Aren't you? Anti-natalism seems uninterested in other people, it just seems to want to tell the majority of other people that in one fundamental respect they are mistaken in how they value life, procreation and sexual pleasure: it feels more of a lecture than an analysis. Surely if you want to spread the word, you need to enquire a little more into how other people are? That's certainly how politics is done, for instance: tramping round streets, knocking on doors, listening to people's concerns, explaining your views to them. — mcdoodle

I am interested, hence a forum rather than a journal. So why put more people into the world? What is gained? Are you familiar with my position? It is not all just contingent suffering (the usual harms people think about when discussing suffering). The idea is perhaps too subtle to be effective, I agree. Relationships, pleasure, being absorbed in physical/mental activities, aesthetics, learning, and achievement (or some variation thereof) seem to be the considerations that people choose. Then a defense of suffering based on some variation of Nietzsche's idea of "suffering makes life interesting" as this makes everyone's life its own unique "work of art". Ideas of absurdity, structural, or contingent suffering are not considered and the relative goodness of relationships, pleasure, being absorbed in physical/mental activities, aesthetics, learning, and achievement are never examined as to whether individuals need to carry these experiences out qua individuals who live and have the opportunities for these positive experiences.

I am well familiar with all the kinds of arguments you cited from other threads. the problem is, none of them are compelling to anyone who doesn't empathize with your feeling about life. — Janus

As I stated: So why put more people into the world? What is gained? Are you familiar with my position? It is not all just contingent suffering (the usual harms people think about when discussing suffering). The idea is perhaps too subtle to be effective, I agree. Relationships, pleasure, being absorbed in physical/mental activities, aesthetics, learning, and achievement (or some variation thereof) seem to be the considerations that people choose. Then a defense of suffering based on some variation of Nietzsche's idea of "suffering makes life interesting" as this makes everyone's life its own unique "work of art". Ideas of absurdity, structural, or contingent suffering are not considered and the relative goodness of relationships, pleasure, being absorbed in physical/mental activities, aesthetics, learning, and achievement are never examined as to whether individuals need to carry these experiences out qua individuals who live and have the opportunities for these positive experiences.

I agree with your statement as quoted above; and the fact that we can't "know what the hell we are doing here in the first place", in the kind of shareable discursive sense you are demanding, is the very fact that makes the value of life incalculable in any intersubjective unbiased way. — Janus

But we are here and can bring more people here. What is it that makes here something so necessary that some new person needs to experience it? What of the absurdity of the repetitious nature of what is essentially the same phenomena done over and over? I already mentioned the top main "positive" goods of life, but do these goods need to be carried forward? Is there not an emptiness at the bottom of all endeavors? What of the restlessness of our demanding natures for survival and entertainment?

This is a bit suspect to me for several reasons. 1) You are assuming future people will reduce suffering in the same way as the parents. Offspring may be nothing like their parents. 2) Using future people in order to decrease some overall suffering seems to not be in the spirit of the moral stance to not use people for a means to an ends. You create a life with suffering in order to reduce some total suffering. — schopenhauer1

OK, I’ll defend my previously made argument and see how far it can go.

As to (1), true, things are not deterministically set—either biologically or behaviorally. Yet just as the kids’ phenotypes are on average a mixture of the parents’ phenotypes, so too can be argued for the kids’ behaviors, including their sense of ethics, when both parents have been around. What I’m upholding is that the kid’s behavior will not itself be random but will be in great part learned from the parent(s)’ behavior. So if the parents desire less suffering in the world, given that they are good parents by common sense standards, so too will their children. Exceptions could of course occur. But this argument is about average outcomes.

As to (2), I very much acknowledge that this position is hard knocks. All the same, if one cares about suffering in the world among humans and lives one’s life thus, then the absence of this person to humanity only increases the suffering in humanity relative to this person’s being otherwise present—this for reasons aforementioned. E.g. where this person would smile at a homeless kid, a non-caring person would not show any kindness toward the same homeless kid; and without the caring person the same homeless kid would receive less compassion and would therefore experience greater suffering. Do you deem this overall reasoning valid or erroneous?

