Completely unnecessary - sexist character attacks with zero substance are not welcome here.

You want to write fiction - do it somewhere else, and leave me the fuck out of it! — Possibility

Ok, sorry sorry.. I was poking fun at the optimisms of you and I like sushi.. He with his, "Guilt complex to do work", and your "collaborate awareness" scheme..

But notice, the indignity you felt, even of just your forum persona being a character in someone else's agenda (fiction). That indignity and disrespect, is like the indignity and disrespect of forcing (causing) someone into the world to comply with the dictates of life.. You can pretend moralize to me that it's different because life provides "options".. But AGAIN, it's the Willy Wonka's Forced Game again.. The options are not really options on closer inspections....

Your namesake presumably comes from metaphysics like Whiteheads.. His idea of universal possibilities for each event.. But those possibilities were finite.. The possibilities of a human animal in a physical world with certain laws and historical developments is finite.. I cannot just be a bird cause I wish it... One must only use the gauntlet allowed by circumstances of reality (both social and physical). Thus, telling someone to "collaborate more awareness and you'll be better off" is like saying to someone, "I'm forcing you into the game and you are going to double down on it if you don't like it". Because the possibilities are there, but they are again, finite. At the end of the day you sound like Nietzsche's super-coked up Ubermensch philosophy which tries to embrace the absurdity through trying to be the most extreme version of the possibility.. It's all the same game.. I'm sorry, there is no "pat" answer that lets you escape the fact of the situatedness of reality.. No Eternal Return superheroes.. No Mother Teresea gods of charity and kindness.. It's just forced game of dissatisfaction overcoming..

So for ethics, what do we do now that we are here? Surely, not much other than live out our life course. We can take away some understanding like "don't burden others" and "community recognition that we are in a forced game/leaky boat". There is some consolation in communal understanding of our situation. There is trying to alleviate undo suffering when one can. Okie dokie.. That doesn't mean thus life good.

But notice, the indignity you felt, even of just your forum persona being a character in someone else's agenda (fiction). That indignity and disrespect, is like the indignity and disrespect of forcing (causing) someone into the world to comply with the dictates of life.. You can pretend moralize to me that it's different because life provides "options".. But AGAIN, it's the Willy Wonka's Forced Game again.. The options are not really options on closer inspections.... — schopenhauer1

Your fiction is pretend - the fact that life provides options aside from compliance is not. I have already agreed that ‘forcing someone into the world’ is worth arguing against. But I disagree with your argument that the limitations of an actual life in relation to perceived potential is a case of forcing them to ‘comply with the dictates of life’, let alone any specific agenda. What you want is the maximum value - the dignity and respect - without the life, but that’s not how value exists.

Your namesake presumably comes from metaphysics like Whiteheads.. His idea of universal possibilities for each event.. But those possibilities were finite.. The possibilities of a human animal in a physical world with certain laws and historical developments is finite.. I cannot just be a bird cause I wish it... One must only use the gauntlet allowed by circumstances of reality (both social and physical). Thus, telling someone to "collaborate more awareness and you'll be better off" is like saying to someone, "I'm forcing you into the game and you are going to double down on it if you don't like it". Because the possibilities are there, but they are again, finite. At the end of the day you sound like Nietzsche's super-coked up Ubermensch philosophy which tries to embrace the absurdity through trying to be the most extreme version of the possibility.. It's all the same game.. I'm sorry, there is no "pat" answer that lets you escape the fact of the situatedness of reality.. No Eternal Return superheroes.. No Mother Teresea gods of charity and kindness.. It's just forced game of dissatisfaction overcoming.. — schopenhauer1

Not Whitehead - don’t presume. I’m well aware that the possibility for an event is finite, but human capacity for awareness is not. What you will BE is limited - but it’s also highly variable. If you don’t like it, you can look for ways to change it. You cannot BE a bird, but with awareness, connection and collaboration, you can fly or perform pretty much any other action that a bird is capable of, if you choose.

Nietzsche’s Ubermensch is not a proposed actuality, but the conceptualisation of an idea - rather like your notion of maximum value apparently owed to the individual upon existence. It’s a way of thinking about the relational structure between human being/actuality and human value/potentiality. There is a common misconception that it’s linear - much like we assumed the relation between space and time to be linear. It isn’t.

So for ethics, what do we do now that we are here? Surely, not much other than live out our life course. We can take away some understanding like "don't burden others" and "community recognition that we are in a forced game/leaky boat". There is some consolation in communal understanding of our situation. There is trying to alleviate undo suffering when one can. Okie dokie.. That doesn't mean thus life good. — schopenhauer1

What life course? How you interpret ‘don’t burden others’ is not as straight-forward as you seem to think, and your description of this situatedness as ‘a forced game/leaky boat’ is highly subjective and charged with affect. It doesn’t mean life is good OR bad, except that you choose to interpret it this way. Life is diverse and ever-changing, and so is our potential relation to it.

When we evaluate life, we reduce this perceived relation to a linear equation, with our (temporal) being on one side and our (eternal) value on the other. What is not acknowledged in this equation is that our temporal being is a four-dimensional existence, while our eternal value is a five-dimensional existence. They will never be equal, and any argument that they should be is illogical.

