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 at least be a matter of great concern -- more so given that a majority of humanity ignorantly/haphazardly create new beings who will inevitably experience this. — OglopTo

I think you've got it backwards. Suffering's here; it's part and parcel of life. We should focus on reasonably reducing it, rather than endorse unrealistic, over-the-top solutions that hardly anyone desires.

If the majority of humanity are/were sufficiently informed and careful in having children, then there would still be a vast majority of those children who would live lives worth living. But there probably wouldn't be as many of them, which, in that respect, actually seems like a worse result. All of those lives worth living are of greater importance than the rationale for bringing them into the world.

But the view that life cannot offer the meaning that is sought for is one-sided. Apparently Zapffe thinks life does not have what he is looking for, but perhaps he is defeating himself from the start by virtue of his prejudices, or is looking in the wrong places, or in the wrong ways, or asking the wrong questions. — John

I think that that's more than just possible.

I have already accepted that we won't agree, because I think the crux of the matter ultimately falls on the question of meaning.

If I get it correctly, you currently believe that there is value/meaning/purpose to be found in human existence. Hence, it is better for additional people to experience life.

I, on the other hand, currently believe that either there is no value/purpose/meaning in life or it is beyond human comprehension. Hence, there is no sense for new beings to be subjected to suffering in the first place.

I don't feel that we'll reach an agreement regarding this basic premise, at least for now and the immediate future, so I don't think I can share more than what I have already shared so far. :3

I, on the other hand, currently believe that either there is no value/purpose/meaning in life or it is beyond human comprehension. — OglopTo

But there obviously is, so you must be seeking some special kind of meaning. The ordinary type is good enough for me.

It seems as though you're setting yourself up for failure by setting out on a wild goose chase.

Do you not at least agree that all of the lives that would be worth living are of greater importance than the rationale for bringing them into the world? Aren't the results more important? Most people do not regret being alive and would choose to continue living because they think that it's worthwhile. Are they lying or mistaken? I believe them over you.

Preventing suffering does nothing to make the suffering which has already occurred better. For anyone who has suffered, the world is still just as bad as it ever was. Suffering is still unresolved where it counts. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But the spirit of preventing future suffering can make sure something that happened in the past does not happen again. The universe does not keep score, when someone dies, all their memories die with them. The suffering that occurred, the injustice and obscenity, all of this goes away after death. Forgotten.

But there obviously is, so you must be seeking some special kind of meaning. The ordinary type is good enough for me.

It seems as though you're setting yourself up for failure by setting out on a wild goose chase. — Sapientia

Yes, you can say that. Only, I have stopped actively seeking it or desiring that I'll ever find it.

Do you not at least agree that all of the lives that would be worth living are of greater importance than the rationale for bringing them into the world? Aren't the results more important? — Sapientia

I only see the struggle for nothing ala Sisyphus -- there are no results, especially not important results.

It's tragic, in my view, to perpetuate this.

Most people do not regret being alive and would choose to continue living because they think that it's worthwhile. Are they lying or mistaken? I believe them over you. — Sapientia

I wouldn't want this to come from me (it sounds elitist), but the following comes to mind: the unexamined life is not worth living.

Sure, it helps to seek guidance from others in forming one's worldview, but ultimately, one has to find one's own version of 'truth' for oneself.

Yes, you can say that. Only, I have stopped actively seeking it or desiring that I'll ever find it. — OglopTo

Well, if it is a wild goose chase, then that would be a sensible step in the right direction. Next step: don't dwell upon it and despair to no avail, but instead learn to cherish the value that you can find within reach.

I only see the struggle for nothing ala Sisyphus -- there are no results, especially not important results.

It's tragic, in my view, to perpetuate this. — OglopTo

It is tragic to perpetuate this excessively bleak outlook. This is not a problem inherent in the world, but inherent in your outlook. But the good news is that it can be resolved.

I wouldn't want this to come from me (it sounds elitist), but the following comes to mind: the unexamined life is not worth living. — OglopTo

Not worth living for who? You're right, it does sound elitist. I am sympathetic in some respects, but not others.

