My theory is that it's the same reason humans can't just sit quietly eating pumpkins. We lust for hardship. We need to risk life and limb. We need poignant wars. — frank

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone — Pascal

Parenthetical: I don't agree with the quote but was reminded of it.

The whinger is an armchair warrior. It's a way of feeling a sense of purpose without expending so many calories. If so, then whinging might be the closest we can get to being a peaceful species.

[ ... ]

If I'm right, then socialism will require some sort of dysfunction that will create peaceful angst. I think there's a portion of society that won't be satisfied with that. The best option would be to send them off-world, to Mars maybe. — frank

:clap: :smirk:

The remedy: reverse whinging.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxqZ-riY2bM

This question is tied to a preoccupation I've developed around neoliberalism, which I think is partly fuelled by a desire to create strife in the same way a video game does. — frank

Can you define neoliberalism as you're using it here. Generally, it means laissez-faire capitalism, free-trade, and globalization.

And in an unrelated note - "whing" is a word I never heard until I came on the forum. The word I've always heard is "whine," which means the same thing. Is it an Australianism?

:lol:

"So whatcha whinging about?"
https://youtu.be/h8fem_aVbgI

The whinger is an armchair warrior. It's a way of feeling a sense of purpose without expending so many calories. If so, then whinging might be the closest we can get to being a peaceful species. — frank

This is true, indeed. And we have around the world villagers and communities existing, living, using their skills passed from generations to create/produce items to be consumed within their communities. There exist skilled potter, basket weaver, ceramicist, furniture maker able to peacefully and quietly pass their time creating works of art and practical, functional objects that could last centuries. In the process of working with their hands -- and what better way to exercise the brain but with dexterity of fingers -- they are focused, in-tune with their being, meditating, and removing themselves daily from other distractions.

But oh, this is a life one needs to learn, to practice and embrace -- you just don't decide to settle in a quiet village, in a house or studio unpainted with synthetic paints (that you buy from home improvements stores) and quietly create. This requires generations. Okay, maybe I'm wrong on this account -- maybe one can actually adapt rapidly without requiring generations handed down to him. But to achieve it, you cannot force this kind of existence.

Theres no escaping your historical contingency. Perhaps preventing future people born into it. What is the purpose of anyone being born to do anything at all in the ways of a society? Work, seek comfort, keep mind occupied, repeat. Who really needs to experience 80 to 100 years of that?

There's no escaping your historical contingency. Perhaps preventing future people born into it. What is the purpose of anyone being born to do anything at all in the ways of a society? Work, seek comfort, keep mind occupied, repeat. Who really needs to experience 80 to 100 years of that? — schopenhauer1

There's no need to, or as you say, "no escaping your historical contingency". So why are you trying to escape yours? why evangelize that – all the antinatal whinging about how – we all should escape our historical contingencies (i.e. somehow 'delete' or 'reprogram' our fundamental biological-pronatal hardwired software) when you know damn well we as a species cannot? :sweat:

We cannot escape it. Prevent others from entering it.

How is this not subtle manipulation? You don't want to work??? Go complain to someone who cares.. now get back to work!!! Fuck ya all then.

There's no escaping your historical contingency. — schopenhauer1

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45392/ulysses

And an excerpt:

"Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods."

Prevent others from entering it. — schopenhauer1

Same shit, different flies. Those who would "prevent others" would be trying to escape their own, as well as the species', historical contingency of being biological aka "reproductive species", which you admit, no one can escape. 'Existence preceeds essence', no? Well, species-beings are what we are preceeding the individuals who we (can) choose to be; individuals cannot escape being enabled-contrained by belonging to an evolved (i.e. adaptive, therefore reproductive) species. All "antinatal" (or less than pronatal) species are already extinct, schop1 – homo sapien sapiens ain't one of them (with the exception of an insignificant fraction of individuals aka "mutants").

It's an odd and striking juxtaposition. With only slight license one sees Achilleus making the decision, a long and to him contemptible life at home without glory, or living forever, in glory, for him foretold in that case to be a short life ending at Troy. And Odysseus who makes the opposite choice to return home.

In a sense, death in living, or life in dying with glory. Perhaps a difference between them and most of us is that most of us do not have the option of glory, except in small or very small compass. But they did their share of whining too. All interesting stuff.

