Why? — TheMadFool

Because of the first half of the sentence. I pulled a MadFool on ya :joke:

Seriously though it's because if you believe in the antinatalist position we're not gonna be here 80 years from now and I don't think we can make a utopia in 80 years. It's not because suffering is inextricable from life or anything.

The former are reluctant to believe what they have no experience with — smartguy

Is that really unexpected or unreasonable?

The seconds do not admit that there may be something above their experience. — smartguy

Not always. Some believe that the abrahamic God does not exist because the concept is self contradictory according to them. Others though believe strongly that there can be no God of any sort which is a whole other kind of faith.

For millennia each human being, when pronouncing the word “I”, immediately and automatically referred to his immortal soul — smartguy

*each citizen in the West*

“God, show me that You exist” Isn’t it simple? — smartguy

This is unironially exactly what made me no longer believe in him. At least not the version taught to me.

More nonsense. — 180 Proof

A definition can not be nonsense. I can define whatever word however I want.

For example, 'leading a jackass to water' may be a necessary condition but alone is insufficent for causing this jackass 'to drink'. — 180 Proof

But if the water was poisoned, and the person that led the jackass to water KNEW it was poisoned, and furthermore didn't try to stop the jackass from drinking the poisoned water, and the jackass died, we say that the person leading the jackass killed the jackass. In other words that the jackass's death was caused by the person leading him there, even though that was not a sufficient condition. That is how I see the word regularly used within ethics. "Your honor, my client pulling the trigger was not a sufficient condition for the victim's death therefore my client is innocent" is not a very good defence.

Why does the risk of pain outweigh all the other benefits of life? — Philosophim

It doesn't, and I never said that it did. But that is irrelevant. We require consent for risky actions when we do them unto others.

For example: Going to a theme park has a risk of pleasure and a risk of pain. So depending on the person it may or may not be worth it to go. If person A thinks it's worth going that doesn't justify person A forcing person B to go without consent. The reason behind that is NOT that the risk of going "objectively" outweighs the risk of not going, but simply because person B MAY think that the it does. Maybe person B has a fear of heights or something or hates crowded spaces. That is why person A cannot assume person B will like the theme park simply because A personally liked it. Which is why person A must ask person B first if he wants to go. If person B is not available to be asked, that still doesn't justify person A forcing him to go.

do you really wish that you had never come into existence at all? — Jack Cummins

What makes you think that? I am an example (and a thankfully common one) of someone taking a gamble with someone else's life by brining them into existence and that gamble turning out well. I am very happy so no I don't wish I never came into existence. But that doesn't justify further gambling.

Also, you do say that ideally utopia would be better? Perhaps this ideal is worth thinking about as a imaginative possibility. I know that it is difficult to create utopia. Even if it is not possible to create a world free from suffering highest dreams and ethical ideals are a starting point for more desirable futures for future generations. — Jack Cummins

It is a possibility. But I'd rather have no suffering tomorrow than a chance at no suffering at some unspecified time in the future.

Acorns don't cause e.g. forest fires or logging. — 180 Proof

Yes they do by my definition. If there was no forest there would be no forest fire. Causes = Is a necessary condition for. Is the definition I'm going with.

Tell me/us why 'procreation' ought to be "justified". — 180 Proof

Because it was the initial cause of every single harm possible.

it is simply stating that people do not have drives because they do not exist. It is as pointless as saying that triangles don't have 3 sides until they are put on paper. It is meaningless statement ultimately. — Jack Cummins

Pointless, Meaningless, maybe. False? No.

Surely, it is better for us to make the world the best place we can for future generations rather than saying that these generations should not exist. — Jack Cummins

If it was "surely" we wouldn't be arguing. Now if you are saying that it's better to make the world a better place then yea I agree. But I do not agree that it is necessarily better than no one being there at all.

While human beings are likely to suffer to some extent they may have pleasure and happiness too. — Jack Cummins

Again, that just makes the act "risky". And in day to day life when it comes to other people we always make sure to get consent before we commit risky acts otherwise we'd be doing something wrong. Given that, and that consent is impossible in this case (since the affected party will not exist until after being affected) then one shouldn't have kids.

