its a justification for not confronting anything. — csalisbury

So here is a value-judgement upon what a person should be doing. Please do elaborate? And then I'll appeal to the usual structural suffering of whatever it is you mention. You will accuse me of unnecessarily reducing life to a framework in order for me to better deal with it. I will then accuse you of not looking at the big picture and finding ways to ignore what is really going on. You will then say I am still hiding from the complexities of life in order to make it easier for me to cope. Your hope is this will then just reveal itself to be a psychological problem to overcome in order to get to "really" living which you haven't quite shared what that is yet, except hinting at "complexity" which is the very term I came up with. Is that about right?

So here is a value-judgement upon what a person should be doing

Kind of, but not really. If you take a deep look at most pessimists, you find that they're very concerned with a specific sort of injustice. Without their consent, they've found themselves in a situation where something is being demanded of them in excess of their ability to deliver on it (the specifics of what the demand is can vary.) This is tormenting, a feeling of condemnation. The response is always the same: the world itself is then condemned. If the pessimist realizes that its not really all that meaningful to condemn something thats insentient (as in that Conrad quote), then they'll focus on the part that is sentient: parents. They're the ones who are responsible for all this.

I'm not saying the pessimist ought to confront anything because its the rules of being a good person. It's something different. The pessimist approach is (implicitly) obsessed with justifying its own failure to confront the demand (it generally slips out explicitly in one place or another though. Key examples would be: Beckett's discussion of his 'pensum' in The Unnameable, Conrad's Lord Jim, give me an hour and I'll find where it comes out in Cioran etc etc.)


So, it's not that the world's out here, folding its arms, and telling the pessimist what he should do. It's the pessimist himself who is constantly imposing this value-judgment on himself(if usually in a displaced way.) If what's ailing you is the condemnation that comes from not-confronting - it's up to you what you want to do with that - but you already have your answer.

Of course, it's hard to figure out what you're not confronting. Everyone has something different. But I think mostly its the condemning voice. You have to find a way to take away its power rather than trying to get it condemn something else, and leave you safe. It's a strategy that only works temporarily, and works less and less each time.

And I don't think its a psychological problem. I think its a spiritual one with psychological ramifications

'I must have got embroiled in a kind of inverted spiral, I mean one the coils of which, instead of widening more and more, grew narrower and narrower and finally, given the kind of space in which I was supposed to evolve, would come to an end for lack of room.' — Beckett

"Alas," said the mouse, "the world gets smaller every day. At first it was so wide that I ran along and was happy to see walls appearing to my right and left, but these high walls converged so quickly that I’m already in the last room, and there in the corner is the trap into which I must run."

"But you’ve only got to run the other way," said the cat, and ate it. — Kafka

Addiction will always tell you that anyone suggesting a way out is a cat, or someone working on the cat's behalf. But there isn't any cat at all. The 'cat' is a necessary part of the pessimist mythology. In a way, it keeps you safe, but at a very steep price.

To take a more lowbrow example. Beginning of this clip: Frollo's the one who won't stop talking about the 'cat'. Why? And why does Quasimodo believe him? & it it meaningful that this particular exchange centers largely around disfigurement which is one of the pessimist's favorite talking points?

And funny that this type of thinking can only take hold (even in a minor way) in the top ten percent of countries by level of quality of life in just about every indicator. — Baden

Yep. By definition, anyone posting here about antinatalism has a full belly, a roof over their heads, time on their hands. They can take for granted all the civilised advantages that hold real discomfort at bay.

But that would be the irony. Take away the few big discomforts of life and that frees up the mind to start noticing all the tinier ones. Which are far more numerous in their diversity.

A crooked painting can cause me psychic pain. I can't even bear cotton t-shirts anymore - too heavy and restrictive. It's got to be micro-merino next to my skin. :)

So it is easy to see how a generalised dissatisfaction arises. The more luxurious your life, the more you can become overwhelmed by everything that is just slightly not perfect about it.

[antinatalism is subtler. Its a condemnation not of existence, but of the part of existence we can consider responsible for existence - however the focus on it is serving the same function - the feeling of guilt is placed elsewhere] — csalisbury

Nothing in particular needs to be responsible for existence nor is there a need for guilt. There is no responsibility for that unless there is a god. This sounds like either your particular journey through this subject or a very direct experience of someone else's.

So it is easy to see how a generalised dissatisfaction arises. The more luxurious your life, the more you can become overwhelmed by everything that is just slightly not perfect about it. — apokrisis

Antinatalism need not arise from a dissatisfaction with one's own life. I can recognize that I have led a fairly charmed life with small amounts of suffering here and there, but that is only my small survey of one. The bigger picture is what the antinatalist is focused on, not the individual. And it should come as no surprise there is a requirement of time and luxury to come to such a worldview. If you're struggling day to day just to survive then it's unlikely you'll have time to ponder such things.

