What you fail to see is that what you say about the nature of human life does not present the one 'correct' view, but is merely the projection of your state of mind onto the world. — John
The Stoics were concerned precisely with how to transform the state of mind and thus transform the view of the world.
Your mischaractization of the Stoics is thus the result of trying to push a simplistic opinion about something you obviously have no experience or understanding of. — John
Sure, but that's what I was saying myself. I can't make use of Nature or Zeus's Will. I think the stoics were moved (probably without thinking of it this way) by a benevolent narcissism. They enacted a particular hero myth. In any case, what they did or did not think or feel is IMV secondary to the use we can make of their texts. I'm happy to throw it on the pile of "wisdom writing" with the jokes of Diogenes and God's spiel from the whirlwind in Job. — who
Isn't this a given for everyone? Does anyone really know the 'correct' view? Aren't we all just projecting our own states of mind onto the world? — OglopTo
There is no warrant for claiming that life predominately consists in, or must predominately consist in, suffering for others. — John
There is no warrant for claiming that life predominately consists in, or must predominately consist in, suffering for others. — John
Are you assuming that this subjectivism is the only correct view of the matter? — John
In some sense that's true enough, but schopenhauer1 does speak as though his or her view of the world is the only correct one. — John
I think that the 'predominance' of suffering in life takes secondary importance. The fact that there is suffering that we need to overcome in the first place should be at least matter of great concern -- more so given that a majority of humanity ignorantly/haphazardly create new beings who will inevitably experience this.
What is sufficient justification to subject new human beings to this inevitable fate? — OglopTo
The point of phenomenology is not to evaluate your own personal experiences but to make a science of consciousness, i.e. to create a generalized account of conscious experience/presentation. I think it's clear that life has suffering, what is the issue is whether it is predominantly suffering.
If you count aesthetic disillusionment and spiritual decay as suffering, then yes, the un-manipulated life is indeed filled with suffering. — darthbarracuda
And, in any case, again you are assuming that new human beings will be "subject to this inevitable fate" which is falling into the error of thinking that is the only correct way to view human life. — John
If the "meat of the argument" consists in making a blanket claim about the rightness or wrongness of life and/ or reproduction, then any "sense of the argument" is a chimera produced by a category error. — John
I can only try to provide arguments why I think that procreation lacks sufficient justification in light of suffering. — OglopTo
I think the very notion that reproduction requires moral justification is mistaken, unless we are talking about the question to varying life circumstances. — John
To try to think about [procreation] in relation to life in general is an impossible, incoherent task. — John
A simple answer to "why one would opt to procreate" would have to be answered. Because at the very least, we're talking about the welfare of a new life here. I don't think it's just a simple matter of just 'going with the norm' or 'just wanting to have a baby'. — OglopTo
but moral principle would be applicable only to that one, or to those kinds of ones, not to others — John
All meaning is thus contrived, artificial, and a pseudo-solution, and thus everything we do can be seen as a way of escaping our higher-level concerns. — darthbarracuda
However, your justification does in fact lead to suffering, whether you mitigate it with other explanations or not, that is simply a fact- baby w/bathwater, splinters, and all other justifications aside. Mine effectively, whether too heavy-handed or not, prevents it. That again, is a fact. — schopenhauer1
I am not on the side of humanity, that is correct, but rather a particular instance of a potential human that has the ability to occur and thus the ability to experience the world's sufferings. — schopenhauer1
Whether or not good is also in the world matters not to that which never was. — schopenhauer1
Even if they go about exclaiming life's greatness retroactively, this does not have any ethical implications where it does seem true that preventing suffering would be ethical. — schopenhauer1
No one usually feels sympathy for that which might have existed but did not get to experience joy. People are more likely to feel sympathy for the suffering that one would experience than the deprived joy that they may not. — 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.