I subscribe to a Buddhist philosophy — Wayfarer

That seems really preachy and a bit patronising. I should add, I'm not a member of any specific Buddhist organisation or formal affiliation. I use the ideas in Buddhism, and have also maintained a Buddhist form of meditation, but my approach is overall syncretist and self-directed. I'm a member of a school with one person in it.

Why bother, dude? It's all just ripples in the nothingness." — visit0r

It's well worth reading Bertrand Russell's A Free Man's Worship. It was published around the turn of the 20th C and expressed a bleak vision of man as 'the outcome of the accidental collocation of atoms' in light of the discoveries of 19th c science. The point that struck me is that Buddhist philosophy has always taught the impermanence of life, yet Buddhism doesn't see that as grounds for nihilism.

To which I should add, that feeling of the meaninglessness of vast empty space is very much a product of a particular period of history; Nietzsche's 'death of God', the abandonment of Christianity, historical positivism and existentialism. I had to escape from that mentality, that outlook on life, which came at a cost, because escaping it involved getting off the career track and identity that had been assumed for me. At the time it seemed like mere folly and I suppose it might have been, but I have managed to purge myself of 'westernitis' to some extent.

I think it should be noted that "it's all just ripples in the nothingness, dude" was my voicing of a position that I was criticizing and not my own position. As I see it, life can be sufficiently fascinating on the local level so that "ultimate futility" can be abstractly true and yet not terribly relevant. We tend to get absorbed in our projects so that this futility is as "invisible" as our deaths, most of the time. Death is perhaps the real issue. To truly believe in one's death is almost to be forced to open the concept of the self outward toward the shared "divine predicates." Death threatens to interrupt all of our projects, including our project of accumulating or possessing knowledge and becoming or remaining a sage. But perhaps we comfort ourselves with the thought that knowledge and its attendant ecstasy is constantly being rekindled in new vessels even as its old vessels are constantly being ruined by time. The divine passes through us. This "divine" or these divine predicates might also be described as that which is highest in human experience, just as gods typically take the form of elevated and perfected humans. Perhaps I can tie all of this together by suggesting that the nihilist is wise at least in his tearing of the divine predicates away from any particular subject that stands at distance from him. The predicates thereby become intimate, accessible. "God" is "just" us at our best.

I think it should be noted that "it's all just ripples in the nothingness, dude" was my voicing of a position that I was criticizing and not my own position. — visit0r

Sure, I got that, and I was commenting on that particular meme, which a lot of people give voice to. And, very much resonate with those ideas. My definition of the spiritual quest is 'to realise an identity as something not subject to death'. (That was inspired by Alan Watts' book The Supreme Identity, which I think was one of his better books.)

Perhaps I can tie all of this together by suggesting that the nihilist is wise at least in his tearing of the divine predicates away from any particular subject that stands at distance from him — visit0r

I don't go along with that. Nietzsche, as is well-known, predicted the advent of nihilism in Western culture, and I think he was right in that (albeit not in his proposed antidote of the Ubermensch and the wiil-to-power.) But I think nihilism is very widespread, almost commonplace, in today's world. it doesn't have to be anything dramatic - it can be just a shrug, a 'whatever'. But it's basically rooted in the intuition that the cosmos is just dumb stuff, and we're (what did Hawkings say?) 'biochemical scum'.

Nothing. — Agustino

As I see it, life can be sufficiently fascinating on the local level so that "ultimate futility" can be abstractly true and yet not terribly relevant. — visit0r

The urge to procreate is a biological drive, actually the fundamental biological drive. — Wayfarer

And at what cost?

Having to bother other people and add to their problems and suffering, directly or indirectly...
Consuming resources that other people could have used instead...

Are these costs acceptable to pursue nothing in particular or satisfy one's fascination or biological drive?

Why do you need to achieve something? I want to have children to share in the joy together with my wife. I don't care that it achieves nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I don't care that it achieves nothing in the grand scheme of things. — Agustino

But in the here and now, and in the immediate future, having children and pursuing one's "passions" has its costs, e.g. adding to other people's worries, eating resources, etc.

