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? — Wallows

I would go one step further.. One can choose to have suffering but then turn it off at a whim. But people think that life is about growing through various experiences, even suffering. My argument against this is that to CREATE suffering for another, just so they can "feel good" about overcoming it, is more than odd, but perhaps not even moral. It certainly smacks of propaganda if we compare it to social pressures to do things you do not want to do.. If people keep saying to themselves, "No pain, no gain" and it comes from one's one's self even.. then little else needs to be done to ensure people can justify and even promote more suffering in order to overcome it and keep the whole thing going. Society has found its own slogans and patterns of thought for its own self-perpetuation, suffering and all. Thus, is it even the individual thinking this, or cues from a bigger institutional push to ensure people not only not avoid suffering, but enshrine it as an existential need.

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. — schopenhauer1

I know Schopenhauer borrowed ideas from the East, but didn't catch him entertaining the notions of Nirvana or Moksha.

My point was that stopping all humans from reproducing seems impossible, but if it were possible, how would one stop all greater apes from reproducing? If not, they will experience their own suffering and will eventually evolve into sapience akin to our own. This same reasoning can be taken all the way to bacteria reproducing. If all life on all planets is not completely abolished by prohibiting all reproduction everywhere, suffering will yet be. And life has a way of evolving into sapience. Succeeding in this endeavor, then, is to me unrealistic. Btw, I know some Buddhists maintain such general perspectives on prohibition of reproduction, but I do disagree with them in this.

Anyway, wanted to better express my point of view.

My contention here seems to be of the sort, in what kind of world would it be justified to have children. For the matter, I don't plan to have children *Wallows proceeds to feel as though he has taken a big burden off his shoulders*...

I also don't think it is sane to procreate with defects that could be passed on to one's offspring (hence my eugenics quip).

But, life is fundamentally rife with disappointment and struggle, and if we assume that this is true regardless of fantastical or wishful thinking, then I suppose there is no other way to put it than state that the antinatalist simply demands too much from themselves or others in order to procreate.

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. — Wallows

Now all you have to do is actually explain why you think that. Do you also think that there is merit in discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Now all you have to do is actually explain why you think that. — S

Because it elucidates under what conditions an antinatalist would allow one to procreate or not? Surely, you can see some merit to assessing that, rather than arguing over how much this world sucks...

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? — Wallows

Why don't you do create a poll on the forum? My money would be that most people on the forum would choose a life with suffering, because a life without it would be much worse. It would be horrible. And I think most people on this forum, perhaps unlike the general population, would be intelligent enough to realise that.

Why don't you do create a poll on the forum? My money would be that most people on the forum would choose a life with suffering, because a life without it would be much worse. It would be horrible. And I think most people on this forum would be intelligent enough to realise that. — S

If you're sincere, then go ahead and start one, just to asses the reasonableness of our lot, hereabouts.

Because it elucidates under what conditions an antinatalist would allow one to procreate or not? Surely, you can see some merit to assessing that, rather than arguing over how much this world sucks... — Wallows

Only insofar as one might think that that could have some bearing on a meaningful discussion back in reality. If not, then I think that it would be a waste of time to delve into fantasy land.

So desiring is like a wound that is never clotted by simply fulfilling a desire. Physiological pain (pain being by its nature unpleasant) attend many of these lacks. But it will persist again even after temporary satiation. Can one revel in the unpleasantness of starving? Sure. Perhaps certain masochistic types. So, if the masochists don't get what they desire? — schopenhauer1

I overlooked that you responded to me here.

First, we weren't talking about starvation, but simple hunger. I've never in my life been in a state of starvation, and no one I know ever has either. That's not to say there are no people who have suffered from extreme hunger anywhere in the world, but that's not most people by a long shot. (And it's not going to be anyone for long, because either you find food or you die.)

For most people, being hungry is not unpleasant, and it's nothing like a pain state. It's still unclear whether you're denying that, or whether you're saying that regardless, it's still a moral problem--in which case I'm still trying to figure out why it would be a moral problem when the people you're trying to white-knight aren't complaining/don't seem themselves as victims of any sort of moral transgression due to being hungry so that they eventually get off the couch and go to the refrigerator.

