and you liken him to...categorize him alongside F. Nietzsche? — Michael Zwingli

I never said that. The discussion is about 'will' and Crowley (regardless of what you think of him) did have some things to say about 'will' in a more 'religious' sense.

The fact regarding Crowley is, that I would not have expected to find such a man's, make that such a showman's, "philosophy" (used loosely) to be taken seriously by anybody on this site. — Michael Zwingli

If you can get past that you'll find an interesting story.

A better quote would be (to paraphrase) 'the biggest mistake is to set obtainable goals'.

It was a pun ;)

I prefer Peter Green

That wouldn't help nor is it needed here.

The general AN position is against 'suffering' which we all understand (no need to redefine the word). They must simply view 'suffering' (and I've seen this) as an item to be eliminated and have no regard for any balance. They are happy to refer to 'pleasure' as the opposite of 'suffering' but only when it suits their argumentation. When pushed the goal posts are moved to 'responsibility' (conveniently ignoring that to understand pleasure we must necessarily understand pain/suffering).

If they do except this (some just won't) then they view the negative as outweighing the positive. Depression and suicide are not reasonable arguments either as a great number of people live through these periods and are more than content that they didn't kill themselves.

I haven't seen a convincing argument that holds up the 'responsibility' point. It repeatedly boils down to 'what right do you have?' ... it is a non-question much like asking what right do I have to do anything.

From a recent discussion with someone on this forum I don't see a full understanding presented of what it means to say 'I'm an anti-natalist' OR I could just be assuming that to be an anti-natalist they must argue with certain underlying principles (otherwise it is contrary).

It reminds of the kind of attitude that surrounds people who deny free will and therefore think that anything they do or say is absent of any personal responsibility. Having children is not a denial of responsibility it is bringing responsibility to one's chest and understanding what we are.

Either way it's nice to see people thinking about stuff like this even if some of makes almost no sense to me and what I say makes almost no sense to them :)

I was thinking of it in terms of being 'satiated'. A glass of water offers more pleasure the more thirsty one is or a meal the pleasure the hungrier one is.

Along these lines a life devoid of suffering is not a life at all as far as I can see. There is a price for everything (even living in the lap of luxury). Some don't know how good they've got it and it is them who suffer because of this (albeit blindly) because they don't know what it is to suffer - something prevalent in nihilism I'd say.

To add, when it comes to morals and such we are likely better served to look as 'betterment' than 'truth' as dictating the best course of action or rules to guide us.

Saying something is a moral truth just makes itself out to be a subtler way of claiming a moral absolute that even refuses to be held up to enquiry.

The author was unfortunately so concerned with an ethical claim having the same value as a true/false statement (ensuring certainty) or having correspondence to reality (completeness, without any need for me), that he just tried to make moral truths fit those pictures, meet those standards, rather than see how they work in themselves--despite their ability to be justified, not seeing they go beyond knowledge. The problem he worried on was the fear of relativism. That, even with a best-case claim like "slavery is unjust" (much less something controversial, like "Black Lives Matter") is subject to the criticism that it is either unjustifiable as a true statement (just an opinion or "belief"), or is simply an individual thought, or worse, a feeling--so you, or another culture, may think, judge, feel entirely differently, however you like. — Antony Nickles

Sounds suspiciously like fear of context rather than relativism.

'Slavery is unjust' is not a True statement as far as I can tell. By this I mean in the Master Slave dynamic there can be good and bad Masters and Slaves, much in the manner that Aristotle outlined. That said, in ancient Greece/Athens 'slavery' was not the same as elsewhere and the dynamics and laws surrounding the history of slavery have never been identical (ie. killing a slave was illegal in some societies and not in others).

The question I would have is if the author is tending towards some form of moral absolutism or not? If they are I cannot see how they would convince me.

Good heavens, this is not Aleister Crowley, the English occultist, is it? — Michael Zwingli

Yes it is.

I get what you are saying though. Suffering is inevitable, but if gratuitous amounts of it can be prevented it should be. — ToothyMaw

I’m not saying that. I’m saying ‘suffering’ is actually what gives life value. No suffering is a zombie life without emotion. Some people want lives of candy and lollipops because they naively think that is ‘better’ for them. Nope.

