He talked about the shittiness of life, but clung to his property and his prostitutes, kept a gun for those who might rob him, forgetting to see through the illusion of personality. He was a genius but also (like every genius?) an actor, a phony, a personality product. — plaque flag

Agreed. Well-acknowledged that Schop never lived up to his philosophy for sure. And Nietzsche is right perhaps for taking him to task. Philosophers are often more about providing ideals than living up to them.

Edit: To be fair to Schopenhauer though, he did have an idea of character that was determined to a large extent. Perhaps he didn't think he had the character to be the "heroic" ascetic sage?

I associate Nietzsche with the kind of personality who is well aware of this theatre of the self --who is never self-seduced for more than an ecstatic holiday. — plaque flag

This aspect I can get on board with. In that respect, it is very Cioran. But of course, that is not all his philosophy is. He is not just social critic. He does have some positive philosophy (that is things he posits, not just critiques). And I believe it is that which I most disagree with.

As far as antinatalism and pessimism, I see it more in regards to "Do you see what I see?!". Perhaps communal catharsis? At the least, it is bringing what is normally in the background of people's murky consciousness into the fore and keeping the light there and not blinking.

The question is sincere. I have thoughts that say prayer is egotistical, and a feeling that maybe it is not, that maybe I’m missing something. — Art48

So my hypothesis would be that in the Israelite prayer system was akin to other gods. That is to say, it was transactional. You honor the deity, the deity will show its favor in enhancing life through good crops, prosperity, and preventing disaster.

With interaction with more complicated systems like Platonism, Judaic prayer took on more of a "connection" aspect. Prayer was necessary to bring the "End Times" and the "Messianic Age", but it was also there to acknowledge and connect with the deity by praising him, etc. As the initial tribal religion became hermeneutical, these kind of "connection with god" ideas came to the fore.

Prayer for someone or for something to happen probably goes back to the transactional aspect. However, I would imagine it was more communal (sacrifices at a Temple) but over time, in Westernized conceptions (and I'd imagine especially Protestant), it became much more about personal prayers about this or that rather than a set of prayers one says that is proscribed.

Ok, so why this passage? I do like his critiques of Schopenhauer's personal life as compared to his philosophy, that he indeed lived a vigorous although relatively lonely life. But I am not getting much out of that verbosity other than the instinct to ascetic ideal is rather more of a strategy for creative thought or something like that. I am not sure of any ethical, aesthetic, metaphysical, or epistemological stance in this other than perhaps alluding to philosophers being more about creative expression than actually living out ascetic ideals. But again, it's hard for me to wade through his over-verbage. Perhaps that is his over-man talking too much.

Not at all. I took a look over the thread and decided that I did not have the full context of the conversation between you two. It did not seem right for me to weigh in on your particular comments.

I mean, if the issue is, "If we have control over outcomes in the future, do we have a moral obligation to ensure the most moral outcome happens within our capacity and resources?" Sure. Not sure who would disagree with this. All moral actions are about the future. They're about whether we do an action now to obtain or a avoid a certain consequence.

As for having a kid, you don't have full control over the outcomes. If you have a kid, you do your best to raise them right. But they still might suffer, die, etc. You can't consider things outside of your control as moral considerations. If you want to have a kid and will work to give them the best life and outcome you possibly can within your emotional and financial means, do so. If you can't be bothered, don't have a kid. — Philosophim

Indeed, good points about the future and basically is my point to Existential Hope. What I might contend here with (I am not sure really where you stand), is the application of "having kids" (the debate over antinatalism). That is to say, having kids is a future event (something Existential Hope can't seem to get over as disqualifying as moral and you rightly point out, almost all ethical considerations are considering hypothetical future scenarios). However, having kids is also an event that brings about varying (and often great) harms and suffering for a future person. Thus, if one sees preventing harms as the moral sticking point and NOT benefits-giving (as this is supererogatory not obligatory like preventing known harms is), then indeed it would be wrong to bring about a future person who would suffer, and it would not be wrong to "prevent" a future person who would also have benefits.