If you're sincere, then go ahead and start one, just to asses the reasonableness of out lot, hereabouts. — Wallows

You're not interested enough to do so yourself, then? Even though you were the one who seemed to be offering up that speculation about how most people would respond as some sort of support behind the notion that a life without suffering is preferable.

You're not interested enough to do so yourself, then? Even though you were the one who seemed to be offering up that speculation about how most people would respond as some sort of support behind the notion that a life without suffering is preferable. — S

I am satisfied with this thread. If you aren't, then go ahead and start the poll.

For the matter, I should also point out that it's a near impossibility to asses such a sentiment. Ask me why...

I am satisfied with this thread. If you aren't, then go ahead and start the poll. — Wallows

It wasn't about this thread, it was about your comment that most people would opt for a life without suffering. If you're satisfied enough not to question that comment, then so be it. You haven't made clear your thinking about what I said: whether you agree with my prediction, disagree with it, aren't sure one way or the other...

You haven't made clear your thinking about what I said: whether you agree with my prediction, disagree with it, aren't sure one way or the other... — S

I can only speak for myself here I suppose, so I would amend my comment to the sort of statement of fact, that I would prefer to live a life without suffering. But, we then digress into wishful thinking, and the near-incomprehensible notion of what such a life would look like(?)

I can only speak for myself here I suppose, so I would amend my comment to the sort of statement of fact, that I would prefer to live a life without suffering. But, we then digress into wishful thinking, and the near-incomprehensible notion of what such a life would look like(?) — Wallows

Well, given your awareness of all of those accompanying problems, why would you conclude that you'd prefer it over what you do know?! You'd risk a nightmarish existence, like in one of those "be careful what you wish for" horror films?

But, life is fundamentally rife with disappointment and struggle, and if we assume that this is true regardless of fantastical or wishful thinking, then I suppose there is no other way to put it than state that the antinatalist simply demands too much from themselves or others in order to procreate. — Wallows

Maybe people don't demand enough when it comes to thinking about putting more people into the world.

But, life is fundamentally rife with disappointment and struggle, and if we assume that this is true regardless of fantastical or wishful thinking, then I suppose there is no other way to put it than state that the antinatalist simply demands too much from themselves or others in order to procreate. — Wallows

That's an understatement.

Well, given your awareness of all of those problems, why would you conclude that you'd prefer it over what you do know?! You'd risk a nightmarish existence, like in one of those "be careful what you wish for" horror films? — S

But, would a life with suffering be worse-off than the idealistic notion of a life without suffering (Nirvana)?*

*Conversely also...

Maybe people don't demand enough when it comes to thinking about putting more people into the world. — schopenhauer1

Isn't that put simply a gross overgeneralization?

For most people, being hungry is not unpleasant, and it's nothing like a pain state. It's still unclear whether you're denying that, or whether you're saying that regardless, it's still a moral problem--in which case I'm still trying to figure out why it would be a moral problem when the people you're trying to white-knight aren't complaining/don't seem themselves as victims of any sort of moral transgression due to being hungry so that they eventually get off the couch and go to the refrigerator. — Terrapin Station

Again, as I've stated, Schopenhauer equates need with suffering as in one definition of it. Needing is not completion, and not being complete in this metaphysics is a state of suffering. This is structural in that it pervades all animal life. Not sure why you're not getting that part and keep going back to how one feels about it when it is definitional to suffering. However, it can be argued that attendant feelings of loss, pain, angst, frustration, and the like is very true when you DON'T fulfill certain needs and wants (hence why so many Eastern gurus emphasize being detached from achieving any particular desire or outcome). So there are two things going on related but not the same. However, you don't need the attendant feelings to have suffering be equated with an incomplete state of becoming. That is my take anyways.

Isn't that put simply a gross overgeneralization? — Wallows

No. It is a gross generalization to assume that the Standard Model of growth-through-adversity is what is necessary to be experienced by anyone, period.