However, 2000 years since Plato and Aristotle, civilization seems not to have progressed away from war — FreeEmotion

The facts beg to differ.

All the more reason to believe that it isn't wrong to not take a great risk in bringing someone into the world. Or, if we do, to be careful about it. — ToothyMaw

I don't see any 'wrong' or 'right' about it. The very question of it being right or wrong to have children is meaningless to me. I've tried to understand the AN point of view but there seems to be a disjoint in their thinking as some claim that they 'value life' yet, for all intents and purposes, wish human life to cease (quite literally).

Neither do they seem to understand that life without suffering is NOT life. Suffering isn't something inherently 'negative' it is just how we tend to view it overall.

Life is absurd. I'm okay with that and if it wasn't absurd I think I would likely have ended my life some time ago. The 'absurdity' makes it interesting.

But as far as certain lives being genuinely horrible and painful, the idea of unfairness makes some sense - you aren't existing on the terms you would like to, which is true for a great many people, even if they are happy to be alive. — ToothyMaw

It's true for me too. I've lived through some horrors. I don't regard that as any kind of justification for someone erasing my life once I hit that point of suffering ... if some understood what it was I felt they might likely think it 'better that I die, than suffer what I was suffering'. No thank you!

This had nothing to do with having children though. A non-existent person is non-existent not a 'potential person'. Such word play may convince others and I understand that there are gray areas. I don't see the world as black and white though ... more of a gray mushy, marbled mess of interwoven shades .

We are not responsible for the sky being blue. — ToothyMaw

My point was they are equally as pointless not that they are exclusively comparable in certain ways. I could just as well as said "The world to be spaghetti dreamed forks, or the dark to lighten the sound of foam. Which is it?"

Granted some non-questions appear to more easily pretend to fit a certain context than others.

If I was to take your point more seriously I can just as easily throw the same kind of thinking right back at AN thoughts. We have the instinct for procreation (evidence being we're part of a species that exists) and we also have a moral sense of responsibility in how we live (not in how we don't live). So the 'responsibility' is no more valid a point than 'procreating'. We have a sense of responsibility tied to our procreative abilities. I cannot see how it can be argued that these are separate to the point that one is on a pedestal but not the other.

AN is a solution to a problem only it believes in: it both asks and answers the question, is it immoral to have children? No one else asks, but AN keeps insisting it has an answer. — Srap Tasmaner

The question doesn't make any sense to me either. May as well ask if it is morally right that the sky appears to be blue. At its core it boils down to a self-contradiction or just an attitude that says because one, or more, persons suffer that it isn't a fair trade off. Life isn't 'fair' and it is silly to view existence as being 'fair' or 'unfair' - not that I have seen any AN admit this is basically where they are coming from (but it can be seen on the surface of some).

All that said, asking the question (no matter how absurd) is a possible step towards understanding it to be absurd and that not all sentences with '?' at the end warrant a '?'.

I think it might be a necessary distraction from Libya. Power vacuums will be filled quickly not necessarily well (unless luck is involved).

I see no real 'dilemma'. Many wrong doings have happened and will continue to happen even with so-called 'moral arguments' behind them.

Practical action is needed rather than philosophical ponderings. I'm not inclined to risk my life to try to 'help' though if I'm brutally honest. A monetary donation to aid organisations? If you think it will help someone somewhere a little go ahead and donate.

Other than that I don't have much more to say.

To add ... there is no substitute for experience. Most understanding (in any depth) comes with age not merely intellect. I wouldn't recommend anyone under 20 (or perhaps 25) to take either philosophy or psychology to too much a depth. They are just not equipped with enough life experience to fathom the nuances. A basic mathematical and scientific background would do wonders to help them set up a foundation so later destroy via other means, or build upon, if they so desire once they get strangled by life a little harder ;)

don't steer them toward psychology, where they might get a degree, and a license, and start blindly leading the blind. Instead, have them study philosophy. — James Riley

I would say studying both and include many other fields too (specifically in the same area are anthropology, politics, history, neuroscience, ancient history and the biological behavioral sciences).