Also, antinatalism and pessimism are connected but not necessarily from a local viewpoint. I consider myself a short-term optimist but a long-term pessimist. This doesn't lead to some crippling psychological state where I don't strive to make the world a better place, but it does inform decisions about bringing people into this world.

I don’t follow.

Who is arguing that we shouldn’t make rational choices about having kids. Their welfare ought to be our primary moral concern. We might decide the world is not going to be a good place for them as a result.

But that is quite different from a general claim that life on the whole is structurally intolerable.

Nothing in particular needs to be responsible for existence nor is there a need for guilt. There is no responsibility for that unless there is a god. This sounds like either your particular journey through this subject or a very direct experience of someone else's.

Yeah, I'm definitely drawing from my own experience, but not only that. I've mentioned Beckett and Conrad, for instance, where the same dynamic is very clearly at work. And it seems to hold true of nearly every full-blown pessimist I've run into.

I mean take this quote from a post just one page back:

The current way of looking at things has it that you can be irresponsible as a parent of a child by how you provide for them and treat them, but hardly ever is it considered that having children tout court is irresponsible. — Darth

Maybe I can clarify things a bit this way. There are many ways to react to a feeling that the world is largely horrible, filled with suffering. You have soteriologies of all variety. You have suicide. You can take a Buddhist approach and practice meditation. But there is another thing that consists of devoting the majority of one's intellectual energy to talking about how bad the world is. Saying the same thing often and with only slight variation (Cioran is probably the apotheosis of this.) That's philosophical pessimism. It's only partially about what's being said. What's more important to look at, again, is the patterns of saying it. So for instance: The OP is insistent that he's not drawing moral distinctions. Ok, but if that's not what he's interested in, why the particular appeal of this topic? The (ostensibly morally-neutral) selfishness of parents? Why does he return to this topic again and again?

Yep. By definition, anyone posting here about antinatalism has a full belly, a roof over their heads, time on their hands. They can take for granted all the civilised advantages that hold real discomfort at bay. — apokrisis

By definition, just about anybody posting here about anything at all has a full belly, a roof over their heads, and time on their hands. And they all certainly do take for granted all the civilized advantages that hold real discomfort at bay. :roll:

So it is easy to see how a generalised dissatisfaction arises. The more luxurious your life, the more you can become overwhelmed by everything that is just slightly not perfect about it. — apokrisis

Of course, it's hard to figure out what you're not confronting. Everyone has something different. But I think mostly its the condemning voice. You have to find a way to take away its power rather than trying to get it condemn something else, and leave you safe. It's a strategy that only works temporarily, and works less and less each time.

And I don't think its a psychological problem. I think its a spiritual one with psychological ramifications — csalisbury

Most people think there is some teleology to their existence. At any particular time, I should be doing X thing. But this isn't the case. Rather there is simply habits and routines we choose to pick up because we don't like the alternative of looking at the yawning void. Condemned to be free. Inside outside, do this that. Experiences are said to accumulate into something more and more developed and growth. Nope. It's the same circular pattern. Did you ever think the ideas of self-actualization and moving towards something better were there as a way to cope with existential dread? Yes. It's best we soothe with words of self-help wisdom so that individuals don't look too deep.

But that is quite different from a general claim that life on the whole is structurally intolerable. — apokrisis

You try to make the not-so-subtle switch from apokrisis preferences to the world-writ-large. What apokrisis does is balance, what the evil antinatalists do is romanticism. Yet, we are both doing choosing our habit patterns to look away from the void. I am just peeling off the layers to see the barebones of it- what Schopenhauer called "will", I'll call existential striving at the bottom, dressed in goals we give ourselves. Keep outrunning the boredom at the bottom of things etc. etc.

Most people think there is some teleology to their existence. At any particular time, I should be doing X thing. But this isn't the case. Rather there is simply habits and routines we choose to pick up because we don't like the alternative of looking at the yawning void. Condemned to be free. Inside outside, do this that. Experiences are said to accumulate into something more and more developed and growth. Nope. It's the same circular pattern. Did you ever think the ideas of self-actualization and moving towards something better were there as a way to cope with existential dread? Yes. It's best we soothe with words of self-help wisdom so that individuals don't look too deep.

No, I mean I get the darn concept- all of the above is boilerplate pessimism - but I think its wrong and I've been trying to explain why.

I mean just look at that paragraph: It's describing itself! It's closer to a recitation of a catechism than it is anything else.