That in itself is black and white thinking because while suffering is not necessarily good suffering is the source of innovation. — Jack Cummins

So does that make it okay to force others to suffer so that they can "innovate"? I don't think so. I never get why people bring this up in relation to antinatalism. Sure pain and suffering make us better but no one in their right mind would say that it is morally okay to force someone to suffer because you're "bettering them"

How many of the greatest artists, poets and musicians would have created their greatest works if they had not touched down to the depths of pain and suffering? — Jack Cummins

Actually I had an exact question that I asked a friend about this once. I asked "If your kid would be the next mozart but would live a terrible life and be serverly derpessed would you have them". Naturally they replied "no".

How many of the greatest artists, poets and musicians would have created their greatest works if they had not touched down to the depths of pain and suffering? Scientific progress is spurred on to provide happiness rather than pain. So, what I would argue is that while pain and suffering are not good in themselves they are an inevitable part of life in providing motivation. In that sense, suffering is neither all bad or good but a core part of evolution in the past and future. — Jack Cummins

Why all this effort to fix a problem (suffering) that can simply be fixed by not having kids? A utopian solution is preferrable I agree, but I don't think generations should suffer so eventually humanity no longer suffers. Which is the same reply I gave themadlad

Any belief that life is not worth starting must rest on the assumption that it is not living, surely? — Jack Cummins

I don't think so. Once humans are born we have an innate drive to keep living. Going against that drive is painful. However before we are born there is no such drive, so there is no justification to begin a life. Think of it like: Once you've paid for a movie ticket, the movie is worth watching even if it is mediocre but that doesn't mean the ticket was worth it in the first place. Or like: If you lose a finger in an accident that doesn't suddenly make life not worth living, but that doesn't make it okay to go around cutting people's fingers.

Also, a belief that life is not worth starting is a far too simple philosophical statement to address the problem of pain, which is a part of life for all living beings. — Jack Cummins

"simple" doesn't equate to "wrong". What is unsatisfactory about it? Antinatalism doesn't even try to address the problem of pain. It is simply the recognition of procreation as a source of harm and so not partaking in it.

You seem to be ignoring the question I asked you. Why does the fact that someone will experience pain alone negate all the other things in life like happiness, success, learning, etc in life? — Philosophim

It doesn't negate it so much as make it a risky action. Have kids: Risk of harm and risk of pleasure (risky), Don't have kids: No risk of either (safe)

And in every day to day situation whenever we want to do something risky like that onto someone else consent is required. Consent cannot be found in this case so it is considered to be not given. Would you be happy if I used your credit card to buy you new clothes that you hated but that I thought you would like?

Your argument is in agreement with truths as they stand but these are contingent truths, something you've failed to address in your post. Is it absolutely necessary that life and suffering have to go together? — TheMadFool

I don't see a reason why it would be no.

But what if life is free from suffering? Would you still feel or think it would be not worth starting? — TheMadFool

No then it would definitely be worth starting. But the point is, if you agree with the antinatalist position you will never get to the point where life becomes free of suffering unless we do so literally within this lifetime.

However, don't forget that happiness is something real and that one has to be alive to experience it. This will force us to shift the focus to comparing degrees of happiness and suffering and that, for some, the suffering is far in excess of happiness, so and so forth. — TheMadFool

Let me ask you this then: Is it okay to risk putting someone in pain because there is a chance they may get pleasure out of your decision without asking for their consent first. An example would be buying you things with your money because they were on sale without asking for permission. In that case if you like the thing I buy all is well and good but if you don't then I have harmed you. Is it okay for me to do that? And does it become worse or better the higher the risk? (is buying lottery tickets with all your money worse than the previous example?)

What if we could anesthetize ourselves completely and live a life free from all suffering/pain? Would you then agree that life is worth living? — TheMadFool

There is a difference between worth living and worth starting. I don't think @schopenhauer1 is saying life isn't worth living because of the pain in it but he's saying that it is not worth starting.

For example: Life is still worth living if you're blind, but that doesn't justify going around blinding people. Just because it is bearable once it has begun doesn't mean it is worth starting.

