No; breathing is demanded by your physiological makeup. You literally breathe on pain of death.

Same with eating, blinking, shitting, and sleeping. All of these are clearly coercive as much as being robbed; the cost of not doing the is literally dying painfully. — The Great Whatever

No no no, see, you are using the word coercive outside of its common usage, i.e. manipulating definitions to suit your argument.

A need does not have to be coercive if one does not mind having to satisfy it.

Thinking is a little trickier, but generally when compatibilists talk about freedom they have in mind things more substantial and consequential than mere (disembodied?) thinking. Insofar as thinking implies action, you are obviously not free to think very much at all. — The Great Whatever

Compatibilists are also more concerned with physical restrainment, not with disappointment at the failure to realize wishful thinking.

Also, thinking does not imply action necessarily. I can think about stuff all I want without acting upon it.

That's exactly what I just said. I didn't think claiming that jailed people aren't free would be so controversial. — The Great Whatever

Their freedom is restricted but not so much that it would be inhumane (at least it ought not to be). So of course they are not completely free, but that's not what you were claiming. You were claiming that by being in jail, you are without any freedoms whatsoever. That is clearly false.

If you are going to respond by saying that by holding our breath long enough, we will die, therefore we are "coerced" into breathing, then I would say that no, you are not "coerced" into living at all. You can glue tape over your nostrils and face and die of suffocation if you wish. You are free to do so.

I don't think you can be said to do anything freely if you're in jail. — The Great Whatever

Anything? Are you free to breathe? Are you free to think? Are you free to eat, blink, shit, burp, crack your neck, and sleep?

Lots of liberties are restricted in jail. That's why it's meant as a punishment, or better yet as a way of removing harmful people from society so that their free expression of radical freedom does not impede others' free expression.

(Y) Right-o on the free will part, although I don't particularly agree with your assessment of the pessimism being discussed here.

I don't dislike you but I certainly don't have a high approval of your forum conduct elsewhere.

Furthermore, you are not the big boss who gets to decide what is discussed and what is not. I think that this entire discussion stems from your extreme negative view on life. If you disagree then you are going to have to give good reasons for this, because otherwise your entire OP falls apart.

Now, if you don't want to respond, that's fine. I won't, in fact I can't, restrict your will to respond or not. But please don't make it seem like it's my fault that you're not willing to have a discussion.

I would like to know where in my post are these zebra snide remarks. I would also like to know why you're not responding to any of my responses. This is hilariously petty.

I have rejected no such thing, I believe in the traditional Socratic method, and that has nothing to do with these posts anyway. — The Great Whatever

Nor do I see how your apparent inability to get on with your life has any weight against compatibilism.

Large amounts of suffering are guaranteed in every life, though for some people more than others. — The Great Whatever

True, but these "large amounts" are usually spread apart. They generally pass even if they suck while going through them. It's a matter of how tough, how resilient you are. If you can't handle it, sorry, nobody said life was fair. That's why birth is so problematic, because you don't know if the child will be able to cope with the burdens of life.

Then you should probably retract the car analogy. — The Great Whatever

Why should I?

I am aware that people not thinking about or understanding how bad their actions are plays a role in why they commit them. This is why the abolition of ignorance is important. — The Great Whatever

And what an unfailingly noble pursuit this must be! Tell me truly, how many people have you talked to today about birth?

So are all culprits, though. — The Great Whatever

No, they are fellow sufferers who make mistakes. Being a culprit implies having intention.

There are actually no ways to get out; suicide is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Offering apologetics for atrocities will not stop them -- you must face up to them. — The Great Whatever

Pretty sure if you die, and that reincarnation/afterlife is not a thing, you'll stop suffering.

Do you ever think that perhaps the reason why nobody seems to get our line of reasoning is that they have the necessary psychological walls? Advocate all you want, you're really not going to change anything.

Such as? I gave responses to your points which you are now ignoring.

I'm not upset at all. Come, stop trying to move the goalposts and avoid answering my questions.

