That seems not to be quite right to me. It seems reasonable to say "I do prefer not to have existed.", but to claim that in case one had not existed one would have preferred it, is a step too far. That my existence is unhappy, does not entail that my non-existence is happy. — unenlightened

I think you're reading too much into it lol. "I'd prefer" is just a colloquial phrase.

But as T Clark points out, one's own happiness and preference is unimportant; it's other people's happiness that makes a wonderful life — unenlightened

Nobody would be missing much in my absence, and my life isn't wonderful.

I am a unique and special little snowflake in every way

I think you're reading too much into it lol. — flannel jesus

I wouldn't be doing that if I hadn't existed - so think yourself lucky. :wink:

I want to take a different approach from my previous expression of skepticism regarding measures of personal significance.

I like 's weighing the benefits against the disappointments possibly caused by presence or absence. Some of those elements are sharply drawn by regret or pleasure. A huge amount is made ambiguous by the paths not taken. Some of that must have been wise to some extent. Some of that must surely have been a loss of benefit for each or all involved. I think it is why Aristotle said luck could not be a cause; But also why he was wrong about that.

It seems like the speculation and fiction that most vividly describe the isolation of an individual build an enormous world in which to become isolated within.

Maybe Dostoyevsky is the exemplar for this sort of thing because so many of his "nihilists" are so damn gregarious.

It's a wonderful life..

It's a wonderful life.. — Hanover

I was wondering how long it would take. Hence my somewhat cuntish comment near the start of all this...

One of my pet hates is the mawkish It’s a Wonderful Life school of personal significance, which fits neatly with our culture’s romantic obsession with individualism and the putative power of the lone actor to shape and improve the world for those around them. — Tom Storm

The culture of individualism gave rise to an inflated sense of the worth of the self, even grandiosity. It came with an emphasis on personal expectations, demands an individual rights. This was accompanied by a philosophy of being able to master and create personal identity through autonomy.

However, in the twentieth first century the culture of individualism is receding into awareness, especially through the media, of mass culture. In many ways, this gives rise to a sense of personal insignificance for many, especially those lacking in power. Certain individuals are treated as mere numbers, and the vulnerable are often regarded as a 'nuisance' and burden unlike in traditional society, in which there was a spirit of community.

The culture of individualism gave rise to an inflated sense of the worth of the self, even grandiosity. — Jack Cummins

A high sense of self worth does not equate to feelings of grandiosity. It's a Wonderful Life did not portray George Bailey as someone who thought highly of himself or someone who felt entitled to more than others. Mr. Potter portrayed the Grinch like character, concerned only with money and power. You might decipher anti-capitalistic or anti-consumerist themes in the movie (as well as in A Christmas Carol), but that doesn't equate to an acceptance that human life is of less than infinite value. I'd argue that it shows just the opposite - that the quantification of life's value to dollar and cents is what is truly dehumanizing precisely because it reduces the worth of the self to numbers..

The culture of individualism gave rise to an inflated sense of the worth of the self, even grandiosity. It came with an emphasis on personal expectations, demands an individual rights. This was accompanied by a philosophy of being able to master and create personal identity through autonomy.

However, in the twentieth first century the culture of individualism is receding into awareness, especially through the media, of mass culture. In many ways, this gives rise to a sense of personal insignificance for many, especially those lacking in power. Certain individuals are treated as mere numbers, and the vulnerable are often regarded as a 'nuisance' and burden unlike in traditional society, in which there was a spirit of community. — Jack Cummins

I think these are certainly popular tropes. Whether they are accurate or not, I don't know. I think this is a subject that could be teased out into many different strands. Perhaps the Christian narrative of 'you are special, precious and beloved by God' might be foundational to a culture of individualism.

Grandiosity may well spring from low self worth, with the need for pretence of one's importance. It can often swing into the sense of 'failure' and a sense of despair. This can occur in bipolar affective disorder, which used to be known as manic depression.

It does seem that the equation of a person with money is what reduces a person to being a mere number. The nature of competition in capitalism has the social and psychological effects of dehumanization. The school of new economics, such as that of EF Schumacher were based on the value of work as the highest expression of service personal meaning and value. As it is, materialistic competition is getting tougher in the fight for resources and 'Small is Beautiful' is a lost value.

The Christian value upon each person as special and beloved by God was problematic insofar as it led to exploitation of other beings, mainly animals. However, the Judaeo-Christian tradition did value the human person, in principle if not always in practice.

Spiritual perspectives are inclined towards emphasis on individual worth and, in the West, Christianity was a starting point for individualism. This was also true of existentialism and secular humanism. The cultural relativism and postmodernism of the twentieth century were a likely shift in valuing of individual worth as ethical values were questioned at the core. This was at an academic level, but it is likely that it has had some impact, especially with the plurality of ideas in the information age.