Nietzsche as possibility rather than substance is a liberating thinker, making one more rather than less independent. — plaque flag

I mean, how is Nietzsche, when simplified to its actual ideas different from something like "positive psychology" or "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs", specifically "Self-Actualization"? It's kind of the mantra of the ideal aspirations of those who want to achieve something (the hero, the adventurer, the inventor, the capitalist titan, etc.). To me there isn't much "there" there. Kind of circuitous aphorisms alluding to the idea of a Great Man who should not be restrained to fill their potential. Meh, doesn't move me.

one can also decide to do the right thing for someone else when they cannot attain the positive themselves — Existential Hope

Getting someone a traditional gift, and handing someone a box of gifts with tremendous burdens are two very different things, and to equivocate the two is rhetorical obfuscation.

not opportunities and gifts. — Existential Hope

Only totalitarian regimes would force people into opportunities and post-facto justify it. It is totalitarian thinking to think that one forces another's hand in the name of "opportunities" and then say, "Well, let's get the suicide machines out" as a consolation prize. Cringey.

And then, when they do possess the capacity to be harmed and benefitted, we will hopefully behave in an ethical way. I have little time for imaginary goodness or inconsistent ideas. — Existential Hope

That capacity exists as a real state of affairs. Again, that is what we mean by "future conditionals". It's not inconsistent to understand how future conditionals work. You are denying a whole range of states of affairs don't exist.

If X does not happen, then Y will have absolutely no significance for anybody who is absent. — Existential Hope

That's the point. Don't bring about X so Y doesn't happen. Cause and effect. Future conditional. If this, then that could happen. Don't do this.

It is not a good look to arbitrarily argue that the absence of harms can be good sans true benefits, but the lack of happiness is not a worse state of affairs simply because nobody can ask for it. — Existential Hope

You are confusing how epistemology works. Future conditionals are only understood by someone who exists to know "If then statements". It is from the POV of someone who can comprehend "If then statements" that we know this to be true.

If you do not cause me pain, you have allowed me to live a happy life, which is good (though, admittedly, it isn't the same as actively doing something for others). — Existential Hope

Oddly, this is just bolstering the AN point. This is how it works when someone is born (they just live their life without your negative interference). However, from the future conditional perspective, you are not going to start negatives for another. It is not letting known harms occur (that could have).

Willingly wanting to prevent all of it because one is unable to look beyond their obstructed perspective is even more wrong-headed. — Existential Hope

But we are not talking about unmitigated good are we. Perhaps if a paradise only universe existed and guaranteed you might have some argument. So hey, at least I'm giving you that point! But alas, we know this world is not that. But I'd even argue, EVEN in that scenario, though it is perfectly permissible to go ahead and start that life, not starting it isn't unethical. As you admit, not starting something does nothing for no one. Nothingness doesn't "hurt" anyone.

I think its pretty clear that this is an ethical consideration. Schopoenhauer1, it sounds like you're trying to say something without saying something. Give your idea fully. What are you looking for here? Its a lot easier to get to the point instead of holding out on it until some abstracts have been established. — Philosophim

This is the kind of thinking I am talking about:

It isn't. In one case, one's actions are affecting a real person. In the other, nobody is being left in a more desirable or less desirable state as a result of what we have done. And if the prevention of harms can be good without a person being there, the prevention of happiness is also bad, even if there is no experience of hankering for the positives. — Existential Hope

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/820995

If anything the capitalist figures who Rand thought were the real hard working ones aren’t accomplishing any difficult deeds, creating great works, or doing anything for human culture. Just look at those billionaires who died in the submarine accident. They were a bunch of comfortable fools role playing in a fantasy land. They’re “human, all too human” in Nietzsche’s language — Albero

It's not actual billionaires (like Donald Trump) but her idea of "titans of industry" who through their greatness and will do great things and move humanity forward. The realities of said billionaires isn't the comparison, but her ideal as written in her um, "works", such as Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead.

