I didn't say you "said" it, I said you "affirmed" it.

Life sucks and then you die. Do you like this summary of one's existence? — Caldwell

Sure, it can be a summary, but then this has to be explained. — schopenhauer1

There is where you affirmed it with the word "sure", so don't accuse me of strawmanning you while strawmanning me about strawmanning you, it all gets too meta. The fact that you want to explain it is fine, but your explanation only consisted of repeating that pessimists focus on the structural elements. As if we didn't know that. And as you continue to ignore the substance of my posts, which include questions asking for clarification on your position, I'm left to interpret you as best I can in the light of the OP and your subsequent posts.

So, yes or no, is life worth living? (All things taken into consideration would we be better off dead?)

And please no more structural etc etc. I get that part. I agree there are structural negatives.

To make it even clearer:

What we agree on: There are structural negatives to life.

What we disagree on: The evaluative import of the stuctural negatives.

Why we disagree: Different psychological orientations towards the structural negatives. (One cannot evaluate something in terms of its psychological impact (life being worth it or not) without taking a psychological orientation towards it.)

To answer the question of whether life is worth living we balance our philosophical analyses with our evaluative orientations. I come up with a different answer to you. You have no rational way of invalidating my answer because you cannot invalidate my orientation.

As Darth explained:

Once you're given life, it's hard to get rid of it so you might as well enjoy it as much as you can, while you can. — darthbarracuda

There are an inventory of goods but they are not as purely (that is to say "positively" good) as it would first appear. They are fleeting, distributed unequally, etc. So yes there are things that would make life better than they otherwise could have been. I don't focus on suicide or cessation of life as much as the start of life where other factors do not come into play. From this purely abstract angle, we can truly evaluate life in itself. Should life be started anew for a future person? For the structural reasons I explained, no.

So I see you are splitting apart the structures identified with the psychological orientation to the structures. In other words, applying this to the antinatalist argument, you are claiming, despite the agreed upon negative structures, "The child may have a positive psychological orientation to life, and thus is worth creating". Again, due to the negative nature running in the background, it is not worth starting. However, once we are already alive- it is a consolation to achieve some of the inventory of goods previously listed. Perhaps, one can go beyond this self-interest to pursue acts that try to dampen the will- compassionate ones, or ascetic practice.. I have my doubts on whether this is metaphysically doing anything, but certainly, it may have psychological effects. Either way, it is a coping strategy.. Most importantly, all these strategies for happiness/contentment are there because of the structural ways in which we are always at a disequlibrium from the start (ergo don't create this disequlibrium to begin with).

You missed the point of my exposition by a full mile and a half. I'm tired of not being taken seriously, having my entire argumentative essay reduced to a single paragraph and then straw-manned, and then mocked for putting forward my honest thoughts on the matter. It's clear to me that you especially do not take this seriously and would rather screw around than provide any formal response. — darthbarracuda

I don't think your argument deserves to be taken seriously, not because of it's content, with which I disagree strongly, but because of your unwillingness to recognize that some people, most people, the large majority of people, don't see things that way. You complain about people mocking your argument while you ignore their input. You expect us to acknowledge the validity of your feelings while you refuse to acknowledge the validity of ours.

At bottom, this is a matter of value, not fact. It comes down to feelings, attitudes, not reason. The fact that you don't recognize that undermines the credibility of your argument. Undermine is too weak a word. It crushes the credibility of your argument. Smashes. Blows up.

...and then it becomes worth living. So, why insist that an overall enjoyable life is not worth living (or do you really see that as impossible?) Why cling to the mantra. Problematize the negatives, sure, but drop the evaluation. — Baden

Well, the point of bringing up pessimism is mostly to get people to recognize the negative structure of life, with the "ultimate" end being abstention from procreation and a milder disposition to living and interacting with others. The goal is perpetual peace.

That you find life "good" does not mean your children will find life "good", and it's not valid to generalize outward with regard to your personal attitude to these structural elements in life and assume your perspective is more valid than theirs. — darthbarracuda

But my children do find life good. They are generally happier, stronger, and better than I am.

