I don't like antinatalism, but I also don't care for people reproducing willy nilly because they won't practice family planning techniques that are readily available, and which no-one is stopping them from using. — Bitter Crank

The mutual love between two people and the desire to build a life together, a real desire and not some superficial one, is this family planning. The motivation or will is amplified by understanding that love is a choice that is mutually shared, whereas most think relationships are solely sexual pleasure and economics rather than love. The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. As for:

I wasn't ruling out individuals finding purpose, just that it wasn't an installed feature. — Bitter Crank

“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.” Sartre.

Sure, but philosophy cannot give you what you seek; only faith can; so, at best philosophy can prepare you for faith. For that to happen you need to give up the idea that the kinds of "answers" you are after can be acquired by philosophical thought and also the idea that salvation is dependent on some particular metaphysics or other..

A contradiction...

A better way of putting it, in Cabrera-esque terminology, is that Nietzsche was an affirmative pessimist, i.e. someone who recognized the pessimistic point but affirmed life regardless (as opposed to the negative pessimists, who denied life).

But again, we can affirm intra-worldly things while denying the context in which they arise.

I've always felt like the one refutation of nihilism was life itself.

Life exists. You exist.

philosophy cannot give you what you seek; only faith can — Janus

Stereotyping. Exasperating, again.

A contradiction.. — Janus

Not a contradiction, a subtlety.

Thank you, plentifully.

You're most welcome BC. I hope that at least frames the issue. ;-)

Where I disagree is that recognition of "the pessimistic point" (by which I take you to mean something like a recognition that there is no overarching meaning to life, no heavenly father to care for us, no afterlife, no salvation in this life that is not based on delusion, and so on) is not itself pessimistic unless this recognition is taken to be a reason for lamentation.

I don't see why you think it is stereotyping. Both Christ and Buddha warned against the snares of philosophy. Philosophy is inevitably a function of the dualistic mind; every position contains the seeds of its own negation. Very few philosophers imagine that philosophy can yield definitive or final answers to any of our questions whether aesthetic, ethical, epistemological, metaphysical, religious or spiritual. At best it can show us that there are no such discursive answers. So, I must say I fail to see what you find exasperating in what I had said.

Is it a subtlety you can, or care to, explain?

It's probably easiest to explain through a caricature. Think of it like Nietzsche's metaphysics is pessimist, for example he takes on board a lot of the truths Schopenhauer disclosed about existence, but Nietzsche's prescriptions are life affirming nonetheless.

Yes, I agree; I don't read Nietzsche as either a nihilist or a pessimist. On the contrary, Nietzsche sees nihilism as inherent in Christianity.

Is it necessarily pessimistic to say that the essence of life is a blind, purposeless will? For some the idea that the essence of life is a conscious will that cares about what we do would be a cause for pessimism. Whether you are an optimist or a pessimist in the face of what you believe to be the essence of life would seem to depend on what you want to be true. Either way it could go either way, it seems to me.

Pessimists and Optimists may find this page interesting, The World In Data website has a page on optimism and pessimism.

Oh boy, this thread seems to be, (pardon my imagery here) a big circle jerk for PF members.

"Oh, look how great life is..look how great it can be...

"Yes, yes, PF member, do go on so, I love your positive framework, let's all frolic in the flowers."

"Oh, I really like what you said about so-and-so aspect of life being good"..

"Yes, yes, I totally agree, but I would add, it's not just there is an inherent aspect that is good, but what you make of it that is good"

"Oh indubitably sir, thank you for showing me even more how good life can be"

"Of course, sir! I just want to elaborate on the happiness that you expressed!!"

Ok, this stops now :P . I am the evil and scorned antinatalist and pessimist that you all revile.. pleased to see everyone in good form here. I thought I'd make an appearance to add some perspective from the antinatalist side. Carry on with your circle jerking, if you must, but keep in mind several things.

1) There is structural suffering. My particular brand of pessimism equates this with the idea of instrumentality. This is the idea that life presents itself chiefly as a repetitive task of regulating survival, comfort, and boredom. It is the constant Will at the bottom of our egos driving us forward for no purpose. Our personalities via enculturation then create preferences for where to direct certain socially derived survival, comfort, and entertainment activities. You can say as a society, the de facto non-intentional, yet emergent goal is to perpetuate social institutions by using individuals as inadvertent vehicles in which to enact another life of socially derived survival, comfort-seeking, and entertainment-seeking activities (which in turn strengthens social institutions, and so on).

2) There is contingent suffering. This equates to the classical litany of harms one can encounter living in daily life. It is contingent, because it is intra-worldy and circumstantial. It is based on how circumstances play out, and though not "baked into life" certainly have very high probabilities of occurring. This would include any genetic/environmentally caused illness, disease, disaster, painful circumstance, painful decision, painful experience that one usually encounters by being a certain person with various traits interacting with the environment and other people. Another problem with contingent harms is that it they are unevenly distributed. Some people will have it harder than others due to circumstances of their own or circumstances not of their own. If it is not of their own, nothing can be done. It is a true externality. If it was something that could be done better from learning and not repeating a mistake, it is still a harm that had to be experienced. Why do people need to go through this process in the first place? Yes, people can "improve". Some people don't. Even if they do improve, why is it the job of humans to be born for some major improvement project that they must undergo? Is this not just post-hoc rationalization for bad decision-making? "Oh, well it's a learning experience" doesn't seem to justify why there needs to be this dialectic of learning from mistakes in the first place. So humans need to be born so that they can learn to not make as many mistakes?