Your fiction is pretend - the fact that life provides options aside from compliance is not. I have already agreed that ‘forcing someone into the world’ is worth arguing against. But I disagree with your argument that the limitations of an actual life in relation to perceived potential is a case of forcing them to ‘comply with the dictates of life’, let alone any specific agenda. What you want is the maximum value - the dignity and respect - without the life, but that’s not how value exists. — Possibility

Huh? You're making no sense with your jargon again..
Once you violate dignity of X time (birthing that new person), THAT is the violation.. That person doesn't have to exist prior to that to violate the dignity.

And yes, once a person born, it very much is a limited choice of physical and social realities.. Of life contingencies of place, circumstance, time, genetics.. Having possibilities doesn't mean all of them are actually available. And what if we don't want ANY of those possibilities.. well then fuck.. rot in place and death...But then there are just generic realities..Ones that are contingent on being human at all.. In order for X, Y must happen or you die. If you deny it, then go test it out.. For example, not wanting to do the whole survival thing is off the table, lest death, depredation in the wilderness or homeless or free riding etc.. Utopia is off the table because there is no utopia. Some people aren't going to be X because they simply want X. Willy Wonka's Forced game is a forced game of limited choices. And you simply want to deny it because it doesn't fit your brand of optimism. Sorry but that is reality lady!

You are just an apologist for the situation.. You complained about being a character in a fictional story that pretty much did you no harm.. But you did not want to be in this fictional story. Yet, here you are defending to the hilt, as much as you possibly can, a life, something which is not fictional, and cannot be escaped by simply turning a page, that is forced into survival and the rest.. And then have the audacity to say, "but there are options!"". So if I put you in a "choose your own adventure story" that means that you would be fine with it? You cannot have the option of not wanting any of the options though (lest death). And you know this. If you said, "I don't want to be in this story.. with options are not.. And I said, you cannot escape it, unless you kill yourself or embrace the story and think of the choices..

Look again at Willy Wonka's Forced Game;

Let's say I am Willy Wonka..
I have created this world and will force others to enter it... My only rule is people have the options of either working at various occupations which I have lovingly created many varieties of, free-riding (which can only be done by a few and has to be done selectively lest one get caught, it is also considered no good in this world), or living day-to-day homelessly. The last option is a suicide pill if people don't like the arrangement. Is Willy Wonka moral? I mean he is giving many options for work, and even allowing you to test your luck at homelessness and free riding. Also, hey if you don't want to be in his arrangement, you can always kill yourself! See how beneficial and good I am to all my contestants?

There are lots of ways to feel strife and anxiety in my world.. There is generalized boredom, there are pressures from coworkers, there is pressure of joblessness, there are pressures of disease, disasters, mental illness, annoyances, malicious acts, accidents, and so much more that I have built into the world..

I have also created many people who will encourage everyone to also find my world loving so as to not have too many dropouts. — schopenhauer1

Not Whitehead - don’t presume. I’m well aware that the possibility for an event is finite, but human capacity for awareness is not. — Possibility

That's just wrong prima facie.. We are not aware of what we are not aware of. We are not all knowing (infinite awareness). Lay off the stuff.

If you don’t like it, you can look for ways to change it. You cannot BE a bird, but with awareness, connection and collaboration, you can fly or perform pretty much any other action that a bird is capable of, if you choose. — Possibility

Ugh, I knew you were going to say something like that :lol:. No, I literally mean, I cannot become a bird.. Meaning, I cannot change certain physical and social realities of life. They are off the table.

Nietzsche’s Ubermensch is not a proposed actuality, but the conceptualisation of an idea - rather like your notion of maximum value apparently owed to the individual upon existence. It’s a way of thinking about the relational structure between human being/actuality and human value/potentiality. There is a common misconception that it’s linear - much like we assumed the relation between space and time to be linear. It isn’t. — Possibility

I noticed here that you didn't even deny my comparison to Nietzsche's coked out model.

What life course? How you interpret ‘don’t burden others’ is not as straight-forward as you seem to think, and your description of this situatedness as ‘a forced game/leaky boat’ is highly subjective and charged with affect. It doesn’t mean life is good OR bad, except that you choose to interpret it this way. Life is diverse and ever-changing, and so is our potential relation to it. — Possibility

Charged with affect just means I am making an evaluation.. Values have value judgements!!

Yeah that's right, life is a leaky boat of survival and dissatisfaction that has to be overcome. The whole point of the thread is that if being were positive in itself there would be no need for anything.

When we evaluate life, we reduce this perceived relation to a linear equation, with our (temporal) being on one side and our (eternal) value on the other. What is not acknowledged in this equation is that our temporal being is a four-dimensional existence, while our eternal value is a five-dimensional existence. They will never be equal, and any argument that they should be is illogical. — Possibility

Don't know, don't care.. Doesn't mean anything as this is written.

Once you violate dignity of X time (birthing that new person), THAT is the violation.. That person doesn't have to exist prior to that to violate the dignity. — schopenhauer1

Your sentence makes no sense. Something has to exist in order to violate a pre-existing dignity.

Violate: 1. Break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement). 2. treat (something sacred) with irreverence or disrespect.

Dignity: the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect.