Let me break down the paragraph:

Most people think there is some teleology to their existence. At any particular time, I should be doing X thing. But this isn't the case.

compare to this:

The ethics of phil. pess. is such that the aesthetics of existence is not simply hand waved and ignored, as that is the core of the issue. Hence darth's point about intra-worldly affairs. This is looking at the whole pie perspective, not trying to subsume, isolate, distract, and ignore it. — Schop1

The only coherent interpretation of this passage is that you think there is a kind of an ethical demand to face the horror of reality, one that most do not live up to.

Rather there is simply habits and routines we choose to pick up because we don't like the alternative of looking at the yawning void. Condemned to be free. Inside outside, do this that. Experiences are said to accumulate into something more and more developed and growth. Nope. It's the same circular pattern.

The suggestion here, read in light of what precedes it, is that the things we do because we feel that we're supposed to, and because we think they lead to something better, are really just a protective shell of habit and routine which allow us to avoid something else.

How does this square with the 'ethics of phil. pess.' and the refusal to 'subsume, isolate, distract' etc? Isn't it odd that on the one hand you have a very specific demand alongside plenty of posts repeating the same basic points, again and again. But then on the other, you're differentiating yourself from those who believe in the reality of meaningful demands, those who get caught up in circular routines?

What's your attitude toward those who fail to live up to your ethical demand?

It's best we soothe with words of self-help wisdom so that individuals don't look too deep.

It's an attitude of ironic contempt.

What you've done here is describe your own approach as someone else's, and then condemned it. Some people self-soothe, others can confront the 'deep'.

Yet, we are both doing choosing our habit patterns to look away from the void. — schopenhauer1

Don’t you instead wander the city streets brandishing your placard warning the end is nigh? Repent while you have the chance!

You have to have a reason why you could believe that existence is structurally intolerable when the evidence is that most people find life a mixed bag, but on the whole, worth living. And arguing with unbelievers is how you daily confirm yourself in that faith. It becomes your evidence that ordinary people really do operate under some mass delusion and only you have been gifted with the vision of the truth.

Antinatalism has a lot of parallels with Buddhist nirvana, just with a different means to bring about the same result. The antinatalist wants to bring about the total cessation of all suffering through ending reproduction, whereas the Buddhist wants the same result, but being bound by his belief in samsara, strives to individually liberate everyone from the cycle. The end goal is the same thing - a non-state, free from anything at all (including suffering/dukkha).

Neither strike me as actual solutions to suffering, in the same way that blowing your head off doesn't cure a headache. Both just strike me as utterly hopeless and defeatist. "Being alive is awful (or mostly awful, or contains awfulness), there is no solution, just end it all." Or even, "there is a solution: just end it all".

But for the majority of people, their own lives are judged worth living. I think it's incredibly arrogant to somehow think you know better than all these people, that you see the truth of the world whereas everyone else is deluded (which is basically what the antinatalist does), all the while claiming to be more compassionate and caring than everyone else.

Antinatalists would do a lot better to personalize their own sufferings. But they don't, because it leads directly to suicide (or maybe, the ones that do aren't around to talk). "Being alive as me is awful, there is no solution, just end it all." We call this in the western world depression. Why is it awful to be alive as you? And why can't you see a solution? Because being embodied as a human in the world is a fundamentally flawed enterprise filled with great suffering and purposeless pain? Or because you lack close relationships with others (even children?) and a meaningful engagement with the world?

The antinatalist might respond, but why should I have to form a meaningful engagement with the world? Why should I have to form close bonds with others? To do it, to do it, to do it? Why was I thrust into this predicament? Why was I forced to seek out and create these things? But the objection comes from a place of deficiency, whereas the rest of the world is already engaged and involved in these things. For the vast majority of the natalist world - the world in which people form close bonds with each other, have sex, create families and futures - these objections simply don't arise, because they're already involved and engaged with the world.

Although it may be condescending and infantilizing, I think it's not too far off the mark to simply say there's something wrong with antinatalists. There's something lacking in their lives, or dispositions, or outlook or mental state or whatever. They personally suffer a great deal, therefore we are all suffering (secretly mind you; we are unaware of our sufferings - whereas the antinatalist has the balls to 'see the world as it is head on' - only he is enlightened to the truth of the world), and therefore the whole human enterprise must come to an end (for the sake of the unborn chilluns!). And all this while claiming compassion. It's sick really.

It's as if for the antinatalist, they see their own lives as headaches, and therefore it must be so for the rest of the world. And the proposed cure is an ending of heads altogether. But the rest of the world is looking at them oddly saying, "but my head doesn't hurt...".