Sure, it helps to seek guidance from others in forming one's worldview, but ultimately, one has to find one's own version of 'truth' for oneself. — OglopTo

Sure. But I'm not entirely sympathetic to this relativism. Those quotation marks are there for a reason. They suggest the possibility of something other than truth, perhaps even falsity, which is merely given the name 'truth' and treated as such. But I, for one, would rather avoid having any misconceptions about something as important as the worth of life, since it could well be to my own detriment. If someone has got it all muddled or can't see sense, then maybe I'll try to correct them.

I don't actually believe that everyone who professes to see no meaning or value or worth in life, and who complains about and exaggerates suffering, acts in conformity with what you'd expect from someone who genuinely held those beliefs. There's probably quite a lot of those types, I reckon. You might be one of them, for all I know.

Those who say life is without meaning usually mean without absolute meaning. If you believed in God and the rest as a child, you probably have a notion of "absolute meaning." If you stopped believing in God and in a personal afterlife, then maybe it occurred to you that all pleasure and pain, horror and wonder, saintliness and sin, is scrubbed away by the hands of the clock.

There's something horrible about this, perhaps, but a person can also find the beauty and freedom in it. Time is "real" because (from this perspective) bodily death is death indeed. Life becomes a dream between two eternities of something blacker than night and quieter than silence. One puts on the costume of the hero with one foot in the grave and grins like a Dostoevsky character. If "nihilism" is "true", then it doesn't ultimately matter whether one whines or insists on a stiff neck. But "ultimately" is just something that haunts Now along with Tomorrow and Yesterday. I'd be slow to trade the "knowledge" that "all is vanity" for some other "concept religion" or heroic role-play. Grim, sure, but it's a view from a high place.

Yes, perhaps I was a little too conservative there :) .

The living do keep score, however. Death is no balm for the suffering of the living, only way to prevent new instances of suffering. Suffering is not absolved in death, only prevented from occurring again. Our end does not provide a transcendent victory over suffering. Those who lived still had horrible lives.

To be distracted by a future absence of suffering is only to disrespect and insult the suffering of the living. Suggesting the problem is resolved by an absence of future suffering is to fail to understand what suffering entails. The latest in a long line of fictions obscuring the horrors of suffering.

I think the idea of "absolute meaning" is a category error. The meaning of anything is always in relation to something else and never absolute. The very idea is incoherent, as far as I can see.

I also find the way you paint it as an 'either this or that worldview' scenario to be somewhat facile. Your crude caricature of Dostoevsky's work lacks nuance. Dostoevsky was a devout Christian. He wrote:

"If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth."

Suffering is not absolved in death, only prevented from occurring again. Our end does not provide a transcendent victory over suffering. Those who lived still had horrible lives. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This same reasoning could be applied to birth - suffering is not absolved by abstaining from procreation, only prevented from inflicting it's harm. Part of pessimism like you said is that there is no transcendent, victorious solution to the problem. Only more preferable/rational options that minimize the problem. We can minimize the problem so that it no longer is problematic to anyone and is only a problem in a counterfactual, aesthetic view.

That's the transcendent fiction talking. In this understanding, you are ignoring the suffering of the living and treating like the absence of future suffering solves the problem.

What of the people desperate to have children? An anti-natalist policy only makes them suffer. Even as a personal responsibility, for it would be akin to someone denying an integral part of their identity-- how would you feel if you felt an obligation not to be a philosophical pessimist, yet still had the same feelings about suffering?

The end of life being a preferable/rational option doesn't help their suffering, no matter how ethical it might be.

Suffering cannot be minimised. Any instance of suffering is too great. Not even the absence of any future suffering can help. If we are to prevent suffering, it's not as an absolution or minimising of suffering which is occur. Rather, it is about preventing the instances of suffering themselves.

The anti-natalist does not call for an absence life to end the suffering of a childless family. They do it to prevent suffering for those who would otherwise lives. Anyone who thinks suffering is minimised is hiding from just how terrible suffering is. For them anti-natalism is about pretending the problem of suffering has been removed or mitigated, rather than just about preventing the suffering of future life.