The information age is also a way of showing how small each person is in the scheme, with the exception of influential celebrities. The media have often looked to external signs of 'success' and not paid much attention to the inner life and the value of each unique person.

The information age is also a way of showing how small each person is in the scheme, with the exception of influential celebrities. The media have often looked to external signs of 'success' and not paid much attention to the inner life and the value of each unique person. — Jack Cummins

As an Australian of a certain era, the cult of individualism hasn’t really held much significance, except in sporting excellence. We love our cricket and football superstars. (well, I don't because I don't follow sport, but you get my point) Beyond that, we don’t generally construct the world as an orgiastic feast of individualism in the way Americans so often seem to. Perhaps that’s also why success hasn’t been such a huge preoccupation here. I think most Australians would see a simple shack by the beach, with weekends free for family and friends, as a robust measure of success.

I have come across British people who have been to Australia and loved it for that reason. In many ways, individuals' experience of how significant they feel may vary according to where they are living.

In London, I feel so little sense of any community and it is getting worse and worse. There is so much brutality and violence, and indifference to violence often too. There is so much fear and hostility. It is because I have known and seen better that I worry about it. I do have an underlying sense of personal value, and human values, which makes me object to the dehumanization which I see around me.

I feel like this conversation bounces all over the place. You can be individualistic and egalitarian simultaneously. You can also be hyper competitive and consumerist by adopting a collectivist position, as you see, for example, in immigrant communities in the US where pooling of recorces is common. You can also be individualistic and not be competitive, but instead just prefer self sufficiency.

You can also be religious and be capitalistic or very much not (not just Eastern religions, but also priests monks, and the like).

The point being that these laments about the value of humanity and our ethical reatment of one another doesn't track so nicely to general societal attitudes, religious orientations, or competitive spirits as it does just to old fashion adherence to morality.

There is so much brutality and violence, and indifference to violence often too. — Jack Cummins

What are some examples? I imagine the London of 1890 woudl be tougher and nastier than today's?

I live in a big city (5 million people) and there's stress and violence here too. But much of it is also a beat up by right wing media to justify law and order clamp downs and pander to aging and fearful consumers of tabloid journalism who lap up this stuff.

I sometimes question the idea of “dehumanization.” What could be more human than judging, shunning, or abandoning others? What is more persistent, more universal, than our tribal instincts, our constant need to carve the world into “us” and “them”?

The point being that these laments about the value of humanity and our ethical reatment of one another doesn't track so nicely to general societal attitudes, religious orientations, or competitive spirits as it does just to old fashion adherence to morality. — Hanover

I don’t have any firm commitments on any particular side here. I am glad to be alive now in this era and see nothing intrinsically moribund about the times we are in. I do, however, notice traits and themes that are unattractive, but every era has its issues.

. You can be individualistic and egalitarian simultaneously. — Hanover

I see no reason to disagree with you.

doesn't track so nicely to general societal attitudes, religious orientations, or competitive spirits as it does just to old fashion adherence to morality. — Hanover

Maybe. But isn’t this a bit of an ouroboros? Isn’t an old-fashioned adherence to morality itself a product of contingent factors, like traditional values and broader social contexts?

What Difference Would it Make if You Had Not Existed? — Jack Cummins

If I did not exist, then this reply to your OP would not exist ... as the universe would have been (become) a different universe. Change any part of the whole, no matter how minute or ephemeral, changes the whole, no? :chin:

Exactly, that was my initial starting point. Every detail counts significantly in the whole. Even on this forum, every member plays an important part and discussions would be so different if certain people had not joined in. Every person has an active role in shaping life for oneself and others. Existence is active presence.

The discussion bounces because there are so many possible choices in values. It is also hard to know how useful it is to lament the loss of human values and 'morality'. It doesn't necessarily change anything. As far as I see, the most important aspect is for each individual to recognize their own significance as a way of waking up to some creative freedom.

I guess that my reference to brutality and violence is because it has come so much more real for me. I have been attacked 3 times in the last year and someone I know was stabbed. That person survived after hospital care for injuries. I was not seriously injured but had to go to A and E on one occasion. So, from my perspective, violence is not just hyped up by the media but is an issue to contend with.

It is likely that my experience is based on living in an area with more gang culture than I was used to in the past. But, I do wonder from interaction with people from gangs if part of the problem is such people's lack of sense of any real.personal identity and significance, which is projected onto those being attacked.

Perhaps you should live someplace else? Of course, I know that circumstances may preclude just casually moving from a neighborhood with gangs to a nicer, safer neighborhood. But do what you can. We don't want to lose you to a knife-wielding thug. (In the USA they just shoot you, which is usually more lethal.).

I've lived in some seedy, dicey neighborhoods and did get threatened at knifepoint on a couple of occasion, and barely missed worse. Other than moving, can you make a change in when and where you go? Are you more at risk later at night, and can that be avoided? Can you take any self-defense moves -- mace, a whistle (I don't know what the efficacy of whistles actually is), a gun? Oh sorry, you live in the UK. Might you attend a self-defense course?

