I’m not going into the whole procreate business again. No point. We are not going to see eye-to-eye there not understand each other because the problem lies deeper in trying to understand each other at all. So …

I would ask though that if the idea is to ‘prevent further suffering’ then death is the only way UNLESS you believe that suffering can be lived with and/or reduced/dispersed during life.

I don’t see ‘suffering’ as necessarily a ‘harmful’ thing. Black comes with white and comes with black. I don’t see how one side exists without the other nor do I see doing away with both (or aiming at that) to be anything at all.

It is this underlying issue that seems entwined around buddhism and is why I am not exactly in favour of certain buddhist factions. It is too much like living can be viewed as living as a zombie or as if life itself is illusionary. The ‘illusionary’ part is okay to some degree because the life we perceive is mostly a human life not some intrinsic connection to ‘the things in themselves’ and we live in a culturally defined cooking pot … so even the Schopenhauer ideas are build upon the vast waste of nothingness … the pointlessness, but we never see the pointlessness directly or we wouldn’t move.

We ‘live’. Why? No one knows. I think ‘why?’ as a serious question about this is quite meaningless if anything it meaningless.

Its good you are questioning and doubting everything, but hopefully you are also questioning and doubting yourself. Especially, the value/meaning/ "status" you give to everything and yourself. Both the values, and the e-valuer. Therein is the repository of tricks as well as the trickster. — skyblack

On second thoughts a clarification seems to be necessary for the above.There is a chance of it being misunderstood. The 'you' in the post should be read as part of the 'we'.

I’m not going into the whole procreate business again. No point. We are not going to see eye-to-eye there not understand each other because the problem lies deeper in trying to understand each other at all. So … — I like sushi

Well you can stop commenting on my posts then.. Simple as that. I don't need you to police what I am saying. Or clutch at your pearls when I say them. I'm being very charitable even answering your non-question questions.

It is this underlying issue that seems entwined around buddhism and is why I am not exactly in favour of certain buddhist factions. It is too much like living can be viewed as living as a zombie or as if life itself is illusionary. The ‘illusionary’ part is okay to some degree because the life we perceive is mostly a human life not some intrinsic connection to ‘the things in themselves’ and we live in a culturally defined cooking pot … so even the Schopenhauer ideas are build upon the vast waste of nothingness … the pointlessness, but we never see the pointlessness directly or we wouldn’t move. — I like sushi

So you obviously don't pay attention to what I am saying, because I am arguing against this idea of "illusory" phenomenon. The self is intrinsic to being an enculturated human.. one with the capacities we have. And so you are arguing with a straw man and not me.. So stop.

We ‘live’. Why? No one knows. I think ‘why?’ as a serious question about this is quite meaningless if anything it meaningless. — I like sushi

Um, we live because we basically fear death and are prone to habituating to what we are used to (being alive). Unless in terrible pain, we basically run on the default of doing the same as we did. The routine. But, that aside, I am saying simply we must recognize, communally the dissatisfaction at the root of why we do anything at all. The motivation behind why we do the routines around survival, discomfort, and entertainment. We are lacking in something present that drives us to the goal/basic need. We lack a fulfillment, and what we relieve it with is temporary and unsustainable. And thus Schopenhauer's quote about if life was of positive value, we would want for nothing. We wouldn't have dissatisfaction. But of course it isn't like that.

Life in this world is about dominance.
Antinatalists are simply losers, weaklings. — baker

I can't argue that dominance is a factor. People who are aggressive and assertive often do get their way.. The meek often don't inherit the earth. People, however, can be able to understand what is going on, even if just a few can really recognize it for what it is.

I agree with your prior statement that it is our usefulness that is really sought after. "What can you do for me".. Because we are, by way of being alive, put in a position where we have to be useful to ourselves and others to survive. It is part of the burdening of the "dealing with" that we are born into in the first place. It's part of the forced game.. the burdens to overcome.

People, however, can be able to understand what is going on, even if just a few can really recognize it for what it is. — schopenhauer1

Or simply overpower others. Understanding what is going on is overrated, for the most part.

You'd need to show that understanding really does make a difference, a relevant difference.

Or simply overpower others. Understanding what is going on is overrated, for the most part.