Explain to me what this ‘rule or formal agreement’ is that is broken, or what this ‘something sacred’ is that is treated with disrespect. Because I get that the violation is the birthing, the actual existing, but it’s unclear what an unviolated ‘new person’ is. Seems to me like this violation is committed against an unrealised concept, a perception of value.

For example, not wanting to do the whole survival thing is off the table, lest death, depredation in the wilderness or homeless or free riding etc.. Utopia is off the table because there is no utopia. Some people aren't going to be X because they simply want X. — schopenhauer1

Do you even understand what ‘the whole survival thing’ is? Survival was never on the table - it was always a false goal, doomed to failure. Nobody survives. Someone sold you a bill of goods, buddy! Let me make it clear: you will NOT survive, no matter how hard you try. Death is not something you can avoid. Survival, Utopia, Ubermensch, the individual dignity of non-existence - all ways of thinking about human potentiality. They’re not promised actualities at all, just ideas to which we attribute value based on quality and feeling, and then conceptualise.

Any promises made regarding life are falsely stated, and what makes procreation so unconscionable to you is that you interpret the act itself as a promissory note, made apparently without the means or inclination to fulfil it. But your interpretation is constructed according to this ‘agenda’ that you’re trying to subvert. I’m arguing that the entire agenda, these ideals we’ve convinced ourselves to strive towards, are a false construct. Which is not to say the potential is non-existent, only that it’s been constructed to give the illusion of definitive goals, when the reality is far more open-ended.

We are not aware of what we are not aware of. — schopenhauer1

Ignorance is not a permanent condition. Human awareness is a process.

Ugh, I knew you were going to say something like that :lol:. No, I literally mean, I cannot become a bird.. Meaning, I cannot change certain physical and social realities of life. They are off the table. — schopenhauer1

Is that what your problem is? Would you rather be a bird? What is it about literally being a bird that is so valuable and so unattainable? Seriously, though - physical or social realities don’t determine your dignity or respect unless you buy into the agenda. They can be taken off the table, and all it changes is the distribution of time, attention and effort.

I noticed here that you didn't even deny my comparison to Nietzsche's coked out model. — schopenhauer1

Why bother? It’s as similar to my philosophy as it is to your own. The fact that you refer to it as ‘coked out’ is just your subjective view, and bears no reflection on my philosophy at all - only your subjective view of it, stubbornly held. I don’t consider my position to be better than yours (which is an option), but I do think it deserves due consideration and respect, which you stubbornly refuse to give, presumably because you think there can only be two moralistic ways to view reality (the right way and wrong way)...

Yeah that's right, life is a leaky boat of survival and dissatisfaction that has to be overcome. The whole point of the thread is that if being were positive in itself there would be no need for anything. — schopenhauer1

Subjective opinion, again. Life is neither positive or negative. The fact that you NEED it to be inherently positive goes back to your sense of entitlement, and this desire for a definitive goal. ‘I never get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day’...

Don't know, don't care.. Doesn't mean anything as this is written. — schopenhauer1

Ignorance is bliss...

Explain to me what this ‘rule or formal agreement’ is that is broken, or what this ‘something sacred’ is that is treated with disrespect. Because I get that the violation is the birthing, the actual existing, but it’s unclear what an unviolated ‘new person’ is. Seems to me like this violation is committed against an unrealised concept, a perception of value. — Possibility

Right…so if I somehow plot and plan a person to materialize so I can punch him in the face, the second that person materializes, and I punch him, is the violation. Non identity no more. Also, as I’ve been stating the whole time, the parent is creating collateral damage when they could have not created this for someone else.

Another example I give often is that if a parent chooses to birth a child into a volcano, surely they can’t be doing wrong to that child that will be born in the volcano :roll:.

They’re not promised actualities at all, just ideas to which we attribute value based on quality and feeling, and then conceptualise. — Possibility

While I agree in a sense that humans conceptualize their survival as they do it, that doesn’t negate the survival. In fact it may make the situation worse. Instead of instinctual programs we must conceptualize. We can even be aware of a negative value of a task and realize it must be done despite not preferring it if we want to achieve X. We are aware of our shitty options.

I’m arguing that the entire agenda, these ideals we’ve convinced ourselves to strive towards, are a false construct. Which is not to say the potential is non-existent, only that it’s been constructed to give the illusion of definitive goals, when the reality is far more open-ended. — Possibility

But it’s not. Try not eating for a couple weeks. Try living in extreme cold or heat over long periods of time. Not to mention that “where” you put yourself is determined by outside principles like property arrangements. There are quite a few things that de facto happen due to physical, social, and historical situatedness.

Seriously, though - physical or social realities don’t determine your dignity or respect unless you buy into the agenda. They can be taken off the table, and all it changes is the distribution of time, attention and effort. — Possibility

But they do. Every possibility of action is one whereby I need to figure out how to maintain my being. Willy Wonkas Forced Game is really a limited one, and you can piecemeal it further if you want but they fall under the categories listed..if I want none of that? Death. Comply or die.

Why bother? — Possibility

Cause he’s peddling bullshit. It’s doubling down on the agenda..it’s not bypassing it cause you are doing it with more conviction or extremely.

