We havta ponder all the negative aspects of life; it's a necessity if we're into selling life tickets (making babies). — Agent Smith

Well said. :up:

I was reacting to an implicit moral argument on your part with a description of what I think is a factual issue. The fetus and babies will seek out more life. — Bylaw

Then this isn't arguing anything contra my moral argument. It is simply a description that fetuses develop and become babies.

I have not argued that having babies is good. I don't think that even makes sense. — Bylaw

Then, I am not sure the point.

Well said. :up: — schopenhauer1

Merci beaucoup mon ami! We have work to do monsieur, the two of us. Consider me your cheerleader. :cool:

The point is you are not forced to play chess lest you kill yourself. — schopenhauer1

I don't understand. You're not forced to play chess for fear that (lest) you'll kill yourself?

I don't understand. You're not forced to play chess for fear that (lest) you'll kill yourself? — Ciceronianus

Um, so like the OP is stating.. In a game like chess.. You can play it and if you want to resign, you can move on. You can't do that with the "game of life". Simple, but tragic. You can't get off the treadmill and move to another "game of life" with different premises. You start someone on the treadmill, the only way out is death. It's a game where someone starts you on it, and you can't move on to another game. The only option as a way out of the game is death.

You can play it and if you want to resign, you can move on. You can't do that with the "game of life". Simple, but tragic. — schopenhauer1

Yes, if you kill yourself, you die. If you play chess and resign (unless you resign by dying), you don't die. That's because, despite what was maintained by Bobby Fischer, chess isn't life. But what is tragic about that? Death would be an end to suffering. Continuing to live would mean continuing to suffer. If you resign from a game, you continue to suffer. If you "resign" from life, you don't.

But what is tragic about that? Death would be an end to suffering. Continuing to live would mean continuing to suffer. If you resign from a game, you continue to suffer. If you "resign" from life, you don't. — Ciceronianus

It's morally wrong to put someone in a situation where you either "play this game or kill yourself". That is a tragic thing. Yes, it is indeed the case, but what a case to defend! Seems pretty obviously tragic to me and wrong from the standpoint of starting for someone else.

Life and chess are incomparable. The fact that one can move on from a game like chess is another reason why it is a false analogy.

Life and chess are incomparable. The fact that one can move on from a game like chess is another reason why it is a false analogy. — NOS4A2

Yes, that’s the point. We cannot move on from this setup and rules. We cannot resign and move to a different version. If you rather the treadmill analogy think of that. A treadmill can end. This survival etc game can’t lest death. It’s a treadmill that one cannot step off of without dire consequences.

Evolution is too slow and is luck-driven. We know that now. Machines have gone where no man has gone before (rovers on Mars). We seem to, for some unfathomable reason, forget that machines are always 1^st and if not it's a tie for 1^st place. The machine kalpa (eon) has begun! We work for 'em mackineeks (Gungan term for machines, re Star Wars) now, oui? I'm over the moon! :cool:

How easy is it to leave a game compared to life?

Then this isn't arguing anything contra my moral argument. It is simply a description that fetuses develop and become babies. — schopenhauer1

I was arguing that your throwing someone into life (take that literally or metaphorically) as if they are victims or as if they have not consented is confused. As I said, you cannot create life that does not seek more life and to thrive. That does not match your model. You have an 'is' model that you base your 'ought' on. Since I am not a moral realist, I am not making a moral argument. I am critiquing the is part of your postion.

Since I am not a moral realist, I am not making a moral argument. I am critiquing the is part of your postion. — Bylaw

I believe a refuted your argument in my last post so I’m not sure there’s much to say.

So it occurs to me as I wrote something on another thread that one of the pessimistic outcomes of the behemoth technology that is our modern world is that we can't democratically participate in its production. This has less to do with distribution of resources than it does about the understanding of technology. It is just a fact that some people will more readily understand complex mathematical concepts and scientific formulas more than others. There is no "democracy of understanding". We cannot all participate in being physicists, chemists, and engineers. We can't all participate in the creation and design of useful patents. The majority can only be passive recipients. They can only be fixers, sellers, transporters, administrators, and of course users of the technology made by the creators.

How easy is it to leave a game compared to life? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Exactly.

You speak the truth! For instance a computer engineer must know machine language (1s and 0s), but here I am, typing on a virtual keyboard on my phone, utterly ignorant of the mechanics of displays and touch screens and so on. It does make one wonder about who's running the show, who's calling the shots, who's in charge, if you catch me drift.

