Meaning is created by individuals.

As I just explained above (a couple posts back), wants and needs (needs hinge on wants in my view) have nothing to do with happiness. — Terrapin Station

I don't understand how this is possible. Surely if you are starving, or dehydrated, or overheating, or lonely, or fearful, you can't honestly consider yourself "happy". It's not sustainable nor is it even possible to instantiate while these needs are not met.

Hell is other people. - Sartre

I think you undermine your case by stapling those two issues together.

Given that an individual is here, alive and conscious, there is every reason to make the best of it, regardless of how much one may have thought it would have been better never to have been conceived. And IIRC there is no end of empirical evidence that maintaining plentiful strong relationships is conducive to happiness. — andrewk

The point though is, despite the fact that this particular phenomena is picked out as one of the top reasons for meaning, it is so fraught with its own negative downsides, this pinnacle of human meaning is also a great cause of suffering due to its uneven distribution and harmful aspects.

The issue of procreating however is far more complex and multi-faceted. It is possible to be the world's cheeriest person, with the best imaginable circle of friends, and still believe it is better not to procreate. And it is possible to be the world's most miserable, pessimistic curmudgeon and yet either want to procreate or believe one has a moral duty to do so. — andrewk

This may be true, but only one outcome leads to certain suffering- disposition happy or not. Anyways, the point is, whether from the disposition happy or the disposition curmudgeon perspective, relationships can be of high quality and/or abundant for some and it could be quite barren, and not the right circumstances for abundant or quality relationships with others.. Also, whether relationships are quality/abundant or not, the harm of cultivating, maintaining, and losing them are their own world of frustration, woe, disappointment, tediousness, etc. etc.

So we got a double whammy bad situation here. One supposed candidate for meaning to life becomes something that some people can enjoy and others cannot and that even if enjoyed, become a source of harmful experiences anyways. This supposed font of meaningful experiences is not had by all, and may never be for some. How sad it is that something that is supposed to be so quintessential can ultimately allude many due to various circumstances, contingencies, and perhaps even personality types. Again, my theme here is that all these reasons become moot for justification of the pollyanna enthusiasm for life (happy disposition or not).

My guess is many people have a hard time peeling away the actual raw sadness of this situation because they are fed puff stories in media (movies, news stories, books, etc.) that seem to provide some sort of consolation through art/achievements that individuals under bad circumstances somehow sublimate through their pain. These people supposedly turn their grief into some sort of great achievement or other. I have a feeling this is very few people that really achieve this sort of salvation through pain (if really this is a thing). Rather, these aesthetic sublimation stories and seem to be in the romantic vein of what I call the "Nietzschean idea of transforming the pain of life into meaning". This seems like ad hoc justification.. some sort of after the fact excuse needed to make pain seem necessary, transformative, or otherwise..

So we got strands of thought from very different directions trying to cover up this mess of the harms from life (including from relationships or the lack thereof).. the boot-straps people.. "work harder...it's YOUR fault".. the Nietzschean types "Hey, you were given lemons..but look at all this tragic comedy fodder you can have from your tragic-comedy kind of absurd life".. and probably a few more.

Anyways, the point is, whether from the disposition happy or the disposition curmudgeon perspective, relationships can be of high quality and/or abundant for some and it could be quite barren, and not the right circumstances for abundant or quality relationships with others.. — schopenhauer1

That's just anecdotal. One might as well say 'sometimes food tastes nice and sometimes it doesn't, so there's no point in eating it'. What matters is not whether there are sometimes bad relationships or bad food, but whether having food or relationships is in general conducive to our flourishing, and in both cases the evidence is an overwhelming Yes.

There are people in life who have no relationships. They are those who because of bad luck or bad management have ended up isolated in life - living alone in an apartment on a pension, with no visitors or people ringing their phone, nobody that they go out to meet and talk to. The option of living like that is available to anybody that is retired on a pension, and for those not yet old enough to retire, there exists a halfway house of going to work to earn a salary, talking to nobody there except where necessitated by the job, going straight home and having no social contact.

Almost nobody chooses such a life, because for anybody except somebody with a very unusual psychology, it would be a desperately sad, lonely, miserable, despairing life.

I'm glad to see that darth has quoted that famous Sartre saying about other people. I quite like Sartre but that is one of the stupidest, most ignorant and dishonest things I have ever known a philosopher to say. I can only hope that, like many sayings attributed to famous people, he never really said it.

That's just anecdotal. One might as well say 'sometimes food tastes nice and sometimes it doesn't, so there's no point in eating it'. — andrewk

But that's a false equivalence. Food is pretty easy to find these days.. one's that are easier to satisfy tastes than presumably something as substantial as a relationship.

