I think having self-esteem is not connected to be accepted by others. A good example of this could be the Japnase writer Yukio Mishima. He had a lot of self-esteem... but trust he was so far of being accepted by the Japanese society.
This is why I like him a lot. He represents the art of writing and thinking not matter if the "mass" would accept you or not.
The important achievement here is gaining self-esteem with your own self. Not caring if we do not fit in the society or we are not accepted by them — javi2541997

Wow, I have to agree with that. When I get in the creative space of writing it is the only thing that matters. It is not that I am totally confident in myself but that the creative experience or that moment of enlightenment when we see the bigger picture is better than good sex. I want to explain the hormonal experience so I don't sound like an egomaniac.

For a quick recap; estrogen rises in your midluteal phase (the first half of your cycle) and a few days after ovulation. As estrogen increases in these areas of your cycle, your brain is better able to wire itself off dopamine – which means that your creativity skyrockets.Dec 10, 2019
shleymargeson.com/estrogen-creative-superpower/#:~:text=For%20a%20quick%20recap%3B%20estrogen,means%20that%20your%20creativity%20skyrockets . Why Estrogen Is Your Creative Superpower - Ashley Margeson — Ashley Margeson

How Being More Creative Improves Your Mental and Physical ...https://www.lifehack.org › articles › lifestyle › how-bei...
Studies show how creative pursuits alter our brain chemistry, help improve attention, decrease stress, and can boost our physical and mental health. — Colette DeDonato

There is a lot to say about creativity and our physical being and I have heard that some people who have been depressed for years have broken free of that when they start doing something creative.

So you’re talking of Will.
Even if it isn't a true metaphysics, the idea of desiring/craving that is never satisfied, remains true. For all intents and purposes, life works on this principle. From a scientistic/mechanistic point of view, you can point to evolutionary variation/mutation/population statistics, but it just informs more about this principle. It doesn't replace this viewpoint. Entropy/enthalpy, the organism's metabolic needs and environmental fit.. The organism being is the organism dissatisfied. — schopenhauer1

Aye, but I was actually referring to how, even though we have an awesome life, it's still an imposition. The point is that it really doesn't matter whether one's life is utterly miserable or absolutely amazing; life is still an imposition and that right there is the immorality of procreation.

Mr/Ms. Happy: Life's fun! Ima really enjoyin' it!
Antintatalist: Yes, yes, but did you choose this life?
Mr/Ms. Happy: Nope! :grin:

I have heard that some people who have been depressed for years have broken free of that when they start doing something creative. — Athena

No question. And another big one is doing something for others.

Yes, Hindus are the third largest religion in the world (estimated at 1.2 billion). I assume the Hindu gods favour Hindus. Hindus have killed muslims and sikhs and probably people from all other relgions, in the name of hinduism. I am sure hindus have been on the losing side in many wars, but hinduism still has a massive global following and a global diaspora. I already agreed that many people got infected by or converted to (to use a less disrespectful term) christianity, through fear. — universeness

I was unaware of this history of violence and it makes me curious. Why did the Hindus kill Muslims and Sikhs? I don't think it was like the Hebrews who took the land that was Isreal with the belief a God had told them to do so and to kill everyone who was already there. Christians have carried for centuries as though a god has told them the land is theirs and they should kill everyone else. That fearsome Christian god has only recently become a god of love. However, when people feel threatened they become defensive, so was the killing a justified act of defense? This matters to me. I tend to be too Polyann and not realistic and I want truth,

So how come a 'power in the hands of the few,' caste system and the horror of untouchability came out of hinduism? — universeness

I assume the practical answer is to avoid disease. I do not think my mind is capable of giving me a good understanding of ancient times and foreign places. I can reason that some people may live unhealthy lives and for one's own safety it is best to avoid contact. They did not have a government that can take care of them as well the US government has started caring for its people, and they sure did not have the economic opportunity we have today. Cleanliness for those who had the luxury of practicing cleanliness was very important.

I generally agree but there was not a lot of education about for the masses at the time and I think many people tried and died trying but, you are correct, they were unable to stop the nefarious few that held most of the power and influence. The fight goes on today. — universeness

I think Christianity is a barrier to learning not only for those who identify with the religion, but they have defined God, and that God is a supernatural power that can violate the laws of nature. That means we judge all gods by the Christian understanding of a god. Our bias has prevented learning of the gods. You can't google for infomation because Christianity floods the internet making it very difficult to find information about primative people and the gods.

