At the least, antinatalism is providing a template to understand why we are continuing existence. Just stop to think about it. WHY are we perpetuating more people? I am not talking the dull, brute way nature fools us into it (sex feels good and this leads to procreation), but in a philosophically-informed way. What are we trying to do here perpetuating more people? People just don't consider this at all. It is even more existentially relevant than why continue living. It is rooted in the very questioning of ANY human existence, not just your own and thus implies much more about life itself. — schopenhauer1
Is there a moderate version of antinatalism that can be applied here? — Wallows
I'm more concerned about the circumstances that would allow one to procreate without adherence to eugenics or such rubbish? — Wallows
I'm not sure what that means. Antinatalism is not about eugenics. It's an equal opportunity no birth movement :lol: . — schopenhauer1
Well, I was concerned with the circumstances that would allow procreation? A communist utopia? No predetermined defects? — Wallows
More fundamentalism, eh? :roll: — Wallows
Also, I did say paradise can be choosing as much adversity as you want..testing it out and leaving it when be :). — schopenhauer1
Well, that's just silly. If one were to have the capacity to tolerate adversity, and yet choose to live a life full of comfort, then I don't see how anyone would willingly choose to tolerate adversity. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? — Wallows
Well, that's just silly. If one were to have the capacity to tolerate adversity, and yet choose to live a life full of comfort, then I don't see how anyone would willingly choose to tolerate adversity. — Wallows
Adversity means unpleasant or difficult. I guess I wouldn't choose to have anything that was simply unpleasant - but I certainly want difficult. Not all the time. But I don't want to lounge on a perfect sofa being taken care of all the time. I want challenges, and frankly, even some drama. — Coben
In some more abstract versions of a "paradise" everything would be a completeness or a nothingness such that you would not have any needs or wants whatsoever.. thus even the need for need for need wouldn't matter. — schopenhauer1
Hah, coming from a philosophy forum, I don't see any merit to this. — Wallows
Well, I am addressing your concern wrt. my sentiment or question as to what kind of conditions are permissible to have children to an antinatalist. Which, then evolved into imagining a possible state of affairs (utopias, paradise, etc.) where an antinatalist would feel comfortable in having children... — Wallows
Well, I think it is elucidating in what set of circumstances an antinatalist would warrant procreation, even if that means imagining perfect worlds or such... — Wallows
Why would anyone with any sense see any merit in that sort of abstract, unrealistic, nonsensical speculation? — S
Ah.. If the world was a guaranteed paradise and paradise meant that you can tune it into as much pain as you wanted at any given time to "grow from it", but then can stop whenever you wanted, and you can sleep for any amount of time and wake up any given time and had no needs or wants other than what you wanted to need or want at any given time? You can choose to live in a universe like ours with slogans like "growth-through-adversity" but then stop it at a whim when you find that it is relatively sucky, or then go back to it if you find it fascinating? Sure..But that is pure fantasy, as is the notion of a paradise. — schopenhauer1
In some more abstract versions of a "paradise" everything would be a completeness or a nothingness such that you would not have any needs or wants whatsoever.. thus even the need for need for need wouldn't matter. — schopenhauer1
What is it with people in this discussion and avoiding direct questions? Are you in training to become a politician? — S
I want challenges, and frankly, even some drama. — Coben
How would a never-ending obtainment of wants as they are wanted not eventually lead to an excruciating boredom with existence - and, hence, to an extreme psychological pain? — javra
It seems to me that the overcoming of strife is part and parcel of what makes life pleasurable. This includes everything from states of fun to the obtainment of a personal dignity that is of intrinsic value (iow, rather than the winning of popularity contests, type of thing, whose value to me is extrinsic). And strife devoid of some form and degree of suffering - at minimum, an uncertainty about suffering's future occurrence - is not something I find possible. — javra
Isn't this deviating from Schopenhauer and entering into Eastern belief structures? Specifically, those of actualizing Nirvana or Moksha. But I take it that you do interpret this too to be fantasy. I'm primarily asking because in a forced choice between actualizing Nirvana and actualizing an absence of all suffering via the noneixstence of all future life, I so far view the first to be less fantastical. — javra
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.