What matters is not whether there are sometimes bad relationships or bad food, but whether having food or relationships is in general conducive to our flourishing, and in both cases the evidence is an overwhelming Yes. — andrewk

What is flourishing here? And what is general? The so-called "majority".. this committee of people that become the standard for others?

There are people in life who have no relationships. They are those who because of bad luck or bad management have ended up isolated in life - living alone in an apartment on a pension, with no visitors or people ringing their phone, nobody that they go out to meet and talk to. The option of living like that is available to anybody that is retired on a pension, and for those not yet old enough to retire, there exists a halfway house of going to work to earn a salary, talking to nobody there except where necessitated by the job, going straight home and having no social contact.

Almost nobody chooses such a life, because for anybody except somebody with a very unusual psychology, it would be a desperately sad, lonely, miserable, despairing life. — andrewk

Indeed this is just one example of circumstance.. but it does not have to be so black and white.. How about situations where you can meet people but there is no quality relationships and the second major reason.. the harms from relationships that do form.. Your underlying assumption is the boot-strap approach.. that person isn't following some prescribed method that these others are doing.

So to put your two thoughts together.. 1) some people's suffering is ok because at least the vague "majority" doesn't suffer in such a way 2) these people are not doing the relationship thing right anyways, so they are a poor example.. Or is there something else you are saying that is more nuanced and perhaps agrees with my argument more than I seem to be picking up here?

I quite like Sartre but that is one of the stupidest, most ignorant and dishonest things I have ever known a philosopher to say. I can only hope that, like many sayings attributed to famous people, he never really said it. — andrewk

He may have been trying to get to a point.. I never really read the book it came from but I think that was more about his existential view of authenticity.. Other people make you the "other" and transform you from your subjective freedom into an object.. or something along those lines.. but again, I could be off on that.

Meaningful relationships seem to be the norm for social creatures like us. Whether it's with family or friends or a partner we tend to build them up without any conscious effort. Some people are of course unlucky.

Relationships aren't a source of optimism but they can reinforce that outlook. Better to have loved and lost, is an optimistic look at love relationships. My old relationships were positive experiences in the end, where a pessimist going through the same wouldn't agree.

My relationships to others (and things and ideas and events) make up meaning. That's not The Meaning as I understand the OP to ask but I'm comfortable with life having no meaning.

I'm glad to see that darth has quoted that famous Sartre saying about other people. I quite like Sartre but that is one of the stupidest, most ignorant and dishonest things I have ever known a philosopher to say. I can only hope that, like many sayings attributed to famous people, he never really said it. — andrewk

I think Sartre was focused on how the expectations of others and the need to conform to the group makes acquaintanceship with other people hellish, not that other people literally are devils from Hell.

He didn't say it per se, a character in a book he wrote did. The reason being that other people make us self-conscious, make us view ourselves as an object from the outside.

I don't understand how this is possible. Surely if you are starving, or dehydrated, or overheating, or lonely, or fearful, you can't honestly consider yourself "happy". — darthbarracuda

Which is another way of saying that if someone is starving yet says they're happy, you're simply going to claim that they're not being honest, because, well, "because they can't honestly think that"?

If you want to individuate phenomenal experience that much, then sure, someone "could" be starving but yet still be "happy".

At that level of individuation, though, phenomenology and psychology in general fails, because no system can be made out of a radical presupposition of the uniqueness of an individual.

phenomenology and psychology in general fails, because no system can be made out of a radical presupposition of the uniqueness of an individual. — darthbarracuda

Shouldn't theory be subservient to reality rather than putting blinders on and making things subservient to theory just because? The latter emphasizes why "theory worship" is a negative thing. If we have a theory that concludes or predicts something obviously incorrect, we need to change the theory. If it can't be changed, then that's not a problem with reality.

But the reality is that your hyper-individuation is not reflective of reality. You can visualize someone being happy when they are starving, yet this patently does not happen.

Except that's false. I'm not just speaking hypothetically.

Show me some data, then.

I'd have to search for something.

What I was referring to was personal experience. I can't really show you that.

So to put your two thoughts together.. 1) some people's suffering is ok because at least the vague "majority" doesn't suffer in such a way 2) these people are not doing the relationship thing right anyways, so they are a poor example. — schopenhauer1

I didn't say either of those two things, and I don't believe them, so I'm not interested in what happens when they're put together.

