What I'm getting at is that there's a difference between "I want food," which you seem to be categorically calling a "dissatisfaction," and having a negative experience in conjunction with wanting food.

In other words, someone can just want food without having an attendant value assessment of that experience, where they assign a negative or "bad" value to it. It can just be an experience without a valuation. — Terrapin Station

Then you are not taking into account how I (and Schopenhuaer) are using "negative in nature" here.

Re my earlier post (I'm adding to it in a new post because you might miss it otherwise), the idea is similar to, say, presenting two options for wallpaper to someone, and they say, "I don't have a preference for either. They're just different." You don't have to assign a positive or negative valuation to every different experience. So you can just experience "I'm hungry" without it being negative. It's just different than "I'm not hungry."

Then you are not taking into account how I (and Schopenhuaer) are using "negative in nature" here. — schopenhauer1

Well, the utility of me asking questions and you giving answers is that you can explain it to me better.

Yeah, again, this is not the definition I'm using here. Maybe this other Schopenhauer quote will help in defining negative here:

If life — the craving for which is the very essence of our being — were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us — an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest — when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon — an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature — shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious.

If life — the craving for which is the very essence of our being — were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us — an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest — when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon — an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature — shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious.

I can understand that Schopenhauer felt that way, but why would you think that it's necessarily universal? You're not familiar with people who never feel bored, for example?

Suffering, at this level, is the most important thing to take into consideration. — schopenhauer1

That's just your opinion.

Anything else is having an agenda for another person. — schopenhauer1

No, that criticism is invalid. It's invalid because it can't apply to what I'm saying without also applying to what you're saying. You are committing the fallacy of special pleading. You say that the prevention of suffering matters. I say that the prevention of joy matters. You say to me that that's having an agenda for another person. I can then say to you that that's having an agenda for another person.

That's logic for you.

I can understand that Schopenhauer felt that way, but why would you think that it's necessarily universal? You're not familiar with people who never feel bored, for example? — Terrapin Station

Oh yeah, that's why ascetics and meditation and such..things Schopenhauer liked.. but that was to reduce the Will in general.

But to for those note meditating and eating a bowl of rice 24/7, I don't believe it. People don't get bored because they are filling the time with stuff that overcomes the baseline boredom they would feel otherwise- TPF, shopping, reading, working, etc.

That's just your opinion. — S

My opinion leads to NO suffering for a future person. Yours doesn't. I win. No one is actually alive be deprived. I win.

No, that criticism is invalid. It's invalid because it can't apply to what I'm saying without also applying to what you're saying. You are committing the fallacy of special pleading. You say that the prevention of suffering matters. I say that the prevention of joy matters. You say to me that that's having an agenda for another person. I can then say to you that that's having an agenda for another person.

That's logic for you. — S

Ah no. Prevention of joy is not bad, if there is NO ONE alive to be deprived of it. Prevention of suffering is always, good whether someone for whom this is a benefit or not. That's the asymmetry.

But to for those note meditating and eating a bowl of rice 24/7, I don't believe it. People don't get bored because they are filling the time with stuff that overcomes the baseline boredom they would feel otherwise- TPF, shopping, reading, working, etc. — schopenhauer1

Well, maybe they don't get bored because they're doing whatever, but the point I'm still trying to get at is that we can have someone who doesn't have a negative valuation of phenomenal states such as "I'm hungry." But it seems like you're saying that's irrelevant to it being a moral problem.

Well, maybe they don't get bored because they're doing whatever, but the point I'm still trying to get at is that we can have someone who doesn't have a negative valuation of phenomenal states such as "I'm hungry." But it seems like you're saying that's irrelevant to it being a moral problem. — Terrapin Station

Yes it's the initial desire, not the assessment of it.

Sure. But the problem is that that doesn't make any sense to me at all. You're categorizing desire as morally problematic regardless of anyone's opinion of it.

My opinion leads to NO suffering for a future person. — schopenhauer1

Do you understand why that's a misleading statement? Yes or no?

Do you understand why no reasonable conclusion can follow from it? Yes or no?