You try to make the not-so-subtle switch from apokrisis preferences to the world-writ-large. What apokrisis does is balance, what the evil antinatalists do is romanticism. Yet, we are both doing choosing our habit patterns to look away from the void. I am just peeling off the layers to see the barebones of it- what Schopenhauer called "will", I'll call existential striving at the bottom, dressed in goals we give ourselves. Keep outrunning the boredom at the bottom of things etc. etc. — schopenhauer1

But for the vast majority of people the barebones of the world is not a void or an "existential striving", it's their relationships with others. You act as if you were born into the world alone, forced with a choice to cover up the void of it all with goals/entertainment/relationships or face head on the harsh truth of the world. In reality everyone has someone who raises them, a culture and language they were taught and a society they exist and survive within. The barebones of the world is a community, not a man alone with the void. Nobody exists and survives without others. It's a failure to meaningfully engage with, and get 'caught up' within your community that causes this sense of "void". It's why people are so depressed in the modern world. It's why people commit suicide. And probably why people advocate antinatalism.

I think you're spot on in your focus on community. 100%

Feeling cut off, deeply cut off - where does it come from?

I think it's not too far off the mark to simply say there's something wrong with antinatalists — inyenzi

From there.

"there's something wrong," said in the right tone, is the death knell. This is the beating heart of shame.

There is something wrong, but its something that happened (that can unhappen, over time), not something the antinatalist is. This is a crucial distinction, and a super important one.

How does this square with the 'ethics of phil. pess.' and the refusal to 'subsume, isolate, distract' etc? Isn't it odd that on the one hand you have a very specific demand alongside plenty of posts repeating the same basic points, again and again. But then on the other, you're differentiating yourself from those who believe in the reality of meaningful demands, those who get caught up in circular routines? — csalisbury

I have no enmity towards those who are caught up in circular routines. In fact, we all (including pessimists) must do it to survive. We are built with cultural mechanisms that rely on choosing routines to ground ourselves in an umwelt. The freedom to choose, along with our group dynamics/group-derived identity demands it. So it's inevitable and I am not even saying one should not do so. It is descriptive, not normative. However, the ability to see it for what it is, can be considered normative. This meta-cognition (or self-awareness) of what one is doing is perhaps part of the pessimist's heuristic recommendation. In this regard, Existentialism as a movement is very much about this meta-awareness that one is really choosing paths of "care" (things we care about/ intra-worldly affairs). In this way Existentialism and pessimism are linked in many regards.

What you've done here is describe your own approach as someone else's, and then condemned it. Some people self-soothe, others can confront the 'deep'. — csalisbury

No one has committed a pessimistic crime by not using their ability for self-awareness regarding their paths of care or circular routines. I don't condemn it, but there is a recommendation to be aware of it. One can be caught up in the routines without knowing the bigger picture of it. When you do see the bigger picture, you tend to see that aesthetic perspective I was talking about of striving will that wraps itself in layers of circular routines in the individual's umwelt. At the bottom of it is a sort of emptiness/boredom- a dull silence that we wrap more routines around.

The antinatalist might respond, but why should I have to form a meaningful engagement with the world? Why should I have to form close bonds with others? To do it, to do it, to do it? Why was I thrust into this predicament? Why was I forced to seek out and create these things? But the objection comes from a place of deficiency, whereas the rest of the world is already engaged and involved in these things. For the vast majority of the natalist world - the world in which people form close bonds with each other, have sex, create families and futures - these objections simply don't arise, because they're already involved and engaged with the world. — Inyenzi

So what exactly is the need for more people? What is the X reason? I think you have a well-stated post. Actually, it might be the most coherent response to the pessimist argument as it attacks the premises head on. So kudos to you. I still think the rebuttal, though well-stated, is still lacking in response to the pessimist's argument. As I mentioned with csalisbury, even if people do not see the bigger picture, it does not mean that something is still not going on here. Why does that new person need to be born? What is this trying to accomplish? Eventually the argument will come back to the idea of circularity, instrumentality, absurdity, etc. That is a vicious circle that would be hard to break in argument.

I will offer an olive branch to the anti-antinatalists/pessimists. Do you think that people should be at least thinking of life in the meta-awareness sense that some pessimists advocate? Religion, tries to fill this role. Literature does too. But, is there a way for communities to directly address issues of existence head-on without mediating layers of allegory and metaphor? Can we have communities of existential discussion? I haven't seen it, and it would be interesting to see how that would work. I am aware this is a routine, but its a routine that is referring back to the meta-awareness of the existential situation.

Can we have communities of existential discussion? — schopenhauer1

But @Inyenzi nailed it. Not having children is to suffer a deficiency in an especially close human and community relationship.

It is thus funny - in a sad and ironic way - that you would want to scratch your itch for community in a community of existential complaint.

