I've already replied to this claim of yours. There's no need to link it to me again, for I can merely link my own reply back to you. — Thorongil

Have you? That's the first time that you've quoted that comment, from what I've seen, so I'm not sure where you have supposedly done so; and I'm not going to thoroughly examine your post history with the expectation of finding it. I might have replied to your reply, too. But the problem is that you keep making the same mistake, and you only quoted a small part of that post, avoiding perhaps the most important part.

Then how am I to take it? Where is the nuance? This claim is bullshit on stilts. Please do assuage my indignation as to your continued absurd declarations on behalf of non-existent people. — Thorongil

It's only bullshit on stilts if its meaning matches a foolish misinterpretation. For the last time, I'll explain the nuance, so please pay close attention:

To state that you're robbing a possible future generation, in the way that I have done so, is to express in a figurative manner something which can be expressed in the conditional mood, which avoids the contradiction which would be implied by a literal version of the aforementioned statement.

Hence, I am not guilty of implying that nonexistent people are being robbed, which is obviously a contradiction, because nonexistent people cannot be robbed. Rather, I am expressing a point that I've already made, namely that if we purposefully brought about the early extinction of humanity after the current generation had died, then we would, as a consequence, be removing the possibility of future generations. I am further saying that this would, as a consequence, also remove the possibility of said future generations experiencing a worthwhile life or even anything worthwhile at all, which, in my judgement, would be unfortunate.

Note my use of "if... then..." and "would" which are key indications of a statement in the conditional mood. I'm certainly not implying that future generations are missing out, or that they do object.

I'm not speaking on their behalf; I'm pointing out that we can obtain some knowledge about what their life would probably be like if they were to exist, and that we can use that knowledge to make a judgement. The funny thing is, you're doing exactly the same thing. The only difference is that we reach different conclusions.

I don't understand why. — Thorongil

Because that, in itself, doesn't say anything relevent about what my argument was about. That those who so desire can pursue the goal of experiencing worthwhile things without procreating doesn't entail that it's not also worthwhile to procreate, or that we should not procreate. But that is what it would have to entail in order to be relevant.

That wasn't your claim. You said: "I don't think that it's simply true that life is worthwhile." — Thorongil

Are you being purposefully deceptive? That was my claim. Pointing out a different claim of mine doesn't change that. Here is the proof:

If it was simply true that life is worth living, then there'd be no problem with creating new life. — Sapientia

This is a non-sequitur. — Thorongil

That is why I provided my argument.

Not that I think we're somehow going to reach it, but if you don't care about the truth (soundness), I can stop replying right now. You can make all the valid arguments you want, but if you don't like me objecting to some of your premises, then there's no point in continuing this discussion. — Thorongil

I assumed you already knew why I provided my argument, given our discussion prior to it, but yet again, apparently I've been expecting too much of you. You're free to object to any of the premises, but I myself do not believe that all of the premises are true. For example, you even quoted me saying that I don't think that it's simply true that life is worthwhile, and that is a premise in the argument. I've been very clear about this, so if you've misunderstood, you only have yourself to blame.

Also, given your one-line replies to lengthy sections of my posts and your repeated failures in understanding, there's already not much point in continuing this discussion. Don't ask me why I have been doing so. I must like banging my head against a brick wall.

Suffering is guaranteed, joy is unlikely. — The Great Whatever

No, both are so likely that they're practically guaranteed. Even in some of the most dire circumstances, there can be, and have been, times of joy. It's practically impossible to live an average life without any joy.

...or the ever-increasing and threatening entropy of the universe which will, if all of physics is to be understood, result in the eventual destruction of these improvements of the human condition. — darthbarracuda

I don't think that that's relevant. It is indeed a threat to the idea of humankind existing indefinitely, but I don't find that at all threatening in a psychological or emotional sense. It doesn't affect me at all in a negative way. I don't expect to live forever, and I don't expect humankind to be here forever, so there's no big disappointment. And it's so - almost inconceivably - distant that it's incredibly far removed from day-to-day life and plans for the future. That things will end doesn't mean that they're not worthwhile. This is the fallacy that I spoke of earlier, and it's the epitome of defeatism.

