If I don't have any power over the self-actualization of my self, and I owe my existence to other's self-actualization, then they too are in the same predicament I would be in - of not having control over their own self-actualization, so how can it be said that they have control over me, if they never had control over themselves? — Harry Hindu

That is his point. No one really has control. If it was in Schopenhauerian terms, it is the Will manifesting itself over and over. What is the case is your birth was out of your control. That is his main point. I agree with you however, that we don't actually "inherit" specific drives and goals of someone else. However, surely our lives came about in hopes of seeing to fruition some desire of the parent. Whether this actually occurs is a different story.

But then this can lead to Eastern notions which Schopenhauer overlooked despite being embedded in the overall Eastern metaphysics he translated for a Western culture. Notions of Moksha or of Nirvana come to mind. These have a lot to do with what in the west would be termed eudemonia gained via virtue and wisdom, as well as with an obtained awareness of what the self ultimately is. Or so are my best current understandings of these traditions. — javra

Schopenhauer criticized the Stoics, as they were still fully rooted in the world of Will. Schopenhauer wanted to pull the roots completely, by suggesting deny the Will completely and become a full ascetic. There was no natural reason by which we were to adhere to. Stoics wanted us to be a part of society, perpetuate its institutions but with some sort of accord with natural reason. Schop would say that is simply will having its way. There is no end goal of happiness in a world that is rules by Will. Rebel against the Will completely is more Schop's recommendation. Thus, don't have children- it brings the horrors of more Will, more of its manifestations. Don't buy into the survival/goal-attainment, and boredom pendulum swing of the course of human condition.

I understand that we probably still disagree on issues of pessimism, but I’m thinking this disagreement hinges on basic metaphysical presumptions. All the same, the samsara which Schopenhauer addresses in his own ways is nevertheless something I readily acknowledge. — javra

Cool.

And, in a very diminutive sense of the term, in satisfying the eradication of the itch one obtains a state of (a very minor form of) eudemonia – i.e. a flourishing of being. The cessation of the itch allows you to better do that which you want done, rather than being persistently distracted, and hence hindered, from such (again, very minor form of) flourishing. So, in recapping this thesis, the scratching of an itch may be pleasing, but it of itself is not the obtainment of eudemonia, instead being a transient happiness; unlike the pleasure here referenced, it is the disappearance of the itch which grants the (minor) obtainment of a lasting eudemonia. — javra

But this is very Schopenhauerian as I see it. It is the constant need to get rid of a feeling lack. We are lacking the sensation of not being bothered by an itch. Then it is only temporary, as another itch might take its place. The same goes for our desires...Desires represent a lack of something in the moment. When they are obtained, they lead to other desires. Some desires are a lack of something that you want but do not have. Some desires are to get rid of an externality (like an itch or the coronavirus) that befalls you. But these externality ones are simply things we would rather not have, and are trying to be rid of (uncomfortable feelings, pain, etc). In other words, they are not proof of something positive, but more examples of how we have to deal with life. We are in constant need of being alleviated- both of things which befall us, and things we want but do not have now.

How much less suffering would there be if we all were to automatically quarantine ourselves upon suspecting ourselves of being infected with anything contagious? — petrichor

I agree with your points mainly but much of this comes down to business practices. People for example, are afraid to be home from work for more than a few days because then they no longer get paid. It's a bit better that everyone's working from home, but this still doesn't change the fact that people won't get paid if they can't actually work, even from home. In general it would be nice if this whole disease helped us realize that people should be allowed many more sick days than they are given.. And that's if they are salaried. If they only work hourly, they even more screwed. So what do we do about this situation? It promotes people taking risky situations, at the cost of others.

I am interested in knowing, holding such a world-view, where is one emotion-wise? I think, if one is really honest with oneself and if one's (even if he himself is leading a relatively comfortable life) opinions encompass a big enough sample space of human beings, then he would be deceiving himself if he calls himself anything other than a pessimist. So, then where is one then emotionally? Can this question be answered objectively? — Zeus

I don't get what you are asking really.

Secondly, to further your point on the apparent routine of everyday life, is there something, anything, in this world that doesn't follow a routine? I think there is one thing, and it's art. In expression there is tremendous possibility. Kafka gave so much to the world but, he too was plagued by repetitiveness. But, his works suggest anything but. L. S. Lowry, the great English artist, found through his art a respite from the routine. Krishnamurti said, whatever we can think about, is mechanical. Everyday life is routine because it is a by-product of thought. Art frees one to go beyond this plane. Also, there is beauty. The beauty of the river, the sea, the meadows, the sky. It might be a cliche but we don't really LOOK. Would you agree? — Zeus

Well, as you probably note, pessimists like Schopenhauer had a high regard for art as a way to get oneself out of one's own will. It was a way of seeing the Ideas without mediation through time-space (or so he thought). Thus, sort of an inverse of Plato- art was closer to the Ideas and not derivative of the real or something like that. The beauty of nature and art and especially music put oneself in a weird way out of time. I'm not sure if the metaphysics adds up, but the subjective experience of the sublime in aesthetic experience, does seem to be what he's getting at.

I am completely for your pessimism argument. But, don't you think there is something beyond earthly pleasures? Something beyond the routine? — Zeus

I don't think it's worth bringing more people in the world to chase after this. If the Buddhists (and Schopenhauer) is right, almost everything is indeed chasing after something. Let's say you get a sublime feeling of aesthetic pleasure from a view from a mountain or creating a painting of some tragedy and meaning, or reading a great piece of literature, or composing or just listening to a great piece of music...then what? It's over, you try to get that feeling back. You are still chasing after it, trying to maintain it, etc. And then what after that? You still have everyday situations- survival, comforts, and entertainments to pursue. You have contingent harms to contend with (e.g. disease, disasters, other people, emotional anguish, anxiety, annoyances of all kinds). So as I've said many times before, I agree that there are about a handful of "goods of life". That isn't denied. It is rather the general dissatisfactions that characterize the human life in general that pessimism understands well and keeps in mind. It doesn't let the temptation of the goods (pace Emil Cioran's Temptation to Exist), overtake the perspective as if just because something is "good" or that good things exist, thus existence itself is a necessary, positive, worthwhile endeavor that should be perpetuated in perpetuity to progeny and future generations over and over.