But then if there were such a philosophical community, it would only be valuable to the extent it was brutally honest. So it would have to take account of the psychological and sociological science, as well as the physical and cosmological science.

At the bottom of it is a sort of emptiness/boredom- a dull silence that we wrap more routines around. — schopenhauer1

Is that really the general case? It sounds like what a person with the flat affect of deep depression might say. But some people might say that perhaps there is restless anxiety. A person with a tendency to disorders of anxiety and obsession would have that as their most unfocused baseline state.

And then there is what I would think of as the balance between too flat and too jittery. The calm instability of a meditative state of mind - a state of simple vagueness. :)

So even at a pop psychology level, we can see that your argument for some generalised baseline condition - flat affect - is challenged by the facts. It may be what is true for you. But is it true for everyone?

And my point is that neurocognition tells us the mind depends on its dichotomous responses. It needs to be able to swing both ways with adaptive flexibility. It must be able to worry when worry is required, and to relax, when that is what is best. Be jittery or be calm. Be introspective or be outwardly engaged. Etc, etc.

So the richness of lived experience is the ability to move strongly in opposing directions as suits the needs of the moment. Joy and pain.

And that lability predicts that the resting state, the deep down condition, would be the kind of neutral instability, the sense of disengaged poise, that meditation seeks after. A continuous fertile bubbling of thought and impressions that you keep letting go rather than pursuing.

It is nothing like death or the void. It is not the abyss or the chasm or the terror that needs to be managed and suppressed.

It is ... a vagueness. It is basic mindfulness, a basic level of being in the world, all ready to go, but not yet going anywhere in particular.

And it is not even some super-state of mind or anything special. It is not pure individuation but rather its opposite, the most de-individuate state of mind we can arrive at.

However, it is what it would be like to be centred. It is the balance between being too flat and too jittery for comfort. Neutral and yet alive with the potential to engage.

So if we are going to start building psycho-philosophies, they ought to accurately identify what would be the natural general baseline condition of a well-adjusted mind. We ought to know what we are shooting for when making our generalisations.

here's an idea. What if procreation is nether moral or Immoral. Only how you go about it. Plus I am a big believer in the prinstable of universalization, simply procreation is only immoral if you think the results of everone doing the same thing no exception

here's an idea. What if procreation is nether moral or Immoral. — hachit

You don't read, do you?

The barebones of the world is a community, not a man alone with the void. Nobody exists and survives without others. It's a failure to meaningfully engage with, and get 'caught up' within your community that causes this sense of "void". It's why people are so depressed in the modern world. It's why people commit suicide. And probably why people advocate antinatalism. — Inyenzi

I agree with what you say about community, but would you not agree that the style of mostly capitalist communities emphasizes an obsession with self? Getting caught up in the wealth-glamour 'religion' might be the cause rather than the cure of alienation.

Probably you have personal relationships in mind, though. And, yeah, I think successful personal relationships are the main reason that most people don't regret being born. And that's why it's easy to read anti-natalism as a projected failure on the level of personal relationships. 'It's not just me. It's life itself that fails.' I read it largely that way, but I think it also has the appeal of every radical idea that understands itself to pop a bubble of sentimental delusion. My primary objection to it is that it wants to make suicide respectable. It's not that I'm anti-suicide, but rather that this making-respectable strikes me as involving the same kind of sentimentality that anti-natalism defines itself against. 'Excuse me, sir. If you have a moment, I'd like to politely and rationally talk you into the extinction of your species. Of course I'll have to start by convincing you that your life sucks more than you know.'

Can we have communities of existential discussion? I haven't seen it, and it would be interesting to see how that would work — schopenhauer1

Don't we have that right here and now?

Or do you really mean a community of anti-natalists? And isn't something like that out there?

No one has committed a pessimistic crime by not using their ability for self-awareness regarding their paths of care or circular routines. I don't condemn it, but there is a recommendation to be aware of it. One can be caught up in the routines without knowing the bigger picture of it. When you do see the bigger picture, you tend to see that aesthetic perspective I was talking about of striving will that wraps itself in layers of circular routines in the individual's umwelt. At the bottom of it is a sort of emptiness/boredom- a dull silence that we wrap more routines around. — schopenhauer1

I understand the mood or emptiness/boredom. I bet many of your opponents do, too. So isn't the issue really about how to position this mood in a worldview? Why should this mood be the truth of the matter more than any other mood? In my view, the profound is tangled up with the possibility of this mood. This emptiness is something like a space that allows the parts to move.

But then I'm not trying to be your opponent. Maybe life's grand and maybe it sucks. Maybe we exaggerate our happiness, and maybe we exaggerate our suffering and our concern for the suffering for those distant strangers. Maybe the entire notion of some grand truth about life in general is bogus. These 'maybes' are an example of the complexity that a fixed pessimism can be accused of dodging.