I have rejected no such thing, I believe in the traditional Socratic method, and that has nothing to do with these posts anyway. — The Great Whatever

Nor do I see how your apparent inability to get on with your life has any weight against compatibilism.

Large amounts of suffering are guaranteed in every life, though for some people more than others. — The Great Whatever

True, but these "large amounts" are usually spread apart. They generally pass even if they suck while going through them. It's a matter of how tough, how resilient you are. If you can't handle it, sorry, nobody said life was fair. That's why birth is so problematic, because you don't know if the child will be able to cope with the burdens of life.

Then you should probably retract the car analogy. — The Great Whatever

Why should I?

I am aware that people not thinking about or understanding how bad their actions are plays a role in why they commit them. This is why the abolition of ignorance is important. — The Great Whatever

And what an unfailingly noble pursuit this must be! Tell me truly, how many people have you talked to today about birth?

So are all culprits, though. — The Great Whatever

No, they are fellow sufferers who make mistakes. Being a culprit implies having intention.

There are actually no ways to get out; suicide is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Offering apologetics for atrocities will not stop them -- you must face up to them. — The Great Whatever

Pretty sure if you die, and that reincarnation/afterlife is not a thing, you'll stop suffering.

Do you ever think that perhaps the reason why nobody seems to get our line of reasoning is that they have the necessary psychological walls? Advocate all you want, you're really not going to change anything.

No, it is typical in philosophical discourse to use pronouns like "I" and "you" to serve as examples for general cases to make general points. — The Great Whatever

This is coming from the person who has repeatedly made it clear that he rejects the notion of a "traditional" philosophical method...

Yes, but all bad things a parent can do to a child are predicated on them giving birth to them. — The Great Whatever

Of course, but have they happened to you? That's why birth is a risk imposition, you are risking someone else's life. And that's not just the things parents can do their children...

Actually, I do worry about this: once I crashed into a tree on a sidewalk, and the car was out of my control, so had things gone differently, there is a very real chance I could have killed someone. I think automobiles are very dangerous and should not be treated lightly. — The Great Whatever

Agreed. I almost got into an accident the other day. A vehicle is a weapon.

That depends: they could have been driving irresponsibly, and been doing so even knowing that this would increase their chances of killing someone. In the case of giving birth, we all know that being alive entails large amounts of suffering (it is not avoidable), yet people give birth anyway knowing full well how the world is. — The Great Whatever

What you fail to realize is that people have this weird idea that their lives are typically better than what you suppose they are. Strange, huh? Not everyone is acutely aware of their existential dilemma, and if they are, most seem to distract themselves. It's not like birth is the most rational action. Nobody in their right mind has a child if they know how much they will suffer and care about this fact.

So instead of characterizing parents as culprits, perhaps you ought to characterize them as being misled by their hormones and emotions.

Because giving birth to children is a terrible thing to do, and it would be better if people came to understand this so that they would stop doing it. — The Great Whatever

What's done is done. If you don't like it, there are ways out. Get on with your life.

But they did. They knew full well that life entailed these things and wished life on me. — The Great Whatever

So it's now about you instead of every child? This thread is quite personal it seems.

Regardless, there are worse things your parents could have done to you than to merely give birth to you. From the looks of it, it seems like you basically hate life since you're willing to go to the extreme of saying your parents are culprits that are guilty of a heinous crime.

When you drive your car (assuming you have one that is), you usually don't spend the time worrying about all the consequences of driving your car. You could hit a child and paralyze them. So if this actually happens to a person on accident, are they responsible for paralysis or even the death of the child? No, we call it manslaughter. There was no motive. Similarly, I highly doubt that your parents "knew full well" the trials of life they were placing upon you. They were high on endorphins and other neurotransmitters, they were keen for some sex, they were interested in starting a family. I doubt they actually considered what they were actually doing might be a mistake. What they were doing was all too human.

I never said they were evil or wicked. They did something terrible, but I don't think they, any more than anyone else, are responsible for their choices, since they likewise were coerced into living. Responsibility isn't a useful ethical notion; what is important is stopping the act. — The Great Whatever

So then why are you complaining about your parents "wishing" life upon you as if they did so in a highly reprehensible fashion of neglect?