You mention repetition. That is exactly what is being replicated. The repetition of ordinary life AND the repetition of chasing after the (well known billions of times over) "goods" of life. Most of life is what I call "dealing with". Dealing with survival, maintenance, entertainment-seeking- essentially dealing with oneself. Dealing with requires coping often. Often the repetitive, tedious nature of these three categories lead to needing some sort of mental strategy.. trying to ignore the bad, trying to deny it, trying to accept it, trying to sublimate it, etc. This is what Stoicism tries to do along with modern cognitive-behavioral techniques. I think they are all just band-aids to the very fact that there is something wrong (the "dealing with") to begin with.

In this story, it's revealed quite a lot actually. First - running in circles, chasing. This is huge part of the self-actualization process. Chasing goals, again and again. In the same way the hound is given a goal, we are given a goal. Who gave it to us? Well, in true Westworld fashion, I must say - our creators. And we don't need to search them in the skies, they are before us - our parents, and their parents, the whole evolutionary chain. We get born in this realm, as part of the self-actualization process of someone else. Isn't it interesting... Think about the irony for the moment. Just like Westworld portrays quite more dramatically - we are creation of someone else, it was someone's else will. We inherited the qualities, the intentions, the drives, the vision, the goals... of someone else. If you were born as a hound, you had to chase rabbits right now... One may say that this someone else gave you "the gift of life", but I will again point out Westworld, and the simple fact - you are only part of someone's else self actualization, self-interest, it was their choice, it was their genes, they had that power over you, to create you regardless of your own will (you technically didn't have one). — interim

Great points. I invite you to read my threads on antinatalism, pessimism, and Schopenhauer (which are most of them). These are along the lines of what my themes usually are.

And here is the next important thing - power! Power of one over another. It's really a game of power. Like in the greyhound allegory, some power is given to everyone, but of course - not in the same way. The rabbit has the power to run for its life, the hound - to kill its prey. In the process of self-actualization, we have to achieve different goals, which inevitably turns into a fight over power. Yes, I know the will to power, was big thing for Nietzsche and favorite topic for his followers. But do you know where he actually got the idea from? Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer was the one that described the principle of individuality that ends in constant struggle for dominance, constant cause of suffering that can not be escaped. And actually this realization (I think) is the core of his pessimism. We are all part of this game of self-actualization, which sadly - is a zero sum game, govern by the principle of balance. Some have the naivety to think that it's not all competition, we can work together... But who are "we", and what "working together" means. We, our species? At the cost of another species? Or we the red party, vs the blue party? There is no "we", there are just common interest for a group that is put into one situation... as opposed to other group, in other situation. Since remember - there must be balance... And what "together" means. I will be the boss, on the top, and you will follow orders? That sounds good... Even if we are all equal somehow, and you for example discover something before me, it means you rob me from the chance for me to discover it. Even I, right now, revealing these things, in some way, I'm robbing you from the chance to think on this subject purely on your own. And you know, deep down, you realize I'm taking something from you, so you get angry of such people. It's like when you know the other is right in an argument, but you hate it that it came from him, not you. He robbed you from the chance you to be right, and therefore... self-actualization. You better now turn to the wrong side, so at least you have claim on something... Truth in that regard, if comes from outside, runs against your own goal. This reinforces the pessimistic view even more - we are not really here to "make it work", be "happy", to have a "good life". We are here to struggle, with ourselves, trying to achieve our self actualization, whatever it is. We are trying, that's our "job", but can we achieve it? — interim

Yes, I agree with you. It is struggle. I talked about how by the needs of our own condition (of survival, comfort, entertainment), this creates demands on others which essentially makes each other laborers for the perpetuation of a third-party- the society itself.

Sadly, this was not really a process of self-actualization, it was merely a process of needs - real or perceived ones, smaller and bigger. And like every need, it's negative in nature (which Schopenhauer also proved). The need exist, only while you have it. Once satisfied, it just disappears. Poof, like a magic trick. This is why it must be a pyramid, since there must be always a higher/next level. Of course, most of us struggle to survive on the first few level, so the Maslow pyramid is not that tall. But for someone else, it may be - marry a famous actor, become a president, rule the world... Nietzsche himself did the same thing - become an ubermensch. Being normal human, just won't cut it, not good enough... Maybe, maybe if you were a "god", it would be different... Sadly, this is typical for inferior minds - to compensate personal weakness with desire for more and more power. More power, so you can walk to that higher level of the pyramid. Higher and higher... to the top of the nothingness... Sadly few (like Schopenhauer and Kant) have both the intellect and integrity of the character, to produce actual work of value, actual truthful thought. And exactly because of this, they are ignored. — interim

Astute observations. Excellent stuff!

So, what exactly is self actualization? What is a self knowing itself? The self can't really be known, since all we can know is the world of phenomenon, of objects, of relations. All that is part of the mind. However the self, at least in its true metaphysical meaning, transcends the mind and exists outside it. This means that the mind can never explain the self, can never explain our true nature. It's merely a game of appearance, illusion, and that's actually the secondary nature (although for the majority - it's the one and only nature). And if we return to the old saying "know yourself", one must realize it has so many layers, and the deepest one is that you can never really know the self, you can only know what it isn't. This approach actually is used in Buddhism, through the explanations what is not the self. Sadly, few people actually get it's meaning - that there is no way to show what is the metaphysical self. But yet, we have the proof for its existence, in each and everyone of us. We can play thousands of roles, we can reach and fail thousands of goals, but this will never truly reveal what the self is. Who you really are. It's all of that, and none of it. And yes, when you try to use your mind to see the metaphysical, it fails, it reaches infinity, unable to calculate. Life is a mind game, that starts with this idea of self-realization. However, this is a game you can't "win", since the only real thing in it is you. You can lose yourself however, since our objective self, is part of this game of the mind, and it brings with the it the transcendental self. And from there comes the second idea of this world - of salvation. Salvation means returning to the metaphysical self, so you regain your true self. Self actualization, at least in its popular meaning, leads to... the edge of the map... where is just nothingness. Like waiting for the ending of Lost... Like the center of the maze at Westworld, which turned out to be just pointing back to you. — interim

Interesting stuff!