Subjective opinion, again. Life is neither positive or negative. The fact that you NEED it to be inherently positive goes back to your sense of entitlement, and this desire for a definitive goal. ‘I never get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day’... — Possibility

Right, yet you don’t mind literally forcing people into a “choose your own adventure story” that can’t be escaped and is actually limited in options. Then you blame the person forced that how dare they question the situation. Willy Wonka lovingly forced this game for which you can comply or die. You still haven’t addressed Willy Wonka scenario..you, who got indignant at being even mentioned in a silly tertiary way as a fictional character gaslights the fact that people are literally forced into a real situation of inescapable, non-trivial, suffering and an agenda of comply or die.

Right…so if I somehow plot and plan a person to materialize so I can punch him in the face, the second that person materializes, and I punch him, is the violation. Non identity no more. Also, as I’ve been stating the whole time, the parent is creating collateral damage when they could have not created this for someone else. — schopenhauer1

You’re not answering my question. You can plan anything you want - that’s potential, not actual. Punching is a violation against an already materialised person. Whether you were the one to materialise them or not is relevant only in the sense that the punching was premeditated. Materialising them violates nothing, because nothing exists to violate. They could just as easily have materialised them and then changed their mind about punching them. Two separate actions.

Another example I give often is that if a parent chooses to birth a child into a volcano, surely they can’t be doing wrong to that child that will be born in the volcano :roll:. — schopenhauer1

You’re using an example where the risk to both child and parent is obvious and immediate - that’s not the case with life.

It is your opinion that the chance of someone’s life being less than their potential is sufficient enough to warrant non-being. Plenty of people disagree with this evaluation, and you claim they’re wrong, but all they’re doing is evaluating life differently to you. You have no way of proving your own evaluation to be objective - it will always be relative to the affect of your limited experience. For most people, this evaluation will vary across their lifetime, and is far more complex than a binary reduction.

I have no issue with accusing parents of violating the dignity of their child, and even reference to collateral damage based on their methods of parenting. But it’s a separate issue to procreation. You cannot automatically assume their intention to violate based only on the act of procreation. That assumption is determined by your personal evaluation of life.

I’m not arguing for procreation here, only arguing against your blanket moral judgement. A parent is usually ignorant, commonly naive, and often selfish in choosing to procreate, but they are not violating any existing dignity at this point. This is simply false. But if you want to acknowledge potential existence, then we can go there.

While I agree in a sense that humans conceptualize their survival as they do it, that doesn’t negate the survival. In fact it may make the situation worse. Instead of instinctual programs we must conceptualize. We can even be aware of a negative value of a task and realize it must be done despite not preferring it if we want to achieve X. We are aware of our shitty options. — schopenhauer1

Conceptualisation instead of instinctual programs enables MORE options. What you’re referring to here is awareness of a conflict between value systems. It allows us to question the accuracy of our value systems, and choose a conceptual structure that minimises overall prediction error (suffering). Why do we want to achieve X? Is this really more important than avoiding Y right now? Would it be better to avoid Y at this time and delay achieving X, or is this the only opportunity for us to achieve X? How are these shittier options than a single instinctual program based on the experience of previous generations?

I’m arguing that the entire agenda, these ideals we’ve convinced ourselves to strive towards, are a false construct. Which is not to say the potential is non-existent, only that it’s been constructed to give the illusion of definitive goals, when the reality is far more open-ended.
— Possibility

But it’s not. Try not eating for a couple weeks. Try living in extreme cold or heat over long periods of time. Not to mention that “where” you put yourself is determined by outside principles like property arrangements. There are quite a few things that de facto happen due to physical, social, and historical situatedness. — schopenhauer1

Yes, there are more options to think about, so more to be aware of, to adjust and to get wrong. This increases the chances of prediction error (suffering) if we lack awareness, but if we maximise awareness then it increases the chances of reducing suffering overall. Humans do choose to live in extreme cold or heat over long periods of time - usually because they prefer it to their perceived alternatives, or because it brings them value/potential in other ways they consider worth the effort. We simply change our distribution of effort and attention over time.

There are limits to how we can live, sure - but no-one is forcing us to live, except our own preferences which are open to negotiation, so long as we’re aware of alternatives. You can go on a hunger strike for several weeks if you believe it will achieve something you consider more important than your own life. These are choices we’re free to make, against survival, towards a value we decide is greater. It doesn’t make death any more inevitable.

But they do. Every possibility of action is one whereby I need to figure out how to maintain my being. Willy Wonkas Forced Game is really a limited one, and you can piecemeal it further if you want but they fall under the categories listed..if I want none of that? Death. Comply or die. — schopenhauer1

No, you don’t need to maintain your being, you’re choosing to. Death is inevitable. You can bring it closer or try to delay it, but it’s coming for you either way. Doesn’t change your value one iota.

Cause he’s peddling bullshit. It’s doubling down on the agenda..it’s not bypassing it cause you are doing it with more conviction or extremely. — schopenhauer1

You personally disagree with his perspective. That’s all this says to me.

