We don't have any specific reason to choose one option over another one when we have doubts. — MoK

I see room to disagree with this as an absolute in many if not most cases of general uncertainty. Should I pass the semi-truck in front of me? (the closest oncoming car appears to be miles away, though it would be safer not to) Should I really blow another $10 on another lotto ticket this week? (the odds of winning anything are astronomically low, though it's always possible) Etc. Though, your specific example of a (I would say generally uncommon) scenario where there is truly zero background information on the likelihood (or degree) of benefit or detriment of one option over the other, like a gamble, makes for an interesting thought experiment.

Therefore, there must exist an entity, the so-called mind, that can freely decide. — MoK

I'd agree with that. But what of the most simple organism capable of traversal, say, a snail crawling through a log (or something that presents an identical physicality to your maze scenario)? Assuming it just doesn't turn around (or crawl up the wall as snails so often do), it will likely either end up going left or right absent of any relatable "mind-thought" process, wouldn't it?

People however will just "wing it", per se, and pick one to avoid losing time and ensure the destination, whatever it may be, is reached. By which I mean, I'd assume there would be very little deep thought on the matter other than "keep going" and "just pick one" if there is truly no information available or apparent distinction between one choice and another.

I dabble in psychology but am certainly not a physiologist (how the body and "mind" work together and conversely affect one another). The brain allows "us" or "you" access to retrieve/recall our experiences and knowledge thus forming an identity or "consciousness" which can be referred to as a separate "entity" or a "mind". But is it really? Like, what if, somehow, a person was raised in a sealed, pitch black room with zero interaction with any living being from infancy to adulthood (naturally with food and water), would they have a "mind"? Would they be "conscious" in the way we consider human consciousness having no real sensory experiences or knowledge?

*A decision is either based on a reason or not, in the first case we are dealing with an unfree decision, and in the second case we are dealing with a free decision. — MoK

What was the second case? Or if the maze was the second, what was the first?

It's not possible to accurately differentiate between an innocent albeit crass, unrefined or ignorant (or socially-inept/sociopathic) individual and one who is purposely trying to upset or irritate you in any given interaction, unfortunately.

Most these days are an unfortunate combination of both, some leaning more toward one than the other. For those who are the latter, it's often a simple psychological phenomenon. They think it's normal. Often poor parenting, a rough life, or the temperament of their childhood upbringing (crucial development phase); they don't feel "normal" unless they're oppressing or belittling another person as they live in a constant state of mental entrapment by their past experiences and resulting identity. It's their "comfort zone" that was perpetuated by their parents and will likely be perpetuated by them with their own offspring. It is a socially-destructive cycle that is in no exaggeration or inaccuracy of language, a disease. No different than cancer or severe blindness. Of course, that's simply what happens when reproduction is declared a "social right" instead of an earned privilege voted on by a governing council of educated, moral men. Not surprising in the least. Frankly, I'm shocked everyone hasn't killed each other by now. Plenty of time, I guess.

I can't think of anything, actually. Most, myself included, simply don't have the gift. Or the receiving end is... "not compatible". Like a CD player trying to run a Blu-Ray disc. It just doesn't "land" for some people. Metaphors.

"Upon seeing my formerly-infirmed partner released from the hospital, I felt such joy, as a prisoner in solitary confinement feels upon taking his first steps outside as a free man. A massive weight lifted from my shoulders, a yoke from my neck broken free, I felt anew. Tears welled up in my eyes, as if I had just scratched off the final number of a winning million dollar lottery ticket. It was like my whole life was leading up to this moment, thoughts of youth, adolescence, early adulthood flurried my mind. I was ecstatic, my legs shook, I could barely stand, but powering forward with every fiber of my being I took what seemed like an eternity running toward her to embrace my beloved for the first time in what seemed like an eternity."

(something like that, except actually good)

We all have the same base emotions, sensations, and understandings of the same. Stress and eustress. When people say "you can describe emotions but you can't describe how it feels to the person" it's basically just saying "people feel differently about different things", different bowls of soup with different temperatures and amounts, but nonetheless all from the same conceptual table. Take a sunset described in painfully almost unnecessary detail. It's physically the same for everyone, but just because some people feel happy, hopeful, or nostalgic while others may feel depressed, defeated, or dismayed, doesn't mean the emotions can't be described explicitly, especially through metaphor and symbolism.

The question I have is…has intelligence always been around before this world was created prior to the Big Bang or was it simply an emergent phenomenon thereafter ? — kindred

Without reading the previous five pages, this seems to instead ask: "Was the Big Bang really the beginning of the universe?" or perhaps "Are there other universes outside of our own?" If the answer to the former is "no" or the latter "yes", then it's a simple non-scientific and non-philosophical "shot in the dark" assumption to suggest: "Sure, billions of years went by and in the past few thousand the dawn of intelligent man came about, and within barely 150 years man went from defecating outside in a hole like a wild animal to commuting to and from state-of-the-art skyscrapers for work in a self-driving car with not a single happening in any corner of the known Earth not instantly available at his fingertips for his reading pleasure - so in the context of billions of years, it's certainly likely the process repeated itself before."

