our "stomach knotting intuition" should be more at ease, but if it is not sufficient, I'd rather respond to a succinct itemized rebuttal to a summarized version of my responses. — schopenhauer1

With respect, I think I've already been doing this. I can only state what I have asserted again.

If you want a reboot, then perhaps you could you say whether you agree or disagree with the following definition: anti-natalism is the view that procreation is immoral.

That coming into existence can be harmful. — darthbarracuda

Okay. You had seemingly implied the opposite.

You're going to need to explain why. — darthbarracuda

I don't know what to say. One sentence says you can't be harmed before existing and the other says you can.

I would also like to ask you one thing : What is it that makes you most attracted to Catholicism, rather that Orthodoxy for example? — Beebert

Briefly, because, from my present and by no means exhaustive understanding of the history of the Great Schism, it was the East that broke from the West, and not vice-versa. Other reasons include the fact that I like the idea of purgatory, see nothing wrong with the Filioque, and see historical precedent in the doctrines of papal primacy and infallibility.

Then, as matters of taste, I prefer Western church architecture to Eastern, and I like that the Catholic Church actually lives up to its name. It accepts Eastern rites, saints, and theologians. It can be found everywhere on the globe. It has produced the most saints. It's founded dozens of top tier universities. Etc. Eastern Orthodoxy is way too bound up with the ethnic identities of Eastern European countries, and is almost entirely found in those countries.

No, obviously you need to exist to be harmed. You just don't need to exist before the harm occurs in order to be harmed. — darthbarracuda

:-| Again, incoherence. These two statements are flatly contradictory of each other.

Right, I think you get what I meant though. — darthbarracuda

No. What was it?

You're wrong here. I do not reject the Law, all I do is diminish its sphere of application to creation, not Creator. Good isn't evil and evil isn't good - but those concepts can only be applied to creation (including nature), not to God. You are committing a category error when you apply them to God. — Agustino

And when God intervenes in nature and does something we judge, by the moral law he gave us, to be evil, then what? We're talking about events God causes or directs to be caused in creation.

The Law in my conception applies as harshly and with the same iron-like nature as the Law applies in your conception, only that mine is limited to Nature and creation in its application, while yours has been lifted even above God Himself - as if God's creation (the Law) can raise itself above its Creator! — Agustino

A straw man. It's not lifted above, but made to be identical with God himself. God is not merely good, he is goodness itself. Do you reject the doctrine of divine simplicity? It seems like you do, which is another hallmark of Protestant thinking.

The relevance of that is that when the effects of sin disappear in the denial of the will, then you see the world aright. — Agustino

I still don't get the relevance. Are you saying that the repugnant things are suddenly no longer repugnant once sin goes away? Ugly and evil things just disappear? That would be an interesting claim to the extent that it suggests you are an annihilationist.

How quaint that I disagree the most with that man ;) — Agustino

But you don't. Calvin tried justifying his doctrine of double predestination by saying that God predestined those to be damned in order to manifest his glory. You tried justifying the admirability of God being beyond good and evil by precisely the same justification. It seems that God's "glory" is always appealed to when trying to smooth over theologically absurd or morally repellent claims.

Your child belongs to God first and foremost, and only then does he or she belong to you. Your reasoning of course fails because you and your child are both creatures under one and the same God, and are therefore on an equal footing. The child can absolutely question you, but you cannot question God. The gap between creature and Creator is of the essence. The relationship parent-child is only analogical with the relationship of man or woman with God. It is fallacious to apply the same kind of reasoning to both of them. — Agustino

I made an analogy between a father and his child. Do you reject that God is a father and that we are his children? It seems you must do so in order to say that my analogy is "fallacious."

Yeah, that may be true, if it was possible for God to break his Law in the first place. — Agustino

Now you're saying that God can't break his law, after you've just beaten me over the head with the claim that God can do what he wants, because he's above and beyond the law? Tell me how you have not just contradicted yourself here.

As corrupted by the Fall* — Agustino

Alright, so then anti-natalism follows. Why create more humans corrupted by the fall? You're just perpetuating the fall and its corruption indefinitely.