You'd need to show that understanding really does make a difference, a relevant difference. — baker

If we count it as living together without exploiting one by burdening them, perhaps it can. I am not optimistic about my project either. All I have is antinatalism as a post-facto action. The whole, "do something while we live part" is not something I am sure will be of much difference. I just proposed something for those who say, "what besides antinatalism as a result?". To be charitable to my own proposal though I can try to outline a few things that can "make a difference" if that really means much in this inescapable situation:

1) Try burdening people with less. Just as we were burdened with the dissatisfaction-overcoming of being born at all, perhaps we can try to not put too many burdens on others.. Too many demands. Too many ultimatums.. Too many musts.. Of course this is never unavoidable with the Game (lest death) so it is only to lessen, it can never be to make go away completely all demands on others, obviously.

2) Try using humor, especially shared cynical humor when doing tasks that are unpleasant.. Like making the unpleasant task known as a shared hatred amongst peers that must deal with the task.

3) Try to tread lightly.. don't be aggressive with others, dominant, etc. This is what got us here in the first place.. people aggressively pursuing their agenda.

4) Shared consolation of suffering.. complain and listen to others complaints. Be sympathetic to them and perhaps feel a sense of community in sharing the burdens and the dissatisfaction-overcoming process.

So you obviously don't pay attention to what I am saying — schopenhauer1

You think I have been reading every post? No.

Stop what? Trying to find somewhere we can have a discussion … no I won’t. We do not have to agree on one point to have a discussion about something else.

I’ll skip over the rest of the weird snipes at me and put it down to … you can fill in the blanks with whatever.

Content in last paragraph …

We are lacking in something present that drives us to the goal/basic need. We lack a fulfillment, and what we relieve it with is temporary and unsustainable. And thus Schopenhauer's quote about if life was of positive value, we would want for nothing. We wouldn't have dissatisfaction. But of course it isn't like that. — schopenhauer1

Here is where I see the problem. Life as a ‘positive value’? What does that even mean. If we didn’t have ‘dissatisfaction’ we would not be living beings. So what? How does stating that if we didn’t have anything to do, nothing to work for, no need to try and survive, then we would be dead make any kind of sense as either a ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ value?

This literally makes no sense whatsoever to me. Life contains value. That is how we are able to attribute ‘value’ - by being alive. No life means no value whatsoever as there is no evaluation of anything by anything. The fact that we can value things means we attribute both positive and negative value to items. Not existing means absence of value NOT something either ‘positive’ or ‘negative’.

Lived experiencing viewed as negative or positive. Life itself is neither a negative nor a positive item but living is most certainly both of these.

I a not straw manning you here at all. I am presenting, as best I can, my thoughts on this matter. So PLEASE take them as they are and quiz/correct where you feel you need to. I am not hear to learn from you I am here to learn full stop so drop the ego … it is depressing and tiresome if all you give are barbs on barbs.

Living together and cooperating in order to make the world a more joyous place for all is also a good option ;)

The negatives or dissatisfaction can also come from a loss of fulfillment (like the consumption of the water in one's body leading to thirst), so I don't think that the negatives are more fundamental or more important. Schopenhauer was wrong because the lack of absolute perfection has no bearing on the fact that life can still have more than adequate value for countless sentient beings despite of the harms they have faced. Something could be positive yet still deplete due to usage (for another positive) without losing its significance entirely. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction vary for each individual and can often be multi-faceted. It's undeniable that life has many harms that we should try to reduce/eliminate (and reckless procreation is one such negative), but it can also have inimitable value for many people. Individuals facing seemingly insuperable problems, like the man in the iron lung, continue to find a value that transcends the very real issues they do face. I have also experienced a relatively small version of this when, in spite of suffering from various illnesses, the company of a loved one could end up overshadowing the pain and misery I felt. Of course, this is unfortunately not the case for all, which is why do believe that there should be a liberal right to a dignified exit.

Your points are quite good. We should definitely strive to minimise unnecessary harms (and pointless needs for superficial pleasures). To me, this is a good way to strengthen the positive that never dies and help provide momentum to the process of preserving and increasing fulfillment.

May you have a fantabulous day/night ahead!

I don't think he is being egotistical. He's trying to explain what appears to be obvious to him. Despite of our differences, I am glad that such discussions are happening. Hopefully, we will eventually be able to create a society that we could all genuinely cherish. Sorry for jumping in, by the way.

