Dylan deserved the Nobel for his poetry. — Bitter Crank

What a bunch of bullshit. He's a songwriter, not a poet. I like some of his stuff, but people worship him. And yes, his voice is crap.

On the other hand, "I'm not saying you treated me unkind. You could have done better, but I don't mind. You just sort of wasted my precious time. Don't think twice, it's alright." Greatest breakup song ever. Always makes me wish I had someone to break up with.

Although I am against women singing Don't Think Twice - they generally don't get enough bitterness in it - this is my favorite version, more for the violin solo than the singing. It gets the bitterness just right.

So in the end when you boil down that person that you are to its bare minimum you realize that you are a combination of your parents, your experiences and your tastes that may also rely on your experiences.... — Filipe

I learned this when my children were born. I've talked about it with other parents too, and most of them agree. Babies being born are all there. They are the people they will be from the first second. It doesn't matter why they are that way - genetics, chance, in utero experience. They are real people and they will continue to develop as they grow. They are not empty sacks to be filled with experience.

Another thing this implies is that 'to know the meaning of the word 'function'', (to define it?) is not the same as being able to use the word meaningfully (although the latter is how one goes about learning the former, as you said). — StreetlightX

This is sort of the opposite of what I just said in my response to Metaphysician Undercover right above this response. As I indicated in that response, I'm not comfortable that I understand the intricacies of language well enough to be sure.

But if you think of "meaning" in this way, as something which is attributed to words, you would have to accept that we can use words without knowing the meaning of the words. How would we characterize this type of use then? The child gets some sort of message across to the parents, but we cannot call it "meaning", because the child doesn't know the meaning. What is the child doing? — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't really thought about the philosophy or science of language since my psych classes back in the .... well, a long while ago, so I'm uncomfortable making definite statements. But that never stopped me before. Doesn't knowing the meaning of a word really mean knowing how to use it appropriately? The little girl used it appropriately. Because her knowledge is incomplete, there's a good chance she'll use it inappropriately in the future. Then she'll learn more about what it means.

The OP on the other thread specifically addresses why things cannot have existed 'forever' in time. That leads to a model where something(s) have permanent existence outside of time. — Devans99

I didn't buy that explanation either.

I believe that causality always forms a pyramid shape in time, which is suggestive of a start of time. — Devans99

As I indicated previously, it's not clear to me that everything has to be caused.

Also, as Leibniz, Aquinas and others have said, infinite regresses are impossible - they must terminate in something concrete, permanent and uncaused - in my view that is only possible if the terminator to the regress is outside of time. — Devans99

If my memory is correct, both Leibniz and Aquinas understood the universe as one where God exists and sets definitive rules for how things work. I'll buy that - if God as he is usually portrayed exists, then everything you say about cause is probably true. If not, all bets are off and we have to figure it out for ourselves.

Thing is, we do not really know. We hardly know much at all about how such things might work and its certainly could be discovered one way or another. The universe doesnt care about our models for how it works.
The fact that we do not know doesnt mean people can just make something up in place of that knowledge. (Not that you did that). — DingoJones

Sure. I think you understand what I was trying to do - It's not that I know, it's that it doesn't seem obvious to me that everything that exists has to start existing. I'm not sure that's something that's knowable. Then again, I'm not sure it's not knowable either.

What I mean is that everything in time seems to need a temporal start. Could a matter particle exist in time if it never started existing? — Devans99

I didn't get involved in that previous thread. I started paying attention when it was already far along and I didn't think I could catch up. I did look through it a bit.

And, I guess, no. I don't necessarily see why everything that exists has to start sometime. Everything could always have just been here. When I think about it, that seems like the most plausible idea. Not that I have any specific evidence for it. It just kind of feels right.

I believe that everything in spacetime at a micro level can trace its cause back to the Big Bang — Devans99

I don't really think I know what this means, but I have a feeling that I disagree with it. You say "can trace it's cause back" what do you mean exactly? Sure, if the big bang hadn't happened, the television here in my living room never would have come into existence. Is that all causation means - If Event B will not happen unless Event A happens first, then A causes B. No, I don't think that's right.

