I sympathise with your sentiment, but it is not that simple. Say some regions do that and their enemies don't then their enemies will overpower them in the future. Also there is the demographic problem of an aging population not being supported by younger people. — Punshhh

I am in line generally with Kant's idea that people should not be used as a means if you can help it. Well, having children in order for them to take care of the elderly or having children to outpopulate your enemy is using children for a means. What is the cost of using people like this? The suffering person that will be born. Think of the suffering not how they can be used, or how much YOU think THEY should enjoy this or that part of life.

The point is that if there is something like Ebola in the world and physical diseases of all sorts known and as of yet unknown, who are we to throw more humans into that and cause more suffering?

So yes, deciding to have children is ideological based and implicitly accepts a large part of society's ideology.

However, I would argue that "a large part" of society's ideology is a prerequisite for having children because it happens to be true. Though I view all decisions as ideological, that does not mean all ideology is false. "You shouldn't eat poisonous mushrooms" is a part of society's ideology I've inherited, and I imagine you as well, but doesn't mean it's false.

Now, I agree ↪TheMadFool that most people don't give the ideology they've inherited much thought, obviously simply going along with it in a "it's worked until now at least" sense isn't necessarily contradictory. Of course, most people who don't think much about it, just a normal thing people wanting and having children (a fact of life as it were), probably don't even argue that far. So it is an interesting debate whether such an assumption without attempting to justify it is a justifiable assumption; but of course, it can only be debated from outside by people that are reflecting on the issue and considering both proposals. So, probably best to discuss those proposals in themselves first. — boethius

So I think we are basically in agreement except that wanting/having children is a "fact of life". I have argued several times that in the human animal, it is a deliberate choice made from deliberate actions. I don't think other animals have the same ability to deliberate on any number of choices- including whether to procreate. Thus indeed, procreating is a deliberate choice. Politically speaking, it is taking in the ways-of-life of a current society (or hoped for future society?) and wanting to put a new person into that- making the decision for them, that this is deemed as good and a new person should deal with whatever the ways-of-life are.

At least not in terms of a face-value interpretation, of relation to parents conceiving children, as it excludes people who cannot have children from participating in what is essential and not secondary. — boethius

That is taking that a bit too literally. Anyone can debate whether procreation is good. After all, procreation certainly affects the progeny born into existence. Although I don't think anyone can force their idea of procreating or not on someone else, it is ironic that indeed the parent is forcing procreation on a new person, whether or not that parent's neighbor disapproves or not. So again, anyone can have this conversation, whether if one can actually procreate or not.

A reformulation I would agree with, is that the fundamental issue is "whether it is worthwhile to continue humanity or not", and, if yes, then several principles follow as a corollary. The most important would be preserving the environmental conditions that make humanity possible, not simply because that's the foundation for humanity's project but we have responsibility to other living creatures and not just ourselves. The idea that "sometimes people should have children" also follows from deciding to continue humanity. And, for some, the best way to contribute to continuing humanity does involves having children, while others may see the best way for them as other activities. — boethius

But why is the assumption that we should contribute to continuing humanity? That is the exact ideological assumption I am questioning. Perhaps we should contribute to reducing ALL suffering unto a future person by simply not having said person (who will eventually suffer)?

However, as I mention above, I believe we can't escape a large part of society's ideology because it happens to be true (and going without it leads quickly to death) but I also believe that whatever is false we inherit we can escape from. Deciding to have children is not an intrinsic commitment to perpetuate false beliefs society has. The "true ideology" may overlap a large part of society's ideology, either defined as the status quo or then just the collection of what everyone happens to believe, and the true ideology may include valuing the continuation of humanity. — boethius

I don't get how you are using "true" in this post. What makes an ideology "true"? Any answer you provide will beg the question, even unto the simple answer "it helps us survive" as even that ideology can be questioned as to why we should contribute to that cause rather than reduction of suffering (which would equate to preventing any new person from being born to experience suffering).

I hear you, there is the issue of how people and leaders address this crisis. Do they close borders and prevent the spread across the world, while crashing their economies. Or do they just let it in an take a hit to their population.

It is a catch 22, where do we turn?
Hopefully a cure all vaccine will be produced, but that may take more than a year and then God knows how long to administer it. Also it may mutate and the vaccine might not be very effective.

Perhaps this is the corner we turn towards the fading out of our civilisation. — Punshhh

How about part of the response is not having children?

I couldn't agree with you more in the first paragraph and couldn't agree with you less in the second (if you weren't joking).

Au contraire, people are completely oblivious about the ideology they're endorsing and have never in their lives given a single thought to the issue. Of course it could be as I said earlier, people are in the know but are overwhelmed by social pressure to continue the tradition of family-making, either with resignation to, or in defiance of, the facts. — TheMadFool

This is probably a major part of the issue as to why procreating is not considered an ideology. People don't stop and think that what they are doing is indeed a political ideology- one that is putting a stamp of approval on a way of life.

