No sarcasm at all here. — schopenhauer1

Good, because I can't stand sarcasm.

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?

Is there a moderate version of antinatalism that can be applied here? — Wallows

Well, a "moderate" form might be something like not having children because of overpopulation- it is only contingent on global conditions. Another form might be the idea that only certain people should procreate and not others. However, most sensible antinatalists aren't on a rampage against parents or anything; they are trying to convey a reasoning for why it is moral to prevent suffering and not force others at the procreational decision level.

But if you also mean that antinatalism is a sort of tip of the iceberg for existential thought in general, then yes. What do we want others to get out of life? You can answer that any which way, but what is it about that, that a life time should be created for that? If it is just because.. existence is just good in and of itself. Well, that has to be justified for why someone else needs to experience existence. Many people go to work on Monday, go home, find some hobby, active (and much passive) pastime, and repeat. What is it about that cycle? Technology building? Learning? We have to seek hard why this is worth it for someone else to be born into other than lifestyle decisions for the procreators, another past time, cultural expectations, some sort of ultimate set of goods.. or even worse, just an abstract "the human experience" which then swaths over any actual reasoning for a vague concept. Struggling to find self-actualized fulfillment seems to be just an odd reason too.

What's more revealing is any reason to bring more people into the world is AT THE LEAST just as suspect as an antinatalist's reasons to NOT bring someone into the world. So perhaps a moderate version is someone on the fence. But of course an actual antinatalist would convey reasonings for why the scale is tipped for not bringing someone into the world.

I'm more concerned about the circumstances that would allow one to procreate without adherence to eugenics or such rubbish?

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: .

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?

Well, I was concerned with the circumstances that would allow procreation? A communist utopia? No predetermined defects? — Wallows

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.

Well, you leave no room for adversity, and this flies against any commonsensical notion of what life is.

More fundamentalism, eh? :roll:

More fundamentalism, eh? :roll: — Wallows

You can assert fundamentalism..but besides being contrary to popular opinion, there is not much force behind what you're labeling it. Also, I did say paradise can be choosing as much adversity as you want..testing it out and leaving it when be :). Besides the obvious argument that we really don't know what the child will encounter or be like (for contingent harms) prior to birth, one can say it is still fundamentalism to think that prevention of suffering, and not having someone else live out an agenda is also a form of fundamentalism. Clearly "something" about birth "needs" to take place in the "right circumstances".

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?

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

You said paradise..

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.

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.

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

Why would anyone with any sense see any merit in that sort of abstract, unrealistic, nonsensical speculation?

Why would anyone with any sense see any merit in that sort of abstract, unrealistic, nonsensical speculation? — S

Hah, coming from a philosophy forum, I don't see any merit to this.

Hah, coming from a philosophy forum, I don't see any merit to this. — Wallows

In what I said or in what he said? If the former, then can you explain it? Because it seems to me to be the opposite of good philosophy. It seems to me to be the epitome of bad philosophy. You know, like the sort of unrestrained stoner speculation kind of stuff. Like, hey man, can you imagine if there was an ocean that wasn't blue or watery or full of liquid? If I've got my sensible hat on, I would be like, why? That's just stupid. But if I just wanted a bit of senseless entertainment...

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...

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

I'm none the wiser after that reply. You don't see any merit in my reply to what he said, or you don't see any merit in what he said?

You don't see any merit in my reply to what he said, or you don't see any merit in what he said? — S

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...

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

What is it with people in this discussion and avoiding direct questions? Are you in training to become a politician?

So you were referring to my reply to what he said, rather than what he said, but you don't want to come out and directly say so. Fine, whatever, there's loads of merit in talk of completeness nothingness lack of lack of lack of non-watery non-liquid oceans.

Why would anyone with any sense see any merit in that sort of abstract, unrealistic, nonsensical speculation? — S

I’ve been following this thread for some time now and I am curious as to your response is philosophical period.... it seems as though it is meant to illicit an emotional repose rather than a substantive response.