I’m not trying to make that claim. People are irrational, and will believe whatever they want, or are compelled/forced to believe. — Pinprick

If the point you’re trying to make is that people don’t always believe what is true, then of course I agree. There will likely always be someone that disagrees with everything, but this isn’t an issue with “truth” or “knowledge,” but with humans. — Pinprick

That is literally all I was saying.

No, because what’s missing is You. — bizso09

For me "You" is just a pointer to a specific mind

I don't think this everyone being forced to stay home will do so much as alter the philosophical underpinnings of wester culture (whatever those are). I think this whole thing will cause a lot of cultural changes, for example online universities will no longer be laughing stock and employers will find efficient ways to allow employees to work from home so we will likely see working from home increase in popularity.

And there is no philosophy, theology or psychology which will end all future suffering. — Hippyhead

Then again, I don't think the primary purpose of those fields (except psychology) is to alleviate suffering. I think they are steps in the attempt to make the world better. To know what the world is and how it works will allow us to change it. Philosophy is primarily concerned with what the world is and how it works, but the results can also be used practically. Similar to how a Buddhist is mainly concerned with how his mind is constructed but the results of that search can be used practically. But otherwise I agree with everything.

I put in a condition you're ignoring. — TheMadFool

No offence but why can't you just say something directly? If I didn't get what you're saying the first time saying "go back and read" will likely not change that.

In what sense do you mean "can be coped with or eliminated" — TheMadFool

Things hurt less. Maybe eventually reaching 0.

How did you cope with that? — TheMadFool

Saying “do both” in this case does not make me a two timing jerk unless you consider Eastern and Western views people. I’m a practical guy so that’s my answer

suffering is bad. — TheMadFool

You have defined suffering

in some warped sense, is also good. — TheMadFool

*can be coped with or eliminated* is what I said. Not that it is good.

What if you were offered a choice between Eastern thought and Western thought but not both? — TheMadFool

I would tell the guy that posed the choice wtf he means because it’s not like Chinese people can’t conceive of scientific theories or British people can’t conceive of meditation. It’s not like these discoveries are inherent in the geographic configuration of a bunch of rocks. If I look from the opposite side the East is the West and the West is the East.

I think a better question would be “Do you think the answer to our suffering is primarily fixing the world or primarily configuring our mind?” To which I would answer “I don’t care which one is “primary” just do both as efficiently as possible”

Why do they need a god? — TheMadFool

Because they want to know that all their suffering has some purpose behind it, that there is someone or something that will make everything right at the end, that world is not just a bunch of floating rocks indifferent to their suffering. Heaven is a bonus. Idk about Christianity but at least in Islam it is emphasized that one shouldn’t follow Islam for the Heaven but only do so when they can have full faith in its teachings. It is said that if you’re just a Muslim because you think you have to be or else you’ll suffer that you’re not a real Muslim and that God would rather see you continue questioning the faith until you’re convinced rather than harbor doubt in your mind which you muffle because you want to get into heaven.

That you aren’t letting your personal views (opinions) cloud your judgement, draw inaccurate conclusions, etc. — Pinprick

This assumes that there is some way to have an “impersonal view” which is begging the question. You’re assuming your conclusion.

By being able to justify your claims logically — Pinprick

Logic is a vehicle of truth but what premises you choose may not be true. I can argue logically that abortion is bad because the fetus is a human being, but that premise “the fetus is a human being” is still opinion. It is still preference. And if you somehow come up with an argument as to why a fetus is a human being then the first premise of that argument must not be necessitated by a fetus being a human being (or else you’d be employing circular logic). So how do you explain THAT premise. You’ll notice that if you do this long enough you’ll eventually reach premises that are not logically explained OR you’ll keep going forever

Are you claiming that a theory/idea that explains nothing can somehow still be true? — Pinprick

2+2=4 explains nothing but is true. So are any ideas that are true by definition.

What exactly do you disagree with here? — Pinprick

Not here. But the next line you probably want to add which is “Therefore people will believe the ideas with the most explanatory power”. That is what I disagree with.

What if I use these “true by definition” concepts to learn new things? Does that count as knowledge? — Pinprick

I would say no. But then again I’m the type of guy that says mathematics produces no new knowledge.

there is nothing that everyone will agree with. — Pinprick

Bruh you literally followed them up with “People can disagree with this but it would be human error”

See above example of measuring. — Pinprick

Fair enough but I was thinking more of a physics theory.

