I'm with you on suffering (in the present) for happiness (in the future). Notice however that the best-case-scenario is happiness (in the present) for (more) happiness (in the future). That says a lot, doesn't it?

I guess what you described of suffering-happiness is about meaningful suffering - to come out of it knowing it (suffering) was worth it. Again, it doesn't have to be that way, no? Simply put, suffering of any kind, a little or a lot, is meaningless. There's no necessity, as far as I can tell, for suffering to be a part of happiness. That, as of now, there are occasions in which one has to bear some pain to be happy is an altogether different story, a story of contingency rather than necessity.

Given all that, a suicider reasons thus: not only is all forms of suffering empty of meaning, I (the suicider) have to bear more than that which is due to me and can endure. That's just too much, right?

LOL!!! Ever put snow on a hot lightbulb---Bink or could be a Tink, at any rate, the lights go out. — boagie

:gasp: :brow:

Fool,
You had to know you get stuck with that handle--lol!! You are of course right, no suffering is involved, whether psycological or physical. You might think that getting shot in the head would be painful, but not if it does not have time to register. It is not the worst of ways to go. — boagie

I chose that handle myself - it suits me, as if we were made for each other. :grin:

It's my firm conviction that I have enemies with both the motive and the resources to put a bounty on my head. I hope they put into their service a marksman cum hitman to do the job. Fingers crossed! :grin:

Abortion should be/will be a non-issue. Why? We have effective contraception (pills, condoms, etc.) and once these become both widely available and used judiciously, women can nip the problem in the bud as it were. No fetus to begin with, no abortion-related headaches for women.

My suggestion to the pro-choice camp of the debate is try the alternative route of contraception; promote it with the greatest of vigor and a time will come when the pro-choice movement will become utterly irrelevant; after all, there would be no unwanted pregnancies to abort, if all goes well that is.

What on earth is BINK?

My empathy for people agrees with you. I too believe that suicide is a preferable end to the pain that might come from living but I don't see it as "the right thing to do" — I love Chom-choms

Right! It's, as some say, the last choice. In other words, th suicider is all out of options.

Why 'coerce' someone to live (or demonize a person) who compulsively needs to cease living? — 180 Proof

Correctamundo!

There's this general attitude towards suicide that it's immoral but then the same people who hold this belief are sympathetic towards the practice of putting down animals that are in extreme pain. Something's off.

↪TheMadFool Hello.
This is close to my view. I would however correct you here:

In the absence of free will, retributive, deterrent, and rehabilitative arms of justice don't make sense
— TheMadFool
I think deterrent and rehabilitative are still applicable without free will. Most of us would agree that a dog does not have free will; yet we can use processes to deter and rehabilitate. — Samuel Lacrampe

I humbly beg to differ. Deterrence and rehabilitation require the ability to change, change one's way of thinking or resist one's urges and to oppose one's innate proclivities; free will is a must for that. Sans free will, these aspects of justice are N/A.

I agree there is much suffering involved in most deaths, but there are those the gods smile upon and it's BINK, the lights are out. The big sleep is granted utterly without suffering, never knew what hit them sort of thing. — boagie

If an expert sniper/marksman blows your head off with a clean shot to the apricot, I don't think there'll be time enough to realize that you're dying.

My argument is not based on votes. If you fail to see the logic of putting an end to suffering by any means possible, sorry, I can't help you.
— TheMadFool
I knew you would say something like that. Well, then please tell me your logic for saving a suffering man's life.
Would you or would you not put someone out of faer misery if the occasion arises? Would you be able to witness a person being broken on the rack, a person being tortured mercilessly, without feeling the urge to put a quick end to this person's life?
— TheMadFool

I would, if I won't be judged for it afterwards and I don't have any duty to save the person in question, just walk away like nothing happened. — I love Chom-choms

My simple argument:

1. (Some kinds of) suffering are unbearable
2. We don't want unbearable things (duh!)
Ergo,
3. We should do something to reduce/eliminate such forms of suffering

↪TheMadFool
I hastily summarized for you while telling you to go back and read past arguments. If you want to argue this, go read them so I'm not forever repeating myself. — Derrick Huestis

Good day, I've run out of things to say.