I’ll try to address “the people as means toward ends” issue after this one issue is first addressed—since the former issue is contingent upon the latter issue being valid as here expressed.

Not quite sure what you mean by "switched-on". I agree that that age group may be the most existential, but that may be for circumstantial reasons. Funny, how existential thinking is juvenile but religious belief is considered just cultivating a deep longing. I see the two as very related but one without the trappings of metaphysical restraints. — schopenhauer1

By "swtiched-on" I mean horny, desirous, attracted to the good things in life.

I actually identify with a variant of existentialism. I embrace subjectivity. So I mostly criticize the "outward projection" of anti-natalism. I imagine (in general, not aimed at you) an unhappy person convincing themselves that everyone is "really" unhappy. In the same way, a theist might think that every atheist is "really" a theist.

But what is wrong with this? I don't see the contradiction in living life yet rejecting the premises of life itself. Indeed, life is presented to humans as it is already structured, and people can evaluate and analyze the structure and their place in it. If that is "needing the world as a stage", again, what is wrong with that? Suicide is not the only answer to existential questioning. — schopenhauer1

I'm not at all against heavy or "terrifying" thinking. My motto just now is "Death is God." We are transcendence of the given against a background of nothingness. The "authentic" I is self-consciously groundless, a risky venture. I'm also not one to call things "wrong." But as a reader of texts and personalities (like everyone) I notice performative contradictions here and there. Did Schopenhauer have a valid argument against suicide? I remember he has some kind of spiel, but maybe it was weaker than what I loved about him. If life is truly evil and horrible, then suicide is rational and noble. (I myself reserve it as a right in the face of worst-case scenarios. ) It's more plausible that life includes radical evil, unutterable horror. But it includes also intense ecstasy: sex and creativity come to mind. And I certainly include sex with one's self.

I never said anyone was dullards, just that some people disarm others by throwing the term "juvenile" around to dissuade them from the line of questioning. I am not so sure about individuals "deciding" that the came is worth the candle. Many go through the motions without deciding anything. — schopenhauer1

To be fair, you have a point. Some people avoid that kind of thinking. To them it's uncanny, suspicious. So they hide from the horror in an "adult" pose that's also describable as thoughtless conformity. I still maintain that some of us do indeed decide.

The point is to grapple with it and keep it at the forefront of thought continually. I think the generic "wisdom" is to think about it for a bit and move on, but it is the core of the issue as our very motivations are the core of what we do, think, plan, etc. Survival/boredom, and absurdity are all wrapped in our very existence as self-reflecting beings. — schopenhauer1

I can relate to that. We are both philosophers. I may have challenged your post, but I am more like you than like those who never wrestle with these things. I had no choice in my teens and 20s. Philosophy was a matter of life and death for me then. Somehow I made peace with the void. The world is perhaps self-devouring will in its essence. Philosophy is perhaps a sophistry fooled by its own forged trans-rhetorical credentials. Maybe the endless war of self-asserting personalities is the "truth." As long as one is enjoying this self-assertion, perhaps by describing or inventing it, that's fine. (With me, anyway.)

Thanks, T.

So the same can be said about arguments on the limits of ethics- abortion, eating animals or animal by-products, assisted suicide, etc. These are things which are also argued about, but somehow are considered legitimate topics of consideration, why would procreation not also be in this category of a legitimate moral argument as the other things mentioned? Why is this one off limits but others not? Again, this is another way to shut down any thought on it before it enters the world of debate to begin with. — schopenhauer1

Exactly. There is no objective moral law or ethical code. Ethics and morality are subjective. What is good or bad is what is helpful or harmful in achieving one's goals.This is why I don't engage in many ethical discussions - because I realize that there are no real answers to those questions other than what is helpful or harmful to one's goals.

