True. This is an example of when the asymmetry and consent argument begins to break down. But a twenty dollar present is a small loss if they don't like it. That's why we don't spend a fortune on a gift that they may or may not like. — darthbarracuda
Nobody wants to be in this situation. Every parent wishes their child the best. And yet these situations, or analogous situations, do in fact exist. It's just that nobody wants to recognize it. — darthbarracuda
Some of us acknowledge both the good and the bad in a more balanced way — Sapientia
then it is indeed worth giving it a shot - at least if the circumstances aren't too bad. — Sapientia
I don't think you know what "logic" means. You mean something agreeing with your emotional evaluation, not logic, or facts. What information does someone that hates pie have that someone that loves it doesn't? Aren't they perfectly capable of having all of the exact same information, or facts about pies, agree, but still have different dispositions? How much sense does it make to say that one is illogical to like pie? Is it illogical to like or dislike anything, really? Tastes, or emotional dispositions aren't about logic, or facts.
I didn't realize that when you were talking about not thinking "this is your truth, and this is mine", that you were talking about tastes, which I indeed do think are relative. — Wosret
Then that's where they go wrong. It does often seem as though they are blind to, or overlook, that potential. — Sapientia
No man... not agreeing with something isn't the same thing as failing to grasp it, this is just the conceit that you keep asserting to explain away disagreement. Sometimes shit's wrong, and it's your ass staring at cave walls. In this case, for instance. — Wosret
It may be that most people don't really grasp it even if they think they do. — schopenhauer1
It may be, but pointing that out over and over again gets old fast, and doesn't add anything to the conversation. — Wosret
This is where you are mistaken. Negative experiences far outweigh the positives. Those who look at the Sun, smile and say "life is good" are walking on the bones of their ancestors, the ancestors that lived and died under the Sun, constantly eating other organisms to survive, or competing with others to survive. Suffering is guaranteed, exuberant pleasure are not. — darthbarracuda
This is where you are mistaken. Negative experiences far outweigh the positives. — darthbarracuda
Those who look at the Sun, smile and say "life is good" are walking on the bones of their ancestors, the ancestors that lived and died under the Sun, constantly eating other organisms to survive, or competing with others to survive. Suffering is guaranteed, exuberant pleasure is not. — darthbarracuda
Say you have a kid. The kid turns out to be an okay person with a decent life and no significant health problems. In all regards, this person is not incredible but neither are they shitty. Instead of it being an expectation that this outcome would occur, you are quite literally just lucky, and so are they, that they didn't turn out to have significant health problems or suffer immensely or turn into a psychopath that kills a ton of people. — darthbarracuda
I would also add that I have a respect for the place where the AN position comes from, i.e. a genuine concern to eliminate future suffering of other potential people. In that sense it isn't 'subjectivist' at all - above I was thinking along the philosophical position in which Schopenhauer (if I understand him correctly) works as laid out by Descartes and Kant. The isolated and autonomous ego. That's a commendable and extremely noble aim IMO, but is still a partial and one-sided perspective. — Erik
You Schopenhauerians often speak of art as if you value it highly, and have a special appreciation for it, but you do not value or appreciate it as much as those of us who wish it to live on with us, rather than let it die a premature death. Who will create and appreciate art when we're all dead? No one. And there would not have been such a long history full of great works of art if we had cut it short by adopting your viewpoint. There could have been no Picasso, no Mozart, no da Vinci, no Shakespeare. Also, as a result, there could have been no Schopenhauer. — Sapientia
You Schopenhauerians often speak of art as if you value it highly, and have a special appreciation for it, but you do not value or appreciate it as much as those of us who wish it to live on with us, rather than let it die a premature death. Who will create and appreciate art when we're all dead? No one. — Sapientia
But I do wonder where the original impulse to suppress the Will comes from? — Erik
What a silly thing to say. — Thorongil
The planet is finite. The human species is finite. All this art you wish to preserve will eventually be obliterated one way or another. — Thorongil
To say that humans need to be born merely to preserve it... — Thorongil
...is not to understand the purpose of art, which is to release one, if only temporarily, from the suffering and boredom of life. Art is a ladder one climbs to help one flee from these things, which can then be thrown away once the destination is reached. That destination is a state of detachment from all things, for being attached to the ephemeral and finite (including art) is the cause of suffering and boredom. — Thorongil
You say that as if it were an established fact. It isn't. — Sapientia
Schopenhauer is not an enemy to the race, he is an individual who has decided that the rat race is not worth it. — darthbarracuda
Nevertheless, if you doubt the claim that suffering outweighs pleasure in the world, you only have to look to the suffering of the prey compared to the pleasure of the predator (NSFW). — darthbarracuda
Pot, kettle, black. — Sapientia
I am always at least a little astonished when someone makes this fallacy. — Sapientia
That it will eventually be obliterated is completely irrelevant. — Sapientia
That's not what I said. — Sapientia
You do realise that if we were all anti-natalists, and we all practiced what we preached, then there would be no more art, no more music, no more human compassion, no more ascetic practice, no more philosophy, no more understanding, no more goal seeking, no more desires, and no more fulfilment or satisfaction? If you're an anti-natalist, then you endorse the will-to-end-life, and everything valuable in it.
You Schopenhauerians often speak of art as if you value it highly, and have a special appreciation for it, but you do not value or appreciate it as much as those of us who wish it to live on with us, rather than let it die a premature death. Who will create and appreciate art when we're all dead? No one. And there would not have been such a long history full of great works of art if we had cut it short by adopting your viewpoint. There could have been no Picasso, no Mozart, no da Vinci, no Shakespeare. Also, as a result, there could have been no Schopenhauer. — Sapientia
That is but one interpretation, and not necessarily one which everyone will agree with. In fact, that's very unlikely. — Sapientia
I don't see how. — Thorongil
It's not fallacious. I'm simply pointing out a fact. Do you dispute it? — Thorongil
Clearly not, since you seem to have a raging desire to preserve it in perpetuity, which as I point out, is impossible. — Thorongil
I appeal to anyone reading the post to which I replied to show how my interpretation was off base. I also appeal to you to show how it is off base. — Thorongil
That people might disagree with me doesn't make me wrong. — Thorongil
Your claim is ambiguous. Outweighs in what sense? The most relevant sense would be in terms of it's effect on the overall value of life, rather than, say, in terms of the frequency of occurence or severity. It's arguable whether the weight of suffering outweighs the weight of pleasure and the weight of everything else valuable in life. Furthermore, you'd then have to successfully argue that the former outweighs the latter to such an extent that it renders the latter insufficient and dismissible. — Sapientia
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.