The Hebrew Bible advocates personal responsibility. Sin can get the best of you, but you have some say as to whether it does or does not. Paul, however, seems to abdicate responsibility - we are powerless against sin and in need of grace. — Fooloso4

Its funny, but who gets to decide what "sin" is? In the Hebrew Bible, sin tends to be tied to error in following Mosaic law. You didn't follow the Sabbath correctly- that is a sin. It is a "missing of the mark" in terms of following Mosaic law.

As @Fooloso4 aptly explained, this idea of responsibility for following Mosaic law or lack thereof being the connotation of sin, sin itself becomes some sort of metaphysical state in Pauline Christianity. That is to say, the world becomes imbued with a metaphysically sinful nature which humans have some sort of connection with since the Adam and Eve story. This idea can come from Gnostic ones originally that the physical world is simply considered "bad" due to the Demiurge's rule over it. Ideas of these kind were floating around in the Greco-Roman period. Paul probably took them and incorporated it to his new theology and interpretation.

Then you jump to saying that somehow because of this we can judge what we're doing emotionally and animals can't. What has judging our situation emotionally got to do with technological complexity, cultural learning, or adaptability? — Isaac

I am trying to understand how it is that a species can have negative evaluations of a given task- especially ones related to survival, and have negative evaluations regarding life itself. We are able to do this because of our higher degrees of freedom. As I mentioned a previous post:

This extra layer of degrees of freedom adds in a way, an existential burden for the human animal. We are the species that can put negative evaluations on the very things we need to survive. We have the burden of knowing we don't like a task, but muddling through it anyways (e.g. this task sucks, but I got to do to earn pay for goods and services). In fact, we can put a negative evaluation on life itself. We can even wonder the worth of going through this whole survival/comfort-seeking/entertainment-seeking adventure/challenge in the first place. We can question our own species' continuance, and whether existing itself is necessary or good for future generations.

The human has an existential burden of being able to evaluate life itself as it is being lived, each task, each action, each moment. I find it interesting that this evolutionary path has been borne out in humans. Pre-programmed procedures, having an innate ability to do survival mechanisms X, Y, Z would be sufficient, but the path of the human animal was to have survival mechanisms that favored degrees of freedom and plasticity. The very mechanisms by which we were able to start evaluating our lives and existential situations and understanding our relation to existence were originally to allow for ways to survive in our social and geographic niche. The byproduct is we can even decide, based on deliberation, analysis, etc. that life itself is not worth being born into and have to live through moments of added suffering because we "know" our own negative evaluations of a given situation as we are doing them (again, things like "this task sucks, but I am still going to do it).

These guys don't have these added existential burdens:



Just to orient the major implications of the human existential predicament (add a heavy dose of philosophical pessimism though).

I just voted for my favorite but he is not the most depressing. Nietzsche and the eternal return certainly is.

Yet you then leap to emotional self-reflection and authenticity. The evidence you've provided doesn't even hint at this, let alone demonstrate it as a necessary conclusion. What has a complex, culturally learned, technology got to do with emotional self-reflection? I'm not seeing the link you're drawing. — Isaac

I did demonstrate the conclusion (I am not sure it is necessary, but sufficient). That is to say, we have enough degrees of freedom in our psyches to evaluate any given task or any given situation as we are doing it. This goes back to another thread I started regarding our ability to evaluate work as we are doing it.

Essentially one of the main philosophical implications of our degrees of freedom (i.e. plasticity), is our self-reflection, and awareness of ourselves in relation to "existence" in general. At least, this is a conclusion I am the most interested in. We can choose any number of courses of actions and lifestyle choices. We can choose to live homeless by choice, for example. We can absolutely find the work we are doing dreadful, but then decide that we are still going to muddle through it to get a paycheck because we know that paycheck leads to future goods and services like food, utilities, transportation, housing, entertainment, etc. Other animals, don't have the degrees of freedom to evaluate the very work they are doing to survive as "dreadful" and then decide "well, I'll still muddle through it". This kind of self-reflection is absent due to simply not having the evolutionary adaptations that lead to these degrees of freedom as humans (due to contributors like evolutionary adaptations for language, tool-use, adaptations for cooperative learning, and the rest that help ratchet up our unique survival niche). A bird doesn't mutter to itself "fuckn, nest-making, I hate this shit, wish I could just perch on a branch all day..Ugh, more fuckn seeds.. I just want a vacation". That's silly and absurd.. but it seems like you really want me to belabor this point. A bird simply doesn't have the degrees of freedom for existential thinking. In a way, a byproduct of the way we evolved, involves the seeds for a negative evaluation of the very foundations by which we as individuals and a species survives.

This extra layer of degrees of freedom adds in a way, an existential burden for the human animal. We are the species that can put negative evaluations on the very things we need to survive. In fact, we can put a negative evaluation on life itself. We can even wonder the worth of going through this whole survival/comfort-seeking/entertainment-seeking adventure/challenge in the first place. We can question our own species' continuance, and whether existing itself is necessary or good for future generations.

Now, how has society developed mechanisms to prevent negative evaluations from becoming too aggressive? Humans have the great ability to manage our own behavior through various avenues such as "roles" and "competition". If you play the "role" of good worker, good citizen, good family man, successful person, great thinker (what many people think they are on philosophy forums perhaps) and make these models to live up to, and get people to buy into it, this eliminates some of this excess negative assessment of the situation. In other words, people would be more interested in living up to a role or playing at a role than "luxuriating" in the uncertainties of existential evaluative thinking of life itself.

However, this playing at a role is also "inauthentic" living according to existentialists like Sartre. If our species has the degrees of freedom to understand its own existential situation, buying into a role unknowingly would be to give up the very freedom we have for existential evaluation in that we have in the first place (as a possible byproduct of our own evolutionary adaptation for plasticity). Other animals have built-in modules that generally can't be overriden (except through other built-in modules). We have enormous degrees of freedom that can override any particular action we are doing, if we deem it not worth our time and commitment. We can even judge the whole human affair of surviving to pursue some sort of "pleasure" or "happiness" as absurdly circular, and life to be on the whole, not worth pursuing for ourselves or the future. We can become existentially depressed (not just depressed by way of mood regulation problems as would be the case in classic depression). We can live knowing our situation as just beings who must survive and entertain over and over. We must constantly motivate ourselves to keep going. Again, society provides "roles" and certain ways of thinking for people to by into (e.g. competition, not falling behind your neighbor, etc.). But when these self-imposed constraints are taken off, we are being authentically thrown into our own awareness of our own existential situation.

I gotta admit that that post was hard to unpack- perhaps you can put that in more clear everyday English :chin: .

It sounds like RAH is about concern for getting something done and PAH is about an object in itself.

I always took RAH to be a sort of flow-like use of an object. It is how we encounter things in our natural state before we analyze them. Thus if RAH is more original to our being, tool-use is our natural state. Analyzing the tool and the world itself is not a natural state.However, being that we are very inventive creative beings, they seem to go hand-and-hand (no pun intended). RAH and PAH are two sides of the same coin. But, I could be interpreting this wrong.

Excellent cliff notes there, by the way. I'd like to add that I think Heidegger was trying to get to some sort of original stance the human consciousness takes towards the word (which you already alluded to). That is to say, how does the human interact with something like a tool for an intended purpose versus, examining its make-up, how to improve it, what are minute details that go into producing such tool and its relation to other objects of the world. My question to you is, how do you think Heidegger thinks we jump from ready-at-hand to present-at-hand thinking?

You're saying that humans are not primarily driven by instinct, but by 'higher motives'. — Isaac

I'm not saying humans are driven by 'higher motives'. In fact, often I emphasize how much of our motivation comes down to survival, adjusting comfort levels/performing maintenance, and finding ways to entertain.

What I am saying is the way humans go about surviving is in large part, through plasticity in our learning. For example, a bird mainly builds a nest based on instinctive drives. There are some species where it's noted that they get better over time (i.e. the weaver bird), but mainly it's based on innate processes. The type of nest that is produced is based on species. Also the species generally knows when to make the nest based on instincts as well- let's say the spring time for the cardinal.

Now, human behavior is much more plastic. Building a shelter takes coordinated effort,and is not based on innate drives, but based on complex learned processes that the individual and a given society accumulates (i.e. accumulated cultural learning) in order to make the best shelter. Humans plan, think up various tools and processes, rework them etc. The degrees of freedom in the human cognitive process is enormously greater and more varied. There is no instinctual module to perform this or that action for building a shelter. In fact, a human can decide to not build a shelter at all, and wait until they are in a better area (assuming it's a hunting-gathering society). Humans can think about and take innumerable courses of actions as well as generate incalcuable nuanced, imaginative worlds and scenarios.

This flexibility is called "plasticity". In other words, or cognitive process compared to other animals can be characterized by its plasticity- our degrees of freedom in thought, and what we can learn culturally. Where a bird often survives through instinctual modules to perform survival-related actions, humans have high degrees of freedom of thought and plasticity-of-learning to survive, making for an enormous range of human behaviors and ways of survival.

So I described plasticity, I provided some common theories as to how this plasticity came about (physiology of brains/biology, cooperative learning adaptations, linguistic generation), and have provided some of its implications. These implications being that we are a species which such high degrees of freedom we can evaluate our situation as we are doing it. We can put an emotional marker on what we are doing, and know that we are doing so. We can say- "I do not like doing this task, but it is the best course of action in order to survive right now". We can also realize that we can be doing any number of other tasks than the ones at hand now, giving us the responsibility of authenticity.

We can decide to play a "role" and know that really we are "playing at a role" so we can confine our thinking to certain values. However, we can decide that other roles, and other actions are more to our liking. We are the only ones who can think along the lines of a Schopenhauer or Camus, that life can be absurd, that we were born, but everyday we have to decide what we are to do with it. We can question why we were born, or whether it's worth it to continue to live. This is called existential thinking. We understand our existential situation as we are living it. We are not just living in the moment, we are constantly examining life itself, and any given task in life itself that we choose to do or perceive has been given to us.

A bird does not say, "Eh, today I'm not going to build my nest. I'm just going to perch here and chill". It simply does not have the degrees of freedom to do so. A bird does not question its own life, its worth, and whether any given task is worth it. A bird does not philosophize about existence. Of course, that shouldn't even have to be argued.

I wonder what @Bitter Crank, @Baden, @Wayfarer, and @unenlightened have to say.

I've read through it a couple of times, including the article, but I'm not seeing any link to motives at all. It all seems to be about the fact that humans can respond more appropriately to shared intention than other primates. Some of the work I've read about primate empathy would seem to contradict these conclusions, but that's not necessarily relevant unless I can see how you are using them as evidence for your key argument. — Isaac

I mean because you say it ain't so, don't make it ain't so. My question is how human decoupled from instinct to plasticity (not to deny there are some instincts as well, which the OP already mentioned). These articles are but one example of a theory of how this decoupling came about. Theirs focused mainly on collaborative learning. Some articles I am sure will focus more on tool-use in conjunction with collaborative learning, mainly brought about by having hands free from walking bipedally. Yet others will focus mainly on linguistic capabilities and what that does for an animal's cognitive framework. Perhaps all three will be focused on, focusing on tool-use, language, and collaborative learning integrating and ratcheting each other to create a decoupling from instinctual modules to more plasticity.

Again we're back to unsubstantiated claims. There is scientific debate around whether animals commit suicide, they certainly self-harm and refuse food in response to stress. So all you're left with it the bare assertion that "when humans do it, it's for different reasons". — Isaac

Just because actions are similar, doesn't mean they are the same. Someone committing suicide for an identified, specific, and deliberate reason- from a complex set of ideas (possibly unquantifiable, since the human brain is so imaginatively generative, it might even be hard to isolate), versus general "stress" of an organism due to environmental factors would be reductionist for the point of making an argument. Do I have to give you examples of animals not having complex set of ideas of immense imaginative generation in order for you to agree?

So if we use this article as a starting point: https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/Sage/Tomasello_Ape_CurrDirPsychScience_2010_1552616.pdf

Tomasello seems to indicate that children as early as 1 years old can hold theories of mind different than apes in terms of collaboration. Communication in human infants goes beyond individualistic goals of communication (what I need for myself now) to provide helpful information, emotions, and attitudes that require a sort of joint effort. There is a natural stance in humans that both parties have to be committed to the communication process. This predisposition for collaborative/committed/joint communication, along with basic linguistic abilities to decode symbols and use syntax (linguistic generation), creates cultural learning.

This article here tends to agree: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5855/the-decoupling-of-instinctual-programming-and-cultural-learning

Unlike nonhuman apes, who exploit others’ perspectives primarily for their own purposes (28), human infants put their perspective-taking skills to work in the contexts of sharing attention with others and communicating cooperatively with one another. Importantly, human children also expect their social partners to be similarly motivated, creating a reciprocally cooperative framework for communicative and collaborative endeavors. For example, around their first birthdays, human children begin to produce pointing gestures simply to call others’ attention to objects of interest, and, when others point for them, children assume a cooperative motive relevant to the common ground between the two communicators (29). In contrast, whereas great apes can learn to point imperatively, for example when requesting food (30), they do not produce pointing gestures simply to share information with others, and, when others point cooperatively for them (e.g., to indicate the location of hidden food), nonhuman apes tend to perform poorly, most likely because they do not understand their partner’s cooperative intention. Shortly after 1 y of age, human prosocial and cooperative motives begin to evidence themselves more explicitly through acts of (unsolicited) instrumental helping, which again are critically supported by the ability to infer others’ intentions, knowledge, and desires (31). Therefore, unlike nonhuman apes, human cognition seems to be most tailored for cooperative and prosocial rather than Machiavellian purposes (32). — MacLean Article

Further Tomasello explains:

In addition, other important aspects of cultural learning in humans
derive from their special cooperative skills and motivations,
and these add to the power of the human cultural ratchet as
well. Specifically, adults teach children things intentionally—
whereas teaching is not an important dimension in the lives
of other great apes, if it exists at all—and teaching is a form
of altruistic cooperation (free donation of information). Human
children are especially attuned to adults teaching them things
(Gergely & Csibra, 2006), and they trust adult instruction
implicitly based on their cooperative motives. Indeed, when
adults teach them things, children trust this so much they
often jump to normative conclusions. Thus, they learn not just
that this is how the adult did it, but that this is how it is done—
this is how we in this group do it, how it ought to be done. For
example, in a recent study, 3-year-old children who witnessed a
puppet playing a game in a manner discrepant with the way
they had been taught objected strenuously: The puppet was not
doing it ‘‘right’’ (Rakoczy, Warneken, & Tomasello, 2008).
Such normative judgments derive, almost certainly, from identifying with the group in terms of how ‘‘we’’ do things.
And so to complement their special skills of collaborating
with others in the moment, human children also come into the
world ready to ‘‘collaborate,’’ as it were, with forebears in their
culture, by adopting their artifacts, symbols, skills, and practices via imitation and instructed learning. Their cooperative
identification with the group leads them to learn not just that
this is a useful way to do things to meet individual goals, but
it is the ‘‘right’’ way to do things, at least for members of this
group. This almost moral dimension makes human cultural
learning especially powerful in comparison to that of their closest primate relatives....What most clearly distinguishes human cognition from
that of other primates, therefore, is their adaptations for
functioning in cultural groups. Groups of individuals cooperate together to create artifacts and practices that accumulate improvements (rachet up in complexity) over time,
thus creating ever-new cognitive niches (Tomasello, 1999).
Children must be equipped to participate in this process during their development by means of species-unique cognitive
skills for collaboration, communication, and cultural learning. Humans are thus characterized to an inordinate degree
by what has been called niche construction and gene–culture
coevolution (Richerson & Boyd, 2005), as the species has
evolved cognitive skills and motivations enabling them to
function effectively in any one of many different self-built
cultural worlds. — Tomasello Article

If we look at purely physiological traits, besides obvious brain-to-body ratio, and neural architecture differences with chimps, genes like the FoxP2 gene (which has some proven associations with human language abilities), and the discovery of "mirror neurons", there are physiological differences as explained in this article: https://www.seeker.com/health/mind/comparison-of-primate-brains-reveals-why-humans-are-unique

Human brain interneurons express the enzymes tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) and DOPA (3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine) decarboxylase (DDC). The two proteins are involved in dopamine biosynthesis.

While the ancestors of chimps and gorillas lost the ability to express these enzymes in the neocortex, a human ancestor likely recovered it. The scientists do not know which human ancestor recovered this ability, or when.

Since dopamine in the midbrain plays many roles in the central nervous system tied to cognition and behavior, humans would seem to have won the evolutionary brain jackpot. The definition of intelligence is subjective, but our working memory, reflective exploratory behavior, and other cognitive skills appear to be uniquely enhanced versus these abilities in other animals.

"After all, to the best of our knowledge, we are the only living species that is trying to understand how our brain works and what makes our brain different from other species' brains," Sousa said. — Viegas Article

Anyways, I would say that all of these way in which we can use our episodic memories, linguistic skills, and cooperative learning abilities are what contributes to our enormous plasticity. We are not beholden to mainly automatic/inherent modules of behavior, but rather are more prone to deliberate actions, higher degrees of freedom of actions related to a certain goal, as well as immense abstractions of thought and imaginative generation.

Compare this to other animals, like a cardinal. Much of the behaviors in cardinals are not deliberations, abstraction-based, with a high degree of freedom in regards to a goal. Rather, innate abilities to cope with environmental stimuli- pre-programming modules to handle specific situations of feeding, mating, shelter, building are what are more at play. These behaviors are hardcoded rather than plastic. There is some learning, perhaps encoding a song from a parent or habituation to stimuli, but that is not the same.

This deliberative, high degree of freedom cognition provides enormous existential burdens that other animals simply don't have. We know that we exist, we can deliberate and evaluate every action we do. We can even choose to commit suicide, decide to go on a hunger-strike, and judge life itself as not that great. These are things that other animals cannot do. A cardinal does not experience existential despair. it does not evaluate its day as "good" or "bad". It simply does its hard-coded, pre-programmed thing each day, rain or shine, natural disaster, predator, or what not.

Humans on the other hand, are able to conform, but we also know we don't have to do this. However, conforming is necessary for social cohesion. Institutions need to be created, learning can only take place cooperatively, information needs to be transmitted to accumulate the knowledge, individually and as a collective to keep the technological and cultural artifacts going in order to survive. But don't also forget that we need to be entertained. With great degrees of freedom comes great degrees of boredom that need our entertainment pursuits. We need challenging activities, other humans to share information with, and flow states to keep our brains occupied.

I'd like to see what @Bitter Crank has to say.

:rofl:

As I said above: Rather, I'd like to focus on how humans developed the vast amount of plasticity (compared with other animals), and minimal amounts of reliance on internal drives, automatic functions, etc. The mechanisms and implications of this are my focus.

Probably none. There are many social animals who rely on complex social relationships to survive, and there are a number who rely on higher cognative strategies. Given that, and very little physical differences in the brain, its likely we use the same cognition. — Isaac

Oh so birds set up institutions of learning to teach about the latest technology? Of course not. There must be some sort of difference there, don't you think? I can't believe I'm actually debating this point.

Nothing. I don't see you having presented any evidence that human survival is driven by cultural learning any more than other animals. — Isaac

So when a bird finds seeds, it was explicitly taught and integrated how to do so? When a goose goes south for the winter, that was through painstaking research?

It didn't. You've not provided any evidence that it did. If you find any evidence I don't see why that evidence would not also contain your answer, but until then Occam's razor applies. — Isaac

Then certainly Occam's razor would indicate there is indeed many reasons human learning and human cognition in general are different than other animals. If you want to make an argument for the learning mechanisms roughly mapping to ancestral ones that can be seen in other animals as well, fine, but that would be moving beyond the scope of this thread.

Rather, I'd like to focus on how humans developed the vast amount of plasticity (compared with other animals), and minimal amounts of reliance on internal drives, automatic functions, etc. The mechanisms and implications of this are my focus.

Because it is not a controversial claim to presume a bird and a human have different cognitive frameworks :roll: .

Okay, so this debate isn't about how similar or unique necessarily learning capabilities are. I've had these circular arguments before. What I'm getting at is that humans have a way of doing things different from other animals (I used specifically an animal like a cardinal).

I do not think it is very debatable that humans have a niche way of surviving, and it is very unique. The question is the nature of how this came about, and how this reflects the nature of being human. I simply refer you back to the questions in the OP rather than going down the rabbit-hole of "Humans are not different than other animals in very unique and specific ways!!". That is not the point of this thread, though if you have nothing else to add, I will note that perhaps the very premise that humans have a unique way of survival is something to question itself. I don't see how that is in any way justified, but that is the topic for another thread. This thread is assuming that is the case- which to me is not that controversial a premise.

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

I think this objection arises from a sort of category error you are making or at the least, a false dichotomy between being "caught up" and "stepping back" from the world. I think there can be both, either at the same time or separately. An example of "at the same time" would be when we are evaluating an activity as we are engaged with it. We can evaluate any (X) activity in a number of ways- boring, dreadful, exciting, interesting, tedious, etc. This can then have its own evaluations that lead to life itself- "Life has tedious, boring, experiences, but I must get this done for some (X) outcome". One can separately step back from the world too and evaluate it. "This world is full of minutia mongering activities in order to get such and such outcome achieved". I explained in another thread that we are the only animal that can evaluate while we are doing an activity. We can evaluate an activity as negative, but still follow through with it to "get something done". Other animals, probably don't have this evaluative aspect to their psyche. It is mainly instinct, minimum routine learning modules, and immediate response to environmental stimuli that dictate their psyches. We can try to extrapolate some evaluative aspect to "preference" (berries to seeds for some birds, for example), but preference and evaluation in the human sense, are apples and oranges, and a category mistake to try to equate.

What you seem to be talking about with "caught up" is flow states, which are peak experiences, and much harder to actually achieve than average, everyday work, maintenance, entertainment activities allow. I'm sure there are thousands of books trying to make everything into a flow state, or achieve it readily, but that is a different topic, and let's just agree at it is not easy to simply achieve without a high level of engagement and interest in the project.

Humans evaluate life as a whole in various ways, but are not as overt. Religion, for example, is a way for people to try to see the universe in a holistic way. It may not be accurate, and may be a kind of shortcut to proper evaluation of our situation, but it is existential non-the-less.

What you do bring up, which I think is crucial is that antinatalists tend to be more contemplative of life as a whole. This is not a negative though. This is analogous to being trapped in a maze and not realizing it. The antinatalist is simply putting the whole maze in perspective rather than simply calculating the next avenue to turn in the maze. It evaluates the structures of life- its social mechanisms, procreation itself, and examines it thoroughly. It does not forget what is the case, rather than merely trying to "get lost" in it. It gives back the human the dignity and power to understand their situation. Otherwise, we truly would be like other animals, but we are not. We can see the forest for the trees. The fact that we can evaluate work as we are doing it, belies the fact that we can evaluate life as we are living it. To forget this, would be to have "bad faith". We would be abrogating our ability to reflect on existence as a whole. To make authentic decisions would be to have in the back of one's mind one's own existential situation- that one is always a part of a larger existential, social, historical story that one did not choose, but one must participate in.

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

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

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

My response is that it's always bad to give somebody a challenge, stress, harm, work to do, and harms- even if somehow the person might identify with these things at some point in the process.

As to why people want to connect with the "real world", usually this is after the fact, not while they are going through the actual undue suffering. This is just the Pollyanna nature of human response to present suffering (in hindsight to it). Rather, people like challenges if they have hope that they can either learn from them or overcome them (the intrinsic goods of learning and accomplishment). They are necessary for these goods to be satisfied, so are almost a "part" of it.

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

I agree. I saw that you might have had a longer post, but it seemed like it was deleted. I'm thinking there's an argument that these goods are rarely purely "positive". There seems to always be a form of harm or suffering surrounding even good things- either to obtain them, maintain them, etc. But the biggest argument is simply that the overall cost of maintaining these intrinsic positive goods overwhelmingly exceeds the actual benefit of experiencing these intrinsic goods.

But, one can say this is just my perspective or assertion as well as yours. What is your response to that? Others will simply say that the intrinsic goods are worthwhile, for ourselves and future people. My argument has always been that it is absolutely wrong to foist and expose challenges for a future person, even if that future person considers the challenge good. Providing challenges to overcome for another person, when there was none necessary, simply to see this carried out in another person is not good. Mixed with this is, exposing a future person to harmful experiences, whether everyday adversity or undue harm, is also not good. Finally, and less absolute but considerable, is that projecting future outcomes as always good for a future child would be foolhardy. Many children will experience much more adversity and harm than they would like, and many will see the intrinsic goods as not worthwhile. Not procreating will never harm anyone. Procreating will always harm someone. But those are some of my arguments. I'd like to see some of yours.

Can we not analyze all things we call the good in life in the same way? As not being genuinely good in themselves but rather as some combination of a reduction or cessation in suffering/dissatisfaction/lack, a drive satisfied, or an experience of selflessness where ones subject-object relation to the world dissolves within the experience (eg, loss of self within the orgasm sensation). After all, we call a film 'good' based on the degree that one was immersed and absorbed within it, forgetting oneself. Likewise with music, sex, conversation. Put simply (in terms of the hedonic value of our lives) there is only suffering and its negation, in some form or another.

Do you agree with this (admittedly) bleak view? Why/why not? — Inyenzi

So, I thought this was a very good post. This essentially outlines negative utilitarianism and deprivationalism in regards to positive value of good. This is where Buddhism and Schopenhauer are agreeable to me. To be a bit of the devil's advocate here:

Can it be said that there are several categories of pleasure that are truly, positively sought? For example, physical pleasure seems to have a quality that is good intrinsically. Physical pleasure especially, only provides satisfaction in the short-term, however. This is why it is often viewed as fleeting, and one of the major reasons why Buddhism, Stoicism, Pessimism, et al. frown upon focusing solely on it, or even desiring it at all.

Another category that can be argued is positively good is aesthetic pleasure. This would be the pleasure of seeing natural beauty, the pleasure of artistic contemplation, the pleasure of be absorbed in a novel, and I would also put the pleasure of laughter and comedy in this category.

Then there is the category of the feeling of accomplishment. When a large task is completed, and done well, there is a feeling of satisfaction in its completion.

There is also the experience of flow states. Perhaps you are working on some project or sport even, and you are absorbed in the moment. Time doesn't seem to drag, but flows in a way that is highly engaging.

There is also the experience of having deep relationships with friends, intimate others, family, etc. This can invigorate you and make you feel close to others, wanted, loved, and that you have a sense of belonging, etc. It is also a way that can be enjoyable to pass the time.

There is also the experience of curiosity and seeking new information. The satisfaction of learning something new, can also be considered a positive good.

These six things: physical pleasure, aesthetic pleasure, accomplishment, flow states, deep relationships, and learning can all be considered absolutely positive goods- things that are just intrinsically satisfying.

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

Annihilation before an autobiographical lifetime, and annihilation after. But in an ultimate sense it is incoherent. — Inyenzi

But this is the way antinatalists mean it. It is the "autobiographical lifetime" sense of "something", not the physical constituents themselves. As @SophistiCat said, you're making an uncharitable (and literal) interpretation when an antinatalist says "forced into being". A lot of it is about possibility and consciousness. The possibility for any fertile couple to procreate exists. By conceiving and birthing a child, the child will "exist" in the world. At this point, whether the child has secondary consciousness or self-awareness matters not. It also doesn't matter that a child develops over a lifetime using social cues and context. Due to the fact that our culture treats fully birthed babies as properly human beings, that is where antinatalists draw the line as to what it means to be "born". So, if that is where the marker starts, the question is, "How did the child become born?". Well, that would be the whole procreating part. So procreation minus some complication or abortion, will lead to being born.. That is the "forced" into existence. Its shorthand for a bunch of processes that took place to create a child where the child did not have to be created from that couple. By deciding not to procreate, a new child would not be "born" from that couple. That is one less life of suffering. If another couple decides not to, that is two less lives suffering. Millions of people deciding not to have children and that is that much less suffering.

Now an objection would be that there would still people living and thus someone is suffering so who cares if more people are born and experience it. I just don't see one person's suffering as a stand-in for other potential suffering that did not get manifested. Those are separate occurrences of experiencers of suffering. I am not solipsistic with this, meaning I don't think that only one person needs to suffer and the whole thing is ruined. Also, remember, I see antinatalism as rebellion against the tyranny of existence itself. The forced nature of either killing oneself (through starvation or suicide) or aligning oneself with life's conditions are both bad choices to foist on a person (by procreating them in the first place).

Indeed this is one way to relieve suffering. But then let's say you find yourself in a state where you don't enjoy anymore the things you used to enjoy, or that you focus on other desires to relieve your suffering but that they too lead you to suffer. Then the method to focus on what we want doesn't always work. It works sometimes, but there are cases where it doesn't work, and in those cases we need other solutions. — leo

The problem of human suffering is yet another intractable problem. The phenomenology of suffering can be very hard to put into words. Let us say you have had a very happy day- you do all the activities you wanted, you are with all the people you wanted (or by yourself if that's what you prefer), it's that weird transition into the next day.. that feeling that all those good experiences don't even matter right NOW, that is the root of the problem. There is some kind of phenomenon I call "instrumentality" in the human experience of good/pleasure. It's that feeling of dissatisfaction that underlies even the goods of life. That there is something unsustainable with even feeling good. This then leads to the idea of, "why even try to pursue good then if it is just this repeating cycle?". It is hard to pinpoint it, maybe some sort of angst, or realization that all is for nothing really. It is that dip in mood after a good time, that low, that seeing through things for what they are, which is simply the inability to be. We manufacture experiences of happiness to evade the instrumental, repetitive, nothing-feeling one gets if one is not engaged, or right after a peak of engagement. That weird melancholy feeling that it doesn't matter what we do.

can't imagine how a decentralized manufacturing system could coordinate all these elements coming together in one place as the finished product. — Bitter Crank

I look at it this way: The situation now is that larger business owners, corporations, non-profits, and governmental organizations need workers to make a profit and grow. Workers need money to exchange for goods/services now and into the future (i.e. savings and investments).

The business owners/corporations/non-profits/governmental organizations are like the Barrons, Dukes, Princes, and Lords of the Middle Ages. That is to say, they own the means of production, and they are the gateway who confers if the workers are let in an get paid. The workers have to live for their working-time at the Lord's estate by the Lord's rules, policies, and sometimes his whims. If the worker doesn't like it, he can leave, but of course he will risk financial insecurity in the transition, and possibly reputation when trying to grovel to the next Lord to get the necessary resources to sustain a comfortable life.

The Lords, by default, set the standards so that the peasantry have to move about from Lord to Lord looking for resources and protection (i.e. work) to survive. This situation "seems" fair, but really isn't. However, though the Marxist vision would solve this problem of moving from Lord to Lord and Fiefdom to Fiefdom, being at the behest of these petty-rulers, the Marxist schema wouldn't seem to avoid, the exploitation of the managers/government officials/planners/enforcers any more than now. I think the problem of coordinating work at industrial levels (barring super advanced robots/pipedream) simply cannot avoid this problem of being used by whoever is on top (be they a group of people or just one individual).

Are you blind? — Harry Hindu

Hey, a bit unnecessary no?

Computers, electronics, electrical systems, construction, engineering, medicine, scientifically-based technologies are complex, exacting subjects to master and understand. Yet our industrial world is composed of just these things that demand exacting minute understanding of complex processes (minutia mongering). This understanding is not accessible to all. Even if you understand it "conceptually", not everyone can actually participate in each or sometimes any of these aspects. — schopenhauer1

You said:

The reason anyone finds science to computers, electronics, etc. complex simply doesn't have the inclination to learn about it (they'd rather learn more about the lives of Hollywood celebrities), or the mental capacity (IQ) to learn it. That is to say that thinking is hard. It requires effort and time to think thoroughly and logically. — Harry Hindu

Seems to align with what I was saying.

However, God and the mystical world are accessible to everyone. Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. It provides a sort of mastery of our understanding and of our place in the universe, without doing the heavy lifting. — schopenhauer1

Preposterous. I was a Christian raised as one. I was baptized and saved from my sins. I prayed but never hear anything from God. What I thought was God, wasn't. It was just an imaginary concept I used in order to give myself meaning and to ease my feelings of loss and unfairness. In other words, it was something I used to make myself feel better, not provide me any real knowledge about the world as it is. As I began to seriously question what I had been raised to believe due to all of the inconsistencies, I found that science provides a much better explanation as to what I am, how I came to be, and what my purpose is (if it really makes sense to talk about purpose in this universe).

The reason why religion/spirituality still matters is because people would rather just believe what makes them feel good and important and anything that doesn't make them feel important (science) must not be true. — Harry Hindu

You put it into terms of importance, I put it in terms of accessibility.. STEM concepts is difficult, religion becomes more easily accessible, so the "feel" they have more understanding and control. Large, impersonal systems based on hard-to-understand systems of scientific principles and engineering are too much for many to want to really get into. It's a lot of minutia to cover and comprehend.

Your OP contradicts what you say are the points you are making now. Your OP is what I responded to, not the points you made afterwards that contradict it. — Harry Hindu

Okay, where did you think you saw that? I'll tell let you know how that was probably misinterpreted.

The reason anyone finds science to computers, electronics, etc. complex simply doesn't have the inclination to learn about it (they'd rather learn more about the lives of Hollywood celebrities), or the mental capacity (IQ) to learn it. That is to say that thinking is hard. It requires effort and time to think thoroughly and logically. — Harry Hindu

You are making my point, not refuting it.

Preposterous. I was a Christian raised as one. I was baptized and saved from my sins. I prayed bu never hear anything from God. What I thought was God, wasn't. It was just an imaginary concept I used in order to give myself meaning and to ease my feelings of loss and unfairness. In other words, it was something I used to make me feel better, not provide me any real knowledge about the world as it is. As I began to seriously question what I had been raised to believe due to all of the inconsistencies, I found that science provides a much better explanation as to what I am, how I came to be, and what my purpose is (if it really makes sense to talk about purpose in this universe).

The reason why religion/spirituality still matters is because people would rather just believe what makes them feel good and important rather believing what their own senses show them. — Harry Hindu

This is making my point again, not refuting it. Not sure how you didn't pick up that this assessment accords with exactly what my argument is.

You're still going to need structural hierarchies in some situations to produce things, but one thing that could be done is to rotate people in and out of positions--to take turns driving, basically.

But even if you don't do that, since workers are having equal say regularly, someone trying to negatively exploit others doesn't sustain a power relationship where the people being exploited can't do anything about it. — Terrapin Station

I just don't think it would be that simple. There's also group think- tyranny of the majority. Let's say you're part of the guild of the widget programmers... The other programmers are not to your liking. You don't like their style. Where do you go? Other widget programmer organizations? Who decides who is in and who is out? There has to be a level of coordination and autonomy to make decisions which a collective cannot always do. I am willing to bet either hierarchies will naturally form, or some form of exploitation, individual or group-based will ensue. Instead of an individual, it may be a process that becomes exploitive but deemed necessary. Then perhaps the labor itself is simply exploitive of the worker as the demands of the labor are such that the worker will simply need to be used and alienated for this product to be created.

My overall point is that exploitation and alienation from labor at least in some areas of the economy, are intractable to the problem of labor itself- at least as we know it in the modern form of economy.

That wouldn't be all of the workers getting an equal say in things, etc., would it? — Terrapin Station

No it wouldn't.. So you are now getting to the heart of the argument. What would the workers do to ensure products/services are being carried out? I would imagine there would still be hierarchies formed at some point.. if not voted in, then perhaps simply by shear abilities, the less-able workers will rely on the lead from the better-able workers, but then that becomes its own hierarchy. Someone has to coordinate and make sure that the product is being created in a timely way... this will lead to some people telling other people what to do, leading to the alienation and exploitation, but at a micro-level. There is no need for class- you just need 100 people or so in a work environment over a course of time with varying levels of abilities, and the need to produce X product in X amount of time (at least that's how modern economies seem to work). Deadlines, measurable outcomes, improvement plans, reallocation of resources, efficiencies, and the like will become wedge issues to exploit workers- get more out of them in less time, make working conditions harder, etc. etc. Sure, new people can get voted in, but they will just do the same thing, perhaps less so at the beginning, but then the managerial dilemma will ensue.

Consider that religious tradition may have formed societal norms such as 'appropriate attire'.
A very clear impact of mysticism is mathematics. For instance the Maya Numerals.
It might seem like a silly notion, but the inspiration for mathematics according to ancient testimonies is 'divine'. — Shamshir

Similar to Bitter Crank's example of architecture and art, this just proves that material culture can be related to religious traditions, but not necessarily religious or mystical in themselves.

As far as math goes- indeed pure mathematics as it was formed in Ancient Greece by the Pythagoreans were inspired by religious concepts. This might be the idea behind Plato's Forms. The idea that there is a symbolic pattern that can describe the physical manifestation of an object. But, I actually think this formation of math from religion was simply a misapplication of knowledge by the original Pythagoreans. What they stumbled upon was the idea that proportions and patterns can be represented and computated, and thus could be separated out from engineering or use, into pure principles and axioms. Thus they stumbled upon pure mathematics, but the amazing idea that patterns can be symbolized and computed seemed to have a mystical quality to these early mathematicians and they even made whole religious orders out of this discovery. Plato took it to the next level with his Forms.. which I can fathom was a culmination of ideas of symbolized patterns that started with the Pythagoreans.

I hear your argument, but would counter argue that mysticism and even dogma based religion is not open to all. Just as with STEM some folks are born with a knack for it and some are not. This can edited to some degree with effort, but only to some degree. — Jake

I don't know- someone praying, meditating, or doing some act/deed that is deemed holy, seem pretty accessible. Even the "minutia" of religious laws and dogmas, are not that complex compared with STEM and the enormous amount of information needed to keep the modern economy running.

Again, mysticism may be "inexhaustible" in its veiled mystery, but it is also something people can pick up and do. The charm itself might be the "hiddenness" or the difficulties of religious life, but it can be immediately started upon, and thought about, and sought. Knowing how microchips are made, and work with the millions of principles of computer science, electronics, and engineering are not so accessible to people. Because of the elusive nature of mysticism. Because of its inexactness and its experiential "gnosis" qualities, it is hard, but in a way that people can strive for. Full understanding and participation in the minutia mongering of the modern economy, not so much. Mysticism then can be attuned to people's need to want to be a part of the bigger picture, or understand it more fully without having the exhausting work of understanding the principles of STEM and the minutia mongering of the modern economy which actually keeps daily life going.

@Jake @Wayfarer@Shamshir,

To be fair, many of my arguments are a (sometimes not-so) veiled defense of Philosophical Pessimism. This thread/argument is actually more a dig at technology/STEM more than religion (though it is actually a dig at both). There is a concept I am playing around with I call "minutia mongering". Much of modern society, and its economy, relies on minutia mongerers. These are technicians who need to understand and employ exacting forms of scientific and technological concepts and processes and apply them to material conditions to create various outputs of functionalities realized in various goods/services. Our computers, for example, are the culmination of many of these concepts and processes.

Our material lives are not sustained by religious tradition or mystical knowledge, but by electrical systems, construction principles, engineering principles, manufacturing principles, scientific principles, and the maintenance principles that maintain them. This is an immense undertaking, requiring millions of people with specialized, complex, and difficult-to-obtain knowledge. Many people are alienated from these processes, and even those who are highly engaged with them (let's say a measily computer programmer), they are but a small part.

However, religion is a system that offers less technical knowledge. It may have to be experiential in its "gnosis" as @Jake implies, but in the way that it is not technical/conceptual/discursive. I liken it to reading a book or playing a game. You get to master something without needing to know the technicalities. Sure, maybe enlightenment, understanding parables and mystical gnosis, and union with the godhead are "hard to reach" but they are hard to reach in a different way. It is part of the mystical experience itself, that the ultimate answer is veiled.. it's part of the charm. But accessing this mystery of the religious (or perhaps just its dogmas) are open to all.. and give all a sense of autonomy over ones abilities. Compare this with the material world of STEM that we live in. Not everyone can be an expert in the exacting minutia that is required to maintain the industrial/electronic/engineering behemoth systems that go into what actually sustains and maintains our daily living.

The last, most difficult. and longest phase of the revolution will be the working class (which is, you know, most of the people in an industrialized country) learning how to be Socialist Citizens who can intelligently and competently manage their very large economy, regulate their own industrial activities for the common good, maintain a free, culturally rich society, attend promptly to the massive environmental problems which we have, and so forth. A lot of individual and group learning will have to take place in this revolution. The tricky part will be surviving this stage until we all get good at playing our respective roles. — Bitter Crank

Yes, and of course, this "learning how to be Socialist Citizens" and getting "good at playing our respective roles" have been the basis for much strife and human misery in the actual enactment of Marxism in a political state, hence the atrocities of first Leninism, then Stalinism, Maoism, and then all the rest that copied that model in the Soviet sphere of influence. A political party that is the "Vanguard" of the people concept, which created essentially a form of dictatorship on behalf of the "workers" by enforcing reeducation programs, purges, and forced collectivizations were pretty appalling. Of course, one can argue, by the time of Stalin/Mao, the Soviet experiment in Marxism atrophied into simply a grey hideous monster that stopped even pretending towards a trajectory of a worker-led communism end-state.

But the main point of this thread is rather about the intractable problem of exploitation that Marx thinks can be resolved in his Manifesto and Das Kapital with a complete worker-led economy. I don't think that exploitation would end because it is inherent in any form of modern labor. Marx focuses a lot on profit of owners, so I get that part of the equation. This would be eliminated by eliminating profits. Hence, I said in the OP that everyone would be getting the same amount of money, let's say. You can change the initial conditions however you think the worker-led paradise would work..

Maybe people don't even get paid, but some other method of getting goods and services. It doesn't matter in this scenario. Rather, I'm focused on power and outputs. So, in this worker-led economy, I presume worker collectives would be voting for the policies and outputs. They also have to vote for who will be in charge of enforcing these policies. That would be some form of "manager" in this case making sure the outputs are getting produced and policies are being carried out. This requires managers to default to looking at bottom lines, outcomes, at the expense of workers. Thus, the power dynamic of the bourgiouse and the laborers will now just become a micro-version of the managers and the laborers. All forms of management, will create some hierarchy which will then exploit the people on the bottom, no matter what the system. So the problem doesn't stem necessarily from class, but the nature of labor itself. It will always end up with people ensuring output is getting completed and that in itself will create ways to exploit workers by overlooking the workers themselves for the output they create, and will simply create more systems which alienate them, etc. etc.

@Bitter Crank Not sure if you saw this one as you commented in the other one. This seems up your alley.

Okay, so what refined debate about religion would you like to have? They are just rehashed Platonic and Aristotlean arguments ala apologetics. What amazes me more in religious debate, is not the lack of philosophical sophistication but the lack of the development of history. For example, understanding the complexities of Second Temple Judaism and the historical Jesus vs. the Jesus of what becomes the mythologized version of orthodox Christianity is quite lacking in most conversations. Same goes for the development of any religion really. None of them came out as perfectly christaline specimens but were developed over years of dogmatic preferences that were first won in argument/vote, and then propagated by force over the course of the Dark/Middle Ages- at least in terms of Western history.

Religion also serves useful social functions. It is a low cost opiate, for instance. It provides cultural continuity (both over time and space). It is a spring and reservoir of important cultural output -- music, architecture, painting, sculpture, stained glass work, etc. It provides a framework of meaning. Granted, it's not the only such frame, but it has a proven track record; it works reasonably well; it is cost effective; it's on the ground, in place, and functioning. — Bitter Crank

Music, architecture, art, etc. are all material culture. That isn't mysticism par excellence. The material culture, the production involved, is what mattered here, you notice. However, not everyone can be a Michelangelo or a Brunelleschi, but everyone can try to access the divine.

STEM doesn't offer much in the way of meaning. Minutia mongering just keeps people busy.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the technology we have is for the benefit of its corporate owners, not us the people. From the corporate point of view, people are poor substitutes for robots. — Bitter Crank

That I agree.

You can see myth evolving today in Hollywood movies. We have superheroes, fiends, angels and all manner of beings coming through our screens. These myths are 'archetypes' of realities deep in our psyche... — EnPassant

I'm not discounting other explanations, but one main theory is that it gives an easy to tap into access to something that is presented as foundational. One can meditate, pray, and expound on ancient exegesis and one is participating in what is perceived to be underlying reality.

Again, the theory comes from the fact that its accessible. Why is it accessible? It isn't something that can see tangible results. The goals can't even be quantified. This is accessibility for the masses. Meanwhile the minutia mongerers will be hard at work mongering production and outputs that make a difference in material culture for survival, comfort, and entertainment.

One could as easily level the accusation that mastery - real or imagined - of science, tech, construction, math etc give people a sense of control and mastery. — EnPassant

Yes, but that would be true in a material sense that it is actually creating functions by harnessing natural processes and materials that are useful for survival, comfort, or entertainment and can be measured as to its development and effectiveness in solving the need or want.