Right, yet you don’t mind literally forcing people into a “choose your own adventure story” that can’t be escaped and is actually limited in options. Then you blame the person forced that how dare they question the situation. Willy Wonka lovingly forced this game for which you can comply or die. You still haven’t addressed Willy Wonka scenario..you, who got indignant at being even mentioned in a silly tertiary way as a fictional character gaslights the fact that people are literally forced into a real situation of inescapable, non-trivial, suffering and an agenda of comply or die. — schopenhauer1

This is not my view at all. Every situation is limited in options, especially non-being. I would encourage everyone to increase their own awareness of and question the unique situation they’re in, and to recognise and develop their own unique capacity to effect changes.

Your Willy Wonka forces existing characters into his game. You attempt to violate the respect and dignity of my existing identity, and I feel entitled to object, as one human being to another. But in procreation there is no existing character/identity to violate.

Prior to self-awareness, a person’s potential/value exists in the minds of anyone interacting with a developing being (especially the parents), and their actualisation is subject to countless conflicts of ignorance/awareness, isolation/connection and exclusion/collaboration. The temptation for parents to align ourselves with the agenda can be overwhelming. I cannot hope to maximise my child’s potential for awareness, for instance, until they’re aware of my own ignorance. To the extent that I seek to avoid suffering humiliation in this, and maintain an illusion of dominance, I am multiplying their potential for future suffering. But no-one explains this beforehand, and reducing to it ‘procreation = forced suffering = bad’ is obviously inaccurate, as is ‘parenting = self-sacrifice = love’. It’s much more complex and irreducible than that.

A person gradually develops self-awareness of the situation they’re in, questions its suitability in accordance with their conceptual structures, and seeks to make changes (either to their situation OR to their conceptual structures) which they consider important.

A person’s immediate situatedness is predetermined, but highly variable and ultimately as temporary as they determine it to be. To observe this situatedness as ‘constrained’ is to recognise one’s unrealised potential/value at that point in time. To judge it ‘inescapable’ is to reduce this actualising relation with potential/value to a binary (potential = good, actual = bad), even though both are continually subject to change, and subject to our conscious determination.

But in procreation there is no existing character/identity to violate. — Possibility

This is all I need to know you are arguing in bad faith or that you don't know what you are talking about. Have you read any of my other threads? These type of non-identity arguments are ridiculous. You can justify procreating a child into any situation with this mentality. Of course you will say no, they shouldn't but then you would have no recourse because your own "no existing character" argument refuted itself. But of course, we know it would be wrong to procreate in a terrible situation. But I am saying this applies not to X1 situation but all of life, as that child will be forced to comply with the dictates of life and the contingent harms intendent within it. They will be forced into the character of a "choose your own (actually very limited) adventures. Also, I rephrase it for precious people as yourself so that you can't get around it... "The parent is causing collateral damage but can prevent it..".

But even without rephrasing it.. "The parent is violating dignity of the child.." it works. If a parent procreated a child into a really bad circumstance (think of anything) you would object.. But then you will say life is not always a bad circumstance.. and of course based on the my OP I indeed think it is.. even under the best of contingent circumstances due to the dissatisfaction part. But yes, the violation happens because the child has something PROFOUNDLY done to it, that affects it and it's inescapable and unnecessary to do and will always have inherent and contingent harms. That is a fact. once someone is born, THIS is the violation.. If you can't see that.. then you are just spitting sophistry. You can't do anything you want on behalf of what will affect SOMEONE ELSE because at point X they are technically not born yet, but in point Y they are.. Your actions matter at point Y as much as X, because X led to Y. This is common sense.. Don't try to weasel your way out of it.. Sorry, you can't.

A person’s immediate situatedness is predetermined, but highly variable and ultimately as temporary as they determine it to be. — Possibility

False.. I cannot change all of world history and physical laws to suit me.. And no, people can't change things in such easy fashion as you say... If they could.. we'd have a lot more people changing things to suit them and their preferences. And your double-entry weaseling of 'Well people just have to be aware and they'd know they can move things along collectively".. yeah just stop. You know you can't say much.. You know it's the game, and the 'awareness" is nothing more than an HR person reiterating the benefits of the policy or that the company only works well when we work as a team to achieve our goal..

To judge it ‘inescapable’ is to reduce this actualising relation with potential/value to a binary (potential = good, actual = bad), even though both are continually subject to change, and subject to our conscious determination. — Possibility

What? It's inescapable because you have to DIE to escape the situation. Comply or die...

The point is that it is a forced situation upon someone caused by predecessors.. You can't say, "But no ONE was forced'.. Yes, the very person who exists now exists because..........?????? Don't be a dummy.

The analogy holds with the tertiary character in a fiction.. Just because there are options doesn't mean that forcing them into having to do any of it was right.. You don't get to be hurt and then say people born don't get to be hurt ESPECIALLY cause your character was a fiction and this is a lifetime of inescapable harm and dictate following. Now they must survive and comply and maintain or die.. You can't get around it. You're trying your best to justify the unjustifiable. You don't even know what to say.. All you can say is "Possibility and actuality.. variability". . and none of it means anything. No one created, no forced anything cause as you say, no one exists.

Related, you should read this text:
https://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/14444/Antinatalism%20and%20Moral%20Particularism.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

It is your opinion that the chance of someone’s life being less than their potential is sufficient enough to warrant non-being. Plenty of people disagree with this evaluation, and you claim they’re wrong, but all they’re doing is evaluating life differently to you. You have no way of proving your own evaluation to be objective - it will always be relative to the affect of your limited experience. — Possibility

Same goes for you. You have no way of proving your own evaluation to be objective - it will always be relative to the affect of your limited experience.

