This is utterly false. You cannot force anything upon someone who doesn't yet exist.By having the child, it is well-known that the child will eventually have to find a way to survive. Having the child, means knowing that the child will have to work to survive. Thus, having a child is forcing the child to eventually have to work to survive. — schopenhauer1
This is utterly false. You cannot force anything upon someone who doesn't yet exist. — Agustino
Yeah, by mother nature maybe.I'm not saying that. I'm saying, once the kid is born, they have been forced. — schopenhauer1
I just don't see it. Work for what? Sustaining oneself, to work, to sustain, to work, to sustain. We are tragically too self-aware for this scheme- anarchic, communist, mixed economy, capitalist, what have you. — schopenhauer1
What is the most common sexually-transmitted disease?
Birth. — Michael Ossipoff
What's the real existential issue of instrumentality? — Πετροκότσυφας
Presumably that we suffer only for us to continue to suffer. We don't go anywhere, nothing changes. It's a whole lot of effort for nothing. — darthbarracuda
But if we're in life because we're the hypothetical protagonist of a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story, and therefore someone disposed toward life...and if that disposition is unchanged, or even increased at the end of this life, then the reason why we're in a life will remain at the end of this life. — Michael Ossipoff
We're in life because our parents had sex, an egg was fertilized, we were successfully carried to term and born, and we haven't died since. — T Clark
Thank you,, Mr. Science-Worshipper. — Michael Ossipoff
And, even if the causeless, brute-fact, fundamentally-existent, physical world that you believe in objectively exists, then it superfluously exists alongside, and duplicates, the inevitable complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts whose events and relations it matches. ...making the proposal of your objective physical world an unverifiable and unfalsifiable proposition. — Michael Ossipoff
Then I apologize for misunderstanding you. You didn't mean that biological explanation as the full explanation. — Michael Ossipoff
Presumably that we suffer only for us to continue to suffer. We don't go anywhere, nothing changes. It's a whole lot of effort for nothing. — darthbarracuda
You might as well just say "socialism doesn't work". Well, clearly nothing is going to "cure" us of life but capitalism is making things abhorrent. A person who gets sick in a socialistic system worries about their health and their relationships and projects. A person who gets sick in a capitalistic system, in comparison, ends up also worrying about their debt. It's grotesque how people fear disease, for instance, not simply because it's a disease but because it will induce an economic crisis. And when it comes down to it, when a person gets seriously sick, they care far more about these things than anything like "instrumentality", because their life is on the line and they don't want to die. Nobody really wants to die. They just want to stop suffering. — darthbarracuda
Is this an empirical claim? If so, what's the claim exactly? Also, why call that "instrumentality" and not, I don't know, "life's a bitch and then you die"? What does instrumentality have to do with all this? — Πετροκότσυφας
If we're still wrapped up in life, then next will it be that peaceful quiet rest, or will it remain life, because we're still slugging it out with, and stuck to, the gummy-bear?
Shakespeare said, "...to sleep, perchance to dream." Maybe it's the eventful, emotional dream, instead of the quiet, peaceful deep sleep, for people who haven't yet resolved the dream. — Michael Ossipoff
Speaking for myself, I think a next life would make perfect sense. Sure, It would be a bit scary, both from my point of view now, and from how it would seem then. But, if there's a sequence of lives, then the good and bad would at least average-out, right? — Michael Ossipoff
...and what do you expect, and what would you prefer, after this life? Quiet sleep? But do you feel calm, quiet, completed, resolved and restful enough for that to be likely? — Michael Ossipoff
.No, this [a sequence of lives] would be a grotesque horror show when seen from an objective viewpoint. Not only instrumental for 80+ years, but for eternity. Ugh.
— Michael Ossipoff...and what do you expect, and what would you prefer, after this life? Quiet sleep? But do you feel calm, quiet, completed, resolved and restful enough for that to be likely?
.However, in the meantime, more people are born that need to expend energy to maintain their comfort, deal with their own personal burdens, entertain their minds, and survive.
It's still not clear to me what is being argued or what is the problem here. Can you be more specific? — Πετροκότσυφας
I mean do you really care possible future sufferings experienced by others you will never meet or know about? Do you weep now for all the suffering that will be experienced in the future? Are you really that compassionate? — antinatalautist
Life needn’t, and shouldn’t, be primarily instrumental. Sure, we plan for the future and do things for the future, but plainly the present, not the future, is what life really is. Not everyone lives in or for the future. As stated above, that’s a reliable formula for unhappiness. — Michael Ossipoff
Instrumentality isn't necessarily about living for the future — schopenhauer1
It is simply the repetitious nature of surviving
and keeping our mind's entertained
between birth and death.
Putting in energy to maintain survival, comfort, entertainment, this day, then the next, then the next, then the next
But by then (but before the complete shutdown of awareness) you don’t even know that there ever was or could be a body or a life anyway. — Michael Ossipoff
If life has no meaning (and here I refer to salvific, objective meaning, not the created, subjective meaning of the existentialist)... — Thorongil
...then it doesn't matter whether one has children or not or whether the human race dies out or not. — Thorongil
Absent such meaning, there is nothing, no God
and no law of karma, keeping track, as it were, of all the suffering of human beings and other creatures.
Suffering leaves no imprint in a meaningless world.
Were the antinatalist's ultimate desire met, there would be no perspective available to anyone or anything to judge that the extinction of human beings was a good thing.
I'm still missing the point, I'm afraid. We do stuff. Where's the problem? What's the argument? — Πετροκότσυφας
Admittedly, the getting-by task can be a pain. But it isn't everything. Also, many people can find a job that they don't hate, or even one that they like. — Michael Ossipoff
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.