It is not ethical to judge for someone else that a good they could be deeply grateful for should not be bestowed because one has been tempted by the religion of pessimism. Gifting something that cannot be requested is not unethical. — Existential Hope

I'm sorry it doesn't work that way. I can't assume someone wants me to do a "happy" thing for them. But I can safely assume, and in fact am morally obligated not to purposefully harm someone when I don't have to. Certainly, not because I think the pain intendent with whatever happiness I bestow will be "worth it" in my own estimation. You can't keep doing this reverse role and think it comes out the same. It doesn't.

a real person — Existential Hope

When that person is born, it will be real. That is how the future works. Do you believe in a state called "the future"? Sounds like you don't. I wonder why :roll:.

nobody is being left in a more desirable or less desirable state as a result of what we have done. — Existential Hope

Future conditionals exist. If you do X, then Y will happen. You are preventing Y from happening. You don't need someone for the statement "Y will happen" to be true, because there will be a person who exists. Get over this argument. It's not a good look. It really shows special pleading and lack of common language usage.

And if the prevention of harms can be good without a person being there, the prevention of happiness is also bad, — Existential Hope

No because as stated earlier, happiness-giving is not an ethical act but a supererogatory one. Not causing avoidable suffering is ethical though. Even more so, willingly wanting to cause suffering because it brings about good is more than negligent, and certainly misguided.

Fair enough (and apologies for possible equivocation). All I meant was that the nature of giving happiness differs to existing beings who already have varying levels of well-being differs from those who are yet to exist. — Existential Hope

I don't think so on any substantive level. The person presumably to be born will have varying amounts of happiness just as your friend. The scenario is the same for each so it's not even considering individual levels, just broad experiences like "appreciating friends, art, achievements, etc.".

Unless all the concomitant pleasant aspects of existence are sitting in the car alongside the woes, it would undoubtedly be immoral. And it's not as if the benefits alone are adequate. What also matters is whether these positives would put the person in a preferable state to the one they would have found themselves in without them. — Existential Hope

It’s not ethical to judge for someone else the amount of harms is appropriate for the “treat” of goods. In fact, that’s perverse. You are playing god of misery and pleasure on behalf of someone. Remember this “gift” is given, it’s not requested. And they can’t “tweak” it beforehand to their liking or predict what it is.

Which is why it has no value. If it can be bad, then the condition is that it can also be good. — Existential Hope

This literally is the scenario in both cases . Future conditional in both cases. Your non-identify argument is weak and special pleading. I’d drop it.

A society where people were constantly being bombarded for gifting happiness would be sawing off the branch it was sitting on. For most existing people, not directly harming them is surely enough for them to live lives that they find worth living. However, when one is creating people (a state which nobody prefers), the positives matter as much as the negatives. — Existential Hope

Not understanding so no comment.

But if preventing suffering is good in an impersonal sense, then providing happiness is also important. — Existential Hope

Happiness giving is not ethical but supererogatory. If I don’t give someone happiness in my daily life but don’t cause suffering I have done nothing wrong. If I cause suffering, at least potentially I have. Circumstances matter.

It is evident that non-existence helps (or hinders) nobody. — Existential Hope

The action isn’t about an existing person, it’s about a future person that could exist. In lingistics this is the future conditional tense.

benefit would actually be greater than the harms and would not put the person in a worse state than they were before does the action become justifiable. — Existential Hope

This is still wrong. If I give my friend a car and they might get into an accident is a different calculation than if I give my friend a car but they will get various pains and woes of life. I would never make that trade off on behalf of a friend,

This makes no sense. There is no difference in the scenario I provided except one is a friend that exists. The form is the same for both. You give one you give the other.

The point is that you would not be comfortable in one of them, but it should be both because they are essentially doing the same thing. A gift is not truly a gift if you burden someone. Thinking it is would be its own problematic idea of gifts and/or one’s megalomaniac idea that you are the bearer of someone’s burdens because you think this is somehow good to cause for someone else. Again, problematic.

I think you have a Nietzsche allergy that blinds you to his worth. No doubt he had some quirks. But I just a thinker by their best moments, and Nietzsche overall is a great example of a daring mind wrestling with the death of god and indeed with the uncertain legacy of Schopenhauer -- who lived to be an old man, relishing the attention he was finally getting. ( I have the Wallace bio of S on the way. It looks great.) — plaque flag

Perhaps. Why would I agree with Nietzsche's assessment? He thought Noise was good and Quietude was weak. He thought the weaklings were too long praised.

so I guess in Nietzschean fashion you could say that the reason the world of becoming is condemned so much throughout the history of Eastern and Western philosophy is a problem of the philosopher's own impotence-their congenital defect — Albero

Yeah, doesn't seem to move me. Quite opposite. I just see Ayn Rand with a mustache, or perhaps Ayn Rand is Nietzsche with lipstick. Either way, both about the same level for me in terms of their Ubermensch.