I've written a lot on this forum about how people's reasons for having other new humans is for some sort of vision like Maslow's Hierarchy.. We need people to struggle to get to some goal (which actually isn't really reached), just acts like a carrot-and-stick to get people to feel they are going somewhere and not just the same usual human conditions of survival, comfort, entertainment, repeat. See my recent comments I've made in another post below:

Arthur Schopenhauer: All is actually Will. We are living in a sort of maya (illusion) of Representation, that is nonetheless part of the scheme of Will. It strives, but for nothing. It is manifested via time, space, causality into individuated events or objects. Will, from the subjective viewpoint leads to frustration, boredom (when one is not occupied with goals that seem to provide relief but really don't), and survival instincts. The way to diminish the suffering of unrequited striving, is to diminish one's own will-to-live to approaching 0. That is to say "deny the will-to-live". For him, this amounts to being an extreme ascetic. Only certain people with the characters to do this, will probably achieve this (he was sort of an essentialist about people's innate character). Suicide would not be the appropriate response, because it is using one's will to fight will, and that is still using will, so will not work.

David Benatar: There is no overarching scheme of metaphysics here (like in Schopenhauer). There is no unfolding of reality to a subject of understanding about the nature or reality. Rather, it is a very discreet form of ethics that combines some deontology but mainly based on negative utilitarianism. Rather, the focus is on maximizing good while alive but minimizing pain by not having future people. While it is best to maximize pleasures if already alive, one has no duties to make happy people. Rather, we do seem to have a duty to prevent suffering people. His main argument is what he sees as an asymmetry for considering future people. If we consider having a child, that "potential" that could exist, does not exist yet to suffer, which is ALWAYS a good thing. However, that "potential" that could exist, does not experience pleasure/good which is NOT a bad thing (or good thing) because that potential "person" does not actually exist to be deprived of the goods of life to begin with. Thus it is ALWAYS better to prevent harm, even though there is no person who might exist to appreciate this.

My ideas: So I have sort of a combination of both in my philosophy. I agree much with Schopenhauer's view that reality does seem to be striving-but-for-nothing.
1) I add to this the idea of the absurd. It is the absurd repetition that also adds to the suffering

2) I add to this the idea of three major categories of existence: Survival (production/consumption/labor/shelter, etc. in some sort of system- whether hunting-gathering on one side or advanced industrial on the other, it doesn't matter), comfort (not necessarily survival but our tendency to pursue comfort.. warmth, cleanliness, orderliness, maintenance, etc.), and entertainment (anything not survival or comfort related that keeps our minds occupied so as not to think of existential problems, like boredom or the absurdity, or why, etc. To find some sort of meaning or flow states, etc. ). These categories are kind of an elaboration of the striving-for-nothing Will of Schopenhauer's original conception. It is just parcing it out.

3) Due to our own needs of survival, comfort, entertainment, humans together can't help but create the epiphenomena of socio-political-economic systems which in turn use us. We are used by society, as much as we are using others for our needs. Then through enculturation, the system itself perpetuates itself by creating more people to perpetuate the system itself. People then work for the system. We don't even know what we are trying to do anymore when we have more people in the world, as they are simply more workers, more laborers, more society-maintainers. We say we want people to pursue their happiness, but is it just pursuing the epiphenomnenal goals of society instead? Etc. etc.. these and other ideas I have added to the general talk of pessimism.

4. The idea of contingent vs. necessary suffering. Necessary suffering is the striving that Schopenhauer talked about. It cannot be taken out of what it means to be a typically functioning human being. The contingent aspect is all the external things that by contingent circumstances of time, place, and cause/effect occur to a person (disease, disaster, frustrations, all the usual harms we think of).

However, in no way have I ever denied that we can experience happiness, good, etc. I've even explained that many times before what I believe to be the handful of goods many people hang their optimistic jackets on, and again refute that this is enough impetus for having children, or making a characterization of life as thus a good enough situation in the first place.

Any attitude or emotion you have towards life will result in this same issue. However, I tend to disagree that sadness is necessary to be a philosophical pessimist, as your title suggests. I would argue that all that is needed is to recognize prevalence of suffering in life, and that due to our mortality, it is unavoidable. This is similar to the roots of Buddhism. Philosophical pessimism is the result of acknowledging this truth about life, and attempting to find a solution to the problem, but ultimately failing to do so. Therefore, all that can be done is to resign yourself to the position that life has put you in. — Pinprick

Yes, excellent point. I'm just going to respond by reiterating so far one of the best reiterations I've seen of philosophical pessimism:

You've characterized the antinatalist as inhabiting a sort of suicidal despair, which (for the most part), I think is not the case. It's not all gloom and doom - living has it's goods and pleasures, it's moments of significance and meaning. The problem is that these are set against a backdrop of dissatisfaction, an incompleteness, a 'never-quite-satisfied' - all of which drive an ultimately aimless striving, one that culminates in aging, sickness, and death (if a violent act or accident doesn't kill you first). Recognizing that the unborn want and lack for nothing, what good or benefit is it to be burdened with the same bodily, social, and existential needs that befall us already here? — Inyenzi

Also, I'd like to separate some of my own reasonings from others:

Arthur Schopenhauer: All is actually Will. We are living in a sort of maya (illusion) of Representation, that is nonetheless part of the scheme of Will. It strives, but for nothing. It is manifested via time, space, causality into individuated events or objects. Will, from the subjective viewpoint leads to frustration, boredom (when one is not occupied with goals that seem to provide relief but really don't), and survival instincts. The way to diminish the suffering of unrequited striving, is to diminish one's own will-to-live to approaching 0. That is to say "deny the will-to-live". For him, this amounts to being an extreme ascetic. Only certain people with the characters to do this, will probably achieve this (he was sort of an essentialist about people's innate character). Suicide would not be the appropriate response, because it is using one's will to fight will, and that is still using will, so will not work.

David Benatar: There is no overarching scheme of metaphysics here (like in Schopenhauer). There is no unfolding of reality to a subject of understanding about the nature or reality. Rather, it is a very discreet form of ethics that combines some deontology but mainly based on negative utilitarianism. Rather, the focus is on maximizing good while alive but minimizing pain by not having future people. While it is best to maximize pleasures if already alive, one has no duties to make happy people. Rather, we do seem to have a duty to prevent suffering people. His main argument is what he sees as an asymmetry for considering future people. If we consider having a child, that "potential" that could exist, does not exist yet to suffer, which is ALWAYS a good thing. However, that "potential" that could exist, does not experience pleasure/good which is NOT a bad thing (or good thing) because that potential "person" does not actually exist to be deprived of the goods of life to begin with. Thus it is ALWAYS better to prevent harm, even though there is no person who might exist to appreciate this.