A person’s immediate situatedness is predetermined, but highly variable and ultimately as temporary as they determine it to be. — Possibility

Just google "create a life you love". But it's still all craving, granted, sometimes more sophisticated, but craving nonetheless.

Same goes for you. You have no way of proving your own evaluation to be objective - it will always be relative to the affect of your limited experience. — baker

And I’ve repeatedly said so. My point is that we’re capable of living our lives without setting this evaluation in stone, and that it’s inaccurate to morally judge someone else’s actions based on your own evaluation of life. But anytime I suggest here that life might be worth the effort, I’m told I’m not thinking for myself, just doing what the ‘boss’ (whoever that is) tells me. I’m only making sense when I agree with Schop...? And yet, I’m the one accused of gaslighting...?

F Scott Fitzgerald said: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

Just google "create a life you love". But it's still all craving, granted, sometimes more sophisticated, but craving nonetheless. — baker

I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m saying that we have the intellectual capacity to reconfigure how we make sense of reality, so that craving, dissatisfaction or suffering is not a ‘problem’ to be overcome. This may sound to Schop like PR spin, but there’s little difference between what I’m doing and what he’s doing - we’re just pointing people in different directions. Only he’s insisting that his description of the world is the truth, while I’m just plain wrong.

It’s all language and value-laden concepts, either way. Craving is just a sense of being a dissipative structure - any value relation is arbitrary, subjective. I’m not going to defer to his perspective as ‘the truth’, and he’s not going to acknowledge my perspective as anything but an invalid default, because apparently only one of us can be right, and it must be him.

But I honestly think that BOTH our perspectives are valid, and the fact that I choose to live my life as if it has value doesn’t negate his choice to live his life as if it doesn’t, and vice versa. I’m okay with that, and I actually think there is potentially a lot we can gain from a charitable discussion. But apparently I need to be discredited by any means, because everyone needs to defer to his perspective as ‘the truth’. I’m not okay with THAT.

But apparently I need to be discredited by any means, because everyone needs to defer to his perspective as ‘the truth’. I’m not okay with THAT. — Possibility

When you continually claim we have more efficacy than we actually do, and ignore the rules created by our situatedness in physical and social reality, I’m gonna continually call you out on it.

However even more pertinent. The fact you don’t recognize that we are all burdened with the task of subsisting at all and overcoming it, is denied by you. We can try to work together but it would be in this recognition of the tragedy and not through obfuscating misdirection of vague optimistic slogans.

Is ‘striving’ the same as ‘challenging yourself’ in your mind?

Is ‘striving’ necessarily something negative, as it appears you are implying it is?

Are all hobbies, loves, likes and passions merely purposeful ‘distractions’ from the reality of inevitable existential angst?

Also, I have always been puzzled by the idea that asceticism is somehow viewed as ‘abstaining’ when it is actually just a means to achieve the best situation. It cannot be a selfless act if it made as if it is thought to be ‘better’ than what others are doing.

It is the idea of ‘doctrine’ itself I have issue with in any religious format.

A big problem I have with Schopenhauer framing life viewed in reference to ‘suffering’ is that he states that all ‘fighting’ and ‘struggling’ involves suffering. Also, the idea of ‘disssatifcation’ only holds if the world is viewed as black and white, where people are either satisfied or not with no apparent room for partial dis/satisfaction.

If we ‘suffer’ in the form of ‘dissatisfaction’ (weak form of suffering in my mind) then is this not balanced by places where we are satisfied in the very same moment?

As a simple example of human life I take satisfaction in drawing and I am sometimes dissatisfied with what I produce somewhere along the way too. The ‘suffering’ of dissatisfaction here is merely seen as a way to reflect on my situation and what I am attempting/producing.

If this is then taken into the realm of moral theory then I am assuming you and Schopenhauer are/were striving (‘suffering’) to produce a better moral theory. It kind if follows that we should not strive for a better moral theory because such is suffering and suffering is necessarily worse than not suffering (as you have stated elsewhere).

Maybe you can comment on this a bit?

Thanks

Is ‘striving’ the same as ‘challenging yourself’ in your mind? — I like sushi

No.

Are all hobbies, loves, likes and passions merely purposeful ‘distractions’ from the reality of inevitable existential angst? — I like sushi

Not even the right question.

If this is then taken into the realm of moral theory then I am assuming you and Schopenhauer are/were striving (‘suffering’) to produce a better moral theory. It kind if follows that we should not strive for a better moral theory because such is suffering and suffering is necessarily worse than not suffering (as you have stated elsewhere). — I like sushi

Suffering in his view us the motivator behind all action. We X because something is not enough now. Don’t see why you can’t gain insight into suffering while suffering. There may also be brief escapes according to Schopenhauer like viewing the sublime in art or nature or creating art or music. He thought this had to do with seeing forms and temporarily stopping the will.

“No” … how are they different to you?

If it is notthe right question why is it not. It is one I am asking.