I'm not sure that's true either, if you recognize that there are skills needed and technical background needed to do this sort of work, and the curriculum is designed to get you up and running, able to do mathematics, to do scientific research -- and those are great human endeavors! They don't have to focus on the human element because you are the human element and if everything goes right, you'll be thrilled to head to campus or to the lab or to the site everyday because you get to do science all day! This system largely works, and you can see just by peeking into any lab at the nearest research university, grad students listening to some tunes and doing their work -- a perfect life if there were more money. — Srap Tasmaner

Not my style, but I get it. As I said, it doesn't market well, and admitted as such. I'll only leave you that pragmatics doesn't mean it's good. If anything, our society has shifted too far into the "because its expedient for technology and market's sake" and not for actual understanding and context. But keep devil's advocating, I get it. I get the other side, so don't actually.

. I do not scurry away from a higher state that transcends the flaws of one kind of existence and is yet not utter demolition. — Existential Hope

@plaque flag

This needs to be examined that in order for goodness you need some evil. This itself can be construed of as an evil. That is to say, there is no "paradise" (in the ideal/conventional sense), only some sort of relative good-by-needing-the-bad. This situation seems rotten itself as there is no unmitigated good. That is to say, one cannot just experience good without it somehow having itself a negative consequence (boredom, no longer novel, etc.). Mediocre universe creates mediocre philosophies whereby good is only relative to some privations necessary to maintain its goodness. Chuck it all out. Baby and bathwater. No baby, then no bathwater.

The pedagogy is designed to teach people to be employable rather than give a deeper insight. — Moliere

Holistic understanding of how thought developed over time is definitely not what most institutions try to market to people. There are some exceptions. St. John's, I believe tries to teach students through primary sources, Great Books tradition, and a more historical approach, but it's few and far between.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%27s_College_(Annapolis/Santa_Fe)

I've often wished math and science were taught with more of an eye to history. — Srap Tasmaner

100% what's missing. As if this wasn't the result of human efforts but some sterile equations and information. Ridiculous how education essentializes and splits up technical topics cleaving it of any human element.

@plaque flag @Tzeentch Here is a thought experiments for you:

If you had the ability to give the gift of the following to a friend:

• Creating or experiencing art and music that inspires and moves you.
• Accomplishing personal goals and achievements.
• Falling in love and experiencing deep emotional connections.
• Building meaningful relationships with family and friends.
• Exploring new cultures and traveling to different parts of the world.
• Embracing adventure and taking risks
• Appreciating nature
• Reading/writing good literature
• Learning X thing and mastering Y ability
• Experiencing technological innovations
• Flow states
• Games and hobbies

But then, in order to gift the above positives to a friend you also definitely had to give that person at least several of these things below:

• Chronic illness - cancer, disease, mental illness, breakdowns, etc.
• Acute illness- bed bugs, disease, mental illness, parasites, food poising etc.
• Accidents and misadventures (everything from broken limbs and car accidents, to getting eaten by a lion)
• Disasters
• Betrayal
• Loneliness
• Anxiety
• Trauma
• Addiction
• Financial hardships
• Poverty
• Loss
• Practically unavoidable, unwanted and tedious situations
• Abuse
• Discomforts of great and small variety that adds up when combined (everything from mistreatment by others in small ways, to traffic jams, to stubbed toes, to uncomfortable situations, to embarrassment, etc.)

Would you feel comfortable and moral providing the group of positives if you knew you will 100% also be giving some variation of the group of negatives?

I think you would not feel comfortable nor think that this was moral. But procreation is not seen this way. And here lies the misguided and wrong-headed thinking regarding procreation. It's no different.

@plaque flagNon-being as being (this isn't intentional) closely aligned to being is a fascinating idea. In this perspective, non-being is not synonymous with nothingness or annihilation but rather represents a state of freedom from the limitations and fluctuations of the material realm. — Existential Hope

Whether true or not about Buddhism, I balk at the idea of the inevitability of being that then must be freed from it. It's my complaint in the other thread. Something is monstrous if the "disturbance" happened from the state of Nirvana. Why the disturbance? Why not Nirvana?