Enter your question as to why the matter doesn't make an appearance in social debates. Perhaps people value life to the right degree to preclude persuasion otherwise. You haven't spoken of suffering at all but have made an effort to expose the meaninglessness of social existence - an endless repetition of activities having no intrinsic worth of their own. However think of it this way: nonexistence you've "known" before your birth and you will "know" it at death. Why not experience some life just for the heck of it? I know the odds are stacked against us but there's a chance, however slim, that our experience of life will not be all pain and tears. Life doesn't look so bad now does it? Even the most monotonous, dull lives seems almost mouth-watering! Irresistible! — TheMadFool

TheMadFool, have you seen my other posts? Almost all of them pertain to suffering as a reason for antinatalism. However, this thread was meant to be about as you said:

but have made an effort to expose the meaninglessness of social existence - an endless repetition of activities having no intrinsic worth of their own. — TheMadFool

That's sort of true. This thread is more about the inability to recognize procreation of someone into a society as a political decision for someone. That is the issue at hand in this context.

Why not experience some life just for the heck of it? I know the odds are stacked against us but there's a chance, however slim, that our experience of life will not be all pain and tears. Life doesn't look so bad now does it? Even the most monotonous, dull lives seems almost mouth-watering! Irresistible! — TheMadFool

So now you are just defending the ideology I guess?

Yes, indeed. Without a consensus on how to live, a good ideology to live by, procreating simply amounts to increasing the number of confused souls. — TheMadFool

But to live at all is the ideology in this case. Why should people live at all (be conceived, birthed into existence)? To work, to entertain themselves, in a certain socio-economic context etc. seems to be the ideology for the children. But why are we assuming this is good for people to enter into? The ideology of living in a society is assuming another person should live in the society. Why this assumption? Why isn't this ideology debated? That should be a political debate, not an assumption of inevitability.

But we seem to be largely in agreement vis-a-vis parents choosing to conceive (and risking it is also an ideological choice): — boethius

I would agree with. — boethius

So to take this implication further, I believe this to be the utmost important political decision. I see political ideology as ideas that one believes not just oneself, but other should follow. Thus, forcing other people into society should be the first thing debated. Everything else is secondary to this as everything else literally, comes from this.

You're probably going to work for some employer or maybe start a business. If you don't for a long enough, you will go hungry and become homeless. You can try to hack it in the wilderness yourself. Someone thought that this was a good situation to bring you in. But this wasn't examined more than- it is good to bring this person into society. The ideology is, "At least some people should be brought into society". Why is any person being brought into a society a good thing? It is simply an ideology that the way of life is good, and others should be brought into it.

Isn't this just another case for antinatalism though- pandemics? This one isn't particularly deadly (except for older folks and those with pre-existing respitory conditions). However, it can mutate, and even if it doesn't kill, it causes a lot of physical pain and discomfort, like other diseases. Physical ailments of all sorts should tell us something, but we aren't listening. It's not Ebola or anything of that magnitude, but that type of disease can also spread. Physical illness just shows us that we are blissfully ignorant when things are going as we want or expect them to.

I don't buy the arguments that we should stop looking at the most negative aspects or that we should not ignore human ingenuity and resiliency. Tell that to yourself or to someone who is actually affected. On recovery, I don't see this bright sunshine rosy thing, I just see how miserable life can be. Why put more people into that possibility and/or inevitability? If you've ever had constant vomiting/diarrhea for more than a few days.. existence does not become that much brighter because it ended eventually. If you have a sudden bought of pneumonia and shortness of breath, making it through isn't shrug and go "isn't that funny about life?". Even common sore throats, runny noses, and general achiness doesn't make the cut as "just the cost of living".

Why put more people into that? Because they can climb mountains, read poetry, be a part of "nature", and whatever else generic sentimental bullshit we like to throw in as the payoff? Get the hell out of here.

@god must be atheist
@Janus
@Nils Loc
@ZhouBoTong
@Punshhh
@Frank Apisa

So what kind of personality profile is this? Is there a difference between this kind of willful manipulation and the plain old self-imposed limitations of what sources and opinions we wish to follow? If its the former, are these subtle lies or outeageous ones? If its outrageous ones, I ask again, what is the personality profile of this hapless non critically discerning person?

Who is this hapless demographic that gets duped by Facebook/social media content and ads? Are there really people that look at this and go "Ah, that's gotta be true because I saw it on Facebook!". I guess there is, but I'm wondering how ignorant one must really want to be to believe everything because it's on social media. I'm imagining thousands of little old ladies that have been introduced to social media and don't know that anyone can post anything, and they are constantly saying "Oh my!". It just doesn't make sense who is being manipulated whether by foreign or internal trolls.

Not necessarily. I can give you a simple counterexample. Jewish minorities still had children, even though they never particularly subscribed to the non-Jewish mainstream ideology of society. They clearly had their own. — alcontali

The key word here is chooses. To say that most animals "choose" to have offspring, is a misuse of that word. Animals may have instincts for children, but choosing is something different. They may "choose" a mate, but "choose" in this regard, is a loosely used meaning, referring to rote cognitive processes. Same goes for "choosing" what time to mate, or if to mate.