Microorganisms exist on other planets and in space (I think?). I wouldn't quite call that a form of "intelligence", more like efficient cellular processes that sustain and allow it to replicate and advance itself, however minutely. Is there this "universal consciousness" that exists everywhere matter does that all intelligent beings "tap into" which gives us our sense of consciousness? That would be a bit metaphysical, bordering on religious.

My (uninformed) take on the matter, at least.

That which possesses a quality that sufficiently distinguishes itself from its surroundings or environment in an observable way; that which is distinct. Fair enough, is that not?

An interesting read and nice OP. However as someone said on here before, it would be logical to assume religion(s) and god(s) came about from the initial belief of animism, which likely came about due to pareidolia.

It's not uncommon to see human "intelligent" faces and features in nature, particularly the clouds. Imagine a fledging human barely able to communicate other than grunts of pleasure and displeasure, joy and annoyance, etc. Yet he feels and understands. He feels and understands pain and loss of a loved one or companion. Then perhaps he looks up and just so happens to see what looks like a smiling face perhaps resembling said lost companion. He feels reborn, as if placed into an entirely new world, a world that was once horrid and frightening, now hopeful and encouraging.

To a lesser extent, coincidences and "wishful thinking". Say you had an elderly neighbor who loved to bake an extremely rare and odd pie or something she would often come by to deliver who later passed away. Perhaps she was from a town where such a delicacy was common and a friend from the hometown came to visit her, bringing such a pie, and mistook your house for hers and left you that pie at the door. Early superstitious man would consider that an impossibility other than perhaps a gift from a world beyond our own. Probably not the best example but you should be able to get the concept of what I mean.

Edit: Sorry, must've missed that last sentence. So, perhaps like two stone age military generals talking about say, how they destroyed a village. One says, he killed everything in sight and nothing was alive or unburned for miles. The other responds his endeavor was far greater and the land was so destroyed it was uninhabitable and nothing would grow even to this day, etc. To the point the tale gets passed on and the man and his endeavors (whether factual or not) become something of a folk legend on steroids to the point he's attributed to being not even human but far above? Something like that? :chin:

Gotta right click > Open in New Private Window.

Actually, it gives you the rigamarole for reasons I posted earlier. So already have the private window open and be signed in. Then open a new tab in that private window and copy and paste the link. You're welcome. :up:

If someone already mentioned this, ignore it, but Discord is known for scams. If someone contacts you claiming to be jamal, asking for money, ignore it. — frank

That's more like the Internet in general. Jamal has a nice crown icon in the Discord I saw, so anyone who is foolish enough yet on a philosophy site to be tricked into such likely doesn't have much to give anyhow and as such is what you call a "non-target". Bigger fish to fry, as they say.

What I don't like about Discord, or even its predecessor IRC and before that MSN messenger, all messaging apps in general is you got weirdos from countries that frankly shouldn't even exist using avatars of young attractive females who prey on adolescents (male and female) who are in fact themselves older men. Due to the fact it's for some reason made "normal" to be on either a Discord or what-have-you for gaming related purposes. They'll send pictures of random cam (careless women, we'll call them) persons in sexual positions and acts and masquerade as them with the intent of receiving similar pictures in return. But that's beyond the point.

Long story short, I think just about everyone here knows and is aware of the point you're trying to get across.

"Whoops...
Unable to accept invite"

You know, I can't say I appreciate my emotions being toyed with to such a degree.

(though that's probably per reason of the industry standard of getting users to "have to" physically download an app that can access your full operating system for reasons buried in the T&C they'd hesitate and prefer not to be open about)

More seriously however,

There's a risk that Plush, our current platform, will cease operating — Jamal

Is this insider knowledge or perhaps independent research or mere pessimistic speculation?

Invision Power Board is largely tolerable. Lots of extra bells and whistles, as well as "mods" or "add-ons" you can install. Mainly gimmicky things like a "Forum Battle" system, Arcade, etc., but also neat features like a Gallery and Member Blogs. I actually ran a somewhat-active (albeit embarrassingly short-lived) community using IPB in the late 2000s. It was fun.

But yeah I really like Plush now thanks to your site. Incredibly simple yet incredibly functional. And quite purdy if I do say so myself.

Edit: Apparently it works fine if I right click > New Private Window for some reason.