I disagree. Neither religion is "about morality" IMO.
— 180 Proof

Truth be told, you're absolutely right! Both christianity and buddhism are, first and foremost, about suffering and how one might liberate oneself from it - by being moral humans.
— TheMadFool

This cannot be right because religions tend to constrain moral development. Shared values/norms means no independent values/norms. Everything depends on group dependence. It’s not primary about morality, salvation, or a reduction in suffering. All that can be better achieved without religion. At core it’s simply about tribal solidarity — praxis

That's one way of looking at it but observe the residue, what's survived of Buddhism after two and half thousand years of practice cum modding - the truth of suffering & how it can be assuaged/eradicated; only the most relevant aspects of any religion lasts that long as people will simply reject, quite naturally so, any elements that they can't relate to. The same goes for Christianity.

buddha and his long line of erudite disciples would be dead against. Buddhism is more than that. It's not just about making yourself feel better about yourself; it's a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering.
— TheMadFool

Now you've put your finger on it "a long line of erudite disciples". Why then do you view Buddhism negatively as taking a carot and stick approach. I agree Buddhism is a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering. And that's why I believe it contains wisdom which if practiced in ones life seems to me to be in line with modern psychologists description of a happy life. By the way what's wrong with feeling better about yourself. That's the consequence of happiness. People normally feel better when they are living a better life. — Ross

If you want to come at the issue that way, you'll have to admit/concede/accept that the Buddha was clinically depressed and obsessed as it were with suffering i.e. the Buddha was non compos mentis. Wisdom of Buddhism should be the last thing we should be discussing, no?

The person in love: Does fae need me?

... the person who's in love doubts (does fae need me?)
— TheMadFool

I think this way — Caldwell

For better or for worse, I might be one of those people who know what to think think but still doesn't. I don't know why that is. I'm, however, pleased to know that I made sense to you.

My focus has been the obvious similarity between how both christianity and buddhism adopt the carrot-and-stick approach to morality vis-à-vis hedonism (pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of suffering). Do good, the rewards will be great; commit evil deeds, the repercussions will be severe.
— TheMadFool

Good point. But I think human culture in general works that way, education and legal systems, from cradle to grave we are conditioned to feel that our behavior attracts punishment or reward.

Buddhism is more than that. It's not just about making yourself feel better about yourself;
— TheMadFool

But that's how it tends to be seen in the West where life is fast and furious and all we have time for is five minutes to de-stress before rushing back to work .... — Apollodorus

For one thing, the objective of both Christianity and Buddhism, as I pointed out in a previous post, is to ameliorate/abolish suffering. It's telling, no?, that one simple but not so easy way to do that is to behave i.e. we need to act morally. What this suggests is the intuition that we are our own worst enemy; see the problem of evil & the free will defense.

As for the link between Buddhism and psychology, all I can say is the latter reduces humans to things, objectifies them, kinda like how naturalists study animals in the wild and in captivity; I'm not comfortable with that even though it seems the right way to go about it.

No, prison is pretty apt. Particularly for people with brain damage that can't really live or die. — TiredThinker

What a fantastic deal, right?

In my intro post, I did mention no downside where there is no form of suffering to the process. — boagie

I wish it were that good a deal - a swift and painless demise - but something tells me, dying isn't a very pleasant experience if you know what I mean.