Once — Pinprick

Ok so I now propose to you a theory:

Pens never run out ink

I have just written a line with a pen

Therefore pens never run out of ink. This is now a proven scientific theory that cannot possibly be incorrect

Does that seem right to you? Newton’s laws are also something like this as they claim objects will move a certain way forever. How can you be sure of a theory that states something will be the same for all time.

If I hypothesize that I cannot walk through walls, and then proceed to attempt to do so, and fail to do so; then I can accurately say that I cannot walk through walls (at least at this particular time, with walls made out of this particular substance, under these specific circumstances, etc.). — Pinprick

But what if there are other variables other than the substance, time, etc that you don’t know about that WOULD let you walk through a wall. As you’ve stated it this is not a theory. “I cannot walk through wall X at time Y with variables A,B,C being equal to this and this and this” is not a theory it’s an observation. A theory generalizes from observations to highlight what variables matter and what are inconsequential. If you do ONE observation you can infer an infinite number of theories. That’s why you definitely need more than one. But even if you do many observations you can still infer an infinite number of theories. Occam’s razor only culls theories that add variables that cannot be changed or tested. If someone proposes that the gravitational constant is affected by how often we pray to God that is a valid testable theory. It’s just that when we pray it won’t change so that would make the theory wrong. However if someone claims that something will happen until the end of time how do you about proving that theory? At what point can you be sure that the proposed theory will actually work for all time?

When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.

In other words: come to your own conclusions. At least that’s what I meant when I said it. I don’t think what you sent is saying “Transcend intellectualism” I think it’s more like “don’t just become a Buddhist because an old guy told you to”. Anyways I don’t care to debate this detail anymore because we can at least agree that the Kalama Sutta applies.

On the other hand, you know what they call someone who tries to reform Buddhist doctrine? — praxis

Where did this come from? Who’s trying to reform Buddhist doctrine?

By my reckoning, the west got it right — TheMadFool

Neither side negates the other. It’s not a dichotomy it’s an attitude. In the west people try to fix the problem of life by fixing the outside world while in the east they try to fix themselves. That doesn’t mean that in the east it is thought that scientific advancement is impossible nor does it mean in the West that being able to bear life is not valuable. Both methods lead to a better life. Nowadays both are finally being used in tandem slowly

In the future, once utopia becomes a reality — TheMadFool

I don’t think it ever will

It seems therefore that the so-called "void" left by religion's departure from our lives can actually be dealt with in a satisfactory manner without abandoning the principle therein contained. — TheMadFool

People aren’t sad because they haven’t been able to find heaven in the sky. People are sad because without an omnipotent god telling them what to do exactly and why exactly they were made they can’t figure out what their purpose is and they can’t handle being in such a hostile world for no reason. Maybe a corporation will reach so much influence so as to take the position of God eventually but I’m willing to wager that would be a dystopia. Though I don’t think any corporation or person will ever get to that point.

making necessary adjustments to our minds — TheMadFool

Which would require us to:

isolate the mind for study, disassembling it as it were, something not that different from putting animals in a lab — TheMadFool

So that we may understand how it works to make said adjustments. Which is done by meditating

Meditation, to my reckoning, only serves to calm our minds to the point where it becomes possible to reflect deeply about the nature of reality — TheMadFool

I don’t think so. Some forms of meditation are FAAAR from relaxing. Meditation plays a much bigger role than you give it credit I think.

If you decide to walk away from Christianity will they nail you to a cross or something? — praxis

Not anymore but they used to as far as I know. Especially if you cure too many sick people. And in Islam the punishment is in fact death. And in both it is thought that anyone who doesn’t think like you do is wrong and will burn in hell forever so forcing people to adopt your beliefs at any cost is a good thing. Both place pressure on following their doctrines while Buddhism emphasizes that it is strictly optional.

the 'kill the Buddha' thing is about transcending intellection and in that way very zen. — praxis

I don’t see how it would be so I don’t think so.