I think you'll find it is cbits for complexity (see Shannon Entropy).

He viewed the psyche as a community of selves and a multiplicity of conflicting drives. — Joshs

Evidence? Where did you get that from. Not refuting it just curious as I've not read all of his stuff.

What I will the term will to mean is what it means to me.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" - Crowley.

To me this means irrespective of what other deem as 'good' or 'bad,' or 'right' or 'wrong' I should act as my will dictates and follow my path for my reasons not those imposed upon me by ideologies that possess people en masse.

I'm very fond of Nietzsche's views in this regard as they generally articulate a lot about how I view the world at large.

In the most colloquial sense 'will' could perhaps be parsed as 'pure determination'. I would extend this into what both Nietzsche and Crowley seem to mean to me ... that is to adhere to my individual will rather than piggyback on the power of others believing that having a piece of them is empowering for my individual being.

We could talk about any term endlessly and come up with various contextual uses.

I would REALLY like to see an archaic term to be resurrected ... ken. As in 'to ken something'.

I feel a certain amount of pride in finding commonality with others who have done something admirable, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why. I think it is, objectively, delusional. So, rather than give in to it, I check myself. — James Riley

I think it is just basic tribalism. Someone in your 'tribe' does something well, or even no so well, and you react as if they are some kind of extended representative of you (which to some weird measure they as you share commonalities with them in terms of cultural upbringing).

Even people from European countries who view themselves as being 'European' rather than spanish, german or whatever, are adhering to a level of tribal allegiance. no doubt they care about 'Europe' in the sense that they identify as 'European' rather than to this or that singular country.

Anyway, I am interested to learn more about what people think of Critical Race Theory because, like many other areas, I believe there is somethin in there for me to learn in regards to my views on the religiosity of human beings and how this feature translates itself into/through human culture. It seems to me there is something similar going on here that ties Critical Theory (in general), Nationalistic pride (or patriotism), and the current culture trend of Identity Politics (including sexual orientation, sexism and racism) to basic cosmological upheaval (our sense of belonging in the face of an infinitely expanding universe. If the religious persons cannot truly keep ignoring the vast endless expanse of the universe and this brings with it a sense of insignificance that I believe some just cannot even face let alone deal with so they look for 'reasons' and 'meaning' within human clusters that seem to approximate what or who they see themselves as and/or as a place where what they say or do is taken seriously and listened to (the later being the greatest need of most humans I'd say!).

Critical race theory starts from the idea that racism is inherent (to white people?) and includes far more things than the ordinary definition of racism; that there are people who hold racist ideas. Blurring the line just what is racism seems to be also the case. Furthermore, it seems to totally accept and endorse the division between people by race. — ssu

I see this kind of thing from some but certainly not all in what I've read. As in 'white people,' and talkign about racism in such a way that isn't exactly an 'accusation' aimed at anyone just a matter-of-factness about how historically such things have played a whole in dividing people ... so I don't think it 'endorses' any division between people but certainly does seem to say that such divisions are inevitable (which I agree with although I'm not completely sold that 'race' is anything more than a form of tribalism entwined around basic cultural norm of human behaviour.

As with a lot of topics in the mainstream it can be hard to dig past the noise and find the actual original ideas and thoughts behind them.

The differences from country to country on this topic are also quite different. Where I currently live people don't understand or care about this kind of thing generally speaking. It does exist to some degree just like it does everywhere and given that the population is quite isolated (historically) from other countries and has good reason to not exactly be overly fond of western interference in it's colonial aspects, but they don't much care about it.

Are we talking about being 'alone' or being 'lonesome'? They are different.

Personally I'm VERY happy when I'm alone. I don't get 'lonely'. I've extremely long periods with minimal human contact and been completely fine. If I had to be around people all day everyday I think I'd slowly lose my mind - or just start killing them off one by one :D

What traits do you think a successful loner typically possesses? — Benj96

If you mean someone like myself I would say there are many different traits that play into this. A good imagination will probably serve you well though above most other aspects.

For some leftists (internationalist socialists) patriotism is as grave a sin as nationalism. — Bitter Crank

I find patriotism kind of repugnant myself. I understand why people have a sense of patriotism (I likely do myself in some superficial respects) I just don't see any logical justification in it other than a needful clinging to what I assume is an innate human attribute of wanting to be part of something bigger that we can understand perhaps (akin to religions).