What doesn't make sense to the pessimist is why someone would have a positive attitude to the world and life in general. It doesn't make sense for life to be filled with suffering, boredom, decay, etc etc and yet think life is good. Separating the two just seems to me to be an ad hoc violation of common sense. — darthbarracuda

As I said previously, and as you seem to acknowledge, this is a matter of value, not fact or reason. Not common sense. Many of what you identify as disadvantages of life are the things people enjoy - working, figuring things our. I'm an engineer. My entire career has been figuring out what needs to be done and then doing it. We were given minds and bodies to do all the things you complain about having to do.

One would have to be extremely careful about bringing a new life into the world. Probably a lot of the time it is done without taking into account the structural negativity and the possibility that the child will have an overall negative experience. I'll go that far. On the other hand, an overall judgment of life as a positive or negative thing in itself (an intrinsic evaluation) is always going to necessarily be based (at least in part) on our own orientation towards it (as I keep emphasizing). And it's quite easy to envision a negative orientation resulting in the reverse engineering of a negative philosophy. Philosophers have been writing their psychology into their philosophy since philosophy began. So, while I'm somewhat sympathetic to mitigating pollyannaish notions among prospective parents, the sweeping judgment of life not being worth living seems to sweep too much under its own philosophical carpet to stand stably on.



Perpetual peace, eh? Bring on the graveyards. I feel a song coming... :)

In any case, I get the basic idea. I think at least a little more humility in the presentation would help though.

I'm tired of not being taken seriously, having my entire argumentative essay reduced to a single paragraph and then straw-manned, and then mocked for putting forward my honest thoughts on the matter. — darthbarracuda

But do you take my own position seriously - that structurally we would expect nature to produce a mental balance? A mixed bag would be the logical evolutionary story?

So I showed you how weak your argument is by showing it could equally well be used to argue its opposite. It becomes merely a prior evaluative frame that could make one version seem more right than the other, as @baden points out.

You and @schopenhauer1 are choosing to hang your hat on a structuralist argument. I've replied that natural structures are founded on balancing acts. They require a unity of opposites to be anything at all. So evolution must produce a mixed bag of hedonic states. We need to be adapted to our worlds. And so we need to be able to move across a wide range of emotions as appropriate, while generally seeking some kind of peaceful, neutral, mild, equanamity as the central tendency.

The issue of course is that we are social creatures, self-aware through language and social construction. So we have inherited a pretty functional psychobiology. But it was well adapted to our first million years or so of hunter/gatherer social lifestyle. And in a tearing hurry, the space of 8000 years, we have invented a succession of new lifestyles.

So yes, it may be the case that modern life is structurally shit. Folk are reared on romantic notions of their existence. Society has become a giant economic machine, out of control of a community level living. We are too self-aware in a particular way - our heads filled with the idea of being the heroes of our own unique sagas. And society has become a consumerist, planet-destroying, rat race.

There is plenty about the current state of things - the existing human structure of life and thought - that a philosopher could decry. We could do better.

So what I dispute - what I see as actually part of the problem itself - is this half-arsed pessimism you guys promote. Sure, there is structure. And sure, that structure might not be well balanced right at this time in history. But then is the answer to live a life where you have basically given up on making a personal difference? Is the best choice to make yourself more miserable, and try to make others as miserable, rather than focusing on what could be done about the situation?

Why the anti-natalist focus on not having children? Any of us who are parents will agree that it is a choice that should be carefully considered. But it also has the potential to be hugely rewarding and affirming.

Having children is one of life's big risks, big responsibilities, hence big adventures. From a personal point of view, it should be regarded in the same way as all such risk/reward opportunities, like relationships or travel or sport or enterprise or anything that requires taking a chance, plunging into life, seeing what happens.

It is only in a now over-crowded world that having children becomes some kind of collective social issue where we might talk about putting on the brakes. And as we know, the problem for "developed" nations is really the opposite already. They are breeding too little to maintain a healthy demographic balance.

But then - from the truly dispassionate view of a moral philosopher - we could say things will work out even so. Nations rise and fall. The human story will roll on and find some new steady state balance - some kind of story that also lasts a million years. And that may even be a return to hunter/gatherer level existence, 500,000 survivors scratching a living, after the big collapse.