Ah no. Prevention of joy is not bad, if there is NO ONE alive to be deprived of it. Prevention of suffering is always, good whether someone for whom this is a benefit or not. That's the asymmetry. — schopenhauer1

That's evading the point. Please don't do that. We can't move on until you address my point properly. Prevention of suffering is having an agenda for another person. You suggested that having an agenda for another person is bad in response to me, yet you yourself have an agenda for another person.

Sure. But the problem is that that doesn't make any sense to me at all. You're categorizing desire as morally problematic regardless of anyone's opinion of it. — Terrapin Station

Correct.

Do you understand why that's a misleading statement? Yes or no?

Do you understand why no reasonable conclusion can follow from it? Yes or no? — S

It is always good to prevent suffering so no whether someone exists to know this or not.

That's evading the point. Please don't do that. We can't move on until you address my point properly. Prevention of suffering is having an agenda for another person. You suggested that having an agenda for another person is bad in response to me, yet you yourself have an agenda for another person. — S

No, the other person does not exist yet. No agenda is going to be had by them.

It is always good to prevent suffering so no whether someone exists to know this or not. — schopenhauer1

Why didn't you answer my questions? I will ask them again.

Do you understand why that's a misleading statement? Yes or no?

Do you understand why no reasonable conclusion can follow from it? Yes or no?

No, the other person does not exist yet. No agenda is going to be had by them. — schopenhauer1

Then that's my response also, regarding the prevention of joy. And the prevention of anger, the prevention of surprise, the prevention of sympathy, the prevention of guilt, the prevention of...

You don't seem to get the logic here. If you did, you would realise that you can't have it both ways.

Why didn't you answer my questions? I will ask them again.

Do you understand why that's a misleading statement? Yes or no?

Do you understand why no reasonable conclusion can follow from it? Yes or no? — S

I did answer. I said no, and no. I explained why.

Then that's my response also, regarding the prevention of joy. And the prevention of anger, the prevention of surprise, the prevention sympathy, the prevention of guilt, the prevention of...

You don't seem to get the logic here. — S

Agendas are had by actual people. No people, no agenda for that person to be had.

I did answer. I said no, and no. — schopenhauer1

Okay, given that you said "no" to my question of whether you understand why that's a misleading statement, why don't you understand that the reason why it's misleading is because what you're talking about doesn't just prevent suffering? Even a little child would understand why it's misleading to say, for example, that being burnt alive tonight prevents you from doing the chores tomorrow. So why don't you understand it when a little child can? Do you mean to suggest that a little child is more intelligent than you are?

Agendas are had by actual people. No people, no agenda for that person to be had. — schopenhauer1

So you retract your comment to me about having an agenda for another person? Or you apply the above to the both of us? It's hard to tell from all of your evasion. You aren't giving a straight answer again.

Correct. — schopenhauer1

So as I said, that makes no sense to me at all. What makes something morally problematic regardless of anyone's opinion about the thing in question?

Antichorism is essentially about the prevention of having to do chores. (By burning you alive, so you'll suffer excruciating pain, and then you'll be dead, and you'll never get to experience anything ever again, and you'll never get to see your family, friends or loved ones ever again, and you'll never get to do anything you enjoy doing, and you'll never even have just a single brief moment to take a deep breath and listen to the wind blowing or the birds singing or look up at the stars in the sky at night, and so on and so forth).

But don't think about that part in the brackets. You won't have to do any chores! That's good, right? Not misleading at all.

So as I said, that makes no sense to me at all. What makes something morally problematic regardless of anyone's opinion about the thing in question? — Terrapin Station

Something that is so structural, it is not reflected on, but runs our lives.

All these arguments that hinge on the nonexistence of potential people seem to depend on certain things being true with respect to the problem of personal identity. We are talking about persons, after all, persons existing and persons not yet existing. But what is a person? What am I?

@schopenhauer1, what is your understanding of what Schopenhauer thought that we are ultimately? What am I really? And I mean from my own perspective. And how does what I am at my foundation relate to what you are at your foundation?

@schopenhauer1, do you now understand why it is misleading to say that your opinion leads to no suffering for a future person? (Note that I'm not asking whether or not that's true or a good thing).

And are you now ready to properly address my criticism about your comment to me in response to my mention about the prevention of joy that "that's having an agenda for another person"? Are you now ready to clarify what your position is? Do you accept that, as an antinatalist according to your own description of antinatalism, you have an agenda for another person? Or are you going to be inconsistent and apply a double standard? Or are you just going to keep evading the point?