What differentiates this particular specific discussion from the standard run-of-the-mill cultural following of what is popular though? :chin:

Before it was horse and buggies pioneer-style. Before that, chariots. It offered an evolutionary (or societal) advantage and one who had what others admired gained admiration whereas others who did not... did not. Is this not true? It's a common American (and I assume elsewhere) social trope/meme whatever you wish to call it that a teen with a car is "cool" or otherwise desirable to his peers versus someone who does not and has to walk or take a scooter. So it's about being in possession of the greatest item or object desirable to society, mostly for superficial reasons, but also supported by the factual beneficial and general status reasons that come with. Isn't it?

1. Forum culture. A thoughtful and contemplative culture will presumably perpetuate itself and mitigate against short, unthoughtful posting. — Leontiskos

It seems balanced and well enough as it is. Sure you don't want it to turn into Reddit where "lol" and "i agree" make up the majority of replies to OPs. People have been banned semi-recently (within the past year or so) for "low quality" posts so that's already a "thing" going on.

If I have a topic I felt mildly interested in and wanted to discuss that isn't quite or perfectly aligned to philosophy but is still intellectually interesting, I'd post it in the Lounge. Or even the Shoutbox. New posters might now know any of these things even exist so it's a learning process.

2. Character thresholds. Perhaps in the future it would be helpful to add character thresholds, at least to OPs. For example, OPs must be more than 500 characters. — Leontiskos

That sounds reasonable, but again I wouldn't be able to find a single thread at least currently on Page 1 that I would call "unreasonable" or without philosophical merit. I like the place but we got to be honest, it's not exactly a beehive of activity. Some very interesting discussions have came about from relatively short and simple questions. Basically, I don't really see people "spamming" the place with useless or low quality lines of inquiry or topics for discussion. Do you?

For example, maybe users start with one thread per week and one post per 15 minutes. — Leontiskos

Some people are more eager than educated, that's true. But many contributors who now have to be manually approved by the site owner are actually very adept and have busy schedules so like to participate rapidly, if that makes sense.

4. Limited editing. An unlimited ability to edit posts correlates to lower quality posts and lower quality submissions. Perhaps edits should only be allowed for a certain amount of time. — Leontiskos

I'm not so sure about this one. It might result in people creating more threads because their understanding of a topic has changed or ignorance of something about it has receded.

5. I am of the mind that things like <site layouts> and phone accessibility have an impact on post quality. Users accessing an instant message-style website through smartphones will produce lower quality content than users accessing a publication-style website through keyboards and screens with enough real estate for comfortable reading. — Leontiskos

Some people can get their point across quite efficiently whether it be by a keyboard or the same keyboard just because it's smaller. It's a valid point, it's more "annoying" to type out a long series of paragraphs, having to error check, undo, etc., but far from unmanageable for an intellectual person with something to contribute.

6. The ability to disincentivize users short of permanently banning them seems important. — Leontiskos

I don't think any would disagree with that. Unless you're an anti-humanist. You'd be surprised.

--

Basically, aside from OPs, there's a lot of short "back and forths" because while the topic is complex people's (mis)understandings of the point the OP was trying to make are actually quite simple or trivial, at least in the mind of the poster. If the person is confused, a simple reply and bare bones logic sentence is the best way to respond. I would say, at least. :chin:

Given that :
- meat is not necessary for almost all humans
- many farming systems are now capable of developing plant-based meat alternatives
- no livestock farming can take place without causing suffering to the animals: separation of mother and offspring, slaughter when they have not even reached half their life expectancy, etc.
…how can we still justify livestock farming? — LFranc

Not being bound in chains from infancy and fed water and paste until one dies of natural causes is "not necessary" for almost all humans. So, that, in and of itself, is not an argument.

Who's to say plants don't have an even greater sense of consciousness and feelings of pain, loss, and joy simply because the science we have can't detect it and would suggest otherwise? Maybe it's the livestock who are the ones creating suffering by eating grass and various plants, which are actually sentient, and are the real victims here who we are protecting by controlling and raising livestock? The philosopher really can't say with any absolute certainty. Science is about progression of understanding with the acknowledgement some things, grand things, are currently unknown, hence the point of science itself. Otherwise the very first person who even "science'd" would have discovered everything the moment he did an experiment and we'd have had the technology we have today in the 1600s.

I don't think an animal has quite the same deep societal understanding of the concepts of "mother" or "father" as a human does. It's just a familiar visual image, that when approached or drawn close to, produces milk or whatever sustenance that results in its own survival. It's literally just a teat and source of warmth so it doesn't die. There's no emotion involved.

We can justify livestock farming simply by doing nothing and removing our self, metaphorically, from the equation altogether. In a world without humans who have opposable thumbs and technology, it is a free-for-all where animals kill each other without intelligent reason (other than hunger ie. survival) in perpetuity. Day in and day out, nonstop. The suffering and "separation" would exist regardless if we were present or acting agents in the situation or not. So, as intelligent beings who can prevent this process, if benefited from perhaps 1 animal while we save 1000 that would otherwise die, become extinct, or suffer, it's really self-evident. This stuff is so elementary it shouldn't have to be explained, really.