So what exactly is the need for more people? — schopenhauer1

Women like to play with babies. Fathers like to be proud of their successful sons. Because 'God says so.' You know the needs. What exactly is your need for a need?

One of my objections to pessimism is the way it wraps itself in a sugary coating. I think I'd find it more exciting if it leaned in to accusations of being adolescent. 'Yeah, I'm a monster-baby who hates life for not being up to my infinite standards. Fertility is just gross. Better the void than this unjustified replication. I just don't like life, and my own little suicide is way too small of a gesture for expressing this dislike. I want the machine that made me shut down forever. I want the universe to disappear up it's own asshole.'

I spent a little time in detention now and then in high school, and FTW ('fuck the world') was carved into that detention desk. That proud, senseless revolt had a certain purity. When the basic FTW idea is dolled up as rational or moral, this strikes me as a status-seeking attachment to life (as well as a genuine disgust for life). The 'machine' is still loved as the condition for the possibility of trying to shut it down. Also non-pessimist is a necessary background for the heroically truth-telling pessimist identity. (And that's why an anti-natalist forum would probably be a snore, just like a Rand forum.) And of course your namesake stuck around for a long time without having to work at anything but his complex denunciation of life. He had a cute little retro outfit and resented Hegel getting more attention. I bet he was grateful to have been born when fame finally caught up to him in his old age. This doesn't mean his life was 'really' good. It just complicates the message.

Frustration is always bound up with self-condemnation. — csalisbury

I like just about everything you've written on this issue, but I think this line leave something out. What about the raging self-love that can lead to frustration? What about the monstrous inner child who always wants more? Or who is tired of being polite, punctual, and prudent? Or tired of being rational, respectable, scientific, etc.? I have in mind a kind of stupid animal rebellion against all constraint, except that it's particularly human in its relation to an unbounded imagination.

Your child could be the next Buddha or Messiah if you prefer but Hitler had parents too.

There's no way of knowing what your child will become. Potential is neutral and things could swing any which way.

So, nobody is or can be in a position to offer reasons for or against.

Personally, I think it's better not to have children - I do defensive driving. I don't mind an Einstein but I don't want a Jeffrey Dahmer on my family tree.

And my point is that neurocognition tells us the mind depends on its dichotomous responses. It needs to be able to swing both ways with adaptive flexibility. It must be able to worry when worry is required, and to relax, when that is what is best. Be jittery or be calm. Be introspective or be outwardly engaged. Etc, etc.

So the richness of lived experience is the ability to move strongly in opposing directions as suits the needs of the moment. Joy and pain. — apokrisis

And what causes this effort to be balanced in the first place? Why does this balancing act need to take place? Ah, the existential questions- in other words, not taking what is for granted as what should be. Why should there be this balancing in the first place. Putting the cart before the horse again. Taking an is for an ought.

It is nothing like death or the void. It is not the abyss or the chasm or the terror that needs to be managed and suppressed. — apokrisis

I never said that, so this is a straw man.

So if we are going to start building psycho-philosophies, they ought to accurately identify what would be the natural general baseline condition of a well-adjusted mind. We ought to know what we are shooting for when making our generalisations. — apokrisis

The baseline state is boredom or restlessness that motivates to pursue this or that goal. You can call it a vague-like state if you will and dress it up in your terminology, but that is the feeling. Not anticipation, etc. etc. as that is a layer beyond. It is the restlessness of the striving human animal, challenged by projects and tasks of his/her choosing. Some things are more given than others (hunting/gathering provides for a more confined set of choices for goals than a post-industrial economy for example but it is the same basic goal-categories: survival, comfort/maintenance seeking, boredom-fleeing).

Don't we have that right here and now?

Or do you really mean a community of anti-natalists? And isn't something like that out there? — syntax

Not in the real world. I haven't seen many "Communities of Existential Thought" in many cities. There's probably one or two somewhere I'm sure on a meetup site, or perhaps just philosophy meetups, but generally there is not. Ironically, we only relegate religious institutions for this kind of thinking, and that is wrapped up in the trappings of supernaturalism, traditions, custom, allegory, and historical baggage.

Maybe the entire notion of some grand truth about life in general is bogus. These 'maybes' are an example of the complexity that a fixed pessimism can be accused of dodging. — syntax

But then, is a life worth starting because it has complexities? The antinatalist does not assume that the answer is yes.

What exactly is your need for a need? — syntax

Starting a whole new life on behalf of someone else seems to me as good a reason for a reason as any other decision.