My ideas: So I have sort of a combination of both in my philosophy. I agree much with Schopenhauer's view that reality does seem to be striving-but-for-nothing.
1) I add to this the idea of the absurd. It is the absurd repetition that also adds to the suffering

2) I add to this the idea of three major categories of existence: Survival (production/consumption/labor/shelter, etc. in some sort of system- whether hunting-gathering on one side or advanced industrial on the other, it doesn't matter), comfort (not necessarily survival but our tendency to pursue comfort.. warmth, cleanliness, orderliness, maintenance, etc.), and entertainment (anything not survival or comfort related that keeps our minds occupied so as not to think of existential problems, like boredom or the absurdity, or why, etc. To find some sort of meaning or flow states, etc. ). These categories are kind of an elaboration of the striving-for-nothing Will of Schopenhauer's original conception. It is just parcing it out.

3) Due to our own needs of survival, comfort, entertainment, humans together can't help but create the epiphenomena of socio-political-economic systems which in turn use us. We are used by society, as much as we are using others for our needs. Then through enculturation, the system itself perpetuates itself by creating more people to perpetuate the system itself. People then work for the system. We don't even know what we are trying to do anymore when we have more people in the world, as they are simply more workers, more laborers, more society-maintainers. We say we want people to pursue their happiness, but is it just pursuing the epiphenomnenal goals of society instead? Etc. etc.. these and other ideas I have added to the general talk of pessimism.

4. The idea of contingent vs. necessary suffering. Necessary suffering is the striving that Schopenhauer talked about. It cannot be taken out of what it means to be a typically functioning human being. The contingent aspect is all the external things that by contingent circumstances of time, place, and cause/effect occur to a person (disease, disaster, frustrations, all the usual harms we think of).

However, in no way have I ever denied that we can experience happiness, good, etc. I've even explained that many times before what I believe to be the handful of goods many people hang their optimistic jackets on, and again refute that this is enough impetus for having children, or making a characterization of life as thus a good enough situation in the first place.

@Coben @Zeus

yes, I suppose part of the hope we each have is we get better at explaining and justifying things, calling out bs, and a verbal jujitsu in general. Converts are rare if that's why we're here. And 'the truth' is more likely to be found face to face with another human or training a squid to count, say. Experiences really challenge our positions in ways words on a screen rarely do. — Coben

Yeah I'd tend to agree.

And Coben, I also recognize you don't agree with certain positions of antinatalism/pessimism. If I remember, you are vehemently against certain things. Sometimes it is the kind of argument that you can disagree with, not necessarily the position itself.

1) he presents arguments, so these must be defeated. If a specific argument depends on an emotion, then one can criticize that step in the argument, at least potentially. But we are humans who have tendencies, so even including emotions as a step might be justified, if one could show that this is a general reaction. 2) you'd need to demonstrate that your philosophy is not based on emotions. And despair can drive one, for example, to an optimistic philosophy, which one then clings to to hold that emotion at bay. People turn to religion, Stoicism, Buddhism, pollyanish philosophies as a way to get out of despair. They may howeve present perfectly argued positions on things and their positions need to be focused on. 3) you'd also need to demonstrate that the philosopical position did not lead to the pessimism. IOW what is causal here? Emotions caused the philosophical position or rational assessment of X led to pessimism. — Coben

Great points. Can't add much else.

That's great but not quite relevant here. It's all to the man, ad hom. You have a metacritique of his philosophy based on an ad hom. And you have a kind attitude towards people who are depressed, which is also to the man, though here appropriately since it is focused not on arguments. — Coben

This is the heart of what is so wrong with this whole thread and argumentation. Again, well-stated.

Depression and pessimism are not the same thing by the way. You can be pessimistic without being depressed. And even a depressed person can mount an extremely good argument. — Coben

This is another good point. You can have depressed people that are not philosophical pessimists. You can have relatively happy people that are philosophical pessimists. Either Shawn doesn't care what the actual position of philosophical pessimism is, or again, arguing in bad faith. Either way, his arguing becomes more and more suspect the less he acknowledges this and tries to dodge pointed questions and responses.

So, you are arguing that those emotions invalidate pessimism. This means that emotions can lead on to rational conclusions, which is the opposite of the OP's position. — Coben

Good point!!

If he is reasoning emotionally, then demonstate it. That would be a step or steps in his argument. What you are going in this thread is just labeling what he is doing without engaging with it. It is certainly a valid topic, but again, you specified him AND you linked him to the thread.

Do you ever wonder what you might be doing by doing that?

IOW you are talking about someone in front of and to others, in a public space.

What are the emotions driving that? To Schopenaur it amounts to... Hey, I wanted you to know that I am asking others if we can just dismiss your arguments without interacting with them.To other people it amounts to...Hey guys, there this guy here who reasons emotionally. I can just dismiss his arguments, right? — Coben

Yes, this looks to be exactly what is going on here. Well explained. I called it not arguing in good faith earlier, but this is a very clear explanation of the kind of thing I'm talking about. If he wants to look at my arguments, do so. But he's got to stop with just ad homing.

Given your responses here, that all seems rather passive aggressive, another psychological term that might deserve a mention here, to paraphrase you. — Coben

Yep. Again, astute observation.

Look, you asked, I responded. some of my points you haven't responded to. The one about how you should be able to refute his arguments if they are based on emotional reasoning, you haven't directly responded to. IOW I could read your postt and not even be sure you read mine carefully at all. I can see how parts of this last one might be a response to my previous post, but not necessarily. — Coben

Yes, he did that to me too. He started this thread, and does not appear to be reading any of the answers- one's which I pointed him to. He is either not getting the answers he wants, or is looking to troll and not have a real conversation. I called it arguing in bad faith, or not arguing in good faith, but you have articulated in more detail what seems to be going on here. Again, excellent and astute observations.

