its a justification for not confronting anything. — csalisbury
So here is a value-judgement upon what a person should be doing
'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
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
[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
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
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.
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
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
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
But that is quite different from a general claim that life on the whole is structurally intolerable. — apokrisis
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.
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
It's best we soothe with words of self-help wisdom so that individuals don't look too deep.
Yet, we are both doing choosing our habit patterns to look away from the void. — schopenhauer1
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
I think it's not too far off the mark to simply say there's something wrong with antinatalists — inyenzi
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
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
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
Can we have communities of existential discussion? — schopenhauer1
At the bottom of it is a sort of emptiness/boredom- a dull silence that we wrap more routines around. — schopenhauer1
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
Can we have communities of existential discussion? I haven't seen it, and it would be interesting to see how that would work — schopenhauer1
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
So what exactly is the need for more people? — schopenhauer1
Frustration is always bound up with self-condemnation. — csalisbury
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
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
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
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
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
What exactly is your need for a need? — syntax
The 'machine' is still loved as the condition for the possibility of trying to shut it down. — syntax
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
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
But then, is a life worth starting because it has complexities? The antinatalist does not assume that the answer is yes. — schopenhauer1
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
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2099162Given 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
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
Interesting observation. Indeed Schopenhauer was independently wealthy. — schopenhauer1
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.
Why should there be this balancing in the first place. Putting the cart before the horse again. Taking an is for an ought. — schopenhauer1
but it is the same basic goal-categories: survival, comfort/maintenance seeking, boredom-fleeing). — schopenhauer1
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.