“It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late.” — Cioran

Suicide destroys that which could be better or worse off by the act. You are already living, and therefore any improvement to your welfare, or the conditions of your existence, can only occur whilst you continue to live. Why bother killing yourself, if you can't benefit from the act?

Its not possible to suicide prior to coming into existence, but now that you exist, it is too late. Having coming into existence as a being afflicted by welfare states, the harm has already been done. It now makes no sense to suicide as a way to improve your state of welfare, as you will destroy that which could be worse or better off by the act of lethally harming yourself.

I'd pay actual money for a book written by you fleshing out your posts in this forum.

The problem is that Nietzsche tries to "abundance the hell" out of life.. by embracing the tragedy and having unbridled enthusiasm for life, we can somehow overcome it, and become some sort of ubermensch. This all rings hollow- — schopenhauer1

Yeah, you also find the same hollowness and conformity in this sort of drivel:

"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy." — Albert Camus

:vomit:

The quietude of antinatalism, the rebellion against furthering the objectives of foisting more challenges on yet more people, is the rebellious stance against existence itself. — schopenhauer1

But perhaps here you are giving only two choices. Either there is an embracing of the conditions of this life and world (and therefore a continuance of it), or there is a total rebellion against and rejection of it (and therefore, it's cessation). But is there not a third, in-between option - that of changing the conditions of our existence (or future existences)? Where one does not embrace the conditions of this life, and yet doesn't totally rebel against all possible conditions. The antinatalist is saying, "the conditions of my existence, and the existence of all beings are such that no lives are worth starting. Life is not good enough for my standards, and therefore shouldn't exist at all." But instead of dissolving the entire human project into quietude because of this, why not instead bring the world (and the lives that begin in it) up to your standards? Is the task really so utterly hopeless?

I think there are worthwhile, meaningful, and positively good experiences in this life - I'm sure you've had them. Perhaps humour, romantic partnership, music, just the sheer awe (or is that, horror?) over existing at all. Although rare, and containing downsides, is there not a sense in which the antinatalist is throwing these babies (among others) out with the bathwater (or rather, out with the ocean of suffering they drown in)? I don't ask these questions rhetorically by the way. It could very well be that the Buddhists are right in that,

Just as a tiny bit of faeces has a bad smell, so I do not recommend even a tiny bit of existence, not even for so long as a fingersnap. — AN 1, 18

But maybe this line of thought is just defeatism under the guise of rebellion. Maybe not.

As I said, if the Buddhist path was simply that life is suffering, then indeed it would be pessimistic philosophy, but it says there is an end to suffering. You're assuming that the goal of the path is non-existence, which it isn't; it is said to be a state of utmost bliss. — Wayfarer

On my reading of the suttas, I fail to see how there is any functional difference between Buddhist parinibbana and the atheist materialist conception of death?

“Suppose, bhikkhus, a man would remove a hot clay pot from a potter’s kiln and set it on smooth ground: its heat would be dissipated right there and potsherds would be left. So too, when he feels a feeling terminating with the body … terminating with life…. He understands: ‘With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here; mere bodily remains will be left.’ “What do you think, bhikkhus, can a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed generate a meritorious volitional formation, or a demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional formation?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“When there are utterly no volitional formations, with the cessation of volitional formations, would consciousness be discerned?” “No, venerable sir.”

“When there is utterly no consciousness, with the cessation of consciousness, would name-and-form be discerned?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“When there is utterly no name-and-form … no six sense bases … … no contact … no feeling … no craving … no clinging … no existence … no birth, with the cessation of birth, would aging-and-death be discerned?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“Good, good, bhikkhus! It is exactly so and not otherwise! Place faith in me about this, bhikkhus, resolve on this. Be free from perplexity and doubt about this. Just this is the end of suffering.” — SN 12.51

You can call this end of suffering "the highest bliss", "the deathless", "the unconditioned", or what have you (as some suttas do), and say Buddhism is therefore not pessimistic because it offers a solution to the dissatisfaction of our lives. But I think that's skewing the definition of what it means for something to be a solution. Simply negating a problem is not solving it. Suicide doesn't solve the suffering that brings about the act.

Samsara is seen as so undesirable that the highest we can aim is to merely uproot the conditions that bring further life about. I see this as very pessimistic. It is in the same way that antinatalism is still pessimistic, even though it offers a "solution" to life's suffering (i.e. to turn the earths crust into nothing more than lifeless dust). At least the antinatalist has only the suffering of this earth to uproot, rather than the endless lifetimes through hell, ghost, animal, deva, etc, realms.

Just my two cents.

Well, the problem is posited with a solution. Otherwise, it would be pessimistic. — Wayfarer

I mean, even the "solution" is itself pesimissitc. The highest aim of our lives is to essentially dissolve the conditions for future experience. Samsara is seen as so dissatisfying and so permeated with dukkha that not even a "finger-snap" is desirable.

What's the fundamental difference between an atheist killing himself to stop the dukkha, an antinatalist advocating for people not to breed for the same reason, and a buddhist, given a belief in samsara, advocating for and pursuing nirvana?

Is this really the best we can do? Just lay down and die (either physically, or in the buddhist sense), defeated, because life hurts too much? I can't think of anything more pesimissitc.

I can't think of anything much more depressing than the (near) eternal samsaric dukkha found in Buddhism.

I see you saying that life is mainly about the meaning one gets from it through roles in society or esteem from a role in society. That can be added maybe as another category, I'll grant that. However, it is not really saying much more than there is more intrinsic positive goods you can add to the equation, not that the hedonic view is wrong itself. Perspective can be simply part of the hedonic equation.