OK, I'll try and address the issue of philosophical pessimism and emotions. I mean, how can you talk about philosophical pessimism without referring to emotions? Is that even possible? How do you address this facet of phil. pessimism? — Shawn

This is the last time, otherwise I am not responding to you on this thread. Look at all my answers throughout the thread. Also take a look at Inyenzi's thread, as I mentioned before.

See all the posts I wrote first. Look at what Inyenzi wrote. Already answered this sufficiently. What else are you looking for? But you see, nothing is going to answer to your satisfaction because you will always say it is from mood or emotion. I'm not sure what else you are going to need to your satisfaction, because I don't think there will be and it would be useless arguing further in that case. You either specifically pick out what I wrote in response throughout the thread or not. But I'm not discussing further unless you address what I said, really try to understand it, and then really try to understand the answers. Also, what is your motivations to even care about this issue. If you don't agree with the premises of the model, why does it concern you so? Thus does protest too much. Go find another issue if this is so beneath you as just a mood. Doesn't make sense except again, if your goal is to troll in your boredom or whatnot, on this site.

How do you rationalize THOSE happy feelings? — Shawn

I'm not going to talk to you on this as you have ignored all previous posts related to this topic, from those of myself and others on here. I've noticed this odd pattern with you.. You did it on another thread. I don't see you arguing in good faith, but arguing to argue. I'm not sure if anyone else sees this, but that's how I see it.

I think hidden in these sorts of questions is the assumption that if life isn't miserable enough to lethally harm yourself, then it's worth procreating. This is an incredibly low standard to hold for the quality of a life worth starting. Regardless, there is a fundamental distinction between continuing a life, and starting a life for another. Those of us living are already caught up in the world, embedded within a social and political structure. We have friendships and familial relations (who, presumably, would be negatively affected by ones suicide). The living, in most cases, also have their own ends and aims, desires and wants. Most people have things they want to see and do - things to look forward to. And more fundamentally, the evolutionary ingrained instinct to live and survive is embedded deep within our psyche, and requires a desperate suffering to overcome. These all bind one to the world, keeping us caught up in the striving-towards that characterizes our lives. Whereas the unborn (in my view), are unburdened by these binds.

You've characterized the antinatalist as inhabiting a sort of suicidal despair, which (for the most part), I think is not the case. It's not all gloom and doom - living has it's goods and pleasures, it's moments of significance and meaning. The problem is that these are set against a backdrop of dissatisfaction, an incompleteness, a 'never-quite-satisfied' - all of which drive an ultimately aimless striving, one that culminates in aging, sickness, and death (if a violent act or accident doesn't kill you first). Recognizing that the unborn want and lack for nothing, what good or benefit is it to be burdened with the same bodily, social, and existential needs that befall us already here? — Inyenzi

Wow Inyenzi, another powerful and insightful post. Very well-stated and gets to the heart of the philosophical pessimist stance.

As you might remember I am hardly a antinatalist, and I don't think I can be classed as a pessimist, but I am right with you in this thread. These guys are trying to do an end run around actually making arguments against one of your arguments. They have shifted to a meta-argument. Antinatalism includes the presence of emotion X, or antinatalism is caused by a preponderance of mood/attitude/emotion X, so we can class it as irrational. There are two problems with this: one you've pointed out and I agree entirely...all philosophical other revelant positions and ethical stances include emotions and values. The other point being that essentially this is all ad hom. They are focused on your emotions rather than your arguments. — Coben

Yes, excellent job explaining exactly what is going on here.

and human nature finds that discontenting. — Aussie

That is indeed the heart of markets :smile: .

In the end, there is nothing to say to a temperament that has it that the suffering is not worth it. — jamalrob

At the end of the day, ethics has no efficacy without human emotional response. If one cannot be convinced that ending suffering is the basis of ethics, then one cannot be convinced of that. If one cannot be convinced that human nature entails some sort of necessary (it is inevitable in our nature) or contingent forms (there will always be external sources of it) of suffering, and that this can be prevented by preventing birth, then one isn't convinced. However, there is a rationale there. There is a logic. But let's not pretend that other forms of philosophy do not have value statements. The value here is on suffering, and what to do about it. The pessimist is actually calling for compassion in the knowledge of this suffering. First, the compassion of sparing a future person from suffering needlessly, and secondly by communally understanding this aspect of existence. If it is well known all the ways we are suffering, using each other, being used, etc. then perhaps we can do something about it in the meantime.

What can we do? Probably something along the lines of more compassion. Rather, we are driven by competition, social pressures to conform, etc. How are these played out? Through the enculturated aspects of society solidifying the political-economic framework. The assumption is that this framework should be maintained. But pessimists realize that no matter how much calls for "compassion" or any other remedy, are not going to do much. Rather, it is beyond the individual's control, and part of human nature. We are constantly needing more, and we cannot just be content being. Our survival needs, our comfort-seeking needs, our entertainment-seeking needs, will always make us increase our demands on ourselves, our environment, and other people.

At the end of this, I am saying that like any other philosophical system philosophical pessimism has a logic to it. It has premises, often to do with how suffering is entailed in the human experience. Pessimism never denies there are goods in life, but these goods being not wholly and completely part of life, but always something in lieu of some suffering cost, are not considered to be what is the primary concern of ethics.

Pessimists also ask what the human project is about? To say something like knowledge-seeking, or technology, or advancing civilization, or creativity, or whatever you want, is to pretend that the cost of individual suffering to supposedly obtain these ideals, don't count for much. That somehow, the march of the human project must continue at all costs, despite suffering. At the least, pessimists want you to put this in perspective, and ask yourselves why is putting more people into the fray worth it? Why is simply not having any people so bad in light of suffering? What does it matter if no new person experiences the goods of life, that we pretend we value so much? Also, a pessimist might ask, at what point are we just keeping a system going to simply keep it going? It brings up ideas of absurdity of repetition without thought.

Try thinking of ANY other system or model.. I don't care what it is.. there is an assumed value to it. To propose that pessimism is the only one that does that, is to not look at one's own predilections and preferences. One sees something that grabs their attention, and THAT becomes rational.. But how suspicious it is when a point of view that challenges the normal thinking is so reviled, by people who supposedly have an open-mind. No, rather it is those with vested interests in THEIR pursuits, ensuring that it remains THE legitimate forms of modeling and propositions.