Humans, on the other hand, can deliberate based on the fact that we are linguistic animals. Again, I don't even want this debate. If you want to start another thread on animal cognition, be my guest, but this is my final word on it in this thread. If you answer it, I will ignore it as it is not what the thread is about.

Not necessarily. I can give you a simple counterexample. Jewish minorities still had children, even though they never particularly subscribed to the non-Jewish mainstream ideology of society. They clearly had their own. — alcontali

No, this example does not have anything to do with what I am discussing. To clarify, I meant ANY society- not just the majority, not just a minority, not just a small one, or a large one, but choosing to birth someone in ANY society is an ideology. In fact, I'd still say that since all parties involved (majority and minority) are part of a bigger system anyways, the more general ways of life (having to survive, having to maintain comfort, having to maintain some form of entertainment/meaning) make it simply SOCIETY rather than various intra-societies. That is to say, when you pan out of it, really ALL societies are going to have similar ways of life.. even if they look different on the surface. Everyone needs to eat and so need to be a part of an economy (bit coin, real currency, markets, hunting, whatever..).. Everyone will want comfortable levels at some point (too cold, too hot, too this or that)... Everyone will want some sort of entertainment or meaning (boredom, needs and wants of all kinds). So, really we can just say any or all societies at this point in the argument.

A fringe can easily become the mainstream. That happens all the time. In fact, most people are sheeple. Their opinion concerning the mainstream ideology, (or concerning anything at all, for that matter) does not matter at all. Nassim Taleb has written a good article exactly on that subject: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority. The opinion of most people is immaterial and irrelevant. Only intolerant people matter. Society changes its ideology according to the principle of group renormalization in line with the opinion of its most intolerant members.

So, you can happily ignore the opinion of most people, because it is known to be worthless. — alcontali

So again, it doesn't matter what particular society, but SOCIETY en totale. Ask yourself, is there a society at all in question? If yes, bringing someone into that way of life (majority, minority, or any at all) is an ideology in itself.

Life in general seems to be naturally inclined to axiomatize that it is a good thing to have offspring. Otherwise, life would probably not even exist. — alcontali

I'm not sure how you are using the term axiomatize. However, I will say that life does not have ideas, only people do. People choose to have offspring. They are following the ideology that ways of life of a society are good. Generally speaking, most humans have to live in some sort of society. Yeah, you can give me some fringe exceptions, but besides that this isn't sustainable as a widespread thing, these fringes are only in relation to the non-fringes, so you need both.

If you adopt anti-natalist views, then you will not have any offspring, and then this in-existent offspring will not perpetuate your ideas. Hence, the world will be always end up being populated mostly by people who have inherited natalist opinions from their parents. It is just a question of keeping your children away from public-school indoctrination camps operated by anti-natalist cultural Marxists. Therefore, anti-natalism is an "evolutionary dead-end". Still, it is obviously your own choice. — alcontali

That is the consequence true. However, I am not saying what the consequences will be but just that indeed birth turns simple "society" into an ideology by wanting it to spread to others (new people). Ideology is not just belief, but usually belief applied to a political and social context (think of Marxism, socialism, free-market capitalism, etc.). Just take the ways-of-life of society and apply that to other people, and you have an ideology of society itself.

You can happily adopt a completely different view and function perfectly well inside that society. In fact, you will most likely do better than people who adopt the mainstream ideology. Well, that has always been my impression. I believe that adopting the standard ideology in society will automatically lead to personal failure. — alcontali

But the debate isn't about which society is best, but whether it is good to bring someone into any society. See the conversation I'm having with TheMadFool for reference of where I'm going with this. Basically I'm saying that if bringing people into ways of life (any ways of life) is an ideology (you are ASSENTING to a system of life), then birthing new people into a society should be just as debatable as any other ideology.

In a way, an ideology implies something is good for someone, usually not just you but other people (sometimes everybody).

I accept your position that society is an ideology but you seem to think people are unaware of it which is where you're mistaken or so I think. — TheMadFool

It's the implication of this that is most important, not just awareness (though I doubt parents think of birthing children as assenting to an ideology). The implication is that if ideology is debatable, putting new people into these ways-of-life should be debated as well. It is no different a political debate as health care, and in fact is more fundamental and important.

I know warning their children that the road ahead will be tougher than it was for them (the parents). — TheMadFool

As an aside, something seems wrong with knowingly putting people in a worse situation.

Therefore, it seems to me, that giving birth isn't an assent to an ideology but rather a bold challenge to it. — TheMadFool

So I think you are still not thinking general enough. I mean, literally the ways of life of a society- how we survive, maintain our comfort levels and environment, and entertain ourselves is an ideology. By giving birth to a new person, you are assenting to that ideology (whatever you think of the current version of that society).

Actually, to add to the above, the ways of life BECOMES an ideology once the birth decision happens. So the way we survive, maintain comfort levels, and environment become an ideology upon deciding for someone else they should live in this society too.

Well, in what way does viewing society as an ideology affect our understanding of ourselves? What impact does it have to you, me and everyone? I mean you make your claim in a tone that makes me feel as if something profound has been discovered but it seems so obvious and trivial. — TheMadFool

Sometimes the obvious is profound, but it just takes a slight perspective change on it :grin: .