Something that is so structural, it is not reflected on, but runs our lives. — schopenhauer1

Wouldn't, say, physics fit that description--something structural, it's not reflected upon, but it runs our lives. So would you say that physics is morally problematic?

Our autonomic nervous system is morally problematic, apparently.

haha, yeah, that too.

All these arguments that hinge on the nonexistence of potential people seem to depend on certain things being true with respect to the problem of personal identity. We are talking about persons, after all, persons existing and persons not yet existing. But what is a person? What am I? — petrichor

Does it matter if the person is conceived, gestated, born, aware, self-aware? At whatever stage you pick the formation of a "person" all the antinatalist arguments apply from that moment forward. It was just that the previous steps needed to take place for that to occur.

what is your understanding of what Schopenhauer thought that we are ultimately? What am I really? And I mean from my own perspective. And how does what I am at my foundation relate to what you are at your foundation? — petrichor

That's an interesting question. Metaphysically, Schopenhauer thought everything, including you and I, are manifestations of the principle of Will, which is like a force that has no end goal but strives forward. All beings are manifestation of Will and create this world of appearances and plays out the Will's striving in various forms. However, due to the fact that Will is an endless force, this brings suffering for animal manifestations because of the endless, striving nature of our pursuits, goals, and survival. The illusion is satisfaction will be attained by any pursuit. But they aren't.

So why don't you understand it when a little child can? Do you mean to suggest that a little child is more intelligent than you are? — S

Why do you keep thinking insulting people is a good debate tactic. It just shows more of who you really are. It still doesn't matter if you are going to use the excuse that this is an anonymous forum, so it's okay to be this rude. I have not done the same to you. Why would you treat others, even people you are debating in such a demeaning fashion? It isn't effective in getting your point across. It honestly just makes you look like an asshole. You know, a whole philosophy book was written about assholes. There's some real philosophical questions about assholes- are people themselves assholes or do they just act like assholes? Can there be both? Are you just an asshole, or do you just act like one on internet forums?

Honestly, I shouldn't debate you any further until you cleanup your asshole act. I don't think you argue in good faith. You have to see the other position's side before you move on. Right now you are just showing you like going on ego-trips. It is in a perverse way, fun to prove you wrong, but it is at the expense of allowing you to act like a total asshole, so I don't know how I feel by keeping indulging this.

So, ignoring that entire irrelevant personal attack, do you not agree that a little child would understand why these kinds of statement are misleading? That's the question. I'm really having to focus and break things down in a simple step-by-step fashion with you here. You are being very difficult and trying all the tricks in the book. It's a simple question. You are allowing yourself to be distracted by treating it as an insult. I am making a valid point. It's up to you whether you decide to engage it properly.

How about another example? Would, or wouldn't, a little child understand what's misleading about saying that they can go to Disneyland, without mentioning that they would have to get there by being dragged along the ground by a horse?

If the answer is that they would, then it's fair to ask why you say that you don't understand what's misleading about saying that antinatalism is essentially about the prevention of suffering, or that your opinion leads to no suffering for a future person.

If that isn't to do with intelligence, then explain what it it's to do with. Self-deception?

So, ignoring that entire irrelevant personal attack — S

And how is that not a case of the pot calling the kettle black? What do you think I have to do for just about every post you make which usually has some insulting personal attack in there somewhere. Oh, I found another one, right here!

o you not agree that a little child would understand why these kinds of statement are misleading? — S

And are you now ready to properly address my criticism about your comment to me in response to my mention about the prevention of joy that "that's having an agenda for another person"? Are you now ready to clarify what your position is? Do you accept that, as an antinatalist according to your own description of antinatalism, you have an agenda for another person? Or are you going to be inconsistent and apply a double standard? Or are you just going to keep evading the point? — S

Ok, this is what I perceive to be your main issue right now in this argument, no?

A person has to exist for there to be an agenda. By not having a new person, there is no person, and ergo no agenda that this person is to be following. My agenda is to prevent someone else from being forced into an agenda, and by not having a new person who actually will be forced into an agenda, my agenda has not made an agenda for someone else.