My training in engineering prompts me to weigh in the costs and benefits. It just seems to me that paying for one's personal happiness with these costs is not a fair bargain.

adding to other people's worries — OglopTo

It also adds to their blessings.

eating resources — OglopTo

What else are you gonna do with them?

My training in engineering prompts me to weigh in the costs and benefits. It just seems to me that paying for one's personal happiness with these costs is not a fair bargain. — OglopTo

Right. I'm also an engineer by training, clearly we're not making the same assessment.

Right. I'm also an engineer by training, clearly we're not making the same assessment. — Agustino

Haha, I see. Maybe we're putting different weights on suffering vs. blessings and different risk valuations.

The question then would be, is there a correct way of weighing the costs and benefits? I have a feeling though that in the end, it's another one of those unanswerable questions out there: the only answers that we can arrive at are highly subjective that depends on one's experiences and perceptions. :(

Maybe we're putting different weights on suffering vs. blessings and different risk valuations. — OglopTo

It's simple. Don't engage in risky things. Be patient. Build your resources and your life slowly. Only have children when you can afford to completely take care of them. Etc. Nobody said you should be an idiot and max out your risk.

The urge to procreate is a biological drive, actually the fundamental biological drive.
— Wayfarer

And at what cost? — OglopTo

The biological drive to procreate rarely takes cost into consideration. It is the driving force of nature itself. I think it is very close in meaning to Schopenhauer's 'will'.

The biological drive to procreate rarely takes cost into consideration. It is the driving force of nature itself. I think it is very close in meaning to Schopenhauer's 'will'. — Wayfarer

Do you then suggest that people go with the flow and refrain from rationalising nature?

Well, a big part of philosophy used to be 'mastering the passions' and so on. Why do you think celibacy was a part of many religious and spiritual movements? It signifies the ability NOT to be driven by biology. I'm not saying that as any kind of reclusive renunciate, but as it's a philosophy forum it's worth recalling that point, I think.

Why do you think celibacy was a part of many religious and spiritual movements? — Wayfarer

Because it promotes spiritual strength, that's why.

It signifies the ability NOT to be driven by biology. — Wayfarer

Sure, but biology isn't the only reason why you'd want to have children.

It's simple. Don't engage in risky things. Be patient. Build your resources and your life slowly. Only have children when you can afford to completely take care of them. Etc. Nobody said you should be an idiot and max out your risk. — Agustino

Sure, but no matter how risk-averse or prepared one is, there is 99.9999% certainty that one's offspring will experience pain/suffering. And for people who put significant weight on suffering more than the 'blessings' or 'joy' it could bring to other people, it may not be worth the costs.

Also, there's the issue of using other people for one's own gains or as a means to one's happiness, which I find somehow wrong.

(Y) [Now that you mention it, I think we had a similar conversation before. Though I'm starting to notice that you refrain from giving your personal stance and inclinations regarding this matter. :)]

there is 99.9999% certainty that one's offspring will experience pain/suffering — OglopTo

So what? Suffering is a part of life. It is good to taste of the fountain of suffering. Only when it hurts can you finally encounter your own will, and look at your own face, perhaps for the very first time. It is through overcoming adversity - through not yielding - that the human soul remarks itself. Being close to your loved ones when they suffer, and being there to guide them, that is of the essence.

But not having children in and of itself - just for the reason of preventing suffering (NOT talking here about spiritual reasons, so obviously I'm excluding monks) - is nothing but a coward's way out. You who hold the goblet of suffering in your hands, and out of fear and trembling cannot bear to bring it to your own lips and sip it in a single gulp, as if it were nothing - you are cowardly. FEAR rules you. The fear of not being able to overcome that suffering, to take it into you and transform it through an inner alchemy into fuel and food for your soul. You fear responsibility and doing wrong, and therefore neither can you do right.

God has thrown man into hell to show him that not even the fires of hell can consume his soul - otherwise he'd never have known the steel that he's made out of.

God has thrown man into hell to show him that not even the fires of hell can consume his soul. — Agustino

Sounds like you know what we are trying to accomplish, really.. You think more people should be brought into this world to experience the mix of pain and pleasure that is life. Why is this something that should take place? Why throw more actors on the stage? Does the stage need more actors or do you simply not like the idea of no actors on the stage?