I am getting on with the logical conclusion, which is that people should not give birth. — The Great Whatever

Well, that's part of the logical conclusion.

All this was wished on you by an actual person. — The Great Whatever

NO. You are insane if you think that every parent knowingly and willingly wished pain and burdensome worries upon their child. Bullshit. Parents have children because they: 1.) want children, 2.) want a relationship with their children, 3.) want to see a part of them live on after they die, 4.) "re-live" aspects of their lives through their children, 5.) because they genuinely think they are doing a good thing by having a child, ... etc.

Everyone was once a child themselves and was placed into this world by their parents, who were also children themselves at one point. We can see this as somewhat tragic/ironic, but we can't say that parents are evil, wicked, mwahaha let me bring more children into the world to torture!!! Grow up.

Basically what this thread has turned into is an exhibit of how far you are willing to go to justify your negative value of life.

To have a child is, in the words of Rivka Weinberg, a risk imposition. Life is not inherently a gift. We have to continue to move, eat, shit, sleep, etc. just to stay alive. If you wanted more, too damn fucking bad. Either be more resilient and rebel like Camus advocated or get on with the logical conclusion of your apparent disgust with the way things are.

If you were locked in a cage and tied up by rope, you would be denied your free will in the important sense seen by the compatibilist.

If you stand on the edge of a building and want to fly but can't because you don't have wings, you are not denied an unacceptable amount of your free will. It doesn't matter that our will is unsatisfied by our biological bodies, so long as we don't find this to be overwhelming. I wish I could fly, but alas, I cannot. Shucks. But I move on because it's really not that important. What's important are the times that my will, my ability to act, is so severely restricted that I cannot operate and live a good life.

And like I said above, that doesn't mean you're restricted for the remainder of your life. A prisoner escaping from jail is no longer restricted.

Once again...if you find your life to just be filled to the brim with repression and slavery, nobody is stopping you from ending it. You have that freedom as well as many others.

A slave lives only within coercively determined confines. — The Great Whatever

If you go over the other forum, you'll see a post I made a while back in the religion section that was about how if god existed, our lives would be a nightmare because there would be no escape from him. This is enslavement.

To say that you want to be able to fly, and you have a will to fly, and yet you don't have wings, and so therefore you're a slave is really just...meh. So what if you can't fly? The only thing restricting you is an impersonal biological factor, not an actual agent. To expect anything more is to just set yourself up for disappointment.

You've basically just re-defined what counts as a charitable interpretation of freedom of the will in order to make your argument work.

You are not free to do what you want to do. If you actually think that, it's possible you are suffering from a psychotic delusion. — The Great Whatever

Ooo, tell me more how I am a delusional shill while not backing up any of your assertions. You can't just say that I'm not free to do what I want to do and expect me and everyone else to be content with your claim.

You do not have authority over decisions made under coercion or duress, and being born is coercive.

There is no question of 'degree' here; and in fact, the coercive institution of birth is a prerequisite to that of slavery. — The Great Whatever

Being brought into the world by means of coercion does not mean that you are a slave once born.

There is nothing romantic about it. It is a very real thing, as are its effects (the suffering that ensues under coercion). — The Great Whatever

No doubt there is suffering. But there's also no doubt that I don't consider myself a slave because I have a will that can be satisfied at any time. I am not physically restrained. I am free to do what I want to do. And so this romanticized idea of everyone being captive in their bodies and unable to become free is rubbish.

There's a reason why the existentialists thought that freedom and happiness might be mutually exclusive. They surely didn't feel captive in the sense of being physically restrained. They felt captive by the responsibility of being completely free.

'Nobody is stopping you from keeping your wallet, but you best be prepared for the consequences of your actions' (getting shot by your mugger).

Yet the perosn who gives up his wallet is in no way freely doing so. Same for anything done in life. — The Great Whatever

Such as? What consequences and actions are you thinking of here? Of course we are going to condemn those who murder other people or steal their wallets. The existence of a law of the land does not mean life is necessarily enslavement.