It seems to me that the ultimate question you are asking is: Should schopenhauer1 have the right to prevent others from having kids simply because his life is full of suffering? Well, should you? I consider the question of rights and who has more rights than someone else a question with an objective answer that doesn't have to do with ethics. Who has more rights than anyone else? My answer is no one. We all have equal rights, which means you don't have the right to tell me how to live my life, nor do you have the right to prevent others from having a life, because yours is bad.

As to (1), true, things are not deterministically set—either biologically or behaviorally. Yet just as the kids’ phenotypes are on average a mixture of the parents’ phenotypes, so too can be argued for the kids’ behaviors, including their sense of ethics, when both parents have been around. What I’m upholding is that the kid’s behavior will not itself be random but will be in great part learned from the parent(s)’ behavior. So if the parents desire less suffering in the world, given that they are good parents by common sense standards, so too will their children. Exceptions could of course occur. But this argument is about average outcomes. — javra

I have a few objections. I just don't put too much stock in the outcome. I do encourage good parenting, and think it will lead to better outcomes, but I don't think it would be a high enough outcome. Also, I don't see how good parenting or providing a good moral framework leads to less suffering. I think suffering is structural (baked in) and contingent suffering (suffering that is from circumstances) is too nuanced that moral parenting does not solve it. What does prevent it is preventing birth. Also, I don't think you can out procreate the "badness" out of society. That is its own topic I guess.

As to (2), I very much acknowledge that this position is hard knocks. All the same, if one cares about suffering in the world among humans and lives one’s life thus, then the absence of this person to humanity only increases the suffering in humanity relative to this person’s being otherwise present—this for reasons aforementioned. E.g. where this person would smile at a homeless kid, a non-caring person would not show any kindness toward the same homeless kid; and without the caring person the same homeless kid would receive less compassion and would therefore experience greater suffering. Do you deem this overall reasoning valid or erroneous?

I’ll try to address “the people as means toward ends” issue after this one issue is first addressed—since the former issue is contingent upon the latter issue being valid as here expressed. — javra

Although I sympathize with promoting good parenting whenever possible, suffering exists for the new human, and I am not a kind of utilitarian where the overall total welfare is the only thing that matters. Rather, I see it that a whole new life that now has to deal with the challenges of life and being a self-reflecting human is born where it could have been prevented. It now suffers even if it was perhaps going to be more "good" than the next guy.

It seems to me that the ultimate question you are asking is: Should schopenhauer1 have the right to prevent others from having kids simply because his life is full of suffering? Well, should you? I consider the question of rights and who has more rights than someone else a question with an objective answer that doesn't have to do with ethics. Who has more rights than anyone else? My answer is no one. We all have equal rights, which means you don't have the right to tell me how to live my life, nor do you have the right to prevent others from having a life, because yours is bad. — Harry Hindu

I am not saying we should force the prevention of procreation. It is simply an argument that one can agree or disagree with. I liken it to vegans who advocate for their cause but do not ram it down people's throats or force it into law or anything like that. Also, as I've stated earlier, I don't see the issues of procreation simply as an ethical credo but as a way to understand what we are doing here in the first place. So it is more of a jumping off point for seeing a certain aesthetic understanding of the human condition. What are we doing here day after day after day? I already stated the usual suspects of what people use to justify why existence is in a way "necessary" or "justified" for a new human, but really human existence is a lot of needs and wants (for survival and boredom's sake) in a cultural context. There is an instrumental nature to existence, an absurd repetitiousness, and the need to overcome burdens and challenges seems a bit trite and pat to be an appropriate answer for why people need to be born to experience the challenges in the first place. Something needs to exist to overcome challenges to feel good for overcoming them when nothing needed to exist at all, though glib-sounding, still has to be grappled with. I believe the answer to that conundrum is trickier than most people believe at first reflexive response.

