If you are transferred from a worse prison to a better one, you're still in prison. — Bartricks

Indeed! However, look at it this way. You'll be relieved and that must mean something.

It's "sad" insofar as it leaves out many fascinating topics of conversation that Schopenhauer was fascinated by, such as his accounts of the world being a representations, his observations about psychology, physiology, art and much else. — Manuel

Schopenhauer himself would have probably took umbrage at piecemealing his systemic philosophy but ok. Also literally his ethics and aesthetics come out of his metaphysics which is based on Will and Platonic Ideas. No reason to swipe at me if you wanted to start a Schopenhauer thread though. If you want to contribute to the one I recently created where I ask about Will's connection to Representation, have at it.

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.

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.

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. — baker

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

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.

They can still indulge in something that has become unavailable to me. — baker

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?"

Actually, my very point that we are flooded with activities we'd rather not do if we had a choice, is part of the pessimism, so that is just proving the point if anything. But it is not a "truism" that one cannot connect one's very mundane activities with the "larger picture", pessimistic or not. That is up to the individual and how they process their practical efforts with larger ideas in general.

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.

But in that case, it's that pessmism that is keeping (and possibly, making) one poor. — baker

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! 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.

Indeed, getting out and doing stuff, especially with other folk, is an excellent antidepressant.

You do not have to have any view about life's purpose for that to be wicked.
— Bartricks

False. For one, one could justify such an act by noting that NOT bringing in those people also comes with risks. In other words, since you’re supposed to act as if people are innocent (even if they’re not), then you also recognize that not having a child can cause harm, and so both alternatives are risky, and a cost benefit analysis is needed. — khaled

No, on the supposition that people are innocent, then the standard arguments for antinatalism now apply (we do not need to rehearse them here, as this isn't really about them). If procreation creates new people, then it would be wrong. And if it transfers people from elsewhere, then our ignorance of what conditions 'elsewhere' are like means we are not entitled to assume they are better or worse than here, in which case it would be wrong to force the transfer. Furthermore, on the assumption that God exists we can safely assume that 'elsewhere' is considerably better than here, perfect indeed. For God would not have placed innocent people anywhere else (and so on the supposition that offspring are innocent and God exists, we would be transferring innocent people from God's company into our own....which is wrong).

Thus no matter what you do, it was just. That’s an inescapable conclusion. So the prisoners are never wrong in what they do. Although they may not be living up to God’s expectations of them, they’re never unjust. Despicable? Obnoxious? Maybe. But did they do anything wrong? No. — khaled

Well, you've reasoned exactly as I said you would. Yes, everything that happens here is just. But that doesn't imply that all is permitted. I am not going to just repeat what I said again. I explained why that simply did not follow at all. But whatever.

You’d be holding contradictory views. That antinatalism is true although a triple Omni God exists. — khaled

No I wouldn't, for reasons already explained. Antinatalism is not the view that all acts of procreation are wrong, but that they are wrong in standard circumstances. Thus, it is consistent with being an antinatalist to admit that some acts of procreation are morally permissible or even obligatory.

Yes it is. Generally people refer to “hard antinatalism” when they say “antinatalism”. Otherwise everyone is an antinatalist. Because everyone thinks that procreation is wrong sometimes. Which is the same as thinking it’s wrong generally but with a lot of exceptions. There is no hard line here. — khaled

No, 'antinatalism' is the view that procreation is wrong in standard circumstances; default wrong, etc (it's a family of views). That doesn't make 'everyone' an antinatalist. Christ! That's as thick as insisting that being able to speak French involves knowing every damn French word for everything, and then when having the stupidity of that view pointed out to you replying 'well, if you don't have to know every single word, then everyone can speak french because everyone knows some French words". Who is the most famous contemporary antinatalist? David Benatar. And what's his view? Is his view that all acts of procreation are wrong? (No). Try reading the actual literature and not wikipedia entries.

Er, so?

And what is your 'yes' an answer to?? — Bartricks

If god exists without mankind, then yes, god is compatible with antinatalism.

Have fun proving he would exist.

It is easy to prove God exists.

But your reasoning is bizarre. I explained why God's existence is compatible with antinatalism. Omnipotence does not essentially involve having created everything. That's my case for their compatibility: it has to do with what omnipotence involves.

