The fact that different languages can represent the same thing. The languages are the tokens while the object in question is the type.

Is this not the type-token distinction?

I understand what a feeling is better than what a symbol is. We think other people feel because we relate to them in certain ways, and we don't relate in those ways to computers.

Are you seriously claiming computers feel? — The Great Whatever

First of all, let's try to keep the inflammatory commentary to a minimum.

Second, simply because we do not relate to a computer as well as we do to other humans doesn't mean a computer doesn't feel. The recent movie Ex Machina explores this. To treat humans above computers simply because we don't have an emotional attachment to the latter is to have an anthropic bias.

Furthermore, consciousness could be an emergent property of a system.

I am going to go on a hunch here and concur that if a person is ignorant of a specific topic (such as the morality/rationality of child birth), insofar as they don't even recognize that it is an issue, then I don't think a position can be applied to this person. Perhaps in a post hoc attitude, they could realize that their actions categorized them into a certain position, but truly what difference does it make if you hold a position and yet not act upon it? What you are arguing for, , is that actions precede a person's position, when it should be the opposite. A person's position (assuming they are not disingenuous) should precede their actions.

A good time was had by all. Such is philosophy. — Bitter Crank

And that's all that matters! :D

Firstly, to state that it is "quite nihilistic and useless" doesn't make much sense to me, except in relation to a particular context, so I would like to know what context you have in mind here. — Sapientia

The context would be life. What goal is life itself, the chemical reactions itself, leading towards? There is no goal. Life is without a goal and without a direction; it is therefore unnecessary.

And secondly, isn't whether or not such acts are "empty" a subjective matter, and hence will depend on the subject, and, more specifically, his or her values? — Sapientia

I suppose it depends on how versatile one's mind is and how able they are to compartmentalize aspects of their life so that they can maintain meaning and purpose in a thoroughly nihilistic world.

I think the issue that Schopenhauer1 is bringing up is not necessarily that life is always a burden, but rather when analyzed from an objective third person perspective, it could easily be said that each and every one of us live our lives "chasing the cheese", so to speak. It is quite nihilistic and useless. When we take a look at what our lives are constituted by and see just how much time we spend pursuing empty pleasures and needs, it really does drive a nail through our appreciation of life.

The lack of contentedness seems to be more of a problem of modern day society rather than an unsolvable paradox.

This is a good point. I have never understood how the ascetic is supposed to forget the reason they are being an ascetic in the first place. Case in point: celibacy, if you are celibate, chances are you will have pent-up sexual urges and desires which will only remind you of the very thing you are trying to evade. It seems that asceticism is a reaction to a distasteful environment rather than a genuine sustainable way of life.

They represent Depression, Aspergers, and Loneliness. ;)

I was a weird kid.

Hell yeah it is.

Greenland

Yeah, I don't know about the Falkland Island flag. Very strange.

Interesting thoughts about thieves hiding behind national flags.

When I was younger and weirder, I made my own little micronation. You can see the flag here.

:P

Causation already is a contentious subject in metaphysics, even though it is taken for granted in much of science.

Aristotle thought that objects (not artifacts though) have a telos, or an end goal, that they strive for. It's actually rather similar to Schopenhauer's conception of a Will, except the Will is universalized while the telos is apparent in only the kind of object. So, for example, a penis' telos is to enter a vagina. An acorn's telos is to grow into a tree.

Obviously, Aristotle did not know about DNA, or he would have understood that this is why every acorn grows into a tree, and not a camel.

Aristotle's thought got taken up by Aquinas, who thought that since the universe seems to operate under this notion of a telos, or a pulling-causation, that to frustrate such notions is immoral. Thus, it is immoral to have gay sexual relations because the act goes against the "natural law" of the universe, or the telos of the penis. Thus, it is immoral to have an abortion, because the act of aborting goes against the telos of the fetus to develop.

Personally, I find all this talk of telos and natural law to be a bit unscientific and definitely problematic in terms of the is-ought gap. The Catholic Church tries to defend natural law by saying that natural, male-female sex during marriage is the only way to achieve human flourishing - a doctrine that I find blatantly absurd.

This is basically the idea of the Aristotelian telos, which I don't really find convincing. It asks us to think of causation as "pulling" versus "pushing".

Yeah, I've seen a few Gary videos, for example. At times he seems to make some good points. At other times, he seems woefully ignorant of what he's talking about. — Thorongil

Gary pisses me off. He makes good points, though, and that's why he pisses me off even more because he makes far more idiotic points than decent ones, and he's the name that gets circulated around the community. Not to mention his personality and attitude is atrocious.

The fetus, like anything living, desires to live, whether it is conscious of this fact or not. — Thorongil

How can an unconscious entity have any desires?

Haha, this was more or less my impression as well, from what little I've visited of it. — Thorongil

YouTube isn't much better, haha.