If schools are devolving, and I think some school districts are devolving into collapse, it's a result of collapsing communities. The very very best schools can not repair economic and social problems (at least as presently constituted). Given reasonably healthy communities, adequately funded schools, and reasonable expectations, schools perform at least reasonably well. — Bitter Crank

Interesting. I would agree.

See, that's why I need to change my user name. What was bitter or crankish about that post? — Bitter Crank

I don't know how to answer this. It just seemed like it was? Twas only a joke, in any case. I like your username.

So, you didn't read my post?

Hardly, for we don't need someone to exist before they're born to be harmed. If something is bad to experience, then it is harmful for a person to experience it, even if they don't exist before. — darthbarracuda

No, this doesn't follow at all. If you don't need to exist in order to be harmed, then what is being harmed? Your position is utterly incoherent.

Unless you honestly, truly believe it is not a harm to a baby to be tortured as soon as they're expelled from the womb. — darthbarracuda

I was hoping you wouldn't equivocate on the word "birth," but it looks like you might be doing that here. I took "birth" to refer to "coming into existence," not "exiting a mother's birth canal." Let's get straight on what we're trying to say is bad here: the former or the latter. If the former, then you're arguing for anti-natalism. If the latter, then you're not arguing for anti-natalism, but for abortion, which is a separate topic.

If, for some crazy reason, people actually did exist in some pre-natal otherworld before they were born, would that suddenly make coming into biological existence a harm? — darthbarracuda

I think it would, yes. For then the logical contradiction goes away and the anti-natalist would have a very cogent point about consent, which he doesn't otherwise have.

(I'm sure you'll agree that at least some people are better off dead, even if this means they don't exist to recognize that they're better off.) — darthbarracuda

I don't know. I'd have to think about it.

I have never been caught up with the end result. — schopenhauer1

Yes you are! Read the following quote again:

it noble to try to alleviate contingent suffering for those already here? I think so, but not at the cost of starting a new life that will now have to deal with life and its own structural and contingent harms when this did not have to occur. — schopenhauer1

Here you make it crystal clear that your desired end result is the cessation of all procreation, owing to the "cost" of doing so. That word "cost" is also interesting, in light of your seeming disavowal of consequentialism.

This however, does not end the suffering en toto. — schopenhauer1

I never claimed it would, though.

As far as nonexistence being worse, etc.. Non-existence has no worse.. you are actually doing what you are trying to accuse me of, reifying something that does not exist. It literally is nothing.. — schopenhauer1

No I'm not. I was talking about the possibility of there being some greater perspective, such as God's or the Buddha's, that might entail that nonexistence is worse. I didn't assert that it was worse in and of itself, only from the standpoint of these perspectives. You, on the other hand, have consistently assumed materialism this whole time, and so that's why you face my objection about reifying nonexistence.

It also comes from deontological grounds- you don't treat people as a means to an end when it comes to starting a whole new life which will ipso facto have suffering by being in the first place. As far as the existential questioning — schopenhauer1

I've already addressed this. I think this will be my last post. We're just spinning our wheels and continuing any further would not be productive. I will just reiterate that 1) the arguments in favor of anti-natalism don't work, 2) because they don't work, procreation is admissible, and 3) I fail to understand how your position refutes either 1 or 2. And let me just say that I would love it if someone could refute 1 and 2, because I still possess the deep, stomach knotting intuition that procreation is wrong. But I simply fail to see how any argument can get to that conclusion.

Get more familiar. — Buxtebuddha

(Y)

Lee knew exactly what he was doing. If you want to honor him, build a statue for him in your backyard. Try concrete and beer bottles. That would be attractive. — Mongrel

Nice dodge, or should I say, "doge."

This isn't controversial. — Mongrel

Except it is. Boiling down Lee and the Confederacy to a single word, "slavery," is unhistorical, unfair, and extremely lazy.

He fought for slavery — Mongrel

This is enormously misleading and really just a slur. He fought for the state of Virginia based on certain political principles.

I want to know how many people who are calling for Lee's statue to be torn down have read a full length biography of the man. I haven't, but precisely because I haven't, I'm not calling for his statue to be removed. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.

Probably. Imagine you're black. You're walking around and you stop to notice a statue of Lee. You think, "Oh that's great. Let's celebrate the guy who led the Confederate army." If you don't have any facets of your being that would allow you feel the full depths of how much that sucks... just take my word for it. It sucks. — Mongrel

This is facile reasoning. You're just assuming that the statue represents the Confederacy, slavery, racism, and other "bad stuff." In fact, it honors a man who was himself quite honorable, despite his flaws. There would be other, more suitable structures to erect if one wished to "celebrate the Confederacy."

Bruv.... — Buxtebuddha

Everyone knows that two years after the death of Schopenhauer, the US gained its independence.

Conclusion 2: Therefore, the birth of a person is harmful to this person. — darthbarracuda

This contains the same logical contradiction found in most other arguments for anti-natalism. The fact is that birth harms no one. To say that it does requires that people exist before they are born, which is to say that people can exist before they exist, an absurdity. There's no getting around this.

I don't see how using future people's lives who will suffer is justified for the reason that they will contribute to something that helps already existing humans as a general concept via "civilization". It's also somewhat circular. People need to be born so others don't suffer, but that causes more suffering, but let's solve it with more birth, which caused suffering in the first place. If my claim is that suffering is structural and is there from the beginning of existence for an individual, you can see how this indeed is circular reasoning. — schopenhauer1

No, I don't. You seem stuck in the land of the hypothetical. "People don't need to be born, so it's possible that humans will refrain from procreating." Yes, except the possibility of that ever happening is infinitesimally small; so small, in fact, that it has no relevance to the problem of human suffering in terms of its present, not to mention its past and future, character and arrangement. My argument seeks to address human suffering on the terms that it presents itself to us. Ingredient to those terms is the fact that humans will continue to procreate until they are no longer able to do so. We both know this. Repeating the statement that "we don't have to" is like yelling at a brick wall and expecting it to fall over. In the end, it's a waste of breathe, time, and energy, and will fail in its intended goal, an apt definition of anti-natalism.

In the meantime, humans continue to suffer. How might their suffering be alleviated, if its alleviation is a moral and noble enterprise? Again, not by writing books no one will read about how we ought not to have children. It will have to be done by other means. I have suggested one of those means, its generalness notwithstanding. Preserving civilization is no small task but easier than convincing the planet not to procreate. @darthbarracuda has his own ideas about how best to alleviate suffering, most notably what he and others call "effective altruism." That smacks of consequentialism to me, and so rubs me the wrong way, but we are both agreed that there are better ways to confront suffering than anti-natalism (I think; I don't want to put words in his mouth). Thus, the change in my views is not an evolution out of anti-natalism and into some kind of Panglossian casuistry, but out of the former and into what I take to be a morally serious position.

1. It would be wrong to treat humans as a means and not as an ends in themselves, if it brings about all structural and contingent suffering for another person's life. — schopenhauer1

Wouldn't "structural" and "contingent" be opposites?

Thus bringing a person into the world for some cause (for civilization, other people, etc.) but creates the situation of structural and contingent suffering for the individual being born has occurred. — schopenhauer1

Ah, but if the prevention of suffering is what matters, then I have an easy reply. I could grant for the sake of argument that, on consequentialist grounds, humans ceasing to procreate prevents more suffering than preserving civilization, but once we factor in the given likelihood of these options occurring, then the first option is clearly the more likely and so the one that will prevent more suffering. In other words, my argument can be construed as beating the anti-natalist at his own consequentialist game.

As an aside here, I want to remind you that I gave you two hypothetical scenarios in which ceasing to procreate might not have the effect that you and the anti-natalist desire and expect. See here:

I don't think you can say in an absolute sense that there is no issue with not being born. How could you possibly know that, unless, again, you had prior acquaintance with nonexistence so as to make the comparison? It could turn out that God exists, in which case, nonexistence is known to be worse than existence from his larger perspective. It could turn out that rebirth and/or reincarnation is true, in which case, even if all human beings ceased procreating, they would still be reborn as other creatures and so continue the cycle of birth and death, or else be reborn as human beings in a future kalpa.

The only way to dispute these possibilities is, once again, to argue that naturalism/materialism is true.

Cowardice in the face of mortal death and pain is reasonable for the reasons I listed. That doesn't bother me. As far as hypocricy, it is not hypocritical to feel life as suffering but then not kill yourself. Suicide and the projection of an unknown non-existing self is scary for most. Rather, I think giving a new person the option of continuing to exist or make a most painful decision of suicide as well is rather an inescapable choice. There is no third alternative, though people like Schop's ascetics and the religious and the utopian theorists they may have found them. — schopenhauer1

I was speaking of suicide under the assumption that naturalism/materialism is true. If it's true, then there is no "unknown" of which you speak. Death is simply the dissolution of a material body, nothing more. So my charge of hypocrisy stands.

Ha, I knew you were going to say that :P — schopenhauer1

;)

Yet, based on my quote, have I said this? This seems to be a red herring aimed at antinatalists writ large but somehow is supposed to allude to my arguments though I keep on reiterating that I am not trying to be self-righteous or condemning, just explanatory of the situation. What you explain is the "bad" antinatalist/Christian's reaction to someone who "rejects" their worldview.. something I have not done. At the end of the day, you can only explain your point and if someone sees it, then they see it and will possibly change something as a result. — schopenhauer1

Well, with respect, I still think you're trying to have it both ways. You seem to be in favor of anti-natalism in one comment (and in general), but are then seemingly opposed to it in others. I haven't been convinced that you're not an anti-natalist, in the strict (read: moral) sense of that term.

Some Pessimists might be at odds with especially utilitarian consequentialism altogether because utilitarian consequentialism assumes that improvements can take place when in actuality we are never really improving. The human condition is such that it does not happen. It is veiled utopianism, the most optimistic of optimistic ideas. It is to buy into the carrot and stick.. if we just work harder to live together better now, we can make it work for a future, more ideal state. That is just something you will rarely see a Pessimist say. So no, they are probably not breaking their own ideals- they probably never had them. If you want to REFUTE their ideals, that is one thing, but I do not think they are being hypocritical to their own ideals. So again, to entail utilitarianism with Pessimism is to unfairly tie two concepts together that are not necessarily entailed. Pessimism actually has very little in the way of ethics- it is mostly an aesthetic comprehension of the world. What one does about it is more open for interpretation. What it does have (i.e. Schopenhauer's compassionate ideal), is not necessarily utilitarian anyways. — schopenhauer1

Well said. I would add, though, that I don't think pessimism is absolutely committed to there having been no progress or to the impossibility of progress in the future. Ending slavery in the US was a form of moral progress, for example. An objectively better state of affairs for human beings living in this corner of the globe occurred. The pessimist is not pessimistic about such developments, seeing as they plainly exist, but about the ability to ever reach a state of perfection by our own efforts. Or at least, this would be my brand of pessimism. An even more radical form of pessimism might say that no one can ever reach a state of perfection by our own efforts or by any other means. I don't think Schopenhauer goes this far, though, for example, for he is adamant that the complete abolition of the will (his stand-in for perfection) is possible but not by mere human effort alone. I could go on at length about this aspect of Schopenhauer's thought, but I shall simply say that, for him, something akin to grace is necessary to achieve salvation.

I do have a question now: how might anti-natalism be asserted on non-consequentialist grounds? And I mean principled, ethical grounds, not contingent reasons like "overpopulation" (which is a myth) that some people like to give for not having children. Some kind of misanthropic nihilism and/or moral relativism come to mind, but that's about it.

Why not? God is His own standard. How can God be judged by the Law? — Agustino

Because he gave us the law and, more importantly, expects us to follow it. Imagine if I had a child and told him that it was good to eat vegetables and that he must eat vegetables or else I will punish him, but I then refuse to eat vegetables myself and rebuke the child for questioning why I refuse to do so. That wouldn't endear the child to me, just as God breaking his own moral law doesn't endear him to us. Being omniscient, he would already know this, and so it would appear that God does things that he knows in advance are counterproductive at getting people to believe in him and trust him. For how could you trust a God who says to do one thing and then proceeds to do the exact opposite of that?