Now, should we, as a society, feed immoral people who don't care about life and animals? That's a valid line of inquiry. However considering the fact people lie anyway so as to prolong their own existence (meaningful or not), it's not a feasible thing to consider. Like when they outlawed (or largely discriminated against) non-Christians from employment. For good reason, the peasants often stole because they had no moral backbone or belief in consequence toward actions not immediately prevented. Overnight, everybody became "Christian", and the word, or principles behind the idea became a joke. But that's a tale for another day.

So basically, things outside of our control exist and are "a thing". That's correct. I had no control over who my biological father impregnated and where and what circumstances I was raised in prior to receiving an education that allowed me to think properly for myself. Meaning, if I happened to have been raised in a household without a consistent presence of food in fridge, I very well may likely turn out to be a thief. If the opposite is true, and I happened to have been raised in a household with more sports cars in the front yard then there are fingers on my hand, I would likely have turned out to be a person of admirable morality. None of that matters when we are given opportunity to choose morality or immorality. Or at least, environment to foster and develop a distinction between the two.

If there is such a thing as a "world" you call "fake" you seem to have the need to bolster defenses against, perhaps it begs a question as to your own understanding.

Is "reality" fair and just? Is a tool created for one purpose unable to be used for the opposite?

Sure, there's a natural dynamic. It seems for one thing to live, another thing must die. This is the problem in thinking, sentient beings. It doesn't seem "right" or "moral". Even if one's "morality" is efficiency in disguise.

Nevertheless, we must abstract the fact we have the ability to recognize when a thing is wrong, immoral, etc., and from there choose what we wish to "do about it", per se. So, the possibility of such is there, as is the chance of the opposite. What happens next is up to you, I suppose it could be said. :smile:

It's probably a reasonable variable that there is a distinct difference in persons who voluntarily complete surveys, versus those who do not.

That is to say, there are countess variables to consider that could reasonably throw any sort of absolute or intrinsically-correct/accurate data out as far as (f)actuality. Note I specifically avoid "usefulness" as that is subjective to those who seek a purpose beyond actual legitimate aggregation of data.

But we know what living organisms have that these things lack. An active semiotic modelling relation with world based on an encoding mechanism like, principally, a hierarchy of genes, neurons, words and numbers in the case of us socially-constructed humans. — apokrisis

These particular things do in fact make up the end result of "consciousness" but do not define themselves as the bare minimums to achieve such. Granted, based on that which is currently evidenced or "observable" with our consciousness would suggest ours is unique. But this, though reasonable and socially-acceptable, is not any argument-ending contention when it comes to philosophical inquiry.

I feel like there's a best way to frame the underlying rationale and question, which is, are some actions advantageous compared to others?

People commit forms of suicide, each and every day. Moral, economic, social, etc. Some knowingly but most unknowingly, at the time, of course. Many of which who become reborn in "death" of false ideals and understanding to become new and greater versions of themself. Not always, of course.

I find it interesting you make a claim, whether inadvertently or not, that legality and morality are intrinsically not of rationale. That is to say, the purest form of rationale. This is a form of such in and of itself really. So you have to answer, what is the purest form of rationale? Definitively, this is logic. Which of course can be reduced mathematically, often, however, based on one's values and virtues, or understandings and beliefs. So what are yours? The typical ones being, suffering is bad, pleasure is good. Possibility is usually possible, but not always, so the factors that contribute to the determinations of such are relevant in determining said understanding.

Based on the current social zeitgeist, I frame your inquiry to be of such: should a person who just so happens to feel depressed, if not for a prolonged state perform an action that ends one's life? Absolutely not. Though this may be of logical benefit to naturally not only themself but that of a majority, say, a prisoner on death row. Which I find laughable since, in a base and fundamental way, any life born in this world is, per se, in a rationally comparable way. But back to that, yes, prisoners on death row are in fact forbidden from possessing certain objects that can feasibly contribute to one's own death, so, there is certainly at least a perceived rationale. Prevalent enough to reasonably have codified measures in preventing such.