So unless you actually believe in some transcendent/romantic ontology - humans as the chosen beings - then you have to view all this through the lens of naturalism. And nature has its natural structure - one based on a dynamical balancing act.

Life is a mixed bag because that is how nature works. That is my argument. But go on ignoring it by claiming I'm simply the mirror opposite of you - an optimist, a pollyanna, or whatever other glib counter helps to keep your own game going a little longer.

So yes, it may be the case that modern life is structurally shit. Folk are reared on romantic notions of their existence. Society has become a giant economic machine, out of control of a community level living. We are too self-aware in a particular way - our heads filled with the idea of being the heroes of our own unique sagas. And society has become a consumerist, planet-destroying, rat race. — apokrisis

I agree.

So unless you actually believe in some transcendent/romantic ontology - humans as the chosen beings - then you have to view all this through the lens of naturalism. And nature has its natural structure - one based on a dynamical balancing act. — apokrisis

One argument I have presented before and here now is that humans are out of balance with nature by their very nature. We're too intelligent, too creative, too self-aware. We understand our mortality by age five, and it scares us. I do not think this is a passing phase in human evolution - humans have made extinct some excessively large amount of species in pursuit of banal goals: money, food, sex, shelter. It has been this way since the dawn of civilization and will continue to be this way. Many have analyzed this as a symptom of capitalism, or patriarchy, or religion. The truth is, I think, more banal and more simple than any of that (although those other theories contribute). Living "in tune" with nature just isn't good enough for us. Metaphorically speaking, nature kicked us out and we're on our own.

Why the anti-natalist focus on not having children? Any of us who are parents will agree that it is a choice that should be carefully considered. But it also has the potential to be hugely rewarding and affirming. — apokrisis

Yes, parenting can be rewarding for people. The emotional bond between a parent and a child can be great. There are lots of perks with parenting, especially when the rest of society encourages you to procreate.

Yet the antinatalist argument is that, despite this relationship, procreation is still an act of supreme manipulation. Someone is brought into existence without permission. Parents want a child - so they have one. They do not think about the interests of the child right now, they're already strategically planning years in advance. Sooner or later we'll have designer babies, and people will be able to literally design what their baby looks like. Does this not seem like self-indulgence to you? Yes, children need adults to take care of them - but what makes people think they are qualified to fill this role? Doesn't that seem a little egocentric and presumptuous?

Many people are good parents, but those who procreated evidently never asked themselves whether being a (biological) parent tout court is good. The fact of the matter is that, so far as I am aware, there is not a single reason to procreate that isn't selfish. I'm not saying having a child can't be a beautiful thing for someone. But from the perspective of an ethical-minded person, procreation is unnecessary and 1.) a violation of autonomy, 2.) a disregard for someone's well-being, and 3.) technically murder. A truly good parent who loves their children before they have them (and not after-the-fact), does not have them, in my view.

Life is a mixed bag because that is how nature works. That is my argument. But go on ignoring it by claiming I'm simply the mirror opposite of you - an optimist, a pollyanna, or whatever other glib counter helps to keep your own game going a little longer. — apokrisis

Okay. As I told Baden, with respect to anything else, a "mixed bag" would not be acceptable. You would want something better. You'd tell the manager of the restaurant to please send out a better meal thank-you-very-muchly, this one's over-cooked. It's edible, sure, but it tastes like crap. The manager comes back with a bottle of meat sauce instead. Is that acceptable? Would you return to this restaurant?

But when it comes to "life", suddenly a mixed bag is a-okay. Why? Do you buy into the "romantic" notions of life as some great story, an incredible journey of development, a beautiful tale? No, of course you don't, this is nonsense. Life is brutal, short and bad for many creatures and it's been this way since day one. Humans fare little better in the big scheme of things. We're given a short lifespan that can barely accommodate a single great project. A common theme in science fiction is how the lifespans of other alien species dwarf our own, making shorter-lived species like us envious of longer-lived species and deeply saddened by their own short lives. It's unfair, and not in a minor way. We don't know any other alien species so we can't make this comparison in real life, but that doesn't mean we can't imagine our lives being longer. We settle for the mediocre, the "mixed bag" as you said. We don't agree with it so much as we internalize it, adjust and make the best of an unideal situation. At every moment of time, our bodies are working to keep us alive. Sooner or later the machinery breaks down, can't be repaired, and we die.

