We are not only experiencing the negative state, but know we are. — schopenhauer1
Please share any more thoughts on the matter. — schopenhauer1
It's amazing how much of the day could disappear, and it really wouldn't matter, or would be in fact, a relief. It's like grinding gears, that is somehow also like being on autopilot, because it's just things to maintain some sort of work related to (inevitably) surviving in a complex society, or its related to comfort, also in the context of a complex society. — schopenhauer1
I call this kind of inherent, constant suffering and "want" necessary suffering, as it is built into being alive, as you say. — schopenhauer1
I think it is impossible to suffer and at the same time not know that one doesn’t want to suffer. — Zn0n
Speaking of sharing, one of the most insightful posts I found over the years on the nature suffering is from here, namely this post.
The implications of what dukkha wrote are absolutely horrific, and a rock solid case for antinatalism (yet another one – as you know). Though there is still much to add** and I may write soon a thread on it and will be curious what you think about it. — Zn0n
The implications of what dukkha wrote are absolutely horrific, and a rock solid case for antinatalism (yet another one – as you know). Though there is still much to add** and I may write soon a thread on it and will be curious what you think about it. — Zn0n
**f.e. how our perception of time makes matters a lot worse, as it decelerates time down to slow-motion while we have to endure suffering - and as if that weren't bad enough already, at the very same time it accelerates it while we experience pleasurable moments, so that it basically acts a fast-forward to suffering. — Zn0n
I used to meditate for an hour (years ago) and it’s not all that much if you think about it, but I always had to force me to do it, and if ‘just sitting doing nothing’ is so hard and so uncomfortable (and it is!), what exactly does that tell us about our existential baseline? — Zn0n
Though to be fair, it might be because we are so addicted to stimulation through technology (including books), that ‘just sitting doing nothing’ immediately starts a (drug-like) withdrawal.
Theoretically it could be possible to overcome this stimulation-addiction, so that mere presence doesn’t pain you so heavily anymore, but I’m not sure if it is actually possible. — Zn0n
But, even if it were, that we are so very prone to getting immensely addicted to external stimulation in the first place is telling in itself, and stems from suffering-avoidance for sure. — Zn0n
This is another important point, I’m not sure if suffering is actually necessary for consciousness, I doubt it is, and it certainly isn’t to the degree that we have to go through.
If consciousness is forced external input onto some “I”, it is inherently unfree, but could theoretically still at least be neutral. So that makes me assume a sadistic creator even more, and I really, really hope I'm wrong with that.
(But ultimately, I found it very hard to go even near the bottom of the matter. How does suffering even work fundamentally, and how is the “I” even created, presumably out of nothing? It looks like logic doesn’t even apply there.) — Zn0n
Great point, they certainly have their own forms of entertainment, I haven't seen it from that angle.One may say that their baseline boredom requires less, technology, but certainly restlessness is part of their daily life as well. You take away their version of entertainment, that surely would also affect them negatively as anyone from a "modern" society. — schopenhauer1
Any type of unprovoked ad-hominem is an admission of defeat, so good luck next time!*Bangs head against wall* — MSC
This thread has at least solidified my impression that anti-natalism is depression + generalisation from samples of one. — Kenosha Kid
This comment has solidified my impression that you have nothing other than lame insults and weak strawman-generalizations and are therefore demonstrably completely argumentatively helpless.