I think so, at least as far as I understand your question. A human fetus has the same natural right to live as its mother or any other sentient being. To abort it is to commit wrongdoing because to do so expressly denies the will of the fetus to live. Once a woman becomes pregnant, it is too late to bring up arguments about preventing suffering. The salient deed to which I would object has already been done. — Thorongil

The way I look at it, you can't lose something if you don't have it. A fetus does not have a "will", a "telos", to live. I find this entire conception to be anthropomorphization gone wild. Aborting a fetus does nothing unethical because there is nothing to feel saddened or disappointed, and since there is no god, there is no retribution for such an act if natural law theory even was true.

You argued that the fetus has a will to live that should be respected, but what if this fetus grows up to be a suicidal person who hates living?

Yes, I'm aware of those guys and find them very far from the position I would want to identify with. I started visiting the AN subreddit recently as well and found the community there not that great overall. In fact, pretty much the whole AN community, at least as it exists on the internet, I find to be irritating and disagreeable. And as for its manifestation in print, I'm not a fan of Benatar (since I'm not a utilitarian and have moral qualms about his advocacy of abortion) and find Ligotti, Crawford, and their ilk rather unsophisticated and pretentious. — Thorongil

Stay the hell away from some of those subreddits. They are toxic and filled with extraordinarily narrow-sighted people. I think I had maybe one or two "decent" discussions over on them; the rest were all a bunch of pretentious teenagers bitching about how much they hate their mothers or how they don't like having to wake up for school.

I have a weird position on Benatar. I don't know if his analysis works, for one (I expect considerable debate in the future). I think it is far, far easier to just say that it is wrong to inflict suffering on someone, even by proxy. Period. End of topic, moving on, no need of an asymmetry.

Also, is your problem with his promotion of abortion that of natural law?

Granted, though, I still find birth in most cases to be merely unnecessary instead of blatantly immoral.

Ligotti definitely has writing talent, I'll give him that. But he would get destroyed in any professional philosophical debate. Too much of his writing is unsophisticated nihilism born out of unrealistic expectations.

This guy is perhaps the only one I find tolerable and even enjoyable. — Thorongil

I'll have to check him out. From a quick overview, he seems likeable. I can't stand those petty debates over at YouTube (just a bunch of yelling and cursing, kind of pitiful imho); perhaps this will be a better alternative.

I don't know about that. It seems to me that Catholic priests and monks, Buddhist monks, and Hindu ascetics are pretty fit, free of many illnesses common to the general public, and usually live extremely long lives. So it seems rather a boon than a detriment to one's health. — Thorongil

Yeah, except the ones that rape the alter boys ;)

Is it the rejection of all pleasure or only of a certain kind of pleasure? Asceticism need not lead to stoicism, in the common sense of that word. It certainly rejects the pleasures of the flesh, otherwise known as the "hedonic treadmill," so if you define pleasure only in this sense, then I suppose you are right to assert that asceticism involves the rejection of pleasure. But it still involves something positive, that of becoming closer to or reaching the goal for which one practices asceticism in the first place. The Greek roots of the word tell us that it is a form of exercise or self-discipline. If one has no self-discipline, one is effectively a slave. — Thorongil

I respect your lifestyle and I guess I might even be classified as somewhat of an ascetic in some regards in that I do try to limit my sensual pleasures (too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing), and I think you are spot on when you say that sensual pleasures make you a "slave", but I would say only insofar that you allow them to enslave you.

Without being too personal and graphic, I do release sexual tension occasionally, and afterwards I feel very relieved and relaxed. From my perspective, having all those (natural) pent-up urges and hormones makes me very unfocused and stressed. Now you could definitely make the argument that this is exactly what enslavement is, but is it enslavement if we are comfortable with it? The Buddha taught the middle path between extreme hedonism and excessive asceticism, and I think this might be a good time to invoke his teachings.

Yep. Cool.

Would you agree that metaphysics is primarily focused on the analysis of the phenomenology of the world as it appears to us?

Perhaps "non-natalism" would be a better term? Interesting discussion. I'm with you on the weak-version; birth is usually merely unnecessary (and overrated imho), although in certain situations I do have to wonder what the fuck the parents were thinking having a child.

The strong-antinatalist tends to be associated with such movements as the complete eradication of all life on earth, permanently and immediately. I'm not sure if you have ever wasted some of your time reading some of the philosophy behind the fringe group "efilism" (life spelled backwards) but it is basically that life is just absolutely horrible and needs to be exterminated.

Both. I try to do the former and definitely do the latter. — Thorongil

I hope I'm not being too personal here, but I would like to understand why this is. I share your views on birth, but I believe that sex is an important aspect of someone's health. Abstaining from all sexual encounters and/or actions is, in my view, unhealthy in that it builds up stress and perhaps even loneliness in some people.