The crucial part of my argument that I do not think you responded to was the necessity of negative value and the contingency of positive value. Positive value exists insofar as it is a reaction to the negative value that is already there and will always be there. Life is terminal struggle, that's what it is. You're given a burden (mortality) and must find a way to carve out a small part of the world just for yourself so you can postpone death for as long as possible. Life may be comfortable now, but a single toothache, migraine, or kidney stone throws it into a wreck. My argument, like I said before, is that humans are too self-aware and too decadent. What you imagine: a Rousseau-esque return back to nature's harmony, is a pipe dream. My argument is that humans (but life in general as well) is seriously fucked up from any modern ethical perspective and should not continue because of this.

The banality of reality sucks. There's no redeeming aesthetic. We're cogs in the machine of entropy, and if we dip out nothing will be lost.

One argument I have presented before and here now is that humans are out of balance with nature by their very nature. We're too intelligent, too creative, too self-aware. — darthbarracuda

But if that is so, that is a sociocultural fact. We aren't born that way. We have to learn these things as skills. And so we have the possibility of making some collective choices.

That would be the central question that a naturalistic moral philosophy would be targeted at. If we are responsible for the culture that makes us, what kind of people do we really want to be, and thus what kind of cultural environment should we be producing to ensure that?

I mean, we already do have that kind of conversation. As a general rule - sample any random poster here - folk would support a romantic/individualist ideology as the ethos to promote. But then, is the outcome really functional? Does it result in a reasonable balance? As you say, does it produce people who are "too intelligent, too creative, too self-aware" for the collective good?

I think that objectively, there is something to the civilised/enlightenment mindset that is the core of the modern developed society. And also the individualist/romantic creative edge is part of that balance as well. There is the naturalistic makings of a flourishing psychosocial system in that cultural formula.

But then once we are talking therapeutics, that is why positive psychology gets it right and pessimism so wrong. If you find yourself out of balance personally, positive psychology offers a prescription to match the problem while pessimism is just an excuse to wallow in a state of learnt helplessness.

In crisis, turning towards the civilising, and away from the romantic, is the sensible way to go, just for self-preserving reasons.

Living "in tune" with nature just isn't good enough for us. Metaphorically speaking, nature kicked us out and we're on our own. — darthbarracuda

Here we go. Nature kicked us out. The lament of the lonely child turning angrily on its parent. Society filled our heads with romantic ideals and now the bastard expects us to go out and live them.

But in fact society also says it wants you to live as a mature, civilised, member of the collective. So even worse, you are getting mixed messages!

Well again, this may be a commonplace confusion, but that is why a more sophisticated philosophical or therapeutic frame is so important.

We can understand the dichotomy that a flourishing natural system is based on. It relies on being able to express both poles of its fundamental being - both the competitive and the co-operative, both the private and the collective, both a civilised core and a creative individualistic fringe.

But nihilism/existentialism/pessimism/anti-natalism is just a tradition of romanticist lament. It is trying to tell the whole story based on just its one angle.

Yet the antinatalist argument is that, despite this relationship, procreation is still an act of supreme manipulation. Someone is brought into existence without permission. — darthbarracuda

Now we get into a romantic view of humans as transcendental beings with transcendental rights. We are way off track when it comes to any properly naturalistic analysis.

So sure, use the familiar legalistic jargon. Try to persuade by rhetorical device what can't be sustained by logical argument.

A naturalistic morality does say society has super-organismic reality. So there is a level of being that transcends each of us as individuals. But also that this is a balancing act - a fair trade. We need that society for there to be the "us" - the self-aware us - that could even care about permissions and manipulations.

So we collectively get to write that script - within ecological limits. Or if we can in fact transcend those limits - in techno-optimism fashion - then we even get to rewrite that ecological script.

It is all to play for really. You just have to understand the game. And pessimism really doesn't. As philosophy, it is quite useless as a tool of human forward-planning.