When you accuse someone of straw manning when they have not even attempted to outline their view and merely asked for it then it is certainly about the ego. They are ready to take some of my views and paint them as an attempt to straw man what he is saying, when I do not know what he is saying.

A genuine attempt to look for clarity and some common discussion to be had cannot be framed as ‘straw manning’.

If I was to ask you a question and then share my thoughts on the matter is my sharing my thoughts ‘straw manning’ … no. What else I to conclude? The ego is out. The defence is up. Maybe I am wasting my time trying again.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. I have read Schopenhauer enough to know a fair bit about his views and I am curious as to why this person is fixated on him (not interested in antinatalism though because we have been there before and it was a brick wall). This whole dissatisfaction and boredom thing though is something that interests me because it is at the heart of existentialism.

You think I have been reading every post? No. — I like sushi

Probably should read a few..

Stop what? Trying to find somewhere we can have a discussion … no I won’t. We do not have to agree on one point to have a discussion about something else.

I’ll skip over the rest of the weird snipes at me and put it down to … you can fill in the blanks with whatever. — I like sushi

Because you came into the discussion saying, "I don't get this illusion business" when I am in the midst of telling other posters how I don't believe in this idea of illusion as any great way of trying to deny that there is a self.. So you were out of context of the other discussions taking place.

The other "snipes" were because when I give you my answer of antinatalism you say, "don't go there". Well then, don't ask..

Here is where I see the problem. Life as a ‘positive value’? What does that even mean. If we didn’t have ‘dissatisfaction’ we would not be living beings. So what? How does stating that if we didn’t have anything to do, nothing to work for, no need to try and survive, then we would be dead make any kind of sense as either a ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ value? — I like sushi

Because he didn't say that. He posed a counterfactual.. if existence did not entail dissatisfaction. It is an impossibility, but doesn't mean it isn't something that one can't conceptually pose as a question. The point is to inform not what that looks like (because we can't even really understand that), but simply to point to how this existence is not that, but is indeed characterized by the opposite.. that is, dissatisfaction.

This literally makes no sense whatsoever to me. Life contains value. That is how we are able to attribute ‘value’ - by being alive. No life means no value whatsoever as there is no evaluation of anything by anything. The fact that we can value things means we attribute both positive and negative value to items. Not existing means absence of value NOT something either ‘positive’ or ‘negative’. — I like sushi

He didn't say "non-existing" but giving a counter-case of what is the current state of affairs.. A different kind of existence.. at least from a conceptual standpoint, even if we can't really "understand" it being that it's not in our reality.

However, one of my themes is to not create dissatisfaction for more people. Don't put more people in the situation of being dissatisfied.. and having to overcome it. Don't force an agenda onto another, because you think this that or the other about it yourself.

I a not straw manning you here at all. I am presenting, as best I can, my thoughts on this matter. So PLEASE take them as they are and quiz/correct where you feel you need to. I am not hear to learn from you I am here to learn full stop so drop the ego … it is depressing and tiresome if all you give are barbs on barbs. — I like sushi

It is straw manning when you take a position I actually oppose (that somehow it is all illusion so we don't "really" exist), and then claim it as what I am saying.. Don't confuse me, schopenhauer1 with Schopenhauer.

That is not straw manning. That is disagreeing. I was not saying you were saying anything. I was saying something. There is a big difference.

The difference in opinion here seems to lie in the term ‘illusion’. He didn’t say what I said … true. I said it though. The fact remains that value is a property of the living not the dead. Value is actually the very measurement of ‘dissatisfaction’ as you put it. Agree? If not why not?

I am interested in why ‘dissatisfaction’ is ‘negative’ or ‘positive’. I do not see that it is necessarily Can be one or the other. If the ‘dissatisfaction’ is striving for something forever, and also a necessary facet of living, then living contains striving always. If there is a ‘better way to live’ then there is a ‘better way to live’.

Creating ‘more dissatisfaction’ is bad or good? Why or how is it or good or bad? These kinds of questions are where I see fault in what is being said. What Schopenhauer says (the actual one) is nothing because he is dead. He is no longer dissatisfied by anything because he no longer is. He has no negative nor positive take on anything for the same reason.