Good luck next time, you’ll need it. — Zn0n
I'm going to provide an unorthodox argument for the case of never being born being optimal — schopenhauer1
Would you rather be sleeping?" argument (WYRBS for short) — schopenhauer1
I don't think your WYRBS argument works for the simple reason that sleep is known to be a temporary state of unconsciousness. People prefer to sleep rather than doing something dull and boring only because they know they'll get up from it. — TheMadFool
The correct formulation of an antinatalist question is: Would You Rather be Dead? I don't think there'll be many takers to this generous offer. — TheMadFool
Any type of unprovoked ad-hominem is an admission of defeat, so good luck next time! — Zn0n
For the record, there isn't good evidence that Zn0n and Schop the same user. — fdrake
So if someone were at the end of their life, and had to choose between 1) getting their foot cut off and dying and 2) sleeping during this time instead and then dying, people wouldn't want to avoid the suffering, even if they don't wake up from it? — Zn0n
Well as far as I'm aware there are countless sucessful suicides every few seconds. — Zn0n
Since some moderators have vouched for you, I will take you at your word and will try to be more charitable with your views. — MSC
You do see why I was a little suspicious at first though right? The timing of ZnOns account creation and direct interaction with your and only your posts was strange, even if we both agree now that those things are merely coincidental. — MSC
Some are insincere and only want to watch the world burn for their own pleasure. — MSC
In the 1958 article where R. N. Smart introduced the term ‘negative utilitarianism’ he argued against it, stating that negative utilitarianism would entail that a ruler who is able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race, "a benevolent world-exploder," would have a duty to do so.[25] This is the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism,[7] and it is directed against sufficiently strong versions of negative utilitarianism.[26] Many authors have endorsed this argument,[27] and some have presented counterarguments against it. — Wikipedia
I'm not so sure about this. I think most antinatalists are quite sincere. I think there can be a distinction made between antinatalists who are more passive (probably my views) vs. ones who get on board with things like "the benevolent world exploder" argument. — schopenhauer1
Well thank you, I'm glad that a newbie has accepted me as me and not some other in a forum I have contributed 4.3 thousand comments to — schopenhauer1
What could someone identifying themselves as antinatalist, do or say that could make you disagree with that particular individuals take on the matter? — MSC
In the 1958 article where R. N. Smart introduced the term ‘negative utilitarianism’ he argued against it, stating that negative utilitarianism would entail that a ruler who is able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race, "a benevolent world-exploder," would have a duty to do so.[25] This is the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism,[7] and it is directed against sufficiently strong versions of negative utilitarianism.[26] Many authors have endorsed this argument,[27] and some have presented counterarguments against it.
— Wikipedia
That would be just as bad as positive utilitarian arguments that suggest that if it is for "the greater good" then creating pain for an individual, when this does not need to happen for the individual, is acceptable. So those brands, I would not identify with that only based on negative utilitarianism. Though my views are based on not creating unnecessary harm/suffering, it always recognizes the locus of ethics at the level of individual. This is ethics at the margins, not on a whole. Potential parents that do not procreate, prevent that future individual from suffering. That is the level I am talking about, not whole populations as that quickly turns into not recognizing the individual, and using them as a means to an ends, which is bad for any cause. — schopenhauer1
Newbie to the forum, not philosophy or these types of debates. Quantity of writing doesn't factor into your status to me. I'm sure there have been plenty of individuals here whom have contributed a lot of comments with no real qualitative substance. Not saying this is you but I've yet to read all 4k of your comments haha. — MSC
First thing to be clear about is that people don't want to, everyone, without exception, loathes, suffering. A certainty there's no point arguing about. The OP wants to make a case for antinatalism on the basis of how people prefer to sleep rather than be awak engaging in dull and boring activities. and the parallel being drawn is crystal clear - sleep is nonexistence and being awake is existence. If one prefers to sleep then, this argument concludes, one must prefer death. — TheMadFool
So far so good.
The scenario you describe puts us in the position of having to make a choice: — TheMadFool
Either have your foot cut off and meet your end OR sleep and meet your maker. I presume what you really want to offer as choices are: be awake and suffer OR sleep and don't suffer. It's quite obvious that the latter is a preferable alternative but, the catch is, for that choice to be always the best, to be awake must always involve suffering, not just suffering but intolerable suffering.
