Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. Reason's only purpose is to help us to satisfy our desires. Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions. — Hume

In other words, it's not worth arguing about. — unenlightened

:chin: Is it that there is no correct answer? Or we just can't prove it to each other?

You really disagree with that fact, now with me. I didn't invent it, I don't like it, but it's there. How much ones eyes will be opened standing in front of this "monster" and how far one is ready to go in terms of the solution, depends on the individual obviously. You or the majority just isn't willing (some perhaps unable to for other reasons) to face the fact and accept the most ethical solution. — RAW

Yup:

doesn't seem like something you actually have support for. Just something you'll proudly and loudly restate. — khaled

Please, no more, I'm leaving the discussion, I do get people like you, it's fine, I know it's hard to accept the scary truth and all, it is what it is. — RAW

And I get people like you too. People with too much time on their hands who want to have the identity of the "unbiased stoic truth seeker". He who shoulders the world's terrible truths while the rest of us poor sheep cower in fear. So they look for the most pessimistic outlook they can and pick that one thinking that makes it true. I think it's very sad. But all that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I had given you a topic we can argue about regardless of our view on the world. It was literally half of the comment, and you ignored it:

If you think the amount of suffering is the only thing that matters when it comes to evaluating ethics
— khaled

You need this premise. There are plenty of people with your doomer attitude that nonetheless aren't efilists. Where did you get the premise that the amount of suffering is the only thing that matters? — khaled

As I said: Logic needs premises. "The world is mostly suffering" does not logically lead to efilism. You need other premises, like the one I highlighted above, which have no support for (not that you have support for this one either).

But instead of discussing this you chose to characterize me as delusional. As if that dismisses my argument at all. Wasn't it you who said:

Ok but this is not an argument. It's just lame. I don't care if a particular philosophy comes from a drunk guy on a toilet seat, if it's sound it's sound. — RAW

This shows me you never cared to discuss your view. You pretended like you wanted someone to argue against it, when what you really wanted was to maintain your stoic image of yourself.

But instead of discussing this you chose to characterize me as delusional. — khaled

Well again, you've chosen yourself to so clearly characterize yourself as delusional, as someone with a very poor reasoning by bringing out that shockingly silly question, not knowing the answer to it. Such an obvious logical answer to it yet you were unable to answer it. And that's the problem with people like you, failing to think logically.

So they look for the most pessimistic outlook they can and pick that one thinking that makes it true. I think it's very sad. — khaled

What's sad is that you just won't stop revealing yourself won't you? So just like that, in total darkness, one day I said, hell, what's the most pessimistic outlook out there? Efilism? Great, let's support that "red button".....for no reason whatsoever other than that it being the most pessimistic must make it true. This is your poor reasoning at work again.

If you are intent on ignoring the latter half of every comment I write there is no point. I hope you figure it out.

Is it that there is no correct answer? Or we just can't prove it to each other? — Down The Rabbit Hole

The former.
I prefer vanilla, you prefer strawberry.
I prefer the pricking of my finger, you prefer the destruction of the world.
De gustibus non Disputandum est.

Is it that there is no correct answer? Or we just can't prove it to each other? — Down The Rabbit Hole

The former.
I prefer vanilla, you prefer strawberry.
I prefer the pricking of my finger, you prefer the destruction of the world.
De gustibus non Disputandum est. — unenlightened

I think you are right.

Moral nihilism has a bad reputation, but isn't that what we are espousing? "Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong".

Moral nihilism has a bad reputation, but isn't that what we are espousing? — Down The Rabbit Hole

It's certainly not whatI'm espousing. I say that life is good and therefore death is good and pain is good, because these things are part of life. I do not have an argument, and if you disagree, there is nothing more to be said on my part.

Well actually there is a great deal more to be said, but for the moment I will limit my pontification to this aphorism: suffering is the attempt to escape pain or capture pleasure.

Isn't the imbalance between the 2 at the core of it, the observation that the negative, the suffering is 1. far greater / numerous 2. sensationally far stronger, 3. durationally far longer than the positive? — RAW

Evidently the Efilist believes there is such an imbalance. But is there? How can you establish that these measurements are reliable, and persuade people with the opposite intuition that these quantitative judgments are correct?

On the basis of my own experience, including my experience of the lives of other people, I would reject the Efilist's claim that life is more "negative" than "positive" on balance. On the grounds that the Efilist's assessment seems completely unfounded to me, and utterly lacking an objective basis, I would reject your claim that Efilism is "logical". It seems more like an unwarranted intellectual projection motivated by something like the pain of depression or the fleeting pangs of disillusionment.

I wouldn't give it a second thought, if there weren't other people who found it appealing.

I don't believe I've ever heard of this view before. My response here is directed at the characterization of the view I've just gleaned from this thread and from a glance at a few search engine hits.

Perhaps you can recommend a more thorough treatment of Efilism, in which the concerns I've raised might be addressed?