One thing I don’t get about antinatalism is how the same arguments for it aren’t also arguments for suicide, or even arguments for mass euthanasia. If life is suffering and nothing can fundamentally be done to improve that, and nothing else is worth putting up with it, then best to end all life as quickly and painlessly as possible, no? If not that conclusion, then something in the arguments leading to it must be wrong. — Pfhorrest

As far as "mass euthanasia", philosophical pessimism does not entail forced pro-mortalism. If anything, these utilitarian-only arguments are against many brands of antinatalism, which puts people's decision-making power at the forefront. For example, you can't make an argument that it's wrong to create new people with no choice, and then say "but it's okay to take away choice in other matters of existential decision-making."

Also, you must make the distinction between a life worth starting, and a life worth continuing. The threshold for starting a life vs. continuing one is much different. See Benatar's distinction here, for example: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born.

Also the pain and fear of death may be so great as to not matter that it would be a fast "end" to the suffering. If Schopenhauer was right about his Will theory, suicide would be the Will (the very thing causing suffering) turning in on itself. Rather, he would think that diminishing the will-to-live through ascetic denial of the will, would be the only way to effectively end Will's hold on the individual.

You ought not have been chastised. Let's call a spade a spade. If by "greed" we mean an insatiable desire for more then that seems a fair description. — Aussie

Interesting conclusion though. What I like is the equation with "rationality" as if that is the only way things must go.. But really then economic supply-demand theory is making a conclusion about human nature. That is a deeper philosophical stance than the theory lets on.

Certainly. Markets are made up of thousands/millions of INDIVIDUALS making choices. There is absolutely room for differing choices. However, taken as a whole, markets show a strong tendency toward price increase in the presence of relative inflation...again, as a whole. — Aussie

So taken as whole, most people are insatiably wanting more, and will always gravitate towards this tendency based on I guess, the majority of people's nature, which is to want more?

I would say, no, ALWAYS is too strong a word in this instance. There can, of course, be those who choose a different approach. Tools such as the supply-demand curve describe markets in aggregate. They show us a picture of things similar to seeing someone in the shower through shower glass. You can discern a great deal about them (they're naked, they probably male/female, they have short/long hair, they're facing this or that direction, etc etc) but there are plenty of details the glass distorts. — Aussie

So at the end of the day, putting this together, without using the words rational.. Why does government spending more money and money supply increase cause inflation? So again, I'm asking for a human-centered view here, with motivations not words like "market mechanisms" and things like that. Let's talk about the real decisions behind these models.

The second question (about SHOULD) is meaningless until the first question is answered. Should it be the case that we always desire more? Is there a point at which we should be content? How are we to discover an answer to that? How are we to know we've discovered the right answer? Is there a "right" answer? It's attempts to answer the second question that has led to the plethora of political/economic philosophies. But even then, the answer to the first question, in my opinion, has remained unchanged. Across political and economic systems, mankind has continued to desire "more". It's why the supply-demand curve has done a reasonably good job explaining what we actually see...regardless of where and when we look (broadly speaking). — Aussie

Ok, so I originally called it greed, and was chastised for it. Others gloss it over as "rational". I think that is a cute way of putting it, but papers over an assumption of human tendency which seems more like what you are describing with Machiavelli. We always want more. An business owner who was perfectly content making profits at a certain price level may raise price levels if he perceives that he can make a better profit from raising prices. Everyone having more money will cause this perception in owners. But can there be owners who don't actually raise their prices? Is it ALWAYS the case that someone will want to raise their prices when they see an increase in demand? Is that an inevitability?

I do realize this can go the other way. If competition is lowering their prices and they can make more money that way, to keep up, the business owner would have to do the same or go out of business. This may be to their detriment if they don't have the technology or capital to get to that lower price level. If that is the case, they would have to market their product differently, perhaps as a premium good or specialize in a niche market the other company does not penetrate.

I'm not saying I agree with the decision ethically speaking, that is a different questions. To have a rational reason to do something is either to have a deductively valid reason (which does not seem apposite in this kind of case) or a practically valid reason (which does seem relevant to the kinds of cases we are considering here). — Janus

But what is the practically "valid" reason? What makes something "valid"? Against whose criteria? Why is that criteria the correct or only way it should be seen against?

Sure, but if you are seller and you perceive that other sellers are raising their prices due to increased demand and short supply, would it not be rational to go with the flow? — Janus

Ah, you just used that word. I requested you use other words as that has no meaning to me here. As I stated, this word can simply be used as a decision you agree with.

Also increased money supply generally causes a currency to lose relative value in the money markets, which means that purchasing power of, at least, imported items is reduced; and this also pushes prices up — Janus

Sure, another issue, but possibly same origins on the micro-decision level.

Right, so the only thing that could countermand that tendency would be governmental price regulation. — Janus

Well, now you are going back passed it. I want to stick with the decisions to raise prices. That is a micro-decision made at an individual level. It is not an inevitability. And please don't use words like rational to just make circular justifications. Anyone can say a decision was rational if they agree with it.

Because they believe they can sell the item for a higher price. — Janus

Yes, that's the part I was getting at.

They will raise prices only if the items they are selling are scarce, and there if plenty of money and/or demand for the times in question in the system. — Janus

Okay.. you're still reiterating the result and not the cause. And why would they raise prices when resources are scarce?

It's just the upward pressure on price that strong demand and low supply brings about. Individuals will charge what they are aware, or at least what they think, the market will sustain. I'm not sure what is puzzling you about this. — Janus

I'm not puzzled. I'm giving a theory behind WHY the prices go up. You cannot just say low supply and high demand. Actual human DECISIONS make these things happen.

As I understand it inflation results when there is an overabundance of money and a scarcity of necessary and/or desirable items. — Janus

Yes, but what actually causes the raising of prices? That's what my OP was trying to get at. Price increases come from a supplier trying to make more money, either to buy more resources for output or to make an extra buck, perceiving that they can do so.

One is "simply" a function of the supply-demand curve. The other is a matter of ethics/morality and thus, beyond consensus. — Aussie

Well, one and two, seem almost the same to me, but maybe you can explain. I thought inflation was price increases on a large scale. My point was what is the origin of this phenomena in the supply-demand curve? My theory was it was the supplier raising prices. Sometimes it is to create more output, but a lot of times it is because they want to make an extra buck because they see an increase in demand.