I am afraid I am unfamiliar with the references you make here but will check it out. Is it Greek mythology? — boagie

Yes, Greek mythology. Here are some links:

Tithonus

Algea/Algos

Thanatos

the notions of heaven & hell are just another way of saying what goes around comes around, you reap what you sow, aka karma. You couldn't possibly have missed that!
— TheMadFool

Yes but Christianity doesn't mean heaven and hell in a symbolic sense as representing good or bad outcomes, the problem (for me) is that it literally believes in the existence of a heaven of eternal Bliss and hell of eternal damnation. These are ways to instill fear in people to make them "behave themselves" and so become instruments of control by the powers that be. Marx said that religion promises happiness in another world to make injustice and oppression in this world acceptable, to switch the focus away from happiness in THIS world and place it in ANOTHER world. Buddhism on the other hand teaches nothing of the sort. It doesn't believe in a supernatural Being for a start and it's focus is on achieving happiness in this world. They may have religious beliefs such as being reborn again , but it's philosophy can and often is taken separately by many people without the religious component. You should watch The Buddhist quotes on YouTube on wonder zone channel , a fountain of wisdom. — Ross

If minimizing metaphysical content in a religion is wise (less foolish @180 Proof) then yes, buddhism stands out as one of the best religions out there. See Occam's Razor.

That said, it's worth noting that the two founders of christianity and buddhism have a place, although both are demoted in the process (Jesus is a bodhisattva and the buddha is a saint), in each other's religion. There's a connection between the two which needs further investigation by those interested.

It's wrong to have children iff you are compelled to have them, or you're having them transactionally, or you deliberately have them even though you either (A) cannot financially afford to feed cloth shelter & educate them or (B) cannot emotionally afford to care for and cultivate them lovingly. By these criteria it's abundantly clear that too many people should not have children who nonetheless have always had and will keep on having them anyway. — 180 Proof

:fire: These are tough times!

I think also that, more or less, is two sides of the same coin. When we speak about partner's love of course. — dimosthenis9

I'm asking you whether love is a sham, a scam, a con, just an empty emotion which is meant only to sugar-coat the actual, the real, goings-on, the two-backed-beast?

Yes, but that is your opinion, I am sure there is some psycho out there who would have the urge to torture that guy more. You may believe that your opinion is better but whatever the reason for you opinion may be, there is someone who would disagree with, I think, a very plausible reason that it is just more fun to see that guy suffer than to save him.
By saying this, I mean to say that the empathy which compels you to save or kill him is not present in everyone. You are in the majority of those who are sympathetic to the tortured person but being in the majority does not make you right. — I love Chom-choms

My argument is not based on votes. If you fail to see the logic of putting an end to suffering by any means possible, sorry, I can't help you.

By the way you used the word "psycho", not me.

Also, I'm not in a state to discuss the matter further with you. Cheers!

Please elaborate. I pride myself at being more of a voyeur that just likes to watch people react to funny scenarios than a sadist. — I love Chom-choms

Good luck with that.

You're beginning to sound like an evil genius, crafting all sorts of psychological conundrums to torture people to [mental] death and worse, resuscitate them so that you could do it to them all over again. :chin:

Suicide is not wrong. Would you or would you not put someone out of faer misery if the occasion arises? Would you be able to witness a person being broken on the rack, a person being tortured mercilessly, without feeling the urge to put a quick end to this person's life? The answer to both questions is an emphatic "yes" I believe.

I'm sure you've heard of spies with cyanide capsules dangling around their necks...just in case...interrogators get "creative".

Even if they are, humans aren't. These are exceptions. Humans put mental effort as to be monogamous. It doesn't come natural to them. If a married man see a naked woman he will have an erection. He will have to try to think and put hard effort as to convince himself not to fuck her. It won't come natural to him — dimosthenis9

True that! Do you see love transcending pleasures of the flesh? Or, is it just as I think it is, two sides of the same coin?

Oh that is an interesting perspective but as I said your decision is only possible because you have lived your life which before living you would not have. — I love Chom-choms

What's the point then if my choice won't make a difference? Is this God just trying to get some cheap thrills at our expense?

You would choose to exist but then you wouldn't remember about it — I love Chom-choms

Again, in addition to the amnesia that would make the whole exercise pointless, if there's just too much pain involved, count me out.

The usual deal for anitnatalism is that it's all about the alleged, true/false? you decide, inordinate amount of suffering that comes with living.