As I told Baden, with respect to anything else, a "mixed bag" would not be acceptable. You would want something better. You'd tell the manager of the restaurant to please send out a better meal thank-you-very-muchly, this one's over-cooked. It's edible, sure, but it tastes like crap. The manager comes back with a bottle of meat sauce instead. Is that acceptable? Would you return to this restaurant? — darthbarracuda

If you made a bad choice in going to this restaurant, would you seek to make a better choice next time? Or would you simply never enter another restaurant in your entire life?

Rational folk would do one thing. Anti-natalists might do the other.

The crucial part of my argument that I do not think you responded to was the necessity of negative value and the contingency of positive value. — darthbarracuda

I can see that you need to make the negative a foundational truth and the positive a passing delusion. That is what your story hinges on. And I've responded to that how many hundreds of times now? :)

Life is terminal struggle, that's what it is. You're given a burden (mortality) and must find a way to carve out a small part of the world just for yourself so you can postpone death for as long as possible. Life may be comfortable now, but a single toothache, migraine, or kidney stone throws it into a wreck. — darthbarracuda

This is what keeps our conversation going. Gems like this. You seem to live in such a different world.

What you imagine: a Rousseau-esque return back to nature's harmony, is a pipe dream. — darthbarracuda

Yes, of course, this is exactly what I said. Or rather, exactly the kind of half-baked position that would be weak enough to leave your own half-baked position feel like some kind of suitable balance. Honours even.

But no. I'm expecting you to do more work here. Come up with a real counter to my real position.

Thus begins the descent into point-for-point responding. "Noooo, you're wrong!" "Nuh-uh, you're wrong!", ad nauseum. One of these days the ennui is going to kill me, rupture my spleen.

But if that is so, that is a sociocultural fact. We aren't born that way. We have to learn these things as skills. And so we have the possibility of making some collective choices. — apokrisis

No, it's not necessarily sociocultural or constructivist. The fear of death is given, just as the instinct to survive and procreate is innate. I think we can overcome our instinct to procreate. I don't think we can overcome our fear of death. Call this romantic nonsense all you want, the fact is that death makes what you call "romanticism" appropriate, it's what so often facilitates our affirmation of life and our projects. And death is a very bad thing, because it entails the complete and utter annihilation of someone. It is the impossibility of possibility.

But then once we are talking therapeutics, that is why positive psychology gets it right and pessimism so wrong. If you find yourself out of balance personally, positive psychology offers a prescription to match the problem while pessimism is just an excuse to wallow in a state of learnt helplessness. — apokrisis

Well, I don't want to go down the positive psychology route, I've already made it clear many times how it fails to promote what you think it promotes. It's not magic.

In crisis, turning towards the civilising, and away from the romantic, is the sensible way to go, just for self-preserving reasons. — apokrisis

Yet I have already explained many times how your naturalism fails to address the radical ethics I am arguing for. Naturalism makes sense in-the-world, I won't argue against you on that. It makes sense to find a balance for things. But all of this assumes that we are agents that wish to continue to exist, and see existence as good or worth promoting and continuing. Fundamentally it is within our choice to end the human race. Life is not a given, but the affirmative second-order ethic (such as your naturalism) scoots over this problem and goes straight to living.

To put it succinctly: second order ethics, such as your naturalism, asks how we should live, or when we should procreate. Radical negative ethics asks whether we should live, or if we should procreate. This is a crucial point here. I need you to respond to this point if you are going to respond to me further.

But nihilism/existentialism/pessimism/anti-natalism is just a tradition of romanticist lament. It is trying to tell the whole story based on just its one angle. — apokrisis

No, these things (which you have absurdly grouped together in a broad generalization) recognizes that individuals are free. They are thrown into existence and are beings-towards-death. I'm not talking about the collective here, which you keep smuggling in. I'm talking about a person qua person and the value of this person's life as it is this and only this person's life.

So sure, use the familiar legalistic jargon. Try to persuade by rhetorical device what can't be sustained by logical argument. — apokrisis

??? Manipulation is a standard thou-shalt-not across cultures (even if it's not justly distributed). The principles of non-harm and non-manipulation effectively form the basis of modern ethics and are grounded in the dignity of the human being via their freedom and rationality (to go the Kantian route).