I reject the term archetype based on its etymology:
The word archetype, "original pattern from which copies are made," first entered into English usage in the 1540s. It derives from the Latin noun archetypum, latinisation of the Greek noun ἀρχέτυπον (archétypon), whose adjective form is ἀρχέτυπος (archétypos), which means "first-molded", which is a compound of ἀρχή archḗ, "beginning, origin", and τύπος týpos, which can mean, amongst other things, "pattern", "model", or "type". It, thus, referred to the beginning or origin of the pattern, model or type.

Humans evolved, they were not 'first moulded' or are copies from a pattern. I hate the idea of an archetypal human. Demeter never made a woman a better mother as no such fabled Greek god creature ever existed. A good mother can of course teach a poor mother how to be a better mother. — universeness

I love your argument and especially the Latin and Greek words. I seriously wish I could learn those languages. But in argument to your argument, nature molded all things. Nature made mothers, nature made every female and male archetype. The writer of the stories based them on a study of human nature and all our different approuches to problems. Darn, I am too tired for the mental work that is needed for an argument, and this post is too long and also not on topic, so I am going to quit now. We need another thread for this. I really would like to look deeper into the gods.

Certainly no pesticides and no GMOs. In the old times, food was much healthier, much more satiating because it had real taste. — baker

Not enough fat, salt, and sugar to make food as unhealthy as it is today, and chances are good the meal had to be worked for with real physical labor. Next to that, surviving was so demanding people did not have time to fret about how much better their lives would be if only they had made different choices, so in way, there was less stress.

No question. And another big one is doing something for others. — Tom Storm

Oh yeah, My mental health program is being a Senior Companion. I pick people up and take them where they want to go, we have lunch together and play games. The lockdown was terrible! I was sure I was loosing my mind and feared I was on the way to loosing my independence. I love being alone and writing and the forums, but I have to have that face-to-face human contact too. Now I am so busy caring for others I really appreciate my time alone. It is strange how making others happy means our own happiness too.

I am not anti-life but personally I also wouldnt mind if everything stops once I die, as I wouldnt notice anything (peace/joy/taste/hurt/love etc.) anymore and as a result wouldnt have to experience any discomfort about it neither. But since I cant know what is beyond my current state of being I'm equally wellcoming nothingness as I am any ongoing experience(s). — Seeker

I don't think that is possible for a conscious being. I also have no desire to go to heaven. I think it is our nature to want stimulus and that leads to wanting what we don't have and then doing what we have to do to get what we want. If we are in heaven where a God takes care of our every need and there is nothing for us to do but enjoy, that sounds like hell to me. There would be no great movies or novels. We would be satiated and have nothing to strive for. Boring!

I was unaware of this history of violence and it makes me curious. Why did the Hindus kill Muslims and Sikhs? — Athena

I am unaware of cases where hindus attacked Sikhs during partition, they attacked muslims.
There is an enormous amount of material on-line regarding the partition of India or perhaps you could PM @DA671 who knows a great deal about the topic.

I assume the practical answer is to avoid disease. — Athena

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of 'untouchability' within the Hindu caste system.
I am sure the excuse you mention is used but only as a misrepresentation of the true intention of untouchability, which is to label people that certain religious or social dogma portray as being inferior.
From wiki:
The term is most commonly associated with treatment of the Dalit communities in the Indian subcontinent who were considered "polluting". The term has also been used to refer to other groups, including the Burakumin of Japan, the Baekjeong of Korea, and the Ragyabpa of Tibet, as well as the Romani people and Cagot in Europe, and the Al-Akhdam in Yemen. Traditionally, the groups characterized as untouchable were those whose occupations and habits of life involved ritually "polluting" activities, such as fishermen, manual scavengers, sweepers and washermen.

Untouchability is believed to have been first mentioned in Dharmashastra, according to the religious Hindu text, untouchables were not considered a part of the varna system. Therefore, they were not treated like the savarnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras).

There are many examples of such nonsense in the bible as well. For example, a menstruating woman may not enter the tabernacle as she is unclean!