What kind of freedom do you want/were you expecting and continue to be disappointed by the lack therefore?

Again if you don't fancy this whole life thing, you don't have to continue.

You're welcome.

whoosh!

I think you are extending definitions too much. At the very least, there is a massive difference in degree between being coerced into slavery, mining diamonds your whole life (in Sierra Leone perhaps) and being forced into life itself. For in the former, someone else has authority over your life, while in the latter you are the one that has the authority over at least the decision to continue your life.

Also, I would contend that if you dislike society so much, nobody is stopping you from becoming a hermit or killing yourself. This shows that in the romantic existential sense, we are indeed forced into a situation that we did not ask for, but in the day-to-day basis I would think that to find one's life to be enslavement itself would either warrant a trip to the psychologist or a quick death. Otherwise you're grabbing at straws and being disingenuous.

Nobody is stopping you from doing anything, but you best be prepared for the consequences of your actions. That's all compatibilism is. It's unfree will, with emphasis on the will.

This is partially why I don't usually enjoy reading continental philosophy, because it relies too heavily upon specific interpretations and primary sources. In my view, if you can't summarize a position into a textbook, if you can't convey your ideas without falling back into obscurantism or a kind of "sophisticated" philosophy, then it's probably bullshit or at least needs refinement. Analytic philosophy, in this particular area, is superior because it is much easier to translate philosophy without losing any of the meaning.

Not forced, that would contradict my libertarianism even if I believe that my opinion is better. I'm not entirely persuaded by the argument that you are harmed when you are born (non-identity problem and whatnot) so not doing anything about birth is not analogous to me not doing anything about my neighbor being murdered.

That being said, I do support abortion with a certain kind of private enthusiasm.

I suppose you could say that. I don't condone childbirth but I don't actively, vehemently oppose it either. Most likely a child born in a first world country will live a decent life but it's still not going to be anything exactly remarkable or worth starting the life in the first place.

There are times though that I really have to question why a person had a child. If you have a bad genetic defect or live in a warzone like Palestine, don't have a kid!

To become rich is not glorious; it's antisocial — Bitter Crank

I love this. Albeit I believe there needs to be some kind of initiative for achievement outside of the collective good (I don't have that kind of faith in humanity).

You can read reviews online before purchasing a textbook. Sometimes the textbooks I buy have primary sources in them as well. But honestly what is it about primary sources that make them always better than a text covering the same thing? Perhaps you get the personalized feel, but at the same rate you also often lose the objectivity as you're reading something by one person.

In then end all of this just seems purely subjective. You like primary sources, great. I like secondary textbooks more as an introduction to ideas. As a matter of fact I usually don't like reading primary sources.

Like I said in the other thread, this is my tentative political stance.

Generalized label: Left-leaning libertarian
Form of government: Democratic anarchism (lol not gonna happen though)
Form of economy: Undecided
Abortion: Pro-abortion in some cases, in all other cases pro-choice
Gay marriage: Who gives a shit?
Death penalty: 100% Opposed
Euthanasia: On pets or on humans?
Campaign finance: Undecided
Surveillance: It hasn't helped, so not exactly supportive
Health care: Undecided but leaning towards universal
Immigration: Allow immigrants but they really do need to go through a process
Education: Pro-education
Environmental policy: Stahp the pollution
Gun policy: Guns are allowed but need to be far more regulated than they are (like a driver's license)
Drug policy: Softer drugs are alright, the harder stuff should be regulated. We already allow alcohol. I'd rather we get rid of all drugs including alcohol instead of being hypocritical and not allowing marijuana or LSD.
Foreign policy: We're not the earth police. Isolationist-esque.

I get most of my initial information from textbooks and then get the primary literature if I feel the need to. In all honesty all this talk of primary literature being better than the other sources of information just sounds snobbish. I mean if I can get a perfectly good introduction to the thought of some guy instead of having to drudge through countless books then I'll take the former route.

Who are you referring to?

Like making sausage and law, some of these things are just not fit to be seen by the public. — Bitter Crank

Otto von Bismarck, eh?