Can we not treat 'reason' and 'cause' as synonyms when it comes to cosmological arguments? — Devans99

I'm not sure. I'll have to think about whether or not I think they're the same thing.... Earlier, you discussed the conservation laws as preventing getting something out of nothing. That strikes me as a reason, not a cause. Still, cause and reason are clearly mixed up together somehow. Maybe it doesn't matter, since I've called the existence of both into question.

To have no cause is to have nothing logically/temporally preceding which seems only possible if the thing being considered is outside of time... which I admit is a challenging concept... but I cannot see how anything could exist without a minimum of one 'brute fact' and it seems they have to be timeless. — Devans99

I'm not sure what you mean. The universe is full of "brute facts." It sure seems like things should have causes. It's kind of a common sense kind of thing. But, then again, much of the last 100 years of science has been about finding out how common sense doesn't work.

I imagine it's actually both ways at once — fdrake

Yes. I wasn't putting out my idea as a disagreement, just an addition.

everything must have a reason. — Devans99

I don't think this is true. Actually, I don't think anything has a reason. All the things we know are just descriptions of how things behave, which can then be generalized to understand how typical types of things usually or often behave.

I am ambivalent about whether or not all things or some things have causes. I want to say "no," but then I think of simple situations like pushing on an object and seeing it start to move. On the other side, there are lots of situations where very minor differences in initial conditions result in vastly different outcomes.

Anyway, just wanted to write something up about the story and draw out a couple of possibly interesting implications. — StreetlightX

As I read your post and then all the follow ups, I kept thinking about it from the other direction - the process you're describing is how the little girl learns the meaning of "function."

Mattering is like meaning
— T Clark
yes they are similar. It also extends to the concept of there being a reason for our existence. The existence of the universe irrespective of human existence demonstrates our irrelevance.

We matter to me
— T Clark
is fair to say and correct. Beyond ourselves however, looking from the outside in, in the broader scheme of all the universe, we do not have claim to any significance. Therefore the concept of our importance internally is negated by the broader concept of our insignificance. — SimonSays

Again - matter, meaning, reason, significance, importance, insignificance, irrelevance, importance - all these are human terms for human situations. Of course they don't apply situations where no human or other sentient being is involved.

The case accommodating an existence of God is not accounted for here. — SimonSays

Yes. I could see that was your intention. That's why I kept it separate.

the human perspective has actually been used to describe humans. It is saying that humans and all that they value, is in fact, insignificant or irrelevant with respect to the broader universe of which we are a part. The prior and continued existence of the universe irrespective of our existence is evidence to this. As mentioned earlier, our value we ascribe is negated by the overall case of our irrelevance. — SimonSays

Earth, our son, our solar system, the Milky Way, other galaxies, the universe - all are just as insignificant as we are. They don't matter unless we are around to say they do. Some would say they don't exist unless we are here. "Existence" is another term applied by humans to human situations. But that's another story.

Okay, but you take some back with you, or bring a doctor to sterilize. With their consent after you've convince them, naturally. No reason to not start things unethically. — Marchesk

I wasn't really quibbling with your thought experiment. It's just that, when I read it, it struck me that the whole anti-natalist argument is a product of our modern technological world.

Do you convince them to not have kids knowing what's in store for the human race? — Marchesk

Keeping in mind, of course, that effective, reasonably priced, and widely available contraception - a prerequisite for anti-natalism - wasn't available until about 60 years ago.

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, starting from the idea that knowledge is a justified belief (JtB). Hence, epistemology is a collection of standard justification methods, each of which generates an epistemic domain:

Mathematics is justified by proving it axiomatically (Bourbaki).
Science is justified by testing it experimentally (Popper).
History is justified by corroborating what has been witnessed. — alcontali

Well, justified true belief (JtB) is a bunch of gobbledegook cooked up by philosophers with too much time on their hands. I'm not the only one who believes that. Which doesn't change the fact justification is a central part of knowledge. It's just more complicated than you've presented it. First off, most of the things we know don't fall into the categories of math, science, or history, even if we exclude things like knowing how to ride a bike or speak German. There was knowledge before there was math, science, or history.

