathy was real, the result would just be anti-natalism. 'Oh, I empathize with you, just not in any way that will actually end your suffering, rather than make it a tool for my own values,' and so on. How could an empathetic person have a child? If you're concerned about particularity, focus on that particular act, which has to be done individually by each person. I just can't comprehend thinking that is okay. Forget the abstractions, you're making a concrete decision to actually inflict something unspeakable on something that you claim you empathize with. But then, what does your empathy amount to? As much as Mother Theresa's apparently.

Well there's for sure plenty of aestheticized horse crap empathy out there. I don't think ending someone else's suffering is a realistic empathetic goal, if you can even talk about goals in this context. I guess it's more just being able to have a real conversation with someone else, where you begin to actually understand the contours and colors of someone else's suffering. You help if you can (a lot of times you can't, but being understood by someone who can't help you is a lot better than having someone who doesn't understand you trying to help.)

As far as birth goes: I know you've said you have a relatively good relationship with your parents They inflicted an unspeakable horror, and thus must have no actual empathy for you, yet you're concerned not to hurt them. Why's that?

As far as birth goes: I know you've said you have a relatively good relationship with your parents They inflicted an unspeakable horror, and thus must have no actual empathy for you, yet you're concerned not to hurt them. Why's that? — csalisbury

I don't think my life in particular is an unspeakable horror (but some people's are). But it's not great, and birth is literally the source of all bad things that can possibly happen. I don't hate my parents because I think it's not their fault, they didn't know any better. I'm not big on personal responsibility generally, I don't think people have any real control over what they think, do, etc.

I think you've answered your question.

How could an empathetic person have a child?... I just can't comprehend thinking that is okay.

Doesn't he look like a philosopher? — csalisbury

He certainly does! I have an old quarto hard cover Inferno illustrated by Dore on my shelves somewhere...haven't looked at it for years and years...There's something to like about Dore's illustrations.

Plus there's that goofy ultra-french final sentence "For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me with howls of execration. " It seems like Merseault wants to feel like the equal of the indifferent universe. To be cursed, as the universe is cursed, would be evidence of his success. But he can't help familiarizing the universe, just a bit.

But, that said, I think you're right, it comes down to the epiphanic and self-transformational. It's only during moments of crises that you gain authentic insight into how you've been hurting yourself and others. The real mystery, to me, is how you get the strength to go about actually changing. ( I think it probably has to do with trusting others) — csalisbury

That is goofy, indeed; I had forgotten that bit. Yea-saying posturing a la Nietzsche to the max!

When I speak about transformational experiences I always feel that I am somewhat of a phony; I recognize the phenomenological reality of the possibility of transformation, but, when I look at my own life, I feel that I have failed all along to make any real shift towards genuinely caring about anything. I always seem to fail to take the next step.

You're probably right about it having to do with trusting others, which seems for me to be inextricably entwined with trusting oneself. I'm just not sure which one comes first, though; I hope to find out one day...

Let me put it another way -- I can comprehend thinking it's okay, because I used to think it was. What I can't comprehend is both being compassionate and thinking it's okay.

My hunch is that people don't really value compassion at all, but there's some benefit to signaling that you do. Really, they have other values that they place more highly, which is why they're okay with birth.

Don't value compassion or don't value being compassionate?

Do your parents know you're an antinatalist and a poignant pessimist?

Either. I think people like conquest, sex, security, admiration, victory, comfort, money, that sort of thing.

Yeah, or at least I think I've said it before. I talk openly about these things if people ask. I'm not that different temperamentally from my parents, maybe more extreme.

Yeah I think people like all that stuff. I think a lot people like compassion too.

But if they did, they wouldn't have children. So they can't. *shrug*

They 'like compassion' only and exactly insofar as it aligns with whatever other cultural beliefs that have nothing to do with compassion. What animals it's okay to kill is arbitrary, etc.

Why don't you want to hurt your family?

I just don't want to, I don't think I need a reason.

I think you could convince people that loving their family was bad, tell them they're on the wrong side of history for it, that it betrays a kind of selfishness and the blindness that makes us prefer closer things, etc. You can get people to believe whatever you want if you get them young enough.

I don't think you need a reason either. I think that's what makes compassion compassion and not something else. Though its harder, no doubt, to be compassionate for those who are not themselves compassionate (like anyone who has kids)

I don't see why compassion is singled out for not having a reason. Most things don't have reasons. Some have rationalizations, which is not quite the same.

But I think all these things are a matter of habituation without any deeper significance. There might be a sort of higher compassion that stems from the thing itself rather than a convention, through the recognition that pain is inherently bad on its own terms, but I doubt it has a serious presence for people.

It's being singled out because its the relevant reasonless thing here. I don't think it makes sense for you to say most things don't have reasons bc here is a list of reasons: conquest, sex, security, admiration, victory, comfort, money.

You've mentioned, elsewhere, the big deterrent for suicide for you, is the impact it would have on your family. If life is so awful, it's strange you'd be deterred by something you recogize as mere habit and convention.

It's being singled out because its the relevant reasonless thing here. I don't think it makes sense for you to say most things don't have reasons bc here is a list of reasons: conquest, sex, security, admiration, victory, comfort, money. — csalisbury

I don't know if those are reasons. Maybe pleasure is a reason in some sense.

You've mentioned, elsewhere, the big deterrent for suicide for you, is the impact it would have on your family. If life is so awful, it's strange you'd be deterred by something you recogize as mere habit and convention. — csalisbury

I don't think it's a matter of looking at what's right and then deciding not to do it because of a habit, but rather the habit itself stops you.

idk - x did y because he wanted money, admiration etc. seems legit to me.

I have a habit of buying coffee every day before work. If Iearned the coffee was made from the blood of orphans, I'd probably stop. So habit in-and-of itself isn't a deterrent. There has to be something more, which makes certain habits more binding (esp when they bind you to constant suffering)

Whatever you got told when you were young is a good place to start.

Like don't put my elbows on the dinner table?

Have my elbows on the table right now tbh

No, less trivial things that you probably aren't aware of.

What makes some things trivial and others nontrivial? I agree that its the stuff you aren't aware of. Why is that?

Biology, I guess.

Yeah, biology. I made this picture book about photosynthesis in 10th grade. The teacher really liked it, he gave me an A+ and told me I had a knack for selecting funny pictures and recontextualizing them. Thanks Mr. Wyder! I remember the lecture on trivial vs non trivial habits vividly. V captivating. Then we watched Gattaca on vhs until the bell rang. I was crushing hard on x, but couldn't act on it on account of the social anxiety. Ugh.

No, as in the human body, not a biology class. Humans are animals, we do whatever we're conditioned to do.

I was conditioned not to put my elbows on the table, for sure. Dad gave me very stern looks. I felt v small. I had an unconscious aversion to it for a long time. The stern looks happened, but that's not how it played out psychically for little me. I just knew you weren't supposed to put elbows on tables, and I knew it in my body. I remember silently judging others at school (what a lame second grader, I know.) But then, in 5th grade, made a friend, of better social standing than my own family's, and they were cool with it. It seemed so weird. They didn't have [unconsciously understood] social marker x, yet the elbows were no big deal. It felt so wrong, but I couldn't quite say why. In fact, that inability to say why eventually led me to confront my dad on the elbow issue.

Is that what you mean? Something you have an instinctive aversion or attraction to, yet can't quite put into words? Like the elbow thing?

Yeah, and when a rationalization is needed something like 'I'm a good person' is a good go-to.