There is non-existence before birth and there is death. What is it that really needs to take place for a new human born into the world, considering the repetitive maintenance/upkeep of the structural suffering, and the myriad of contingent circumstantial harms that befall humans? Rather, no one needs to be born to thus maintain and upkeep their life nor experience contingent harms.

The goods one experiences in life- the relationships, the learning, the aesthetic pleasures (including humor), the physical pleasures, the pleasures of engaging in highly stimulating physical/mental activities (or flow activities), and achievement, though they might make life a bit more of a consolation, are not worth the structural and contingent suffering involved. Also, just like contingent harms, these goods are unevenly distributed. Some people will have a better time seeking out, finding, or obtaining these goods than others. Some will struggle more than others. Not all goods in life are guaranteed. Why create the problem of finding goods in the first place, if no problem needs to be given in the first place?

Life is Good in Itself. — Bitter Crank

Starting with such a bold claim does not endear readers to take you seriously.

Starting with such a bold claim does not endear readers to take you seriously. — charleton

I disagree. I very much appreciate it when someone begins with a bold, clear claim, and then goes on to argue for it.

How do you justify the conclusion that:

The goods one experiences in life- the relationships, the learning, the aesthetic pleasures (including humor), the physical pleasures, the pleasures of engaging in highly stimulating physical/mental activities (or flow activities), and achievement, though they might make life a bit more of a consolation, are not worth the structural and contingent suffering involved.

How do you make that value call?

I doubt pleasure/pain are additive (utilitarian) experiences for either a person or a population, rather, I think that they are qualitative personal experiences, otherwise how could a woman go through the pain of childbirth and yet be full of joy.

The claim remains bold and unsupported. There is nothing anyone could possibly say that supports this claim. There can be nothing inherently good. Good and Evil are value judgements and are subjective.
Life cannot be "good in itself". It can only be good in his (the poster) opinion.
It would have been more honest to say "I think life is good."

No it is not. It is a testament to fear and an evolved sense of survival.

How do you make that value call? — Cavacava

One reason, stated in previous post: these goods are unevenly distributed. Some people will have a better time seeking out, finding, or obtaining these goods than others. Some will struggle more than others. Not all goods in life are guaranteed. Why create the problem of finding goods in the first place, if no problem needs to be given in the first place?

Another is that, at the bottom of all experiences is an emptiness that must be filled yet again. This is often equated to the suffering described in Buddhism. It is a striving that is never yielding, yet we must find contents to content us and entertain us. Why create this problem of survival on one hand and finding the best way to fill our time on the other in the first place? All this energy running about again and again. How about let sleeping dogs lie? No need to make people put energy forth to maintain themselves.

If there are a need for goods, that means we are lacking those goods to begin with. So we need to find goods as we go about life to fulfill the cup that perpetually needs to be filled, to be emptied yet again (the emptiness at the bottom of endeavors) to be fulfilled yet again. It is an absurdity.

Why create the problem of finding goods in the first place, if no problem needs to be given in the first place?

I enjoy solving problems, and the problem of finding goods is a crucial issue, It adds zest to my life, when I succeed it is fantastic, when I fail it's depressing, but I enjoy the striving.

Still working on the others.

Starting with such a bold claim does not endear readers to take you seriously. — charleton

Why is "Life is good in itself" a bold claim? Or is it "in itself" that is problematic?

It means nothing. "good" is a judgement relationship between an observer and a thing.
It a value.

Saw that you posted this on another thread and found that interesting and applicable to this conversation. Quite odd, that you would say that, given what you have discussed here:

"Our existence makes us biased in assessing the significance of our existence." — Intrigued

Oh no, people are double checking my posts and comparing them.

I haven't finishing reading your post, but if you hadn't shown up pretty quick, I would have sent you a telegraph alerting you to the topic's bright, sunny, breezy existence needing your special seasoning insight.

To say "Ben & Jerry's ice cream is good" is "a judgement relationship between an observer and a thing" -- definitely.

To assert that "life is good" -- not just my life, your life, or a millipede's life but Life--which has made this discussion and many others possible in the first place--is good seems like a statement which has to stand on its own without proof. People also say that the universe is meaningless. Asserting that the universe is meaningless (and doesn't provide us with any meaning) is another statement that just has to stand on it's own. Life, or the universe, is different than a package of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Saying a statement has to stand on its own doesn't make it true, it's an assertion one can agree with or not.

There may be reasons why one would assert that life is good, or that the universe is meaningless, and that can be analyzed. There is a difference between asserting the universe is meaningless and finding this freedom, and asserting that the universe is meaningless and blowing one's brains out.

I find that "life is good" is a more serviceable POV than the view "life is a living nightmare".

suffering — schopenhauer1

Speaking of which, it's time to leave for a dental appointment. More later.