My perspective is obviously more probable to be correct in my opinion, but I wouldn't wish to be too sure.

Argument from fallacy.

Flawed perspectives can indeed lead to unnecessary difficulties in achieving happiness.

Then again, there's a sense of enjoyment in certain difficulties. Reading textbooks was fun. However, I would not consider those difficulties to be an inextricably necessary component.

I think that the first part of that message would, unfortunately, apply to you here.

Happiness.
Oh, and in case it's a verb, no, not right now. Too busy maintaining the inherently positive state of joy that harms cannot easily negate.

It can be difficult to see the path we are treading on if we are looking elsewhere ;)

I think I perfectly do. Given a range of choices, the alternative that provides a clearer path to fundamental value is generally preferable. Au contraire, I think you did not grasp what I was saying. I think it is your way, yet you are refusing to see it for some inexplicable reason.

Pinching seems boring to me. Tickling is more fun!

Yeah, I can see that you're probably feeling happy at having convincingly "outclassed" me. You'll probably attempt to deny that you're happy, but that's not particularly pertinent, my friend.

I don't think that I missed any points, but I fine with you believing that.

I've seen smiles that hid tears and tears that were derived from indomitable joy. There's much to see.

That's the illusion ;)
I never said that I feel that way, but I think that your perspective would deceive you into thinking that. I couldn't find any substantial changes, btw. Regarding mirages, well, let's just say that there are some smiles too hard to concoct out of thin air.

I can also sense a form of satisfaction within you as you typed out your reply debunking my amateur claims. It seemed to embody, dare I say, happiness!
(Note: I am not a certified clairvoyant.)

I never pinch myself.

Nah, my life is pervaded by tedium and monotony.

No, it's an illusion (if happiness is also an illusion). You're clearly mistaking inadequate value/its absence to be real.

Alternatively, perhaps you could explain what you mean. :P

I don't know grace, but I love your grace.

Then suffering is also an illusion. I am afraid that you don't understand natalism.

Yes, I am glad for being back to a fundamentally valuable state. I am happy to know about your gladness, and thanks for your magnanimity there.

Happiness despite suffering!

That's a relief!

I am merely asking for the reason you believe universal AN to be defensible. Nothing more.

It certainly is, though I feel that both are necessary for a healthy society. But as I said, elaboration would be much appreciated :)

When I had asked you earlier if I had understood your view correctly, your reply had seemed a bit unclear to me. I apologise if I misinterpreted your thumbs up there :p

Natalism.

I do have good replies because you aren't the only person I've met who defends that position. My statement was obviously a general one, but I would appreciate to know your thoughts, as I had asked you before.

What is your good position that I am supposed to reply to? I am also all eyes.

While "re-examining" antinatalism "carefully, please do remember that good replies to it exist, and it (most probably) is not true in a universal sense

Natalism:

Basis—Ineffably meaningful lives could probably exist


Advice—Do have kids (provided you are capable of giving them a sufficiently valuable life).

A bit of nuance always helps over absolute principles ;)

I express my apologies for bothering you, but I hope that you received the message that I sent you. I am a newcomer here, so I do not know exactly this forum works. I hope you have a fantabulous day!

:D

Neither is natalism or life itself as simple as we might think it is, but I agree. Would you wish to elaborate on any of the complexities you alluded to here?

Also, you clearly know much more than me, so I reject that "just like you" part. Some learners are much more advanced than others. Personally, I would love to get promoted to kindergarten ;)

I am not being facetious! Seriously, if I was wrong, I would be indebted for any correction. I know too little, far too little. There's much to know in this enigmatic cosmos of ours. I am not sure if you were being sarcastic. Apologies if I misunderstood you.

Would you say there was some understanding there pertaining to the claims about needs? I sure do hope so! If not, I would be grateful to know your reasons for thinking so.

That's quite possible. However, I do think that I have understood it well enough. If you are referring to the claim that happiness isn't "anything" other than the negation of needs, I disagree with that view, because the needs themselves also result from a loss of some state of satisfaction. I don't find one of them to be more "real" than the other.

"as real as harms"

Either none are real, or both are. I don't think that the contrary view is true.

And I am happy that neither is happiness. It might feel like it if one doesn't know where to look, but I don't think it is. It's certainly as real as the harms. Selective doubts and fear can sometimes lead us to erroneous conclusions.

I know it doesn't; I was talking about religion.

I don't think that, materialistically speaking, happiness is any more of a illusion than suffering. Similarly, the lack of life doesn't seem to have any intrinsic value over its presence. So, as I have said to other people here, if the absence of suffering (an sensation we are averse to) matters, then the lack of satisfaction (an experience we cherish) is also bad. That is what I believe the be logical in the context of this particular framework.

As for simplicity, well, that's a matter of perspective. It's indeed fairly simple to realise that self-realisation leads to transendence. Whether or not it's complex depends upon the path one traverses and how soon they truly see and experience this. I, of course, have much to learn. I am pretty sure that everybody on this forum is a lot more intelligent than I am (then again, do I even have intelligence? Not sure). :P

I see that you've seen through my "lie" ;)

I don't fail to see it. However, everything else is also an illusion, and the way to pass that isn't as simple as one might think!

Nah, I am in the valley enjoying the beauty of the mountain peaks surrounding me.

That would depend on the purpose. I don't think that one would endorse antinatalism in a universal sense because each person has their own journey. Not creating someone is not going to stop their birth (though they could be born in a lower realm of being). It's not just about escaping life; it's also about embracing the ultimate reality. So, the negative is alongside a positive, not for the sake of achieving a void. And even then, the path is fairly individualised.

Indeed. People often quote the Buddha's saying regarding life being suffering (or dukkha, more specifically), but neglect to also mention that he also said that there is a way to transcend it, which is following the middle path. Transcendence is often mistaken for negation in the West, which is tragic, but understandable.

That's an interesting idea. I suppose it is possible that some forms of AN are derived from a fear of death, though I think the issue is also an inability to find sufficient value in the positive aspects of life. I am an optimistic person who affirms life, but I don't fear death. Both creation and destruction are eternal. Materialistically, I don't think that nonexistence is better/worse for a person. Additionally, it's also unlikely that the cycle would go on for anybody forever, since they are bound to achieve moksha/niravana sooner or later. In the meantime, all one can do is to appreciate what they have and try to contribute towards making the world a place more conducive to fulfillment.

It's a higher form of "being" (in the Hindu context, it's Brahman). It's obviously not biological life, but neither is it absolute nothingness.

Some lies are necessary for the greater truth ;)

In isolation? Perhaps. Totally? Might be subjectively possible, but not always.

The Buddhist and Hindu belief is similar (mine is latter). For us, transcending superficial desires (and pleasures) is necessary for realising one's unity with the ultimate. However, this isn't just about negating life; it's also about achieving a higher realm. Still, Buddhists also believe that the human birth is probably the best shot one has at transcendence.

Truth is happiness for me. But thanks for sharing this