But you answered the question in the negative- no, the goods are not worth the negatives in purely hedonic terms. I'm adding "meaning through perspective" in hedonic terms. How else would you answer then? — schopenhauer1

I was somewhat playing devils advocate. In my life I have noticed that most people are just simply 'caught up' in their day to day lives, rarely reflecting on what it is they are doing and why they are doing it. On what the worth, meaning and value of their activities are. And it is only when one is in a state of not being caught up in their day to day existence that these questions even arise. And so perhaps we can view antinatlist thought as nothing more than a symptom of some sort of deficiency, some sort of lack of engagement or involvement in living. The antitnatalist is in a sense, "stepping back" from actually living his or her life, and instead focuses on a broad overall perspective of life in general (be it, his personal autobiography, or the entirety of the human project, or perhaps the entirety of a material universe). The suggestion here is that perhaps it is only when the way in which one is living fails to engage oneself with the world does this "stepping back" (as a prerequisite for antinatalist thought and conclusion) even take place. Under this outline, antinatalists are just ill in a sense, with the cure being to live in such a way that one is engaged in the world again, where this "stepping back" in perspective doesn't arise. To lose oneself in living again.

But as I say, I am neither fully convinced, nor fully sincere in making this argument.

Humans have a natural stance to fear death and fear the pain of death- that whole suicide trope is not a very good argument. — schopenhauer1

Humans also have a natural stance towards breeding. We want sex. Babies are cute. Yet antinatalists opt out of procreation. I don't think opting out of life as a response to our 'existential situation' can be taken off the table so easily. If we are truly convinced that the things that make living good are zero-sum, just a reduction in bad (or if there are intrinsic goods in our lives, but they aren't worth the cost), why live at all? Why prolong a bad deal? For no other reason than instinct? Simply being too afraid to pull the trigger today, and so go on suffering tomorrow?

Myself, I think it's possible that antinatalist thought and conclusions may just be a symptom of a severely ill human being, and so it would be a huge mistake to end your life based on it (although - that could just be my own fear of death speaking). A lot of the time I'm just caught up in my life and activities so the question of the worth of life, procreating, suicide, doesn't even arise.

My only observation is, if it can happen once....... — Wayfarer

Exactly. One does not just spontaneously burst into existence out of absolute nothingness. There are prior causes and conditions within an already existing "something" that bring about and sustain ones being. And if we know it has happened once, why is so absurd to think it has already happened prior? Or wont happen again? Or that perhaps there is just an ongoing presence of 'being' in some form?

An analogy for rebirth in this sense would be like a flame passing from one candle to the next. Although there is no internal essence to the flame that continues from moment to moment, or candle to candle, from the perspective of the flame there is an ongoing presence of continuous burning.

There is very much the utilitarian calculus of whether life is worth these six goods. If someone said, that all the neutral/negative states that are necessary to maintain these six intrinsic good states, are the cost of the six intrinsic goods, would you feel that it is worth it? — schopenhauer1

To actually answer this question,

If I grant that human lives are made worthwhile only by the presence of pleasurable experiences balanced against the bad, then I believe no human life is worth living, let alone starting.

There is very much the utilitarian calculus of whether life is worth these six goods. If someone said, that all the neutral/negative states that are necessary to maintain these six intrinsic good states, are the cost of the six intrinsic goods, would you feel that it is worth it? — schopenhauer1

If we grant their being truly positive hedonic experiences within lives, and the worth of ones life is based entirely off a cold hedonic calculus of the individual life, then the answer would depend on the life of whom is being asked, no? According to this calculus, a life with great pleasure and little pain would be worth it, whereas a life with great suffering and little pleasure would not be.

I could hypothetically program a conscious robot to only experience the raw sensation of orgasm for 80 years (or some other experience held to be intrinsically good), then shut down having never experienced anything else. According to this calculus, this life would be worth it.

But this kind of 'life' strikes most people as utterly meaningless and insignificant. It is not seen as worthwhile to exist in this way. If given the option to continue their own lives, or switch to being the robot, most would choose to stay. What would determine whether people chose the robot experience over their own, is (I imagine) the degree to which their present experience is characterized by hedonic 'bad'. That is, if one was presently suffering greatly and offered the switch, one would choose the robot as a form of escapism. Most everyday people however would chose their connections to the 'real world' (including the suffering and dissatisfaction it entails) over a total absorption of themselves into pleasure. Likewise, most people don't shoot heroin all day, nor kill themselves to end their suffering.

I tend to think the degree to which one is suffering proportionally nudges someone towards making a hedonic calculus of their own lives worth. Suffering pushes one towards viewing their lives through a hedonic lens. You find this quite clearly in depressed people. They lack a meaningful connection to the world, they aren't caught up in some pursuit or another they deem worthwhile, all that is left to give their lives value is pleasure, which is far outweighed by the pain. But people who are not suffering greatly, and are caught up in their projects and aims don't make this calculus. I'm sure if you asked a whole bunch of fathers why they are living, you would get a lot more, "to provide for my wife and kids", rather than, "through applying a hedonic calculus to my own life, I have determined the good outweighs the bad and therefore it's worth living."

So it's not that the hedonic view of ones life is wrong in-itself, rather it's that the view arises from a life lacking in meaning and purpose, pervaded by suffering. One doesn't argue against the hedonic view of lifes worth, but instead dissolves it by rectifying the causes (i.e. getting up in meaningful pursuits, aims, connections to others). The problem is the existential crisis prevents this - no aims are seen as genuinely worthwhile, no connections are viewed to be truly meaningful, none of the ends in this world make the suffering worth it. But, you don't cure this worldview through seeing life as a bucket of pleasurable experiences and a bucket of bad ones.

Fantastic post :up:

I think coming into existence as a conscious entity from nothing and ending up as one specific person at one specific location is puzzling. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. It is utterly bizarre to exist at all.

Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. — S

The OP is an attempt to give a shred of credibility in its favour.

You have direct knowledge of your own present existence. Our autobiographical memories are not eternal (i.e. we have earliest memories), so presumably there was a "time" in which there was no conscious experience present (which we can refer to as non-being, non-condition, non-existence). And yet from non-condition, we are now living and leading these lives. We can poetically say from non-existence, conscious experience has arisen. And so at my death (a cessation of all conditions and states), why would not once again conscious experience arise? Why would there not again be this presence of life?

It's as if the materialist forgets that even though prior to his birth he did not exist, he is living right now. We know directly that consciousness has presented itself, where (presumably) there was non-consciousness prior. And so at death, when consciousness ceases (presumably), why would the very same thing, that we presume has already happened once, not occur again?