It's a dark topic, but invokes the realities of the world in which we live in so remains of value. I would say, and this is just a personal philosophy of course, if someone led one to be in such a state who themselves would kill to prevent, a hypocrite deserves neither to be an executioner nor that worthy of life. So if there is even a chance your own life could disrupt, end, or destroy that which unwarrantedly and "immorally" created such a state of one to be in, which means would live with reasonable ability to further create such a state in other innocent minds, you have a duty to survive and neglect choosing such a selfish option. In my opinion. So, sometimes rationale is only circumstantial, to the point it masks possibility of change or better outcome, and logic itself. In the end, your personal, that is to say, specific avenue of inquiry is quite limited to a biological binary. Life or death. One's heart functioning and ceasing to function. But there is a wider topic I believe the sheer macabre nature of your OP might discourage others from pursing. :wink:

I think in many ways a philosopher is somewhat of a mystic, wouldn't you say? Open to the fact one's reality could be completely incorrect, in ways previously thought improbable or even impossible and such advancement towards greater understanding of oneself and the world around oneself may or may not be ascertained by inquiry. Reminds me of "the unexamined life". You are an entirely different person with entirely different truths then you were a few years ago and will be again an entirely different person with entirely different truths in a few years. This is just much more dramatic and pronounced in youth and adolescence. Once you get older the differences become less pronounced, to the point they can seemingly be dismissed as trivial, even. But the starkness remains, given will to observe. :smile:

I just saw this as a bait thread. That is to say, could be exploited as such. "Think of things that piss you off, go on, it's allowed, in fact, it's the rule. Then to be judged in such a mindset is impervious to rationale", is all. See my reply to fdrake. Go on, I permit you to.

The problem is that "heart" is not really defined by you. — Hanover

I too noticed this. Rationally, I tried to think why one says "in your heart" or, far that matter "in your mind", as some sort of required preface to ask a question. As if the asker or said question was simply unable to express their points without surpassing some sort of ingrained barrier.

Do you not see what I mean? I suppose, "in your heart" would reference, "your core", that is to say, an ideal world where all is well. I certainly enjoy speaking from the heart. But without acting from one's mind, such a reality will never be achieved. Or rather, last for very long..

Ah, greed. Where to begin. There's the old saying: "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway." In relation to modern economic systems, it's probably worth bearing in mind the fact most all things in life are a gamble, some in more ways than others. Since that much is fairly self-evident, we'll come back to that later.

So, what is greed, really? Scholars, theistic and otherwise, seem to purport "the desire (or perhaps tendency or habitual nature) to obtain more than what one needs." Often with the implied nature of crass/brashness and lack of empathy toward one's fellow man being present, to the point one might have even learned to enjoy doing so simply for the feeling or emotion associated with the act and not what is gained by the act as a result.

I think that's a fairly solid and universally-agreeable (reasonable) starting point. There's a few questions that can be immediately ascertained from such a claim. Who defines what one "needs", after all? Surely the self, societal norms, and what not? When I go grocery shopping I buy more food than I will eat in one setting, more than I will eat in one day, more than I need in one week, sometimes longer. In fact, considering the desire and belief I hold to live and enjoy a long life, I need basically everything in the entire store! At least, it wouldn't go to waste, if expiration were not a factor.

In short, I think it's an established vice for a reason that men become blinded in gain and success so much to the point it becomes detrimental to what's best for a society if not unchecked. So this is where a moral deviation could occur. Best illustrated by the answer to the following question: why do people do things? Because they have to. The farmer who tends to his crops or the mother who tends to her young doesn't do so because it's some "idealistic dream" one has always held or desired to participate in, not typically, at least. But rather because, one must for existential reasons crucial to one's survival. So it seems, to me at least, greed can be used interchangeably with desire. And desire can not only be ill-formed but also categorized as beneficial or detrimental, both to one's self and of course to a larger society.

As far as it's relation to business goes, that's why we have regulation and a free market. Prevents, say, a mechanic from doing a poor job (not fixing the problem, using subpar materials) and getting away with doing so long-term. Or from charging ridiculous amounts for something that in this modern day and age is so crucial to the bare existential survival of most. Basically there's an argument or avenue of discussion in relation to corporate business where "maximizing efficiency" and "greed" can be inappropriately equated to one another or erroneously used in reference. Say I believe the government over-regulates and has become a detriment to efficiency and innovation, I won't make a single dime more than adhering and living to this truth or not, I do it because I think it's best for society or at least the company, so I do it. "Greed", per se, simply wasn't present or a factor in such a scenario.

I'm not quite sure if any of this was or will lead to the direction you desired this discussion to result in? Perhaps your preference is your own greed.. not automatically of negative benefit, let alone intent. Just my take on the matter.

If that makes you murderously upset, please go elsewhere. — Baden

I don't see what warrants such a claim or comparison at all, frankly. I simply take a man for his words. "Intolerable" means "fundamentally interrupts one's existence to the point of action". That was his claim, not mine, friend. I simply remind the commenter, perhaps his frame of mind is not without benefit of expansion. Perhaps we have different definitions of the word "intolerable" is all. His is simply dramaticized and I remind him, rubber will inevitably meet the road.

I can assure you, law and order is no stranger to me. In fact, it's something of a religion of mine. Heh.

Wish I could say the same. — hypericin

You don't have to wish anything. Act against your fellow man's right to expression, and, oh, let's wish you good fortune, your current existence will end, quickfully, friend.

So, that's the end of that plain and simple.