Here's how I've come to think about it after 30 years as an environmental engineer:

• First - Put together what you know about the subject at hand and how you know it.
• Second - set up what we call a Site Conceptual Model (SCM). Not really a theory. It's more comprehensive than that. It's the sum total of everything we know about something, how the different parts fit together, and an understanding of the uncertainty about that knowledge. An SCM can apply to a single property where we're trying to clean up contamination or the whole universe, depending on the scope of our interest.
• Third - Find the places where the SCM is inadequate - do your best to figure out where there are gaps in your knowledge or where there are significant uncertainties.
• Fourth - collect more information. Reformulate the SCM. Reevaluate its adequacy for the task at hand. Repeat as necessary.
• Fifth - use the SCM to plan how to achieve your goals.
• Sixth - based on the results of your attempts to meet your goals, repeat the third and forth steps if necessary.

Justification comes in the steps where we evaluate the SCM. We need to answer these questions:

• Does the information we have provide adequate support?
• Can we identify and document the source of that information?
• What are the uncertainties in our knowledge?
• What are the consequences of us being wrong?

I think that last question is the most important one in an evaluation of knowledge, one that doesn't get discussed often. The important question is not "what is truth." It's "what do I do now."

I can keep going, but I won't. You get the picture. Antinatalism prevents suffering for all, and forcing people into the world. No ONE loses out by not being born, but EVERYONE loses in some way by being born. My inaction to create someone hurts, literally NO ONE. Someone else's action to birth someone, always creates some harm, and if we believe that being deprived is a negative state, there is constant suffering there too. — schopenhauer1

Yes, and for those of us who remember what a broken record is, I will play my own - Your ideas are fine and you are welcome to them. I disagree with them. I plan to live my life based on how I see things rather than on how you do. As long as you don't plan on restricting my ability to do that, everything is ok.

On the other hand, if you want me to take your ideas seriously and deal with them respectfully, you should consider doing the same for me. A good start would be to acknowledge that your view is only held by a small minority of people and that there are other legitimate ways of seeing things.

Therefore we can say that universe exists whether humans exist or not. Another way to say this is :

It doesn’t matter if we exist or not, the universe will still exist.

It doesn’t matter if we exist or not.

We don’t matter. — SimonSays

Well thought through and well expressed. And correct, as far as it goes. Mattering is like meaning, it's a human concept that applies to human situations. We matter to me. Even the universe only matters to us and other beings for whom things matter. The universe doesn't matter to the universe.

Of course, if there is a God who transcends the universe, then everything matters.

Lots of people have their children taken off them after they are born because they are unfit parents. There is not just one scenario where people intervene in reproduction. — Andrew4Handel

I wasn't talking about specific situations that apply to a relatively small number of children, and, if I understand correctly, that's not what you are talking about either. You are talking about a broad consideration of the population at large. Unless I missed it, you have still not stated you would not stop people from having children if you had the power.

But, that doesn't give him the right to say that the unborn fetus should not live! — Wallows

Of course he has the right to say that. He just doesn't have the right to inflict his judgment on the rest of us.

The unborn aren't suffering. Those born are either suffering, will suffer, or have the potential to suffer. Every human struggles, suffers, ages and dies. You can call this psychological projection, but as a human I have some stake on the claim of what it's like to be one. — Inyenzi

I have no problem with this statement of the issue, but anti-natalists, at least as represented here on the forum, take it a lot further. They draw harsh conclusions based on that evaluation, propose a draconian solution, and, some of them at least, want to inflict that solution on others who disagree with them.

But, your position is inherently based on the subjective experience of suffering or strife, which you try to rationalize into an objective brute fact about existence. Is this at least correct? — Wallows

I don't think this whole "you're an anti-natalist because you're depressed" argument is a legitimate one. Whatever the psychological basis of @schopenhauer1's beliefs is, he is right to expect us to argue the merits of his ideas.

