Thanks for considering these ideas. Hope they shed a little light on this large question. — 0 thru 9
Yes, thanks for sharing as well. So I ask you, what is it about existence for? — schopenhauer1
Why do people need to be born into the world in order to redeem it? — schopenhauer1
Abrahamic religions all see the world as "fallen" because of sin, and that we must "escape" and leave behind this problematic world and obtain salvation in Heaven with Yahweh. ... It's not about redeeming the world, it's about escaping the world, solving our problems, and seeking resolutions elsewhere. — darthbarracuda
But apparently you can't save people if they never exist. So the whole process of saving people becomes important in-itself. Christian morality has the tendency then to see life as machine of goodness. The more people there are, the more people need saving, and saving is good. It is apparently a good thing to put people into a shitty situation in order to help get them out of the situation you put them in. It certainly feels good to help people... This is quite obviously "slave-like", in that the objectively shitty conditions of the "slaves" are twisted around to be seen as something to be cherished. A classic example of a coping mechanism - when no alternatives are apparent, twist reality to be more suitable to your tastes. However it seems pretty obvious to me that if they had an alternative to enduring a life of suffering, most would take it. If there was a way to get to Heaven without the help of Jesus, we'd all take it. But, alas, there isn't another way into Heaven - or so we are told. — darthbarracuda
But in my opinion, "meaning" in the existential sense of purpose and justice is an imperfect coping mechanism; a hodge-podge method of ESCAPING (again! :( ) our condition by establishing a reason why things are happening the way they are and what our position is in the going-ons; a way of REASSURING ourselves that we are important (SELF-ESTEEM). Any sort of existentialist philosophy must then be powerful enough to ACTUALLY WORK but simultaneously flexible enough to JUSTIFY ITSELF as an AUTHENTIC way of life (and not just a coping mechanism). The absence of any such way leads one to extreme pessimism as panic, fear and meaninglessness solidify themselves, at least until one finds a suitable way to distract themselves. — darthbarracuda
Also, we could wonder if it's necessarily a good thing to let everyone share equally in material wealth, even if the means of generating it aren't harmful to the environment anymore. If you just observe debates about providing people with a basic income in civil societies, not everyone is convinced that a "free lunch" would prove to be beneficial. — Gooseone
I remember the joke (which proves this point) of the blind man who goes begging to Jesus to give him his sight back. So Jesus performs the miracle. The man thanks Him, promises to devote his life to the Ministry, but soon after Jesus sees him running and chasing after women. So Jesus stops him in his tracks and asks him "What are you doing? I performed a miracle for you and gave you back your lost vision. Why do you behave like you did before having lost your vision in the first place?"... and the man answers "Yes I greatly appreciate what you have done for me, that's why I am doing the best thing there is to do with it!" >:OSo the desire for redeeming the world (charity, scientific advancement, enlightenment) is really instrumental in getting what seems to be the underlying case, the pure desire for more existence. — schopenhauer1
Most religions and ethical culture groups (i.e. humanists), tend to think that part of our purpose here is to redeem the world. — schopenhauer1
kind of P.C. version — schopenhauer1
Why do people need to be born into the world in order to redeem it? — schopenhauer1
So the desire for redeeming the world (charity, scientific advancement, enlightenment) is really instrumental in getting what seems to be the underlying case, the pure desire for more existence. — schopenhauer1
I sympathize with Schophenaur (although I'm not scholar), but I suspect that there's merely the illusion of will, rather than a genuine will. In the same way evolution appears to have a teleos, but it's just an appearance. Think of it like natural selection for 'willing'. Things which don't strive for more existence, don't continue into the future, whereas those that do, do. — dukkha
What are we doing here that we need to be here? And again, if you answer that with any X reason, that reason can be taken to its logical end where it becomes an absurdity because it becomes circular logic. — schopenhauer1
The nice thing about it is that, if anyone here can easily shoot down everything I'm saying, I've gained some constructive feedback and that would aid in what I would consider "meaningful development". Personal engagement can make the difference between doing an intellectual exercise and intellectually exploring the environment, they can both be meaningful but if it's not clear which of the two we're engaging in there can be some unnecessary confusion. — Gooseone
Redeeming the world is different from personal redemption. I find that the latter is always prioritized and seen as a kind of prerequisite for the former. — Thorongil
So then I ask, what is it about our species that we keep putting more people into the world if we can reflect upon procreation itself, and even choose to stop the process. All the X reasons that are used when self-reflected upon (in other words not just "accidents" which themselves could have been avoided easily), are absurd when taken as reasons in and of themselves. I just chose "redemption" because that answer is a great example of what does not even need to occur in the first place if humans were not born. Redemption does not need to take place if there is no one to exist who needs redeeming. So what is it about the human project, that it has to be carried forth? What are we doing here that we need to be here? And again, if you answer that with any X reason, that reason can be taken to its logical end where it becomes an absurdity because it becomes circular logic. — schopenhauer1
Why actually care about the hypothetical suffering of non-existent babies? Would your life actually improve in any way if you convinced people not to breed? — dukkha
Reviled for their inability to get aboard and voicing their view about it. They perpetually question underlying conditions, whether satisfaction is lasting, what is it we are trying to perpetuate. These questions of existential level are usually rejected for not just getting on with things. — schopenhauer1
The actual outcome of antinatalism really has no great significance. It is rather the symbolic implication of what procreation stands for. — schopenhauer1
Procreation is not about procreation necessarily, but about us and our reason for doing anything. — schopenhauer1
Whaaaa? The most common motivation for antinatalism is that life isn't worth it due to an unreasonable amount of suffering. The goal of antinatalism is to minimize this suffering, because suffering is bad and what is bad is what ought to be removed, eliminated, or prevented, like a cancerous tumor.
Other motivations for antinatalism are far too poetic and reserved to be taken seriously in light of what suffering is actually like. — darthbarracuda
Well, my point was that the outcome of antinatalism is not going to be realized anytime soon — 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.