The fact you don’t recognize that we are all burdened with the task of subsisting at all and overcoming it, is denied by you. We can try to work together but it would be in this recognition of the tragedy and not through obfuscating misdirection of vague optimistic slogans. — schopenhauer1

It's not that they don't recognize this task of subsisting, it's that they claim it's a matter of your choice, not of something forced on you.

In their view, when you're hungry, you _choose_ to eat. Your predicting that you will be hungry tomorrow and the day after that and so on, and therefore need to find ways to satisfy that need (by work, theft, reliance on mercy) is also something they see as a matter of your choice.
Perhaps with some arm twisting, they'd even declare that breathing is a matter of choice.

They are not alone in this view. A few more examples:

A Buddhist teacher once said in a speech words to the effect "your body is perfectly willing to die" and that it is a matter of your choice that you feed it, take care of it, etc.

Some spiritual teachers go further and say things to the effect that until you take responsibility for having been born at all, your life cannot really begin (Caroline Myss, IIRC).

In some religions, such as some schools of Hinduism and Buddhism, it is believed that one was born because one wanted to be born. Mormons, too, believe that one is born because one wanted to do so and chose it.

"Comply or die" isn't tragic to them, it's the baseline, the bare minimum. In order to see things from their perspective, you need to forget about what secular constitutions of democratic countries and the Declaration of Human Rights say about the value of a human being, human dignity, and so on. To them, this is merely about human potential, not about actual people. In their eyes, you get no credit simply because you happen to be a human. You yet need to prove yourself to be worthy.

And I’ve repeatedly said so. — Possibility

Heh. You're not so humble.

it’s inaccurate to morally judge someone else’s actions based on your own evaluation of life.

How else is it possible to make moral judgments, other than on none's own evaluation of life?

I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m saying that we have the intellectual capacity to reconfigure how we make sense of reality, so that craving, dissatisfaction or suffering is not a ‘problem’ to be overcome. This may sound to Schop like PR spin, but there’s little difference between what I’m doing and what he’s doing - we’re just pointing people in different directions. Only he’s insisting that his description of the world is the truth, while I’m just plain wrong.

I disagree with both of you, I think neither of your perspectives is universally viable, but requires that a person has a sufficient measure of health and wealth in order to live in accordance with either of your perspectives.

I’m not going to defer to his perspective as ‘the truth’, and he’s not going to acknowledge my perspective as anything but an invalid default, because apparently only one of us can be right, and it must be him.

So much for democracy!

But I honestly think that BOTH our perspectives are valid, and the fact that I choose to live my life as if it has value doesn’t negate his choice to live his life as if it doesn’t, and vice versa.

What's up with this validity business? Are we looking for someone's validation?

I’m okay with that, and I actually think there is potentially a lot we can gain from a charitable discussion. But apparently I need to be discredited by any means, because everyone needs to defer to his perspective as ‘the truth’. I’m not okay with THAT.

Why aren't you okay with that? Can you explain?

“No” … how are they different to you?

If it is notthe right question why is it not. It is one I am asking. — I like sushi

Because just about everything in the waking life is part of the dissatisfaction. It is why we are not just being and not having to do anything else about it.

Boredom sits at the heart of the human condition. — schopenhauer1

And that's why the 19th century German philosopher Philipp Mainländer claimed that "non-existence" is better than "existence" because in a reductive analysis of both, in the case of "existence" you only have "suffering", or in your own words, "boredom", while in "non-existence", you simply have "nothing" - in his after-death perception -.

Between conscious suffering and not being conscious, which of the two options - in this scenario of pessimism - would be the most satisfying?

"But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!” - Philipp Mainländer, The Philosophy of Redemption

It's not that they don't recognize this task of subsisting, it's that they claim it's a matter of your choice, not of something forced on you.

In their view, when you're hungry, you _choose_ to eat. Your predicting that you will be hungry tomorrow and the day after that and so on, and therefore need to find ways to satisfy that need (by work, theft, reliance on mercy) is also something they see as a matter of your choice.
Perhaps with some arm twisting, they'd even declare that breathing is a matter of choice.

They are not alone in this view. A few more examples:

A Buddhist teacher once said in a speech words to the effect "your body is perfectly willing to die" and that it is a matter of your choice that you feed it, take care of it, etc.

Some spiritual teachers go further and say things to the effect that until you take responsibility for having been born at all, your life cannot really begin (Caroline Myss, IIRC).

In some religions, such as some schools of Hinduism and Buddhism, it is believed that one was born because one wanted to be born. Mormons, too, believe that one is born because one wanted to do so and chose it. — baker

Yep, I am aware of this view. I am glad you explicitly stated it though to understand the mentality I am debating.

"Comply or die" isn't tragic to them, it's the baseline, the bare minimum. In order to see things from their perspective, you need to forget about what secular constitutions of democratic countries and the Declaration of Human Rights say about the value of a human being, human dignity, and so on. To them, this is merely about human potential, not about actual people. In their eyes, you get no credit simply because you happen to be a human. You yet need to prove yourself to be worthy. — baker

Really good points, especially about their notion of "potential" vs. "actual" humans. It is using people in a scheme.. Of course, it doesn't matter to them that people are used in this way. And yes, it is about proving yourself worthy it seems. One can even make a Nietzsche little manipulation and make it seem as if "worthiness" is only about "worthiness to yourself", but doesn't that make it convenient on a social level? Those who internalize it and think they are doing it for themselves, would be the most easy to comply.. It is now internalized and perhaps obfuscated.. But it's all part of it.

