That out of the way, my aim is to find out how to make sense of these frank contradictions. Is there some context in which we could reconcile these opposing recommendations? — TheMadFool

This is what the study of folk psychology addresses:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/

We are confused. — TheMadFool

Nah. We study linguistics and the meaning and role of idioms.

What are some examples of that?
Would encouraging others not to drink and drive (so that they don't run you over) be an example of your approach to morality?

How is your approach to morality similar or different to the one sketched out here in this Early Buddhist text?

You needn't apologize to me.

Some resources on the first noble truth:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/index.html

and

Life Isn't Just Suffering
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html

If I'm understanding you and correctly, you both come from the perspective that morality has to do with the way we treat others and is motivated by care for others.

I'm saying there are other approaches to morality where care for others plays a minor part, if any at all, yet the person who adheres to such morality behaves similarly as the one who is motivated by care for others. Two examples of such systems of morality are Stoicism and Early Buddhism.

So - now what? Is that it? — Wayfarer

Is the fact that we can conceive of the insufficiency of life as it is usually lived evidence that there is "more to life"?

How come we can be dissatisfied like that?

Philosophy is supposed to be love of wisdom.
Wisdom should have something vitally to do with how one goes about one's daily life, 24/7.
— baker

That's an agreeable statement. Don't you think, however, that deciphering a larger meaning can aid the living of one's life? — Aryamoy Mitra

Reflection/self-examination/philosophy are not necessarily mutually exclusive with "living life".

Although I can think of some ways of attempting to rationalize one's existence that are dead-ends, leave one paralyzed. So that if one thinks in terms of those ways of attempting to rationalize one's existence one indeed ends up in a situation of a complete logical disjunction: one either "lives life", or one attempts to justify it, but one cannot have both. This deadlock situation is one that can occur, for example, if one tries to rationalize one's existence within the scope of (mono)theism when one doesn't have an already existing commitment to a particular (mono)theism.
This deadlock situation that "spiritual seekers" can often find themselves in.

A lot more to say here, but the ball's in your court now.

That's an assertion that is not even close to being necessarily true. Actually, it might be quite the opposite, that someone is pessimistic because they are poor, and I wouldn't blame them! — schopenhauer1

And how is their pessimism (philosophical or plain) helping them in that poverty?

But I want you to understand that there is a distinction between "pessimism' and "Pessimism". Regular pessimism is simply an outlook or a personality tendency. Philosophical pessimism generally has a larger picture understanding how suffering is related to the world. It's the difference between someone being stoical and a Stoic.

Exactly, which just goes to show that philosophical pessimism is viable for the elites, but not for others, which I've been telling you all along.

Schopy would never invite you over for afternoon tea.

Er, so? — Bartricks

So you start a thread to show that antinatalism is compatible with something that you consider to be, well, a figment of imagination.

If you'd be writing the script of a soap opera, that could be a worthwhile endeavor, but otherwise ...

Most philosophical assertions are fallible in one form or another, and they are no exception; they've been contended on innumerable accounts. Posturing and appeals are quintessential of every academic. — Aryamoy Mitra

So an academic is, essentially, a failed politician?

My take is that the modern world has lost all sense of the dimension against which the sense of a 'higher intelligence' can be calibrated because the metaphors by which it is presented are no longer intelligible to us. /.../ — Wayfarer

Where do you get such optimism? Because even though your assessment of the human situation is rather dark, it rests on the assumption that humans are able to care about other than just self-interest and survival, and that such care isn't necessarily detrimental to them -- and that assumption strikes me as distinctly optimistic.

See above, liars. There is no less hesitancy for a soldier of fortune to kill an unarmed person he has been indoctrinated to perceive as a threat under the guise of "God's will" than there is under the guise of "national interest", both have been set in such a way they interconnect with the only intrinsic and universal plea men of all walks of life are capable to understand. that being self-interest and survival. — Outlander

Liars, or just pursuing their self-interest and survival? All is fair in love and war, right?

I'm inclined to think that God belief was developed not for the sake of explaining human origins and natural phenomena, but primarily for a social group to justify whatever effort was needed to ensure their survival and, ideally, supremacy over others.

But as more and more social groups developed or resorted to this strategy, it's become ineffective, hence "the death of God".

I never made any indication as to romantic or true love being “perfect” and free from wrongs/ failures. There are always blemishes. We are all imperfect. Perfection is untenable. But you can have a deep love despite these things that’s what makes it worthwhile for example if we all wait for this unblemished perfection I’m afraid we will be waiting forever — Benj96

Then the sort of idealistic self-sacrificing love that you speak of in the OP is unavailable to humans.