Technology seems to transform our lives drastically and one way it does that is by making us so dependent on it that a rollback would be catastrophic to civilization as we know it. We're, to that extent, invalids.

It does make one wonder about who's running the show, who's calling the shots, who's in charge, if you catch me drift. — Agent Smith

:up:

Technology seems to transform our lives drastically and one way it does that is by making us so dependent on it that a rollback would be catastrophic to civilization as we know it. We're, to that extent, on invalids. — Agent Smith

Yes, and not just that but hapless users/consumers.. Not co-creators in. Which again, goes back to your first point.

:up:

So let's just say I agree with all this. What now? We wait until we die, persuade others not to reproduce, and thats it. Do I have that right?

There is always a philosophy for lack of courage. — Albert Camus

And as I have asked you on other threads: So What? :eyes:

There is joy in affirming the struggle to live for its own sake; not enough joy to compensate for our suffering, no doubt, but enough joy – well, enough for most of us and most other living beings – with which to create and recreate and, yes, (selfishly? atavistically?) procreate. There are no "pessimists" or "optimists" in foxholes – who, under fire, can afford the luxury of such poses? – there's only the quick and the dead. "Pessimism", after all, is just disillusioned "optimism"; thus, in spite of it all, I'm a bluesman and absurdist (A. Murray et al).

What now? We wait until we die, persuade others not to reproduce, and thats it. Do I have that right? — Moliere

I'm more diagnosing right now rather than a prognosis. But yes, certainly antinatalism would be an appropriate response. Can society be ordered differently? Probably not. Another pessimistic point.

The pessimism-optimism life span paradox

1. Pessimists live longer (they don't walk into traps as easily as optimists) [and procreate more @schopenhauer1]

2. Optimists live longer (their happy disposition means a healthy mind and body).

3. Pessimists die early (their negative attitude affects their health).

4. Optimists die early (they walk into traps).

WTF? :chin:

I don't want to dieee! :cry: — SYR

I find conflict a key attribute of a healthy and optimistic outlook.

My fundamental outlook for over a decade now has been an amalgam of ‘pessimism’ and ‘optimism’ … I hope for everything and expect nothing!

A complete pessimist cannot fight a good fight, cannot face the impossible nor believe they can escape the cage they find themselves in. It does not matter how hard we argue that the cage is all we have and any sense of ‘escape’ is futile … we still hope, and sometimes what was once ‘impossible’ becomes common then eventually ‘mundane’. Life is full of such mundane miracles. The pessimist actively ignores that the seemingly impossible had been overcome again and again.

Nihilism is nihilism. Its foundation is based on an impossibility. It is almost like people are discomforted by comfort so need to breed hell into their lives … usually this happens when we cower from life and belittle it. I have been there. I think it is a necessary struggle for humans to go through.

A struggle is only ‘bad’ if you avoid it, ignore it and deny it all at once.

Well, self-congratulatory posts always add to a discussion. Here, I'll give it a go: So, there is no refutation of my critique of your orginal argument, so there is no more to say.

I quite clearly did. Not self congratulatory. If you want to readdress it, go ahead. But I’m
Not repeating my argument as it still stands.

Pessimism is an evaluation term on our expectations of an outcome. One can be a pessimist either due to a psychological predisposition or experience and knowledge.
Any well informed optimist can be a pessimist and vice versa but when credible information can't change the way we view a situation then we are dealing with a psychological condition.

dealing with a psychological condition. — Nickolasgaspar

So this is exactly what philosophical pessimism isn’t. Rather, philosophical pessimism is an evaluation of the state of animal/human existence and not about expected outcomes. What you imply is common day usage of pessimism. “He’s a pessimist about how the economy will turn out” is not the same as “He believes the world is inherently negative in value due to X, Y, Z”.

philosophical pessimism — schopenhauer1

Sure. Philosophical pessimism tries to evaluate existence through our attempt to project our values and meaning on nature. So in my opinion this request returns back to our psychological condition.

So in my opinion this request returns back to our psychological condition. — Nickolasgaspar

You can be a non-depressive antinatalist. You are confusing a cause with the evaluation. We may project meaning, but we cannot help but being a we. You can’t take that meaning out of the equation.

"Philosophical pessimism?"

'To exist sucks' mostly because – even though you ought not to exist – as Cioran points out: it's always too late not to exist. So 'embrace the suck' if you have the courage and the wit to do so; otherwise, you can always 'unfuck yourself' with either a pharmaceutical or surgical lobotomy. :eyes: