So it seems to me that the question is not that human potential is a spook or whatever, but that there isn't any transcendent, ultimate potential to be fulfilled when a person chooses a project that gives them potential. It is as if the potential comes from nowhere but our own will, a deus ex nihilo. — darthbarracuda

Yes, well-stated!

But to the degree that we "misinterpreted" you, we did so, I think, because there's nothing in the OP to suggest you were merely criticizing a secular version of scholastic essentialism. On the contrary, all in it point to a commonsensical understanding of words like "potential", "goal" etc. — Πετροκότσυφας

Granted, I should have been more explicit with how I was using the term.

But, it seems to me that, the idea of human potential that is usually thrown around is the latter, not the former. Sure, many people, when questioned about the reasons of why they procreate, will come up with a whole bunch of rationalizations (some of which will resemble the essentialism that you're talking about) in order to conceal the more down to earth reasons which, more or less, amount to "I don't know, that's what we do, it's an impulse". Weather this impulse is biological, culturally constructed or something else, doesn't matter much in this context. The fact that many people resort to these rationalizations, does not mean that, in the unfolding of day to day life, it was some version of scholastic essentialism they had in mind when they were engaging in certain actions. And in most of the myriad other instances, besides procreation, where people talk about human potential, it's in the latter way that they do it. The tangible way of being able to do something with a reason and without a scholastic model, of what it means to be human, in mind. — Πετροκότσυφας

Again, I agree it should have been more explicit. Well-stated. Also, I think you are right about "I don't know, that's what we do, it's an impulse" as a rationale. That's almost scary. No depth of thought regarding existential issues.. just do something on behalf of someone else without question.

But it makes no sense to say that, when you subject everything to survival. Which is what you do, it seems to me. The last sentence of the OP is telling. Plus, I'm not sure if I get your tripartite system. What's the difference between "survival" and "maintenance" or between "goals" and "drives"? What does it mean to do something as a course of being human? Is there anything that we do that falls outside this tripartite system? — Πετροκότσυφας

I meant goals for all three and not drives. We have an impulse to make goals- some related to survival and are fully derived from the self's relation to the cultural surroundings (via the learning process/enculturation/cultural obtaining of survival needs through socio-economic means). Maintenance is that in which we maintain our environment- it is not exactly going to kill us if we don't do it, it might not even positively add to our survival, but it is a deemed necessity based on internalizing of social habits. It is also not something we do because we are bored necessarily. These are things like cleaning our surroundings, taking a shower, washing your clothes, etc. Finally, entertainment is defined as goals made from trying to flee boredom. The emptiness of existence without activity- always seeking newer and better ways to bide time.. everything from meditation, sports, watching tv, reading, to fire dancing, rock climbing, and sky diving. Behind all this is our striving nature as animals... but we are self-aware animals and in the right frame of mind can see the vicious absurdity of surviving but to survive but to survive, but to maintain to maintain to entertain to entertain. There is a vicious absurdity that is hard to overlook if one sees it clearly. So is there anything we do that falls outside the tripartate system? I guess you can say there is a sort of self-awareness aspect to each category. We can know we are doing a survival activity as opposed to simply "surviving" (much like animal might). We can know we are maintaining our environment as opposed to doing it from pure instinct or without self reflection. We can know we are fleeing boredom through entertainment goals. However, the self-awareness of our own predicament may have to do with how well we use defense mechanisms not to see the vicious absurdity- mainly through things like isolation, ignoring, anchoring, and sublimating such thoughts.

Yep. Instead of talking about life having the purpose of flourishing, you need it to be all about blind and pointless survival. You need it to be the case that once the basics of "existence maintenance" are achieved, everything else can be viewed as a meaningless filling in of the time.

So you wire in your conclusions from the start.

The alternative picture is that humans - once they have sorted the more basic needs outlined by Maslow's hierarchy - then will continue on to self-actualise. That is, they will reflect the natural logic of their evolved situation and seek to flourish even further by being personally creative in some socially valued fashion.

Turning to "entertainment" to fill a psychic void is obviously the wrong thing to do - the unnatural thing.

Yes, we do have the problem that the modern consumer society has encouraged that kind of "fulfilment". But then we can't critique modern society if we simply believe it is essentially right about the human condition. — apokrisis

What is this flourishing you speak of? It sounds a bit... Romantic! :D Also, flourishing is not permanent- there is repetitive acts of living (vicious absurdity), the hedonic treadmill phenomena of finding "novel" goods in life that can't last, being deprived of some preference or state at almost all time (deprivationalism), the emptiness behind all pursuits.

In fact, most importantly, we are never not trapped once born. It is a bind in the truest sense, that suicide is not the same as never experiencing suffering and indeed, suicide is painful and hard for any socialized average adult. This isn't an indication of "aha! see life is good" it is simply a limit on certain actions based on fears of loss of self or painful future state. We are trapped with our own survival, trapped with our own maintenance, trapped with our own pursuing of X, Y, or Z avenues to what we think to be happiness. By framing it as "opportunities", the fact that it could never not be the case, was glossed over.

If you were truly arguing for an essential meaninglessness to life and however we might choose to live it, then you ought to be simply neutral. However I viewed life - optimist or pessimist - shouldn't make a difference. Nature would be as indifferent to the anti-natalist as it is to everything else (in your view). — apokrisis

Yet I'm not a nihilist, rather a pessimist. Nature may be indifferent, but we aren't indifferent to life as living itself requires axiological assessments, sometimes of life itself which is appropriate being that we are animals that can assign values.

You kill your own argument by showing how much you care about it. It matters that you are right. If you convince others, you will have achieved something useful with your efforts. You will have proved yourself the best Pessimist you could have been.

A true Nihilist wouldn't even bother to post. :) — apokrisis

No I am not really in this "to win". I understand I am in the minority with what people claim in public forums (though I think it is another story what people actually think from moment to moment or day to day, but that is a different thread about psychological Pollyannaiism as well as social cues people learn in regards to downplaying negative thoughts about life publicly). Though the metaphysical claim might be true, I do not hold that others MUST have this epistemological alignment themselves as a metaphysical truth. I simply present the case. Indeed it is important to me, but no one has to live up to being a perfect pessimist ideal.

Our actual position is better understood from natural philosophy/systems science which focuses on the way everything is an embodied part of a "living" whole. This would then say we are each a product of our biology and culture. We are not solitary sparks as dualism would have it. Therefore we should expect to find our life purpose in that actual evolutionary history, in all its fantastic complexity and essential openness.

We just aren't designed to feel personally connected to the Cosmos. Even religion - in offering an image of a connection to a larger whole - generally paints a picture of that in social terms. Everyone gathered together in a state of love in the garden of the Big Daddy in the Sky.

So an honest metaphysics would be honest to the right scientific picture of existence. And that is what positive psychology in particular would attempt. We are born to find meaning in our biological and social context. And while that is a fairly specific kind of constraint, it is also not a closed and deterministic one. Part of the realism is that the finding of meaning is an open and creative exercise - a continuing journey of adaptation.

What I am arguing is that you reject the actual complexity and naturalism of life because you accept this simplistic metaphysics of a lonely soul in an empty void. That was the shocking existential picture that Enlightenment science appeared to reveal, so setting off the opposite reaction of a Romanticist revulsion.

But that scientific reductionism and romantic existentialism are only two sides of the same coin - the two views of the one faulty metaphysics.

We know enough now about actual complexity, actual systems metaphysics, to see this framing of the situation as very flawed. And thus any philosophy that tries to found itself on it will be too. — apokrisis

I really didn't get much from this. I mean it looks nice as far as the words go, but as far as how systems science dissolves the fact that humans have no metaphysical telos they must live for, is lost on me. I think I know what you are trying to say. You are trying to say, "look we are part of this complex system, so we are not this insignificant nothing in a void of nothingness". It sounds like you are saying either that "we must contribute to the system which created us" or "the system will provide the tools for living a happy life", then I think you are being naively dismissive of the situation. You are so ready to frame my thoughts with your own construction of Enlightenment "isolating of humans from cosmos/god" and Romanticism's "rebellion of the individualistic human hero", you really lose the import of the argument as it is actually being made. Unless you really fully try to internalize the idea of "vicious absurdity" and the awareness of this, then it will be lost. You will simply do exactly as that which prevents us from fully experiencing it- that is to isolate it, ignore it, sublimate it, or anchor yourself in some ideal or another to live up to.

So what it is about accomplishments that create these little Sisyphi? Why is that more powerful than the repetitious nature and absurdity of the situation?

I see what you're doing there. This criticism of my argument that you and apokrisis "got right" is actually the result of misinterpreting how I am using the term "potential" in the OP. Actually, this is a tangled web that you created out of a few related but distinct terms (preferences and potential mostly). So let me try to untangle it a bit.

My main claim in this thread is that:

There is no potential to live up to. It is just repetitious survival and finding hope in entertainments of sorts. There is a notion that humans have potential for this or that experience, technological, or scientific accomplishment. Nope, nope, and nope. Humans have no ideal potential state to live up to. If this idea makes you focus on specific goals, or think about this or that goal because you don't like the thought of the repetitious, vicious absurd nature of bigger picture, that's fine, but realize that's what it is and not a metaphysical fact. If you think it is, I'd like to see proof other than that we survive through certain cognitive means which is the result of linguistic brains, etc.. — schopenhauer1

So when I use the term "potential" here, I mean that we do not need to be born in the first place in order to have a particular X experience, or contribute to technological, or scientific accomplishment. This idea of human potential actually stems from a sort of Medieval understanding of humans and their nature. According to Medieval (Western) philosophy, we have an essence (prior to existence) that can be fully manifested in life through living a certain spiritual or godly way. Thus life's mission is to realize this essence through whatever spiritual means.

In more recent/modern times, there are secular versions of this Medieval notion of manifesting our essence, but instead of spiritual, it is related to scientific/technological progress or certain experiences that humans can have. So, instead of the potential for humans to realize their spiritual nature (as the original Medieval notions believed), there is potential for humans to realize their full scientific/technological capacity. Thus by being born, a person can (and should) realize and manifest their potential to contribute to some scientific/technological endeavor. An alternative term I used is experience. So, maybe, the person is inclined to think rather than contribute their full potential to science/technology, that they can live up to their self-realized potential for some X experience (love, flow states, accomplishment, etc.).

Thus, the original spiritual idea of human potential can be easily replaced with secular notions of living up to some essence related to X experience OR figuring out scientific/technological innovations. Thus, I am using potential here in this secularized Medieval version of our "essence manifesting itself fully".

Now, what this claim is NOT saying is that there are no such thing as achieving some desired goal.

You said

Human "preferences" and "choices" become hollow if "there is no potential to live up to" — Πετροκότσυφας

You are using potential here in a completely different way than what I am referring to in the OP (the secularized Medieval notion that we are manifesting some essence of what it is to be human by contributing to scientific/technological pursuits or having X experience). Here, you are using potential as achieving something (perhaps over some other less desirable thing). I agree that this potential can and does take place, but not the former.

This criticism then becomes a bit of a non-sequitor

Everything boils down to survival, even though you denied this in the other thread where you wrote "Human behavior isn't necessarily specialized for survival". Yet, here, you write "it is just repetitious survival and finding hope in entertainments of sorts." — Πετροκότσυφας

Human behavior is not necessarily specialized for survival. I believe I was saying that in reference to programmed instincts vs. cultural learning. Much of other animal behavior consists of innately specialized instincts that we do not have. We learn much through the capacity to generate concepts and grasp ideas through cultural means. But I have always claimed though, that our three main goals are survival-related drives, maintenance/comfort-seeking goals (clean the room, put oil in the car, take a shower, etc.), and entertainment-related drives (what to do with sense of boredom and emptiness). This however, is a tripartate system that I think conveniently splits our basic will or striving into easily understood categories. These three goals, are not something we prefer to do, nor what we should prefer to do, but something THAT we do as a course of being human. It is descriptive of our human nature.. perhaps a "better" description (a metaphysical claim) than this idea of human potential that I outlined.

I wouldn't say it is conceited to want to serve others by means of accomplishments. — Lone Wolf

No I don't mean that it is "conceited" like, self-absorbed but rather it is a conceit meaning more of a lie. It is not true.

Yes Sisyphus indeed. Clearly we must exist for scientific exploration and technological innovation.

It has to be one or the other.

Either you are saying something righter than us, therefore we all need to take notice of you. Or you are saying you are just another dude making a random noise and so we don't need to take any notice. — apokrisis

The quote that you are referring to asked if we have to live up to an ideal state where we know such and such about ideal states. Just because I am pointing something out does not mean one has to live up to understanding it, though I suggest people do it. My suggestion of taking in reality does not need to amount to a metaphysical fact though :wink: .

It seems as if the concept of "potential" in a person exists merely to comfort an individual without any accomplishments in life. — Lone Wolf

But the assumption is that we are here to perform accomplishments in the first place. That is the conceit, is it not? More humans need to be here because of x, y, and z experiences, technologies, and scientific pursuits that need to be forged. For many the spiritual potential is replaced with x, y, and z experiences, technologies, and scientific pursuits. So where one has a "cap" of what the potential is (some sort of union with the godhead) the other is this potentiality of the human capacity that is (perhaps) infinitely continuing in stepwise fashion and that every (new) human should contribute to.

But I never claimed this was an ideal state either (that of knowing that it's not a metaphysical fact that we have to live up to some ideal state).

Even if life is futile, why do you say the futility is systemic? What system are you talking about? A system is an organized set of interacting processes.Who organized this set of processes that are making your life futile? — T Clark

Would structural be more appropriate you think? I am trying to get at the fact that it is pervasive and all-encompassing. In other words, it is baked into the system of what it means to be a self-aware being.

That's the point of the thread, right? Are you a Neo-Schopenhauerean, or a Post-Schope?

Who cares? Why define your own views against your mentor's views? You remain in Shope's shadow, preventing you from forming your own distinct philosophy, independent from Shopey. Am I a Neo-Berdyaevian? A post-Biblicalist? A Neo-existentialist? Am I a neo-classicalist-mystic? Am I syncretistic skeptic? Who cares? I don't. — Noble Dust

Well, sometimes it can be useful. Why are Neo-Kantians called Neo-Kantians? Labels can be useful, though by no means exhaustive. Existentialists- well, you know their philosophy is going to focus on existence qua existence. Realists- they have some idea of some objective something. Again, not exhaustive but useful. So Neo-Kantians will conjure up certain ideas- transcendental limits of thought, categories of thought, noumena/phenomenal, thing-in-itself, etc. However, it is also suggesting there are tweaks, as perhaps it is applying Kant to different applications, or synthesizes it with other philosophies. Or adds things that Kant overlooked or didn't know during his lifetime.

Anyways, I would say my philosophy is in the school of Schopenhauer because it is influenced by him, and this is useful to know.

Similar themes between our two worldviews could be:

1.) The futility or emptiness of all pursuits/ the systemic futility/ the structural suffering of all lifeforms

2.) A principle of striving that goes but nowhere and is always filled with goal-seeking and boredom fleeing

3.) The recognition of immense amounts of circumstantial suffering

4.) The implicit idea that it is perhaps good not to procreate more suffering

Differences that would make my philosophy "Neo":

1.) The splitting of suffering categories into structural (systemic) and contingent (based on circumstances)

2.) No Platonic forms (this seems a holdover of not really recognizing evolutionary thinking or Darwin and too much attachment to Kantian metaphysics)

3.) The principle of Will may be simply immanent with nature and not transcendent (nature itself manifests some strivingness to it, it is not a thing-in-itself)

4.) More explicit categories for how our wills manifest in survival-related pursuits, maintenance/comfort-related pursuits, and boredom-fleeing pursuits, as well as the recognition that these three categories are shaped by culture and historical circumstances.

There are some other differences as well, but those are a good start.

Humanism, for instance, could possibly be the cure for the automatic, uncritical obedience to rationalism and scientism if we are willing to risk being called "un-philosophical". — Caldwell

This is a bit unclear, do you want to expand?

Good enough. I guess my philosophy can be called Neo-Schopenhauerean in a way. The repetitious and systemic futility of life (what I call structural suffering), and the contingent harms of a particular life with its set of circumstances, etc. It has similar themes and conclusions and even can accept Will as a principle of sorts of nature and certainly in the human psyche, but perhaps without the Platonic forms, or his seemingly static, non-evolutionary metaphysics.

Yes but what does really recognizing it entail? What are conclusions from this about how humans should live or actions to be taken? We should understand more acutely how people in the past have suffered?

Interesting ideas, but can you explain what you mean by conditional here, and why this is important to the existence of torture?

It looks like you are saying that the goods of life are only had at the expense of the possibility of something very bad. Is that the main idea? I know that sounds simplistic, but that's all I can get when I put the main points together. But maybe I am not getting the idea of conditional goods and absolute bads here.

Because, if so, I perfectly agree with you. However, there are many threads, and many posts, that argue along these lines, with respect to how evolution does mandate, or at least favour, particular kinds of attributes or elements of human nature. In fact they’re writ large in a great deal of popular philosophy and evolutionary biology. — Wayfarer

Agreed. I was trying to argue against the overreach of natural selection/instinct on all human behavior for example in a couple threads.

Hi Pangloss, I have not read Israel's book, but have been eyeing it on my reading list for a while. I just have to say, your analysis here is excellent as far as I see (from not reading the book yet), and a welcome addition to the forum. I am interested in replies by others like Maw who have read the book as I think that the thesis that "radical" or extreme Enlightenment thinkers were influenced by Spinoza or Spinozas non-providential metaphysics is an interesting one.

It seems they belong on a pedestal. We're talking about the experience of transcending time "as though time were irrelevant" -- all of the suffering irrelevant (or relevant depending how you look at it). Don't you think it possible to cultivate these flow states (less default lack) and make them a regularity in our lives? — matt

By pedestal I mean that it is a justification for all else. It too suffers from all experiences hoped for. Often times experiences that aren't novel end with disappointment (too many of the same thing) and often times experiences are hard to achieve (the right circumstances have to be in play). If it was easy, and well-established, it would be had by all at a much higher rate. This is not the case. Therefore, it is suspect as something that can be achieved more than a fraction of the time. Much of life is stubbornly grinding, mundane, and fraught with anxieties, worries, and "stuff that just needs to be done". Much of the time is spent keeping oneself comfortable, falling into patterns that promote economic welfare (doing stuff at the job and paying bills and such), and keeping others at bay from disrupting one's own comfort.

It seems to me the bolded concepts don't jive with each other. As I've experienced, "flow states" offer a sort of mystical timeless transcendence that give profound meaning and fullness. — matt

I purposely put that in there hoping someone would try to put flow states on a pedestal. Flow states don't make up for the lack of existence. Flow states are another avenue for lack actually. Then people miss the feeling of flow and chase it around for fleeting moments that fade.

DELETE

What other creatures would you include here?
It seem to me that "existential" as a adjective is not adequate to the idea you are trying to convey. — charleton

I believe so.. WE are the only existential creatures.. Perhaps aliens on other planets too:)?

Yep, I understand you need variety in order for there to be traits that promote survival and reproduction in populations. I wasn't challenging that. My point was that we are existential creatures, unlike most other creatures. Being existential creatures means we have unique abilities- such as reflecting on why we do anything in the first place..why we exist..what's the point of it all. I'm explaining that there is a structural futility or emptiness behind all pursuits. We (as individuals) survive to survive to survive, doing repetitious or habitual routines- all within a cultural/linguistic, historically contingent, socioeconomic milieu. But we also do non-survival but related activities dealing with how comfortable we want to be (based on cultural expectations)- so we clean the house, fix the drain, wash the dishes, get the oil changed, etc. Finally, much our "free" time (non work or maintenance related) is to flee the eternal emptiness of the mental state of boredom. So, we flee it by trying to entertain ourselves with goal-driven activities- in other words, giving ourselves something to achieve. Sometimes our goal-driven entertainments lead to flow states which is a complete absorption in an activity as though time is irrelevant while we are engaged.

Right..instrumental existence moves forward..survival, maintain living environment and self, flee boredom with goal-driven (hoping for flow states)...and the repetitious nature of all things continues .., no romanticism will put the story in a different light.,

The instrumental nature of existence is an evil. You are here to survive and achieve goals. This in itself is no bueno. The endless cycle of repetitious goal seeking. If we didn’t have goals we would just have experience. Experience is evil in its need to be groomed with romantic notions or logical notions of x, y, or z. It is evil en toto. You may make an appeal to goals/achievement/experience via romantic or logical notions but you would be strengthening my point. And we certainly are not “just being” in neutral land of indifference. You are forced to do this or that and make a decision.

Why’s that? Emotion regulates our goals and hopes and decisions. You can’t avoid it. I don’t see no transhumanism saving the day.

We can safely assume human being do exist (except for some abstract metaphysical arguments).
We are almost certain that individuals have finite lifetime on earth (except for Popperian arguments).

Question - Is there any particular purpose/ target we already have set ourselves or should we set ourselves during our lifetime? — Santanu

So we have no telos- final ends we are working towards except survival and entertaining ourselves. I call this concept "Instrumentality". It is the idea that we do to do to do, because we can do no other. What people will often say is meeting some goals or preferences- achieving goals in other words, is what we should strive for. That is what we do anyways, however modest those short or long term goals are, but this is not "THE PURPOSE". Rather, life consists of a lack that is constantly deprived and we are always trying to fill with goals, lest we get bored and find other ways to entertain ourselves. Don't forget most of your life will probably be focusing on tasks that have to do with getting paid so you can survive in a post-industrial economy. The next thing you will focus on will be maintenance- cleaning, fixing up, replenishing stocks of consumer items, etc. Lastly, you will have your "free time" for entertainment, which is just a way of saying you try to flee from boredom with various activities so you achieve some sort of flow state or engaging cognitive/physical task so you do not have to think about the boredom that is mainly the default state when there is nothing else going on.

In what way wouldn't it affect us?

Here is a quote I had from the other thread but it pertains to this as well:

Here's a question, would you even want to live in an apocalyptic dystopian world where there is armed struggle between the citizenry and government in an anarchic state of "anything goes" regarding weapons? At that point, the structures of civilization itself has lost, and it is doubtful it will be a good world worth trying to thrive in anyways. So the argument that guns will play a role in some apocalyptic end game against a tyrannical government seems like a dead one from the start.

Also, as some posters suggested, the government has tanks, nuclear weapons, large-scale missiles, and you name it. You think your assault rifles or other pitly firearms matter much to that? The Founders had muskets and cannons- that was it. What would they say with modern weapons? Would they possibly say the idea of a competently armed citizenry is ridiculous in the face of military grade weapons that have been stockpiled since WWI in the US Government?

Thirdly, your premise that the only reason for the 2nd Amendment was a tyrannical government is false. One of the main reasons was actually much more nefarious. Southerners, especially in places like Virginia, were suspicious of the new federal government's formation of a standing army. They thought that if there was a federal army, they might take away the local militias. Now, why did many southerners want local militias? Because the slaveowners were reliant on regional volunteer militias to keep the slave population from revolting. These slaveholders did not want the government interfering with their ability to control their slave population. James Madison, a Virginian himself, the primary drafter of the Bill of Rights, knew this concern, and it was a factor in the prominence of this amendment.

Not only does life suck, life is inherently sucktive, with sucktivity being an active agent, not only in human affairs (where it reaches it's highest most sucktive form) but in inanimate creatures as well. It all sucks.

Sick, sack, sock, suck. You should live in Minnesota where the weather especially sucks. We have some of the suckiest weather on earth (though not as bad as the deep south, where the weather sucks in the opposite direction, and everything mildews and molds as well). — Bitter Crank

Yes, ever notice it is rare to get EXACTLY the weather you want? Well, maybe California.. but then it will be something else.

:grin: I mistakenly pasted that twice.. maybe I was really trying to emphasize it :lol:

The attainment of a goal or desire, Schopenhauer continues, results in satisfaction, whereas the frustration of such attainment results in suffering. Since existence is marked by want or deficiency, and since satisfaction of this want is unsustainable, existence is characterized by suffering. This conclusion holds for all of nature, including inanimate natures, insofar as they are at essence will. However, suffering is more conspicuous in the life of human beings because of their intellectual capacities. Rather than serving as a relief from suffering, the intellect of human beings brings home their suffering with greater clarity and consciousness. Even with the use of reason, human beings can in no way alter the degree of misery we experience; indeed, reason only magnifies the degree to which we suffer. Thus all the ordinary pursuits of mankind are not only fruitless but also illusory insofar as they are oriented toward satisfying an insatiable, blind will. — Schopenhauer article from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

First, why not just let Roke speak? By continuing this, you are continuing the kind of postings that don't add anything to the conversation, just "You are this and you are that". Doesn't do much.

Also the ad hom to thicken my skin is not necessary to say being that I pretty readily defend my position almost every time I'm on here, so I think you are not considering that perhaps. Yes, I do participate in other discussions. But my point to Roke was that the only time I really see him is when he wants to respond to antinatalism, but usually more in a trolling way.. There are ways to engage that aren't trolling. I've had epic debates with Thorongil and apokrisis, ones that frustrated me even, but I wouldn't call most of it trolling. Sometimes there was some of that, but it was at a minimum and usually after we have both had lengthy substantive posts. That is not to say, right now one of them won't display troll-like behavior or at any point in the future, but I'm just saying one can engage in a style that is not just trying to provoke for the sake of provoking but actually has an argument that engages the topic. Being that I don't think there is real engagement with the topic, respect for the other debators, or anything of the sort, I suggested that he start his own threads on topics he does want to engage in rather than always trolling on a topic he doesn't even like to discuss.

I'm performing my own philosophy in this case. It's OK that you don't get it. — Roke

You are right. I don't get what you mean by "performing your own philosophy". Do you mean you are trying to philosophize? And if so, why not start some of your own threads on what you are interested in or perhaps participate in existing threads that interest you?

Antinatalism deserves to be singled out as arrogant and presumptuous, so no problem. — Roke

I don't think so. You seem to single it out unduly as well, as the only time I ever see your little icon there is when this position arises. You can simply ignore it. Did I or any other antinatlists ever call you out on it? You seek these out not the other way around. There are plenty of philosophies which you can also disagree with and choose to not participate.

Are there other philosophies that say "Hey, T Clark, your life is worthless? There are other arrogant philosophies. When they are discussed I point that out, but we're not talking about them here. — T Clark

The point is, you are singling out antinatalism unduly. Antinatalism doesn't think your particular life is worthless T Clark. That is a distortion. Rather, it is saying that life is sufficiently bad/negative enough to not start a new life.

Similar but not exactly the same is Philosophical Pessimism. This is the belief that generally life is structurally suffering. For example Schopenhauer's philosophy, which is the main exemplar of this thinking, is that there is never any satisfaction in life. Why? Because behind life is a principle called Will, which is a striving principle that has no goal, it just "strives". We as animals are but forms of this Will, that have the illusion that goals that are met will provide satisfaction, but are in fact never satisfied when they reach their goal. Existential boredom is especially reflective of this idea because it belies the emptiness at the end of all endeavors.

Anyways, Philosophical Pessimism doesn't have to agree with Schopenhauer's Will to be called pessimism. As long as there are themes of "striving for nothing", "emptiness", "absurdity", and the general instrumental nature of existence (repetitiousness of putting energy to survive and entertain), I believe it to be sufficiently considered pessimism.

How is my description of what anti-natalism means different from yours? If human life is not worth living, then mine isn't. It is personal. — T Clark

As is all ethics, quit singling out antinatalism as if it is the only ethics which applies to you as well and is controversial.. Shall I list all the other ethical systems that claim universality and you would probably disagree with?

Anti-natalism is the believe that human life consists primarily of suffering (or, is primarily negative, rather than positive). It is not a subjective view of one's personal life. Thus, from an ethical perspective, to give life to a child would be unethical - a form of negative utilitarianism. — Maw

I think you are right in correcting T Clark's notion that it's just some presumptuous opinion and stating that it is more of an ethical position, and thus applies universally. However, while I think a major antinatalist element (David Benatar's for example) is negative utilitarian, much of it can be considered aesthetic in its root. I'll take Schopenhauer's view for example. Schopenhauer's aesthetic/axiological position is that the world is a striving Will. This Will/force is striving-but-for-nothing. As it is manifested in the phenomenal world of individuation, it is contending each other for survival and its own sense of longing-for-nothing (in the form of boredom). This whole vision is really rooted in metaphysics and would be hard to deflate to purely negative utilitarian in its nature. So I tend to call this antinatalism "aesthetic antinatalism" or "aesthetic pessimism". This covers a more existential view than doing a calculus of the good and bads like strict utilitrianism might follow.

Here's a question, would you even want to live in an apocalyptic dystopian world where there is armed struggle between the citizenry and government in an anarchic state of "anything goes" regarding weapons? At that point, the structures of civilization itself has lost, and it is doubtful it will be a good world worth trying to thrive in anyways. So the argument that guns will play a role in some apocalyptic end game against a tyrannical government seems like a dead one from the start.

Also, as some posters suggested, the government has tanks, nuclear weapons, large-scale missiles, and you name it. You think your assault rifles or other pitly firearms matter much to that? The Founders had muskets and cannons- that was it. What would they say with modern weapons? Would they possibly say the idea of a competently armed citizenry is ridiculous in the face of military grade weapons that have been stockpiled since WWI in the US Government?

Thirdly, your premise that the only reason for the 2nd Amendment was a tyrannical government is false. One of the main reasons was actually much more nefarious. Southerners, especially in places like Virginia, were suspicious of the new federal government's formation of a standing army. They thought that if there was a federal army, they might take away the local militias. Now, why did many southerners want local militias? Because the slaveowners were reliant on regional volunteer militias to keep the slave population from revolting. These slaveholders did not want the government interfering with their ability to control their slave population. James Madison, a Virginian himself, the primary drafter of the Bill of Rights, knew this concern, and it was a factor in the prominence of this amendment.

Maybe @Bitter Crank can comment on this too.