I think it’s the other way about: to avoid hardship. If one can occupy himself with the battles in his skull he need not pay attention to the ones that require actual effort.

I think this method is inherent in socialism. It’s a false philanthropy because it seeks to delegate any duty we have to our fellow man to someone else, whether society as a whole or some other group.

Same shit, different flies. Those who would "prevent others" would be trying to escape their own, as well as the species', historical contingency of being biological aka "reproductive species", which you admit, no one can escape. 'Existence preceeds essence', no? Well, species-beings are what we are preceeding the individuals who we (can) choose to be; individuals cannot escape being enabled-contrained by belonging to an evolved (i.e. adaptive, therefore reproductive) species. All "antinatal" (or less than pronatal) species are already extinct, schop1 – homo sapien sapiens ain't one of them (with the exception of an insignificant fraction of individuals aka "mutants"). — 180 Proof

I just meant I agree essentially that it is too late for the already born. Yet, you can prevent yet another person from the historical contingency. It's prevention on the margins, not necessarily wholesale.

However, you have probably heard my idea of catharsis by now, right? There is a catharsis in antinatalism for us already born who can't escape the existential situation. There is something to the idea that we can communally recognize the negatives, and then are deciding to do something about it on an existential level (not just at the everyday micro level). It's more an aesthetic of understanding.

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone — Pascal

This reminds me of something I just said in another thread yesterday:

"allows a person to enjoy themselves without a minimum threshold of stimulation that constantly needs to be maintained or increased." — Shawn

I’ve always been the kind of person who never gets bored, because my own mind is full of my own interesting thoughts to entertain me. I’ve also pretty much never even been tempted to do recreational drugs. Most all of my suffering in life has come from negative stimuli, not any absence of positive stimuli.

Most of 2019, I found myself suddenly and inexplicably struck with existential dread the likes of which I had never experienced before. It was only then that I understood what people talked about when they searched for a “meaning of life”. To me that had always seemed like a non-question, but suddenly I understood it, the feeling like there's some bottomless hole in one's soul that needs to be constantly filled by... something. From my perspective, it seemed the usual hedonic order had been flipped around: instead of feeling fine by default as long as nothing awful was happening, I felt awful by default unless some positive stimulus pushed me out of it, temporarily filled that hole inside of me, the hole that had never been there for my entire life before.

The thought that for a lot of people that empty feeling, the worst thing I’ve ever experienced in my life, is their normal, is terrible, and I’d love if something could be done to alleviate it for them.

I’ve also thought before that introversion and extroversion might be related to this, since from my introverted perspective, it seems to me like introverts are people who neither need to dump their excess emotions on others nor charge up on others’ emotions, maintaining emotional homeostasis alone, whereas extroverts need other people to give or take stimulation from them in order to achieve emotional balance. — Pfhorrest

You can prevent yet another person from the historical contingency. It's prevention on the margins, not necessarily wholesale. — schopenhauer1

Only in this sense am I an antinatalist (i.e. a "mutant") too. :up:

Remember: the problem of (gratuitous) suffering is solved only for the living by reducing suffering as much as possible whenever possible and not by eliminating life itself (as if living is nothing but suffering, which it demonstrably is not). To "destroy the village in order to save the village" only saves it for everyone else except the villagers themselves. The Unborn (or Never-To-Be-Born) cannot be "saved" because they don't exist to be "saved" (just as The Dead do not suffer because the CNS by which suffering is experienced has decomposed); only the Already Born can be "saved" (ideally) by 'minimizing suffering while simultaneously maximizing well-being'.

N O N B E I N GegoN O N B E I N G

"So whatcha whinging about?" :death: :flower:

minimizing suffering while simultaneously maximizing well-being — 180 Proof

:up: :100: :clap:

it seems to me like introverts are people who neither need to dump their excess emotions on others nor charge up on others’ emotions, maintaining emotional homeostasis alone, whereas extroverts need other people to give or take stimulation from them in order to achieve emotional balance. — Pfhorrest

:ok:

Can you define neoliberalism as you're using it here. Generally, it means laissez-faire capitalism, free-trade, and globalization. — T Clark

Post WW2, economic policy tended to be about social stability in Europe and the US. Full employment was the goal (for white people) and manufacturing was central to economies in the world.