Doing quite fine, thank you. The link provided gives some examples of the future in the face of TMT, such as stronger psychological walls and a more compassionate, liberal, accepting worldview.

For example, religious fundamentalists that were exposed to thoughts of death and then subjected to religious literature that advocated violence were highly likely to advocate suicidal bombings, while religious fundamentalists that were exposed to thoughts of death and then subjected to religious literature advocating compassion and acceptance were far more likely to reject suicidal bombings and go for the peaceful route.

It's actually quite beautiful to think about, everyone working together. I'm sick of this "us vs them" bullshit.

To get a better understanding of Becker and Terror Management Theory (TMT), read this short snippet from a book.

What about all those mirror neurons one hears so much about these days? — Bitter Crank

As far as I know, mirror neurons are meant to help an organism fit into a group of other organisms. "When in Rome", so to speak.

. To my way of thinking, heroes have to be mortals--their lives must be subject to loss. — Bitter Crank

Yes, exactly. There must be a trial. There must be a triumph.

First, in Tolkien's view, heroism is not a flight from death, not a triumph of the ego. It's the triumph of sacrifice over ego, and the offer of death for victory. The military and the Church both look at heroism the same way: Military heroes and religious martyrs give up their lives (and not by blowing themselves up in a concert hall). Saints spend their lives devoted to the homeless, the hungry, the dying, the sorrowing, the imprisoned; they give up the comfortable lives they could have led. Soldiers get medals -- often posthumously -- for leading the charge against the enemy, or for selflessly covering a grenade with their body and dying, but saving their comrades. — Bitter Crank

I believe Becker would respond that these individuals have found something that they want to survive after their death. It doesn't need to be a calculated endeavor. It just needs to be enough.

A hero is a type in a narrative. — mcdoodle

Exactly. The hero that Becker is referring to is a psychological narrative (a la culture) that society has constructed. Those who cannot conform to the narrative (the homeless, the destitute, the mentally insane, the un-conformers, the ones who "see through the bullshit") are cast out because they threaten the balance and transparency of the heroic narrative. Progress, progress, progress! Achieve, achieve, achieve! Conquer, conquer, conquer! Hero, hero, hero!...until you finally die.

There seems to be a reason why so many people are so resistant to exposing themselves to death and looking it straight in the face. No, instead, we have to have a heroic narrative behind it. Sometimes it's a knight in shining armor facing a dragon. Other times it's a young man on the hero's journey, accompanied by inspiring dramatic music. Never do we see the reality of death unless it is for shock value. We never enjoy watching people die in real life, but we sure do like watching people face death and survive while others perish around them.

Someone who does something important for others can be a hero. Scientists who have made the World a better place and heck, even smart philosophers that have wisdom in their writings are heroes to me. Yet with their actions they haven't put their life to risk at all. So what gives? They aren't the correct heroes for Becker? — ssu

One could ask why the world is such a way (culture) that we consider scientists heroes and writers heroes. Perhaps they take away pain and suffering. Perhaps they give us entertainment. It's all a game, a facade to push away the thought of death.

So, was he some rural Galilean preacher rambling on about the end of the world? Who knows! But who cares! — Thorongil

I am not arguing about the historical background of Jesus: I am presenting the case originally presented by Becker that Jesus is one of many figures (often religious in nature) that are existential heroes in that they face death and survive and act as an icon for followers to attach themselves to and to seek reassurance in the face of annihilation. Regardless of what he taught, the heroic figurehead is present in Jesus and is, according to Becker, helpful for the subconscious to soothe the fear of death.

I think that we can definitely try to mitigate the conscious occurrences of fear of death; we have been attempting to do so for thousands of years. But Becker is arguing that much, if not all, of culture is derived from the subconscious fear of death, and that no matter what kind of facade we put up, no matter how hard we try to pretend we don't care about death, the fear is always there. It's a constant awareness of the train approaching, of our inevitable demise, and all culture is a distraction from this truth.