Anyway, you aren't quite clear on how we "assent to this ideology by having more humans be born to it". I would be especially concerned, given the peculiarities of my circumstances, if an ideology demanded the birth of children just to adopt it. Can you elaborate on that please. — TheMadFool

Would you agree that generally, a society has a "way of life", general patterns that people follow that are more-or-less the same? We generally have things like work, money, exchange, consumption, etc., right?

Well, in a way, these patterns are not really an ideology UNTIL one decides to become a parent. Then, things do change. Because now there is an evaluation of the this way-of-life as something worth continuing. Now, the ideas and ideals of society are considered as good or bad. Now, you are saying YES! the ideal of working, consuming, entertaining in various ways that we do as a society are GOOD for SOMEONE ELSE. Thus, it is not until the birth decision that society becomes an ideology of weighing of ideas and ideals and assenting to them or not assenting to them.

Thus, debating something like "Should we buy into this ideology of X (government vs. corporate run X, let's say)" is secondary to debating something like "Should we buy into the ideology of the ways of life (society) itself?".

I mean I can imagine a society without an ideology as such, as a simple coexistence of individuals as I presume chimpanzee societies do. — TheMadFool

I think this is where you get off the track. An ideology has ideas behind it. It is doubtful animal societies (even chimps) have ideas underpinning it. But that's not what I want to argue for or against. Rather, I am arguing that even the very basics of a society- its very ways of life, the very activities that a socio-economic system allows for (work, production, consumption, entertainment, etc.) is itself an ideology. Humans assent to this ideology by having more humans be born into it. Thus, PHILOSOPHICALLY, we should be arguing whether this ORIGINARY ideology is itself worth undertaking, not just INTRA-ideological debates of things like health care, left-wing, right-wing, etc.

What do you mean by saying society is an ideology? — TheMadFool

Society has certain ways of life that are discernible. These ways of life are its own ideology. Generally in Western society, there is work, etc. As I said in the OP as examples:

In the Western world, industrial production/retail consumption/billions of trade partnerships and contracts/government monetary systems and the like pretty much run the backbone of how we survive. On a daily basis this usually equates to a set work week, probably a weekend and non-work hours, maybe retirement on the horizon, educational institutions while growing up, with overlap. There's literally millions of other things to add here but I don't need to list them all. — schopenhauer1

Further, birth is the gatekeeper for creating more adherents to the ideology. Birth is the ultimate YES! to the ideological underpinnings/ideals of a particular society (way of life). Having children is agreeing with the ways of life (ideology) of society. It also doesn't matter which type of society (tribal, Western, etc.).

Even more, if society is an ideology itself, any political debates are only INTRA-ideological affairs. The root question, is whether we should be promoting the initial ideology itself (society/ways of life) and the way it is promoted, is again, through birth (the ultimate recruitment into the ideology of society itself).

What you described might be best defined as the machinery of ideology. These mechanisms and systems essentially run on autopilot regardless of the individuals keeping it running. Many of them have been in place before you or I were born and will likely persist for generations to come, with slight variation.

When we are born into it we must, as a matter of self-preservation, learn to deal with the systems and machinery around us. — NOS4A2

You make it sound like an inevitability. The "machinery of ideology" is in fact people DECIDING society is good enough to (literally) procreate more people to experience it. That to me sounds like an ideology, not an unchangeable mechanism running in the background. Clearly if people are making new people, they assent to a point of view (an ideology) that they want others to live out as well (having children).

Likewise, the ideology of no ideology is of course itself an ideology. Trying to dismiss world views as ideological and "thus wrong" or "not justifiable really", is simply to claim one's ideology is right without introspection or defense compared to the alternatives. — boethius

Birth by default creates conditions (major ones, like living itself) for another person, so I don't know, I'd say birthing a new person would be the hubris of believing one's ideology (living in the current society's ways of life) MUST be good enough to create conditions for others to HAVE to live in it (lest suicide).

Your question seems a conundrum if you interpret ideology as "simply ideas that people choose to believe" but ultimately has no justification really in the end. If some ideas in some ideologies, however, are simply true, and at least some truth is needed to live both individually and perpetuate a community, then it's no strange thing that society has a fairly broad consensus of things that just so happen to be true (eating poisonous mushrooms kills you for instance), and people who go outside this ideology (or rather just true things society has learned) die very quickly. — boethius

I think your examples miss the point of the premise. Rather, I am saying that by birthing someone, one is assenting to a set of ideals (one being that at least life is worth living, that the current society is good enough to bring someone into it, that the ways of life of that society are something to instantiate a new person into, etc.).

It is also not strange that entirely categories of tools that have no deducible "true or bestest form" society forms conventions about that get passes from one generation to the next. The typical example is language; we can reason that having words and grammar to express things is useful to have, but we cannot deduce the "best words" and so society picks new words or changes old ones when the want arises in no particularly coherent way. Likewise, some rules of conduct maybe deducible from reasoning or trial and error in a specific form, such as not eating the poison mushrooms or tolerating wanton murdering in the community, while other rules of conduct have no particular justification but are a useful reference point.

