Really though, nobody understands the entirety of a complex modern machine (including social machines like governments). They may understand how to use it, or understand a single component by itself (which is useless by itself), or the may have a vague high-level understanding of how all the components work together, but no single person can possibly understand a machine in its entirety, let alone all of the machines that are now used in our lives; nor can the average person have any real say on anything either.
Gone are the days where tool-making went alongside tool-using, with every step of the process being understood by everyone. Now we have experts, specialization, technological giantism, etc. — _db
I just wanted to add that I think this title would look great on the NYT best seller list: Series in Pessimism, by Schopenhaur1.
But you can exit life. Just don't let the hospital get a hold of your half dead body, they'll resuscitate it. — frank
Resigning and moving on is not really resigning though is it as you’ve merely transformed or exchanged your game for another (easier/harder)
Euthanasia says otherwise regarding your second point. — Deus
‘I won’t play any more,’ you too, when things seem that way to you, say, ‘I won’t play any more,’ and leave, but if you remain, don’t complain.” — Ciceronianus
like all life it strives for life — Bylaw
Well, that would be rejecting society not necessarily life. But my point doesn't hinge on that. The way you framed the issue was as if someone was thrown into life. But really they only ever existed as life. And when they begin that life (as a fertilized egg, in the womb, on the way out, however you think of the beginning) they are life that wants life, that will eat and will grow. Later, yes, some humans anyway may decide they don't like life and then they have the option to end it.Really? If humans live in society and people don’t like the workings of society, isn’t that rejecting life? — schopenhauer1
Sure, we can. But there is no creature that wants to who is thrown into life.e could do other than instinct. So I fully disagree with this. — schopenhauer1
Yes.The problem is, once a life is started, that person MUST go through the gauntlet or die. — schopenhauer1
No complaining, please. — Ciceronianus
they are life that wants life — Bylaw
Later, yes, some humans anyway may decide they don't like life and then they have the option to end it. — Bylaw
No, a parent wanted a life — schopenhauer1
I'm not arguing that one can change the game of life.That’s also the point. There is no better version of the game of life (inter-worldly affairs) and so all you can do is kill yourself if you don’t like it(or die from a mishap from playing the game itself but that’s still affirming the game). — schopenhauer1
it strove for life — Bylaw
I am talking about an organism doing what it can to live, both on a cellular level and to whatever extent it can as it can move. There is no incarnating a not wanting life organism.That’s more social conditioning. Babies don’t decide things yet. — schopenhauer1
I'm not arguing that one can change the game of life. — Bylaw
I never said anything about embracing life's game, whatever that means.But to equate that with a reason for embracing life’s game is a naturalistic fallacy. — schopenhauer1
I am talking about an organism doing what it can to live, both on a cellular level and to whatever extent it can as it can move. There is no incarnating a not wanting life organism. — Bylaw
I never said anything about embracing life's game, whatever that means. — Bylaw
That’s great but doesn’t quite capture human like (I.e a self-aware being that has reasons). — schopenhauer1
I didn't say it did. I responded, I think pretty clearly, to this idea of a parent throwing someone into life. A someone who may or may not want life. I think that model is confused. — Bylaw
Not really, but I am taking it as a transitive verb. I mean, even as a metaphor it means transferring something somewhere. But that is not what happens. Any life was only ever life.You are using “throw” as some literal term — schopenhauer1
Any life they create immediately desires life, the organism does, and strives to live. You can only create something living that immediately strives to continue living. — Bylaw
It is not some neutral or negatively aimed at life. It is life that wants to live more. — Bylaw
It seems like you are presenting this as putting someone in a situation it may or may not want. But no, parents can only make life. — Bylaw
You’re on it and if you want off, you are out. — schopenhauer1
You may play chess again, but in that case you play a different game, you don't play, again, the game you chose to end by resigning. — Ciceronianus
He can't stop himself; "complaining", you see, expresses schop1's will to live. :death:↪schopenhauer1
No complaining, please. — Ciceronianus
That is absurd. First of all, I am not a moral realist. I don't think morals exist. I was not mounting a moral argument. I was reacting to an implicit moral argument on your part with a description of what I think is a factual issue. The fetus and babies will seek out more life.It is not some neutral or negatively aimed at life. It is life that wants to live more. — Bylaw
And this is explicitly the naturalistic fallacy as stated in last post — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.