I imagine some football supporters are cannibals and rapists too. I do not see the point of bringing this up other than to insinuate that football fans are somehow abhorrent compared to non-football fans.

You even went to the trouble to give visual stimulus. Why?

Actually I don’t care. Bye

Hooligans? Like those in Paris attacked by police? The children tear-gassed? Those ‘hooligans’?

Both Japan and South Korea have qualified for the World Cup Finals before becoming host nations (especially South Korea).

Qatar have NEVER reached the World Cup Finals. FIFA talk shite and always have - hence asking people to ‘leave politics out of football’ whilst constantly meddling in politics and bribery.

According to your argument (or plea) World Cup would have never taken place in some tournaments as South Africa 2010; Argentina 1978 or Italy 1934 where these countries were far away from being a democracy. — javi2541997

Fair point. It is more or less a culmination of corruption and the recent (as in past couple of decades) CLEAR and undeniable corruption and backhanders that puzzles me as to how Qatar were still a feasible host? I do not care about ‘democracy’ as a mandate for host nation, but when the scheduling of the game is put out and the host nation has NEVER appeared in the world cup … well, that is just plain stupid. It has been getting into more and more of a sad state and I think more than simple words or ‘fines’ would help … perhaps the fans should boycott? Not exactly sure how much of a dent that would make in commercial income but it would at least hurt Qatar … or maybe not as they are gigarich and the people who paid to have it hosted in their country likely do not care a jot if no one but them shows up to watch the games.

There is also the constant shift towards the moneymakers greed to make a Super League. They got caught planning it and people spoke out very vocally about it … so they pretended to listen then back-doored with ‘revamp’ of champions league.

What are your answers to the questions you pose?

Easy. Character is more important in society.

I obviously disagree because of the above. The assumption that some higher being has anything like our sense of morality is nonsense. If that is woven into the hypothetical then I do not see how it can fit just like a hypothetical such as this:

‘Imagine all apples are oranges. If you were an apple are you an orange or an apple being an orange?’

It is irrelevant nonsense. Contradictory and therefore closed off fro rational thought and sensible investigation.

Your hypothetical may work if you reduce the knowledge and abilities of the entity in the OP as such a being having SOME form of limitations.

Everything would be nothing. There would be no meaning, sense nor care.

Basically, it would be as everything is now … the only difference being we of limited capacities can ‘appreciate’ something we term ‘difference’ through what is likely ignorance clouded with an idea we term ‘knowledge’.

‘Capitalism,’ like ‘democracy,’ is a variated term. I do not see ‘capitalism’ as the root of all social problems myself. It is more or less, in my eyes, a repercussion of other social attitudes and changes due to the modern world.

Communications have changed everything, and are still changing everything.

I ‘work’ 20 hrs a week currently - cut down from 24 hrs.

My ‘job’ is something I enjoy 80% of the time.

I do not get sucked into ‘consumption’ for the sake of consumption - do not use a mobile (have one but it stays as home). I buy new clothes every 4 or 5 years, and the only possessions I have of value to me are my books and iPad. I refuse to wear clothes that have any symbol or writing on (dislike them for some reason).

People may judge, and do, and I do not care too much. I am my own judge and jury for the most part (obviously I am a social creature so others have some sway over my choices and thoughts).

Basically, the OP is a relative point of view. I have felt the general shadow of the OP in life but I simply refused to accept it and told my parents from a fairly young age that I would rather live and die on the streets than get stuck in a job I hated.

Sloth is about avoidance not ‘lazing around’. If someone chooses to sit around all day picking their nose that is their choice. I feel sad for them. Some of the most slothful people I have met are very industrious … they are simply doing something easy to distract from what their passions are.

@schopenhauer1 I would be interested to learn about other schools of ‘pessimism’ if you can give an account of some of them rather than sticking to the one in the OP.

I feel showing the distinctions between different views in this area would help in the understanding of a particular ‘pessimism’.

Okay :) My bad. I did probably take you off-track a bit.

You completely missed my point then. A is B is an abstract, the mistake is you assuming this maps one-to-one onto reality when you apply Electricity and Energy … I even gave such an example to show the distinction between objects that exist and abstractions.

Bring me number one and show it to me and you can then convince me there is no difference. Better still paint me a picture of ‘AND,’ ‘OR’ or ‘IF’ that everyone will recognise as such without painting the words.