It seems clear to me that, to a large extent, all of us develop our understanding of how the world works based on our temperament and positive and negative experiences in the world. I try hard to see those influences in my own thoughts and take them into account when trying to understand the beliefs of others.

Your options are... be beholden to the forces of this behemoth technological economic giant and get by with the six or so "goods" to overlook the cirucular productive forces that we are forced into, or do the following- kill yourself, become a part of the underclass (homeless), become some sort of monk/hermit. — schopenhauer1

You and I, and many others, have gone back and forth on this many times. Many of us, most of us, don't see things this way. And yet you are unwilling to accept our experience of the world. We like it here. It's worth it. That's the primary reason it's hard to take your position seriously.

Despite his bitter protestations, I'm bringing in Bitter Crank because I think he might shed some light on how we are circular forces of production.. He will shrink away from total pessimism on this.. but I think he has some wise insights on the whole shebang. — schopenhauer1

This is a great example of the disrespect you show other people. As for @Bitter Crank, notwithstanding his views on the economic system, he maintains a humane and balanced understanding of the benefits and costs of living. You ignore that because it doesn't support your position.

There is absolutely no reason to have children

We all have to confront our own death.

In my opinion creating children is malicious. It is like if you were dying but started a fire to kill lot of other people rather than confront your own death and see what happens. Instead you left trails of continuing destruction (the random propagation of your genes) as an act of defiance.

We know for a fact we, you and all your children , grandchildren, and great grand children are going to die. For what conceivable reason?

There is no real immortality in leaving behind partial replicas of your genes to eventual go extinct.

In a sense I feel cowardly for not dying and seeing what life was about.
But the inevitability of death means you just have to sit and wait for the inevitable and creating children is not a pastime that would ameliorate this. — Andrew4Handel

Well, you didn't answer my question, but then again, really, you did. The answer is "yes," if you were in power, you would prevent other people from having children. And that is the difference between an idea that is misguided and one that is evil.

Antinatalism in my opinion is also an enlightened view on the true nature and connotations of creating life. — Andrew4Handel

If you were king of the forest, would you put restrictions on when and if other people could choose to have children? If yes, what restrictions?

There are lots of things that should or could deter a parent from having a child. Are you seriously claiming anyone anywhere in any circumstances is somehow entitled to have a child. — Andrew4Handel

You are misstating my position. What I wrote was specifically in relation to your claim that an unborn child can't consent to being born. I said that her prospective parents provide that consent, just as they will after the child is born and until she is old enough to decide things for herself.

Now, as to whether or not "anyone anywhere in any circumstances" is entitled to have a child - I don't know anything about entitlement, but in the United States at least, consenting, competent adult men and women wanting to have children are able to.

A bunch of really crappy fantasy and military science fiction available on Amazon Kindle Unlimited. Why do the fantasies always seem to involve harems of elves and vampires?

Here we need to ask ourselves how did philosophy arise? Was it that some ancient folks starting taking words out of context? Or was it because there is a loose fit between language and the world, leading to all sorts of interesting puzzles? If it's the latter, then the problem is ordinary language, not philosophy. — Marchesk

Philosophy was once all there was. It was science, politics, morality, psychology, religion, and all the other things where intellectual investigation might help clarify what the heck is going on. Although it seems often to be unrecognized, I think the only important question is "what do I do now?"

It seems like philosophy has been denatured. The life has been taken out of it. Some of that certainly is because important functions have been broken off and addressed elsewhere, e.g. science. I think there are still a lot of valuable contributions philosophy can make. For me, it all comes down to two things 1) Epistemology - not so much what we know, but how do we know what we know. 2) Recognition that all the things we think we know and see are human constructions. Stories. That seems to be more the realm of eastern rather than western philosophy. Whenever I read western philosophy, or the weak tea simulations that often show up here on the forum, I just see the unruly tangle of words you are discussing.