Yes. So, as you just pointed out, life has a limited set of choices. We tend to look at life as the degrees of freedom of choice, rather than the degrees of limitations. — schopenhauer1

So, at the end of the day, it requires respect of life to allow one to be in a position to create, let's say a bomb, to end all intelligent life, on Earth? Since life will exist otherwise. And the AN argument is, this is pure suffering.

Where do we go from here? What about possibility of life on other planets? Should life be respected long enough to ensure our entire universe is destroyed or rather "made incapable" of supporting life in perpetuity? We're not at that state, currently. So surely, the irony or at least unacknowledged (at least at present) reality which requires such a truth to become actualized is ignored?

That is to say, life (the true AN equates with suffering?) will still exist until more life is created that allows greater potential to prevent itself? Do you understand this is what you're saying?

The music is not there to somehow induce tipping (show me this "scientific evidence"). It's there because management decided the shopping public wants to hang out in a place playing music they presumably like. — hypericin

Gladly. It's so beneath my effort I require a few sips to simply fit the role, naturally.

Oh "they decided" you mean, they noticed the fact of the reality that, I see fact and fiction becomes blurred with you. No matter. You're tolerable. Under the right setting.

Yes, for me ambient music, particularly pop, disrupts my intuitive feeling for a place, replacing it with a candied consumerised cadence that I find repulsive and emotionally disruptive. — Baden

Well, keep in mind, while you're the most valuable, you're also the most infrequently or leastly present. The employees reside there as well. You know, the people who make everything happen? It's about their consideration and preference as well. Many of whom benefit more than nominally, on tips, tips that scientifically evidenced to be brought about by the "candied consumersed cadence" you so haughtily talk down upon as if it were you stocking their fridge and fulfilling their dreams, which you in fact, are not! So riddle yourself that for a spell.

That's interesting. I'm not a fan of excessive nearly offensive decibel level myself. It's almost as if someone is trying to hide something that would otherwise be obvious.

Perhaps that's just my introvert-ish desire to maintain situational awareness wherever I may go. The more I can determine about a situation, the more I can plan, and the more secure and comfortable I am. Noise disrupts this, I notice.

Just kidding. Just thought that'd be funny to someone. Somewhere. :meh:

But yes getting notifications of replies to posts I made hours ago when I was actually in the mood to debate, in betwixt states of sobriety when I'm not really in the mood to engage or formulate new thoughts. A personal problem, assuredly.

Other than that, probably Hanover's goats. He's got to be up to something off with them. No one is that consistently witty and knowledgeable of their own accord.

Philosophers.

The whole idea of human flourishing is meaningless is it doesn't fulfill things people want or like. — Apustimelogist

I'd gladly challenge that. People want more than they need. Whether or not at the expense of others. And people like things that are detestable. So if this is meant to be a prevailing or base statement of a larger argument, I'd wisely reconsider.

misguided points for misguided notions. — schopenhauer1

I truly think there are two widely and generally-held ideological "camps" as far as AN.

Perhaps it's an over-simplification or some misaligned understanding (which surely you could correct emphatically and with a smile), those two camps being:

Circumstantial:
Things (be it poverty, the state of the world, wars, overpopulation, prejudices, natural greed* [though that one gets interesting because it hints at an absolute, "unfixable" dynamic that will forever be present which belongs to the second camp]) as they are (and are foreseeable to be in either perpetuity or any reasonable foreseeable future) formulate a moral non-favorability towards procreation,

Intrinsic:
Due to Original Position, even if Earth was transformed into a Utopia, a hypothetical almost "alien world" where suffering is so rare and unheard of it now requires true and intense effort to create (versus the current dynamic where suffering seems to be the default and likely outcome without large [and for some non-accomplishable] levels of planning, effort, and perhaps luck), procreation is still responsible because a person did not choose to be born, and inevitably will face some restriction as a result, such restriction amounting to enslavement (ie. follow the moral laws, be a good neighbor, feed oneself, manage stress in a socially-acceptable way lest one be punished by physical incarceration, etc, etc. that one never "asked" or was even involved in being placed in). Something like that?

--

I take it to mean, in short, one is simply not true AN. True AN is, in a sentence, based on the truth one can never truly guarantee a net positive in performing an action (whether it's procreation, or even something more general such as ordering a dish at an unfamiliar restaurant or a new special at a familiar one, it should not be taken. That is to say, the reasons for avoidance are self-evident. Is this correct? Simply because we, rightfully so, consider creating new life more substantial and important than ordering food, doesn't change the underlying principle or truths of the comparative example, I think can be argued.

Goodness doesn't exist but is rather a mirage enforced by the dominant party in society and is really just a form of power politics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This I think will be a major point of contention and source of engagement, both positive and negative, throughout the course of this discussion. That is to say, this sentence alone could fill a library.