Look at what I wrote in my dialogue long ago:

Believer: [...] Is it not supremely arrogant to assume you know more than God? Are you so rarely wrong in your words and deeds that you are confident of not being wrong or simply ignorant in the present case?
Non-believer: That may be so, but then I am only exercising the fallible organs God gave me. The cause of a cause is the cause of its effect.

How can God break the Law? :s If God is His own standard, whatsoever He does is right. — Agustino

There's that voluntarism rearing its ugly, morally repugnant head again. I would direct you to the following verse:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20.

From your perspective — Agustino

Right, which is the one he gave me. "The cause of a cause is the cause of its effect."

I remember in Schopenhauer's 3rd book of the first volume of WWR he describes the denial of the will that is sometimes achieved by a painting of a natural disaster, or of a vast empty desert symbolising death. — Agustino

Not sure the relevance of this.

It's the glory of transcendence, of freedom, of infinity - of that which transcends this reality in all ways, but which nevertheless incarnated and came down amongst us to lift us unto Him.

What's so admirable about a God one holds in his pocket, who is just another element inside one's head rather than exceeding one's head? — Agustino

I had no idea I was speaking to this man:



Now I know why @Beebert has been so exasperated. I still love ya' Agustino, but I can't abide by your theology.

Good work, Cava. You had me fooled for a couple minutes. 6.5/10. (Y)

The truth is the truth regardless of how hard you try to doge it. — Cavacava

????????

You seem to be trolling, then.

No, it is just, That's why we have laws like Affirmative Action, to attempt to offset past injustices. — Cavacava

>:O Now you're just repeating yourself, having failed to challenge what I said or offer support for your claims. I never thought I'd see you admit defeat this soon, but I suppose I'll take it. I suggest some aloe vera for the ass spanking BC and I just gave to you.

The Fathers in their fantasies claimed that there was no animal death before Adam ate the apple — Beebert

Actually, Augustine did say there was animal death before the Fall. But the ancients had different ideas about animals than we do. With the benefit of fields like evolutionary biology, ethology, and so on, we are now able to know that a vast magnitude of seemingly pointless suffering and death occurred before humans came on the scene. Thus, even if the Church Fathers granted that animals died before the Fall, the moral problem of animal suffering and death not only remains, but has grown ever more potent in light of modern scientific developments.

There is one possible explanation that is offered by certain of the Church Fathers, which is that the world, prior to human beings, was corrupted by Satan and his minions, who fell before humans did. CS Lewis and, from what I can tell, von Balthasar, take up this view in modern times.

Death and destruction has been a part of life since life began, long before human beings were evolved, so at least the majority of the Church Fathers were extremely wrong here. Plenty of christian theologians talk as if man is the corrupter of nature, in that he makes wolves, tigers and bears into murderers, and not only this: Man is also collectively guilty for hanging a man who lived 2000 years ago on the cross! We are all born as murderers and destroyers of nature! And life is a good thing? Marriage is supported? To willingly avoid having children in marriage is a sin? — Beebert

Very well said. These are questions that I still haven't seen any Christian adequately answer. And it's not that I have ruled out there being good answers to them in advance. I would dearly love to find them and have earnestly searched, but no cigar so far.

By the Nation — Cavacava

Which is an abstraction designating a bunch of living, breathing human beings. Making them pay for crimes they did not commit is unjust.

specifically to the black people who suffered under white oppression for 350 years — Cavacava

This would be highly selective, as there were plenty of white slaves, Chinese slaves, Native American slaves, and so on. You would basically have to give money to everyone, unless you've created a special genetic device and a time machine so as to determine who was a slave and who wasn't. But then, we can go back even further and show that many of the white slave owners' ancestors, for example, would likely have been slaves in the Barbary States, or the Caliphates, or the Roman Empire, or even to their own people in pre-historic times. Everyone's ancestors have been slaves at some point in history, so your proposal quickly deflates into a purely ideological stance that ignorantly and unjustly wishes to arbitrarily privilege a certain population at the expense of another.

Well, Thorongil, this is the sum and substance of school for a good share of the population. I've said elsewhere that maybe 20% of students get a good to excellent education. It isn't an accident. The 20% get good education because their parents move into good school districts, or send their children to good private schools. 20% of the school population actually have a bright future. The other 80%, not so much.

