Wouldn't "I agree", be a belief and not a proposition?

I agree. :up:

Yes, Oh! You need to reexamine antinatalism, carefully this time. — Agent Smith

:ok:

Oh sorry, that's not right I'm afraid — Agent Smith

Oh. Well hey, I gave it my best shot.

:up:

Antinatalism is the belief that bringing a child into the world, to procreate, is morally incorrect, if I understand correctly. It reaches this conclusion via the Asymmetry, and assessment of quality of life. What my little explanation does is show that the assessment of quality of life is misguided, and therefore antinatalism fails to amount due to not being able to percieve life, as "bad" (objectively).

Wha-!? OK, let me give an example.

You walk down the street with your antinatalism thingy and start telling people, objectively, that their perception on life is worse than it seems, their lifes suck, and that they should be sad for that reason.

Thier response? They tell you to bugger off.

You try it again next week. Same thing.

What's going on ? They simply don't feel that way! Which would mean, in a sense, that objectivity can not tell another person how they feel. If they're happy, they happy. If they sad, they sad. Simple as that.

:up:

Plus, see what's happened (to you). You had to abandon objectivity because if you don't, you look foolish. — Agent Smith

Abandon? It was never there in the first place! Nor should it be. I feel how I feel, and therefore, on questions on how I feel, I'm always right because it's impossible to be wrong. :cool:

Would you not like to be objectively happy as opposed to subjectively so? — Agent Smith

I don't think its a matter of if. We can not be more than our own judge.

It follows naturally — Agent Smith

Objectivity is not the arbiter of our happiness, we are.

I would think that any serious and honest self-assessment is a kind of psychological technique. — Tom Storm

That's pretty much the impression I had.

Some forms of reflection lead to self-awareness and insight - these are considered psychologically healthy states. — Tom Storm

Right. Another thing: diary's, poems, books, not only is writing one "therapeutic", it's a physical way for the therapist, or general reader to look inside your brain. It just so happens that these modes of literature stem from self reflection.

. That's how coherence theory came about. Philosophers wanted to give credence to common sense observation. According to this theory, we really couldn't have stability and sustainability of our belief system unless it coheres with the external world. — Caldwell

Oh neat. I'll have to check it out.

In other words, no one has experienced real joy; the happiest person in the world, assuming she exists, is actually suffering, but she doesn't know that - that's to say she's confused (by it all). — Agent Smith

Could you elaborate?

the happiest person in the world, assuming she exists, is actually suffering, but she doesn't know that - that's to say she's confused (by it all). — Agent Smith

The happiest people in the world tend to be good parents. I have no proof for that, but it would seem more or less correct.

No, no! We're natalists because we're masochists (we get off on pain) — Agent Smith

Ohh, I see.

Yep, we could all be masochists, assuming antinatalism is correct. — Agent Smith

I don't have to be masochistic to deal with pain, I wouldn't think.

Question: What if we're (secret/closet) masochists? — Agent Smith

We're as in humanity? or we're as in a select group of individuals? I'd say antinatalism works on a macro view of human implication, so I don't think it would necessarily take into account one dude receiving pleasure from pain.

I say Art for arts sake.

That hasn't been my experience. — Bitter Crank

Huh! Lucky you...

Well, "art" is subjective after all. Maybe I'm just a picky eater.

What does it mean to have 'depth' or 'feeling' in your art? — Tom Storm

I think generally it plays on the sentiment of being wide, strong, encompassing in some sorts. A piece that makes people plunge, I'd say that's what we're trying to illustrate when we say deep.

The quality of porn is easy to measure. — Bitter Crank

The quality of porn is not easy to measure. Not by a long shot. There's already so many moral hoops and hurdles you have to go through to get to the real nitty gritty, and even then it's difficult.

Edit to Clarify: This isn't the case for everyone, the vanilla-ists have a fairly easy time sifting through the material. Same goes with those whose tastes are relatively reserved.

:up:

Sorry... I meant the Original Post not the Original Poster. I clarified it in the beginning of my post there. — god must be atheist

Oh true. Well it's alright in any case, I'm more of an OG myself. :cool:

You are not a liar, a cheater, a thief. At least I have no evidence of that. I trust you and welcome your opinions. — god must be atheist

Thanks dawg.

Edit: Just wanted to clarify that I do really appreciate you saying that. Thank you.

Yet through cunning, or via strength, or via moral vicissitude, or through blood viscosity, they overcome the challenge. Otherwise the book is a fail. — god must be atheist

Mm. Like Agent Smith says here:

Desperate times call for desperate measures! — Agent Smith

The love of mediocrity seems to come from a casual necessity to appeal to the average populous. Almost like a global escapist project.

This is a complete hoax, a total separation from reality. In real life the average guy is a loser, and the genius / strong man / moral giant is never a loser. — god must be atheist

:up:
Well, at least sometimes. :joke:

The OP can't and ought not to be believed when it promotes ideals, values and general expectations gleaned from books of literary fiction. — god must be atheist

Ahhh you got me good there.

I have an iq of 93. Am I dumb? Meh. Depends.