Moral nihilism has a bad reputation, but isn't that what we are espousing? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don’t think it makes it all the way to moral nihilism. Sounds more like humanism. The source of morality is humans and their preferences, not some “answer” that’s “out there”. Though there are certainly answers that fit more or fewer preferences. And ones that are sustainable and others that are not. Etc

I don’t think it makes it all the way to moral nihilism. Sounds more like humanism. The source of morality is humans and their preferences, not some “answer” that’s “out there”. Though there are certainly answers that fit more or fewer preferences. And ones that are sustainable and others that are not. Etc — khaled

Our view that there is no correct answer seems to meet the definition of moral nihilism. Although, I think moral nihilism is commonly used to refer to a belief that morality doesn't matter, which is a pill I'm not willing to swallow.

I don't think the fact that a moral principle is popular makes it any more right, as we would still be unable to articulate a basis for it. Of-course a moral principle is unsustainable if you cannot apply it consistently.

Evidently the Efilist believes there is such an imbalance. But is there? How can you establish that these measurements are reliable, and persuade people with the opposite intuition that these quantitative judgments are correct? — Cabbage Farmer

My last post and possibly a visit to this forum so do not bother creating a reply for which you expect mine or me to read it.

If all the horrors of life on this planet aren't enough to persuade someone that imbalance is very real, what can possibly any Efilist do to change that. It's like persuading a hard creationist that he is delusional and that his beliefs do not reflect the reality. Efilism is way too pessimistic, way too dark and nonappealing for many to even consider giving it a rational thought. I've witnessed some people in the thread forgetting the fact that most people are driven by emotions not logic. To look at Efilism objectively is to turn off or have under control your ego, your emotions, and most people can't do that. Many people naturally distance themselves from the negative content, they don't want to see or hear about it.

On the basis of my own experience, including my experience of the lives of other people, I would reject the Efilist's claim that life is more "negative" than "positive" on balance. — Cabbage Farmer

So millions of humans across the world starving each day until many of them drop dead, according to your experience of their lives, you concluded that it's ok, their severe suffering is worth all the daily positive stuff in your, mine and lives of millions of other humans (except millions of other humans)? A few million kids dead of hunger each year is worth your, mine and yearly happy time quota of others (play time with our own kid/s, eating delicious food, sex time, being entertained by books, movies, games, being creative, you name it...?)

Why stop there? All the other millions of humans in severe physical and mental pain each day (countless varieties and durations there, each horrific in its own way ), are worth your, mine and the daily happy time quota of millions of others?

Why stop here? The immense suffering in the animal world, the horrific experiences of millions of sentient animals on this planet per day as well are worth our daily happiness quota? Do we care about animals or we decided they do not matter?

Ultimately, is a daily severe suffering of a single hungry Yemeni child worth your daily happy time quota? Daily severe suffering of a single sentient animal? Your logical honest answer would be NO. Your delusional dishonest illogical ego-centric emotional would be YES.

Efilism is about suffering within all life on Earth (all life in the universe for that matter).

All this brings us to the ultimate point that kind of eliminates all criticism of Efilism - how can one be truly happy and joyful in life while millions of other humans and other sentient animals are unhappy, in severe often long duration suffering? You can't, unless you are oblivious to it (one being oblivious to it is one's problem) or just sociopathic. Because not to be sociopathic is to be genuinely bothered by the severe suffering of countless others around you, and to be genuinely bothered by the severe suffering of countless others is to be unable to be truly happy. Logical conclusion: there is no true positive as long as there is negative, thus the asymmetry is real. In our society, most people are OBLIVIOUS (some more some less), indifferent to the suffering of others. Their problem, doesn't make the suffering any less real.

On the grounds that the Efilist's assessment seems completely unfounded to me, and utterly lacking an objective basis, I would reject your claim that Efilism is "logical". It seems more like an unwarranted intellectual projection motivated by something like the pain of depression or the fleeting pangs of disillusionment. — Cabbage Farmer

By now hopefully you realized or are starting to that nothing could be further from the truth. Where do you think "Life is cruel" phrase comes from? From the balance or reverse asymmetry?

I don't believe I've ever heard of this view before. My response here is directed at the characterization of the view I've just gleaned from this thread and from a glance at a few search engine hits.

Perhaps you can recommend a more thorough treatment of Efilism, in which the concerns I've raised might be addressed? — Cabbage Farmer

For someone exposed to it for the first time, your response is very predictable, expected. Once you hear more, once you go much deeper, it all makes sense in the end.

I can recommend but please, be warned, I had a fairly optimistic view of life before I discovered Efilism. There's no turning back now. Once you learn how to ride a bike, you can't unlearn it. All delusions are now gone and I see life for what it truly is, a purely mechanical, overly cold, cruel, pointless, and I see humans as even more illogical. Part of me wishes I never came across this "stupid" double slit video of his, while a part of me is satisfied to have learned more hard truths about reality.