You don't exist as a person, as something conscious, etc. prior to conception, by the way. — Terrapin Station

And yet here we are, consciously perceiving and feeling. And when we die and it is the very same 'not-existing' as prior to our coming into being that is in place again, why would not "consciously perceiving and feeling" once again arise?

Why are pre-birth and post-death non-being differing in their 'results'? Why are we treating pre-birth non-consciousness as non-eternal, but post death non-consciousness is treated as eternal/timeless?

Yeah, pretty much everything you said is in those two quotes. Ta-da! — Wallows

So the purpose of this thread is to try and get a discussion started on whether this view on pleasure (found also in the thought of the Buddhists, Arthur Schophenauer, Locke, Hegesias, etc) is correct. And in a wider sense, how we should respond if so. If the good of our existence is not found in chasing pleasure, satisfying desires, fulfilling our needs, then where is it found? How should we then choose to find value in our lives?

I could have started this thread with a series of quotations from various authours outlining the general idea, but this being a philosophy discussion forum, chose to use my own words.

However, Locke continues, pleasure is an impermanent reward for the satiation of desires. True happiness arises from acting for the greater good. — ernestm

1. Pleasure is a drug
2. Medicine is bitter

What do you make of that? — TheMadFool

I agree with these themes. Due to pleasure only existing in relation some suffering or desire being negated, it cannot given as that which gives life its value or meaning. If one agrees with the outline of pleasure in the this thread, and also takes a hedonic view on the good in life, then the conclusion would be reached that the highest good belongs to the dead (which is essentially the view of the Buddhists).

So, if I recall correctly Schopenhauer never advocated masking suffering with pleasure. He was for the idea of reducing suffering, not increasing pleasure. Not sure if this is pertinent, just wanted to point that out. — Wallows

Yep, so what I am referring to Schophenauer's views along these lines:

Happiness is of a negative rather than positive nature, and for this reason cannot give lasting satisfaction and gratification, but rather only ever a release from a pain or lack, which must be followed either by a new pain or by languor, empty yearning and boredom. — Schophenaur

I know of no greater absurdity than that propounded by most systems of philosophy in declaring evil to be negative in its character. Evil is just what is positive; it makes its own existence felt. Leibnitz is particularly concerned to defend this absurdity; and he seeks to strengthen his position by using a palpable and paltry sophism. It is the good which is negative; in other words, happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end. — Schophenaur

It is a mistake all right, but who actually makes that mistake? When I say that I did not exist prior to my birth, I do not necessarily commit myself to such a self-contradictory notion as existing in a state of nonexistence - that is just your uncharitable interpretation — SophistiCat

There is a general theme, in antinatalist thought especially, that children (including themselves) were essentially pulled from non-condition into a state of being at their birth (or conception, or what have you). That is, before their existence there was non-condition, then at birth somehow they magically exist in a conditioned state ('poofed into being from nothing'), and at physical bodily death there will be non-condition again. As if one is viewing their life as some blip between Nirvana. It is incoherent. We are born of, and are part of the world. We do not come from somewhere non-wordly, and we will not return to somewhere non-wordly at death.

Due to various causes and conditions the world is manifesting itself as this very conscious experience. From the perspective of this reified ego that thinks it is distinct from the world I can ask questions like, "what was I before my birth? What will I be after death? Should I reproduce and inflict life on other egos? Why should I fear death when beyond it I won't exist?" But this is incoherent. We are entirely of, and are sustained by the world. At death we will not 'become' non-conditioned again (language somewhat fails here), all the can really be said is the causes and conditions in the world that were manifesting themselves as conscious experience (that we delusionally think of as me and mine, and distinct from the world entirely) have shifted and changed.

Of course the idea that one in some sense actually existed (as an ego? as potential?), located in a state of non-existence prior to ones birth is incoherent, but I am trying to make a deeper point about how we are in no sense distinct from the world.

So an antinatalist might say something like, "it is immoral to bring children into the world, because life contains harms and non-existence never harmed anybody." But this is to in some sense reify non-existence. Children (including ourselves) are not brought into the world, or into existence, or into being. Rather (to speak poetically) they are grown of the world. In reproducing, we creatively manifest the world in a particular way, growing, nurturing, sustaining and enculturing the child. The child is not something over and above, or separate from the ongoing particular way in which the world is manifesting itself. So this antinatalist talk of potential persons and consent, and non-existence is incoherent. And so is the way in which atheists speak of death (as if one just 'poofs' into existence, lives a lifetime and then is annihilated at death).

As a side note, I still think there is an antinatalist argument to be made over whether we should engage in the creative practice of baby making and child rearing (or say, whether we should push or nudge the world to manifest itself as a baby through changing or controlling various conditions in the world). But to speak of potential children, consent, etc is to reify both the child and by extension ourselves as something over and above the particular way or form in which the world is manifesting. I had neither existence nor non-existence prior to my birth, I am nothing over and above the way in which the world is manifesting/taking form.

When someone says ''nothingness before birth'' s/he's referring to the fact that we didn't/can't experience anything at all before we're born. In a sense we popped into existence at birth and some might say even later to, say when you're 5 or 6 years old, the earliest memories of experiencing something of this world. — TheMadFool

Yes, so mentally I can scroll through my memories autobiographically to my earliest, and then place non-condition or non-existence prior, and I can project forward and do the same beyond my death. As if there was non-condition, then a lifetime poofed into existence, and at death is non-condition again. At a surface level, from the perspective of an autobiographical self this makes some sense. Annihilation before an autobiographical lifetime, and annihilation after. But in an ultimate sense it is incoherent.

I agree that a Barbie doll is, in some way, already existent in the rubber and plastic material that go into constructing one BUT the form that is recognizable as a Barbie comes into being at a particular point in time and will disintegrate at another. — TheMadFool

Or, to use an analogy of a flame, fuel and heat and oxygen come together and flames arise. If a flame could have a perspective it might think that prior to this burning there was non-existence, and once the flame goes out it will be annihilated, as if the flame were something over and above, or separate from worldly burning.