But you have suggested, on no basis whatsoever, that whether God's existence is compatible with antinatalism has something to do with whether or not God would exist absent mankind. Why do you think that has anything to do with it?

It is easy to prove God exists. — Bartricks

I'm waiting for it.

Why do you think that has anything to do with it? — Bartricks

For the most simple reason. If god does exist and continues to look favorably on antinatalism, then the the two are compatible or god would be using his superpowers he would make the whole thing disappear.
If god continues to accept antinatalism until there are no more humans then he should continue to exist without us. If he does not continue then god never existed anyway and was just a figment of your imagination.

So all you have to do is prove that god would still be around after we are extinct.

If you cannot do that, then all I can think of to say is that the idea is a load of shit.

Again, just a series of non sequiturs. I have literally no idea why you think the compatibility of antinatalism and God should depend on whether God could exist absent us.
But God can quite obviously exist absent us anyway. I mean, why would one think otherwise?

I have literally no idea why you think the compatibility of antinatalism and God should depend on whether God could exist absent us. — Bartricks

I am still waiting.

Yes, everything that happens here is just. But that doesn't imply that all is permitted. — Bartricks

Which is dodging the question. What was being asked is not what’s permitted (whatever that means) or not but what’s wrong or right. You’ve shown that acting immorally is not what God expects of you. But so what? Doesn’t make it wrong. That’s my point. In your paradigm, nothing anyone ever did was wrong. Just some of it was closer to what God wanted and some was further. But that’s not the same things as being wrong ethically. You’ve completely dodged the critique.

If an act is just it’s not wrong. Even if it’s not what God would ideally hope you would do. “Hitler did not do anything unjust, he just refused to rehabilitate” is something that is true in your view.

then the standard arguments for antinatalism now apply — Bartricks

And they’re fallacious. But this is not the thread for that.

I am still waiting. — Sir2u

He made a thread about it but don’t bother. The “proof” was complete nonsense.

You want me to prove God? Well, I don't think you're up to understanding it. So, a little test first before I waste finger-taps giving it to you. Is this argument deductively valid:

1. All As are Bs
2. All Bs are Cs
3. Therefore all As are Cs
4. All As have a D
5. All As have an E
6. Therefore all As are Cs that have a D and an E
7. Some As exist
8. Therefore, some Cs that have a D and an E exist

Typing it out would have taken fewer finger taps than preceding with a paragraph to insult then basically typing it out anyways....

He made a thread about it but don’t bother. The “proof” was complete nonsense. — khaled

Dunning and Kruger. Your expertise?

And they’re fallacious. But this is not the thread for that — khaled

No they're not.

Which is dodging the question. What was being asked is not what’s permitted (whatever that means) or not but what’s wrong or right. You’ve shown that acting immorally is not what God expects of you. But so what? Doesn’t make it wrong. That’s my point. In your paradigm, nothing anyone ever did was wrong. Just some of it was closer to what God wanted and some was further. But that’s not the same things as being wrong ethically. You’ve completely dodged the critique. — khaled

Yeah, now I don't have the first idea what you're on about. I explained why even if everything that occurs here is just, that does not mean that everything is permitted. It is consistent with everything that happens here being just, that some acts are right and others wrong.

The fact that doing X would bring about a just state of affairs, does not entail that it is right to do X.

Thus, even if, no matter what we do, our actions will bring about just states of affairs, it does not follow that, no matter what we do, we do right (or wrong, or what is permissible).

But anyway, this is now above your intellectual paygrade and things are going to get very silly very fast methinks.

Let that be my problem. I'm an extremely fast typist.

Your expertise? — Bartricks

Not only is that an argument from authority, but you’ve never actually proven you have any yourself. You first. I’d bet money you have none.

It is consistent with everything that happens here being just, that some acts are right and others wrong. — Bartricks

False. Definition of Just:

“based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.“

Didn’t think I’d have to teach you English.

You’re shifting goal posts. At first what was right was what our moral intuitions told us was right. Well, if someone thinks like you, they will come to the conclusion that everyone here is a criminal. And hurting criminals as much as they deserve (which will always be the case) is not wrong, according to our moral intuitions. So everything you do here IS permissible.