Why doesn't everybody get a good to excellent education, when the benefits are so obvious? Because, in the big world of real politic many students are going to be economically irrelevant to a large extent and it just doesn't matter whether they know where Iowa, France, or New Zealand is. It doesn't matter whether they know shit from shinola. It doesn't matter if they know anything at all.

Irrelevant, useless people is what results when economies are organized only to maximize profit for stockholders. Production requiring low skills is transferred to the lowest wage countries. Some goods require lots of skilled workers, large overhead, and investment, but those industries don't employ huge numbers of people.

Irrelevant, useless people will still eat and buy stuff, so they have a function after all, but advertising on television or the internet can take care of teaching them what kind of junk they should buy. — Bitter Crank

Living up to your user name I see. I agree with you here, so I have nothing to add. I might ask you a question, though: in general, do you think education has devolved, evolved, or progressed since you were last in school?

No, I don't agree. I think that a debt is owed, It needs to be repaid — Cavacava

By whom? People who never had anything to do with past injustices? Guess what, that would itself be unjust. So no, no debt needs to be repaid.

Laws such as affirmative action — Cavacava

Which are inherently racist and counter-productive.

I don't doubt David Duke's remark to Trump yesterday. — Cavacava

I do. He's in the wrong. Trump won because he got more white votes and more black and Hispanic and Asian votes than Romney in 2012.

I don't know about every school district, but in the ones that I am familiar with the science of geography is non-existent in the elementary and secondary school curriculum. The only geography in the curriculum is memorizing the names of places and their locations on political maps, and teachers do an excellent job at guiding students through such a simple task. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Wow. That's an even more significant devolution from when I was in school. I'm not that surprised, though.

As far as I know, nobody gets to experience any of that kind of research until they get to the college level. And it is not offered at every institution like philosophy, economics, sociology, etc. are. Therefore, depending on where you go to college, you might not only never be able to major in geography, you might not ever be able to take one single geography course to meet a social or natural sciences requirement for graduation. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

This is true. I took a couple of geography courses in college that fulfilled some gen ed requirements, but they weren't the only courses that fulfilled them, so I could have gone through school without having taken them. It wouldn't have affected me much, though, as I've been interested in maps and geography from a young age. To revise my answer, then, I might now say that geographical literacy depends on parental encouragement. I had the good fortune to be the son of two humanities educators.

Is that the only thing it will blow?

No, deep like your nether regions...:) — John Harris

Making fun of him with a reference to nether regions, which are dark? What a wacist comment.

How does​ so much obliviousness to geography continue in highly-educated societies? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A mix of apathy on the part of students and poor teaching.

The earth is flat, last I heard. — Nils Loc

I hate to break it to you, but Kyrie Irving is not a reliable source on such matters. (Neither is he a reliable Cavalier, the bastard.)

but then I go back to my objection that you are weighting civilization greater than the individual's suffering — schopenhauer1

That's not how I see it. I'm privileging civilization precisely for its ability to address the individual's suffering better than the alternatives.

People should be born to keep civilization going is using individuals for some cause. Using people for this means, seems uncaring towards the individual. If people must be used to make the people existing not suffer, then there is a knot that needs to be untied, and the solution is not more people (and ipso facto suffering people). — schopenhauer1

But again, it's not uncaring. It has the care of the individual primarily in mind. Also, you can't "use" people who don't exist.

This actually reminds me of what I called a deontological argument for anti-natalism that I made some time ago. It went something like this:

1. It is wrong to treat humans as means and not as ends in themselves.
2. Procreation is to treat potential humans as means and not as ends in themselves.
3. Therefore, procreation is wrong.

Both premises, however, can be challenged. The first doesn't seem to admit of universal applicability. If I use a doctor as a means to fix my tooth, have I really committed wrongdoing? Clearly not, as both parties have consented to an action that will mutually benefit them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any actions that would escape being wrong, according to the first premise, apart from rare instances of pure altruism and compassion perhaps. Concerning the second premise, as I said right before the argument, you can't treat or use people who don't exist as or for anything, so the premise is nonsensical.

