I think work should be done. My society has enculturated me to believe this is just a fact of life. I have embodied the value. Thus, other people should do the same. But this is true? — schopenhauer1
I worked because I had to, as do all humans. As do all animals I guess. It's not unfair. It's just how it works. — T Clark
I don't have to work and I love it. — T Clark
I needed to be able to support my family; I needed clothes. I worked because I had to, as do all humans. — T Clark
Yet all animals don't have the ability to even think of the idea of "Not causing others to unnecessary work or feel stress".. So the point seems moot.As do all animals I guess. It's not unfair. It's just how it works. — T Clark
Yet all animals don't have the ability to even think of the idea of "Not causing others to unnecessary work or feel stress".. So the point seems moot. — schopenhauer1
So about that, a theme I've been toying with for a little bit is the idea that humans have the extra burden having to justify (or make excuses) for why X, Y, Z is happening on top of just "doing" the task at hand. We don't just X, we have reasons for X (not just causes). — schopenhauer1
Is it an opportunity or is it imposing one's values at the behest of negative stress on another person? Certainly, it would be hard for people to function otherwise. They must put in some effort to do a task that institutions approve through profit/salary/subsidy. But why is the presumption, "And this is good" a true one? — schopenhauer1
There seems to be sweet spots with challenges. IOW I think we actually do feel best when challenged. But feeling one must repeatedly stuff down emotional reactions given the power of bosses and a dearth of professional options can easily be well outside that sweet spot. I think most people are not so happy if they are doing work that does not challenge them at all - unless they can do the job AND pursue some kind of (mental?) activity at the same time that does matter to them and does offer that sweet spot of challenge. Generally we don't want to play ping pong with a world champion whose serves we cannot return and who can easily slam our serves. Nor would we choose the theoretically stress free game with someone we can beat that easily.But why is the presumption, "And this is good" a true one? — schopenhauer1
Again, it's what humans do. — T Clark
Maybe the right word is "unserious." I wanted to respond to that without taking it any further. — T Clark
We don't just X, we have reasons for X (not just causes). — schopenhauer1
Generally we don't want to play ping pong with a world champion whose serves we cannot return and who can easily slam our serves. Nor would we choose the theoretically stress free game with someone we can beat that easily. — Bylaw
A difference is one can move into a house, move into a neighborhood with implicity, down to ones cells be striving to be in that neighborhood. A part of any lifeform is the striving to live. You can't give birth to something that does not want to live. It's essence is bound up in striving to survive and thrive. And it certainly may not do either. But you can't drag someone out of bed, so to speak, who in essence really wants to keep on sleeping. Their very essence is aligned with your urge procreate (if you had it, you might have wanted to just have sex, though, sure, you decided to go along with the consequences).Generally people would frown on this.. But putting new people (born) to work and deal with stress.. essentially imposing. — schopenhauer1
Stress can be a valuable function insofar as it helps one stay alert, motivated, and adaptive. If you can manage stress it can be quite beneficial. — NOS4A2
It's essence is bound up in striving to survive and thrive. — Bylaw
Their very essence is aligned with your urge procreate (if you had it, you might have wanted to just have sex, though, sure, you decided to go along with the consequences). — Bylaw
But one doesn't merely do that. The only someone is someone who is complicit. You cannot create someone who is not complicit in that yearning for life.That isn't answering how it is right to allow impositions on someone else's behalf. — schopenhauer1
You cannot create someone who is not complicit in that yearning for life. — Bylaw
The only creature you can give birth to is one that wants to live and thrive. If you could somehow drag someone out of life's waiting room who doesn't want to leave there, that would be something else. But you can only create something that down to its cells is struggling to live and thrive. It is in essence aligned with your choice. Or it would misscarry (or perhaps be miscarried?).I just don't get what you are saying here, especially when you mention "complicit". — schopenhauer1
It is in essence aligned with your choice. Or it would misscarry (or perhaps be miscarried?). — Bylaw
I am not arguing that all urges are good. I am saying that if you choose to have a child or have one via the urge to have sex and decide after not to stop the process, the child you create is aligned by its nature with your choice to have a new being come in the world.Urge to procreate isn't the same as dire urges that lead to death. That is a tricky one for humans, and to conflate it with how things work with other animals would be misguided.
People have the urge for a lot of things that don't need to be followed through (violence perhaps as an example). — schopenhauer1
the child you create is aligned by its nature with your choice to have a new being come in the world. — Bylaw
But any that comes to term has been aligned with survival and being alive. — Bylaw
The organism is aligned. — Bylaw
So if there could be a state of affairs where no one feels stress, and one where there was, would you pick the one where the was on someone else's behalf? Is that kind of imposition right to do for someone else?
"Not causing others to unnecessary work or feel stress". — schopenhauer1
You are also missing that I usually like taking everyday assumptions and question them. You call it "unserious", but I call it not taking any given as taken for granted as "just what is the case". — schopenhauer1
Is giving someone the "opportunity" to succeed through stressful trial-by-fires and work a good thing? Why? — 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.