What you’ve “shown” (more so asserted), is that God expects more of you. He expects you to treat people as if they’re innocent. So what? Who cares about that? No relevance to the question. You’ve shifted goal posts and now what’s “right” or “permissible” is what God expects of you. But you haven’t proven that. You just asserted it.

You now introduce the possibility that even though our intuitions (at least moral intuitions) can tell us something, they could be wrong and the actually correct thing is different, and known to God. So then I ask, what makes you trust these intuitions, rational or otherwise?

The fact that doing X would bring about a just state of affairs, does not entail that it is right to do X. — Bartricks

Correct. But had you undergone the reflections, and discovered that X is a just state of affairs, then yes it does entail it. The only situation it doesn’t is when you intend to do something wrong, but it ends up bringing about a just state of affairs.

Let that be my problem. I'm an extremely fast typist. — Bartricks

Sure but let’s not pretend it’s about finger taps. You just use ad Homs because you can’t substantiate your arguments. So instead you attack everyone who critiques it so you don’t actually have to listen. And so that no one bothers to critique you so you can keep your contradictory views intact.

You want me to prove God? — Bartricks

Err, Have I not made that clear already?

Well, I don't think you're up to understanding it. — Bartricks

The feeling is mutual. But I have the advantage of not having to make up a lot of bullshit. Makes it easier for me.

So, a little test first before I waste finger-taps giving it to you. — Bartricks

Shit, it would have taken you longer than this post to do it. I thought you said it was easy.

1. All As are Bs Yes, all arse are butts
2. All Bs are Cs Yes, all bullshit is crap
3. Therefore all As are Cs No, all arses are not crap. Some are kind of nice actually
4. All As have a D No, not all arses have dicks. Some are female.
5. All As have an E No, not all arses have erections. Again some are female
6. Therefore all As are Cs that have a D and an E No, lots of arse can't get their dicks into erection.
7. Some As exist Ain't that the truth. Too bloody many really.
8. Therefore, some Cs that have a D and an E exist — Bartricks

If you say so.

Actually, I think that the correct way to right it would have been.
1. All A are B
2. All B are C

But maybe you took a skip day when they had that class.

Is this argument deductively valid: — Bartricks

About as deductively valid as my answer. Unless you want to draw the Venn diagram to prove it.

You want me to prove God? — Bartricks

Dunning and Kruger. Your expertise? — Bartricks

Unbelievable. You're declaiming a metaphysical (and apparently faultless) proof of a transcendental entity that has historically eluded natural philosophers, scientists and thinkers for years - and then berating a detractor/critic for being naive and out of their depth.

You'd think "well, if everything that happens here is deserved, then I can do what I want".

But that's clearly not the case. I - we - have moral obligations to behave in some ways and not others, even though it is not possible for us to treat others in ways they do not deserve.

Why? Note, the issue is not 'whether' this is so, for it so clearly is. The question is 'why' it should be. — Bartricks

Also this is clearly begging the question. You’re asked to prove that your views do not lead to everything being permissible. It’s not clear at all that they don’t (that’s why you’re being asked). So yes, the question is in fact whether this is so, according to your views.

Now, we can both agree that not everything is permissible. But what’s being asked is whether or not you can consistently hold that with the rest of your beliefs.

If you say so. — Sir2u

No, if 'you' say so. If you can't see that it is deductively valid, then you're below the threshold level of intelligence needed to understand the proof. And you are. Clearly.

Actually, I think that the correct way to right it would have been.
1. All A are B
2. All B are C

But maybe you took a skip day when they had that class. — Sir2u

Er, no. It's all As are Bs.

About as deductively valid as my answer. Unless you want to draw the Venn diagram to prove it. — Sir2u

Like I say, I'd be more worth my while explaining it to my cat.

What?

What? — Bartricks

Well, let's see if we can quote you in replying.

Like I say, I'd be more worth my while explaining it to my cat. — Bartricks

Also this is clearly begging the question. You’re asked to prove that your views do not lead to everything being permissible. It’s not clear at all that they don’t. So yes, the question is in fact whether this is so, according to your views. — khaled

You don't know what 'begging the question' means, clearly.

Look, I have already explained why 'X is just' does not mean "X is permitted" or "X is wrong" or "X is right". I have given examples illustrating this. This is pointless, like I say.