"Well it's just inevitable. We have to just try to navigate it the best we can". But where is this have to get into the equation, as if there was no choice? We certainly can't take a break from the laboring and the keeping oneself alive altogether. It is something we can't get out of. A bad obstacle course or maze that we have to navigate, and cannot be escaped. — schopenhauer1

But people do not have children based on philosophical arguments or reasoning, and so it might be somewhat misguided to try and prevent births through philosophical argument. Although some may retrospectively apply grand philosophical reasons to why they have children ("the good outweighs the bad"), reproduction comes from the domain of biology, not philosophy. More births would be prevented teaching contraceptive methods in high schools say, than through philosophical debate but as you it's about the catharsis, and not the actual result. Could you elaborate more on this catharsis/therapy idea?

For most people, "navigating it the best we can", includes finding a partner, getting married, starting a family. Existing as part of a community. Because navigating the gauntlet of life alone means facing near insurmountable obstacles - we find it easier and more meaningful to navigate these obstacles together. And so partnerships are created, babies are born, and more therefore are born, tasked with maintaining biological/social/existential homeostasis. The child is just as a much a result of life's sufferings, as a requisite condition for their apprehension at all.

Is it actually coherent that before our births we did not exist in any sense? As if from a 'state' of parinirvana, a mind-stream has been formed (with it's inherent sufferings that have to be dealt with) for just a single blip of a lifetime, only to have its causes disassemble and the mind-steam ceases eternally. Like some sort of cosmic blip of suffering, in between timeless noncondition.
— Inyenzi

Actually, that's not too far off :D. — schopenhauer1

Surely conditions can only arise from previous conditions? As in, babies emerge and assemble from what already exists. We are not pulled from nothingness into our mothers wombs. Although we can imagine an empty void of nothingness preexisting our birth (the same void where the potential children lie?) it doesn't mean that what we are imagining is coherent, or at all how we came to be. I think this rests on a dubious philosophy of mind where the mind is thought of as a private distinct entity, separate from the world and the conditions that brought it about. Maybe nirvana isn't assured at death at all.

God, I don't know which one is worse: — Bitter Crank

Their mother, for inflicting life upon both :)

Is it actually coherent that before our births we did not exist in any sense? As if from a 'state' of parinirvana, a mind-stream has been formed (with it's inherent sufferings that have to be dealt with) for just a single blip of a lifetime, only to have its causes disassemble and the mind-steam ceases eternally. Like some sort of cosmic blip of suffering, in between timeless noncondition.

If 'I' did not exist prior to this life, and yet from that unconditioned 'state' a lifetime, or a first person conscious experience has arisen, why therefore when I 'return' to that same 'state' (it is hard to talk about this without committing logical fallacies), would I forever remain unconditioned? When we know from that I am sitting here typing this post, conditioned states have arisen from unconditioned/non-existent/nothingness. If I die, why would I stay dead?

It is as if the antinatalist is saying, "life is dukkha - stop pulling beings from nirvana!" "Stop bringing forth experience from nonexistence!" Is this coherent? I'm not sure.

Whatever way you answer the question (if at all), you continue living. It's the default state. You have needs for oxygen, shelter, water, food, etc, whose lack will motivate you through suffering to breathe, house yourself, drink, eat, etc. And by consequence of alleviating these discomforts and sufferings, your biological existence will continue. The question is irrelevant in a sense. Is life worth living? You can mull it over endlessly but the answer you come up with doesn't matter, as you'll continue to suffer, seek it's alleviation and by consequence exist regardless. "My life is not worth living", he says, preparing a meal because he's hungry (so he can conclude the very same thing tomorrow?). Is, "is my life worth living" a question worth asking?

Perhaps a better question is that of suicide. Is your life worth ending? But worth it to whom? You destroy what could benefit by the act, and almost certainly it wont be worth it for the others that know you.

Was your life worth starting? Again, for whom? Perhaps it was worth it for your mother and family, to start your life. But for yourself? You didn't preexist your own birth, so it's nonsensical to say you are worse or better off by your life starting.

I think in this existence we have found ourselves in an intractable predicament. We find ourselves embodied as this animal with perpetual biological, social, esteem, and existential needs. These needs present as pains, discomforts, restlessness, or in some sense the sensation of 'I am not satisfied/content'. The discomfort and dissatisfaction we feel motivates us to meet these needs. While meeting these needs we experience various flow states, 'losing ourselves' in our sensations (eg, hunger hurts so we eat, and then 'lose ourselves' within the meal). We call this pleasure, and conclude life is good. We 'gift' this life to the non-existent (nonsensically), choosing to create children. Or just mindlessly lose ourselves within the pleasure of sex, and by consequence human existence proliferates.

Even these questions and thoughts arise out of that same sense of "I am not satisfied/content", but rather than relating to some bodily pain or discomfort, it is in overall relation to the existence/existential situation we find ourselves in. I feel uneasy, not content nor satisfied with this life and it's structure. The issue is that when we feel the discomfort of hunger, we seek food. But when we are not satisfied with the structure of life itself (part of which includes the presence of hunger), what do we seek? And even if we do find something that alleviates our discomfort (eg, relationships, community, religion, lofty goals), it's not as if we are escaping the same feel discomfort -> seek its alleviation -> loss of self within alleviation of discomfort -> wears off ->back to discomfort cycle. It's a predicament.

Once during my teens, while feeling particularly angsty and depressed I demanded to know why my mother had inflicted life upon me (and my 5 siblings). Her response? She wanted babies. She loves babies and wanted her own. She wanted to surround herself with babies like a child does with teddy bears. So she birthed 6 of them and now each one of us has to deal with our embodiment.