We are always striving/dissatisfied. Yes. What can we do about it? Nothing other than die if our wish is to cease living - which we will do anyway. Naturally I can understand the position ‘why live at all?’. Meaning is a strange thing we constantly seem to be clutching for even though we really know that it is unobtainable if not a complete lie.

Fair enough. As far as I am concerned, even if satisfaction and dissatisfaction are positive and negative, the negatives do not have pre-eminence. One is also bestowing the opportunity for experiencing the good of fulfillment that cannot be asked for prior to existence. Additionally, I don't think that something can be "forced" upon someone if the act doesn't go against the interests of an actual being, but that's a separate matter. Eliminating the possibility of all joys for the sake of fulfilling a pessimistic agenda that might cause actual harm to those who exist doesn't seem sensible to me.
May you have a nice day!

Just because “we” are part of a changing social arrangement or dynamic or that we learn by social means largely, doesn’t mean there is no individual whereby no one actually is doing the thinking, decision-making, who feels, who is the person writing this right now. — schopenhauer1

Doesn’t mean there is, either. It’s a concept that’s entirely constructed from perceived value/potential/significance in relation to an ongoing sensory event. This ‘individual’ is an heuristic device that enables us to use language in describing, discussing and rearranging a relative structure of potential that determines and initiates an actual relational structure of ongoing thinking, feeling and decision-making in the variable form of a living human being. But ‘individuality’ as a feature of this structure of potential is, on closer inspection, found to be false. It’s a useful idealisation - tied to cardinality as a matter of meaning - to simplify our conceptual framework and predict/discuss behaviour.

The structure itself is real, the quality of individuality is pure imagination - wishful thinking on our part. If only we could each just BE meaningful in ourselves...

There is standard Buddhist doctrine. — baker

A Buddhist monk once told me this:

Question: Is there a self?
Buddhism: Neither yes nor no!!!

Analyze that!

Epistemological/Ontological stance? Unknown (to me)!

It kinda brings on confusion, such an answer, but the state desired seems to be a kind of aporia (bewilderment) and then onto ataraxia (calm bafflement).

No. From what I've seen, insiders understand it immediately to be about the idea that one should "postpone" one's enlightenment in favor of "helping others".

It's a belief that the blind are nevertheless fully qualified to lead the blind and to be trusted (blindly).

Mahayana criticizes Theravada for being "selfish", for not caring about others, and only focusing on one's own development. Theravada points out the folly and the danger of the blind leading the blind.


I brought this up in reference to your proposition that we should help others, even at the expense of our own lives. It's an absurd proposition that serves no other purpose but to bolster one's ego. — baker

Some interpret it this way, sure. Doesn’t mean they’re correct, just because they’re ‘insiders’. That’s like assuming Christian fundamentalists understand the bible correctly.

It highlights a fundamental disagreement within Buddhism, though - and there is no standard doctrine or interpretation that resolves it, as evident by the Mahāyāna vs Theravāda criticisms back and forth. It comes down to this question of ‘individuality’ that is at the heart of these discussions. Is there more value in attaining individual enlightenment - non-existence - or in reducing suffering across existence overall? So yes, it does depend on your perspective. Because there is meaning in both.

Not sure what a ‘no-self’ approach to reduction in suffering has to do with bolstering one’s ego. The value/expense of one’s ‘own’ life is unquantifiable - it’s inseparable from a relation to others. Nor do I see how ‘individual’ enlightenment through ignorance, isolation and exclusion reduces anything more than the appearance of suffering in relation to the ‘individual’, who then effectively ceases to exist.

We are all blind until the moment we attain enlightenment, at which point we are no longer in a position to lead. This is the dilemma we face.

We are all blind until the moment we attain enlightenment, at which point we are no longer in a position to lead. This is the dilemma we face. — Possibility

It is funny how people confuse leading out of a bad situation to putting people in the situation in the first place so that they can lead them out. I'm not saying you are doing that, but surely that is and has gone on trillions of times over. I'm trying to prevent the latter situation. I don't want people to even have to lead people from X to Y, or from ignorance to enlightenment, or whathaveyou. I certainly don't want people to follow Wonka's "loving" agenda of which way to survive, get more comfortable, and overcome dissatisfaction.

The problem is akin to being in a sleep and then getting woken up, but never being able to sleep again. Don't wake the person up in the first place. Don't create the burdens so that they now have to be lead out of it. That's part of what I am getting at.