Do you abstain out of asceticism? I see the attraction towards asceticism but have always been turned off in the end because the complete rejection of all pleasure seems very artificial, and only reminds me of why I'm trying to be an ascetic in the first place.

Because life's problems are structural, and individual gestures don't remedy them. — The Great Whatever

What does this esotericism mean?

If you were actually interested in 'teaching how to fish,' then by this you would mean stopping reproduction altogether, since the source of starvation is reproduction. — The Great Whatever

No, I would teach a man to fish.

Life does not revolve around anyone's ego. Again, the problems are structural: they are not caused by the whims of 'bad guys,' nor will their replacement with 'good guys' and 'happy thoughts' cure them. — The Great Whatever

Prove it.

Continuing to live isn't endorsing your own birth. I had no control over being born, and it would have been better if I hadn't been. — The Great Whatever

So why are you not suicidal again?

The term "American" is definitely a tricky one to define, since the country is such a melting pot of cultures. It's almost as if, in the case of not being able to identify what cultural background something is, the default position is "American".

I think there are certain things (oftentimes cuisine) that is endemic to a particular location. But I am skeptical of apparent entire cultures that are restricted to one single area.

Perhaps, if I had to place an answer on what these terms mean, I would say that "American" refers to anyone who was born in America or who currently lives in America and has taken the necessary steps to integrate themselves into the society. And a "European" would be someone who has a bladder problem.

That depends on what you mean by 'helping people.' Most things that you might think would help them actually won't — The Great Whatever

This is a very large sweeping claim. How do you know this?

and those that do (like giving them food) arise due to structural problems that 'giving a man a fish' will not solve in any substantial way (they will starve tomorrow instead of today). — The Great Whatever

This is why you teach a man to fish. Or even better teach him to be a vegetarian. You get them back on their feet so they can live life again.

If you don't approve of life because it's not good enough to live, then you need to reconcile this with your views on your own life, which are inconsistent. — The Great Whatever

There's nothing inconsistent in saying that life has the potential of being quite bad, especially since the world revolves around the egos of the least trustworthy.

However, I enjoy my life for the most part and understand that by living I am making a conscious choice, a risk, that may not end well. But I accept this and am willing to take the chance, because I think most things that are "suffering" can be lessened to a degree that is not as bad as it would seem (of course there are exceptions, nothing is perfect).

But I will not force this choice on someone who cannot choose, especially when the consequences affect them more than me. Additionally, having a child is overrated (in my opinion) and is just one more attachment. If I really wanted a kid, I would adopt one.

So, actually, I would argue that it is you that must reconcile your position of vehement anti-birth with your conscious decision to endorse your own birth by continuing to live. It's one thing to not have a child because you fear that they may potentially experience something truly horrific (my position); it's quite another to resist having a child because you think there is absolutely no worth in living and at the same time continue to live. If you are to take the latter route, then you logically must feel suicidal to avoid being disingenuous.

Meaning is not 'derived.' We do not 'make our own meaning,' that's liberal bullshit. — The Great Whatever

lol. Nietzsche was one of the biggest critics of liberalism, and yet advocated for finding meaning in suffering.

The best way to end starvation is not to reproduce. You approve of the suffering of starvation because you accept that the world should continue as it is. — The Great Whatever

When did I say this? (hint, I never did) I'm an anti-natalist because of the existence of things like suffering, although I don't dwell on the fact of birth. It's merely unnecessary.

Also, complaining won't do anything at all whereas helping people will at least keep the suffering lower than it has to be.

You can't rationalize suffering because rationalization is itself a response to suffering. — The Great Whatever

What the hell does this mean?! If you can't rationalize suffering than you must not be able to derive any meaning from it.

It literally, factually is. And not only those who are starving! — The Great Whatever

Meh. Help the starving, it will make you feel good, or at least more than complaining will.

Sleep is another physical need. — The Great Whatever

And a wonderful one at that.

Life can't both be meaningless and filled with suffering: suffering is a kind of meaning, a bad one, which is why it matters. — The Great Whatever

You misunderstand me. When we see no reason for suffering, when we see no way of rationalizing this suffering (btw rationalizing suffering is normal, healthy and productive), that is when we open ourselves up to suicidal nihilism. If I were to give you a cockroach to eat, and as you munched you found it absolutely disgusting and you could not find anything redeemable about it, you would spit it out just as you would kill yourself if you thought the amount of irredeemable suffering was greater than what you could handle.

Your life literally does revolve around eating, though. In order to have your needs met, you must spend the largest portion of your life doing things you would rather not do, and in turn damaging your body and mind. If your physical needs were automatically met, you could just do whatever you wanted. — The Great Whatever

Biologically speaking, your life does revolve around eating. That's what life is: the transfer of energy in a very compact and efficient manner. It actually is quite remarkable how well life does this, even if it is often at the cost of suffering.