That's the transcendent fiction talking. In this understanding, you are ignoring the suffering of the living and treating like the absence of future suffering solves the problem. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't see how I am. People are suffering, and they will continue to do so while they are alive. It's akin to taking an aspirin for a headache. You remove the source of suffering.

What of the people desperate to have children? An anti-natalist policy only makes them suffer. Even as a personal responsibility, for it would be akin to someone denying an integral part of their identity-- how would you feel if you felt an obligation not to be a philosophical pessimist, yet still had the same feelings about suffering? — TheWillowOfDarkness

The suffering they experience from not having children does not, necessarily, make up for them having children. Furthermore they wouldn't suffer themselves if they hadn't been born, or had they died earlier. And if death or non-birth is too extreme for this situation, then not having children must not be that big of a deal.

The end of life being a preferable/rational option doesn't help their suffering, no matter how ethical it might be. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It doesn't help their suffering, but it certainly would help them.

Suffering cannot be minimised. Any instance of suffering is too great. Not even the absence of any future suffering can help. If we are to prevent suffering, it's not as an absolution or minimising of suffering which is occur. Rather, it is about preventing the instances of suffering themselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

While I basically agree, I'm also a consequentialist. Suffering can indeed be minimized. The instance of one person suffering is better than the instance of two people suffering. It would be wrong to pick the latter option if you had the choice. So we can indeed, and should, minimize suffering, because suffering is bad. Elimination is also a form of minimization.

I don't see why we need to make a distinction between prevention and minimization. They're two sides of the same coin.

I don't see how I am. People are suffering, and they will continue to do so while they are alive. It's akin to taking an aspirin for a headache. You remove the source of suffering. — darthbarracuda

You do it in the next paragraph:

The suffering they experience from not having children does not, necessarily, make up for them having children. Furthermore they wouldn't suffer themselves if they hadn't been born, or had they died earlier. And if death or non-birth is too extreme for this situation, then not having children must not be that big of a deal. — darthbarracuda

All these are dismissals of their suffering. At every turn you say their suffering doesn't matter, that it's not really that bad. You treat their suffering as if it is payment for absence of suffering, so it somehow not that bad. You insult them with the counterfactual that if they were suffering, then they wouldn't be suffering. Finally, you come right out and say it: there suffering is, in your words, " must not be that big of a deal."

How is that the statement of a philosophical pessimist who fully appreciates the nature of suffering? You've just given every "Suck it up. It's not so bad." excuse philosophical pessimism is trying to expose.

It doesn't help their suffering, but it certainly would help them. — darthbarracuda

How exactly is a course of action which is suffering for someone helping them?

I don't see why we need to make a distinction between prevention and minimization. They're two sides of the same coin. — darthbarracuda

Minimisation is a lie. It foolishly generalises suffering. Supposedly, there is a certain level of suffering which is acceptable. If only we would "minimise" suffering to a certain level, then it would be all okay-- a suffering-based Utilitarianism if you will. But it's not okay. All instances of suffering are unacceptable. We cannot generalise them into some rule which absolves the problem. Every single instance of suffering hurts too much. We cannot "minimise"-- prevent to get suffering down to an acceptable standard-- only "prevent," avoid individual instances of suffering.

Ideally, we would prevent as many individual instance of suffering as we can, but this doesn't make everything acceptable. All the instances of suffering we haven't prevented as still infinitely terrible. The problem of suffering hasn't been resolved. We've just acted such that less instances of suffering have occurred.

How is that the statement of a philosophical pessimist who full appreciates the nature of suffering? You've just given every "Suck it up. It's not so bad." excuse philosophical pessimism is trying to expose. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Because I'm also a consequentialist, and I think some actions are worse than others depending on what their consequences are. So I'm not dismissing the suffering of the potential parents, I just don't think it's as important as stopping the creation of future sufferers.

I would be willing to argue that it is indeed a byproduct of pessimism that we have to sacrifice things even though they make us suffer. Suffering is inescapable.