Is this an accurate description of reality? — TheMadFool
Here are my choices: 1)awake and having the time of your life — TheMadFool
OR 2) asleep and dead to the world? — TheMadFool
My scenario, if it does anything, should blow the lid of clear off the antinatalist agenda. — TheMadFool
The choices available to us aren't limited to live and suffer or die and not. — TheMadFool
Antinatalists forget that we can live and be happy — TheMadFool
and if this wasn't true in the past and even if it isn't true in the present, the future is unpredictable - tables may turn, unexpected things may happen.. — TheMadFool
Well as far as I'm aware there are countless sucessful suicides every few seconds. — Zn0n
You're correct of course and I won't, can't, deny this truth but don't forget how many don't take their own lives. — TheMadFool
but that it was rather brazen of you to just join the forum, and then accuse a member who has been here for many years that they are doing nefarious, sock-puppet activities on the forum. — schopenhauer1
I wouldn't worry about that though. It is in the past now and I've already apologised. The IP addresses don't match and I didn't know enough about you to really say either way. — MSC
I think more accurate would be to characterize Antinatalists as in favour of absence of imposed existence (short nonexistence), not because nonexistence is inherently good, but because suffering is inherently bad, and the only avoidance of all kinds of sufferings is not to be forced to exist. — Zn0n
At the same time nothing is lost because the craving for what we refer to as "good experience" is suffering too. — Zn0n
And I see the starting post is as a way to start getting aware of how much of life really is bad or neutral and how few moments are something we actually would consciously chose to experience.
I don’t think one needs or should force an analogy of sleep=nonexistence and being awake=existence. — Zn0n
What does that euphemism actually mean - “having the time of your life”?
That you suffer through craving something and get a release for that suffering, until you are bored again? Like being pained and obsessed by a craving to visit some special place and then finally after many months you were actually able to visit that place and get your problem that life imposed onto you temporarily fulfilled (=release of suffering), until the next craving will be forced upon you?
You can only "enjoy" something if you suffer through a craving for it, f.e. the more you crave food, the "better" it will taste. And without any craving whatsoever the same food won't taste good at all.
The "pleasure" you may(!) get is always a release of your own suffering, and if the suffering is particularly great, you may(!) get a big release, thinking you profited, when in reality, you went from -5 to -0.5 again.
The same applies to thirst and drinking, constipation and going to the toilet, the urge for sex and an orgasm etc. Dukkhas' post I linked explains it really well. — Zn0n
Something tells me this is meant to be an obvious “that would be totally bad”-option, but I really can’t see it. Wherein lies the harm in being unconscious?
There is no harm whatsoever if you aren’t conscious/suffering, you don’t miss out anything if you aren’t pained by a craving for what you then think you will miss out on. — Zn0n
We don’t have any choice, since we have to exist and were forced into this life. — Zn0n
Yes concentration camps may return rather sooner than later, another argument for Antinatalism.
You don't need the bandaid (paradise) if you aren't stabbing people in the first place (dragging them into life). — Zn0n
the only avoidance of all kinds of sufferings is not to be forced to exist — Zn0n
The post was to present a scenario where one wouldn't wake up from sleep again but still avoid suffering, even though you claimed nobody would do that — Zn0n
Don't forget happiness in your equation unless you want to end up dividing by zero, mathematically speaking. — TheMadFool
Whatever scenario an antinatalist will invent, it always boils down to life is suffering and so, you know what. Old wine in a new bottle, mate. — TheMadFool
Sorry, I couldn't read through your post in entirety — TheMadFool
"Dividing by zero" is a major error in mathematics. You are trying to color my statement that comes down to empty void doesn't crave "happiness" (the release of suffering) as such an error, while you are the one actually doing it — Zn0n
I acknowledged the existence of suffering in the world and also that, comparatively speaking, it's greater in severity than any happiness that can possibly experienced by any one of us — TheMadFool
The best argument antinatalists have to offer is one that proceeds from the statement that suffering is far in excess of happiness and I've admitted that this is a fact.” — TheMadFool
First question to ask is this: What is the function of pain, what purpose does it serve?
Physiologists will be more than willing to inform antinatalists that pain is an unpleasant sensation which serves the purpose of letting a person know that the body has been injured and requires attention to prevent it snowballing out of control and leading to death. — TheMadFool
To apply this line of thinking:
Brutal group-rape is bad but serves a function, namely the release of the urge to brutally rape of the multiple rapists. (Also there is only one victim.) So brutal-group-rape is now a good thing. — Zn0n
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.