In Turkish culture they have a standard expression one can say if one is asked "Where are you going?" but one is angry or doesn't like the asker, so one says: "To hell!" ("Cehennem!")
I've also seen that some people add "Do you want to come along?"

↪baker At any point in a 3 or more data-point history (curve) of observations. — 180 Proof

How far apart are the points, and how do you determine what a relevant interval is?

According to Lewis, Jesus could only have been evil, insane, or God. Let's see how this works out. — Gregory

Lewis' trilemma is a variation of Credo quia absurdum.

C.S. Lewis was a boring writer and knew nothing of philosophy. He knew nothing about philosophy. He has nothing to offer anyone and should have known better — Gregory

Then maybe you should return the disfavor ...

I followed your link and here's the deal - you define morality as "how adaptive they are for prosocially coexisting" but is this, your, definition of morality itself, and I quote, "...adaptive for prosocially coexisting..."? — TheMadFool

He's welcome to demonstrate that "how adaptive they are for prosocially coexisting" doesn't amount to "going with the crowd" or "as the wind blows".

For example, ideas in favor of slavery were very adaptive for prosocially coexisting when living in a society where there was slavery. Were they therefore, morally good?

- - -

, how do you determine the relevant point at which you measure "how adaptive for prosocially coexisting" something is?

We can easily point to a time and place where, for example, ideas in favor of slavery were very adaptive for prosocially coexisting, and another time and place where they were not.

(We can also point to a time and place where ideas contrary to slavery were not adaptive for prosocially coexisting, even though they were elevated to the level of law.)

toicism provides that we should act in certain ways towards each other and the rest of the world. It holds that we should act reasonably and virtuously, but it doesn't provide that we should do so towards others because they have certain "natural rights." We should do so because that is the proper way for us to live. For example, we shouldn't covet or steal what belongs to others because they have a "right" to their property, natural or otherwise, but because for a Stoic such things are indifferent and we disturb ourselves needlessly in pursuing or acquiring them which prevents us from having the tranquility and wisdom to live a life of virtue. — Ciceronianus the White

So let's contrast this with a couple of statements from another thread:

Surely you’d grant that morality derives from respect for others, not for oneself... — Banno

I think, to use these terms, morality derives respect (care) for oneself by one habitualizing (non-reciprocal) respect (care) for others. — 180 Proof

, what say you?

And just as there had already been a slow accumulation of knowledge about reality haphazardly following a similar process by the time people like Francis Bacon start advocating that that methodology be recognized and practiced intentionally instead of relying on the mess of baseless authoritarianism that passed for education in their time, so too I'm not contesting that something like this has already been happening over the history of civilization, and that through it we've slowly made some moral progress, but I'm advocating like Bacon et al that we recognize that process and practice it intentionally, instead of the mess of baseless authoritarianism that passes for governance today. — Pfhorrest

Who is "we"?

but I'm advocating like Bacon et al that we recognize that process and practice it intentionally, instead of the mess of baseless authoritarianism that passes for governance today.

For a person who is low in the hierarchy chain, nothing changes, whether those at the top are a religious elite, or a scientific elite.

Virtue ethics, then. It's about growing, becoming better. — Banno

Let's not sound like a cheap self-help book ...

All the things you have described can certainly occur in the context of “romantic love” then again they tend not to in such a large amount together and even alone each only occurs on occasion they aren’t necessarily the most common possibilities.

Which leads me to just see this as more of a personal dislike/ bias against the concept of “romantic” love. Which is fine. But cherry picking isn’t the most objective argument one could offer — Benj96

Those things are a potential blemish on the face of "romantic love". A face, if it indeed should be so wonderful as you say, should be completely free of blemishes. One blemish is one too many.

Suffering the negative side effects of an antiviral vaccine, for example, is quite another matter. One probably didn't vaccinate oneself out of some romantic, idealistic notions about life, but approached the matter in a fairly rational, cool, pragmatic manner, weighing the costs and benefits. Distinctly different from the way one approaches "romantic love."



Again: Are you familiar with the reception history of the Minnesang?
It's an instructive example of how notions of romantic love were once understood criticially despite being indulged in, and how that criticial distance became lost over time.

Define "suffering".
— baker

A phenomenal experience with negative world-to-mind fit. — Pfhorrest

I don't understand what this means.
What is a "negative world-to-mind fit"?