Do you really believe that you are better off without any relationships? Do you live out that belief, avoiding friendships, avoiding human contact and keeping solitary as much as you can? Unless you do that, it seems that you are arguing for a position that you do not believe.

If you do think you live that out, have you reflected on why you participate in a forum like this rather than just reading philosophical books and papers? Are you sure that wanting human interaction is not a part of that?

Do you really believe that you are better off without any relationships? Do you live out that belief, avoiding friendships, avoiding human contact and keeping solitary as much as you can? Unless you do that, it seems that you are arguing for a position that you do not believe. — andrewk

This started off more about intimate pair-bond type relationships (or more for the polyamorous type?). But it isn't too plausible to stretch this out to any type of relationship. I'm not saying I personally avoid people at all. However, it is not inconceivable that many people do not find good "partners" or any "partners", have but shallow friendships, find themselves alone amongst other people because there is not much common ground, etc. etc. There are a multitude of ways that people simply don't, cannot, or are not in the right circumstance connect with others.

If you do think you live that out, have you reflected on why you participate in a forum like this rather than just reading philosophical books and papers? Are you sure that wanting human interaction is not a part of that? — andrewk

My claim is not that people do not or should not seek out relationships.. quite the contrary. It is rather that because it is such an important thing in our lives (to be social.. to have intimate partners, to have friends) that it is

1) highly circumstantial in organic nature of development (it is not something that you just "will" it sort of happens out of repeated events with the same person that you have mutual interests, proximity to, and other connections) and unevenly distributed.. This is especially so with intimate relationships but again, can be expanded to simply "good friends". Thus some people seem to have a lot of strong connections with intimate lovers and friends, and others do not.

2) Good intimate relationships are hard to cultivate, and even when they do persist, they lead often to frustration, annoyance with the other person, boredom, etc., and can easily be lost after much hard work in gaining and maintaining the relationship.

In most people's lives friendships are mostly organic (ie happenstance, not deliberately constructed), but they don't have to be. There are many suggestions around on how to develop new friends, and some of them are even not totally useless. Joining groups is a good way to obtain new friends. Examples are sporting teams, volunteer organisations, craft collectives, cultural groups (choirs, music ensembles, book clubs, philosophy clubs) and political parties or movements.

A phenomenon that I find really interesting is that, over the last fifteen years, it has become quite normal to apply the same sort of deliberate relationship creation to erotic relationships as well. Twenty years ago there was quite a stigma associated with seeking a mate through a dating service or the personal ads in the classified section in a newspaper. Although it is decades since I have been 'in the market' my observation is that with young people it is now considered perfectly normal to seek a partner through an online dating app.

That's by the by though, as I am interested in the pros and cons of friendships rather than of erotic relationships. I agree with you that, for many people, erotic relationships cause more harm than good, whereas I think there could be only a tiny minority of people that would not benefit from friendship.

If Arthur were here today I wonder if he'd join a musical ensemble, for the joint benefits of companionship and culture. He really did love music, after all. I joined a local choir a couple of weeks ago and am really enjoying it. We're singing the Nelson Mass on 20 November, and the tenor part is challenging for somebody that has not sung publicly for 25 years.

I get that there are numerous modern avenues to try to make friends and meet partners. This is certainly not guaranteed. Again, I maintain my original premise that relationships are unevenly distributed whether people seek it out, or it just happens organically. And as you acknowledge, many times relationships are a source of harm once obtained, so there's that too. We play at trying to disturb life's dull void with this and that.. and it leads to suffering much of the time.. We cannot stand the void, and we cannot stand the flux with disturbing the void (whatever pursuits we seek).. But always avoid the Noid.. whoops.. I got carried away there.

We are born and the void is disturbed.. we must further disturb it with our goings about with various cultural pursuits of survival and entertainment goal-seeking. Is the void real or just a placeholder for the ideal of calm/tranquility which is rarely obtained? Obviously the latter so don't start bringing up ideas that I am not trying to make..the literalists in here.. you know.. the people who will immediately call out that there is no void without someone to perceive it yadayada.

The Nelson mass was written when Haydn was confined to his room suffering from exhaustion: an apt example :) Choir-singing has turned out, for me, to be a way of experiencing pleasure and occasional joy in collective action while not having to be friendly. But I'm not as ambitious as you in my type of choir!

Relationships are patchy. But they have made a big contribution to any meaningfulness I've found in the course of my life. There seems to me a sort of opportunity cost question here: when i spent time being friendly and training myself to understand if poss the other person's point of view and all that, would i have done better to do something else instead? On the whole, for me, I'm glad to have loved and been loved. Mostly it enabled other things rather than got in the way of them.