This seems to revert to, or perhaps I neglect to observe that which distinguishes it from: the classic eternal debate of right and wrong, goodness and evil, etc. A common footing or shared truth is: we, at least in most respects, are physical beings. Requiring certain absolute qualities to exist. Air, food, shelter from the elements and that which create existential threats to our bodies. Therefore, things are "good" when the contribute to the existence of life, and things are "bad" when they knowingly become of detriment to said existence. This doesn't define or answer much of course, the most obvious reasoning being "all that glitters is not gold", pragmatically meaning, sometimes the apparent best option is far from. Whether by mere happenstance or the doing and will of another.

So, perhaps your argument is likely to be mirrored or seen as the also classic argument of the old tale: The Tortoise and the Hare. That is to say, both argumentatively conflicting parties both agree on the same truth yet remain in complete polarity and disagreement as to the best means to, and this is the important part, not only reach but maintain such an environment of benefit or "goodness" or pragmatism (which I substitute as a near indenticality of "efficiency").

So we basically have the popular dynamic of debate where no one is "wrong", per se, that is to say we sleep soundly in shared truths, but the methodologies in reaching and prolonging said truths differ to the point of argument. If that makes sense.

Meaning, the reason you feel the need to encapsulate goodness with quotation marks and not pragmatism is the point of disagreement or contention. Others would argue against your assertion one is lessly or rather more poorly defined than the other, I believe.

True. Fair would be that once you have fallen there is no redemption. Without guilt, there can be no virtue. — unenlightened

This remains glaringly and disgusting ignorant. Not toward you, not at all, I promise. But at the neglected possibility (which those ensnared no longer consider reality). Which in my opinion constraints and attempts to defile you. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong altogether and am just being silly. So let's return to simple base logic, 1 and 1, yes and no.

I assume, properly I assure you, your definition of "fallen" is "to have failed". This I'm sure, in a true balanced and fair inquisition of words, creates possibility of an immoral environment. Say, one falls because of carelessness. This is not a quality to be reviled. Automatically. Perhaps someone convinced, due to one's natural trust and other nature, a certain element of interaction was in fact "just fine" (be this a particular plank on a bridge or an entire layer of interaction with reality).

So, bear in mind we have not even reached your second or third, and perhaps even forth claim, (the second claim being redemption and third being guilt and virtue which you have neatly presented as bundled together, as, intrinsically locked or relatable).

Let's unpack that, shall we. Redemption or "restoration to a prior state.". Surely we agree on this definition. So, from who's assertion? Yours or others? This a key question here, for it wholly determines where truth lays, from the observer or the observed. Completely shifts the dynamic as to what one truly speaks and, one would assume, expects a reply to.

So, here we are. Barely getting to your second claim. What was that actually? Yes, guilt. Which you invoked (not to say created, as such is a common mindset, likely justified based on common occurrence, yet still removed from absoluteness for reasons evidenced by your need to frame or base your reply on such).

Guilt. A feeling of conviction. That one is guilty of either one or two things: action or inaction. Can we agree on that? Yes, surely we can. For this is already predefined. So now we move on to another concept: Justifiably. A simple ideological usher to the possibility one's "guilt" (an incestual blood cousin of shame, I might add) is in fact wholly unjustified. Falsely, bearing in mind there is simply truth and non-truth. Perhaps one feels "guilty" they committed an action or inaction that led to death of an innocent loved one. Of course, my argument is, perhaps one's perception is simply that: a perception. Maybe someone, an outside actor, created the event of circumstance that led to such an action or inaction. Do you get what I mean? So, say, one failed to listen to one's now-deceased father in saying "this person is no good, he is absent of morals, and if you do not treat him as such, a thing a non-equal forever beneath thee, tragedy and hardship will occur, to the degree I am unable to prevent". And the daughter happened to end up partying with said male who in turn ended up becoming drunk and unable to respond to the, let's say, urgent communiques of her father, and thus said father perished before being able to conclude or legally define the details of his will that would have enabled her to secure wealth and riches, leaving such to be at the mercy of the state. For example. And as such she ends up as a homeless drug addict. As one example. The question remains, who truly "fell", that is to say, neglected one's responsibility.

In short, the claim, your question is not an open-ended one, is demonstrably false. And remains a valid point of contention.

If you need help with English, get some. — tim wood

And this is the state of man.An artificial impasse. Granted, the individual this (metaphysician undercover) easily could have and perhaps should have mentioned the specific points of contention, lest it seemed every word and effort of your expression is little than that of a raving madman, something hurtful. But perhaps, instead of such a mindset, the answers to your questions are self-evident! And he is in fact challenging you to pursue such avenues of self-inquiry further.

So, let's embrace the mindset of an casual observer. He requests clarification. You seem such a request is beneath your effort as, certainly, any rational mind could make sense of what you purported? Is this correct? So, perhaps frame it differently. You seem to make a statement, that the person perceives as a question. That is to say, he derives several statements at least one begetting a question. This is a compliment. Not an insult. Should you not go from there?