FWIW Baker misrepresents that I don't care whether my methodology "actually has the potential for ever being applied by humans". It's an aspirational methodology, an ideal to strive toward, and doing anything closer to it is still better than doing things farther from it (IMO, of course), even if it does turn out that we're so irreparably flawed that we'll never do it perfectly. We definitely can apply my methodology at least sometimes, at least to some degree, and that's fine enough for me. — Pfhorrest

The problem with idealistic ideologies like yours is that they are an all-or-nothing, now-or-never kind of deal. Anything that is less than the perfect application of an idealistic ideology is still a complete failure.

You and your comrades definitely can apply your methodology at least sometimes, at least to some degree, and as long as that is viewed by some people as wrong/aberrant/defective/pathological, and those people are in positions of enough power, then those applying your methodology will simply be deemed criminals, losers, or at least defective in some way -- and you, because of your commitment to equality, will have to value their judgment. If you don't, you yourself have failed to apply your methodology.

I'm not sure just what Natural Law is, myself. — Ciceronianus the White

Some passages from Wiki on natural law:

Natural law[1] (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a system of law based on a close observation of human nature, and based on values intrinsic to human nature that can be deduced and applied independent of positive law (the enacted laws of a state or society).[2] According to natural law theory, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason."[3] Natural law theory can also refer to "theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality."[4]

/.../

Stoic natural law
The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is usually attributed to the Stoics. The rise of natural law as a universal system coincided with the rise of large empires and kingdoms in the Greek world.[20][full citation needed] Whereas the "higher" law that Aristotle suggested one could appeal to was emphatically natural, in contradistinction to being the result of divine positive legislation, the Stoic natural law was indifferent to either the natural or divine source of the law: the Stoics asserted the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe (a divine or eternal law), and the means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this order was the natural law, which inspired actions that accorded with virtue.[7]

/.../

Natural law first appeared among the stoics who believed that God is everywhere and in everyone (see classical pantheism). According to this belief, within humans there is a "divine spark" which helps them to live in accordance with nature. The stoics felt that there was a way in which the universe had been designed, and that natural law helped us to harmonise with this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

If it exists, however, I think laws adopted by human governments are not the same as Natural Law. They exist apart from it, and regardless of it.

How do you think a Stoic would reply to this?

/.../ What the law is is not what we think it should be, or we think Nature or God requires it to be. If we think a law is bad, we think it should be changed or revoked, not that it doesn't exist.

So the issue at hand seems to be the legitimacy/authority of the laws adopted by people?

I see your point. Perhaps it is for the indulgence of seeing oneself as somehow better/ inflating the ego but what bothers me is that if this type of love doesn’t exist, and the mind can only work in a “transactional” sense... and can be reduced to simple interactions of chemical “give and take” then we must dispose of any form or notion of consciousness that isn’t based firmly on materialistic mechanical scientific objectivism. — Benj96

This is quite a leap. It's not clear how the above follows.

Such a reduction as you mention above can simply be avoided by conceptualizing "romantic love" in a less utopian, less idealistic way.

Are you familiar with the reception history of the Minnesang?

The mystery as it were is sapped out of the human psyche and replaced with very cold hard objective grounds for the existence of a subject.

You know what else is very cold? Having abortions, damaging one's health with hormonal contraceptives, having children one does not want or cannot afford, going bankrupt, contracting dangerous diseases, missing out on opportunities to earn a living -- things that one can expect to accompany "romantic love".

That’s why I believe this romanticised “delusion” may exist. Also in order to use the term “delusion” I would imagine you would have to have some superior knowledge of what the true “reality” is from which we all deviate when we are “deluded”. Please elaborate on such a reality as I’m sure the world would find this a very revolutionary discovery

Oh.
Of course such a delusion exists. In their sober moments, a person sees and admits that they've been behaving foolishly when they indulged in "being in love".

I understand why people believe this is naive or stupid/ daft. That someone is deliberately letting themselves be a pushover. But on the contrary I think it’s one of the strongest character traits: to get out of the grip of transactional thinking. To not reference every act either directly or indirectly to how the self benefits. — Benj96

People who indulge in romantic delusion are still engaging in it for the benefit they assume it has or will have for themselves.

The whole point of romantic delusions of the kind you describe is to derive pleasure from thinking of oneself as having "overcome transactional thinking", "being someone who is able to love unconditionally", and such. Such seemingly self-sacrificing romantic delusions are a massive ego boost.