I don't have too much to add other than the counter-intuitive observation that, contrary to the view that the finiteness of life renders all things meaningless, it is precisely its finitude that opens us up to a world of value and significance. A life without limitations would be even more pointless than one in which our eventual death serves as a boundary spurring us to take a stand on things, to decide what's significant and what's not, etc. — Erik

Agreed. I think that that relates to the point I made above. You can't get meaninglessness or absence of worth from mere finitude.

I don't think that you'll find many that think that eating meat is very big of a moral issue, and still continue to do it. There's also distance between the supermarket shelves, and slaughter houses. The distance makes it easier to not think about it. Like pressing a button that will kill a thousand people hundreds of miles away is qualitatively different, and easier than beating someone to death with a baseball bat.

I repeatedly told you that the ontological status of moral truths isn't relevant, just the epistemological status is. We can clearly be wrong, and that's all that matters.

We do not intentionally, and consciously chose falsehood, and irrationality. The prospect is all but an oxymoron. You continue to confuse being wrong, with intentionally being wrong, or the complete lack of rightness.

Nothing about a "proper understanding", just that morality, truth, and reason are operative. One does the things they think are good, believes the things they think are true, and thinks in ways they feel to be rational. No one can operative in an opposing fashion to this intentionally, even if they were completely senseless and loony in this way, they couldn't have decided to be without on some level operating in conduction with goodness, truth, and rationality to be able to be clear, and intently behaving as they do. One must see a good, a benefit, and value in it, they must know the difference between truth and falsehood in order to chose falsehood (behaviorally, as actually deciding to believe falsehoods intentionally is oxymoronic), and use reason in order to get there.

It's practically impossible to live an average life without any joy. — Sapientia

I guarantee you that at this moment, millions of lives are transpiring without any joy. I'd say billions, but let's be conservative.

Yup, lots of character building going on.

I guarantee you that at this moment, millions of lives are transpiring without any joy. I'd say billions, but let's be conservative. — The Great Whatever

Not any of any significant length of time without having experienced any joy. If that's what you meant, then your guarantee counts for nothing. If, on the other hand, you merely meant that they're not experiencing any joy at this moment in time, then I agree, but I don't think that that changes anything. There are millions of others who are experiencing joy at this moment in time, and even those who aren't almost certainly have done so, and probably will do so again, all things being more or less equal.

I think a significant portion of the human race, perhaps the majority, lives day to day with no joy in their lives to speak of.

I don't think that that's relevant. It is indeed a threat to the idea of humankind existing indefinitely, but I don't find that at all threatening in a psychological or emotional sense. It doesn't affect me at all in a negative way. I don't expect to live forever, and I don't expect humankind to be here forever, so there's no big disappointment. And it's so - almost inconceivably - distant that it's incredibly far removed from day-to-day life and plans for the future. That things will end doesn't mean that they're not worthwhile. This is the fallacy that I spoke of earlier, and it's the epitome of defeatism. — Sapientia

We can kick the can down the road, sure. Maybe it's not a problem now, but eventually it will be a problem. Essentially by saying entropy/death/decay is not a problem, you are setting aside the issue (procrastinating) just like everyone does when they push aside homework or taxes.

Entropy may or may not be an issue in the current moment, but it is ultimately broad, structural, possibly even metaphysical in nature.

Clearly only all of the money will do. Unless I have infinite money, no amount is good enough.

I think a significant portion of the human race, perhaps the majority, lives day to day with no joy in their lives to speak of. — The Great Whatever

I would be willing to deny this claim. One must only tell a joke or a funny story to see the brightness of the human spirit flourish.

The joy one feels when they celebrate their birthday or when they fall in love is, arguably, an "unnatural" experience that does not happen on a day-to-day basis. But a good, true laugh can make a shitty day a lot better.

The same goes with hearing your favorite song, or viewing a piece of beauty.