So ensues layers of post-facto reasoning. Here comes that shifty subversive "balance" again :smirk:.

As I see it, antinatalism is extremely unlikely to succeed, become popular. Is that how you see it ? — plaque flag

It depends on measure of success, but I don't see the idea catching on. Working and consuming seems to be the ethos/reality of the day. Travel and "balance" is I guess the ideal/religion. Antinatalism disrupts that vision. If anything, childfree for lifestyle choice would be much more attractive than the idea that we must prevent suffering. As you indicate here:

I'll be impressed if humans stop eating pork because it's Ethical to do so. Asking them to stop breeding is on another level entirely. — plaque flag

Caring about suffering in the abstract is not our strong point. We rather create the suffering and then mitigate than not create it. I am not sure how to get around this habitual way of thinking. As long as we can disconnect cause and effect because it is inconvenient, we will do so because we can't live with such cognitive dissonance of knowing and doing, so denial and vehement dismissal is the only way to react if confronted with it.

Also quietude makes us sad-face. The blankness, the blackness, the void. It gives some sort of anxiety of non-being. It reminds me of this:

Perhaps I embrace the fatalism in Schopenhauer more than you do. When I was studying Darwin, Dawkins, and Dennett, I had Schopenhauer in mind. These evolutionary thinkers vindicate and naturalize his insights, making them stronger and less sentimental. I took from them an even harsher brew (those offensive 'moist robots,' slavishly serving the machine-cold code with mathematical necessity.) — plaque flag

I get it for sure. Schopenhauer did have that idea of "inevitability of our programming" idea.

But I think Zapffe counteracts the determinism in a way. He psychologizes it rather than mechanizes it. In other words, it is learned, cultural, a defense mechanism perhaps, but one that can be unlearned by knowing about it in the first place. "Oh, mea culpa, I am just throwing up a defense mechanism by ignoring, denying, and anchoring".

"I am a serious and respectable public intellectual commenting on The Serious Issues of the Day. " — plaque flag

Still not what I'm talking about though. Social issues and existential issues are not the same, and perhaps even a bit opposed.

The answer to your question might be simple. Such a trait, a preference for Silence, would remove itself from the gene pool. It can only linger on the margins as a kind of parasite or stowaway, possibly serving the Noise party in the long run. — plaque flag

I do like the poetic imagery of the Silence vs. Noise party. Ties into my other thread on being and becoming. But we come back to this difference we have where you see inevitability in what I tend to see as simply ignoring, anchoring, and denying. A child has an injury and the whole world has to know that it feels pain. A child is lonely and it complains loudly to its parents or anyone in earshot. An adult apparently does this by creating more humans and giving themselves something to do. We can't handle quietude. Meditation is had in small doses, at retreats, to rejuvenate. The idea of quieting in its ultimate sense of living off of nothing and just dying out slowly, of course, is not part of this.

In that case, balance is the shady subversive word used. Thus one is quieting to become better at the parts that are not quiet. It is not to diminish one's need for need. It is another self-improvement strategy to live in the world of noise. It's not gnosis, its simply routine like the health-shake, exercise routine, etc. In the end, it makes you a better worker. The fast is now a diet because it creates a better lifestyle choice.

Yes. What is the nature of humor ? Is it a sly confession of ambivalence ? Of the pleasure we take in disaster ? — plaque flag

Humor in the Horror. I think that's always been associated to some extent. It's a way to help cope.

The politician is a public performer who develops a persona as a brand. They win power, fame, and money from playing their role. It's in their interest, as persona product, to keep things comfortably finite and one-sided. Don't expect the politician to look into their own motives or discuss how nice it is to be famous and admired. To be sure, they'll have a sentimental yarn about their love for the oppressed, etc., which may indeed be part of the truth. — plaque flag

Oh yeah for sure, good points on the public performer. It's more an industry they have created for themselves, not trying to create real dialogue.