Okay, so we agree on something if naturalism holds true (I am not sure I am a naturalist, but I will entertain it for the sake of argument). — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Because as I've stated in another discussion: Fear of death, the "unknown", pain, and the unsettling idea that there will be no future "self" that we are so used to chattering with, are sufficient enough reasons to me for why people do not commit suicide often outside of extremely painful circumstances. — schopenhauer1

They may be sufficient reasons, but they are not good reasons, for they make the individual a coward and a hypocrite. And if you're going to excuse hypocrisy in this instance, then why would you likely not excuse what you would consider the hypocrisy of someone who chooses to have children despite knowing all about instrumentality and the like? That is to be quite selective in the hypocrisy you condone. Feel free to challenge my assumption about you, though.

As far as a possible religious answer to the suffering (as I think you are gravitating towards that right? — schopenhauer1

Not necessarily. It could be a philosophical one. I'm merely concerned with the possibility.

ugh, the "Forms" and his mis-understanding of evolution.. he was just a bit before Darwin's theory was popularized — schopenhauer1

Ironically, I tend to think he ought to have reversed the status of the Ideas and the will, as in fact he did do in his early manuscripts. In other words, I think he ought to have moved closer to Platonism, not farther away.

But many of his observations about the nature of suffering and the nature of our own needs and wants were very well-stated. The spirit of his message still rings true. — schopenhauer1

Yes, but no less stated by countless other religious, philosophical, and poetic texts.

No, but it is at least misguided that most people don't think of procreation in the realm of moral theory in general (whether it is right or wrong). However, my point was exactly that because it is so outside people's purview, I would not be self-righteous about it (at least not outside philosophy forums and those who would possibly understand its implications and even then I would not characterize my arguments as self-righteous but more explanatory, descriptive, etc.). — schopenhauer1

Granted, but I would expand this by saying that the anti-natalist ought not to assume that anyone who has looked into anti-natalism and rejected it rejects it because they're an incorrigible and delusional optimist. I witness a lot of armchair psychologizing among many anti-natalists: "Oh, you reject our arguments? Well, that must be because you don't really understand them and are just looking to make excuses for your own selfish, immoral behavior." It's exactly equivalent to what the fundamentalist often says to the person who has lost his or her faith: "Oh, you rejected Christianity? Well, that must be because you never really believed, just didn't pray hard enough, or were abused by a Christian as a child."

Aesthetic here means the recognition of the suffering that occurs through a series of existential question-asking. You work to work to work. You do to do to do. You exist to exist to exist. The repetitious nature of existence coupled with subtle and profound, necessary and contingent forms of suffering become apparent with enough reflection. That is important in this ethic- the self-reflection. Simply stating "procreation is wrong" is simply a conclusion but does not encompass the full picture. You can say that the ethic is more Pessimism with antinatalism as one main idea that comes out of it, but not antinatalism completely separated as its own thing that is independently and starkly thrown out as a polemic against people for blame or condemnation. So in this view it is a whole package. — schopenhauer1

Hmm. I'm still not quite sure I follow this, alas. :(

Alright, apologies again. I got drawn to this thread because Agustino pasted my name into it about four posts down. So, when I read it, I took it as a criticism of the approach I generally take on the Forum, which is why I thought that Agustino had mentioned it - which is often based around the 'perennial philosophy' - which I see generally as a noble pursuit. — Wayfarer

Right, he mentioned your name. I didn't. Truth be told, as soon as he did, I had a feeling you would come here with guns blazing, and it seems I wasn't far off the mark. However, you ought to have taken my OP at face value and not to have read into it some kind of implicit hit job on your views, regardless of whether I disagree with them.

I did encounter W T Stace during my studies, but where the question of the universalism of mystical experience came up, was in respect to an academic called Steven Katz. He argued that there is no such thing as a universal spiritual experience, that all such experiences, insofar as they are 'experiences', are culturally mediated and the product of a particular kind of cultural milieu. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I've read a paper by Katz before. His views don't convince me either. Though I didn't explicitly say it, I sort of implied that I'm most partial to inclusivism. Neither extreme, perennialism/universalism on the one hand and exclusivism/constructionism on the other, convinces me.