That means we judge all gods by the Christian understanding of a god. Our bias has prevented learning of the gods. You can't google for infomation because Christianity floods the internet making it very difficult to find information about primative people and the gods. — Athena

I don't think this is true, certainly not for any secular person or atheist. The internet has a great deal of inaccurate information on it and it can be quite time consuming to validate and confirm the truth of all documentation on it but you can find out as much as is known about an earlier civilisation.

and this post is too long and also not on topic, so I am going to quit now. — Athena

Well, I understand but this thread is now called 'life sucks,' we are simply trying to analyse some of the historical evidence and aspects of human behaviour that might support that claim or highlight the behaviours that have to be effectively tackled and changed to develop my contention that life is wonderful but the human experience is imbalanced and riddled with injustice and 'needs a lot of work.'
Finally outgrowing all gods would be a good start imo.

as well as the Romani people and Cagot in Europe — universeness

Interesting text. Romani people is also called gypsy. In my country there are a lot of them and I have to be honest. There are some prejudices against them in the same sense the text you quoted previously.
If you check the etymology of the word gypsy, gitano, tsigane, etc... you would find pejorative meanings according to each country, for example:

• English: it comes from the word "gyp" which means scam.
• German: it comes from the word "zigeuner" which means thief
• Spanish: it comes from the word "gitano" which means liar
• Hungarian: it comes from the word "szégany" which means poor

Well the last year I started an OP related to this: The etymological prejudice of the word gypsy.

Hindus have killed muslims and sikhs and probably people from all other relgions, in the name of hinduism — universeness

I an unaware of cases where hindus attacked Sikhs during partition, they attacked muslims — universeness

Sorry Athena, this is clumsy on my part. I wanted to clarify a little.

During the partition of India, Hindus and Sikhs attacked Muslims and Muslims attacked Hindus and Sikhs. In the whole history of India, I assume Hindus have killed people from most religions as is the case for Christians and Islamists. Terrorists tend not to check what your religion is before they explode their bombs etc. Often, even their own people get killed in the crossfire.

Interesting text. Romani people is also called gypsy. In my country there are a lot of them and I have to be honest. There are some prejudices against them in the same sense the text you quoted previously.
If you check the etymology of the word gypsy, gitano, tsigane, etc... you would find pejorative meanings according to each country, for example:

English: it comes from the word "gyp" which means scam.
German: it comes from the word "zigeuner" which means thief
Spanish: it comes from the word "gitano" which means liar
Hungarian: it comes from the word "szégany" which means poor

Well the last year I started an OP related to this: The etymological prejudice of the word gypsy. — javi2541997

Attribution bias: When someone from an in-group errs, the mistake is chalked up to the individual, as a personal failing; when someone from an out-group goofs up, it's the entire group that's blamed. Sic vita est

Yep, I am sure you would agree Javi, that the human condition would deserve the accusation of 'life sucks!' less, if everyone could personally stop being 'culturalist.'
If YOU as a human don't in your own heart believe/know that all people should be treated equally then YOU will always provide evidence for the anti-life people. I use YOU here to refer to each individual on the planet.
One planet stewarded by one united species is what I advocate. No more countries, no more currencies, no gods, no race other than the human race, no private ownership of land, no rich, no poor, no utopia or dystopia. WE CAN ALL DO BETTER!

No more countries, no more currencies, no gods, no race other than the human race, no private ownership of land, no rich, no poor, no utopia or dystopia. — universeness

Sorry but I am pure defender of private ownership myself :rofl: I always been inspired by John Locke:

Some of the features of Locke's economic thinking would echo down the years, and not always to good consequence. Thus, Locke's notion is that labor creates value: "For 'tis Labour indeed that puts the difference of value on every thing" Locke uses this in the first instance to explain why people have a right to property.
Locke, of course, thinks that the ownership of property is justified because labor has been "mixed" with it.

The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property. To which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting. [ibid., §124]

When someone from an in-group errs, the mistake is chalked up to the individual, as a personal failing; when someone from an out-group goofs up, it's the entire group that's blamed. Sic vita est — Agent Smith

Agreed. :100: :up:

Agreed — javi2541997

:grin:

I am not as concerned about private ownership of property, nor am I concerned about 'small capitalism.'
People must have quality housing as a human right but as long as that is provided then I don't care who owns a particular property. Billionaires or multi-millionaires, conglomerates (or anything like them) would not be allowed. So the amount of property owned by an individual would be controlled and they would not own the land the property sat on.

too Polyann — Athena

Pleonasms, you gotta love 'em!

As for the tragic bloodbath during India's partition, I'd say it was actually a memeplex war in the ideaverse that spilled over into the physical dimension. We're unable to distinguish man from meme and that's, going by all the wars we've endured, is a fatal flaw.

I'd say it was actually a memeplex war in the ideaverse that spilled over into the physical dimension. — Agent Smith

The British were quite happy to see the religious groups slaughter each other. The British soldiers stood by and watched as it went on because they were told to. I can imagine the British colonial attitude at the time. "See how these 'natives' treat each other when we brits are not in charge." Churchill had such disrespect for Indians that he called Gandhi 'a half-naked Indian fakir.' Mountbatten was happy to encourage the carnage by offering a Pakistan which was made up of a Western and Eastern section, with India between them. This exacerbated the massive movement of starving poor people whose only difference was religious dogma and millions died because of religion and political intrigue.