It is likely that my experience is based on living in an area with more gang culture than I was used to in the past. — Jack Cummins

Yes, that could do it. What part of London are you in?

Can you find a safer area?

Sorry to hear about your experiences. I imagine that would be horrible and would remain with you.

I do wonder from interaction with people from gangs if part of the problem is such people's lack of sense of any real.personal identity and significance, which is projected onto those being attacked. — Jack Cummins

Well I guess gang folk tend to be in a tribal subculture which rewards aggression and violence. No doubt there’s also trauma and deprivation involved. Certainly that’s the case for gang members I’ve worked with, not that it’s many. But I have worked with many violent offenders.

Take care out there, JC.

Here's a fun thought you're inspiring in me:

Supposing that most of us are not irreplaceable there is a sense that even if the me that I feel myself to be right now does not exist that I could, for all intents and purposes, exist -- my individual ipseity would be bound to another that I do not experience, but the place I hold in the world would still be fulfilled.


***


But then when I think a little more locally I think that we aren't exactly replaceable one for another: it's the particular relationship between myself and my loved ones and such that's important. What is not important there is one's effects on The World Scene, as if the world were some kind of testing grounds to demonstrate and pursue our own perfection.

Rather it's smaller, gentler, quieter than the world events at large: But also meaningful to me.

The first answer that come to mind @Jack Cummins was "Supposing I could somehow see this world that doesn't have me in it I doubt I'd care because here I am in my world being myself. My existence matters to me, but that's only after having been brought about, whatever that consists in."

In a way my existence mattering to me, at the other extreme, is a social act: There's a certain point where you are expected to brush your own teeth, for instance. That amount of individual care is expected by our loved ones: they want the best for us as vice versa in the ideal sense at least.

But insofar that I cease to engage in the world with an eye towards others then we run into the story of self-improvement, comparison towards others, achievement: In a way a new kind of sociality, but one which is a dance of individuals pitted in competition with observable metrics such that we can eliminate the useless amongst us. (And crow when our enemies are defeated)

my individual ipseity would be bound to another that I do not experience, but the place I hold in the world would still be fulfilled. — Moliere

Funny, you say this, I've speculated similarly. But it's getting a little into a strange form of determinism. :wink:

I actually wouldn't make that inference: Supposing we are all free then this other would have to be similarly so.

I'd suggest that the identity between worlds couldn't possibly happen, as the scenario sets up, so there's no conflict to me choosing differently -- what else would another world be? Unless, of course, I'm just not there -- perhaps we could make a distinction here between "other worlds" and "alien worlds"; simply not existing seems to have an alien flavor to it -- as something I could never experience.

my individual ipseity — Moliere

I was doing so well without having heard of "ipseity". Now? The future is uncertain. A new word can cause the world to veer off in unexpected directions!

I was doing so well without having heard this word. Now? The future is uncertain. A new word can cause the world to veer off in unexpected directions! — BC

What thoughts do you have on the unexpected directions?

I'd suggest that the identity between worlds couldn't possibly happen, as the scenario sets up, so there's no conflict to me choosing differently -- what else would another world be? — Moliere

But what if this particular form of determinism isn’t at the individual level, but at the level of reality itself? In other words, if I am not born, reality generates an alternative person who has the same impacts on the world around them, while each decision made by them is still made through free choice. Or something like that. I'm not normally one for speculative bullshit, but there it is.

But what if this particular form of determinism isn’t at the individual level, but at the level of reality itself? In other words, if I am not born, reality generates an alternative person who has the same impacts on the world around them, while each decision made by them is still made through free choice. Or something like that. I'm not normally one for speculative bullshit, but there it is. — Tom Storm

I think then we're running into a kind of antinomy -- which, if we follow Kant, would make it indeterminable via knowledge but we can reimagine the world we experience in either way.

To go dialectical: The kind of determinism you espouse at the level of reality can (but not must) accommodate a libertarian free-will. If we are free, then any bounded ipseity -- no matter what they choose -- will also be free.

Depends on if you take a determined series of events as necessary or freedom as necessary: two kinds of causality that result in antinomy when thought upon.

I am one for speculative bullshit, but I like to clean it up a bit. It's fun.

A response without jargon:

There's a sense in which each side can assume the first truth and explain the other. That's the confusion of an antinomy.

To go dialectical: The kind of determinism you espouse at the level of reality can (but not must) accommodate a libertarian free-will. If we are free, then any bounded ipseity -- no matter what they choose -- will also be free.

Depends on if you take a determined series of events as necessary or freedom as necessary: two kinds of causality that result in antinomy when thought upon. — Moliere

Do you think my poor sketch has any plausibility?