Question: What if we're (secret/closet) masochists? — Agent Smith

We're as in humanity? or we're as in a select group of individuals? I'd say antinatalism works on a macro view of human implication, so I don't think it would necessarily take into account one dude receiving pleasure from pain.

humanity — john27

Yep, we could all be masochists, assuming antinatalism is correct.

Yep, we could all be masochists, assuming antinatalism is correct. — Agent Smith

I don't have to be masochistic to deal with pain, I wouldn't think.

I don't have to be masochistic to deal with pain, I wouldn't think. — john27

No, no! We're natalists because we're masochists (we get off on pain).

No, no! We're natalists because we're masochists (we get off on pain) — Agent Smith

Ohh, I see.

I don't think antinatalism is correct, but I suppose there is a sort of fundamental value in any pain we appreciate. Perhaps one would not even call it a harm in the ultimate sense.

Also, are you really Agent Smith?

I don't think antinatalism is correct, but I suppose there is a sort of fundamental value in any pain we appreciate. Perhaps one would not even call it a harm in the ultimate sense. — DA671

Anitnatalism is correct. You might, if I understand you, point to happiness experienced (by the privileged few), but what if I told you that any and all forms of happiness we know of are merely an illusion! In other words, no one has experienced real joy; the happiest person in the world, assuming she exists, is actually suffering, but she doesn't know that - that's to say she's confused (by it all).

It's time to introduce relativity: Yes, compared to hell, earth is a paradise, but compared to heaven, earth is hell. The former makes you not mind living (simply going through the motions of life), but the latter makes you wanna die (suicide). Note that in both cases, you don't wanna live.

The value of suffering! Something to think about.

Actually, antinatalism is incorrect. Firstly, most people do seem to value their lives, so I would not say it's a privilege. Secondly, I think one could also say that suffering is an illusion. We are all happy to varying degrees, even if we don't recognise that yet ;)

Compared to heaven, Earth might be hell, but compared to hell, Earth is indeed heaven. The former inspires us to make the world a better place, and the latter makes us realise that life can certainly be ineffably valuable even in the face of darkness. There is value there, not nothingness.

There's always something to "think" about. That doesn't mean it might be accurate :p

the happiest person in the world, assuming she exists, is actually suffering, but she doesn't know that - that's to say she's confused (by it all). — Agent Smith

The happiest people in the world tend to be good parents. I have no proof for that, but it would seem more or less correct.

In other words, no one has experienced real joy; the happiest person in the world, assuming she exists, is actually suffering, but she doesn't know that - that's to say she's confused (by it all). — Agent Smith

Could you elaborate?

The happiest people in the world tend to be good parents. I have no proof for that, but it would seem more or less correct. — john27

Romanticized accounts of family life, my friend. Read Agatha Christie.

Could you elaborate? — john27

It follows naturally.

suffering is an illusion. — DA671

Very Buddhist! The Truth will set you Free!

Siddhartha's religion (Buddhism), though apparently hedonic, treats heaven (rapture) and hell (torment) as both dukkha (unsatisfactory), marks of samsaric existence and the aim of a buddhist is to transcend hedonism itself, enlightened beings are neither happy nor sad.

The Buddhist and Hindu belief is similar (mine is latter). For us, transcending superficial desires (and pleasures) is necessary for realising one's unity with the ultimate. However, this isn't just about negating life; it's also about achieving a higher realm. Still, Buddhists also believe that the human birth is probably the best shot one has at transcendence.

:ok:

However, this isn't just about negating life; it's also about achieving a higher realm. — DA671

:ok: However, is this "higher realm" life as we know it, as we recognize it, as we understand it? Remember life in Buddhism is intimately tied to samsara (it's only in samsara that we (really/truly) live).

Still, Buddhists also believe that the human birth is probably the best shot one has at transcendence. — DA671

I can't quite remember which exact scripture it was, but I remember a passage describing how only humans can attain enlightenment and become Buddha. While the Asura and Deva are basically all-powerful, the Asura are addicted to their desires - and while the Deva show more moderation, they're essentially in a divine state of extasic bliss at all times, preventing them from the middle way.


Regarding the maintopic "Antinatalism & Masochism".

As Socrates once said: "That's what philosophy is: a practice for death".
While I don't agree with the ideas of antinatalism at all, I can easily imagine it is an attempt, like many others, to console with death. Suppose you were a true masochist - would you not revel at the suffering that life has to offer? Rather, antinatalism seems to be soothing to the antinatalist: As long as I cling to the believe that everything is terrible, death itself is not so terrible.