Reality, entropy given due consideration, actually stacks the odds against us, making it almost a foregone conclusion that life will not be as enjoyable an experience as one would've liked or hoped.. — TheMadFool

Close enough to the first noble truth (life sucks). The point is though that in Western philosophy there have been much fewer explorations about what to do about this internally. The closest western philosophcal doctrine to buddhism that I can think of is stiocism. Stoicism actually tries to do the same thing so now that I think about it maybe IT was the first rather than psychoanalysis but phsychoanalysis is definitely closer in terms of "methodology". It tries to figure out what to do about being in such a terrible world in terms of what you should do with your mind.

Other than that the west seems to have largely tried to deal with this issue by changing the world itself. That is the key. The East tries to deal with this problem by configuring our minds so as to deal with it best. Just look at the second noble truth, to the East the problem is in the mind not the world. The West tries to deal with the problem by "fixing" the world (results vary from crusades to scientific revolution, handle with care).

I think that's part of the reason why the scientific revolution showing how insignificant we are, and the weakening of the belief in God caused such a massive void in the West which existentialists, absurdists and Co tried to fix. You hardly hear of existentialism in the East. That's because in The East there was no belief that the world needs to be fixed for us to be able to live in it, no need for mankind to be the centrepiece of the world for it to be worth it, it was always believed that the world is fine and we should just fix ourselves to deal with it. Notice how most Eastern religions don't have any sort of afterlife or "great quest" or purpose or destination baked in unlike most Western religions and myths. You can argue Nirvana is that but a Buddhist will never tell you "You must seek Nirvana". Nirvana is a state of enlightenment but there is no pressure to get there unless one personally thinks it's worth it. Unlike heaven where the only altenative is eternal damnation.

In psychoanalytics, people are treated like animals and are trained like them using positive and negative reinforcement and other tricks of the trade. In Buddhism a person's higher faculty - reason - is tapped, arguments are presented for examination, and people are encouraged to think and decide how to behave — TheMadFool

I don't think it's that simple. If I remember correctly reinforcement learning came way after psychoanalysis. At least I don't think it's about training people like animals anymore rather it is about explaining to them how their minds worked, and what they should do to deal with whatever issue they are having. For Buddhism though this is just false:

rather than practise a particular behavior until it becomes a habit like in psychoanalytics. — TheMadFool

Medidation. Meditation in Buddhism is either perscribed as medicine or is used in order for one to make their own conclusions. There are meditations designed to alleviate stress, deal with insecurities about X or Y, etc. The main thing a Buddhist hopes to do by meditating is to understand how his/her own mind is constructed. But as he/she understands more about the mind they become able to perscribe people certain meditations that help alleviate their stress just like a personal trainer perscribes a workout schedule. It will work regardless of whether or not you understand why.

That's the same as psychoanalysts giving people certain habits. They have enough of an understanding about how the mind works to give them a habit that will help them regardless of their own understanding of themselves.

The main difference is that a psychoanalyst is primarily a doctor while a Buddhist is primarily a scholar who knows enough to likely be able to help if asked. And psychoanalysts mainly get their knowledge from what the previous generation has found while Buddhists try to come to their own conclusions.

I think it’s closest to a psychology book that is so successful that people started chanting it. Most Buddhist scriptures are arguments based in experience. Someone experiences anger then tries to figure out what caused it. Then he proposes a hypothesis on how to fix it. Buddhism is the Newtonian mechanics of not suffering. It’s not the first but it is the most successful. The main point of Buddhism is that belief in it is never dogmatic. There is a saying in Buddhist (or zen? I don’t remember) circles “If you see the Buddha by the road, shoot him” which just basically means don’t just follow authorities blindly.

Buddhism is a theory among many. Hinduism, Zen, Daoism are the other major theories in this “field”. I find it interesting though that nothing like this is in the west. We are just beginning to make something like it with psychology and biology recently. The closest western field to Buddhism and Co is I think psychoanalysis. Both try to describe what goes on in the mind starting from the mind, rather than to try doing it starting from how the world works.