Yes. There's also a psychonanalytic theme here. The 'surface' of a personality is a mask or a performance. The finite personality depends on what it excludes for its value. If the Cause succeeds, I lose my heroic role, the very meaning structure of my life. — plaque flag

Heroic roles indeed. I see what you're saying. But can there be more of a communal commiseration aspect to it rather? Like, "I see this, does anyone else see this? Isn't this crazy?!". It is why people join groups and communities, but these are communities about existence itself, something so holistic that many don't want to face it. They rather therapy to be individualistic, about their ego and how they move about in the world, not the human condition tout court.

He wants company on the endless dangerous road, like Whitman, rather than followers who, as followers, have already lost him. In short, I'm talking about Nietzsche (or Freud or Shakespeare or ...) as possibility rather than substance. We re-enact their heroic intentions, make it new, etc. — plaque flag

Indeed, heroism dies through tedium. Hence the subversion of Tedious Warrior.

I'm not quite following what you are saying. I think you have some interesting ideas but I can't seem to link them together. It seems something to do with evangelistic outrage.

You also suggest not being serious perhaps? E.M. Cioran I think represents a gallow's humor sort of approach to AN. Thomas Ligotti is very dark, and depressing, but he couches it in basically saying it's just his opinion. Schopenhauer was serious, but his aphorisms had some humor. I'd say it is serious in that people are seriously affected by birth and suffering. So the stakes are high, no?

I'm not sure we do have the power. A minority may have a certain self-image and the motivation to abstain, but I don't believe in free will. What's possible is, to some degree, proven by what actually happens. It's easier to talk about utopia or a cessation of birth than to bring such a situation about. It's as if individuals are always only fragments of human nature. Even individuals speak only for or as mere fragments of themselves. 'Finite' personality (which excludes and opposes other finite personalities) is a kind of mask or front. — plaque flag

Why do you think people lack sufficient free will enough?

To me the trickiest part is the evaluation of life. Life is good or life is bad -- this is like music.

I like the idea of a gentle and effective suicide pill. Perhaps the state could provide a nice incineration shoot, equivalent to the painless version of jumping into a volcano. I believe that most people would not use this option while they were lucky ( healthy, in good relationships, safe-ish), so that life is often judged (tacitly) to be a positive good. Personally I'm still invested in this game, though I do dread the ravages of further aging in the long run. I the idea of choosing the right moment for one's death -- embracing the beauty of it. I'm down with Kevorkian. — plaque flag

I was explaining how the the first written myth, the Epic of Gilgamesh, spoke of gods who were pissed at all the noise the humans made so flooded the Earth. Why do people want to create the din of noise? We can't be quiet?

The positive motive is something like : ...the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life...

The nurturing instinct can be included in the lust of the flesh, though this'll be offensive to some. — plaque flag

Going back to enthalpy, why create more work for people because you have happy moments? That is the biggest con of an argument. We have the power to not throw people into the enthalpic process.

It is paternalistic thinking. "I know that someone else should deal with burdens of survival". Imagine that in almost any other context as a fully functioning adult?

Maybe there is some chemicals deluding people but it is very much reinforced culturally. As you said:

We don't need to be programmed with a conscious ideology, right ? Though at another level the church might come in and keep birth rates high for an empire that needs workers and soldiers. — plaque flag

Perhaps it's even more perverse than that. Having just enough happy experiences makes it seem justifiable to do for another. Happy workers, happily working, in their happy projects.

I certainly don't regret being alive. — Janus

I'm just going to give response I gave to apokrisis:

Don't assume other should fight the entropy. If only everyone had MY point of view. How narcissistic. I like X, therefore others should like live out a lifetime of X. — schopenhauer1

Maybe it's down to brain chemistry; those low in seratonin have a negative, depressive view on life, and those with abundant seratonin feel life is good. — Janus

But that's not the ethical point. If it was as simple of you like vanilla and I like chocolate, than this wouldn't be ethical. Rather, it is making decisions for others, and this becomes ethical, political, and existential. The way you are flippantly making it about preferences, belies the grave ethical import.

1) Happiness-giving is not an obligation, especially when no one is deprived of happiness to begin with.
2) Happiness-giving when accompanied by numerous intractable harms is not even purely happiness-giving. It is not a gift in the traditional sense that it comes with many burdens. Thus this "gift" is negated as such.