Hence my other recommendations:

1) Try burdening people with less. Just as we were burdened with the dissatisfaction-overcoming of being born at all, perhaps we can try to not put too many burdens on others.. Too many demands. Too many ultimatums.. Too many musts.. Of course this is never unavoidable with the Game (lest death) so it is only to lessen, it can never be to make go away completely all demands on others, obviously.

2) Try using humor, especially shared cynical humor when doing tasks that are unpleasant.. Like making the unpleasant task known as a shared hatred amongst peers that must deal with the task.

3) Try to tread lightly.. don't be aggressive with others, dominant, etc. This is what got us here in the first place.. people aggressively pursuing their agenda.

4) Shared consolation of suffering.. complain and listen to others complaints. Be sympathetic to them and perhaps feel a sense of community in sharing the burdens and the dissatisfaction-overcoming process. — schopenhauer1

It is funny how people confuse leading out of a bad situation to putting people in the situation in the first place so that they can lead them out. I'm not saying you are doing that, but surely that is and has gone on trillions of times over. I'm trying to prevent the latter situation. I don't want people to even have to lead people from X to Y, or from ignorance to enlightenment, or whathaveyou. I certainly don't want people to follow Wonka's "loving" agenda of which way to survive, get more comfortable, and overcome dissatisfaction. — schopenhauer1

Oh, for crying out loud...

I didn’t say it was a ‘bad’ situation - it’s a situation. Most people prefer to be blind, to be led around by ‘forces’ they can complain about. They’d rather have a boss they hate than acknowledge they can change their situation. They deliberately reduce perception of potential, arranging and defining their situation so it appears as if they have no choice. They harp on about how their life sucks, and gravitate towards those who feel the same, sharing consolation of suffering, using cynical humour etc. They ignore or belittle anyone who proposes an alternative, and they take great pride in pointing out how every opportunity to change just appears to be more of the same. It’s a crab in the bucket scenario.

They ignore or belittle anyone who proposes an alternative, and they take great pride in pointing out how every opportunity to change just appears to be more of the same. It’s a crab in the bucket scenario. — Possibility

Yet, you have offered no real solution other than words like "connection, collaboration, and awareness". Funny how easy that part is. Vague notions are a dime-a-dozen.

There is not "time out" in this game. There is no pause. There is only game over. It can ever and only be played in real time. That disqualifies it as moral.

And I haven't even TOUCHED the idea of contingent harm. This is all so far about the inherent necessary harm of simply being at all (the survival-dissatisfaction thing). Now put on top of that the contingent ways which people suffer as they play this game-in-real-time.. and fogettaboutit.. It totally disqualifies as moral. Suffering all around and then there are the gaslighting pimp salesmen who try every way they can to sell it as your fault/problem/deficit with not embracing it. Not denying what they see well enough. Not willing to take it as "win some/lose some".. "no pain, no gain" and all the rest. You see, YOU are not a person.. YOU aren't getting screwed.. Keep looking at the watch going back and forth.. that's right.. you are getting very sleepy...

using cynical humour — Possibility

See here for good example of cynical humor ;).

Yet, you have offered no real solution other than words like "connection, collaboration, and awareness". Funny how easy that part is. Vague notions are a dime-a-dozen. — schopenhauer1

Because there IS NO one-size-fits-all, ‘concrete’ solution. Because everyone’s situation is different, and changes all the time. Because any step-by-step instruction manual for life is going to be relevant to only those whose situation is identical to yours was.

These are not vague, pie-in-the-sky notions, though. They are the basic switches to change any situation, and are most effective when it appears there is nowhere to go, nothing to see, nothing to do. These three switches - ignorance/awareness, isolation/connection and exclusion/collaboration - are how we engage with the world as will; NOT the world as representation.

Language describes the world as representation, so any ‘concrete’ examples I attempt to give will just seem to be more of the same. And my efforts to get into the science that supports the metaphysics is just ignored or dismissed as ‘word salad’, so clearly that’s going over your head. I’m actually at a loss as to how else I can present this, but I’m also getting the sense that you’re not really interested in what you claim to be asking in the OP. You don’t really WANT to know ‘what is one to do?’ because you prefer this situation of vocal pessimism - it gives you a sense of purpose to take the moral high ground against existence...:chin:

vocal pessimism — Possibility

That’s right. Better than tacit whatever else it is that’s going on when not examining life (aka not understanding what’s actually going on).