It seems the root of the argument has to do with the fact that the person is forced, which is a bad thing. But I disagree that we have to objectively view it as the person being forced. We can see it as the person being created, brought into being. Again, as an analogy, in a game you have to follow certain rules, you can choose to view it as being forced to follow these rules, but if you enjoy the game you don't see in any way that you are being forced. So I disagree that we have to necessarily view it as an act of coercion to bring someone to life. — leo

No, this is changing the language. A person is in fact forced into existence by mere fact of being procreated. The child/adult is then given a choice- suicide through slow starvation, or suicide through a quicker means (and many times that might even be a failed attempt and an even more painful life) OR deal with the challenges presented and intended for the child/adult.

The problem is people will quickly dismiss the challenges of life as manageable and thus not a problem. Again, that is not the argument. The argument is giving anyone CHALLENGES to overcome- whether wanted or not, is never moral. Period. It is morally wrong to force something that did not need to overcome or endure something to do it. If you add in the additional idea that no person needs to be exposed to harm, then the idea is just that more strengthened.

I am trying to make you see that your view is subjective, some people have a similar view as you and some people have a different view. They don't have a different view because they are wrong, and you don't have a different view from them because you are wrong, you and them just feel differently. There is no right or wrong here, they are not more right than you are, I am just sad that you can't see the good in life, that the bad has taken so much importance for you that you can't see the good anymore. — leo

But I am trying to make you see that there is an objective axiom here- it is wrong to give someone challenges. I hate to use this analogy, but shooting someone who wanted to die anyways, doesn't negate the fact that you shot the person.

Ok. If you're forcing that game/event/challenge/adventure/maze/treadmill on someone and they love it, then in my view it was a good thing. If they hate it then it was a bad thing. — leo

I'll give you two answers- the absolute, the sorta absolute, and the relative.
The absolute: Once born, the game of life/ the neverending treadmill forces a new person to deal with staying alive via social mechanisms (usually), deal with the human condition in general, and deal with the ups and downs of contingent harms that befall each and every one of us. Forcing someone to deal with life, whether good outcome or not, is not right. If I put you in an uncertain situation that you then have to deal with in order to stay alive and thrive, that is no good no matter if it is always a good outcome or not.

Sorta Absolute: And this is why the name of this thread is Nothing vs. Experience. We know that life has at the least, some harm. To force a game that always has some outcome of harm for another person, is always wrong, no matter to what degree. On one side there is no new person born to a potential couple. No one is harmed, no actual person is deprived. In colloquial terms- "nothing never hurt no one". On the other side, definite harm of the human condition/ contingent harms of life will befall someone to some degree. Nothing wins every time in the face of any harm that is forced upon another person (attitude towards it does not matter, only that harm was enacted upon someone).

Relative: Since we can never predict the attitude someone will have about this game, nothing will always beat something. No actual person is "held hostage" by not being born, or even "denied" anything. But certainly another person's experience of harm was prevented.

Let's say you play a game and you like it. The game has certain rules, there are certain things you have to do, but you still like it. Then it's not an obstacle course to you. I'm sure there must be some game out there that you enjoy playing, or you must have a memory of some game you enjoyed playing, so you can see the analogy.

However if you struggle on the game, if you are forced to play it but you don't like it, and you struggle constantly, then to you it's an obstacle course, a relentless treadmill, not a fun game.

All the people who hate the game will agree that it's not a game, it's an obstacle course, it's a bad thing. But the people who love the game won't see it as an obstacle course but as a fun game. I don't know how else I could explain it.

Which is why I disagree that life is objectively an obstacle course or relentless treadmill. To me, this is a subjective interpretation that depends on how life makes you feel. — leo

So since this is the crux of my argument, I am going to focus on this, though we can go back to the subjective stuff later.

The claim is controversial perhaps, but sound. That is to say, if I force you to play a game that you cannot escape- the forcing another person to play the game is bad in itself regardless of the person's attitude towards that inescapable game. That is my main point. It is not whether some people see the game as good or bad- at least, not this particular formulation of the argument.

I can put it as a question: Is it moral to force another person into a nearly inescapable game/event/challenge/adventure/maze/treadmill, regardless if someone finds it to be good/bad/mixture of the two at any given time?

I remember being a happy kid. At the time life was in no way to me an obstacle course or a relentless treadmill, it was a source of joy, of discovery, of fun, it was in no way a struggle or an adversity. Of course I had little to worry about at the time, since my parents provided for me, I didn't have to worry about getting food or paying the rent. But the point is even though there were some constraints imposed on me, I didn't see them as constraints, it was a little price to pay for how great life was besides. I was happy to be alive, life was not a burden it was a blessing. My parents forcing it onto me was not a bad thing, it was a good thing. — leo

This is a bit of a digression to my main argument which is that it is objectively bad to give a metaphorical obstacle course or relentless treadmill to a new person, but this might be a good candidate for the Pollyanna principle. In hindsight, things seem to be better than what they were. As a child, things were more dramatic, kids are more selfish, events and people seems unfair much of the time, we do not fully understand what is going on, and a lot of other stuff. You can tell me that this wasn't the case for you, and that you and many others are exceptions, but I do know that assessing life as an adult of what it was actually like to live a life with a developing brain, is more than a bit biased. It is easy to relegate a whole bunch of years and experiences as overall "good" later on as an adult. Hence, the Pollyanna principle of seeing things as better in retrospect or when generalizing experience in aggregate may be in play here. Another problem is you can simply say any set of experiences is "good" simply to shut my argument down, whether that was the case at the time or not. I have no way of really telling. A minor example is a shitty work day. You get back home and drink a few beers and perhaps you forget it, until you return. If someone asked you during those few beers you might say, "Things are well". It's so nuanced, generalized statements are indeed not a great indicate whether something is good.

Anyways,

Life is not objectively an obstacle course or a relentless treadmill, it appears to be so when we are struggling. As humans we're quick to generalize, when we struggle for a long time we think it can't be any other way, when we're depressed we think we won't ever get any better. And then one day it gets better, and we realize that what we saw as objective was a temporary state of mind. — leo

I would disagree that it is not objectively an obstacle course or relentless treadmill. You keep overlooking that my statement does not depend on the person's attitude towards the obstacle course or treadmill. Making a new person have to do X, Y, and Z actions which require them to navigate various challenges to live and entertain themselves, and generally find comfort in society is considered for me an obstacle course/treadmill that cannot be escaped. Someone is always given these challenges when born. The main premise is that it is objectively bad to give these challenges to a new person, whatever attitude they have at any given time about the challenges themselves. There is no justification to cause someone else to have to endure challenges of X, Y, or Z.