Let me say something very much in agreement with your philosophy. We've discussed this antinatalism so much that it's boring now. Given that your position is correct, we should definitely stop discussing this and move unto more interesting existential matters ;)

What does prevent it is preventing birth. — schopenhauer1

The whole point of his argument, as I see it, is that this result is best achieved by the people who agree with this statement having children. Otherwise, all the anti-natalists will die off and so with them their ideas. Maybe a few people will stumble upon it haphazardly, as has always happened, but if you really care about human beings ceasing to procreate entirely, you need a more permanent movement, and a permanent movement requires raising families according to those ideals.

Well, according to one argument, it's because there will be more pain and suffering. We therefore have a duty not to procreate to prevent this needless pain and suffering. The underlying premise here is that negative utilitarianism is true. — Thorongil

Which is to say, I think, that it's bad or undesirable to be a person, given the absolute nature of the anti-natalist position as I understand it. Again, one must remember that the fictional nonexistent people are no longer a consideration. And, there is no measurement or judgment involved, no consideration of circumstances, or even of life or experience beyond the fact that they may include suffering of some kind.

People suffer, some way or another. Therefore, there should be no more people. There are people, now. That is their misfortune; ideally, they shouldn't be alive, but it's wrong to kill them (and end their suffering).

Is this anti-natalism?

People suffer, some way or another. Therefore, there should be no more people. There are people, now. That is their misfortune; ideally, they shouldn't be alive, but it's wrong to kill them (and end their suffering).

Is this anti-natalism? — Ciceronianus the White

I think so, yes.

I think in-so-far as antinatalism is a form of politics - trying to get others to change their behaviour - it is a hopeless affair. It's really so pointless, nobody should be bothered to argue or talk about it (except maybe as some irrelevant intellectual game/debate) even if they believe in it.

@Thorongil @Agustino @Ciceronianus the White

Since you all missed my point about how it is not as much about the ethical credo as it is a jumping off point about contemplating existential questions, I will do as you all seem to agree on, and not discuss it further. Carry on.

Since you all missed my point about how it is not as much about the ethical credo as it is a jumping off point about contemplating existential questions — schopenhauer1

I don't know what this means. But let me take a stab at it. The first part about an "ethical credo" might mean that you don't think anti-natalism is a normative stance. My reply would be that it clearly is, so that to ignore the tasks of arguing in favor of it and defending it from criticism is to engage in special pleading: "listen to what I say, but don't make me defend myself."

By "contemplating existential questions," you might have in mind the kind of rhetorical questions you asked in the OP. But if that's the case, you're not requesting to explore genuine questions, because rhetorical questions answer themselves. This would mean that "contemplating existential questions" can only lead to a certain set of conclusions: those you hold to.

Please clarify if you'd like.

I don't know what this means. But let me take a stab at it. The first part about an "ethical credo" might mean that you don't think anti-natalism is a normative stance. My reply would be that it clearly is, so that to ignore the tasks of arguing in favor of it and defending it from criticism is to engage in special pleading: "listen to what I say, but don't make me defend myself."

By "contemplating existential questions," you might have in mind the kind of rhetorical questions you asked in the OP. But if that's the case, you're not requesting to explore genuine questions, because rhetorical questions answer themselves. This would mean that "contemplating existential questions" can only lead to a certain set of conclusions: those you hold to.

Please clarify if you'd like. — Thorongil

I get it buddy. You don't like the topic.

You don't like the topic. — schopenhauer1

I do, though. It's just we're not really discussing it, and I don't understand the desire to avoid actually having an argument. I say let's have one, instead of these bizarre, cryptic little dances around the topic.