Why is this something that should take place? Why throw more actors on the stage? — schopenhauer1

Why NOT? :s

It's like asking me why get out of bed. Why the hell not? What did Professor Trump say? Should I sit home and watch TV and spend my whole life like that, or go to the office and play the game I love to play?

Does the stage need more actors or do you simply not like the idea of no actors on the stage? — schopenhauer1

The stage needs neither more, nor less, nor the same number of actors. The idea of a stage with no actors is incoherent. The outer world is a manifestation of the inner world, and just as the inner pulses with unending and never-dying life, so will the outward. What use if you stop multiplying? Human like species will appear on a myriad of other worlds across the Universe, and even in other Universes. The dance knows no beginning and no end. Pff - one puny species stops having children. The Universe doesn't give a damn. For every child you do not have, the universe will spit out a hundred more while laughing in your face! Man is like fodder for the gods, a plaything. Nothing you can do ultimately matters to it. It shall go on, with or without your approval. You desperately shout why, and it laughs asking you why not?

What did God tell Job? Who are you to dare question my Supremacy, my infinite wisdom, my decisions, and my creation? Where were you when I made the Heavens and the Earth? You are a nobody, no one asked you for your opinion. So go back and accept your burdens with faith in Me - I know better than you can ever know.

and out of fear and trembling cannot bear to bring it to your own lips and sip it in a single gulp, as if it were nothing - you are cowardly. FEAR rules you. — Agustino

Well, you can say it that way. A gentler way of putting it is that I empathize with the suffering that my hypothetical offspring will inevitably suffer. I'll try to endure all the suffering that will come to me personally but I cannot willfully subject another person to the same fate -- to suffer to realize himself, his suffering to feed his soul and the souls of other people, to repeat the cycle for generations to come?

I have the power not to subject one more person to suffering by not having kids. You can say that it's just another scapegoat to shy away from additional commitment and responsibility, to feel good for doing nothing. This is also partly true because why bother paying the cost (at other people's expense at that) if the benefits don't measure up to it?

A gentler way of putting it is that I empathize with the suffering that my hypothetical offspring will inevitably suffer. — OglopTo

And don't you make bank on your suffering? Every time you suffer, isn't the dough hitting your cash register? Aren't you learning how to deal with the pain, how to overcome it, how to transform it? Isn't suffering its own reward? Hasn't God more than provided you with what you need? The largest benefits are the direct result of suffering. Suffering and benefit are tied like cause and effect.

As the boulder rolls down the mountain we must imagine Sisyphus happy. Why?

With that logic, you're implying that self-realization and fulfillment is the ultimate reward and that NOT ONLY the suffering one has been through BUT ALSO the suffering one has inflicted on other people, directly or indirectly, is worth it. As you said earlier, we have differing assessment, and for me, the cost is not worth the supposed reward.

With that logic, you're implying that self-realization and fulfillment is the ultimate reward and that the suffering one has been through and the suffering one has inflicted on other people, directly or indirectly, is worth it. — OglopTo

The reward and the suffering are not two different things - they are one. So there is no question of the suffering being worth it. It's not even a question. You don't exchange suffering for a reward. The suffering is the reward.

What did God tell Job? Who are you to dare question my Supremacy, my infinite wisdom, my decisions, and my creation? Where were you when I made the Heavens and the Earth? You are a nobody, no one asked you for your opinion. So go back and accept your burdens with faith in Me - I know better than you can ever know. — Agustino

Poor Job, tragic hero.

As the boulder rolls down the mountain we must imagine Sisyphus happy. Why? — Agustino

I asked this question, I'm going to wait for anyone to answer it.

You desperately shout why, and it laughs asking you why not? — Agustino

And I answer back, "Not in my own backyard."

The reward and the suffering are not two different things - they are one. — Agustino

My brain may need to reconfigure before I get this. May take some time. Haha.

As the boulder rolls down the mountain we must imagine Sisyphus happy. Why? — Agustino

That's a loaded question.

As the boulder rolls down the mountain we must imagine Sisyphus happy. Why?
— Agustino

I think Camus wanted to say that regardless of fate, man creates his own values. Sisyphus is happy because he is his own man regardless of his fate.

Well people who are "defensive" about the good of putting more people in the world usually fall into one of two camps.