But, would a life without suffering be worse-off than the idealistic notion of a life without suffering (Nirvana)? — Wallows

I assume there was a typo there, and the first "without" should be a "with". No, I don't think that it would be worse off. I think that it's just a common misperception to think otherwise, not too disimilar from people who jump to the conclusion that real life would be so much better without physical pain, even though they probably very much wouldn't want to live with a congenital insensitivity to pain.

But, would a life with suffering be worse-off than the idealistic notion of a life without suffering (Nirvana)?*

*Conversely also... — Wallows

What some posters don't see on here is that if it was a paradise, there wouldn't even be the harm of being bored "not suffering" :rofl:.

It is a gross generalization to assume that the Standard Model of growth-through-adversity is what is necessary to be experienced by anyone, period. — schopenhauer1

But, the difference here lays in stating a fact that life is inherently full of suffering and adversity, rather than pointing out that life without suffering would be preferable. Even the Buddhists would seemingly agree here to some extent. (Although, I've always treated the notion of pure bliss that is the cathartic state of being that is Nirvana as a sort of jump discontinuity in being itself)... A sort of metaphysical solipsism.

But, the difference here lays in stating a fact that stating life is inherently full of suffering and adversity, rather than pointing out that life without suffering would be preferable. — Wallows

Sure life without suffering is preferable but not actually the case, thus antinatalism. I disagree with those who want to promote "growth-through-adversity" (The Standard Model of Natalism) as good or necessary for another person to experience, when it is clear an alternative exists which is non-existence which has no harm and no one to be deprived of any good aspects.

What some posters don't see on here is that if it was a paradise, there wouldn't even be the harm of being bored "not suffering" :rofl:. — schopenhauer1

I see that you keep going back to nonsense as if it were sense, without seeming to realise that that's a disadvantage, not an advantage. It's like those people who talk of a God in nonsensical ways, like being outside of time and yet created the world, and they then expect to be taken seriously, as though they're talking sense. It would still be nightmarish, even without suffering, just like the pleasure machine would be nightmarish. I would absolutely hate to be plugged into a pleasure machine and become like a vegetable.

"growth-through-adversity" (The Standard Model of Natalism) — schopenhauer1

Is there any other way to state it (life, suffering, existence, etc.)? I tend to think it's a brute fact of existence, no?

But, the difference here lays in stating a fact that stating life is inherently full of suffering and adversity, rather than pointing out that life without suffering would be preferable. Even the Buddhists would seemingly agree here to some extent. (Although, I've always treated the notion of pure bliss that is the cathartic state of being that is Nirvana as a sort of jump discontinuity in being itself)... A sort of metaphysical solipsism. — Wallows

What some posters also don't get is that a paradise is still a paradise, even if it is unobtainable. The question wasn't "Is paradise attainable', but "What is paradise?".

What some posters also don't get is that a paradise is still a paradise, even if it is unobtainable. The question wasn't "Is paradise attainable', but "What is paradise?". — schopenhauer1

No one here doesn't get that a paradise is a paradise. That's an irrelevant truism. Rather, the issue is that some of us here dispute that your so-called paradise would be a paradise proper. And also, no, the objection is not simply that your so-called paradise is unobtainable, it's that it's an inconceivable nonsense. A rough sketch of what I see as a paradise would be a life without having to work full-time in retail, in a sunny climate, with lots of money, and so on. It's still a paradise to me, even if, realistically, it's unobtainable for me. But unlike what you're saying, that makes sense.

Again, as I've stated, Schopenhauer equates need with suffering as in one definition of it. Needing is not completion, and not being complete in this metaphysics is a state of suffering. This is structural in that it pervades all animal life. Not sure why you're not getting that part — schopenhauer1

I get it. What's not being stated is why it's morally problematic. In other words why is suffering under this definition morally problematic?

Causing someone to need something when they don't have to is morally problematic, even if the person is gracious or indifferent to the need they are being forced to need.