This broad ideology anthropologists generally call culture. — boethius

It's about assenting to living in any culture at all.. By birthing new people into a society, one believes that the culture is something to be instantiated for yet another generation. It is an ideology, incarnated into a new person or next generation, to be lived out.. and repeat for another person, and another, and so on. It is not only believing in ideology it is creating new adherents from whole cloth (i.e. birth).

An ideology is a set of beliefs and values attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons which are not purely epistemic.[1][2] Formerly applied primarily to economic or political theories and policies, in a tradition going back to Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, more recent use treats the term as mainly condemnatory.
— Wikipedia on the term ideology

Survival-through-economic-means is just a modern incarnation of survival-through-hunting. The reasons to do these things are purely epistemic. It would even be possible to experimentally test that a person not acquiring any calories at all on a daily basis ("starvation") would prematurely die. Hence, the survival-through-economic-means approach is not epistemically unsound. — alcontali

So, I don't think you're quite getting my drift. Rather, what I'm saying is that we all know that society is a certain way. By having children, we are consenting to this way of life. It doesn't matter if you are a conspiracy nut, a bit coin enthusiast, or a self-made man, the ways of life of a society are itself pretty well-known. By having a child, you are assenting/agreeing to this way of life FOR another person. One agrees with the ideals (hence ideology) of the ways of life (in whatever multi-faceted way). So you have to broaden your understanding of what an ideology's scope is to the ways of life, and NOT specific means WITHIN those ways of life, which are also rather limiting, even if some are more inventive than others (and usually not the norm).

All of this is interesting, but a bit off the mark as to what I mean by ideology. What you are discussing is INTRA-ideological debates (self-employed vs. employee, bit coin vs. other currency, etc.). My point is that generally speaking, LIVING itself requires a way of life (survival-through-economic-means for example), and that by birthing more people, you agree to force more people into this ideology. There is no way out of this ideology (of living generally to survive in some sort of economic system), once born, not even suicide.

That goes without saying. Only actual existing people have options. — Benkei

We know that by existing. If there were null people in this world, this fact wouldn't matter. Once just one new person enters this world, then the antinatalist premise makes sense. Options aren't even a matter of mattering without people, true, but that wouldn't matter, so what's the matter with no people/no options? Giving people life, and thus "options" is still forcing life and the intendant "options" in the first place. The options are actually more limited than one might argue, and it is pretty straightfoward what the person born will have to face on a societal and existential level. That is forced options if you ask me. THAT is the first political move. Every other subject is footnotes to that first existential/political move on behalf of someone else. It is that initial ASSUMPTION of what must happen for the person being born. All of this other stuff is window-dressing to that originary decision (for someone else to deal with). There is no going back after that- not EVEN suicide.

And the center is not evil. Meeting in the middle is how democracy works. It's normal to get frustrated that things aren't the way they should be, but we're better off facing our problems together than becoming polarized and thus unable to deal with anything.

We will stand together. That's who we are. — frank

There are some things that cannot be compromised. For example, there is no possible centrism regarding the antinatalist proposal. You are either born or you are not born (and abortion debates are not the point here). You cannot "meet in the middle" regarding whether it is good to bring another person into the world. If you do it on behalf of someone else, it is they who have to deal with your decision (not to mention the collateral of all the people that person may interact with). We cannot meet in the middle for an agenda that is pushed on people. The first political decision made on behalf of someone is whether to bring them into the world. You can pretend that there are enough "options" for the person to justify the "freedom" to do what they want after birth, but there was never the option never to play the game in the first place :worry:. This will always make politics rationalization after the initial aggression. The aggression to presume that creating the circumstances of life for someone else is actually the right thing to do for someone else. That is an assumption, and it should be questioned.

Whether we should have public health care, free education, raise taxes, pay of the debt, etc. is just the collateral damage of the work foisted upon the already-born. Unless we question the root of all of this (birth), we are not getting to the philosophical root of all political theory.. the decision to birth in the first place on someone else's behalf.

Ideologically, I'd suspect opponents would think it violates free market dictates, and the ideologues control — Hanover

The whole point of medical insurance is a lot of people are on the plan. No one really "picks" their insurance. Their employers pick for them. If you are going to come back and say that people can change jobs to get a different insurance plan, you are living in a dream-land where people can just change jobs like they change their clothes.

I'm not saying that's your thoughts, but the people you were addressing with those views in that quote. Oh and don't forget jobs which are otherwise good, but don't provide health insurance (but perhaps a stipend). All people have are exchanges at this point, or a very high individualized rate. Oh and don't forget simply jobs that don't have insurance- period.