Camp 1) Life does not contain that much suffering in the first place. This, I just think is plain wrong. Either the person is lying to make a point on an internet forum where its easy to spout off whatever you want and no one would know the better, or they are cherry-picking (choosing a few anecdotes/how they feel a the exact time they are posting), denying that OTHER people (including future people) can/would feel suffering and have a much different experience. This view to me seems disingenuous or simply not thinking it through beyond what is right in front of the person's face. I really do not have much to say to this except that if life is always great (again, seems to be disingenuous and tenuous), it may not be so for others. I would love to really know what's going on in that person's life outside the post itself to validate.. (not really.. but you know just rhetorically speaking of course).

Camp 2) Life has suffering but we have to allow future people to deal with it. I am more sympathetic to this view.. This seems to be Agustino's view for example. At least this one ADMITS there is suffering but tries to justify it. I still think this is not justified due to the fact that no one needs to go through any particular event. We are not the universe/god's willing servants to throw more people onto the stage, for what reason we do not know other than "experience" itself is deemed good. The only thing I can think is that people have a lot of existential angst (another source of very subtle diffuse suffering that humans face).. and children/family becomes an instant form of something to get caught up with.. of course.. that is even giving people the benefit of planning it out.. of course, most people are just thrown in the world with no real thought.

That's a loaded question. — Noblosh

How so?

I think Camus wanted to say that regardless of fate, man creates his own values. Sisyphus is happy because he is his own man regardless of his fate. — Cavacava

I partly agree with you, but I don't think this is everything. Remember when Camus said that the struggle itself is enough to fill a man's heart?

When we analyse the symbols used...

The boulder represents your dreams. Everything you treasure. That picture you hold in your mind that you equate with success.

You toil to get the boulder up the mountain. You suffer.

And then you succeed. You reach the top. But nothing happens at the top, and the boulder falls back down.

What is the struggle to the top?

The journey.

The goal, the aim - they are merely useful for facilitating the journey, but they are not the reward - they are not goods in themselves.

Sisyphus is happy because he has not lost anything when the boulder fell down.

But he has gained.

What? The struggle. The suffering.

They are enough to fill a man's heart.

Once one gives up the goal as the source of one's joy, and finds joy in the struggle and the pain itself, then suddenly the curse of the Gods becomes the reward of the Gods.

Love the process, not the end result. The process is the reward because that's when you encounter your own self, that's when you build character, that's when you acquire what neither rust nor moth can corrupt.

The loss is visible, but the gain remains invisible - except in Sisyphus's smile.

This seems to be Agustino's view for example. At least this one ADMITS there is suffering but tries to justify it. — schopenhauer1

No, I don't try to justify it, I'm saying that it needs no justification whatsoever. It's as simple as that. It exists. It doesn't need to be justified. Putting people into the world doesn't need justification. Neither does suffering.

the struggle itself is enough to fill a man's heart?

My interpretation: Life is the struggle, the boulder, we push because we have to push to survive just as Sisyphus has no choice but to push the boulder up the hill. All the pain, the suffering, the love, the joy, the happiness, and the sadness of life are experienced, valued by men who have the power, the joy of shouting de capo. Beyond Good and Evil 56:

Anyone who, like me, has, with some enigmatic desire or other, made an effort for a long time to think profoundly about pessimism and to rescue it from the half-Christian, half-German restrictions and simple-mindedness with which it has most recently appeared in this century, that is, in the form of Schopenhauer's philosophy; anyone who really has, with an Asian and super-Asiatic eye, looked into and down on the most world-denying of all possible ways of thinking - beyond good and evil and no longer as Buddha and Schopenhauer do, under the spell and delusion of morality - such a man has perhaps in the process, without really wanting to do so, opened his eyes for the reverse morality: for the ideal of the most high-spirited, most lively, and most world-affirming human being, who has not only learned to come to terms with and accept what was and is but wants to have what was and is come back for all eternity, calling out insatiably da capo [from the beginning] , not only to himself but to the entire play and spectacle, and not only to a spectacle but basically to the man who needs this particular spectacle and who makes the spectacle necessary, because over and over again he needs himself - and makes himself necessary. How's that? Wouldn't this be circulus vitiosus deus [god as a vicious circle]?