The original poster asked a question to which it was responded to clearly.

You’ve just proved my point.

Tone does matter because if your looking to illicit a “fight” then your response is achieving your goal. Substantive responses will illicit a more in-depth argument. As it seems this is a petty response from you.

Wallow asked a question. Shcopenhaur1 responded with an answer. He admitted his answer is a fantasy I the question... what is paradise? What kind of response would you expect?

I thought you'd been following the discussion. He's not just innocently bringing up a fantasy out of the blue. It apparently comes from Schopenhauer: surprise, surprise. And the implication is that it should be taken seriously in our reasoning on this topic. But I think that that suggestion is to endorse bad philosophy. I don't think that we should take it seriously at all. It's barely comprehensible and totally unrealistic. Those are cons. This is criticism. Criticism is a fundamental part of philosophy. That's more philosophical in nature than your distracting ad hominems. If you were to focus more on what I'm actually saying, instead of this knee-jerk reaction of yours, then maybe you wouldn't be having such a problem seeing the point.

Sir... if what I have done- referring to an ad hominem attack against you... then certainly that is what you are also guilty of.

Clearly, you are too busy gas lighting my responses rather than actually putting forth a substantial argument against shcopenhaur1/wallows question and response... I mean other than your own personal definition of what a philosophical debate should consist of.

Okay, I'm bored of you now, because ironically you're the one who is giving me nothing of substance whilst demanding it from me. Clearly you were just drawn to intervene based on pure emotion and aren't actually interested in my criticism, which you've obviously decided against addressing. Just another white knight.

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

Granted that the notion of non-hyperbolical paradise is fantasy, I'm still curious - this since many people of diverse backgrounds do hold onto some such notion of paradise which to them is not fantasy:

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?

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.

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

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.

What is it with people in this discussion and avoiding direct questions? Are you in training to become a politician? — S

Ok, so your talking about intentions here I suppose?

My main point with the notion of a paradise where an antinatalist would actually allow one to procreate is an abstraction of the highest sort. If you fail to see any merit in discussing a perfect world where an antinatalist would actually allow procreation on their part is a failing on your part I assume.

And if anyone for whatever reason can't tolerate the notion of a paradise, then just talk about "perfect worlds".

I want challenges, and frankly, even some drama. — Coben

Well, here I chime in and to the defence of schopenhauer1 (which has been extremely dogged in his asymmetric and symmetric notions of suffering) would say that suffering is a choice. If one were allowed to choose between a life with suffering (which can be called even a brute fact of existence), then I again suppose that most people would coffer a choice of no suffering. See the idealism here with respect to an existence in the "real" and "paradise" world?

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

If it was paradise, then people would not get bored. Actually, if Schopenhauer was right, the fundamental existence of boredom is proof of (this non-paradise) life's inability to just "be". Hence he always states, "We are always becoming but never being). Pure just "being" would satisfy itself. Hence no desire for desire would even matter. Does this sound far-fetched? Because it is. Hence a fantasy.

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

So I call this idea of "growth-through-adversity" a Nietzschean one. It is almost the "Standard Model" for what many people want out of life, or want for their progeny. They want them to struggle to grow. My stock response to this is that it is a circular reasoning. Prior to birth, no one needed harm, yet somehow, the parent deems that a child must be procreated into the world and post-facto deal with suffering in order to get the pleasure of overcoming it. I don't buy this Standard Model. I think it is rather cruel actually to create the conditions for someone else to suffer so they can overcome it because the progenitors of that person deem this is necessary to create into the universe. In other words, a universe devoid of people growing-through-adversity, in this view is deemed as a worse off world, when in fact, I see it as creating suffering to overcoming it (for someone else) as indeed the worse off world.

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

I am not sure what you mean by being less fantastical, but the idea of Nirvana is not deviating from Schopenhauer. In fact, it aligns well with him since he very much agreed with Hindu ideas of Moksha and Buddhist Nirvana as salvations of sorts for the Will to diminish its constant state of desire. So quite the opposite actually.