The AN view is asking what right anyone has to create life if they know it will suffer. — I like sushi

I'm sure you're correct in most instances. Of course we have yet to meet or question an actual practicing anti-natalist (not counting the obvious resident one, joyous and pleasant to know him as he is..., of course, a bit or irony but that's beside the point, for now)

I fee it important to note the overwhelming drive in which spurred my recent response to you, was to assert, rather question, anti-natalist is poorly defined as is. That is to say, there are two (at minimum I argue) driving forms of rationale that define such an idea. With no shyness of immodesty, I believe one could ascertain the driving consistent ideology of anti-natalism is: life is more likely to incur negative outcome than positive, and so, in respect to culmination of man's efforts of reason, that which is likely to produce negative result, is best avoided. However, this may be true. All well and good. But there remains a blockage, a failure of inquiry, I believe. As to whether or not said belief is based on circumstance that is changeable, or remains a hopeless illusion of changeability. That is to say, in simple terms, yes, if something is likely to be negative, it is to be avoided. But whether or not this negativity can be changed, resolved, eliminated, defeated, or perhaps lessened by introduction of a greater dynamic thus making said negativity trivial, is my, question. Basically.

So. I believe there are two types of anti-natalists. Those who are such rationally, and those who are perhaps confused and only in such respective minds of thinking due to circumstance that is in fact, false.

That is to say, those who are truly not anti-natalists but consequentialists, or best said, the current state of being ie. the status quo produces adequate evidence procreation is more harmful than positive, as in, perhaps things could be changed, whether easily or throughout much if not impossible levels of difficulty, to alter such a reality. This is the divide I think is neglected in the majority. Hence me reason for replying.

So. Yes, ":the way things are, that can be changed, but do not seem likely to be changed, creates the factual inarguable reality that, creation of new life is more likely to incur suffering on the innocent then immediate and observable positive outcome and so, procreation is to be avoided"

Versus "No, even if everything were to be perfect, either eventually, or in some intrinsic yet unobservable way, creation of new life is likely, eventually, to be of worse outcome than not"

Essentially. There is a divide that those who fail to acknowledge simply refute the soundness of the anti-natalism argument. Is my suggestion.

If someone wants to argue that my conclusion is false — Michael

Surely there are many ways to assist a friend that their current action or belief that will assuredly guide future actions are "lacking", that is to say, have reasonable methods of improvement not currently taken.

Things are not alwaysfalse or valid. Binary enslavement. It is not always "my way or the highway", that is to say, perhaps one there is more that one can contribute to a certain goal or ideal than can be immediately ascertained. Is this false or true?

I have no idea what you're talking about. — Michael

And that is understood. Well and good. This is, after all, the only rational non-ill-intended platform of debate or intellectual opposition. Reasonable inquiry itself, even.

I suppose, to simplify, how would you best explain the reasoning behind your recent argument/reply/rebuttal or opposing position to someone who is either: unaware of the argument, that is to say, does not have the fortune to be in the posses ion of the knowledge you hold (yet is capable of so). Surely your questioner is of sound and rational mind and morality. So, if he is incorrect, and you assert the position you remain the opposite, how does one become equals on the same page of truth and rationale you see?

I am arguing that the supertask is metaphysically impossible. — Michael

As you understand it, of course. And, make no mistake, I would be among the first to swear your understanding and take of things is valid, but also the first to defend the idea that things can change.

Surely some things must remain consistent, for is this not the basis of sanity, after all?

But there still remains some outlier arguments you believe to be irrelevant, or in your words "implied". This is all the opposing party wishes to acknowledge, I do believe.

In simple terms, perhaps, a remote possibility exists, the individual who declared such a statement, has different views and relevant perceptions toward said statement than you hold. Nothing more. Simply the remote possibility. Not that one is "wrong" but simply there is more to the intended truth than one currently perceives. Surely such a thing is possible, no?

The laws of noncontradiction and excluded middle are implied. — Michael

Clearly not by you. Could've easily included it. So why didn't you?

Surely you must believe your interlocutor has a point in his statement other than that of a any random dreg of society: "you're wrong".

He has a point, a truth and testimony, an entire world he wishes you to experience

Can you explain better please? — I like sushi

Basically what makes the anti-natalist so sure? What specifically do they hold their ground on?

Is it, say as if one were a prisoner, who is given the option to father a child, knowing said child will also in turn become a prisoner and experience more suffering then pleasure? And is this the root of all AN argument: if more pleasure cannot be "guaranteed" prior to the creation of life, such action, which would apparently likely result in more negative than positive is to be avoided.

Is this not the AN dogma or decree? I apologize, for it is me who is now asking for you for information or clarity!