It seems to me that a lot of the racial debate follows this same path. I'm not fond of it but I cannot say it is 'right' or 'wrong' when so many are invested in it and probably because they have the innate drive to be invested in it. For those reasons I want clarification on what exactly Critical Race Theory is compared to my limited understanding of it as marked out above.

I have referred to racism as merely one type of prejudice before. Many berated me for this as they viewed 'prejudice' as being a less impactful term than racism and believed I was trying soften act of racism as 'mere prejudice'.

If it's in the public domain we're better to attend to it than ignore it. Humans are a particularly 'tribal' species full of errors and stupidities. Racism is a rather nasty stupidity, but my point if that we might do better to look into the similarities such attitudes have with things like patriotism.

People are quite happy to refer to patriotism as a good thing, yet nationalism isn't. I was wondering if there is a similar discrepancy between two differing views of 'race' as their is to 'nation'? Might be a useless idea but I thought I'd bring it up just in case someone sees something of value in it.

Can someone help please?

Am I vaguely in the correct ballpark in saying that 'Critical Race Theory' is not about eradicating 'racism' per se (as the view is that is cannot be annihilated), but more or less about how to counteract inequalities that exist due to 'racism'?

As a critique of this view - building on what I mentioned above - if we're happy to state that our common view of 'race' is about superficial appearances and more closely related to culture and upbringing, then to be categorised as race x or y is more about the cultural aspect than mere skin pigmentation. Examples of such racism exist between peoples who look very similar (if not identical in most respects). The problem from here is how anyone identifies as this or that 'race' becomes something of a 'choice' yet the main issue is that no matter how you perceived yourself you cannot realistically expect everyone else to agree with you on this. This seems to be the biggest problem.

That critique aside (and looking to the US) it seems pretty messy to ask people to pay for their ancestors views/actions, yet it does seem unfair that - according to how I understand Critical Race Theory - a large section of US society has been viewed in a bad light and basically held back and not allowed the same opportunities as others.

Clearly the racism has reduced in the US over the centuries but it is still not good enough that great advances have been made. It just might be that we have to sadly wait it out, so to speak, and that in a generation or three thigns will continue to 'progress'. How to progress in the meantime? I believe this is precisely what Critical Race Theory is about ... am I correct?

@Xtrix Also, in case you missed it the first time, what about testing people for the virus instead? If employees are willing to turn up to work 30mins in advance and take a Covid test then surely the employers should provide a test? IF the primary concern is for the workers safety this seems to make perfect sense.

Mostly, although I don't think anyone understands the consequences fully, because to do that would be to know the future. — Janus

I think that’s a good summation.

@Xtrix How do you feel about people refusing for religious reasons then? They are exempt yet their ‘wrong thinking’ is okay in the eyes of the law.

I’m not saying, and have not said, that the vaccine isn’t effective. My point remains with allowing adults to make a choice or not. If private companies choose to stop people working then my position here becomes more hazy. I’ll grant you that. That they are right to do so, as you say, I just don’t agree. The situation is relatively under control and the threat is pretty low now. The big danger and fear was the fact that humans had little to no protection due to lack of exposure. Now we have. New strains are not completely different (it’s essentially the same beast) and new strains of the flu virus occur every year and new flu jabs are made every year too. What we now have is a world with an annual flu viruses (that kills 200,000-600,000 a year) and Covid viruses (that look set to kill maybe 2 million once people resume life as normal).

There have been certain comparisons to war too. Some people will step up and fight for their country and lay down their lives. They do so because they feel impelled to do so. Not everyone feels this and yet they may very well reap the rewards. If you want to make comparisons with clothing and medication then I think this point is strong enough unless you’re not opposed to conscription (but if you are not everyone would agree with you and it doesn’t necessarily make them right and you wrong, or vice versa).

People are NOT turned away from work when they have the flu … perhaps they should be tbh because I think that is wrong. I don’t see a measured approach now that we are more knowledgable about Covid.