Finally, Jesus conquers death not so much by physically dying (though he does do that and come back to life) but by showing us how to die to the world. — Thorongil

I'm not so sure about this analysis. Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. He had some nice things to say, but after he died his followers needed an image, a token, to hold on to. Thus the resurrection, and the creation of Jesus as a subconscious existential hero. He symbolizes hope, a future, in the face of annihilation, because of his resurrection.

If Jesus' philosophy was so bent on the elimination of the ego, then why did his followers believe that he continued after death, that is ego continued?

This entirely depends on what is entailed by "repression." — Thorongil

That is, acting despite the fact.

But the whole narrative of Jesus is meant to show the annihilation of the ego. If the ego is destroyed, what then is death? Nothing. The fear of death is contingent upon the perceived inability to perpetuate one's ego into the future. If one gives up the ego and trusts in God completely, death is no longer something to fear. — Thorongil

I don't know where you are getting this idea that Jesus' story is to show the annihilation of the ego. Clearly, Jesus is portrayed to have risen from the grave, as an entity with an ego.

Well, sure, if we're speaking about the instinctual fear of death, which has an evolutionary basis (carcasses carry disease, for example), then there's no getting rid of that. We are biologically determined to fear death. However, as you say, I still think one can utterly banish this fear from one's mind, such that however one's body may react, one cannot be internally disturbed. — Thorongil

Is it that you are not bothered by death, or rather that you have repressed the image of death and built up a tolerance to your impeding doom?

However, I wonder how well Becker's ideas cash out in practice. The general impression I get is that he has a lot of valuable things to say about what humans think is important and why, but I think that you can only take that so far in terms of explaining the behavior of individual humans. — Pneumenon

I definitely have by doubts about psychoanalysis. There is a broad literature criticizing it. However, much of what Becker has to say rings very true, to me at least. It's at least worthy of philosophical discussion.

Did Becker declare that humans are hopelessly narcissistic, or is that your spin? — Bitter Crank

Becker literally did say that humans are "hopelessly narcissistic". These are not my words.

Most people, parents, working people, etc. forego the pleasures of narcissistic gratification to fulfill the needs and wishes of spouses, children, employers, communities, etc. When they get done doing that at the end of the day, they are tired and go to bed and sleep soundly. — Bitter Crank

Such activity guarantees the sustainability of something after an agent's death.

When Becker says humans are narcissistic, I don't think he means that we are inevitably selfish pricks. He means that every single action we do is processed in the first-person perspective. Things in the environment around an agent are seen as tools or nutrients for the person, for the self. The self is one of those ever-present phenomenons that we are so fearful to letting go of (death).

It's reductionistic -- it tries to boil human behavior down to one simple syrup: heroism. — Bitter Crank

Becker is theorizing that one of the major motivators of human action is heroism, not the only one.

I don't wish to be rude, but would you kindly name the mystery religions with whom Christianity was allegedly completing, and reveal something about the lives of their demigods. — Bitter Crank

Not necessarily at the exact same time, but the fact that there were widespread religions and cults surrounding gods that went into the underworld and returned. Orpheus, Herakles, Jesus, Mithras, Gilgamesh, etc all went into the underworld or had experiences that made them face death and survive and become immortal (except Gilgamesh I believe).

He doesn't represent the triumph of the ego, though. It's rather more the opposite. He's an anti-hero, in that he does and says the opposite of what the Jews had expected of the Messiah, who had expected a great king like David; a strong man more or less in the mold of the men you mention in the parenthesis above. — Thorongil

You misunderstand the point here. He was, is a legendary hero character who went into the realm of the dead and returned. The ultimate triumph, the defeat of annihilation (which is the ultimate fear according to Becker).

I don't get this impression at all and I wonder why he does. The Buddhist and the Hindu already feels trapped in eternal life, called samsara: the cycle of birth, death, rebirth, and redeath. Eternal life is therefore precisely what they want to escape from. — Thorongil

I think the rational, conscious level of the human can come to such a conclusion as the Buddhists and the Hindus did. But the irrational, subconscious side is always fearful of death. Death is always repressed.

Same ;)