I think this thread might be arguing against something that doesnt really exist. That is, the notion that people are rationally creating children for these grand meanings or purposess (eg, so that they may learn, or grow, or face adversity and "overcome") My observations are that its all far more mindless, simple and irrational than that. A man wants to have sex with a woman, and then a baby happens. A couple gets drunk, then a baby happens. A woman wants to be a mother, so she gets her husband to impregnate her. Maybe when asked, these people retrospectively give reasons for having the child (eg, "I wanted to give the gift of life", "so that the child may learn and overcome", etc), but these are essentially just lies the parents tell themselves to mask something that was so mindless and irrational. People have sex for various reasons, babies follow and by consequence human misery and suffering proliferates.

Is it wrong? Yes I think its wrong to *rationally* create human embodiment, but the more I actually see the way in which children are so mindlessly and irrationally created, the less I think reproduction is really even in the realm of moral judgment at all. Sometimes it seems like sex, pregnancy and reproduction can be treated entirely as biological functions, much like eating or sleeping. Does it make sense to question the moral value of your stomach digesting its food? Perhaps questioning the morality of reproduction is along the same nonsensical lines.

Case in point, I am myself solidly antinatalist. I think it is wrong to create human embodiment and the suffering it necessarily entails, and it ought not be done. But at the start of this year me and my girlfriend had a pregnancy scare. Thankfully she ended up miscarrying but still, it just really brought home how mindless and crudely biological it all is. We were drunk and (to put it crudely) wanted to fuck, didn't bother with protection and she became pregnant. At the time of sex, the moral weight of what we were risking couldn't have been further from my mind. If she didn't miscarry, human suffering would have mindlessly proliferated itself. And perhaps when the child was old enough to question its predicament I'd tell him or her that life is gift, and overcoming and learning from its struggles and miseries makes it all worth it. Maybe the child will question and argue against these reasons for its creation, but these were not actually why it was created, it was all so much more mindless and biological than that.

One thing Ive noticed while reading the (scant) antinatalist literature, is just how little has been written on the actual means of human reproduction. There's a whole bunch of talk about potential persons, consent, and moral asymmetries, but essentially nothing on how it all actually happens; sex, fucking, cumming inside a woman, knocking up your partner or wife. Maybe its all too crude to write about, but reproduction is whats crude. You can argue all you like about the morality of bringing a child into the world, about the moral assymetries and the nonconsensual infliction of harm, but at the end of the day advocating for antinatalism is really nothing more than an intellectual round about way of expressing angst about your own birth, lamenting your own existence. Barely a single child has been prevented by an antinatalists argument. If you truly want to prevent births, you need to convince people to stop fucking each other. Good luck with that. You'll probably have about as much success as convincing stomachs not to digest its contents.

When I view a cube from any direction, at least two of the cube’s six faces will always be out of my view. For I must rotate the cube in order to see the hidden side. However, when I rotate the cube to view the hidden sides, at least two different faces (which were formerly visible) have now been obstructed by the now present faces. I am unable to see the entirety of the cube at once; however, I may be able to feel the entirety of the cube in my palm or if I trace my fingers around its edges and faces. I am, however, in possession of the Idea of the cube, I know how the cube can be put together as a whole from the contact with its parts. I have in mind a general Idea of how the cube is (through logical proofs), yet I am unable to perceive the cube in its entirety--relying solely on it being an Idea. — Fobidium

I don't think this is how perception works at all though. We don't look around at a world of mere surfaces, and then infer mentally that these surfaces form part of greater three-dimensional objects. I think it's more that we pre-theoretically inhabit a world of three-dimensional, meaningful *things*, with various uses and histories. There's a book to the right of me. I don't know this because I look over and visually perceive merely three surfaces of a rectangle like object, and then mentally infer the other three sides, and then infer that it's an object that can be opened, and then read. Instead, I am already embedded within a meaningful world of things and stuff, a class of which are books - things which are read. I brought this one at a garage sale. I use it as a mouse pad.

Do you need to simultaneously view every page at once, to know there's a story in there?

What's the point? You can neither be better nor worse off by your own death - death destroys whatever could be affected by it. Suicide is much like violently smashing over the chess board because you're losing. You have to still be playing the game to improve your position. I suppose once you're dead, it can't get any worse. But there's nobody existing anymore to benefit from this, and all your loved ones are worse off.

The best 'argument' against suicide is to have a life worth living. Go find a woman who loves you.

I don't think it is a mistake to find life burdensome, any more than it is to find it a fascinating and joyful privilege, well worth a few slings and arrows. But it is perhaps a mistake to make one's own condition a universal philosophy. — unenlightened

I think this is a really important point. When you cannot feel joy or any genuine positive sensation, it becomes rational to conclude that all action merely involves being afflicted by some suffering, need or want, and then toiling to cease that sensation, and nothing else. I agree that fundamentally we are motivated to act only by some sense of dissatisfaction, suffering or lack - without which we would be action-less. But for most people there is a positive sense of satisfaction felt when the whatever is causing the dissatisfaction is dealt with, there is a payoff. If you presently lack the ability to feel the satisfaction that comes when needs are dealt with and goals are reached - the world truly can seem a bleak, dark place. Suicide becomes a real, legitimate option to consider.

All satisfaction, or what is commonly called happiness, is really and essentially always negative only, and never positive. It is not a gratification which comes to us originally and of itself, but it must always be the satisfaction of a wish. For desire, that is to say, want [or will], is the precedent condition of every pleasure; but with the satisfaction, the desire and therefore the pleasure cease; and so the satisfaction or gratification can never be more than deliverance from a pain, from a want. — Schopenhauer

What's going awry with this kind of thinking is not that it's wrong, but rather that the lack of experienced payoff is being universalized. For some people, life really is this way. There is no experience of joy or pleasure in their lives. You eat to deal with hunger pains, and it seems for no other reason than that you may continue to experience hunger tomorrow. The issue is projecting this lack of payoff in your personal life onto everybody elses - universalizing it. I used to do the very same thing. At times I have been quite deeply depressed and suicidal, eating was nothing but a chore for me, food was unenjoyable. It seemed the world was just a blind process of suffering perpetuating itself, using human embodiment and all the misery that entails to further it's own existence. Suicide became a very serious consideration. But since I have become better, hunger doesn't seem like such a monumentally raw deal to experience the pleasures of eating, and the novelty of trying new foods. Neither view is wrong per se, the issue is when you project the very personal character of your own experience (are you experiencing a payoff? aren't you?) out onto the rest of the world. It's as if because you personally are not feeling joy from eating, and therefore all eating, for everybody in the world, is nothing but a chore to quell the pangs. There's two issues here. The fundamental unchangeable character of the world - the dissatisfaction that pervades everything, and the varied amounts of payoff each human gets from dealing with their needs and wants - the degree to which you can feel genuine pleasure and joy. The latter is what can be managed. You can't change the fundamental character of the world, but you can get alter and work on how much payoff you can get from dealing with it. At least in my own experience you can start experiencing the payoff again, and life isn't so bleak.