I come here to figure out these things for myself. There are people here who see some things more clearly than I do. The conversations I have here have been really helpful.

I think that the fact that we cannot consent to be brought into existence creates a real and serious problem. — Andrew4Handel

You say you're not arguing anti-natalism, but it seems like you are. Or maybe I've misunderstood what you're trying to say.

As for your point about consenting to be born - Until they reach an age where they can make decisions for themselves, a child's consent is vested in it's parents, which is as it should be. With babies, the mother and father decide what it eats, where it lives, who it knows, what it does. That's the way it works. How could it be otherwise. I don't see any reason why the parents don't have the right to make the decision that a child will be born.

I find it hard to take the anti-natalist position seriously, at least as it has usually been presented on the forum. It's not fair! Stomps feet. No one gave me a choice about being born!!! Stomps feet again. As my football couch used to say - Suck it up.

I disagree. I think humour can be gentle.
Submissive or cooperative ?
I am trying to think of examples of approaches to humour which are cooperative. Morreall suggests this belongs more in the female sphere. Hmmm...is this a natural division ? — Amity

You're right, humor can be gentle. I'm trying to get to something I didn't express well. Maybe it's that humor has to be subversive. It has to undermine something - an expectation, a requirement, status, convention.

Analyzing or explaining humor doesn't work. It just sounds lame. It is lame. So, I decided to try an impressionistic approach.

• Humor is play. Play is aggressive and competitive. Play is also gentle and submissive, but humor is not.
• Humor is always irreverent. If something is not, it’s not humor. It is a humor product the way Velveeta is a cheese product.
• In Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio says “look for me tomorrow and you will find me a grave man.” Is that humor? Is it funny?
• No, humor cannot be used by business to promote “worker satisfaction.”
• Humor is always spontaneous.
• The funniest thing in the history of the universe is the scene from Buster Keaton’s “Navigator” where the hero, played by Keaton, gets a rope attached to a small cannon tangled up with his foot and runs around the ship trying to get away before it goes off.
• The funniest joke in the history of the world goes like this – I went to the doctor. She told me I was fat. I told her I wanted a second opinion, so she told me I was ugly too. I tell that joke every time I go to the doctor and I laugh every time. I tell it to my doctor too. I’ve been losing weight and I’m worried I won’t be able to use it anymore.
• Getting old is funny. It gets funnier the older you get. Death is funny.
• Everything serious is funny. Serious and funny are right next to each other. Everything else is further away.
• I love country music. One reason is that it is not afraid to be funny. Lyle Lovett – “I don’t love you any less, but I can’t love you anymore.” Laurie Lewis – “Just when I’ll believe in you, you’ll be leaving me.” Listen to “She Took it Like a Man” by Confederate Railroad.
• I told my closest friend, if she gets really sick and tells me she’s going to die, I’ll say “Fuck you. I’m dying before you do. There’s no fucking way you’re leaving me behind.” She laughed. If you really love someone, you’ll make a joke when you find out they're dying. Except not your children.
• Philosophy is incredibly funny. Silly. Ridiculous. One of the funniest things in the world. Absurd. But that’s ok. The problem is not that it’s funny, it’s if you don’t recognize it’s funny. Philosophy is play – play with words, play with ideas. If your philosophy is not playful, it’s bad philosophy.
• It’s hard to know which approach to philosophy is funniest, but it may be anti-natalism. Sorry, that’s gratuitous. All the rest are just as funny.
• I’m a bit drunk writing this. My wife is out of town and I’m sitting in a dark house drinking wine and writing down as many thoughts about humor as I can.
• We are funny creatures for two reasons 1) It’s built into us. I don’t know if it’s by coincidence or if it’s necessary based on what we are, how our minds work, and 2) Face it - We’re just fucking funny. Funny was invented because we needed some way to recognize ourselves.