How exactly is a course of action which is suffering for someone helping them? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Would it remove a worse suffering? Like I said, suffering is inescapable. No matter what you do, someone, perhaps yourself, is going to suffer. We have to pick the course of action that minimizes the suffering that results, not because suffering is some impersonal and vague bad but because we inherently understand what suffering is like and wish it to not be spread.

Minimisation is a lie. It foolishly generalises suffering. Supposedly, there is a certain level of suffering which is acceptable. If only we would "minimise" suffering to a certain level, then it would be all okay-- a suffering-based Utilitarianism if you will. But it's not okay. All instances of suffering are unacceptable. We cannot generalise them into some rule which absolves the problem. Every single instance of suffering hurts too much. We cannot "minimise"-- prevent to get suffering down to an acceptable standard-- only "prevent," avoid individual instances of suffering. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that suffering itself was acceptable, only that the action that minimizes suffering is acceptable (and rational).

Minimization need not necessitate acceptable conditions. Only required moral actions.

You tend to agree with me as if you were disagreeing. I suspect all thinking is relatively facile. We zoom out as much as we need to. Philosophy generally seems especially general/facile, and this might be its primary charm. We zoom out, sacrifice detail/complexity for the grand structure. I expect the complexities of an issue to be addressed largely in practice, but then I don't think I'm participating in science so much as conversation here. We won't convert one another. We might trade a maxim or a metaphor symbiotically.

I've read that D was a believer,too, but was Stavrogin or Kirillov? The Possessed is a favorite of mine. You see a variety of "concept religions" in that book.

The kind of grin I'm talking about is the one you find on a man when he hears the "laughter of the gods." " Nothing is funnier than unhappiness." Beckett knew what was up. Thrown into this indignity of being a fragile ape, we do our best to sculpt a spirit like a statue in iron.

Because I'm also a consequentialist, and I think some actions are worse than others depending on what their consequences are. So I'm not dismissing the suffering of the potential parents, I just don't think it's as important as stopping the creation of future sufferers. — darthbarracuda

Your didn't talk about any of that. The comments were directed at how the suffering of the childless family wasn't as bad as they felt it was. In that you aren't making an argument that doing something else is more important. All you were doing is trying to placate them, to say they don't really suffer as they feel.

You weren't stepping forward and saying with honesty: "You ought not have children. The ethical course of action is the agent of your suffering and it ought to be (and so your terrible suffering) to save future life from suffering." Everything went into belittling their suffering rather than recognising it.

Minimization need not necessitate acceptable conditions. Only required moral actions. — darthbarracuda

But does not the required moral action qualify as an acceptable condition? At least in the way you describe it. The way you speak treats "minimisation" is as if it's a victory over suffering. In the way you describe suffering, you fear it above all else-- if only life would be put to end, then we could finally say the world was at its best.

A sort of deep necessity for a world without suffering, to a point where one might say: "With the presence of suffering, life is meaningless." The same one which drives all those philosophies which assert suffering can be solved.

I think this is failed pessimism because it causes a turn away from suffering. Since any suffering person is viewed as meaningless wretch for living in suffering, it's more interested in looking to a final "minimising" than it is in instances of suffering themselves.

Your didn't talk about any of that. The comments were directed at how the suffering of the childless family wasn't as bad as they felt it was. In that you aren't making an argument that doing something else is more important. All you were doing is trying to placate them, to say they don't really suffer as they feel.

You weren't stepping forward and saying with honesty: "You ought not have children. The ethical course of action is the agent of your suffering and it ought to be (and so your terrible suffering) to save future life from suffering." Everything went into belittling their suffering rather than recognising it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Everything went into "belittling" their suffering in order to recognize the existence of a much worse suffering.

But does not the required moral action qualify as an acceptable condition? At least in the way you describe it. The way you speak treats "minimisation" is as if it's a victory over suffering. In the way you describe suffering, you fear it above all else-- if only life would be put to end, then we could finally say the world was at its best. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well I wouldn't call it a victory - I mean extinction doesn't really sound very victorious to me. But rather it's just the most rational action after coming to terms with our raw deal.