Sleep apnea is a microcosm of the gaslighting situation. You see here is a problem that one’s esophageal tissue is in the business of actively suffocating yourself at night. But eh, now we have a “solution”, the CPAP machine to shove up your face to allow proper breathing. So to get this, you go to the sleep doctor and have electrodes put on you while you sleep in a monitored hospital bed for 8 hours. They see all the lack of sleep and pauses in breathing, and you are prescribed an expensive machine to wear over your mouth and nose every night to help you breathe.

You might say, “Look at that! We can find solutions to so many problems!”.

But the problem is having the problem to overcome in the first place. It is this moral disqualification of being presented with problems to overcome in the first place, that I will never let go. You can play pretend all you want that self is an illusion. Pretend at being some Eastern sage. But the reality is it is the individual dealing with these things. You can try to twist the logic in wordplay but that’s it. Whether you say it is an illusion matters not because there is still the first person protagonist getting suffocated. The obvious fact that we have to work together to solve problems doesn’t make the individual self disappear either, nor does it negate the fact that the problem existed the first place to be overcome. This misguided notion is that overcoming itself means is good when in fact it’s just the opposite. It’s people being forced to face overcoming dissatisfaction.

:broken:

Sleep apnea is a microcosm of the gaslighting situation. You see here is a problem that one’s esophageal tissue is in the business of actively suffocating yourself at night. But eh, now we have a “solution”, the CPAP machine to shove up your face to allow proper breathing. So to get this, you go to the sleep doctor and have electrodes put on you while you sleep in a monitored hospital bed for 8 hours. They see all the lack of sleep and pauses in breathing, and you are prescribed an expensive machine to wear over your mouth and nose every night to help you breathe.

You might say, “Look at that! We can find solutions to so many problems!”.

But the problem is having the problem to overcome in the first place. It is this moral disqualification of being presented with problems to overcome in the first place, that I will never let go. You can play pretend all you want that self is an illusion. Pretend at being some Eastern sage. But the reality is it is the individual dealing with these things. You can try to twist the logic in wordplay but that’s it. Whether you say it is an illusion matters not because there is still the first person protagonist getting suffocated. The obvious fact that we have to work together to solve problems doesn’t make the individual self disappear either, nor does it negate the fact that the problem existed the first place to be overcome. This misguided notion is that overcoming itself means is good when in fact it’s just the opposite. It’s people being forced to face overcoming dissatisfaction. — schopenhauer1

No, the appearance is the ‘individual dealing with these things’. For you, it seems, the world as representation is the reality, being oppressed by the world as will, in the form of an ‘agenda’. This seems to directly contradict Schopenhauer...?

Describing the situation as ‘the first-person protagonist is getting suffocated’ provides no information that would enable one to relieve suffering. The issue I have is not with the language, but the depth of awareness. Either way, you’re describing the situation from an exclusive, isolated and ignorant perspective. To reduce the suffering, it helps to be aware of what’s going on inside the body, how these systems connect to the suffocation, as well as how that affects both the quantitative and qualitative potential of the world as will. In other words, recognise that the individual is just one minor aspect of a far more complex situation, and find ways we can collaborate with the many aspects that contribute to the situation.

And wearing an expensive machine while you sleep addresses individual ‘survival’ at the expense of more qualitative aspects of life, so that’s about as far from my position as you can get. A ‘problem’, narrowly described, can ‘appear’ to be solved from one perspective, only to create new ‘problems’ in the process.

But I’m not proposing ‘a solution’, and if you were paying any attention to what I’ve been writing here (apart from how it appears to contradict your position), you might see that. I’m not saying ‘we have to work together to solve problems’, either - that’s only a narrow perspective of collaboration. Situations appear as ‘problems’ relative to a perspective. The human mind is capable of understanding the reality of a situation from a number of different perspectives and at various different levels of awareness, and prioritising one of these over another is merely a preference on our part, not a necessity.

I get that morality seems vitally important to you, and it bothers you that I won’t assume a moral stance in this discussion, let alone construct a definable (concrete) position so you can orientate yourself in opposition. But morality refers to observation, not determination. Someone must act before morality can be evaluated, so it will always be based on observable past action - ignoring variable intentionality, and excluding unobservable action as well as inaction. Morality is focused on identifying an action/event in isolation from its temporal context as an observation, and reducing what is a complex value structure into something to DO or NOT to do.