I don’t think that’s accurate. I think a more accurate translation is “suffering is caused by expectation”. I, for example, expect my internet connection to be stable since it’s being payed for, so when it isn’t I get angry. But if you give a homeless person internet connection he probably won’t expect it to be smooth so he will not suffer when it lags. Even if both me and the homeless person DESIRED the same thing (for example to look up the price of houses in a certain state to move to) I suffer because I EXPECT the world to be a certain way and my expectations get dashed.

So the way not to suffer is to have no expectations. This is different from having low expectations.

unbiased — Pinprick

And what does this mean exactly? And again, how does one know they’re unbiased (same question as at what point do we know we have reached objectivity)

essentially the entire point of thought itself. This is demonstrated by its universal acceptance — Pinprick

Non sequitor. Everyone thinking does not logically lead to the point of thought being truth seeking. When I think about what I’m having for dinner am I seeking to find “the objectively best dinner”?

disagreements on what is true, or whether truth even exists, but that is irrelevant — Pinprick

So why are we having this conversation?

No one chooses to believe something because they think it’s false. — Pinprick

That much is true but it leads to none of the rest of the paragraph it’s in

That a foot is 12 inches, that the correct spelling of “the” in English is t-h-e, that chess is a game, etc., etc. — Pinprick

All of these are statements true by definition. This is not “truth seeking”, this is “truth creating”. If I define socnes as rifheos then it is obvious that socnes is rifheos but no new knowledge has been gained here. Similarly if I define a foot as 12 inches then a foot is 12 inches. No new knowledge has been gained here

Facts, such as my above examples, can be known with certainty. — Pinprick

Your above examples aren’t new knowledge. Whether or not quantum physics is the best model for describing the world for example will never be known for certainty. No matter what theory we come up with we cannot know that it is correct, only that it hasn’t been proven incorrect yet.

I’m sure that’s true with some things, but I would limit those to only things that are not fully explained. — Pinprick

Science is empirical. Any theory is immediately incorrect as long as there is an observation that doesn’t match it. Claiming that we have finally reached the “final form” of physics where nothing can be incorrect anymore is unscientific. Empiricism will never reach 100% certainty until time ends and the theory is still not proven wrong

irrelevant to a thing’s truth value. — Pinprick

I’m not following. What’s the truth value of Harry Potter? 27?

I believe that truth is objective, which isn’t to say that truth exists in all discourses, but just that if truth exists in a particular area of discourse, then it must be objective. I also believe that there are ways to arrive at truth — Pinprick

Believe what you want, but if you’re going to keep replaying to me I’ll keep defending my belief that there are no ways to arrive at said truth. Actually let me ask you, how does one arrive at said immutable truth (aside from things that are true by definition)?

And that standard is explanatory power, because in order for any statement to be true, it must be able to demonstrate how it arrived at that conclusion. IOW’s it must explain something. — Pinprick

“It must demonstrate how it arrived at the conclusion” =/= equal it must explain something

Let me ask you this then: How many times do we have to throw a ball into the air to be 100% sure Newton’s theory of gravity is making accurate predictions? At how many throws can we know for certain that it is impossible for the next throw to oppose the theory?

My point, or argument, is that everyone prefers ideas that seem true, rather than ideas that seem false. Therefore it seems strange to me to consider someone who does so biased (i.e. subjective). — Pinprick

Since when is objective = what everyone prefers? Then nothing is objective. There is nothing everyone who is, ever was, and ever will be, will agree on.

Therefore choosing explanatory power as the best method is objective, because if something explains something else logically and rationally it by definition is true (or at least seems that way). — Pinprick

Notice the "At least seems that way". Very important. So at no point can you actually know it is that way right?

So, if the method you select does not provide the most accurate models, then the method you selected is objectively wrong. — Pinprick

That much is true but not vice versa. If the method you select does provide the most accurate models it MAY not be wrong.

But you can’t determine which standard is best without objectivity. — Pinprick

Why do you claim the existence of a "Best standard"? If there is such a thing then what is it?

I can understand the claim that there are objective physical laws in the universe. But what makes you think a bunch of rocks floating in space imply some "Objective standards" with which some evolved ape on one of said rocks must debate?

What is there to debate when the answer has been found? We don't know. And we can't know with our current level of science. Now "Can we ever detect sentience/mind/consciousness using a scientific apparatus?" That's a debate.