No drug is 'harmless' per se. I think it's actually safer than taking paracetamol last time I looked?

Like I mentioned previously there was, and is, a lot of politicking surrounding anything that has the attention of the public eye. The mess gets even more complex and messy when sensationalism is the bread and butter of many media outlets (private and publicly owned).

This is an interesting point from Military.com:

Soldiers who have pending decisions on medical or religious exemptions will not face any adverse action.

So medical conditions are ok to refuse vaccine and also religious reasons. Not sure exactly how someone 'proves' a religious inclination though. In terms of jobs outside the military the ability to sue for such reasons would be implemented too I imagine.

The atheist with no underlying medical conditions who refuses though has no way to 'opt out' and retain their job.

The whole world has become one big scam, and the crazies (really thugs) have taken over. I works advise you only trust your mother, assuming that she is not invested in Pharmaceuticals. — MondoR

I can understand from a US perspective. Having literal inside info into companies like Astra Zeneca I'm not convinced in any particular danger there when it comes to vaccine production.

That this virus was created by mad scientists that are running loose is almost incontrovertible. — MondoR

Almost isn't certainty. I wouldn't judge it as 'almost incontrovertible' though. I looked into it a while back and didn't see much other than speculation for or against. Suspicious? Yeah, but again, there is the political manipulation of governments and the sensationalism of mass media to create revenue. I'm more concerned about the later tbh

Riiiiight, the evil Dr. Fauci. Is it because his name is not Anglo Saxon? — tim wood

Actually, forget it. Comments like this repulse me.\

bye bye until next month. you're in the sin bin :)

I stated that the line isn't clear. What 'reprehensible claim' did I make? I did state that I don't believe people should be forced/coerced/bullied into taking medication. I'm not quite sure how I am to 'support' that remark? Of course there are situations where I'd argue for or against someone taking medication - ie. for taking Covid vaccine. I cannot think of a realistic situation off of the top of my head where I would make someone take something (other than as a parent).

I'm not convinced by such reports yet as there is - as always - a lot of political nonsense going on between different states trying to gain an upper hand in some way. The whole issue with vaccine supply and Brexit in Europe showed some quite extraordinary political wrangling and silliness between France, The UK and the EU in general.

Playing to absolutist arguments doesn't help. I was pointing out - see above - that the line is not distinct. If you think it is distinct go ahead and point out where the line is.

My case is that I don't see the current threat of Covid as justifying companies/governments to prevent people from working. I understand that you may disagree. I don't have a big problem with you disagreeing, but I would still ask where the line is and to what extent such ideas are best implemented?

I can sharpen the other sedge of the blade too if I wished. I don't really see the 'point' then though

Note: Calling people whackadoodle helps how? I see you follow this up with 'crazy'. What is the point of doing this (genuinely curious to know if you've actually put any thought into this or you have to invent a reason on the fly when I ask?)

That's fine. I don't see it like that in this case myself. I'd be more or less likely to agree with you if the dangers were greater ... again this is down to personal judgement because there is no definitive line here. Just like with the more common debate on abortion we do need to draw a line somewhere, but the discussion around where that line is or should be is a difficult but necessary discussion to have (even more so the messier and more uncomfortable it is).

In any social group some people will carry the weight more than others, and in other situations the roles may very well be reversed. I can judge people on how they act but I don't particularly agree to coerce, manipulate or force them to act differently (especially if it is clearly against their own 'better judgement').

The situation is not as extreme largely on account of vaccination. — Janus

Agreed. That isn't my point though.

Again, this isn't about merely 'opting out'. We're talking about people who 'opt out' being marginalised based on their own personal position. We're taking about people being coerced (if 'effectively forced' is to strong for you) to take medication they don't wish to take.

Maybe so, but I think you've been equally brainwashed - or you're just not thinking clearly - because the situation is not as extreme as when the virus first arose (I know this due to what I stated before and showing that I have done research into how vaccines are created and why it took so long for this one compared to flu vaccines which are pumped out every year with relative ease).

There are places people with a vaccine can go that others without cannot. This is at different levels in different countries.

And that is fair to you? It is the same as 'wear a green hat or get sacked'? To repeat, this is medication not clothing.