I do believe though that shoe shopping can be meaningful, and I think you would definitely agree if you've had to run in uncomfortable shoes. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, shoes are an annoying but important thing to pick out, hence I used it as an example. I mentioned Western civilization because this might not matter to someone from a culture with no shoes, like a tribal one perhaps. They have other issues to deal with.

was thinking about this and I do notice this general attitude among a lot of philosophically-minded people. The attitude I'm referring to is one that tends to de-value or maybe denigrate that which is considered tedious (like buying shoes) and on the other hand places the emphasis/the value on "the big picture." — BitconnectCarlos

This is a slight misinterpretation of what I was getting at. It is exactly those maintenance/comfort things that DO indeed take up most of our intention. I was not making a value statement of it, but rather make an observation (survival, comfort, entertainment are our three main drives in my idea about our everyday affairs). But, with this comes a lot of low-level tedium/discomfort/anxiety. You mentioned an example here actually:

A runner who picks the wrong size shoe could find himself in serious foot pain half way through a race. Even if you're out with friends and your shoes are the wrong size that could suck. Don't even get me started about military footwear. I understand that if it's just casual use the stakes aren't that high though. — BitconnectCarlos

Actually, that’s my homework assignment for you. I want a list of things and people you are grateful for. I guarantee that when the negative thoughts creep up, if you make that an exercise to list what you are grateful for, then you will immediately stop feeling as low. — Noah Te Stroete

And in between that time I give you the list of things I am grateful for, the list for things I am not grow longer...

Like probably >80 percent of people on here, I was drawn to existential literature as a teenager. It can be a way of social branding, but still, before that, there's some draw to smart people who thought Wait, But This Isn't Enough, Are We Really All Ok With This? This can shade into pessmism (Schopenhauer especially) or shade the other way into heroic self-assertion (Nietzsche, especially) & both of those things make sense, for a time.

But they also butt against reality.

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at biographical detail. Schopenhaeur was a sour son of a bitch & Nietzsche was locked-in hard to his own self-mythologizing. He was essentially alone. That doesn't negate their literary and philosophical genius, but it does (or should) make you think twice about taking life advice from them. (Joyces' A Painful Case does a better job of this than anything I can do)

It seems like Big, Magisterial Ideas often function like a smokescreen. The throbbing pain at the center of addiction asks that you do anything but feel it. The marquee addictions, like heroin, strut their function openly and unabashedly - the experiential Everything of them seems, for users, to speak for itself. And the idea of heroin addiction can always function, for those who haven't used them (like myself) as an 'at least I didn't go that far.'

But big philosophical ideas can also blur the lines. They elevate and leave the central wound down below. The world gets smeary, 30s' softglow. Plus, it offers control. If you can do arguments, that's a kind of power.

Still, the whole time you have to live. And, if you're hooked on ideas, the world is degraded in favor of those ideas (or good literary recaps) and you get more and more zoned-out. That's me in my 20s anyway.

What I really want is techniques for how to live, and techniques for how to approach life as it is. That's hard - some inner instinct bucks and shies from that - but what else to do? It feels like the only thing to do is shave off everything that isn't touching on that, and find what works. But the addiction is still there, trying to make things as abstract as possible.

I guess the thrust of the OP is - does anyone else feel this, or have some suggestions? I feel like I'm at least in the airlock, but definitely not ready for outer space. — csalisbury

Schop was a grandiose writer. That was the habit of philosophers in the 19th century. They forgot how to write with self-referential wit. That is what we do all day nowadays. You can probably capture the man's real daily life philosophy better in his personal letters. However, if anything, DESPITE Schop's grandiosity of theory, his theory well conforms to the naive psychology of everyday living- the textured one you are writing about here (or I believe you are getting at). His reality is the one of constant restless change, but change of mental states between really very basic things (what I further label as survival, comfort/maintenance-seeking, entertainment-to-avoid-boredom-seeking). That is it. Other than that we deal with contingencies that we face. I see the airy clouds of philosophy touching reality right there in his description of human nature, and the contingency of the universal cause-effect that we experience. What else do you want in a philosophy?

Nietzsche is a blowhard pompous ass. He wants you to embrace the suffering. Camus wants you to embrace the absurd. Schopenhauer isn't so forgiving. He complains and laments and says there's no real way out. He does dabble in ideas of Enlightenment through asceticism, but he probably knows that only a few can even get to that very rarified mental state (if it exists at all). Thus we are left in his schema with compassion and complaint-of-situation. That is what we have.

Everybody complains. Not nearly as much as they should then :joke:.

Also, a lot of people are happy to be alive. — Noah Te Stroete

Then we are in two different worlds. You are in reflection hindsight mode (or you are in a good mood right NOW), I believe I am in the one closer to reality for everyday living. I give specific examples, and give reasons. Even if we disagree, you can't say I'm just throwing up statements without reasons or explanation. If anything people are tired of my explanations and reasons.

Pissing off the acceptance folks by outwardly pointing out stuff (complaining) and antinatalism :wink: .

