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'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
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
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 would be intelligent enough to realise 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... — Wallows
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
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. — S
I am satisfied with this thread. If you aren't, then go ahead and start the poll. — Wallows
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(?) — Wallows
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
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
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
Maybe people don't demand enough when it comes to thinking about putting more people into the world. — schopenhauer1
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
Isn't that put simply a gross overgeneralization? — Wallows
But, would a life without suffering be worse-off than the idealistic notion of a life without suffering (Nirvana)? — Wallows
But, would a life with suffering be worse-off than the idealistic notion of a life without suffering (Nirvana)?*
*Conversely also... — Wallows
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 stating life is inherently full of suffering and adversity, rather than pointing out that life without suffering would be preferable. — 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:. — schopenhauer1
"growth-through-adversity" (The Standard Model of Natalism) — schopenhauer1
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?". — schopenhauer1
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
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.