We've already discussed this plenty of times. I don't buy into naturalistic ethics. Human morality, while sometimes in harmony in nature, is also often diametrically opposed to it. Morality stands apart from nature. And this is crucial for a negative ethics to make sense, as you seem to be aware considering your strict opposition to any and all things "romantic" (as you call it).

A naturalistic morality does say society has super-organismic reality. So there is a level of being that transcends each of us as individuals. But also that this is a balancing act - a fair trade. We need that society for there to be the "us" - the self-aware us - that could even care about permissions and manipulations.

So we collectively get to write that script - within ecological limits. Or if we can in fact transcend those limits - in techno-optimism fashion - then we even get to rewrite that ecological script.

It is all to play for really. You just have to understand the game. And pessimism really doesn't. As philosophy, it is quite useless as a tool of human forward-planning. — apokrisis

I think you are fallaciously inferring that since morality and our sense of self are at least partly a result of social conditioning, they must be "unreal" or cannot be taken seriously on their own. I'm no fan of this sort of relativism.

With respect to pessimism being useless ... well duh. That's part of the whole deal. For instance, I'm wondering how much this exchange is actually accomplishing.

I can see that you need to make the negative a foundational truth and the positive a passing delusion. That is what your story hinges on. And I've responded to that how many hundreds of times now? — apokrisis

Hmm? Where did you show my mistake? As far as I can tell, people need before they enjoy. People begin to die before they're even out of the womb.

Thus begins the descent into point-for-point responding. — darthbarracuda

So either the complaint is no response, or too much response.

I get it. Nothing in this life will make you happy. :meh:

No, I just get tired of bullshit pretty quickly.

Apparently.

The fear of death is given, just as the instinct to survive and procreate is innate. — darthbarracuda

I’m not afraid of dying. No one my age I know is. You’re just projecting your weakness and fear on others. Your arrogance infuriates me.

Don't let that dissuade you from responding point-for-point! :grin:

How do you not fear death? I'm going off of my experiences. From my experiences, death is scary and most people, myself included, run away from it. This makes me and all these other people weak?

How do you not fear death? I'm going off of my experiences. From my experiences, death is scary and most people, myself included, run away from it. This makes me and all these other people weak? — darthbarracuda

What's to be afraid of? I joke about death all the time. The fact that it's right around the corner from me seems really funny. As I said, other people I know aren't afraid either. I have a friend. He's 80. He climbs up on ladders and fixes his roof all the time. He's in much better shape than I am at 66. He just built a sugar shack at his house in New Hampshire where he retired about 15 years ago. He has Parkinson's disease. He's not afraid.

Are people who are afraid of death weak?.... Sure, I guess so. I don't fault them. There's nothing particularly wrong with being weak. I have my own weaknesses, that just doesn't happen to be one of them. Then again, they don't generally try to foist their feelings off on other people like you do.

You lack imagination. Everyone doesn't feel the same way you do. Not just about death, but about all the other difficulties you go on about. Whether or not they are happy, most people get it. Get life. The point. You don't. That says something about you, not about life.

You lack imagination. Everyone doesn't feel the same way you do. Not just about death, but about all the other difficulties you go on about. Whether or not they are happy, most people get it. Get life. The point. You don't. That says something about you, not about life. — T Clark

Yep. The best bit of advice to the young is that to have a good death, you have to start with a good life. Death-bed interviews stress people's regret at not having more adventures and not taking more time with their close relationships.

Positivity or negativity are habits of mind, so it helps to begin learning the right choice at an early stage. You become what you practice.