But I would stress that you can "transcend", so to speak, the basic revolving around food. Perhaps food is one of our weaknesses or our anchors, but it is certainly not usually the number one thing people are worried about in a first world country.

We could easily just say that people go through the trials of work and marriage just to be able to afford the bed they sleep on.

Also, work does not have to be a chore. You can change that.

I think I agree with much of what you have said. We are meat tubes, simple as that. We try to make all these cultural artifacts to try to cover up this truth (this is one of the reasons I do not like fashion very much - at least ridiculous fashion).

But the truth of us being meat tubes has no logical connection to how we evaluate our lives. Perhaps I rather like being a meat tube.

Furthermore, we've found some ingenious ways of making food taste good and aesthetically appealing.

It seems like you are struggling to come to terms with the fact that life is completely meaningless and filled with suffering. The inherent meaninglessness of life does not have any logical connection to how much we enjoy our lives. And if it seems to be the case anyway, then there are a plethora of existential literature on this, from the Stoics to Sartre. It's the suffering that matters and is problematic. I believe it was Frankl that said that humans despair at suffering because they find no meaning behind it; if there is no meaning behind suffering, then suicide may as well be the best option. (Frankl was a Holocaust survivor).

Hunger/starvation. And it doesn't matter whether you have sufficient nutrients, any more than it matters that you have sufficient heroin. Without it you collapse into horrible pain and death, and your life has o revolve around preventing that. We call that a cognitive disorder, an addiction. A very, very bad one. — The Great Whatever

I don't need heroin to keep living, so I don't know what you're going on about in terms of that.

Perhaps if we were wild animals without access to a supermarket, our lives would quite literally revolve around eating.

But we are not animals in that sense (we are animals though).

I see no problem with having to eat food and drink water. Why are you making this such a big deal? Because life isn't what you expected it to be?

Let me put this short and sweet: the universe doesn't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else expects.

As soon as you come to terms with what reality is like and forget your existential narcissism (we shouldn't have to eat, wah!), you can move on and learn to enjoy life a bit. Learn to trim your sails instead of complaining about the wind.

So I think the real question here that we ought to discuss is whether or not the state of the world is bad enough to warrant suicide.

Agustino, I want to add something on to what I said previously about happiness. Like I said before, I still believe happiness to be synonymous with contentedness, but additionally I would like to add that happiness is a process, not an end-state.

For many (most?) people, having goals is necessary to be happy. I would not be happy (forever) if I sat on a rock on a mountain all day long. I would grow restless and bored. I need stimulation. So pursuing goals would make me content.

Everyone is suffering from a psychological problem: it's called being alive. You are literally moving toward excruciating pain / starvation at every second, and must take steps to avoid this. How is that not a psychological problem? It's far worse than any mundane 'addiction.' — The Great Whatever

What is the excruciating pain that you speak of? And given that you have internet access, I would assume you have the means to obtain sufficient nutrients.

How is that not a psychological problem? It's far worse than any mundane 'addiction.' — The Great Whatever

Everyone is suffering from a psychological problem: it's called being alive. — The Great Whatever

Ah, yes, so all of us are somehow hoodwinked into continuing to live despite the obvious conclusion that life is this miserable pain in the ass, and that you are doing everyone the highest of favors by repetitively reminding them just how terrible their existences are.

I have to wonder what your motivations are. What are you achieving here? What is your ideal goal? Because the only result I can imagine you desiring is that everyone decides to give it all up and kill themselves.

People are happy. People do appreciate their lives. But you are doing them any service (in fact quite possibly a disservice) by attempting to convince them otherwise.

It's a choice so long as one isn't suffering from a psychological problem.

No one is happy. Obviously you're not, unless you're just not paying attention to yourself. — The Great Whatever

What is your definition of happy?

Seems to me that if you pay too much attention to yourself, you end up unfulfilled and grouchy.

Darth, I thought you were going to give it a rest for your mental health. No? (For my sake, I'm relieved you haven't taken your mental health break yet.) — Bitter Crank

The flight to neverland was cancelled because of all the snow. :P

You're both nuts. — Bitter Crank

Most likely.

The Dalai Lama. Beware of jokers, con men, and bastards. — The Great Whatever

And why should we believe this claim about the Dalai Lama?

You're not going to be happy. But there's no 'more important' thing either. Stop being a child. — The Great Whatever

LOL you might not be happy. And many of us have more important things to do than demean other people by calling them a child.

A better question would be why, evolutionary speaking, happiness is even a thing at all.

Perhaps faith is not the blind fideism we typically attribute it as but rather a rational confidence.

That is an interesting point. If we had unfallible arguments for the existence of a god, faith would not be a requirement. I suppose these arguments could be used as a complement to faith to act as a basic structure (but not prove).

Just thought I'd point out that you can quote other people on this board by highlighting the text.