Think of how Nietzsche saw the under-man sneak his morality into the social sphere and thus "winning" over the ubermensch. It's a fake-victory. Similarly, ceasing procreation and going into extinction is not really victory, it's just deciding not to play the game.

A sort of deep necessity for a world without suffering, to a point where one might say: "With the presence of suffering, life is meaningless." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Life is meaningless with or without suffering, suffering just brings this fact out.

I think this is failed pessimism because it causes a turn away from suffering. Since any suffering person is viewed as meaningless wretch for living in suffering, it's more interested in looking to a final "minimising" than it is instances of suffering themselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Acknowledging the existence of suffering does not help anyone. If you had aspirin and I had a headache, and you refused to give me aspirin, I'd be pissed.

So on the contrary, I'm very much pessimistic because I believe our dreams will never be fulfilled, that happiness is an illusion, and that our best-course of action is extinction, something that is not very inspiring and yet the most reasonable reaction to our predicament. A fizzle-out philosophy.

Everything went into "belittling" their suffering in order to recognize the existence of a much worse suffering. — darthbarracuda

So I can say that the suffering if the poor and ostracised individual "isn't that bad" because someone else is being tortured on the otherwise of the world? That's just dishonesty.

Suffering isn't defined on some level of scale acceptability. "Worse" or "less" suffering do not define each other. A person who hurts defines the instance of either.

Think of how Nietzsche saw the under-man sneak his morality into the social sphere and thus "winning" over the ubermensch. It's a fake-victory. Similarly, ceasing procreation and going into extinction is not really victory, it's just deciding not to play the game.

Life is meaningless with or without suffering, suffering just brings this fact out. — darthbarracuda

This is exactly error I was talking about in my last post. The world is meaningless because we can't escape to a perfect world. Our necessary suffering is seen as the definition of life which doesn't matter. We are supposedly all "fake."

But that's not true. Going extinct isn't a fake victory over future suffering. It's actual. In such a world, there is no longer anyone who suffers. In acting to go extinct, we have achieved this world. We've played the game and, in terms of the world after we are dead, won a victory.

Those who think this is "fake" are only coveting a world where we live and do not suffer. For them the world can only fail because there's no way to have life without suffering.

Acknowledging the existence of suffering does not help anyone. If you had aspirin and I had a headache, and you refused to give me aspirin, I'd be pissed. — darthbarracuda

But suffering is unavoidable. There's no aspirin to give. The very idea of such a drug is incoherent-- we don't have aspirin. We are just pointing out we have a headache.

I'd also be more pissed if I had a headache and someone insisted I wasn't in pain at all.


And if what you say here were true, what would be the point of philosophical pessimism? If recognising the existence suffering is of no use, then it has no ethical relevance. We might as well be telling the lie that suffering can be absolved. If acknowledging suffering is not helpful, why do we insist doing so is ethically important?

I'd say that lots of us (shrewdly) compare the amount of pain in a life to the amount of pleasure in a life. Suffering is a toll we pay on the way to pleasure, including higher or more abstract pleasures such pride in one's achievements. From this point of view, ceasing to exist is sometimes the only feasible victory. A man might realize he's losing his personality to brain disease and opt out before he becomes something he is ashamed to be. Or a paralyzed person may not adjust or want o adjust to being so dependent on others. But this same man in healthy days might weigh the chances of potential children and decide for them to throw them into this world, hoping they find the toll of suffering worth paying and are grateful (more often than not) that their father and mother assented to their tour or bought them a ticket for the roller coaster.

I can't agree that happiness is an illusion. Happiness comes and goes, just like suffering. I've known moments where I understood all the "praise God" stuff in the Bible, and I don't believe in a god other than reality as a whole. Moments come along and one is a king with the non-conceptual "secret." I think painters and musicians sometimes aim at these high states. I suppose you can call them illusions because they pass, but then everything is an illusion and the contrast is lost. Why should suffering not be called an illusion in the same way for the same reason? For me, life is an alternation between high and low states, and wisdom is learning to attain the high and avoid the low states.