"But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!” - Philipp Mainländer, The Philosophy of Redemption — Gus Lamarch

Indeed, Mainlander seems pretty committed to promortalism, not just antinatalism. I understand where he's coming from. There is no escape from the constant dissatisfaction once it is set in motion for each individual.

We can maybe say Mainlander's prescription is for pessimists who go that route. E.M. Cioran perhaps for pessimists who exist and bare witness to existence, over and over and over. I would say I strike a middle ground between the two.. E.M. Cioran is a quiet witness.. He complains, but not on a communal level. To him, it is the silent individual bearing the self-awareness of the situation. I say bring it to the fore...

Indeed, Mainlander seems pretty committed to promortalism, not just antinatalism. I understand where he's coming from. There is no escape from the constant dissatisfaction once it is set in motion for each individual. — schopenhauer1

Mainländer's philosophy is built on a Schopenhauerian basis, as his main question is "how to end any and all hostility to the Self", however, Mainlander not only sees all existence as suffering, but also the very concepts that make existence possible, as "Time" and "Entropy", for entropy in his perception is nothing more than the "decay" - aka death - of everything that was, is and will be, part of existence, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational, etc...

The final conclusion of the "Philosophy of Redemption" is that only death can free Man from suffering, so Mainländer argues that suicide is a real possibility and that it must be chosen - he took his own life after completing the publication of his work -.

Philipp does not fight pessimism, for it is the only answer to the grand question of the purpose of existence, and his answer to it is:

- You should give it up.

E.M. Cioran — schopenhauer1

Cioran is a pessimist who, unlike Mainlander, decided to prolong the suffering of existence in direct response to the very concept of suffering.

Both came to the same conclusion, however, Cioran, in a maniacal way, decided to laugh at the pain.

Explain to me how ‘striving’ and ‘challenging yourself’ are different please. That was not really a response I can make sense of.

Try saying X is … and Y is … and that is why they are different.

If “just about everything” in waking life is ‘dissatisfaction’ what is not ‘dissatisfaction’?

If “just about everything” in waking life is ‘dissatisfaction’ what is not ‘dissatisfaction’? — I like sushi

Sleep. Unconscious states.. Temporary states of satiety (maybe). But some might disagree there.

Both came to the same conclusion, however, Cioran, in a maniacal way, decided to laugh at the pain. — Gus Lamarch

And schopenhauer1, to communally recognize, and empathize about the situation. Collective understanding of tragedy. Consolation of shared understanding. Cioran was doing the same thing in a way because he published his work. He was sharing his thoughts.. having a dialogue with the public, held some interviews and discussed with friends.

And schopenhauer1, to communally recognize, and empathize about the situation. Collective understanding of tragedy. Consolation of shared understanding. Cioran was doing the same thing in a way because he published his work. He was sharing his thoughts.. having a dialogue with the public, held some interviews and discussed with friends. — schopenhauer1

Yet, I still believe that in a comparison of both scenarios - of an introspective or externalizing pessimism - it is noticeable that if taken as something to share with others, the possibility of a resentful community emerging grows tremendously.

And resentful people eternalize collective suffering.

"Comply or die" isn't tragic to them, it's the baseline, the bare minimum. In order to see things from their perspective, you need to forget about what secular constitutions of democratic countries and the Declaration of Human Rights say about the value of a human being, human dignity, and so on. To them, this is merely about human potential, not about actual people. In their eyes, you get no credit simply because you happen to be a human. You yet need to prove yourself to be worthy. — baker

Another point..
When you mention "actual people", this includes the actual suffering those people will bare. It is interesting that children are in a way a byproduct of something lacking in the parents' life. There is something they want, but don't have. It's like a pyramid scheme.. where now a new person is holding the bag. They are "it" now. They now must do the whole "overcoming burdens", suffering, and lack game.. But perhaps people, can simply sit with their own lack and not feel the entitled need to pass it to others to satisfy their own. Not spread the burden in the name of X (joy, possibility, humanity, family "good memories" created, religion, etc.). The worst part is using philosophies like Nietzsche's or "No pain/no gain" to justify as you say, the "unworthiness" because post-facto of birth, you somehow haven't played nor embraced the survival/lack game well enough. Comply, comply or simply die.

it is noticeable that if taken as something to share with others, the possibility of a resentful community emerging grows tremendously. — Gus Lamarch

And we must ask where this resentment is coming from...

And resentful people eternalize collective suffering. — Gus Lamarch

What do you mean by "eternalize collective suffering"? Resentful people would not like to make collective suffering permanent.. at least as a pessimistic therapy. They don't even want us to recognize it, lest we eternalize it and prevent more people!

So you meant everything NOT “just about everything”. Okay.

The most obvious problem that follows is if EVERYTHING in waking life is ‘dissatisfaction’ then the term ‘dissatisfaction’ is fairly meaningless as no antonym for it can rightly exist.

I guess this means ‘satisfaction’ is a non-thing.

@schopenhauer1 I would still like a reply to the other question. I’ll ask once more.

What is the difference between ‘striving’ and ‘challenging yourself’?