That is unfounded and a cliche. You can be poor and pessimistic. You can be digging in a field and think in your mind the whole time "I hate this shit.. Why is life like this?" — schopenhauer1

Duh. Of course one can be poor and pessimistic. Many people are. But in that case, it's that pessmism that is keeping (and possibly, making) one poor.

I just checked the Stanford one. — javi2541997

Wiki has actually been a pretty good source for quite some time now, no need to eschew it anymore (as there was in the olden days).

Much of what I do involves showing children how to look after each other so that they look after themselves. — Banno

How do you do that?
Can you give some examples?

- - -

I think, to use these terms, morality derives respect (care) for oneself by one habitualizing (non-reciprocal) respect (care) for others. — 180 Proof

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly ... but what you're saying seems to describe a person whose self-respect depends on how they treat others. Is this correct?

Surely you’d grant that morality derives from respect for others, not for oneself... — Banno

Surely you mean that morality derives from respect for _specific_ others, and not for just anyone.
Those specific others being usually one's parents, teachers, other people of importance in one's life.

Do you actually think that moral issues can be adequately addressed without reference to the person's intention?
— baker

Queer, that you could garner this from my post. — Banno

It's a point on which I'd like to see where you stand, because it's not clear where you stand on the issue of intention.

The whole point of inventing stories that illustrate moral dilemmas is to use them as a cue for analyzing problems of morality, or to get a person to explicate their own moral reasoning (in the way they justify a particular course of action).

Two useful references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/

Unnecessary and unfounded ad hom. Are you a trust fund baby for writing a meaningless quip on a philosophy forum? — schopenhauer1

*sigh*
Hold your Rocinante!

I myself realized, unfortunately rather late in my life and much to my regret, that the pessimism I used to be so fond of is something I cannot actually afford. And by "afford" I mean literally, in terms of energy and money that I have. I sometimes still look back on those days with a woeful happiness. Sometimes, I actually envy the pessimists and the antinatalists and the cynics and such. They can still indulge in something that has become unavailable to me.

It is the surrender of all of yourself - your health, your safety, your vulnerabilities, ego etc anything you could possibly offer for the well-being and prosperity of another. — Benj96

Provided they do the same for you, first.

Besudes, what you're describing is known by the name "obsession".

Besides, it would presumably ruin your day, were you to find something positive in the world. — Banno

Living off a cozy trust fund has it upsides, such as one being able to afford decadent pessimist views. Too bad it doesn't work the other way around: indulging in misery doesn't make one rich.

Most theists believe that God created everything. But if antinatalism is true, then God did not create us - or at least, we seem to have very powerful reason to believe that God did not create us. — Bartricks

That would hold under the condition that humans created God.

I'm wielding Galileo's telescope like a club - and I'm asking:

'What the hell is wrong with you?' — counterpunch

It's tough to be enlightened, innit?

And Galileo, the Recanter, as a role model? Sheesh.

The first noble truth, 'life is suffering' is outdated. — TaySan

That's not the first noble truth ...
The Buddha didn't say that life is just suffering and nothing else.

But the real question for assessing moral reasoning is _why_ we should do something and not do some other thing.
— baker

Well, no. The real question is "What should I do, now, in this situation?". Assessing moral reasoning - deontology - is in danger of becoming a post-hoc exercise in self-justification.

Rules don't make actions good or bad; it is easy to find examples of evil committed by following the rules. Consequences do not make actions good or bad; it is easy to justify acts of evil on the basis of their consequences.

Hence my preference for virtue ethics. Deontology and consequentialism serve virtue. — Banno

Different theories of morality saliently differ precisely on this one point: the issue of the motivation/justification for acting morally.

Each such theory prefers or takes for granted a particular line of motivation/justification:
"You should do X because God commanded it, and you must obey God."
"You should do X because it's in your own best interest."
"You should do X in order to show you're a good person."
"You should do X because X is virtuous and virtuous acts are their own reward."
"You should do X because it's the norm of the culture you're part of."

And so on.

Assessing moral reasoning - deontology - is in danger of becoming a post-hoc exercise in self-justification.

The fact that some people sometimes lie about their intentions, motivations, justifications for acting one way or another does not detract us from operating under the assumption that people actually have intentions, motivations, justifications for acting the way they do.

Do you actually think that moral issues can be adequately addressed without reference to the person's intention?

*sigh*

Don't you think it would be good to be able to trust folk? — Banno

And whose failing is that lack of trust?
The person who lacks trust, or the person who hasn't earned others' trust?