Having foreknowledge of one's life kinda takes the fun out of living - you would know in advance what would happen to you and it would be like reruns of a TV show. :meh: Still, that wouldn't make me not want to live - reruns do well for a reason I suppose. However, if there's an excessive amount of meaningless suffering involved, I'll go the antinatalist way and opt out.

As far as I'm aware it's Christianity that teaches about the entering the kingdom of heaven and fires of hell for those who haven't repented, that's not a teaching of Buddhism. Buddhism says that whatever you do comes back to you. So that if you do good, you will be rewarded in some way and if you are bad it will have negative consequences for you. — Ross

Is it me or are you making a distinction without a difference? As far as I can tell, the notions of heaven & hell are just another way of saying what goes around comes around, you reap what you sow, aka karma. You couldn't possibly have missed that!

For me I interpret this from a psychological perspective, not metaphysical. The Buddhists are right that you will feel happier when you do good, eg help someone, and you'll feel bad if you deliberately harm people. I think that's what they mean, it's nothing to do with a God who punishes you — Ross

I never said anything about God. My focus has been the obvious similarity between how both christianity and buddhism adopt the carrot-and-stick approach to morality vis-à-vis hedonism (pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of suffering). Do good, the rewards will be great; commit evil deeds, the repercussions will be severe.

Psychological perspective? That reduces buddhism to a pernicious mind game, a sort of self-delusion, something the buddha and his long line of erudite disciples would be dead against. Buddhism is more than that. It's not just about making yourself feel better about yourself; it's a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering.

The only way I can make sense of your argument is if adultery is worse than drugs, prostitution, assisted suicide, and child pornography. The logic is simple - if an adult fits through an opening, a child surely can (if a worse offense is permitted, a lesser offense is too). So, is adultery (being unfaithful) worse than participating in the illegal drug trade where many countless lives are destroyed? Is adultery worse than dehumanizing women and using their bodies, sometimes without their full consent, to make a quick and easy buck? Is adultery worse than taking part in an activity which borders on murder (assisted suicide)? Is adultery better than the exploitation of children? I dunno! You tell me.

free will is presupposed by our justice systems — Hello Human

This is where all the action takes place.

Justice is sought for:

1. Retribution (an eye for an eye).

2. Deterrence (to discourage would-be criminals).

3. Rehabilitation (to reeducate criminals).

4. Sequestration/Isolation (take the criminal out of circulation).


Even if we don't have free will, criminals will still need to be imprisoned to achieve sequestration/isolation.. Since, all of 1, 2, 3, and 4 are implemented in correctional facilities and any one of them, singly or in some combination is considered sufficient warrant to punish an offender, it makes no difference whether a criminal committed a crime of his own volition or not; either way, fae lands up in gaol.

In the absence of free will, retributive, deterrent, and rehabilitative arms of justice don't make sense but sequestration/isolation is still in the game, a live issue, in a manner of speaking.

No problemo!

if God is "in" those things he is finite. Perhaps a better phrase is permeate, expand across, or even say those things exist within him. Either way, for the argument to work he would have to be the greatest existence with no limit. — Derrick Huestis

If that's what your response is, your definition of existence is, let's just say, unstable - sometimes it's limited by space, time, and causality and at other times, it isn't. Something doesn't add up.

I disagree. Neither religion is "about morality" IMO. — 180 Proof

Truth be told, you're absolutely right! Both christianity and buddhism are, first and foremost, about suffering and how one might liberate oneself from it - by being moral humans. Do good and the pearly gates await you; do bad and off to the fiery pits of hell. Morality is only a/the way by which one can escape the cluthces of Algea (pain).

I never realized this, thanks.

Christianity is mainly concerned with eschatology and Buddhism is mainly concerned with soteriology — 180 Proof

True, each religion has its own unique emphasis but I have a feeling the doctrine of impermanence has its own eschatological point to make.