Is eating a political act? When I eat food to nourish my body and end my hunger, am I voting YES! for my continued embodiment?

I think it's more mindless than that (i.e. I'm hungry, I eat, and by consequence my embodiment sustains), and it's the same mindlessness with reproduction. This type of rational, deliberate sort of reproduction you describe where people sit down with their partners and decide to bring a child into the world would be very rare if not non-existent. For the vast majority of the planet, (to put it very crudely), people fuck and then babies happen, and by consequence the human species and it's suffering proliferates itself.

Is rabbit reproduction a political act? From what I've seen human reproduction is just as much a mindless biological function. But even in the case of the rational, deliberate parents to be, their motivations for having the child are far more likely to be related to some sort of end or aim of their own, than for the sake of the non-existent yet-to-be (can you even do something for the sake of a nothing?). For example: because of pressure from parents, because it's what's expected of you once you cohabit or marry, because you think it will strengthen your marriage, because you think babies are cute and want one, because you want something to depend on you, because you have a drive to nurture and want to satisfy that drive, because all your friends are having children and you feel left out, because you don't want to be old and alone with nobody to care for you, because you feel it's an essential part of being a woman, etc. Ends and aims like these are what hide in the background, being the true motivators for the 'rational parents' reproduction, who then retrospectively claim he/she brought the child into the world for it's own sake, to share in the "gift of life", or some other nonsense.

If the soul interacted with the body via a very weak force, it might elude the observation of physicists but its influence on the body would seem insignificant. If on the other hand the soul interacted with the body via a relatively strong force, this force should be detectable by physicists. —

I think the issue here is the soul is being treated as if it is just another object in the world, acting on other objects/being acted upon. The soul is more 'prior' to objects in the world - it's very existence is a condition for there being an appearance of the world of objects in the first place. In other words, rather than there being a world of objects 'out there', with the soul being merely one of these objects. You instead have a world of objects being presented before a soul. Sure, you have a world of objects 'out there', but 'out there' only exists in relation to the apprehension of a soul.

Is death even a harm to those that die? Its not like the executed persits on in a post-death state, being deprived of the life that was taken from him.

It seems to me that killing someone isn't a punishement (beyond the actual mechanics of getting a needle stuck in your arm, and the fear you would preceeding and during it), rather the death penalty just removes a persons capacity to be punished entirely.

You sound clinically depressed. Insomnia is one of the major symptoms of depression. I wrote this as a response to your last thread but I'll post it here again because I think it's relevant:

I think part of what's going on with the philosophical pessimist 'mindset' is a projection from ones (miserable) conscious experience, out into the structure of the world.

So instead of, "my own conscious experience is a burden to me, I feel like all I do is get pushed and prodded by various sufferings/pains/deprivations into making various actions to strive against them, in some endless process with no overreaching purpose/meaning", the very personal, individualized nature of this conscious experience is projected outwards into the structure of the world: "the world is at it's core just suffering and striving". Schopenhauer's philosophy probably being the most flagrant example of this projection.

I think a solution to the pessimist mindset may be to stop the projection/extrapolation from your own conscious experience outwards entirely, and then to view your own conscious experience as being an individual, private, pathological experience. So what I mean is, instead of "the structure of the world is [as the pesimisst describes]", it's "my own life is experienced as a burden to me, and this is because I am a sick human being".

What difference does this make? Well, when the burdensome nature of your own experience is projected into the structure of the world, then there is no solution, or hope. What can you possibly do to alter the structure of the world? The only real 'solutions' seem to be suicide, or total world annihilation/antinatalism. Whereas when there is no projection outwards from your burdensome experience into the structure/nature of the world, the issue seems far more manageable. You can't change the structure of the world, but the structure of the world is not the issue here - the problem is merely your own pathological experience. You are just sick, and you can get better.

The whole project of philosophical pessimism strikes me as a sort of intellectual learned helplessness. People with quite obvious psychological sickness (call it anhedonia, depression, despair, etc) are drawn to the very philosophy that attacks and stifles any chance they have of getting better. Philosophical pessimism is something not to be argued against/debated, it's a pathology that is dissolved by getting well again.

So for example, to the anhedonic, it seems as if we merely eat because we're embodied within a being that has perpetual caloric needs, that suffers and pains us when it runs low, causing us to act against these pains/hungers. And so through this avoidance of hunger by the consumption of food, our existence and suffering (and ongoing need for calories) is therefore perpetuated. Which is actually what is happening for the anhedonic - it's not a wrong view of their own conscious experience. But the philosophical anhedonic/pessimist takes this very individual experience and projects it outwards into the structure of the world. It is as if everyone eats due to these same reasons. But the vast majority of the world gets actual genuine joy from eating, and judge the hunger pangs as a small, almost insignificant price to pay for the pleasure. The solution here is not for an ending of the anhedonics life, or a total ending of lives altogether - it's for the anhedonic/pessimist to find joy in eating again. — inyenzi

Having no reason to get up, taking zero joy in anything, just wanting to sleep away your entire life, suffering from insomnia - it sounds just like Major Depressive Disorder.

I think part of what's going on with the philosophical pessimist 'mindset' is a projection from ones (miserable) conscious experience, out into the structure of the world.