I do, though. It's just we're not really discussing it, and I don't understand the desire to avoid actually having an argument. I say let's have one, instead of these bizarre, cryptic little dances around the topic. — Thorongil

But we have, specifically in a very long thread before this. I think we explained our positions pretty fully there and the conclusions are there to refer back to if need be. Even if you disagree, I don't appreciate the idea that what I'm saying is rhetorical or that I am trying to avoid trying to defend anti-natalism. I may understand it from another poster, but unless you are another Thorongil, you have seen a lot of my posts where I did this at length. So it is a bit insulting and I can only fathom you are trying to simply get me to stop posting about the topic, so I am obliging and standing down on it. I get that it is hard to remember what was said in the past, so I advise to may read from our last discussion if you are going to call the question of absurdity and structural suffering simply rhetorical. I don't know how it can be when rhetorical usually means it is not meant to have a definitive answer, when I in fact do provide some ideas and answers. If others don't see it the same way, then I argue my point by describing more clearly what I am talking about. It is hard to convey certain concepts like absurdity into words, but I try to paint a picture. If people still don't get it, or understand it, so be it, but I do like to hear other's opinions on the matter as it is important, as far as I see it.

So it is a bit insulting and I can only fathom you are trying to simply get me to stop posting about the topic — schopenhauer1

Actually, in a way I am. If you keep making posts on themes that assume anti-natalism's truth, keep getting the same responses that criticize it, but then respond to these criticisms by saying that you've already addressed them before, why keep making these threads? You're involved in a Sisyphean task of your own making it seems to me.

I get that it is hard to remember what was said in the past, so I advise to may read from our last discussion if you are going to call the question of absurdity and structural suffering simply rhetorical. I don't know how it can be when rhetorical usually means it is not meant to have a definitive answer, when I in fact do provide some ideas and answers. If others don't see it the same way, then I argue my point by describing more clearly what I am talking about. It is hard to convey certain concepts like absurdity into words, but I try to paint a picture. If people still don't get it, or understand it, so be it, but I do like to hear other's opinions on the matter as it is important, as far as I see it. — schopenhauer1

I respect your views, and am in fact still very close to them. I've pivoted in a slightly different direction from you with respect to anti-natalism, but retain a commitment to philosophical pessimism broadly construed. Our last major discussion on anti-natalism, however, was never really resolved, and I still don't understand the intent behind these threads, seeing as they all turn out the same.

I still don't understand the intent behind these threads, seeing as they all turn out the same. — Thorongil

I will no longer engage in them. Enjoy the forums.

I am not saying we should force the prevention of procreation. It is simply an argument that one can agree or disagree with. I liken it to vegans who advocate for their cause but do not ram it down people's throats or force it into law or anything like that. — schopenhauer1

Well, what does it mean to advocate if not to make others believe as you do?

Also, as I've stated earlier, I don't see the issues of procreation simply as an ethical credo but as a way to understand what we are doing here in the first place. So it is more of a jumping off point for seeing a certain aesthetic understanding of the human condition. What are we doing here day after day after day? — schopenhauer1

That's ironic. The very thing that you want to eliminate would be the answer to your question of "What are we doing here day after day after day?". We are here to procreate, and I don't mean that in simply passing down one's own genes. We are all here - even those that don't have any kids themselves - to ensure the next generation can run things in our absence and then pass the torch down to each following generation. We all share genes from the same gene pool and each do our own job in ensuring in some way that the next generation is able to keep things running (childless teachers and coaches, couples who can't have kids that adopt, gays that adopt, etc.).

I already stated the usual suspects of what people use to justify why existence is in a way "necessary" or "justified" for a new human, but really human existence is a lot of needs and wants (for survival and boredom's sake) in a cultural context. There is an instrumental nature to existence, an absurd repetitiousness, and the need to overcome burdens and challenges seems a bit trite and pat to be an appropriate answer for why people need to be born to experience the challenges in the first place. Something needs to exist to overcome challenges to feel good for overcoming them when nothing needed to exist at all, though glib-sounding, still has to be grappled with. I believe the answer to that conundrum is trickier than most people believe at first reflexive response. — schopenhauer1

I don't get that part that's underlined. I can't attempt to answer a point that I don't understand.