Or what would you declare an "ethical" price? The price that a supplier has to pay for the resources? The price that a supplier has to pay for resources plus a compensation his or her own "work"? (What on Earth is an "ethical" income for one's work?) — ssu

So the price wasn't good enough earlier before the high demand? Again, it is all micro-decisions. Costs don't go up for no reason.

We are not forced into slavery now days. — ssu

Never implied we should.

Every employer buys our work and we have the option to either take their offer or not to take it. Remember that every person is the "supplier" of his or her own work. — ssu

Actually, though theoretically true, I'm going to challenge this common notion. Really, a lot of luck and situational context is involved here since we have imperfect knowledge. Usually, we find a job through job boards or "head hunters". Sometimes it is through contacts. Either way, when we find these jobs, we don't necessarily know what we are getting into based on interviews. Sometimes the job is not as it seems. Sometimes the managers, owners, and coworkers are pricks. This isn't all apparent just from the day or two preview for an hour you usually get. Rather, by the time one realizes one doesn't like their work situation, one is already in it deep enough they have to keep going with it at least until they find another job. But it doesn't look good to job hop, so you have that working against you. It also could be timely and take time away from work.. Also, at the end of the day, people are forced into work because they need to survive if they don't want to be homeless, poor, or live in the woods and hack it in the wilderness (or weren't born into money). So there are a lot of small but significant factors that prevent people from fully getting a job they really prefer. Rather, a lot of it is simply giving up preferences, and sometimes those preferences are never met.

Also, the ridiculous notion that just by asking an employer for a raise, you will get one, or find a job that does indeed pay more, is ridiculous. Thus the sticky wages problem. As suppliers raise the prices, wages don't meet those price hikes. Sometimes employers won't do shit to raise their employees wage unless forced by unions or what not. So this defense of the fair employer, and ease of work preferences in the mark, as you seem to be making out is not so cut-and-dry.

Now days it's about just who gets the boost. Is it the few rich people or the one's working on the correct market sector, the one's in a labor union that has the ability to pressure the employers? Just what segment of the population get's the benefit? These things are complicated and politics come to the equation always. — ssu

Certainly do.

Ok schopenhauer1, now I can really say that this is economics 1.0. That's why I called it "market mechanism kicks in". When there far more demand than supply, then prices go up. It might not be the individual supplier that raises the prices, it may be the buyer that knows that there's a shortage and simply offers to pay a higher price. Markets are a two way street, you know. It's very naive to think that in a shortage situation it's the suppliers that are raising the prices because of greed. — ssu

Yes they can bid on prices.. but um, how about first come, first serve? All I'm saying is NOTHING has to go down the way that economic models say it does. It's all micro-behaviors of individuals, not "forces" or "mechanisms". Those are hollow words in a human behavioral analysis. I don't know what you call it when there is a shortage and you let people bid for the highest price.. It could be called being "reasonable" or it could be called "greed". BOTH are value statements. Also, a lot of things in reality DON'T work that way. Outside of things like Ebay, it is the SELLER who sets the price, and anticipates or tests what people are willing to pay based on the conditions. No one is at a grocery store saying that they are going to pay $100 for toilet paper if you reserve the first 10 packages for them. Rather, whoever gets there, gets the toilet paper.. If the prices rise, it is not due to bidding but due to the willingness for consumers to pay more and possibly slow the demand to allow for increased production.

What makes it a "market mechanism" is the amount of people involved making good (or bad) judgements. That's why we talk about aggregate demand and supply, macroeconomics vs. microeconomics. Not everyone makes good choices. But on average, people are reasonable. And before you say it, yes, there are Animal Spirits as Keynes himself said. Hence many times that market predict things wrong. — ssu

Ok, I guess we can agree. But "reasonable" is its own sticky point. One person's "reasonable" is another person's "unethical". Reasonable, is a weasel word, just like "mechanism".. it puts the cart before the horse. It assumes too much on what is the case. I think it reasonable that everyone agrees with what I'm saying.. Is that a good definition? Oh, but we are going to then make "some' definition "the" definition of reasonable... and on and on the circular justification goes.

Now it's likely that the cash given to people won't affect much prices as there is the economy is plunging. For the moment. It's interesting to see what happens. — ssu

Yeah, I think we will have a contraction in supply of various goods and services in general as people have less income, and thus less ability to buy anything, thus less demand. Any government money will be used to pay for things like debt or food, necessities to get by, and even that won't get covered. Thus, I don't think it will lead to inflation as people won't be scrambling for more, but simply trying to maintain.

Is the economy anytime in an equilibrium? I see it always going somewhere, up or down... — ssu

Yeah agreed. It's what to do about it.. Classical economists would say to ride out any economic difficulties, and Keynesians will say that government should give a boost.

I am a hundred percent with this one. Often, quite unknowingly and due to no fault of his own, but merely coming from an emotional state, a person may tend to 'promote' a certain philosophy. Now, one's description of that philosophy is coloured by one's moods and it may very well colour someone else's. I think, first and foremost, it requires a lightness of being to even start discussing a philosophical concept. If my 'mood' is in the way, I will most definitely fail to reason adequately. — Zeus

I'm sorry, both you and @Shawn I believe wrong on this one. There are a bunch of weasle words in here "reason adequately" and "derived from feeling" and "path towards the 'good'". This is all subjective evaluations on what people "should" pursue or not pursue.. So what you are accusing pessimists of is exactly what you yourselves are doing.. promoting a sort of view and hoping other follow it (i.e. pessimists shut their traps, and people promote whatever YOU deem as rational topics). Give me a frean break :roll: .

Rather you're both wrong with this idea of disposition.. Rather philosophical pessimism is a sort of model of human nature, just like many other philosophical traditions which have models about human nature.. Schopenhauer is the clearest example of a phil. pess.. His model that human nature was a pendulum between boredom and goal-seeking. The goal-seeking leads to increasing frustrations and suffering, and so does boredom. He also thought boredom was a proof of the inherent disquiet we have with just "being" since we always need something else to think about.. I further elaborate on this model with my idea of splitting human motivation into survival, maintenance, and entertainment. The repetitive nature of this can be absurd if one reflects on it long enough.. Why keep repeating these basic categories? Is it worth starting for someone? Now this is all based on human internal striving.. a form of suffering that may be harder to explain than mere utilitarian and recognizable (what I call) "contingent" harm- what I like to think as things that are not necessary aspects of life, but happen nonetheless to many individuals (disease, accidents, bad relationships, loneliness, dread, anxiety, shameful experiences, embarrassing experiences, annoyances, loss, poverty, natural disasters, etc. etc.). Anyways, there are many ways pessimists can explain the world and use various models, but it makes it no different than other traditions trying to understand questions of value, ethics, and the like.