So instead of, "my own conscious experience is a burden to me, I feel like all I do is get pushed and prodded by various sufferings/pains/deprivations into making various actions to strive against them, in some endless process with no overreaching purpose/meaning", the very personal, individualized nature of this conscious experience is projected outwards into the structure of the world: "the world is at it's core just suffering and striving". Schopenhauer's philosophy probably being the most flagrant example of this projection.

I think a solution to the pessimist mindset may be to stop the projection/extrapolation from your own conscious experience outwards entirely, and then to view your own conscious experience as being an individual, private, pathological experience. So what I mean is, instead of "the structure of the world is [as the pesimisst describes]", it's "my own life is experienced as a burden to me, and this is because I am a sick human being".

What difference does this make? Well, when the burdensome nature of your own experience is projected into the structure of the world, then there is no solution, or hope. What can you possibly do to alter the structure of the world? The only real 'solutions' seem to be suicide, or total world annihilation/antinatalism. Whereas when there is no projection outwards from your burdensome experience into the structure/nature of the world, the issue seems far more manageable. You can't change the structure of the world, but the structure of the world is not the issue here - the problem is merely your own pathological experience. You are just sick, and you can get better.

The whole project of philosophical pessimism strikes me as a sort of intellectual learned helplessness. People with quite obvious psychological sickness (call it anhedonia, depression, despair, etc) are drawn to the very philosophy that attacks and stifles any chance they have of getting better. Philosophical pessimism is something not to be argued against/debated, it's a pathology that is dissolved by getting well again.

So for example, to the anhedonic, it seems as if we merely eat because we're embodied within a being that has perpetual caloric needs, that suffers and pains us when it runs low, causing us to act against these pains/hungers. And so through this avoidance of hunger by the consumption of food, our existence and suffering (and ongoing need for calories) is therefore perpetuated. Which is actually what is happening for the anhedonic - it's not a wrong view of their own conscious experience. But the philosophical anhedonic/pessimist takes this very individual experience and projects it outwards into the structure of the world. It is as if everyone eats due to these same reasons. But the vast majority of the world gets actual genuine joy from eating, and judge the hunger pangs as a small, almost insignificant price to pay for the pleasure. The solution here is not for an ending of the anhedonics life, or a total ending of lives altogether - it's for the anhedonic/pessimist to find joy in eating again.

Most importantly, if we agree on what is the case, we can talk within the same context about what to do. — schopenhauer1

Well, I agree. So what to do?

Suicide? If being alive involves being embodied within this locus of perpetual needs, wants, desires and pains, why not just bring this endless striving to a halt? But, if your consciousness ceases, it's not like you could determine whether or not you're better off than before. Any sort of solution to the 'structural negativity' of your conscious experience can only be found within that experience. But, we agree that the negativity is structural - there is no solution. A headache isn't solved by guillotine (although the blade is always for when the pain gets intolerable).

So, what to do? It then becomes a question not of how to solve the structure of life, but of how to cope with it. And I think it comes back to the standard advice you denigrate in the opening post - get a hobby, find some love, try to laugh, get yourself absorbed into the world, look forward to things, structure your time - find whatever works for you (it seems like what works for you is spending your time writing and debating with others about the structural negativity of human existence :wink: ).

Personally, I really try not to dwell on it, as it leads to some pretty dark places. Is eating a meal made all the better knowing it doesn't solve your predicament as being a human with perpetual caloric needs/hunger? I think a meal is made better eaten in laughter/conversation among people you care about.

What do you think about coping with the 'negative structure' of human existence with a sort of ironic (?) mirth/comedy/sense of humor?

If this kind of being - one that reacted to all its perceptions in a way a human would, but did not have the perception of the conscious experiences or thoughts - what would its reaction to this then be like? — BlueBanana

He'd start rambling on about consciousness like David Dennet :smile:

Your survival depends upon existing within a community that to a large degree fuels/feeds itself on the use of animals. Sure, you can personally choose to buy soy milk at the supermarket, but the supermarket only exists within the context of a community that can feed itself day in day out, year in year out with easily digestible, transportable, preservable, calorie dense animal fats/proteins/sugars/etc (plus all the other uses we have for animals). Your community, that you are dependent upon for *your* survival, itself depends upon the use of livestock for its survival. It's not a luxury. Settled human existence depends upon livestock. You can't milk a soy plant twice a day, potatoes don't lay an egg a day. Livestock are a highly efficient means of converting calories humans can't digest/survive on (grass, feeds, etc) into calories that we can.

There's around 4.7 million people in my country, each requiring (say) an average of 2000 calories per day. That's 9.4 billion calories that needs to be produced, packed, transported, and consumed every single day just to keep the country running. You simply can't produce that many calories without relying upon livestock. The idea that it's more moral to personally choose not to ingest animal calories, is just a failure to understand just how dependent you are on your community for your daily survival. Sure, you can personally chose not ingest animal calories, and make up the calorie deficit in your diet with extra grains/fruits/vegetables, but you can't opt out of existing within a community that as a whole is dependent upon livestock for it's survival (people who wander off into the wilderness very quickly die).

Say you're a Maasai tribesman. Your own survival depends upon a existing within a community that would literally starve to death without it's cattle. Is it more moral to choose to just survive on the maize produced by the tribe, rather than also consume the blood/milk/meat of it's cattle? Without the cattle, you too will starve. You can't opt out of depending upon the community that depends upon the cattle (you will die). It's the same principle at play in the western world.

Of course none of this means that we can't/shouldn't have laws and systems in place to treat livestock humanely and with some degree of respect. They shouldn't suffer gratuitously and needlessly.

Suicide I see as an ideation coping technique. The thought of it is more relief than the actual action. As Schopenhauer stated, — schopenhauer1

Suicide may also be regarded as an experiment — a question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to an answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man’s existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer. — schopenhauer

Do you also see antinatalism itself as an ideation coping technique? Is anything learned about the nature of things by the ending of mankind itself?

That is to say, that happiness is always on the horizon (hope swinging I mentioned in other posts). When goals are "obtained" are often not as good or too fleeting compared to the effort to get it. — schopenhauer1

Advocating for antinatlism is itself a project, and a goal, right? Is this suffering free world devoid of humans not also just some distant hope on the horizon? I just fail to see how the cessation of the world is in any way a solution. Nobody will be better off. Is the thought more relief than the actual action?