So yea if you love your job and your kids love their job, giving a job to everyone seems like the solution. But when you look at all the people who hate their job and all the negative consequences that has, more jobs doesn't solve the underlying problem. — leo

And I say a good job with enough pay to live a good life is good enough. As the wise woman said, the ideal is the enemy of the good. Good enough is good enough.

I've grown strawberries in my garden--they weren't worth the trouble. Raspberries -- much easier, because they just take over and rule. The soil on my lot is either poor or way too shady. I know how to grow vegetables and corn, but one needs a large garden, decent soil, and little shade to grow a significant amount of food for a family. Plus, I'm getting a little old to undertake urban agriculture. — Bitter Crank

We moved into our house in 1979. When we got here, there was a small garden including a few unhealthy strawberry plants. My wife is a gardener. She completely reworked the garden and always kept those strawberries around out of sentimentality, even though they never produced more than a few berries for 40 years. Then, this year, we have gotten 10 pints of the best strawberries I ever tasted - red all the way through. I've never seen anything like it except in a farmers market in Paris.

What's my point? Hey, you brought up strawberries.

I think just those two measures would eventually improve the lives of many people. In the current system there are plenty of bullshit jobs and jobs that make the lives of others worse, which induce huge inefficiencies, so I don't think giving a job to everyone would improve things that much. Able-bodied people rather ought to be given the opportunity to work for themselves, to build their house, grow their food, take care of their health, that work would not be effort wasted. — leo

I have three children. Youngest 29. Oldest 37. All three went to college, although only one graduated. Two of them are now farmers and the third became a butcher, then moved on to bartender. All three are very good at what they do. They did it on their own initiative, so the opportunity is there for people who want to do it. Giving people land won't work. Most people don't want to build their own house or grow their own food. This is not a realistic alternative for the great majority of people.

Very Funny,. You guys kill me. You act as if you had a choice. Ha Ha Ha. For a fun little change, take a sec and think of the most profound thing you could do and imagine doing it. Why aren't you then? I am interested to know. Perhaps life just is. The least, most, best, only thing to have. Change it, i dare ya. — Franklin Crook

Arguing with @schopenhauer1 can seem like a pointless exercise. No matter how often you tell him you kinda like your life and don't feel like things are so bad, he refuses to accept that most people are glad to have been born. His inability to recognize that others don't see things the way he does makes it hard to take his arguments seriously.

Where is this link? I clicked on the schopenhaur1 and found a huge plethora of discussions.Please excuse i am a new member and may not be the best at navigating here. Otherwise i am intrigued to even think there is a realistic counter argument to my satement. — Franklin Crook

Looks like I made the link wrong, but it seems you are already involved in the discussion.

Yeah well its the best we got. Life is. — Franklin Crook

For a counter-argument to that, you should take a look at Schopenhuer1's thread I linked.

salvific — Bitter Crank

A good new word for my list. Thanks.

AHH, and here is the major conceit. This is EXACTLY what I can say about the decision to create a new child. — schopenhauer1

I accept and acknowledge that you feel differently about this than I, and many others, do. I agree that my ideas of what is best don't apply to you. So, what's the problem?

People are born everyday and they will one day die and cause grief to those they left behind. Life is full of suffering that they did not consent to. Leaders are full of greed and aggression and need more people for tax dollars and soldiers. There are diseases, parasites, germs, blood-sucking insects, and animals that bite and kill and eat each other. Even humans are usually selfish and indifferent to the suffering of others except in extreme cases such as an emergency or a natural disaster. Every second is a second closer to death and eventually everyone is killed by life (no immortals yet, as far as we know).

Is it even ethical to have children and bring them to the suffering of life in the world without them being able to consent to it? Why do human beings ignore that the world is full of pain and suffering and try to walk around happy, indifferent to the suffering and even creating more suffering sometimes? — empathy

The argument you are making is the justification for anti-natalism - the belief that people should not have children. It has been discussed on this forum many times. One of the main proponents of this way of thinking is @schopenhauer1. I suggest you take a look at some of his posts. Actually, you may find his current thread interesting.



Many of us do not agree with his, or, apparently, your, view of life.