And I think that that's not true. I think that there are at least occasional moments of joy in life - and I mean life in general. I don't deny the times of boredom and suffering, yet you seem to be denying these moments of joy. Both denials are mistaken. The frequency of occurrence can differ from one person to the next, but for most people, they are relatively frequent. These are typically seemingly insignificant moments if taken in isolation and compared to the grand scheme of things, like yesterday afternoon when so-and-so made you laugh, but they are part of what can make life worthwhile.

That's certainly what people say about life in the popular mythology, and what maybe you write on a Hallmark card or Facebook post, but whether it's true is another matter. Birthdays are actually a locus of depression - maybe suicide too, I don't have stats on that, but it wouldn't surprise me.

My own impression is that if you lot people's lives, and their mood, not what they say about these things (or say they say about them...), they're pretty sad, both in the psychological sense and in the sense of pathetic, desperate, etc.

Boredom and suffering are inevitable, commonplace, and come just as a result of living, whereas there is no surefire, or even easy, or often even possible, way to experience joy, and even if there is it is the exception.

So, for instance, say your goal was to experience extreme suffering. This is a really easy goal! There are so many ways to do it, you have an embarrassment of riches. Hit yourself with a hammer! Lick a cop! Put your hand in a fire! You can't go two steps without tripping over a way to accomplish that goal! In fact, you can just literally sit still and it will happen thanks to starvation! Everything tends toward extreme suffering perfectly naturally in the absence of other precarious and constantly applied controls.

Now suppose your goal is to experience joy. There is not even one reliable method of doing this, and people write lots of superfluous books claim to have found such a one. I cannot give concrete advice toward meeting such a goal, as I did above. All I can do is spout idiotic platitudes, none of which have any grounding in reality, and many of which you can find in threads such as these.

I cried on my 30th birthday... so old...

http://www.newser.com/story/147889/death-rates-spike-on-birthdays.html

pfffttHAHAHAHA

I generally hate birthdays as well.

And I agree that most people in general are in a negative state most of the time. But I disagree with your statement that the majority of people never experience any joy whatsoever in their lives on a day-to-day basis. This just strikes me as an absurd generalization.

Also, many of the negative experiences (like sadness, pathetic, desperation, etc) are often not entirely outside of the person's control. It's easy to say that people have shitty lives when you see how stressed they are. But it is an entirely other thing to claim that this is a structural part of the life of a human being, to be stressed out, to be desperate, to be pathetic and angry. It's what a key point in Buddhist (and other eastern religions and philosophies) point out, is that ignorance, attachment, and aversion (take your pick or add some) cause these negative experiences and if you purge your ignorance, purge your unnecessary attachment to materialistic oddities, and purge your fear of little conflicts, you'll be a far more stable and potentially even happy individual.

http://www.newser.com/story/147889/death-rates-spike-on-birthdays.html

pfffttHAHAHAHA — The Great Whatever

That's not something to laugh about. Maybe if your intention was to gloat, sure.

We can kick the can down the road, sure. Maybe it's not a problem now, but eventually it will be a problem. Essentially by saying entropy/death/decay is not a problem, you are setting aside the issue (procrastinating) just like everyone does when they push aside homework or taxes.

Entropy may or may not be an issue in the current moment, but it is ultimately broad, structural, possibly even metaphysical in nature. — darthbarracuda

I acknowledge that it will eventually be a problem for any sufficiently intelligent life forms who live long enough to experience its detrimental effects. But it's not a problem now, nor will it be for countless future generations. It will be hundreds of billions of years before the degenerate era is reached. Hence, to say that your comparison to setting aside taxes or homework is misleading would be a massive understatement.

Not when it comes to death.

When it comes to death, I recommend the Stoics and Epicureans.

No, joy is also inevitable, commonplace, and comes just as a result of living. You'd have to go out of your way to completely avoid it, and even that would likely fail.