I can have no notion what that entity is actually thinking, and indeed whether it only appears sentient, but is not. — Roy Davies

Well you just answered it. We don't know.

Well if that's all one is doing, go for it. But take care that one doesn't try to do more... see — Banno

Like what?

What more is there to having a will than making a choice?

And if that's all there is to it, then how could having a will preceded making a choice? — Banno

I don't understand how the former leads to the latter. If you are choosing between A and B you need some sort of mechanism by which to make the choice. That mechanism is called will. So what if all will is is a mechanism by which people choose. Since you made a choice you must have had the ability to do so beforehand.

I have to make a choice. I need a will to make a choice. That will is the thing I chose with. This looks like a story that adds layers while not actually explaining anything. Hence we now have a thread that spends its time discussing the reified will when all that was needed was to talk about choice — Banno

But I just don't think it makes sense to talk with any fewer layers than this. The concept of "choice" doesn't make sense without someone making said choice. And said someone must have some mechanism by which to make a choice which we called "Will". What would talking about "choice" without someone who makes the choice look like?

To me this reads like "I have to eat. I need a mouth to eat. That mouth is the thing I eat with. This looks like a story that adds layers without explaining anything. Hence we now have a thread that spends its time discussing the reified mouth when all that was needed was to talk about eating"

Maybe I just don't get what you're saying because I'm simultaneously listening to a zoom class.

We don't have a right to a will that is free just because a concept like free will exists. — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not mourning the non existence of something that can't exist by definition. It's just that when philosophers use the word there is usaully a conceivable meaning behind it.

what does the word free do there? — ChatteringMonkey

Some say it is a substitute for "uncoerced" for one. That's what it means in the legal sense at least. I can't think of anything else but there are probably other wackier definitions

On a macro-level things do seem to behave according to deterministic laws, by and large — ChatteringMonkey

But you can't consider decisions in the brain "macro level things" I think. I remember reading Synapses and microtubles are small enough for quantum effects to actually matter.

1. We often say that those who commit suicide are selfish for taking themselves out of others' lives and I wonder if sometimes we are the selfish ones for wanting them to continue living for us? — Anthony Kennedy

Maybe 30 years ago. With how bad mental health has gotten people don't say that anymore I think, as grim as that is. But if it was one or the other I'd say definitely the latter. Saying that someone has to remain in your life otherwise they are selfish implies that you believe others have a duty to suffer much to prevent relatively little suffering on your part which is the epitome of selfishness as far as I'm concerned.

2. If someone has decided to make the rational decision to commit suicide, does people trying to deter them from their rationality take away from their person? — Anthony Kennedy

In as much as someone arguing with someone else on a philosophy forum takes away from their persons. I don't understand how it would. But there is a difference between that and locking them in place so they don't kill themselves.

precisely because we don't choose our will. — ChatteringMonkey

As far as I understand your opposition then I don't understand how a will can ever be "free". If you can choose between food item A or B, you need some sort of will to be able to choose. If you have to choose between will A or B you still need some sort of will to be able to choose. Having a will is required in order to make a choice. So by necessitating that a will must be chosen in order to be called "free" you create a sort of infinite regression because in order for a will to be free it must have been chosen by another will which must have been chosen by another will which must have.......

I feel it's a bit unfair when you define "free will" as an inconceivable concept and then proceed to say "free will doesn't exist". Sounds like "A square circle doesn't exist" to me. It's not a meaningful definition and is not what most people refer to when they think "free will" (though probably many people don't know what they refer to when they say it)

Can you say someone is morally responsible if he couldn't have acted otherwise? — ChatteringMonkey

There is no proof that people couldn't have acted otherwise even given what you say. Determinism is very difficult to swallow not only because of recent advnces in quantum physics but also because it is completely untestable. After something happens you can't go and test if something else could have happened.

Gotcha Game is one of the driving forces of philosophy forums. Somebody posts something, and users speed scan the post looking for something they can reject.

Contradiction, illogical, no evidence, wrong, Wrong, WRONG! — Hippyhead

This isn't even a philosophy forum thing this is an internet conversation thing. It's fine to critique but most people that I find here and on other forums "critiquing" are not trying to help reach an answer they are just trying to tear down a given position, either because they don't agree with it or just because it feels good. I think the main reason people do this is the anonymity of the internet. People here talk in such a manner that they completely wouldn't apply to the real world.