Well, what does it mean to advocate if not to make others believe as you do? — Harry Hindu

Is that wrong to advocate for something? Convincing people is part of living in a society with others. You affect people, people affect you. Changing how people affect one another through advocacy seems appropriate in this condition that we live in.

That's ironic. The very thing that you want to eliminate would be the answer to your question of "What are we doing here day after day after day? — Harry Hindu

Well, it wasn't meant to be rhetorical. The answer is absurd instrumentality, as I see it. Doing to do to do to do. We work to maintain ourselves in our situated setting. Why? Because it is part of the enculturation process for surviving. Why? Usually hunger, bodily discomfort, and exposure are not desirable (not dying). We also don't like discomfort (bad smells, unclean things, being impinged upon, annoyances of all varieties). We also don't like languishing with no entertainment. Thus I have always maintained life itself is structured such that most humans are motivated by survival, discomfort, and boredom. Thus, all the secondary goals that branch outward from these foundational motivations seem like the actual cause for actions, but it is more basic than that. All the secondary goals with the extremely nuanced branches that branch out of those branches are coming from the three basic human drives (survival, get more comfortable, get less bored). This can be questioned, but I will try to analyze the argument and see if it indeed does fit into this framework, and see if the rebuttal is missing something or overlooking something.

We are here to procreate, and I don't mean that in simply passing down one's own genes. We are all here - even those that don't have any kids themselves - to ensure the next generation can run things in our absence and then pass the torch down to each following generation. We all share genes from the same gene pool and each do our own job in ensuring in some way that the next generation is able to keep things running (childless teachers and coaches, couples who can't have kids that adopt, gays that adopt, etc.). — Harry Hindu

I don't see why the human project needs to be carried forth. You are presuming that there needs to be some sort of production going on- that humans must produce something or experiences have to be experienced by someone. I don't see why. If you want to start getting into the whole "people need to exist to know people should not exist" I must admit I don't know how to answer that question that in order to know existence needs not be, I need to exist. It's that whole "If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one there to hear it thing". The subject/object relationship is always a tricky issue. However, my main point is that creating more creatures that will simply have to be enculturated to survive, entertain themselves, and get more comfortable (the three motivators behind actions) does not compute in the light of the fact that nothing needs to be produced or experienced. It is absurd in the grandest sense.

I don't get that part that's underlined. I can't attempt to answer a point that I don't understand. — Harry Hindu

Well, I was trying to address the claim that the reason challenges are good is that overcoming them makes someone (somehow) better. Why someone needs to be exposed to challenges (by being born) in the first place (to somehow make them "better") is still not addressed, and I don't think it legitimately can without simply saying that people have a preference to see other people go through the challenges for living. Also, the challenges being met, what does this prove? Again, there is nothing that needs to be produced or experienced by anyone. It is all absurd- there is no necessity for the human experience to be continued or experienced by yet another person. It is all running around to survive, entertain, get more comfortable.

I am interested, hence a forum rather than a journal. So why put more people into the world? What is gained? Are you familiar with my position? It is not all just contingent suffering (the usual harms people think about when discussing suffering). The idea is perhaps too subtle to be effective, I agree. Relationships, pleasure, being absorbed in physical/mental activities, aesthetics, learning, and achievement (or some variation thereof) seem to be the considerations that people choose. Then a defense of suffering based on some variation of Nietzsche's idea of "suffering makes life interesting" as this makes everyone's life its own unique "work of art". Ideas of absurdity, structural, or contingent suffering are not considered and the relative goodness of relationships, pleasure, being absorbed in physical/mental activities, aesthetics, learning, and achievement are never examined as to whether individuals need to carry these experiences out qua individuals who live and have the opportunities for these positive experiences. — schopenhauer1

I am more interested in the idea of a 'jumping-off point' for existential debates, which you mention to another poster. Although you mention existential terms here, your argument seems anti-existentialist to me, a catalogue of reasons and sub-reasons for a pessimistic rationalist outlook towards one particular topic, an outlook which then permeates, for you, every other topic anyone cares to mention. How do all your reasons add up to taking or not taking a leap here and there?