And finally, the rebuttal that "people don't exist to be relieved of not suffering", is simply a non-issue, as what matters is the state of affairs of not suffering. The hidden assumption is the asymmetry that the not-happiness should matter, but going back to 1 and 2. — schopenhauer1

In a sense I can interpret what I face entropically, but it's just one way of looking at what I face. — Moliere

Im thinking more along these lines:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

But maybe this is all off-topic, because you're asking after ethical implications, of which I'd say there are none. — Moliere

And we are not facing entropy daily?

That good exists doesn't negate the bad. The problem is humans are an existential creature, which means we can at any time contemplate existence itself.

When I read Schopenhauer, I identified with that futile individual struggling against dissolution in speciesgoo. In other words, the spirited thing to do is to cheat nature with birth control, homosexuality, masturbation, life-extending treatments, etc. 'The life of the child is the death of the parent.' At the same time, this attitude has always only a finite intensity, because we are programmed to find great joy and depth in nurturing. — plaque flag

Yep. What is it about this "nod" to being that people seem to be programmed for? What is the programming exactly that aligns with "being is good, AN is bad. you go away now" (said in the vein of Homer losing part of his brain).

How come anti-natalists never include, and even avoid, opposing events in their screeds? — NOS4A2

It goes back to this:

1) Happiness-giving is not an obligation, especially when no one is deprived of happiness to begin with.
2) Happiness-giving when accompanied by numerous intractable harms is not even purely happiness-giving. It is not a gift in the traditional sense that it comes with many burdens. Thus this "gift" is negated as such.

And finally, the rebuttal that "people don't exist to be relieved of not suffering", is simply a non-issue, as what matters is the state of affairs of not suffering. The hidden assumption is the asymmetry that the not-happiness should matter, but going back to 1 and 2. — schopenhauer1

Obligations for happiness-giving is of very little or no moral consideration. Suffering-preventing (or giving depending on how you frame it) is very significant for moral consideration, however.

If life was indeed a paradise that no one ever got bored of, that you are creating for another, you might have some traction with that consideration. But it's obviously not, so now you have to justify why you are suffering-creating (at least the conditions thereof that will inevitably take place).

The problem is negentropy is a word, the actual lived experience of negentropy is the varying things to keep homeostasis in the animal. All the work, stress, and burden to fight entropy's tendency.

One of my concerns in this context is Moloch (game theoretical). It's the prisoner's dilemma, the tragedy of the commons, that sort of thing. Concretely, I'm a nonparent taciturn thoughtcriminal --not very contagious, even if there was much susceptibility out there. I can't teach my children to not have children, but self-consciously virtuous breeders can very much send out missionaries, generation after generation potentially. I recently saw a vid suggesting that Israel is shifting politically for reasons involving the correlation of ideology and number of offspring. — plaque flag

Indeed, good point. Parents missionize de facto. Ironic that AN is accused of it, when by force their ranks are filled :wink:. AN simply says to stop and think, what is going on here? I think this can all be summed up with simply not reflecting. Even well-educated people don't think much about "existence" itself. That's because the hive-mind (enculturation process) wants that thinking to go towards production. to ENTHALPY to keep the individual and societal ENTROPY AT BAY!

To me this is almost stolen from Schopenhauer's discussion of the futility of suicide. My death doesn't change much, because I have seen through the illusion of personality. 'I' will just be reborn. Real change has to happen at the level of the species.

I like to think of Nietzsche as a more recent Hamlet. For me he's a highly instructive and relatable dissonant tangle of voices/perspectives. — plaque flag

True, even Schopenhauer retreats to the self-fulfilling idea that Will will always will itself in various forms, so one cannot prevent it. Yet, at the same time, he offers various forms of "escape", mainly via asceticism. This speaks to his metaphysics which to me, is not completely airtight. That is to say, if asceticism leads to death of the individual ego or something like that, how does this really "stop" Willing in the broader metaphysical sense, rather than just one's own manifestation of it? And if that's the case, then indeed, not procreating would make a difference from at least one POV, just like that ascetic person dissipating their ego. I think he wants to have both where the individual ego is the World, but it seems like he wants both. Not sure.