The 'machine' is still loved as the condition for the possibility of trying to shut it down. — syntax

One is never not choosing to decide some stance, at least those with minds capable of metacognition- awareness that one is making a decision (or what appears to be one) in the first place. I think you do identify an interesting dialectic though. The antinatalist asks the "why life?" in the first place. It grates on people who never stop to ask this question or who have projects and goals that they do not want to question the importance of. It is a slap in the face- more personal than almost anything else.

And of course your namesake stuck around for a long time without having to work at anything but his complex denunciation of life. He had a cute little retro outfit and resented Hegel getting more attention. I bet he was grateful to have been born when fame finally caught up to him in his old age. This doesn't mean his life was 'really' good. It just complicates the message. — syntax

Interesting observation. Indeed Schopenhauer was independently wealthy.

Not in the real world. I haven't seen many "Communities of Existential Thought" in many cities. There's probably one or two somewhere I'm sure on a meetup site, or perhaps just philosophy meetups, but generally there is not. Ironically, we only relegate religious institutions for this kind of thinking, and that is wrapped up in the trappings of supernaturalism, traditions, custom, allegory, and historical baggage. — schopenhauer1

Oh, you meant in the real world. Well, I'm starting to embrace the internet as the 'real' intellectual world. I was recently at a lame party. It got about as deep as Beyonce and a few liberal 'tribal' snorts, and these were educated people. I suspect that there's just cowardice at the root of it. They accurately see their peers as a judgmental/conforming mob with no taste for polite discord. I think people are also afraid of sounding pretentious if they venture beyond pop culture.

Anyway, I came home and read philosophy online for about 8 hours to wash the banality from my mind. And I bumped into an appreciation for the value of the internet in some of these thinkers. It's just too hard to physically arrange live conversation at a high level. And really there's something beautiful to me in written conversation. I like maintaining and developing the skill of written self-presentation.

As far as religious institutions go, I think the real problem there is the expected passivity. Again, I think this forum is pretty close to the ideal. There are some great posters here. I would only ask for more, more, more. Imagine of there were 100 posters as good as the best posters here.

But then, is a life worth starting because it has complexities? The antinatalist does not assume that the answer is yes. — schopenhauer1

I'm neutral on anti-natalism. I really don't know. I do think that it is a hopeless cause. For me a hopeless cause must function as a kind of fashion statement. But maybe that's too cynical.

Starting a whole new life on behalf of someone else seems to me as good a reason for a reason as any other decision. — schopenhauer1

The problem may be in the assumption that some 'rational' justification is possible or desirable. I'm sure you are familiar with kind of approach, but here's a nice statement of it anyway.

Given the terrible truths about the human situation, it is hardly surprising that Nietzsche took so seriously Schopenhauer’s challenge, namely, why prefer life to non-existence? These “terrible truths”
differ, however, in how they inflict their pain. All the “terrible truths” are terrible if contemplated, if internalized, and taken seriously. But some of the terrible existential truths are, of course, constituted by pain and suffering: they are terrible for those undergoing them. I take it that the Schopenhauerian challenge depends primarily on the former, rather than the latter: that is, Nietzsche’s concern is why we who confront seriously the terrible truths about the human situation--even before the ones constituted by pain and suffering befall us—should keep on living, when we know full well that life promises systematic suffering, immorality, and illusion? Why not accept Schopenhauer’s apparent verdict, and give up on life altogether?

There are relatively few claims about Nietzsche that are uncontroversial, but I hope this one is: Nietzsche was always interested in responding to that Schopenhauerian challenge, from his earliest work to his last. And the animating idea of his response also remains steady from beginning to end, I shall argue, namely, that as he puts it in the new 1886 preface to his first book, 1872’s The Birth of Tragedy, “the existence of the world is justified [gerechtfertigt] only as an aesthetic phenomenon” (BT: Attempt 5). He is here explicitly summarizing “the suggestive sentence...repeated several times” in the original work a dozen years earlier: “it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified” (BT:5) and “existence and the world seem justified only as an aesthetic phenomenon” (BT:24).6 This kind of “justification,” whatever precisely it amounts to, is equivalent in Nietzschean terminology to taking a “Dionysian” perspective on life. — Brian Leiter

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2099162

Of course the pessimist can call this Dionysian perspective bogus and the Dionysian perspective can call the pessimist all kinds of things (cowardly, personally unlucky, and so on). For me it is fact that some people are brighter and happier than others. I think it is far easier for the more gifted and the luckier to embrace the Dionysian perspective. It is an elitist or cruel position in that sense. It ignores or aesthetically 'justifies' the suffering of the less lucky. I think those who roughly conceive themselves in this way also laugh at themselves mockingly.