@Bitter Crank
I think I lost my own point amongst all this pragmatic "solutions" to the problem.. My point was that if pair-bonding (or some sort of intimate bond relationship) is such a vital and meaningful part to our social existence, life certainly does not provide a guaranteed, easy, or even clear way to attain and keep such a high priority.

My point earlier about technology/science is how that too has nothing about it which makes life meaningful. There is no reason to have children so that they can experience or contribute to technology, despite the rhetoric by some that this must be so.

My point earlier about the group (and specifically work) I said:
"As far as life is expressed by the work we do.. I don't know, that's a pretty romantic vision of work. It seems like an ad hoc justification for a forced activity. Saying "Hey, we all have to work, but maybe you can find work that expresses your creativity", does not take away the fact that we are FORCED to work, whether there is a benefit we might get out of it or not. The forced part might be the sticking point here.

You also mentioned luck which is a good point to bring up. Free labor markets have an element of luck to it. There is no way to know what jobs might have been the most optimal, where they are available, and how good they will be once you actually start working there. Also, some people just might be at the right place at the right time, and some may not leading to two completely different career paths- one more to the liking of person a one not as much to the liking as b. Moving from one job to another is stressful and has many costs so it is not just about "jumping ship and leaving". However, the luck aspect which you brought up is really secondary to the main problem which is that work is a forced situation."

Anyways, the point is that we are forced into life, and we make ad hoc reasons why it must be meaningful since, you know, we are already here.

This is where antinatalism can be a philosophy of consolation.. Not out of its practical implementation, but more out of an embracing of one's own dignity as an individual.. Understanding this pessimistic/antinatalist ethic instills in the individual the understanding that even though they find themselves in existence and are trying to make meaning and dealing with suffering, and are told that they are given the the "opportunity" to pursue personal ends (like contributing technology, meaningful work, intimate relationships, "flow" activities, entertainment, , etc.), that none of these things are guaranteed, and that much of them cause harm, and that we are all just coping at this point, swinging the pendulum between survival through cultural upkeep and maintenance, and turning boredom into entertainment goal-seeking.

Just to preface I also share your anti-natalist persuasion. Having children is blatantly immoral.

That said, I'm also a fairly happy person. Sure I feel down every now and then, and I recognize the constant 'background' suffering that motivates my actions (eg, I seek entertainment out of boredom, relationships out loneliness, food out of hunger, etc), but I still enjoy things by and large. I have some good relationships, I'm optimistic about the future, I enjoy my interests, my work is bearable, food is good. One can be a philosophical pessimist without being psychologically pessimistic. Of course I don't know you and might be totally off base, but from what you write it sounds like you hardly enjoy anything, or find anything to be worthwhile and meaningful. You might be clinically depressed and are gravitating towards philosophical pessimism and anti-natalism, because it's a way to justify and explain your horrible experience. ''I feel horrible because life itself is horrible'' kind of thing.

Being depressed can feel like you're seeing the truth of the world - that life is actually just constant psychological and physical suffering, meaninglessness, and has no value. This is simply not true, there are plenty of joys in life, but you can only experience them if you're not suffering from clinical depression. I would be very careful to not fall for this 'truth' aspect of clinical depression. It really feels like you're seeing and experiencing the world how it truly is deep down, almost like you're enlightened to the fundamental nature of reality (suffering, void, worthlessness). Happiness experiences can feel fake and unreal, and you can feel as if you only feel happy about x or y thing, or are only having z enjoyable experience because you're not experiencing some suffering or another as much. For example, you might feel that the 'joy' of eating is nothing more than a reduction in the suffering of hunger, and you might as well just not have felt hungry in the first place because all you've achieved is reduced your suffering to the same neutral level of suffering the dead are privy to. What was the point, you'd be better off dead.

This is not true. There is plenty of joy/enjoyment to be had in this world. Actual pleasurable and net positive sensations do exist and can be experienced. Relationships truly can be a great source of meaning and fun - you just have to find someone you like, and not be suffering from clinical depression. It's hard to see the worth in life when it's literally impossible for you to enjoy anything because you're depressed.

I mean how much deep down do you really care about preventing the suffering of non-existent unborn people? Not saying you're lying or not being genuine, there just might be other motivations at work here aside from just empathy in espousing and convincing others of anti-natalism. For example, it might bring you psychological comfort to have other people confirm and validate your pessimistic views.