My feeling is that life is pointless and absurd, and every day I newly commit to life all the same, persistently picking up where I left off because humans are habitual creatures, trying at the moment for instance to understand what Levinas means by 'infinity' in the subjective viewpoint towards the Other, meanwhile doing stuff with other people like singing and guitar-playing game-playing and helping to keep civil society functioning and stopping websites from falling over and loving and being loved - I am enjoying studying analytic philosophy but I'm not ruled by it - I love children but never had any, what's not to like about the little bastards? I can't imagine arriving at a philosophical position where I have a right to judge other people's valuations any more than in the service of affable conversations that may mean little, 'phatic communion' is a nice little phrase for such talk that I just found in a very old Malinowski essay that I like - Other people will go on being Other, but maybe our talk will make things a bit clearer to each other - But I wouldn't want to suffocate my life with reasons for and against this or that, most of my joys have come from giving something unlikely a try - All the best!

I don't see why the human project needs to be carried forth. It is absurd in the grandest sense. — schopenhauer1

This absurdity is (from a certain perspective) part of the charm. My current view is that existence is (globally) a brute fact. As Witt put it, It is not how but THAT the world is that is the "mystical." As Nietzsche might have put, this absence of a God in the sense of a cancellation of our absurdity is also the space for self-creation and freedom.

You yourself write absurd in the grandest sense. "Only the damned are grand." If human reality included a "prime directive," then we wouldn't be "Dasein." We wouldn't be self-interpreting, self-creating beings. We wouldn't ourselves be gods.

I'm not saying that life isn't (among other things) truly and utterly horrible. But these others things are just as significant. For instance, you reduce human motivations to a flight from pain and boredom. Of course these are actual and important motivations among others. But is human desire in general negative? When a young man has a crush on a young woman, for instance, is this unsatisfied desire only pain? Or does it not light up the world with a sweet anguish? Then there's also intense philosophical pleasure. When Schopenhauer was clarifying his pessimistic thoughts, I suggest that he experienced the intense "imperial" pleasure of conquering the chaos of human experience. He imposed concept on confusion. That's a distinctly human pleasure, the reframing of existence as a whole.

You probably know the thought of "eternal recurrence." I would answer the demon yes. That would entail horrible suffering. My youth was not a bowl of cherries. But I would say yes to the terrible-ecstatic drama of figuring out all over again what I've figured out. God finds himself as God in the nightmare of being abandoned by God. Is this a myth? Sure. But no less than the reduction of man to a creature of boredom and pain. Of course I know that I don't know you. Maybe you're a Turing machine passing the Turing test. Maybe the "gods" (chance or brute fact) didn't give you certain resources. Maybe my affirmation flows from a stupid brute fact and my words are useless for you. I accept that possibility. But I hope you'll tolerate my input in a friendly spirit, since this forum is a place for what would otherwise be presumption and rudeness (airing our intimate, metaphysical views and criticizing those of others.)

Where are the nude pictures? Don't promise adult material unless you have nudes.

But these others things are just as significant. For instance, you reduce human motivations to a flight from pain and boredom. Of course these are actual and important motivations among others. But is human desire in general negative? When a young man has a crush on a young woman, for instance, is this unsatisfied desire only pain? Or does it not light up the world with a sweet anguish? — t0m

Why did the young man have a crush to begin with? Perhaps a sense of longing for something pleasurable and a companion. Why a companion? Loneliness is not desired? Why? Boredom. Loneliness is one step away from boredom in my opinion. Boredom rules the non-survival aspects of our motivations (and discomfort). The positive joy of anything is at root, riding a wave of secondary goals that sprang forth from a general angst of not falling into a state of boredom. Keep yourself entertained long enough to not even give yourself a chance to see the root of the cause.