For example when they would usually say: "I'm not sure I agree,..." they say "That's just wrong". Instead of simply not replying they take the time to say things like "I am done talking to morons". And most of the time they just choose to talk much more smugly than they would IRL.

This attitude prevades this site very heavily. I constantly see S wannabes.

I think this site needs an "Arguing" section that is dedicated to letting people duke it out with anything short of ad hominem. Would be pretty fun to read later. But then again I think half the fun in being smug is pretending you're not being smug and that the opposition should just grow up so maybe no one will use it.

I think this should be a psychology forum question though. Gotcha!

PS: "Gotcha game" in Japanese refers to trashy pay to win games with a huge reliance on chance and lootboxes

If that’s the case, then why fuss over whether or not I’m being objective? — Pinprick

When did I do that? I didn't utter the word "objective" once before you did. I honestly don't know where you got "So I take it you don't care about objectivity" from.

I just clarified that people don't believe things based on predictive power necessarily but rather that everyone has their own criteria. That is not even in contradiction with there being an "objective criteria" (Again, I can't see how floating rocks can ever imply such a thing but assuming they do), it would just mean that everyone else is wrong if there was such an objective criteria.

IRL people have different criterias, that's all I said.

If you don’t care, then I don’t see how you can care about obtaining truth at all — Pinprick

I don't. I care about obtaining ideas that seem true. I can't test if they're true or not (because I don't have a hotline to truth) but I can select the ideas that provide the most accurate models. That is my criteria. That is not everyone's criteria. That's all I said.

Without accepting objectivity how can either of us determine whom is correct? — Pinprick

By setting up an actually testable standard. For example: Makes the best predictions, Has the fewest words, Most intuitive, etc etc.

I take it you reject objectivity? — Pinprick

Not necessarily. I don’t know if it exists or not but even if it did there is no point at which we can be sure we have found it so I don’t care if it exists or not.

An objective objective? — Pinprick

Maybe. But how do you know it is so? Assume that somehow a bunch of floating rocks in space can imply that humanity should have a shared objective (which is a pretty big assumption in the first place). How do you know that that objective is “desiring truth”. If there WAS some “script” for proper human behavior somewhere, we can’t see it, we can only assume that things are on it. And you assumed “desiring truth” is on it. You didn’t know that it is. You don’t have a hotline to truth in these matters even if such a truth existed.

You can say “I think this is an objective truth” you can never say “this is an objective truth”. Pretty much everyone that has said the latter has been wrong so far.

To be honest religious dogma would only be like 15% of all the random bs people say here (I say some things that I cringe at a week later too) so I don't think it's even worth the effort and headaches of deciding what counts as illogical dogma and what doesn't.

I never understood the ideas of objective anything. Take objective morality. To say there is some form of objective morality would be implying multiple things:

1- Morality is not man made but inherint in the world somehow (I can't conceive of how a bunch of floating rocks can imply any sort of morality but ok)
2- Man has some way to access this objective morality

I won't argue with you on 1. I don't know if there is an objective morality or not maybe there is maybe there isn't. However 2 makes that question irrelevant. Even if there WAS some form of objective morality how do you know you have found it? At least with physical laws we get some sort of confirmation. You thorw a ball in the air at a certain speed 100000 times and it does the exact same movement. At that point you can be pretty sure that your theory at least produces the same results in this particular instance (That doesn't mean you have actually figured out the law. There have been countless occassions where theories in physics made accurate predictions for decades only to then be demolished by a new experiment and make way for a new theory.).

But with morality there is no such measure. You don't get a "Good points" counter on top of your head from which you can know which actions are good and which are bad. So you have no clue whether or not you're even getting closer to the "objective morality". No scientist says "We have figured out the correct law" ever these days because everyone that said that before has been shown to be wrong.

So if you want to believe in an objective morality that's fine, as long as you don't have the ridiculous ego required to say that you have figured out said objective morality (because there is no way you could have). Those two beliefs combined together result in the worst atrocities in history. The second belief is what defines an extremist.