Ethics is about how shared systems of intentionality, based on complex value structures, determine and initiate relational structures of change, regardless of observation. But the majority of our ethical systems and structures rely on observation and identification of ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ events. What continues to be presented in this discussion is that both suffering and procreation are not immoral events in themselves, even though there are unethical aspects to some of our systems of intentionality that determine and initiate them.

This being the case, the aim is not to exclude these events from individual systems of intentionality, but to understand how our complex value structures form, and to rearrange them so that they generate more ethical systems of intentionality, which would reduce immorally determined or initiated suffering and procreation, regardless of observation. Given that our complex value structures are neither inherent nor forced, but rather form relative to our unique situation and in necessary relation with others, there seems to be no one-sized-fits-all system of intentionality that can be described in terms of either ideology or morality.

There is, however, a logical and qualitative process that underlies all systems of reality. Any relational structure of change in existence naturally follows this fundamentally non-conscious process, regardless of observation or intentionality. But there has been no simple way to describe this process that enables consciousness to consider itself a participant. It appears that we either observe (in death) or we intend (in compliance).

Schopenhauer’s description of reality in itself as the world of ‘will’ helps to bring this underlying logical and qualitative process of any system face-to-face with our quest for an ethical system of intentionality. This is also what the Tao Te Ching aimed to do. Perhaps we can describe this underlying process AS a logical, qualitative system of intentionality, and then develop our complex value structures so that they align with this in relation to our unique situation.

I get that this would seem contrived or backwards to you - the relation of these value structures with being appear to form our self-identity. But this is what Schopenhauer argues - that this consolidation of ‘individual will’ is what got us in this mess in the first place. We tend to think that the value of humanity derives from this capacity to act individually and collectively against the ‘natural’ process of existence, but if there is value in humanity at all, then it is in our capacity to be aware of and participate in it, rather than try to survive it, dominate it, or ‘overcome’ it through procreation, as if it’s a ‘problem’.

Because there IS NO one-size-fits-all, ‘concrete’ solution. Because everyone’s situation is different, and changes all the time. Because any step-by-step instruction manual for life is going to be relevant to only those whose situation is identical to yours was. — Possibility

Statistics? Tyranny of the majority? :chin:

There's got to be an overall trend, a widely-held opinion on all matters, including antinatalism/natalism, oui?

The idea is not to formulate a recommendation for ALL but for MOST! Surely, you're in the know about the Champagne glass effect!

@schopenhauer1

How about if we adopt this position: Antinatalism is false doesn't imply that natalism is true. Find the middle ground as it were. We don't recommend natalism (there's still so much suffering and by the looks of it, the situation is only going to get worse), but do continue to have children because there's a slim chance that one of those children or their descendants will find a solution to suffering.

State control of family aka Family Planning!

We don't recommend natalism (there's still so much suffering and by the looks of it, the situation is only going to get worse), but do continue to have children because there's a slim chance that one of those children or their descendants will find a solution to suffering.

State control of family aka Family Planning! — Agent Smith

That means that those possible future children will be treated as a means, not as an end itself. That is wrong.

No, the appearance is the ‘individual dealing with these things’. For you, it seems, the world as representation is the reality, being oppressed by the world as will, in the form of an ‘agenda’. This seems to directly contradict Schopenhauer...? — Possibility

Because you are making that genetic (or something akin) fallacy again. Even if the world was really a big illusion as an appearance (the devils playground), the appearance persists. It doesn’t go away because one knows the situation; the “feels like” ingrained aspect remains despite its “illusory” origins. And yes, that is assuming I even buy into that metaphysics, which I don’t. But even if I did, he would never say that “knowing” that the world is illusion (or ideas of connection, collaboration, or awareness for that mater) somehow brings an end to the illusion.

If anything, the dichotomy would between illusion of the appearance and denying of the will. Complete "annihilation" of the will is near impossible except for the saintly ascetic (representing a fraction of a fraction of people who can actually attain this. And he believed only certain characters can achieve this anyways).