It is important to understand that logical rules to not necessarily map onto reality and that logical propositions need not make sense in reality (ie. ‘If Apples are Oranges when …’).

About what? Existing?

Carry on and read nothing that challenges the status quo. — schopenhauer1

You literally said we cannot challenge the status quo … which we cannot. We live, we suffer and we die. Why is this ‘pessimistic’ though? It is just the fact of existing.

Putting words in my mouth now? Why?

I am failing to see the point pf any of this. You simply state the obvious over and over like it is something we should care about whilst simultaneously insinuating we should not care about it.

It does not make sense.

Pessimism is necessary in life. Suffering is necessary in life. That is not exactly anything anyone did not know is it? Even if it is so what?

Everyone gets ‘angry’ at life though at some point. Then we usually grow up … albeit slowly and with instances of regression! :D

We reach it in death. It is not exactly like every waking hour of our lives is hellish or even close to being so.

Human beings are human beings because we are alive. We cannot help existing. Why would we want to? I certainly have no major qualms with ‘existence’ but it is certainly puzzling that I exist and attach meaning to things in my life.

‘Suffering’ is a term too easily thrown around by you I find. Why would any sane person avoid every single ounce of suffering in life? Do to so would mean you are a walking talking zombie person shuffling through life like you are already dead. This is actually something quite common to many humans but the vast majority get over it.

Would you call Schopenhauer much of a narcissist? It just seems to me that such obsession with negative thoughts often stem from a kind of narcissism as the fury/rage/disappointment is directed at the world, or life itself, rather than simply taking the world on as mere happenstance within which we are not particularly significant nor possessing any right to demand/expect reality to be other than it is.

I would not recommend eating number twos. Go for the apple or banana

I would also like to add that Truth exists in the abstract only. If we apply the idea of Truth to realms where the ruleset is obscured/unknown/open to various interpretations (like in spoken/written complex languages) Then we are extending its use beyond its origins.

If A is B then B is A. This has no Truth applied outside the abstract (eg. If a banana is an apple then an apple is a banana). You may say this is logically True, yet in reality we can state an apple is a banana and believe it only in the sense that both are fruit … and that is stretching it! For some conscious creature of limited mental capacity I see no reason why they would not equate an apple with a banana given their common attributes.

The point here is the misapplication of Truth into the world we live and inaccurate language we use to communicate.

1+1= 2 in basic arithmetic, yet in other realms of mathematics others may argue otherwise. In reality to say 1 apple and another apple make two apples is also superficially true because the “1” holds universal truth as an abstract and indistinguishable item whereas an “apple” is different to other apples always in time, space and physical constitution.

In reality we make certain leaps to overcome seemingly minute distinctions and this is highly beneficial in allowing us to navigate the world. The Truth in reality is a guide not a rule. In abstraction it is the rule.

Oh yeah! Haha! Glitch in my files … sorry ;)

It is true that I am writing on a forum.
It is true that I am human.

The latter may be ‘true or false’ to you as you may consider that I am AI or some kind.

Are you omniscient? If not then how can you make any truth claims at all?

I was simply distinguishing between something being ‘true’ and something being either ‘true or false’. The first is known the second is yet to be fully investigated.

But he said ‘true’ not ‘true or false’.

If you say something is ‘true’ then you must know it. Even if you state that something is either true or false you do so with the authority of truth not guesswork.

Truth is limited to a set system of rules and variables. IF … THEN … is the most common everyday usage. The idea of some all pervading ‘truth’ may or may not be the case … science basically progresses with the assumption that its ‘truths’ are the current ‘best truths’ not the be all and end all of knowledge.

That does not surprise me.

Just to add … if we are defining everything as a ‘game’ then does this term actually mean anything?

I think a lot of people get caught in the ideas of Wittgenstein and start believing ‘everything is game’ just because he termed the phrase ‘language game’ … he did use the term Language in a very narrow sense so it is worth taking that into account.

Note: I have previously used the theme of life being a ‘game’ before but that was rather loose.

Seems like an empty point.
You previously said that we are social so you are kind of having your cake and eating it here.

The ‘rules’ of life are unknown. Games are what make up life so it is possibly a little presumptuous to assume life is a ‘game’.

Paranormal easily. This would reignite waning religious beliefs quite a lot I imagine.

ET is a given in my mind and that of many others whereas paranormal activity is in fringe coo-coo land. The more surprising the discovery generally means the largest impact it will have on society at large (short and/or long term).

It’s very famous. A quick search … Gazzaniga.

