I think the idea of "absolute meaning" is a category error. The meaning of anything is always in relation to something else and never absolute. The very idea is incoherent, as far as I can see. — John

I agree.

@darthbarracuda @TheWillowOfDarkness

This aspirin analogy is hilariously inappropriate.

Aspirin is used to treat headaches. We'll still be alive afterwards and we'll still get headaches, and we can and do still live worthwhile lives.

It's more akin to the successful eradication of smallpox, but still inappropriate, given that we lived through that and many of us went on to live worthwhile lives, and many of us continue to do so.

Just call it what it is: premature extinction. If you are an anti-natalist, you're an advocate of premature extinction. You're also against the potential of subsequent generations living worthwhile lives, although you might convince yourself that this is an impossibility.

I think you misunderstood what I'm trying to show in my response. For me, suffering a headache is good, because I was trying to demonstrate that any form of suffering hurts.

We cannot, as darth was doing, suggest that some forms of suffering do not hurt because they have a different pain or cause less damage to the body or mind - at least if we are being honest. My point was that darth was trying to bury the suffering of the childless couple to maintain a fiction of a worthless life and victory over suffering.

So, what you are suggesting of anti-natalism is true. They advocate our extinction, no matter how worthwhile lives might be. Though, I don't think you quite grasp what the anti-natalist is about. For them, the issue is not that life is worthless, it is that suffering is too great to make it ethical. The call for extinction is ground in the presence of suffering, not in life being worthless.

I think you misunderstood what I'm trying to show in my response. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, I barely read your response. I only glanced over the discussion between you two. I only copied you into my reply because I thought you might find what I had to say about darth's aspirin analogy to be of interest.

For me, suffering a headache is good, because I was trying to demonstrate that any form of suffering hurts. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That makes no sense on the face of it.

We cannot, as darth was doing, suggest that some forms of suffering do not hurt because they have a different pain or cause less damage to the body or mind - at least if we are being honest. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Of course.

My point was that darth was trying to bury the suffering of the childless couple to maintain a fiction of a worthless life and victory over suffering. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well, maybe he was, but like I say, I haven't read the full discussion, so I won't comment on that at the present time.

So, what you are suggesting of anti-natalism is true. They advocate our extinction, no matter how worthwhile lives might be. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yep.

Though, I don't think you quite grasp what the anti-natalist is about. For them, the issue is not that life is worthless, it is that suffering is too great to make it ethical. The call for extinction is ground in the presence of suffering, not in life being worthless. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What part of any of my posts are you getting that from? It'd be better if you quoted me.

There have been claims in this discussion along the lines that life has no worth or that it cannot be comprehended, so that is what I have argued against at times. But yes, I'm well aware that anti-natalists claim that the suffering that one would experience would be too great to make procreation ethical. You don't need to patronise me. Ultimately, however, this does entail, as I said, at least for those who would rather have us go extinct, that they're against the potential of subsequent generations living worthwhile lives.

You cannot stop life. Even if all humans stopped reproducing and went extinct, there would remain most of the animals, which would probably flourish under the absence of humans. There would still be lots of pain and suffering, animals ripping each other to shreds over mating rights, hunting others for food, etc.; and over time, those remaining apes would probably evolve into more complex species similar to humans.

And even if you somehow managed to stop all life on earth, surely there must be life on other planets? We don't have evidence for it, but it seems to me a very plausible inference. But even if there was no life in other planets, the bacteria left over on earth would probably evolve into more and more complex organisms over time again.

Anti-natalist speak of some "solution" to suffering, as if they stand somehow outside of nature, judging it and coming up with ways to manipulate it. But the nature that permeates all is in them as well.

Anyways, just some views on it.

You cannot stop life. Even if all humans stopped reproducing and went extinct, there would remain most of the animals, which would probably flourish under the absence of humans. There would still be lots of pain and suffering, animals ripping each other to shreds over mating rights, hunting others for food, etc.; and over time, those remaining apes would probably evolve into more complex species similar to humans. — Zosito

Then they may evolve self-awareness and come to the same conclusion.

And even if you somehow managed to stop all life on earth, surely there must be life on other planets? We don't have evidence for it, but it seems to me a very plausible inference. But even if there was no life in other planets, the bacteria left over on earth would probably evolve into more and more complex organisms over time again. — Zosito

Same response.

Anti-natalist speak of some "solution" to suffering, as if they stand somehow outside of nature, judging it and coming up with ways to manipulate it. But the nature that permeates all is in them as well. — Zosito

It is not a solution to suffering wholesale. It is simply an elegant solution to prevent future suffering for at least one's own possible offspring. That is X number of possible offspring (based on cultural/biological likelihood that this could be the case) who will not suffer.

Certainly, there are two main ideas of suffering. One I call the "Western" notion- this is utilitarian notions of negative experiences. There is also what I call the "Eastern" notion of suffering- this is a much more subtle understanding but the insight of Buddhism, Ancient Greco-Roman philosophies and the like picked up on- this is the idea that "we are a constant becoming but never being". There is a dissatisfaction at the root of motives, and this can be distilled a constant need for turning basic survival needs and angst into pleasure and entertainment goals that are never satisfied. There is an existential imperative to do to do to do. Anyways, I know your inquiry was strictly on antinatalism, not necessarily the philosophy surrounding the particular stance.

I think mostly because suffering illuminates our existential condition while happiness clouds our knowledge of it. We cannot be happy while actually confronting the void. — darthbarracuda

If by "void" you mean our impending utter annihilation, then I think we can indeed reason much of the sting out of death, but only at the cost of modifying our image of what is worthwhile in ourselves. There's a "cheap" romanticism of the snowflake/fingerprint personality that shudders at this existential threat. The necessary adjustment is to shift one's weight to the other foot. That which dies is not that which is most important. Other humans carry on the same virtues, with slightly different faces, voices, etc. Of course the species itself will be extinguished, but this doesn't bother me as long as it's a distant event. This surely applies to personal death, too. It would be hard to be happy if I knew I were to die in 10 minutes. But dying in 20 years might even be good. The body suffers more and the mind is "bored" enough in a peculiar sense to welcome the adventure. I expect nothing from death, but I expect the preparation for death to be the adventure (knowing that it's Coming Soon). Ginsberg was exhilarated. I can already sort of imagine that at 40.