So, while I'm somewhat sympathetic to mitigating pollyannaish notions among prospective parents, the sweeping judgment of life not being worth living seems to sweep too much under its own philosophical carpet to stand stably on. — Baden

@darthbarracuda @apokrisis

So you bring up the idea that you think a positive attitude of the individual can justify birth for that person. The new person was still made to deal with the world. The attitude is always after-the-fact as a coping mechanism. Usually these attitudes are things that have to be learnt and developed over time. Besides the fact that many people don't have good coping mechanisms, why make people go through this game of developing defenses and coping mechanisms and learning experiences to begin with? Sometimes they are a product of inherent personal traits, but even this would have to be strengthened by repeated reinforcement. So yes, can some people have more positive attitudes? Sure. But there is no other choice in the game. Life is still forcing their hand. They cannot not do something, and when they do something it will inevitably be them vs. the given, them vs. the absurd, etc. etc. And since we are now in contingent-world, you never know what situations will eventually break that positive attitude or lower its defenses. Wrong decisions, disasters, disease (inherited or acquired), accidents, other people's actions, etc. etc.

And also, since we are in contingent world- it is a researched phenomena that in order to survive we need to repress or overestimate future (bad) experiences in order to keep going (Pollyannaism). We also tend to teach each other coping mechanisms like "comparison"... You have bad experiences now, but at least you aren't that starving kid in Africa, am I right? There is also the mechanism of adaptation.. Well, we really rather have had this outcome, but we settle for lesser circumstances, sometimes abysmally less.

But again, going back to the point of dealing with (so important in my opinion). Everything from insomnia to making a living to the very restlessness at the heart of our existence has to be contended with once born. I do not see the rightness of giving this challenge to a human, even with a possibly more inherent good attitude towards negative situations. There is no X reason why anyone needs to go through the dealing with or game of life.

The consequence of antinatalism is (no children) is no new person who deals, who suffers. The consequence of not following antiantalism is someone who for however many years does have to deal, does have to suffer. That is just what the facts of the matter are.

I do not see the rightness of giving this challenge to a human, even with a possibly more inherent good attitude towards negative situations. There is no X reason why anyone needs to go through the dealing with or game of life. — schopenhauer1

I'm sure you've answered this question before, but I don't remember reading that. I mean this respectfully. Do you wish you hadn't been born?

Interesting thread, and well-argued on many sides.

One could say that the Buddha stared into the abyss of life and death, and arrived at a philosophy that accounts for all the pains, pressures, and pleasures that either exist or one could ever imagine. As is well known, he said all life is indelibly printed with three marks: impermanence, suffering, and non-self (which might be translated as “all phenomena and beings are intertwined or co-arising”. Or maybe humorously: it takes two to tango, times a trillion).

The suffering/pain part of the equation seems to be something of a variable, as I understand it. There is always some suffering, at the very least the realization of one’s mortality and the mortality and impermanence of absolutely everything and everyone around us. But one can either turn up the burners on the suffering, or act to extinguish them. At least it is theoretically possible to do so to a large degree, despite many examples to the contrary. But maybe even the examples of pain, suffering, evil, disease, etc. show where and how someone made a difficult situation into a tragedy.

It is the third mark, non-self (or anatta) that seems to be the mysterious key, the deeply buried treasure. If impermanence is a given, as is a base-line suffering, then how can one reduce additional suffering? Is that even possible? Buddha said it is possible. He said that suffering is fed and increased by greed, hatred, and ignorance (what he called the three poisons*). Greed and hatred seem to act as a binary pair, where an increase in one leads to more of the other. And both could be said to flourish from ignorance or delusion the way that mold loves warm and moist darkness.

So then... ignorance of what? There is so much to be ignorant of! (Personally, I have lost track of all the countless things I am ignorant of. If only I had a penny for every thing I do not know, then I do not know how many billions of pennies I would have. Which would lead to even more pennies!)

If one draws a correlation between the third poison of ignorance and the third mark of existence which is “non-self”, there may be a spark of an idea, or hope, or at least some explanation. The concept of anatta seems almost beyond words. And if it isn’t, it is not defined nor explained both quickly AND thoroughly. Even so, I leave that to the masters of the Dao.

But one can meditate on the concept of anatta and expect it to shed some light in one’s mind, given enough time and effort. Ignorance of the concept non-self and the fundamental co-existence of all things is, as mentioned, not the only ignorance. But it may be a primary one, opening Pandora’s box of pandemonium.