What's the point of convincing others of your aesthetic view of the world?

I'm going through your previous threads/posts now by the way, a lot of interesting stuff!

So what exactly is the need for more people? What is the X reason? I think you have a well-stated post. Actually, it might be the most coherent response to the pessimist argument as it attacks the premises head on. So kudos to you. I still think the rebuttal, though well-stated, is still lacking in response to the pessimist's argument. As I mentioned with csalisbury, even if people do not see the bigger picture, it does not mean that something is still not going on here. Why does that new person need to be born? What is this trying to accomplish? Eventually the argument will come back to the idea of circularity, instrumentality, absurdity, etc. That is a vicious circle that would be hard to break in argument. — schopenhauer1

I guess it's just how you look at it. Most people will say you only ask these questions and see the world in this way because you're not caught up in your relationships and projects and future goals. The world only looks this way to antinatalists because they *aren't* involved in any of these things (at least, not in a truly meaningful, worthwhile way. Nobody in a relationship with somebody they love or caught up in a project they truly care about really asks these questions - the worth is self-evident to them). Whereas you might respond you don't ask these questions and see the world like the antanatalist because you *are* caught up in these things (as if like a horse with blinkers on). But I'm caught up in these things because they are genuinely meaningful and worthwhile to me, and not some desperate attempt to mask or escape the true 'big picture' of life (a meaningless depressive void of purposeless striving/suffering). From my perspective, the antinatalist is sick/ill. He/she lacks a sense of enjoyment and meaning in their lives. When nothing is enjoyable or seems worthwhile, the antinatalist position makes perfect sense - life is fundamentally not a good thing, it should not be inflicted on others, the world should stop being proliferated.

In past depressive episodes I have personally fallen into the same way of thinking. But looking back I was just sick/ill (in a sort of spiritual, existential sense). My life lacked meaning, purpose and joy. Nothing was enjoyable, nothing seemed worthwhile. I was alone in a world embodied within a locus of needs and pains and wants which inflicted themselves upon me, motivating me through pain in order to work and strive to address them in a cycle that had no purpose but to extend itself. It's as if suffering itself was using me in order to proliferate its own existence. Life seemed a horrific joke, with suicide and total world suicide (antinatalism) being a perfectly rational response. But like I say there was just something wrong with me, the world actually isn't this way, at it's core.

You try to make the not-so-subtle switch from apokrisis preferences to the world-writ-large. What apokrisis does is balance, what the evil antinatalists do is romanticism. Yet, we are both doing choosing our habit patterns to look away from the void. I am just peeling off the layers to see the barebones of it- what Schopenhauer called "will", I'll call existential striving at the bottom, dressed in goals we give ourselves. Keep outrunning the boredom at the bottom of things etc. etc. — schopenhauer1

But for the vast majority of people the barebones of the world is not a void or an "existential striving", it's their relationships with others. You act as if you were born into the world alone, forced with a choice to cover up the void of it all with goals/entertainment/relationships or face head on the harsh truth of the world. In reality everyone has someone who raises them, a culture and language they were taught and a society they exist and survive within. The barebones of the world is a community, not a man alone with the void. Nobody exists and survives without others. It's a failure to meaningfully engage with, and get 'caught up' within your community that causes this sense of "void". It's why people are so depressed in the modern world. It's why people commit suicide. And probably why people advocate antinatalism.

Antinatalism has a lot of parallels with Buddhist nirvana, just with a different means to bring about the same result. The antinatalist wants to bring about the total cessation of all suffering through ending reproduction, whereas the Buddhist wants the same result, but being bound by his belief in samsara, strives to individually liberate everyone from the cycle. The end goal is the same thing - a non-state, free from anything at all (including suffering/dukkha).

Neither strike me as actual solutions to suffering, in the same way that blowing your head off doesn't cure a headache. Both just strike me as utterly hopeless and defeatist. "Being alive is awful (or mostly awful, or contains awfulness), there is no solution, just end it all." Or even, "there is a solution: just end it all".

But for the majority of people, their own lives are judged worth living. I think it's incredibly arrogant to somehow think you know better than all these people, that you see the truth of the world whereas everyone else is deluded (which is basically what the antinatalist does), all the while claiming to be more compassionate and caring than everyone else.

Antinatalists would do a lot better to personalize their own sufferings. But they don't, because it leads directly to suicide (or maybe, the ones that do aren't around to talk). "Being alive as me is awful, there is no solution, just end it all." We call this in the western world depression. Why is it awful to be alive as you? And why can't you see a solution? Because being embodied as a human in the world is a fundamentally flawed enterprise filled with great suffering and purposeless pain? Or because you lack close relationships with others (even children?) and a meaningful engagement with the world?

The antinatalist might respond, but why should I have to form a meaningful engagement with the world? Why should I have to form close bonds with others? To do it, to do it, to do it? Why was I thrust into this predicament? Why was I forced to seek out and create these things? But the objection comes from a place of deficiency, whereas the rest of the world is already engaged and involved in these things. For the vast majority of the natalist world - the world in which people form close bonds with each other, have sex, create families and futures - these objections simply don't arise, because they're already involved and engaged with the world.

Although it may be condescending and infantilizing, I think it's not too far off the mark to simply say there's something wrong with antinatalists. There's something lacking in their lives, or dispositions, or outlook or mental state or whatever. They personally suffer a great deal, therefore we are all suffering (secretly mind you; we are unaware of our sufferings - whereas the antinatalist has the balls to 'see the world as it is head on' - only he is enlightened to the truth of the world), and therefore the whole human enterprise must come to an end (for the sake of the unborn chilluns!). And all this while claiming compassion. It's sick really.

It's as if for the antinatalist, they see their own lives as headaches, and therefore it must be so for the rest of the world. And the proposed cure is an ending of heads altogether. But the rest of the world is looking at them oddly saying, "but my head doesn't hurt...".