There is some truth in what you say about joy being harder to cause yourself to experience, but you'll stand a much better chance with an open mind, and a proclivity for it. It's not something that we have absolutely no control or influence over. If you actively set out to be a boring, miserable bastard, don't be so surprised if it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We can get some amount of joy from even small things that are within our control, like eating nice food, for example.

No, joy is also inevitable, commonplace, and comes just as a result of living. You'd have to go out of your way to completely avoid it, and even that would likely fail. — Sapientia

So you think joy just sort of falls out of the sky? It's literally hard to avoid? It just happens as a result of being alive?

I could ask you the same thing about suffering. Yes, it happens as a result of living life, and it is hard to completely avoid. People experience joy from an early age - certainly as young children. Don't pretend you haven't seen it.

Yes, I already gave examples regarding suffering. It happens just as a result of living, with no special circumstances needed. Joy is not like this; in fact, no one really knows how to experience it. There is no well-attested 'way' to do it, as evidenced by your banalities about 'being open' to it: in contrast to that, I can give concrete, non-banal advice about how to suffer horribly, because it's easy.

There is ample evidence to support the hypothesis that the repression of death is an unnatural, yet necessary psychological phenomenon.

If you are able to do so and live your life free of death-related angst, fine. Not everyone has that psychological flexibility.

Also, if you adopt the Epicurean stance, then you have to accept that murder does not harm the one who is murdered.

Yes, I already gave examples regarding suffering. It happens just as a result of living, with no special circumstances needed. Joy is not like this; in fact, no one really knows how to experience it. There is no well-attested 'way' to do it, as evidenced by your banalities about 'being open' to it: in contrast to that, I can give concrete, non-banal advice about how to suffer horribly, because it's easy. — The Great Whatever

No, it wouldn't be concrete in contrast. It would be concrete in addition.

One way to bring about suffering is to purposefully avoid joyous activities: that is, activities known by someone, through experience, to stand a reasonable expectation of causing joy in that person. Virtually everyone has such knowledge. That is, without doubt, to be of a closed mindset to the many opportunities of experiencing joy.

I can give many concrete examples, but the best example would probably be to spend a significant amount of time in complete isolation in a bland, closed off area, with little space. No other people. No pets. No internet. No TV. No nature. No nice view. No food, or no nice food. There wouldn't be much joy to find in such a scenario.

Obviously, to be open to joy is, at the very least, to do the opposite of that. The things that I just listed typically bring people some amount of joy, and their extended absence can cause some amount of suffering. We aren't born into an isolated cell, destined to live a life without joy until death brings it to an end.

That you refuse to acknowledge such things doesn't mean much. You can deny and deny and deny until the cows come home, but it won't change the world. This is just a reflection of your blinkered view of the world - nothing more.

The coffin within which your brand of pessimism lies has been nailed shut. To continue this debate is like arguing with a blind person over the absence of light, or at least its alleged great difficulty to find.

So if I understand your 'argument,' there's no hope for pessimism because joy is all around if you watch lots of TV?

Thought this might be relevant to the discussion, regarding how to live as a pessimist/antinatalist/"negative ethicist", from Julio Cabrera:

"The negative human being has a greater familiarity with the terminality of being; he neither conceals it nor embellishes it, he thinks about it very frequently or almost always, and has full conscience about what is pre-reflexive for the majority, that is, all we do is terminal and can be destroyed at any moment. Negative life, in this sense, is melancholic and distanced (but never distracted or relaxed), not much worse than most lives and much better than them in many ways, a life with neither hope nor much intense feelings, neither of deception nor even enthusiasm. And, above all, without the irritating daily pretending that “everything is fine” and that “we are great”, while we sweep our miseries under the carpet. Therefore, it is usually a life without great “crisis” or great “depressions” (by the way, depression is the fatal fate of any affirmative life); negative lives are anguished lives, poetic and anxious, and almost always very active lives."

So if I understand your 'argument,' there's no hope for pessimism because joy is all around if you watch lots of TV? — The Great Whatever

The first "if" is a very big "if". Thus far, you've shown that you have a talent for misunderstanding or twisting what I post. The above quote is yet another example.