Or such is my rudimentary understanding of Buddhism, that seemed relevant to this thread. Apologies for any errors or exaggerations. For entertainment purposes only. Not valid in NJ, UT, and PA. :monkey:

* The three poisons were represented by animals. A chicken or bird for greed. A snake for hatred. And a pig for ignorance. Which makes sense, but modern Western tendencies (and knowledge of pigs’ intelligence) wants to switch the pig to greed, and the chicken to ignorance. Because as you well know... a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a pig." - Bricktop

The suffering/pain part of the equation seems to be something of a variable, as I understand it. There is always some suffering, at the very least the realization of one’s mortality and the mortality and impermanence of absolutely everything and everyone around us. — 0 thru 9

The First Noble Truth of Buddhism is that all life is suffering. The Second Noble Truth is that suffering is caused by desire. That's not suffering the way we usually think of it. It's not events - sickness, death, loss - that make us suffer. It's our illusions.

I thought about bringing up the Buddhist concept of suffering in this thread, but I didn't think it fit. The fact that it will only ever apply to a limited number of people undermines it's effectiveness in this context. I don't think darthbaracuda and shopenhauer1 would find it worth considering. I think it's important to make the case that a normal life, even including illusion and self-deception, is worth living. Has joy.

Hey, @Posty McPostface, see this:

The three poisons were represented by animals. A chicken or bird for greed. A snake for hatred. And a pig for ignorance. — 0 thru 9

Ignorance of the fact that we lack an objective measure of the utility of differing coping mechanisms is what I find distressing. What coping skills does philosophical pessimism have to teach us?

Ignorance of the fact that we lack an objective measure of the utility of differing coping mechanisms is what I find distressing. What coping skills does philosophical pessimism have to teach us? — Posty McPostface

I was just talking about what he said about pigs.

But yes, although some types of pessimism can be ...endearing, e.g. Eeyore, this kind rubs me the wrong way.

Pigs are pragmatic.

The First Noble Truth of Buddhism is that all life is suffering. The Second Noble Truth is that suffering is caused by desire. That's not suffering the way we usually think of it. It's not events - sickness, death, loss - that make us suffer. It's our illusions. — T Clark

Yes, that is well put. Thanks. Each dish of food turns us into Goldilocks; this porridge is too hot, this porridge is too cold. Each bite brings pleasure, or its sibling pain. Umm... kalamata olives! Yummy. Ow! Bit into a pit! As the saying goes- all the same are pleasure and pain; fame and shame; honors and blame.

The ideas presented in this thread reminded me of Joseph Campbell, specifically these videos. Responding the quotes that “history is a dream from which we are trying to awaken” and “life is something that should not have been”, he may sound a little glib to some. But still, it is a television show despite the deep subject matter. Agree or disagree, good stuff nonetheless.

Hey, Posty McPostface, see this:

The three poisons were represented by animals. A chicken or bird for greed. A snake for hatred. And a pig for ignorance. — T Clark

Any resemblance to any avatars, either living or dead, is purely coincidental! Shoulda put that in the disclaimer. :yum:

As the saying goes- all the same are pleasure and pain; fame and shame; honors and blame. — 0 thru 9

Tao Te Ching:

Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear. What does it mean that success is a dangerous as failure?
Whether you go up the ladder or down it,
you position is shaky.
When you stand with your two feet on the ground,
you will always keep your balance. What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.

The ideas presented in this thread reminded me of Joseph Campbell, specifically these videos. Responding the quotes that “history is a dream from which we are trying to awaken” and “life is something that should not have been”, he may sound a little glib to some. But still, it is a television show despite the deep subject matter. Agree or disagree, good stuff nonetheless. — 0 thru 9

I watched the show when it first came out and I like Bill Moyers. Campbell is a bit too....poetic? Mythological? Buddhism has always seemed to me to be the most practical, concrete of philosophies.

Buddhism has always seemed to me to be the most practical, concrete of philosophies. — T Clark

Practical in what sense?

Practical in what sense? — Posty McPostface

Maybe "concrete" is better than "practical." It seems to me Eastern philosophies get right to the heart of things from the start then build up a simple structure on the solidest foundation. See, engineering talk. The Tao Te Ching seems like engineering to me. That's why I feel at home there.