You're forgetting you're talking to a woman. — baker

I had no idea that I was talking to a women.

The average peasant in the Dark Ages ate healthier food than most people do today. - Certainly no pesticides and no GMOs. In the old times, food was much healthier, much more satiating because it had real taste. — baker

I've seen studies that the diet worsened from the Early Middle Ages to the age of industrialization, but it might be too drastic to think our food now is less healthier. The 19th Century brought huge improvement to agriculture and also an emphasis on food safety requirements. Now we have the ability to eat extremely healthy food, but what actually the food we eat is another thing. The really irritating issue is that the healthy diet is far more costly than the cheapest food, which makes for a bad diet.

And with medievel diet we have to remember it wasn't fresh, the food that could be preserved. The idea was to eat only the food from the last season, not this one as you didn't know just how the it would be this year. So a lot of salt.

Sure. But what are the metaphysical assumptions behind them? — baker

I think it's far more about social assumptions than metaphysical ones.

You look to be smart when you're critical about your life and the society around you. To accept it and be happy about it seems to many like you haven't thought about the current issues. Or you simply don't care and just go "with the flock".

How sad! My heart goes out to all, not just hindus, moslems & sikhs, who were hurt/killed/worse during the 200k years humans have been around. We really need to get our act together lest we make the same silly mistakes our ancestors made. Easy to say, hard to do and therein lies the rub, oui mon ami?

We really need to get our act together lest we make the same silly mistakes our ancestors made. Easy to say, hard to do and therein lies the rub, oui mon ami? — Agent Smith

The problems are still many and so deeply embeded within global sociopolitical systems and cultural/religious traditions. BUT, we can do better because we have improved the lives of millions in comparison to life for the majority in the past. 2022 years since CE or the 'common era' began. That's only a couple of seconds in the cosmic calendar.

we can do better — universeness

I hope you're right!

Through language, its ability to transmit lessons learned, we've transcended the limitations of biology; DNA is not the only information game in town now and in the process we've been able to do mind-blowing stuff like sending men to the moon, develop & manufacture antibiotics, and so on.

We then survey Momma Nature and what do we find? We're simply just another cog in the great wheel of life - a gorgeous flower no doubt but a dispensable one. :snicker:

Aye, but I was actually referring to how, even though we have an awesome life, it's still an imposition. The point is that it really doesn't matter whether one's life is utterly miserable or absolutely amazing; life is still an imposition and that right there is the immorality of procreation.

Mr/Ms. Happy: Life's fun! Ima really enjoyin' it!
Antintatalist: Yes, yes, but did you choose this life?
Mr/Ms. Happy: Nope! :grin: — Agent Smith

Well, you quoted Schopenhauer and now you’re saying you were referring to the points I made in the Trouble with Impositions thread. This is why I wanted you to explain what you were trying to say by we are all slaves…
Anyways, of course I’m going to agree with you, that’s my very argument you’re summarizing. I would add that imposition is not just willing a significant, inescapable decision for someone else, but creating burdens to continually be overcome- expected or not anticipated for that person. So even an amazing life (as it was summarized in a generalized statement) is bound to have various instances of burdens.

I see! Is your argument for antinatalism from imposition still dependent/predicated on dukkha? Odd that! I would think not!

I see! Is your argument for antinatalism from imposition still dependent/predicated on dukkha? Odd that! I would think not! — Agent Smith

One informs the other. Dukkha is a form of necessary suffering not contingent on conditions of contingency.

@schopenhauer1

Even if we could, as transhumanists wish & propose, abolish suffering, the imposition problem would still make reproduction unethical is what I mean.

Kinda thorny issue. Doesn’t really cross my mind because it’s a practical impossibility. Supposing it does occur, would we be even human at that point? Does ethics apply to such a condition? Does transhumanism translate to a personalized utopia? If not, whose utopia?

:smile:

If you say to me..it’s wrong to impose on a robot..I don’t know what applies to said being if it doesn’t feel pain or burdens at all. I’ve maintained that whilst one form of imposing is bad (forcing your will), it’s combination with the other form (creating burdens) makes it the more so. I’ve maintained that if life was an ever adjusted personalized utopia, there might be something there as a justification.

I guess I’m asking, does ethics apply to something not bound by a human or animal condition?

Even if a robot doesn't feel, you're, as the creator, foisting plain, vanilla existence on it, oui? It didn't choose to exist and that's wrong, no?