Like I said earlier, I want to be wrong. I still likely have a lot of years to live. The problem with my logic is that, while it is seemingly sound to me, it is also quite boring. Additionally, this leaves me with the feeling that everything I am doing is just a waste of time. And that bothers me, a lot. I'm fine with the ultimate nothing/something dichotomy. Whichever way that goes is simply what it is. However, the idea that nothing can be meaningful because of it really bothers me. Which is why I want to be wrong. Can someone break my logic? — runbounder

My reaction to this is, "Yep, you got it". People tend to try to kick this feeling by distracting with novel experiences, but it just becomes chasing a high of sorts. Everything eventually becomes routine. The best you can do is sustain a low level tolerance of time and actions. Survival, comfort/maintenance and entertainment-to-avoid boredom are the three basic ways we waste time. All of this takes place in a physical world in a social context. I think of something like fretting over which shoe size really fits best. It is not hunting to survive, it is not boredom really.. Just silly tedious maintenance of something that is contingently due to Western civilization's quirk that we have various size shoes which, if one is enculturated to wearing shoes, one gets used to wanting them to fit right.. But here we are, complexities of inanities, of things. Don't let the complexity of these venues confuse you as to what we are doing- survival,comfort/maintenance, entertainment-to-avoid-boredom. Don't forget contingent suffering. We often suffer from things outside of our own restless nature. We never seek out disease, illness, and disasters, but those like to also make themselves known. There's also shame, embarrassment, low-level discomforts of all sorts to deal with.

The main advice here would be acceptance. The other is rebellion. I prefer rebellion.

Yes. That's right. That is correct. You have correctly identified the nature of life. Well done. You can write that down in your book of 'things that are the case'. Honestly, what more is there to discuss. It's a brute fact. You're not prepared to entertain any suggestions of anything you can actually do about it, or even think about it, so what else is there other than agree that it is indeed the case? — Isaac

Yes, it has a lot of implications. Politically it means we are not really "for" ourselves as the only choice we can make is moving up or down a spectrum of (for the pessimist) unwanted realities.

Are those things really inescapable? Do they really result in death when they are lacking? Or is this what our perceptions, mostly influenced by the sort of society we live in, are pressured into believing? — Tzeentch

So how aren't they?

But what more can really be said other than, "you're shit out of luck"? The premises of life are already present, you're already caught up 'playing the game'. If suicide is off the table (why?), then there is no option but to continue coping with and dealing with. The conundrum is essentially, "I don't suffer enough to lethally harm myself, yet enough to where I don't enjoy living". Well yeah, then you're fucked. You could find a distraction. Gaming? Gambling? Sex? Get a girlfriend? Fry your brain with drugs? Rig up some contraption that feeds you and toilets you? But you don't want suggestions on coping methods, so I'm not sure what's left to say. It's a terrible situation. — Inyenzi

No I wouldn't advocate a Wall-E world either where one exists to be fed and defecate. But isn't that interesting, all this economic striving for essentially just that, but we need more in life than basic necessities. Yet, this need is predicated on things that one might not want to deal with in the first place. There is no 'no option" button. Reality is such that fortune, one's own decisions, society, other people, survival (i.e. socio-economic circumstances), and contingency in general all come together and one has to "deal with it" or die.

Regarding the first, I've never heard an economic conservative make this assumption. Can you give some examples? — JohnRB

Yes it's conservatives who have told me this. No, they are not talking outliers; they think that any able-bodied individual can educate their way to a higher rung in areas of the job market that are needed.

Regarding the second, I have heard conservatives say that people living in the United States today have sufficient potential for economic success. And I don't take them to mean this in some strict logical sense, such that, if I were to outliers, like someone with Down's, it would disprove the claim. But I've never heard them claim that you just need to be "in the correct areas" in the narrow sense you imply by "doctors and financial brokers." — JohnRB

Again, I have heard conservatives who do say this.

If "correct areas" simply means that there can be pursuits that are monetarily worthless (like "dance theory"--to censor a common joke by some on the right), then yes I've heard conservatives say that. But do you actually think they are wrong on this point? — JohnRB

The points I've heard are similar to this- go into X field that makes money (go where the money is). For example, it's your fault you didn't "choose" a highly sought after job (e.g. mechanical engineering, doctor, computer engineer, etc.). Again, the assumption is that everyone has the same aptitudes and that if they don't, then they will find something comparable (usually these people got seriously lucky in getting a good paying job and assume others can "just" do the same as them). Clearly, expectations of how markets operate are out of step with reality for these folks.

If "correct areas" means some line of work that requires a high IQ (like doctor or scientist), then I've never heard any conservative claim this (with one caveat). In fact, they usually claim the opposite: anyone capable of working a full-time job at federal minimum wage can live comfortably. — JohnRB

And who makes federal minimum wage in non-federal jobs? Not many low paying laborers do, unless their employers are forced by the state to comply accordingly. Rather, these people are just earning ends meet to often live in an undesirable area/ circumstances. Market forces, luck, and initial wealth do play a factor for these people. Hence, public goods like free education would obviously make sense in these cases.

What exactly is the rung here? It can't be occupation, right? Obviously a Rawlsian wouldn't suggest we allocate jobs at NASA to a proportional representation of people with Down's. Is it standard of living? If so, what's the Rawlsian standard for who gets to be at "the higher rung"? — JohnRB

I mean standard of living, not occupation. The whole point of the Veil of Ignorance is to pretend like one might be born into any aptitude, any background, any class, and is ignorant of where one might come from. What would be the fairest way to have the opportunities to move up if one were initially born into lesser means to survive?