It's a higher form of "being" (in the Hindu context, it's Brahman). It's obviously not biological life, but neither is it absolute nothingness.

Indeed. People often quote the Buddha's saying regarding life being suffering (or dukkha, more specifically), but neglect to also mention that he also said that there is a way to transcend it, which is following the middle path. Transcendence is often mistaken for negation in the West, which is tragic, but understandable.

That's an interesting idea. I suppose it is possible that some forms of AN are derived from a fear of death, though I think the issue is also an inability to find sufficient value in the positive aspects of life. I am an optimistic person who affirms life, but I don't fear death. Both creation and destruction are eternal. Materialistically, I don't think that nonexistence is better/worse for a person. Additionally, it's also unlikely that the cycle would go on for anybody forever, since they are bound to achieve moksha/niravana sooner or later. In the meantime, all one can do is to appreciate what they have and try to contribute towards making the world a place more conducive to fulfillment.

It's a higher form of "being" (in the Hindu context, it's Brahman). It's obviously not biological life, but neither is it absolute nothingness. — DA671

I suppose there's a difference between existence (life) and being: "it's obviously not biological life, but neither is it absolute nothingness". You do agree though that (biological) life, all that comes with it (happiness & sorrow, everything in between), is a samsara thing, right? Once you exit the cycle (of samsara), fly off at a tangent so to speak, you've freed yourself from the hedonic trap as it were.

Antinatalism then, is correct, no? Life (samsara) is dukkha (both heaven and hell are unsatisfactory) and we must escape from the vicious death-rebirth cycle of life.

That would depend on the purpose. I don't think that one would endorse antinatalism in a universal sense because each person has their own journey. Not creating someone is not going to stop their birth (though they could be born in a lower realm of being). It's not just about escaping life; it's also about embracing the ultimate reality. So, the negative is alongside a positive, not for the sake of achieving a void. And even then, the path is fairly individualised.

That would depend on the purpose. I don't think that one would endorse antinatalism in a universal sense because each person has their own journey. Not creating someone is not going to stop their birth (though they could be born in a lower realm of being). It's not just about escaping life; it's also about embracing the ultimate reality. So, the negative is alongside a positive, not for the sake of achieving a void. And even then, the path is fairly individualised. — DA671

You fail to see the point. Happiness is an illusion!

I don't fail to see it. However, everything else is also an illusion, and the way to pass that isn't as simple as one might think!

I don't fail to see it. — DA671

:ok:

However, everything else is also an illusion, and the way to pass that isn't as simple as one might think! — DA671

I never said it was simple, but in fact it is! Logical progression, inference from proposition to proposition, is the simplest imaginable (they even derogatorily call it linear thinking).

I'm intrigued by your claim that everything is an illusion. Antinatalism doesn't make such a claim.

I know it doesn't; I was talking about religion.

I don't think that, materialistically speaking, happiness is any more of a illusion than suffering. Similarly, the lack of life doesn't seem to have any intrinsic value over its presence. So, as I have said to other people here, if the absence of suffering (an sensation we are averse to) matters, then the lack of satisfaction (an experience we cherish) is also bad. That is what I believe the be logical in the context of this particular framework.

As for simplicity, well, that's a matter of perspective. It's indeed fairly simple to realise that self-realisation leads to transendence. Whether or not it's complex depends upon the path one traverses and how soon they truly see and experience this. I, of course, have much to learn. I am pretty sure that everybody on this forum is a lot more intelligent than I am (then again, do I even have intelligence? Not sure). :P

I don't think that, materialistically speaking, happiness is any more of a illusion than suffering. — DA671

I'm afraid suffering isn't an illusion.

And I am happy that neither is happiness. It might feel like it if one doesn't know where to look, but I don't think it is. It's certainly as real as the harms. Selective doubts and fear can sometimes lead us to erroneous conclusions.

And I am happy that neither is happiness. — DA671

I don't fail to see it. — DA671

"as real as harms"

Either none are real, or both are. I don't think that the contrary view is true.

You've not understood antinatalism well my friend.

That's quite possible. However, I do think that I have understood it well enough. If you are referring to the claim that happiness isn't "anything" other than the negation of needs, I disagree with that view, because the needs themselves also result from a loss of some state of satisfaction. I don't find one of them to be more "real" than the other.