I find conflict a key attribute of a healthy and optimistic outlook.

My fundamental outlook for over a decade now has been an amalgam of ‘pessimism’ and ‘optimism’ … I hope for everything and expect nothing!

A complete pessimist cannot fight a good fight, cannot face the impossible nor believe they can escape the cage they find themselves in. It does not matter how hard we argue that the cage is all we have and any sense of ‘escape’ is futile … we still hope, and sometimes what was once ‘impossible’ becomes common then eventually ‘mundane’. Life is full of such mundane miracles. The pessimist actively ignores that the seemingly impossible had been overcome again and again.

Nihilism is nihilism. Its foundation is based on an impossibility. It is almost like people are discomforted by comfort so need to breed hell into their lives … usually this happens when we cower from life and belittle it. I have been there. I think it is a necessary struggle for humans to go through.

A struggle is only ‘bad’ if you avoid it, ignore it and deny it all at once.

Do you read the replies? It is not an either/or choice. Both hemispheres act together even if the corpus callosum is severed or if the person lost one hemisphere in early life due to the other hemisphere taking on the role due to the plasticity of the brain.

You might be interested to know about the research done by … some guy with Italian name … haha! Sorry, gone blank. Anyway, he studied split brain patients and concluded that the two hemispheres still communicated only they did this by ‘observing’ what the person was doing - eg. By tying one hand behind the back of the patient then asking them to solve certain puzzles … often the hand tied behind knew the answer (but the person was not consciously aware of this) and tried to point out the mistakes made by the other hand.

It is very interesting how we claim authorship over our actions quickly when the outcome is positive ;)

Yes, and good to take note of it. Do not get me wrong, I admire Harris and his approach and stance in many areas but like everyone else he has shortcomings.

I still find him worth listening to from time to time and would never simply dismiss him because he has made some - what I consider - poor remarks.

And his area of expertise is NOT philosophy, ergo he is maybe a reasonable amateur philosopher (he would likely state this himself if pressed hard enough). I say this because his general take on anything is marred by the political arguments he got caught up in when he was not even arguing, just stating something blatantly true.

He is no more a ‘good philosopher’ than I was a ‘good tennis player’ in my youth. Meaning I could beat all of my friends but they were not exactly seasoned pros or semi-pros.

Funnily enough I agree that Harris is the smartest philosopher alive — invizzy

He is not a philosopher really. He is a neuroscientist with an interest in politics regarding the atheist movement (which was certainly called for in US).

Personally I think Sean Carroll does a better job of reaching out to other branches of knowledge than Harris (accepting he possesses little to no expertise openly).

But he did argue this without even realising it. That was my point.

I think he does a reasonable job of being a spokesperson for ‘science’ in general. He sure as hell is not the best philosopher in the world … that had to be one of the most crazy labels I have heard attached to him, a bit like calling Jordan Peterson a philosopher. Both of them have a narrow field of expertise that they seem to believe to be much broader (or rather their ‘fans’ seem to believe that).

A particular moment of stupidity was when he recited a cooking recipe adding religious overtones to it as an example of how you can imbue any mass of words with profane meaning and using this as an example of how such ‘meaningless’ interpretations are somehow evidence for religion being bogus.

That we can actually produce such narratives from any text shows that we have a narrative function for interpreting in the world … such a function is far from meaningless and is actually something that humans excel at and live in every single day of our lives.

It kind of baffled me how he could not see that the thing he pointed out is the most meaningful item there possibly is in human history … that is why we have history.

All said and done, I do not think he is a complete waste of time, just lacks humility sometimes and his attempts to rectify this generally fail - the exchange with Chomsky was cringeworthy.

This is why intelligence and creativity get assigned to opposite hemispheres. — apokrisis

Gibberish.

No one is ‘right’ or ‘left’ brain dominant. This is a nonsense myth that persists through uninformed pop-‘science’.

The whole left versus right brain thing is a massive over simplification. Throw it in the bin. Just some typical sensationalist ‘science’ reporting.

I have said, but I could do better. I prefer to throw out first drafts and see what does and does not hit.

The Trolley point was just stripping down to what Antinatalism is generally concerned with at its heart - to reduce ‘suffering’.

My argument is that Antinatalism has two lines of attack (1) An ’ethical’ one (2) a ’moral’ one. Both opposing each other, which is why there is an issue when it comes to unravelling an Anitnatalists points/evidence for their cause.