Also understand that appearance and will in his conception are one and the same. Appearance does not give way to bare will or is in some sort of opposition to it. Rather, the appearance is the double-aspect of Will. It is its flip side. If one extirpates the appearance, one extirpates will and vice versa.

To reduce the suffering, it helps to be aware of what’s going on inside the body, how these systems connect to the suffocation, as well as how that affects both the quantitative and qualitative potential of the world as will. In other words, recognise that the individual is just one minor aspect of a far more complex situation, and find ways we can collaborate with the many aspects that contribute to the situation. — Possibility

No, studying the mechanisms of sleep apnea does not make the the actual suffering to the sufferer go away. Let's go further, scientists writing papers on the systems involved in sleep apnea, will not stop a person with an extreme case from possibly getting a heart attack due to the breathing problems. That's just obviously wrong and not even worth me writing to say this.

But I’m not proposing ‘a solution’, and if you were paying any attention to what I’ve been writing here (apart from how it appears to contradict your position), you might see that. I’m not saying ‘we have to work together to solve problems’, either - that’s only a narrow perspective of collaboration. Situations appear as ‘problems’ relative to a perspective. The human mind is capable of understanding the reality of a situation from a number of different perspectives and at various different levels of awareness, and prioritising one of these over another is merely a preference on our part, not a necessity. — Possibility

But you did just say this.. and you are contradicting yourself.. At least as I interpret your obfuscating writing here:

To reduce the suffering, it helps to be aware of what’s going on inside the body, how these systems connect to the suffocation, as well as how that affects both the quantitative and qualitative potential of the world as will. In other words, recognise that the individual is just one minor aspect of a far more complex situation, and find ways we can collaborate with the many aspects that contribute to the situation. — Possibility

But this quote so vague that it can mean anything and nothing, so feel free to correct me with more vague language.

let alone construct a definable (concrete) position so you can orientate yourself in opposition. — Possibility

It is true, I cannot take a position or even evaluate vague language that contains neologisms or words used in novel ways. If you are going to say things like "complex structure" and "find ways to collaborate" and then deny that you are talking about "working together to solve problems" which I interpreted it as, and took a position against (as a solution to the problem of suffering itself)... then you have to be very precise on how you are using language like "complex structure" and "find ways to collaborate" cause that's how it sounds prima facie.

The human mind is capable of understanding the reality of a situation from a number of different perspectives and at various different levels of awareness, and prioritising one of these over another is merely a preference on our part, not a necessity. — Possibility

That is gaslighting BS. Telling someone who is suffering, that you are looking at it wrong, you are part of a big system, doesn't negate the suffering for the individual. You think consoling language that you are part of a bigger universe magically makes things go away? Nope. You are trivializing people's experience by trying to hijack it with this "we are part of a bigger picture" crap. It is all part of contingent suffering that is part of existing at all.

We tend to think that the value of humanity derives from this capacity to act individually and collectively against the ‘natural’ process of existence, but if there is value in humanity at all, then it is in our capacity to be aware of and participate in it, rather than try to survive it, dominate it, or ‘overcome’ it through procreation, as if it’s a ‘problem’. — Possibility

Huh? Yeah this is woo Tao talk.. You are trying to take the pessimism out of Schopenhauer. You are trying to make Schopenhauer fit into your sanitized version. Schop thought that Will, and its appearance were negative- causing/entailed suffering. There was no working with it for any good. Existence was fundamentally not a good thing to exist at all. So "value in participating.." is misrepresenting anything he is saying. Denying will would be more like it. And again, because you choose to be vague, you aren't saying much at all when you say "participate" either. I and reminds me again of HR Sheryl saying to Lean In.



So far, your big takeaway is "participate"..

Going back to my point. The human condition is dissatisfaction. We are constantly overcoming dissatisfaction. It is misguided/immoral to create for people a lifetime's worth of dissatisfaction-overcoming. It is immoral to give a game to someone that cannot be paused, that is de facto a play in real time or game over. We cannot retreat to the Platonic realm of a Mt. Olympus when we get tired or frustrated with the dissatisfaction. It is constant. This inescapability makes it disqualifying as moral to force onto others. None of what you said refutes that. There is nothing "there" in what you are saying. And it sounds like rhetorical tricks to hijack language and purposely be too vague so that you can't be wrong.

That means that those possible future children will be treated as a means, not as an end itself. That is wrong. — Antinatalist

Exactly.