Neoliberalism started as an ideological reaction to the regulated, pro-labor environment created by this set of values. It had little influence until the late 70s when stagflation seemed to be opening the door to an increased presence of socialism.

What followed was a global backlash. Manufacturing was replaced by finance. The power of labor was demolished. Regulations of all kinds diminished. Finally a new elite came into being as a result of what was supposed to be a return to freedom.

Read David Harvey's book on it. It's good. One of things it will tell you is why there are 5000 orphans on our southern border.

Disturbingly, I do understand what freedom has to do with it. Thus the OP.

There exist skilled potter, basket weaver, ceramicist, furniture maker able to peacefully and quietly pass their time creating works of art and practical, functional objects that could last centuries. — Caldwell

True.

If one can occupy himself with the battles in his skull he need not pay attention to the ones that require actual effor — NOS4A2

I agree.

I think this method is inherent in socialism. It’s a false philanthropy because it seeks to delegate any duty we have to our fellow man to someone else, whether society as a whole or some other group. — NOS4A2

There aren't many cases of legit socialism, but maybe we could say that the aim of socialists is to relieve you of your patron status. You won't have to help the poor and downtrodden because we're all helping each other.

My hypothesis is that socialism will always lead to stagnation.

What followed was a global backlash. Manufacturing was replaced by finance. The power of labor was demolished. Regulations of all kinds diminished. Finally a new elite came into being as a result of what was supposed to be a return to freedom.

Read David Harvey's book on it. It's good. One of things it will tell you is why there are 5000 orphans on our southern border. — frank

Yes and Tony Judt's book 'Ill Fares the Land'.

If one can occupy himself with the battles in his skull he need not pay attention to the ones that require actual effort. — NOS4A2

I sometimes wonder if that’s what everyone here is doing.... Philosophy as an escape from reality. A socially acceptable form of daydreaming perhaps.

The Unborn (or Never-To-Be-Born) cannot be "saved" because they don't exist to be "saved" — 180 Proof

Don’t want this to turn into another AN thread but the point of AN isn’t “saving the unborn”, it’s “Not doing something that results in harming someone when a (supposedly) safer alternative is available (not having children)”. It's a commonplace premise.

Neoliberalism started as an ideological reaction to the regulated, pro-labor environment created by this set of values. It had little influence until the late 70s when stagflation seemed to be opening the door to an increased presence of socialism. — frank

Thanks for the information.

"Safer" for whom?

I sometimes wonder if that’s what everyone here is doing.... Philosophy as an escape from reality. A socially acceptable form of daydreaming perhaps. — khaled

Or perhaps a substitute for doing anything practical.

The person that would otherwise be harmed. The premise is clear "Do not do something that will harm someone if there is a safer alternative available". It's not a crazy premise at all. And it doesn't need that the person who is harmed be existing right now.

For example: Say I knew that if I planted a mine at coordinates X,Y,Z, that Jeff will step on it 200 years from now and there is 0 chance it harms anyone other than Jeff. But surely we can agree that it is ridiculous to say "No one exists to be harmed so placing the mine is fine". The premise only requires that there will exist someone that will be harmed.

So in this case safer for whom? Safer for Jeff of course. Though Jeff doesn't exist right now. But then people dismiss it as "bad metaphysics" to say that something is safer for Jeff. Well how else do you want me to say it? For what other reason is placing the mine wrong? You know what I mean when I say "safer for Jeff" even though no Jeff exists.

However, you have probably heard my idea of catharsis by now, right? There is a catharsis in antinatalism for us already born who can't escape the existential situation. There is something to the idea that we can communally recognize the negatives, and then are deciding to do something about it on an existential level (not just at the everyday micro level). It's more an aesthetic of understanding. — schopenhauer1

Aww, you mean other people should sacrifice themselves for you?

I agree with you, I've always held that theoretically perfect systems are impossible because of a human flaw, that wars were sort of a communal orgasm of pent up energy/angst for societies and that no society would ever do away with war. We're like deer drinking bitter water, we take a sip, rave about how horrible it is, wait a few moments(years) and then go back to sip again.