[Not procreating] does not provide a transcendent victory over suffering. Those who lived still had horrible lives. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I have a feeling that Willow is saying that 'non-procreation' is not an answer to existing suffering. I feel that this may be the source of disagreement.

Preventing future suffering is one thing and dealing with existing suffering is another. I think there is some discussion about the latter in the earlier parts of the thread.

The immediate discussions only refer to preventing future suffering; it's not as if existing suffering is simply thrown out of the box.

@darthbarracuda

So I can say that the suffering if the poor and ostracised individual "isn't that bad" because someone else is being tortured on the otherwise of the world? That's just dishonesty.

Suffering isn't defined on some level of scale acceptability. "Worse" or "less" suffering do not define each other. A person who hurts defines the instance of either. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well, no. But when we have to make a decision, someone's suffering being worse than another person's makes them of moral priority. My disappointed wish to own a new car does not compare to the starving African child. In these cases, there's a trade-off - a lesser evil, if you may.

But that's not true. Going extinct isn't a fake victory over future suffering. It's actual. In such a world, there is no longer anyone who suffers. In acting to go extinct, we have achieved this world. We've played the game and, in terms of the world after we are dead, won a victory. — TheWillowOfDarkness

We did not win, because we do not exist anymore. The universe forced our hand.

I'd also be more pissed if I had a headache and someone insisted I wasn't in pain at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Would you be pissed if someone passed up the opportunity to help you in order to help someone who had broken their leg? That's what I'm referring to here. Sacrifices. The fact that we have to make sacrifices is an element of pessimism.

If recognising the existence suffering is of no use, then it has no ethical relevance. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Recognizing the existence of suffering and coming to terms with it is the first step to doing something about it. If you care about suffering, you'll do something about it.

Why should suffering not be called an illusion in the same way for the same reason? — who

I think mostly because suffering illuminates our existential condition while happiness clouds our knowledge of it. We cannot be happy while actually confronting the void.

In the sense that we will endure suffering to get something we enjoy or want, yes-- a needle beats a continuing illness any day.

Pessimism doesn't deny this. All it says is that such a comparison doesn't involve the absence of suffering. A needle might be worth it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Paying a toll is only done because we want something, not because it's not painful or it something we want.

The (best) anti-natalist argument is given on these grounds. The toll of suffering needed to have life is unacceptable. To force it upon new life is heinous. It will simply hurt new life too much (regardless of how they might think otherwise).

I do think a number anti-natalists argue more on the basis of life being meaningless though. It's easy to call for extinction, if you don't think any life has worth. Some of them are more interested in ending the wretches of life than they are in preventing suffering.

Unrest, agitation, need, want, not getting, getting and needing and wanting more or more of the same is one level. Striving-for-nothing is another level.. It's like getting a runner's high from running a certain distance.. feeling really good from the endorphins and then realizing that the instrumentality in doing to do to do to do and leading to a more existential understanding that it is all striving-for-nothing. Building strength to build strength.. Maintaining to maintain..

Striving-for-nothing is a great description of life. It's also not suffering. This is the grave mistake some within pessimism make. When I go to cricket training, it does not hurt as suffering (at least not usually-- e.g. injury, failure to meet some long term, time dependent training goal, etc.,etc.). I like doing it. I'm maintaining to maintain-- and that is great. I don't need anything but striving for nothing in that moment.

The "myth" is not that it's all pointless, that nothing is worthwhile, but the idea we were ever aiming for anything except our own existence-- up-to and including our own death.

The "myth" is not that it's all pointless, that nothing is worthwhile, but the idea we were ever aiming for anything except our own existence-- up-to and including our own death. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, I am not saying we were aiming at anything except our own existence. Who said that? We are always just maintaining to maintain. Some people get the endorphins high but never the existential clarity of instrumentality.

I don't know: I don't agree thinking as such is facile. There is facile thinking and thinking with nuance. I'd say the same about philosophy.