I was in my own bubble doing just fine and then Gary showed up and fucked it up, popped it with a giant needle. I discovered Gary/Imendham, the author, via one of his physics videos (his criticism of the double slit experiment), accidentally. Took a listen, the guy though looks like a kook, seemed to make sense. For a long time I listened to his physics videos/channel and had no idea that he does philosophy as well, that he has a YouTube channel (Inmendham) with hundreds of videos on philosophy. The guy is a long time YouTuber. Has videos on economics, religion etc. as well. It didn't take much time to realize this man is exceptionally intelligent and knowledgeable, extremely logical, exceptional thinker absolutely worth listening. Then I discovered that he came up with Efilism, defined his own philosophical view and gained following. I personally find him to be the humanity's treasure, if not the biggest philosopher of our time that may be understood in some distant future if one exists for us at all. The biggest of the hidden gems I ever came across.

I tried to expose a good friend to Efilism via Skype chat and I failed epically. A stupid move in retrospect, for start because the guy has some serious health and mental issues and is all about positive, is pro-life etc. He doesn't like horror movies, games, you get the idea. The worst kind of a person to expose to Efilism. Of course, he got so emotional about it, so upset that I had to cut the discussion soon after it began even though he is more intelligent than me, more educated, well read and at the very end I did "catch him" with few arguments he appeared to agree with. I can only imagine what full exposure or showering from Efilism would've done to him emotionally.

The way I see it, from personal example, this is life-altering stuff. Forget about life-altering movies and other such bs, this is the real shit. These 2 links were in my intro comment but moderator/s removed them, and it is for the better. People should search for more info themselves. But since you asked, I'll be evil and let you either choose to continue living in whatever bubble you have made for yourself and forget about Gary, Efilism and all of it, or allow Gary to show you "how deep the rabbit hole goes". The choice is yours.


Explanation of Efilism on Gary's website: http://www.efilism.com/


A YouTube list of videos of Gary that goes into details https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYbbEbovUH4&list=UU7YEhpAPFqBbQcdmAomrcXQ&index=1

Ultimately, is a daily severe suffering of a single hungry Yemeni child worth your daily happy time quota? Daily severe suffering of a single sentient animal? Your logical honest answer would be NO. Your delusional dishonest illogical ego-centric emotional would be YES. — RAW

Well I’d answer no. And I’m sure everyone else would as well. Because our happiness isn’t caused by suffering Yemeni children. But I’m curious. How can you arrive at this logically. Mind writing it out as a syllogism?

Same with efilism in general. You keep saying it’s logical. What’s the logical argument you employ that has the conclusion “Therefore no sentient life should exist”. As I said, I’ll accept your premises that life is awful and terrible. They still won’t logically lead to efilism.

“Life IS pain your highness, and anyone who tells you different is selling something”

Selling something like Elfism for example. :wink:

I don't get why you keep pushing the idea that everyone who disagrees with efilism is a completely delusional. I looked at Gary's ideas with an open mind, watched some videos, and read some of the writings and I just think they're littered with tons of mistakes, are poorly written, and even has a lot of contradictions and fallacies. You keep pushing that efilism is "logical" but what does logic have to do with ethics here? What if my intuitive opinion on life was pessimism and that life was horrible, but after thinking about it rationally I came to optimistic conclusions. I guess I'm still delusional then. This whole "everyone is an idiot except for me" attitude isn't the best way to conduct philosophical discussion

Come to this thread then :D. Forcing someone into the game's agenda...I would never impose though.. so only view if you want.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/599957

Why stop there? All the other millions of humans in severe physical and mental pain each day (countless varieties and durations there, each horrific in its own way ), are worth your, mine and the daily happy time quota of millions of others? — RAW

I doubt people have the capacity to internalize the suffering of millions. Wouldn't everyone foregoing moments of joy or beauty just mean there's more suffering by comparison? I wouldn't demand the misery of others if I was suffering. I don't see how Efilism meets it's own criteria. What right do you have to an objective theory of the universe while others are suffering? Typing away on a philosophy forum to simulate the productivity that tricks your brain into releasing dopamine? Efilism seems as guilty as anything else that fails to relieve suffering. At least other theories aren't trying to lower expectations or rather over manage them.

So, if you are looking for a counter-position then it's asking how Efilism meets it's own test for what is permitted.

“Life IS pain your highness, and anyone who tells you different is selling something”

Selling something like Elfism for example. :wink: — DingoJones

A little gem from r/Efilism's "newcomers start here" page/FAQ:

Q: What premises are necessary before I am open-minded enough to consider/accept Efilism?

OK maybe that was a bit low, and I'm not sure why I even looked them up. As @Ciceronianus succinctly put it, the first problem is that it's hard to see how we can simply set "suffering" and "happiness", or whatever variants of those, directly and completely in opposition of each other.

I do feel like maybe there is a failure of communication/education involved here. The problems that efilism tries to consider don't really seem very novel. Are philosophers failing to disseminate or articulate modern ideas to a broad audience? If we give efilists the benefit of the doubt, that they are not simply lazy but instead a little bit lost, is there something that can be done better, to engage these people in healthier philosophical debate?