Sure I feel down every now and then, and I recognize the constant 'background' suffering that motivates my actions (eg, I seek entertainment out of boredom, relationships out loneliness, food out of hunger, etc), but I still enjoy things by and large. I have some good relationships, I'm optimistic about the future, I enjoy my interests, my work is bearable, food is good. — dukkha

So, yeah you have a choice to try to emulate the detached stoic.. or you can realize that human psychology pretty much sets things at the usual bar of "when things are going well, I forget or want to forget what it was like when things did not go well"..

One can be a philosophical pessimist without being psychologically pessimistic. — dukkha

I agree.. One can think that the logic of antinatalism is such that suffering will occur, etc.. and still be quite happy with current circumstances.. Of course, hope can be a tricky thing as well- it sets up disappointment, but also provides the carrot and the stick.

Of course I don't know you and might be totally off base, but from what you write it sounds like you hardly enjoy anything, or find anything to be worthwhile and meaningful. You might be clinically depressed and are gravitating towards philosophical pessimism and anti-natalism, because it's a way to justify and explain your horrible experience. ''I feel horrible because life itself is horrible'' kind of thing. — dukkha

You are correct in not knowing. I've written many things, mainly in the old Philosophy Forum about being a Philosophical Pessimist without being depressed as you explained above.

Being depressed can feel like you're seeing the truth of the world - that life is actually just constant psychological and physical suffering, meaninglessness, and has no value. This is simply not true, there are plenty of joys in life, but you can only experience them if you're not suffering from clinical depression. I would be very careful to not fall for this 'truth' aspect of clinical depression. It really feels like you're seeing and experiencing the world how it truly is deep down, almost like you're enlightened to the fundamental nature of reality (suffering, void, worthlessness). Happiness experiences can feel fake and unreal, and you can feel as if you only feel happy about x or y thing, or are only having z enjoyable experience because you're not experiencing some suffering or another as much. For example, you might feel that the 'joy' of eating is nothing more than a reduction in the suffering of hunger, and you might as well just not have felt hungry in the first place because all you've achieved is reduced your suffering to the same neutral level of suffering the dead are privy to. What was the point, you'd be better off dead. — dukkha

No, I quite enjoy eating.

This is not true. There is plenty of joy/enjoyment to be had in this world. Actual pleasurable and net positive sensations do exist and can be experienced. Relationships truly can be a great source of meaning and fun - you just have to find someone you like, and not be suffering from clinical depression. It's hard to see the worth in life when it's literally impossible for you to enjoy anything because you're depressed. — dukkha

So, did you read the posts as to WHY these broad themes like "relationships" are not as pleasurable? It is not that I don't think they can be, but it is the difference between analog and digital.. The digital response when asked post-experience or in summary is "relationship yay".. the analog of living through the seeking, cultivating, maintaining, etc. can be quite different and more nuanced.

I mean how much deep down do you really care about preventing the suffering of non-existent unborn people? Not saying you're lying or not being genuine, there just might be other motivations at work here aside from just empathy in espousing and convincing others of anti-natalism. For example, it might bring you psychological comfort to have other people confirm and validate your pessimistic views. — dukkha

Yeah, you are not uncovering any underlying truth here about my motivations.. I even say it quite clearly in my last post:

This is where antinatalism can be a philosophy of consolation.. Not out of its practical implementation, but more out of an embracing of one's own dignity as an individual.. Understanding this pessimistic/antinatalist ethic instills in the individual the understanding that even though they find themselves in existence and are trying to make meaning and dealing with suffering, and are told that they are given the the "opportunity" to pursue personal ends (like contributing technology, meaningful work, intimate relationships, "flow" activities, entertainment, , etc.), that none of these things are guaranteed, and that much of them cause harm, and that we are all just coping at this point, swinging the pendulum between survival through cultural upkeep and maintenance, and turning boredom into entertainment goal-seeking. — schopenhauer1

You can't have some narrow preconception of what those things should be like, and then effectively trash what you've got just because it doesn't closely resemble your preconception. You have to appreciate what you've got for what it is. That goes for everything else, too. — Terrapin Station

But how do you appreciate it for what it is without preconceived notions about what it is, what you expect and where it sits in with those expectations?

To appreciate it for what it is means to value it truthfully and truth is just a term used in this context for relative worth compared to other circumstances your life, your job, your girlfriend could be in.

To appreciate it for what it is means to value it truthfully — intrapersona

No it doesn't. There is no "valuing something truthfully."

There is no "valuing something truthfully. — Terrapin Station

How could you know if this were true?

How could you know if this were true? — m-theory

By observing that no matter where one looks, there is no objective/extramental value to be found, and thus no value to get right, or to know the truth about.

How can you that is true?