:up:

Antinatalism has merit if we look at escalating suicide rates. People aren't happy and that they choose to end their lives proves that the thought, "I should never have been born," did cross the minds of suiciders; hence their desperation to take their own lives.

Antinatalism, however, doesn't hold water if we consider the fact that the majority don't suicide.

Posted twice... — Tobias

Mea culpa!

Okay. Nothing I've written quarrels with the facticity of suffering. You're point, such as it is, is lost on me. — 180 Proof

I probably misunderstood you then. I thought you meant to say that christianity is about suffering in the here and now (like Jesus) and buddhism is about liberation of suffering, again, in the here and now (like the Buddha).

I couldn't square that with what both religions are about - morality - since morality and hedonism (suffering) have quite a complex relationship that doesn't seem to lend itself to simple linear correlation between the two - sometimes, being good means to bear pain. A bummer but that's just the way it is.

No. See, thinking takes place in West Cupcake, Iowa. It always has. West Cupcake is not on the map, so don't go there. What happens to mind, thought, ideas, etc. when a double barreled shotgun blast sends large slugs through a brain, is that the connection to West Cupcake is broken--like when satellite service is terminated by a meteor smashing the orbiting machine into smithereens.

West Cupcake is not a server farm--it doesn't house individual thinking. There is no such thing as individual thinking, All thought happens in one place alone, West Cupcake produces all thinking. It's THE thought provider.

How long has this been going on? Hmmm, let me check... ... ... ...

Ah, here: for 97,000 years, 9 hours, 43 minutes, and 7 seconds. Before that, there was no real thinking. It was just slack-jawed Neanderthals, Denikovians, and Homo sapiens muttering, groping, and doing stuff like they were in some kind of a fog. Let me tell you, it was QUITE A SHOCK when West Cupcake began operations that Monday morning. — Bitter Crank

Good one! :lol:

Transmission from West Cupcake was interrupted twice, 1914-1918 (WW I) and 1939-1945 (WW II), and h. sapiens for some years reverted to their true selves - troglodytes but now, fortunately or not, armed not with just some rocks and clubs but with guns, machine guns, cannons, and, later, nukes. I wonder when the next transmission blackout will occur? The way things are going, probably sooner than later. :smile:

What’s the difference between simply being infatuated with someone and loving them? — Benj96

If you ignore what I said in my previous post, the difference between infatuation and love is the same as the difference between thinking only about proximate gratification and taking utmost care to give remote consequences their due.

The infatuated person: I need fae.
The person in love: Does fae need me?

Intriguingly, the infatuated person believes (I need fae) but the person who's in love doubts (does fae need me?)

I've already written it in this thread and put it in the video. Has to do with space, time, affect and effect, for further explanation look at past posts — Derrick Huestis

So, an X exists IFF X is in space, in time, and x participates in causality? Am I right?

Then, if God exists, God is in space, in time, and God is part of causality. However, you said that space and time are finite; isn't that why only God could be existentially infinite and eternal. How then, can God, an infinite, eternal being exist in space and time? :chin:

An interpretation of 'virtue ethics' (re: Philippa Foot, Martha Nussbaum) in a Spinozist-Peircean sense:
Moral character (ethos) consists of habits of eusocial judgment (phronesis).

Virtues (arete) are adaptive skills acquired and developed through applying them in various practices (praxes) which gradually habitualize and thereby, in positive feedback loops, are reinforced by moral character (ethos).

Flourishing, or reduction of self-immiserating habits (eudaimonia) is the 'categorical imperative' (telos) of moral character (ethos).
In sum: inhabiting a habitat with others (from etymology of ethos) is cultivated by exercising eusocial habits through adaptive conduct contra maladaptive conduct (agon). — 180 Proof

Basically, it all boils down to, wisdom although yours is a more detailed examination of morality as it relates to wisdom. :up:

If someone breaks your arm/leg with a club, you can still think but if the club makes contact with your head (brain) with sufficient force, your thinking stops. So, I guess, the brain inside our skulls does the thinking.