Maslow's hierarchy would dictate one would probably first take care of making enough for food, shelter, warmth, etc. Then, one might want to be suitably educated to move on to something that can afford more than basic necessities. However, the balance of doing so is difficult to obtain without indebting oneself even further, and taking on more financial burdens.

Many aspire to be an Edison or a Buffet, but most people aren't. That's the problem with the "boundless opportunities" mentality- it doesn't fit what actually happens. A society that allows for those to have a satisfying enough life, but allows for Bill Gates types would be optimal. Keep dreaming, but you have to live everyday life and get by.

@Bitter Crank Have you met any of these conservatives? Anything you might want to add?

Typically when we talk about equality we're talking about economic equality, which is of course a very real issue. My main question is why does the discussion have to stop here.

Lets say we live in a world where everyone is hard-working, and we go by the idea "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." We eliminate inheritance, and all inheritances are divvied up equally among the population. Lets go even further and say this has all worked out well: Everyone has attained a decent standard of living, poverty is eliminated, and everyone more or less works full-time unless they're unable (in which case they would still receive a pension.)

So do we have equality? I'm not too sure. Some people are still taller, better-looking, more charismatic, smarter, etc. than others. And now those who are on the bottom can't even really get very rich to try to better their position, socially speaking. We still have disability in this world. The playing field may have been leveled in one sphere, but not others.

We could actually take steps to limit people's heights. It would involve limiting calories. It's also probably easier to make smart people dumb than dumb people smart, but why not try both simultaneously? You never really hear major social inequality of height, intelligence, or charisma in the world. — BitconnectCarlos

As is well known in this forum at least, my political position is that being born is being used by society. In a "free society" people can choose what they want, except not wanting to do any of life's basic premises (lest they die or have physically damaging experiences like hunger, illness, and pain). However, skipping this important point, I see two sides here. There is Rawls' Veil of Ignorance argument and the economic conservative argument of winners and losers.

The Veil of Ignorance (VOI) argument is ASSUMING that people have different abilities, circumstances, backgrouinds that may keep them from fully gaining status and wealth in the higher rungs of society.

On the other side, economic conservative argument assumes that people have an almost boundless potential for abilities, making the correct decisions economically, and that circumstances of one's background doesn't make much of a difference if one CHOOSES to be in the correct areas to make money. For example, if people value doctors and financial brokers, then that is where one should be to get the money. Not doing so is simply not choosing correctly.

The VOI would argue back that, there are barriers of class, circumstances and limited knowledge that would prevent one from gaining positions in the higher rung. The conservative would rebut that that this is false and that people simply have to make decisions that benefit them and they can climb the ladder.

So the main differences are that the philosophies have two glaringly opposing assumptions of one's abilities to gain ability and make decisions to bring themselves to a higher rung.

I think Veil of Ignorance wins out. Thus, public education should be accessible to anyone. If one wants to be a doctor, and has has the aptitude one should be able to get there with public assistance if they cannot afford it already. Also, there is just luck and markets. Some people are mediocre and talented only to an extent to do a job. That person can get a job that offers $100,00 salary. Another person, more talented in the same sector, due to markets and luck can get the same job for much less.

The $100,000 salary person if they are NOT working on the Veil of Ignorance, but conservative argument my say (ignorantly) that anyone can do what they did. They have just got lucky though, nothing more. The market does not bear that kind of job market salary for everyone.

delete

The premises of life are what are generally needed to survive, sustain, maintain, be entertained in a human existence. As I've stated earlier:

Dealing with...other people, their differing personalities, expectations, judgements, affects on your well-being
Dealing with...survival through cultural institutions and situatedness (socio-economic means)
Dealing with... illnesses, disorders, disasters, accidents, injuries
Dealing with...finding relationships, love, connection
Dealing with...cause and effect in general, the affects/effects of one's own decisions- poor or otherwise
Dealing with...one's own inability to be satisfied

So what if some people don't want to die, but don't want the dealing with either? Yes, there are coping strategies, but having to do any of it, improvement regimes or otherwise, are not wanted to be entered in. Of course one is shit out of luck. That is the conundrum for someone who doesn't want any of it.

I was looking for some interesting conversation on the conundrum rather than disdain for the idea itself which I'm well aware people on the forum have a biased against. We all know, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and improve yourself is the default advice here. Is there any more than this? Anything of more intriguing ideas about pessimism in general or this viewpoint in a broader perspective? Afterall it is questioning the human enterprise itself, I would think that can provoke more interesting things than "You make your own prison and you must improve yourself." Anything more global than its the pessimists fault?

Just delete

If you've only got two choices you have to take one of them, that's what only having two choices means, is that what you wanted people here to confirm? — Isaac

Its the implication for thise living in that binary choice...

Going back to game analogy...
If you dont want to play the game, but the only option is to try to play the game better, and taking suicide off the table, then what? Thats the conundrum. Its not asking for improvement plans, its giving the scenario.