But anyway, if you're criticizing a kind of non-committed syncretism, with bits taken from here and there, and no real commitment, then I agree with that and sorry for being so prickly. — Wayfarer

Don't worry about it. I have a high tolerance for banter and frosty exchanges, even among friends.

The fallacy there is that two different aspects of reality cannot be defined in terms of each other, but must rather be defined in-themselves. The experience of evil, is different than the experience of good. So defining evil in relation to good is just as false as defining good in relation to evil. It would mean to reify it. — Agustino

Maybe. I was thinking of Schopenhauer when I made that comment. Happiness, goodness, right: these are negative concepts for him, while suffering, evil, and wrong are positive.

What's the problem with this? God is God, He's not a human being. I find this highly incoherent, trying to judge God by the very Law (which you call morality and is written in everyone's heart) that God Himself has created :s Human beings, and those under the Law can be judged by the Law, but God? That's silly - it is blasphemy, treating God as one of your fellow creatures that you can judge. God is His own justification, He is above good and evil. How could anything God does be evil, ie against the Law, when God is the Creator of the Law and supreme over it? God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Can you imagine being Abraham, and approaching Mount Moriah, knowing that you have to pull that knife and thrust it into your son's neck?! That seems horrifying to us, and it is. It is completely against the moral law that is written in our hearts. But God is above the Law. That is why Abraham was right to have faith in God, believing both that he will kill Isaac, and that Isaac will live - even though it was absurd. For nothing is impossible for God. — Agustino

And how did Abraham know it was the voice of God telling him to murder his son? Your claim that God is beyond good and evil doesn't excuse him from commanding the latter. If I were Abraham, I would dismiss the voice as that of a demon.

No it wouldn't. This is precisely the difference between creature and Creator. I have no right to destroy God's creation, for it is God's, not mine. But God has a right to destroy all of creation if He so desires, for it is His. I don't understand why so many people insist that God must be an anthropomorphism of the human :s Why make out of God a creature like us? — Agustino

It's not the fact that God is not a human that is hard to accept, but his deliberately creating and/or commanding evil. You still haven't really explained why I should worship a God who does that.

As for why I admire God, it is precisely because He is transcendent, and thus beyond Good and Evil — Agustino

What's so admirable about that?

He has created such beautiful things as the stars in the heavens, the galaxies, each of the animals, the angels, the demons — Agustino

And, apparently, very many ugly and repugnant things.

And behold Job is protesting because he is suffering. So what? Who is he to have expectations of God and demand that life be as he wants it to be? Is he greater than God to judge God? It is God's right as His Creator to allow anything to happen to him. Job has no right to demand something out of God. How can God owe any man anything?! — Agustino

There is a rank absurdity in the idea that God endows human beings with the natural law and expects them to follow it, but who then proceeds to break it himself and berate humans for not understanding why he has done so. What the hell does he expect is going to happen?

That light glowing thing that makes us tick.. oh, I don't know. Perhaps an entity or matter separate from body but obviously in control of it, something that gives us life. — Locks

There's your problem. You don't even know what it is you're inquiring about the existence of. Set that straight first.

So if Huston Smith, who wrote a best-selling book called The Religions of Man, which is still taught throughout the University system, is not 'a perennialist', then who is? — Wayfarer

I literally just gave you an example.

Perhaps there are no 'perennialists', and the entire thread is devoted to attacking a straw man. — Wayfarer

Sigh....

I had thought that the OP was a criticism of the idea that there are universal truths that different religions embody in different ways. If it's not, perhaps you could illustrate your point with respect to who you think represents this purportedly 'meaningless perennialism'. — Wayfarer

It wasn't an attack on perennialism per se. It was making a point about its implications (or lack thereof), which does pose a problem for a certain kind of person (read the last paragraph again). You may not be that person. In any event, you have consistently ignored most of what I have said and asked you, so you're really not in any position to make sarcastic quips.

Oh dear, how come? >:O — Agustino

Nothing like hyperbolic doubt to calm the nerves. ;)

Where? In your mind?

Try and THINK about it.
You've not ever asked the question you think you have. — charleton

Maybe I'm small-brained, dear charleton, so could you please enlighten me?