Are you an editor? Or a kindred poetic soul. I asked Amity that, and she told me to go fuck myself. — god must be atheist

I'm no editor, but when inspiration strikes, I think anyone can be an editor.

If a poem gets edited by other than its creator, it is fucked. If a poet asks someone to edit his or her poetry, he or she is fucked, along with the shiny poem s/he rode in on. — god must be atheist

That's true...It's why I hesitated a bit before going in the deep end.

I just realized, that I need to clarify this: Your organization I did not view as editing, only as enlightening. Thanks, I appreciated your work and am actually impressed by it. Although that's a covert compliment to myself as well. Oh, well. — god must be atheist

Haha! Well, you are the person who wrote it after all.

I felt attractive for twenty years and never got laid. But it did not matter, because I was attractive, according to my delusion, and that made me happy, which is an illusion, just like the mind, which feels the happiness... Yikes. — god must be atheist

That last phrase was so poetic It compelled me to organize it.

I felt attractive for twenty years.
Never got laid.
It did not matter; I was attractive,
according to my delusion
That made me happy,
Which is an illusion
Just like the mind: which feels the happiness...
Yikes.

How do you handle the effect of the diminishing return of marginal utility? — god must be atheist

Self suggested happiness's margin is infinite! Poof?

I felt attractive for twenty years — god must be atheist

Or at the very least, pretty long. Long enough that there seemingly is no diminished return.

I explain that by saying that we expect to live forever, and death is not something we actually believe will happen. — god must be atheist

Damn. Wise words.

Money is certainly rewarding.

But only to a point. — god must be atheist

I am my own reward, hence I am in a perpetual state of bliss. :cool:

(or so I tell myself.)

Well I guess it's just a matter of perspective. I see your point.

Everyone has their cross to bear. A rich man can be just as screwed and unhappy as a poor man. — god must be atheist

That's what I thought as well. I don't think wellbeing is correlated to your enviroment. At least that's my experience.

In that regard, your issue now focuses more on the response we make -- the middle, or the moderate answer. I think a lot of us want to play it safe by giving this kind of answer. We don't want to come off as the "bad guy", or having a extreme view. — Caldwell

Right. But is that ok? What's wrong with having an extreme view; better yet, what's wrong with being mediocre?

But isn't that like saying that everything we say is also not ours? — Xtrix

Mm, well like all things, I think it (it being the supposed fact that influences control our thoughts) performs on a spectrum. We're influenced by everything to an extent, but the strength of the influence varies. In philosophy, I think the strength of the influence of previous masters is especially strong.

I think the chess master is a master precisely because he's not theoretical, as perhaps a beginner might start out being. Like a musician, in fact. Anyone who's learned piano knows that you start with simple steps and basic theory (scales, etc) -- but the expert piano player no longer has to remember any of this. — Xtrix

Maybe. I ain't a master in chess, so I wouldn't know. I have a friend who is though, next time i'll ask him.

Are petroglyphs more archeological in value, or is this "art"? It doesn't seem like there is much art in this particular petroglyph. It seems like graffiti or "practice" maybe. The 21st century assholes weren't very talented either, though in 3,000 years, it may be considered significant. — Bitter Crank

I don't know...Generally, to deface art is to go against the will of the creator, to denounce it in some form, but it's pretty hard to guess the intentions of the dude who first carved into the petroglyph. Maybe he wouldn't care much. I'd say for this particular case it's fine, but it might be in everyone's best interest if we refrain from doing so again.

The painting was a finished work by an American artist whose abstract aesthetic riffs on street art. — New York Times

Question: If you can't tell where the "art work" ends and the "vandalism" begins, then how much creative value does the work have? — Bitter Crank

I mean, it quite literally looks like he ripped off a mural and put it on a painting, even though he does maintain some sort of personal creativity. I'd say to have proof of that sentiment in the public is pretty flattering.

Do you see how you slide from what should have been a question in this form "When is killing justified?", to "Is killing justified?", answer = "Sometimes". There is a difference.
Then you continued on with the goldilocks syndrome of an answer, etc. which should not be the case here. Those are two different attitude or reasoning. — Caldwell

I see. Here, let me edit the OP and see if it makes more sense.

What I also find interesting is that it's swamped in...ignorance? Naivety? It's kind of banking on the fact that we won't ever know what consciousness is/prove consciousness is a thing. Which in my opinion, while plausible, is not entirely er...seems a little biased.

He relates to the effect of an action in this phrase:

" We know that we can act directly/unconditionally". that is, Schopenhauer, Atwell thinks, does not show that when we act we cannot know that we act in some other way also. — jancanc

If I understand correctly, "Sometimes" definitely isn't always correct. For sure. However, it (to act in moderation) has shown a striking amount of consistency in being "right" when it's correlated to how one should run one's life. So I chose it to perform as "you should always act in moderation" because that's just how I felt.

What I'm more confused with is that if, it happens to be always right, does it extend to the average person/does the average man/woman have the perfect life?

Edit: reread your reply and i'll be honest, I'm pretty lost. I'm not sure if what I said here applies to your response...Care to maybe dumb it down a bit?