Honestly, I think you know that, Shawn.. It sounds like you are trolling me.. Trying to argue for arguing's sake rather than have much to say about it. You called me out, you wanted me to argue with you.. Here I am.. But why did you single me out on this one? Seems like trollish behavior, not in good faith, but to simply antagonize for antagonizing's sake.. but that's just a hunch at this point.. I'd like to see posts that show otherwise, but I'm afraid it's going to be tit-for-tat one-upsmanship and not a productive conversation.. But please prove me wrong.

And when they go after those natural resources etc. that cannot be simply printed more, then market mechanism kicks in and prices rise. This in turn makes things then more costly. — ssu

This is basically what I am talking about.. So what does this mean "market mechanisms kicks in and prices rise"? Suppliers raise the prices to invest in more output or because they think they can make an extra buck. THIS causes prices to rise. Again, it is human behavior. Saying things like "market mechanisms" tries to take the human behavioral element out of this.

Finally the workers notice that their wages aren't keeping up with the prices of goods and they demand a raise, if they are in the position to do so. And once those wages go up, the central bank can then accuse the workers of creating inflation because of their excessive wage demands! — ssu

True although wages going up barely happens or happens at the rate of the inflation of prices.

And you are correct that more money injected to the economy doesn't always cause inflation. In the last financial crisis the banks simply used that money to prop up their holdings. And who would take a loan in a time when the natural thing would be to save and be parsimonious? If you are worried that you might loose your job or have lost your job, the last thing people usually do is go and spend more than before. — ssu

Yeah, savings is a factor classical economics doesn't take in making non-equilibrium.

Well, I may be here so "old-school" that what you explained still sounds like normal market mechanism working. You can call it demand-pull inflation (or cost-push inflation), but I wouldn't use those terms as it confuses a bit the terms in general. As if anything raising the prices is inflation and anything lowering the prices is deflation. If there's an exceptionally good harvest or a catastrophic harvest failure, I wouldn't call the price decreases or increases a sign of deflation or inflation. But of course you can use the economic terms demand-pull and cost-push inflation. — ssu

This comes out of an argument whereby the person was against the government spending because, he claimed, it would cause inflation. That just got me thinking about how exactly inflation works. Just by saying that more money is injected into the economy causes inflation doesn't get at it. WHY does more money injected cause inflation? Because people will buy more. This demand will cause one of two things 1) suppliers to need to spend more on resources to create the supply for more demand or 2) suppliers to see an opportunity to make more money by increasing prices. I was addressing number 2 and saying that was possibly a large part of it.. There are no laws in economics that are not actually tied to human preferences, behaviors, and the like. Prices don't increase just because, but because people are deciding to do things.

Philosophical pessimism derived from a feeling seems like it should be treated as a very private and personal sentiment, and ought not be shared as it were talking about the weather or something trite or mundane... — Shawn

But we are on a philosophy forum and that would assume theories about human life, including pessimistic ones are fair game. If we were waiting in line to get coffee (not that we can do that now), then it would indeed seem inappropriate. So this is a non-issue and a non-sequitor even.

Keynesian economics assumes that prices are elastic. I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that prices are inelastic. Even the prices for core goods are elastic. Again, you'd require something really extreme of an event to cause a uniform rise in (core) goods, where competition is rife. — Shawn

I'm not saying they are not elastic. I'm not sure where you're getting that. I'm saying that more demand increases prices.. We know that.. but why? Suppliers raise prices.

What you might or as it seems to me, getting at, is a collusion in the market. Is that so? — Shawn

There is definitely that in gas prices and such, but price increases don't have to happen because of that. An economist who tries to give the benefit of the doubt will say that the price increases are due to increased capital and employment to make more supplies. That may be the case. However, there is just good ole fashion seeing how much one can make knowing the increase in demand is occurring. The tendency seems to be mechanization anyways, which would stabilize more, or less the costs from labor, and then it would really just be doing calculations on how much you can raise prices before you lose money on less sales.

Keynesian theory is always looking for where things don't actually clear.. sticky wages, uneven inflation, etc. This is where governments can step in to promote this.. it is more demand side economics, not supply side.

Well, that would be true if an event in the market caused a uniform rise in prices. Such events are extremely rare, or a collusion between market suppliers is complete.

But, then again, look at the increase in prices in N95 masks due to something unforeseen as Coronavirus. — Shawn

So you hit on something that Keynesians might say.. that inflation is not all at once but from only a few sectors thus not raising all prices. Classical economics would tend to say that government spending (that is not there.. deficit spending in other words) would create unnecessary inflation that would simply raise prices overall on supply due to suppliers seeing increase in demand. Or that is how I've heard it. If someone else wants to chime in and correct me, feel free to do so.

Who does the calculation? Again, you're assuming the invisible hand is all knowing, which is a common misconception of economics. — Shawn

Well, actually that's my point kind of. Inflation is simply collective decisions over time of micro-decisions that are based on suppliers trying to make more profit..

Perfect knowledge would allow that, which leaves two things as possible, either a conspiracy or an event outside the realm of market supply or demand. — Shawn

It's not perfect knowledge.. If you give people $1200 and they spend it on consumer goods.. those companies start perceiving an increase in demand. They do a calculation to see if they would make more money raising prices because they know people are buying more. They raise it enough to make more money without losing too much business.. The profit increases marginally the prices raise marginally, you have inflation.

In a market, where there is competition in contrast to a monopoly that dominates the market segment it exists in, there's can't be arbitrary rises in prices for goods provided by said rational agent. — Shawn

All the companies would raise their prices.. this is why I said micro-decisions affect the whole thing.. all companies will eventually raise prices with increase raise in demand.. this will affect yet other companies downstream who will need to raise prices due to increased costs, and on and on.