The antinatalist asks the "why life?" in the first place. It grates on people who never stop to ask this question or who have projects and goals that they do not want to question the importance of. It is a slap in the face- more personal than almost anything else. — schopenhauer1

Maybe among non-philosophers it's annoyingly deep. But I think some philosophers are just annoyed by it as a position. They just think their position is better. In this thread I've seen a real interest in discussing it. Of course those with other positions will discuss it by challenging it. But that's why this forum isn't sterile and boring.

Interesting observation. Indeed Schopenhauer was independently wealthy. — schopenhauer1

Indeed. I've studied him. He's one of the greats, and he's a great personality to contemplate. I just think that instead of will we have a plurality of wills.

I like just about everything you've written on this issue, but I think this line leave something out. What about the raging self-love that can lead to frustration? What about the monstrous inner child who always wants more? Or who is tired of being polite, punctual, and prudent? Or tired of being rational, respectable, scientific, etc.? I have in mind a kind of stupid animal rebellion against all constraint, except that it's particularly human in its relation to an unbounded imagination.

Goood point.

So I won't die on this hill, but I think the monstrous inner child and the overdemanding [something like a superego] are closely interrelated. They need each other.

Have you ever seen the movie The Master?

You have one character, Freddie, who is pure animality, unshapen earthly demand. & then there's 'the master' who is basically L Ron Hubbard. He has this grand faux-scientific system which he uses to exert absolute control over all his devotees. The movie is a perverse love story. The 'master' needs some utterly unreflective jumble of desire and impulse as the raw material for the imposition of his will (imposed under the false auspices of 'healing') & Freddie seems to need his absolute attention and concern.

I think this is about right. Infinite demand recognizes infinite demand. They reciprocally provide each other with limits they can't give themselves.

My hunch - and its just a hunch - is that children aren't really monstrously demanding the infinite. Rather they're overwhelmed by their emotions and don't know what to do with them. A skilled parent helps teach them what their emotions are and shows them how to ride the wave. An unskilled parent tells them (directly or otherwise) to ignore whats going on, to shut up and do this.

From the unskilled parent's perspective the child's inability to do this - its inevitable reversion back to [screaming, punching their sister etc] - does constitute an an unbounded monstrous. The parent doesn't know (probably weren't taught themselves) how emotions work, what their rhythm is - so all they can see is an eternally recalcitrant monstrousness that will always resist their limits. The child, on the other hand, is never taught how to meaningfully engage with their emotions. They just experience an irruption of overwhelming [ ineffable ] which irrupts in a household that has no place for it. Over time this turns into a feeling that certain needs are by nature unbound and unaddressable. If the child goes out on its own, it'll probably wind up in cycles of self-destruction. (One cycle, which I fell into, is one of Salvational Force (Girl, substance, philosophy etc.) disappointment, New Salvational Force etc.)


Hence the romance between the two: It's kind of sad, tragic one. They do both want to help the other, to be with them, but they don't know how to do it. The place in which they might connect has been replaced with a play of Boundaries & Transgressions which circles endlessly around what they need.

From the end of the Master:




I really like inner-child work. It's got an earnestness to it that turns some people off, but I think it's good. I had deeply flawed parents, like so many people, and reacted to it by overprotecting and bossing myself around, to the point where I was kind of imprisoned and quiet deep inside myself.Occasionally I'd burst through in a fit of [rage, lust, etc]. [also far from healed, very liable to fall back into old patterns]

What I kind of think is that you need a more complex and subtle relationship with yourself, where you allow the child wide berth when you can (like the parent who lets the kid run around screaming in the park, waving to the child when it looks back, until he finally wears himself out and wants to nap) and find a gentle way of communicating to it that you need to take control when life requires it. You don't yank its arm, or tell it to shut up. You figure out how to communicate the situation with a kind of affection.


I'm trying to relate this all back to the thread: umm. It'll be too forced right now. I think its relevant, but I'll have to post when it comes back to me.

Why should there be this balancing in the first place. Putting the cart before the horse again. Taking an is for an ought. — schopenhauer1

You need emotional range to model the richness of the world. So you need this baseline balance as the neutrally poised state from which you can launch in appropriate fashion in countering directions.

So the ought is a logical necessity. If we want to express a full range of emotions, we ought to start from a neutral position. (Did you have an actual argument against this ought?)

but it is the same basic goal-categories: survival, comfort/maintenance seeking, boredom-fleeing). — schopenhauer1

You just make things up as facts to support your case.

I was talking about what you might genuinely feel as a baseline condition when all forms of thought and action are as stilled as possible.

Boredom is what you feel when nothing is exciting your curiosity. And thinking about it, curiosity is probably our most valuable trait.