What is upsetting is, rather, the destruction of the idea that life can be without a horrible cost. It is depressing to find out the idea you had, that life is wonderful, to a point that it is always a joyful experience worth seeking, is wrong. — TheWillowOfDarkness
We weren't talking about such a situation though. My point is why discovering the inevitability of suffering in life is upsetting for those who understand it to be joyful. — TheWillowOfDarkness
These dumb aphorisms sometimes work as a distraction from suffering, but that's really all they are. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Interesting that antinatalist philosophy made your guys depressed. I would think it would come as a sort of relief, or hope (no matter how false that hope might be), that there is a way to end suffering, that we don't have to live. That realization is liberating, even if ultimately unrealistic. — The Great Whatever
I don't think any adult actually thinks that, though. Usually their nominal opinions are instead summed up with dumb aphorisms about how life is 'good and bad,' and you take both of them in stride, or about how suffering makes you appreciate the good, etc. Of course none of that is true, it's just what you say. You sort of revert to thinking in terms of Hallmark cards because that's all you've got -- you recapitulate whatever the culture's told you, there's no real filter through actual life experience there. — The Great Whatever
This feels like you're projecting your own pessimistic view of life on others. Maybe most of us find it worth living, most of the time. — Marchesk
But what makes the negative thoughts more true than the positive ones? It's just a different interpretation of life. — Marchesk
Why is that? It's a good thing we have our 'interpretations' to save us from life's misery, huh. We'd be in a real bind if that trick didn't work. — The Great Whatever
I don't understand the sense in which you think it's somehow 'up' to a person to decide whether certain problems make life worth living or not. What do they do, just snap their fingers and make things, even though they're bad...not bad? — The Great Whatever
There seems to be this idea that on the one hand, there's how your life actually is, and then there's some impenetrable magic lens, and on the other side of that there's you, and you can swap out that magic lens to make things different — The Great Whatever
As for the 'developed world,' well, first of all I disagree (hedonic treadmill), and second, the developed world depends on the 'developing' world in unsavory ways, and there is an implicit approval of what happens 'way over there,' if you see what I mean. — The Great Whatever
It's a question of whether a person feels that the bad outweighs whatever good they get out of being alive. You seem to be arguing that people can't actually feel that way, or honestly come to such a conclusion. That they're delusional and lying to themselves. — Marchesk
And how is life, actually? Antinatalists think it's shitty. Okay, but what about people who don't? My point is that a judgement is being made either way. — Marchesk
Yes, there is that. It was more of a snarky remark that antinatalism seems to be coming from comfortable people living in the developed world than people who suffer more than having to wait at a traffic light, or being bored because nothing is on the tube worth watching. — Marchesk
Does thinking life is good make it good? Again, that would be quite convenient for all of us, wouldn't it? — The Great Whatever
But does that mean that one is not wrong? Of course not. You can make judgments, or have opinions, about whatever you please -- but they're just that, opinions. You seem to be implying something further, like the fact that people have different opinions on this subject somehow means that one is no better than the other, or that it is up to each person in each case to decide which is true for their own case. But how would that work? Does thinking life is good make it good? Again, that would be quite convenient for all of us, wouldn't it? — The Great Whatever
What else would make it good or bad, as far as living one's own life is concerned? Are you arguing that there is an objective criteria for judging how life is experienced, such that those who disagree with antinatalists, at least regarding their own lives, are wrong? — Marchesk
It's not that thinking life good makes it good but that some people find that life is good, just as it's not that thinking liquorice tasty makes it tasty but that some people find that liquorice is tasty. It's not somehow up for decision but at the same time it's not something for which there are objective truth conditions. — Michael
And what is it that you are talking about when you say that people 'find that life is good?' With 'tasty,' it's not too hard to see what you're talking about: to find something tasty is to experience a pleasant gustatory sensation when exposed to it. What is the analogue for life? Surely, it's something like: being alive, or being exposed to life, is somehow similarly -- what, pleasant? But clearly that's not going to work well for you, since life is extremely unpleasant in the main. So what are yo talking about? — The Great Whatever
I should also point out that even if you think there are no 'objective truth conditions' for such statements (which is a complicated issue), surely statements like 'X finds Y good/tasty/etc.' have objective truth conditions. So, what are they?
What I'm talking about is that I enjoy life, in the same way that some people enjoy reading or playing sport or listening to music, and so on. It's an emotional disposition that people find themselves in. Not everybody is chronically depressed, like you. The problem is that you're treating your emotional disposition as reflective of the objective worth of other people's lives. It just doesn't work that way. — Michael
I don't know. Is it relevant? There may be objective truth conditions for "X finds life worth living" and "Y finds life not worth living". How does that help your case? — Michael
The trick is to figure out how to deal with pain. I said it before and I'll say it again: For the most part, pain is inevitable, but suffering is theoretically optional. — darthbarracuda
The existentialists felt that the truly free man makes a conscious choice to not commit suicide every day he wakes up. And if a man is not making a conscious choice, then he is not authentic, but of bad faith. I honestly do believe that most people on Earth do not really understand why they keep living, they just mindlessly go through the actions, rocking back and forth between suffering and boredom without even realizing it. This is why Socrates was correct. To analyze one's life and to continue to live regardless has the chance of procuring a truly meaningful existence. To be extremely familiar with the sense of one's mortality is authentic and pure. — darthbarracuda
Theoretically optional? As opposed to actually optional, I suppose... — The Great Whatever
Existentialism is a holdover from Christian ideas of the will. Those aren't tenable in the face of everyday life, imo. — The Great Whatever
What I meant by theoretical was that it is not guaranteed to eliminate all suffering, otherwise that would be the nirvana fallacy. It is perfectly conceivable, however, to minimize the amount of suffering one experiences. — darthbarracuda
I would like some clarification on this. — darthbarracuda
I'm not sure what that would mean, unless it means being dead. I don't know what being alive entails, if not suffering in the broad sense (feeling pleasure and pain), and I don't know I can imagine a life that is somehow only pleasant. To experience seems to bring with it the possibility of disappointment and suffering. — The Great Whatever
In the Sartrean sense, anyway -- there's even a direct lineage from Sartre's notion of the will back to Descartes' in the Meditations, who in turn relates this explicitly to the will of God. The idea that the will is free from external influence and acts as a sort of force doesn't make much sense out of the context of that tradition. — The Great Whatever
I reject the idea that pleasure is synonymous with happiness. Happiness, for me, is synonymous with contentedness and eudaimonia, and although pleasure often does accompany happiness, it is itself completely a completely separate feeling that cannot cause happiness by itself. Empty pleasure is suffering in itself, merely a distraction from the discontent.
If you can learn to prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and expect the mediocre, then you can live your life in such a way that minimizes disappointments and suffering, and even take some enjoyment out of life. — darthbarracuda
Why does it not make sense? Is this related to determinism/fatalism? — darthbarracuda
Maybe we can't get into this here, but I don't see a reason for the distinction. It seems to me that pain and pleasure are bad and good on their own terms, whether you think so or not, and that nothing else fulfills these criteria. So insofar as there's a notion of eudaimonia, joy, happiness, or contentment that is not about pleasure, it either doesn't make sense or isn't worth pursuing if it does. — The Great Whatever
It is certainly related to the hypostatization of the mind as a substance with an active faculty of willing, as in Descartes' philosophy, which is probably related to the Christian notion of the soul. It's a historical question. The more important thing is just that I don't think this notion of an existentialist heroic free will is at all true to life. That's all. — The Great Whatever
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.