Are we the individual, here to carry out some Protestant Work Ethic ethos? In more general terms, are we here to maintain institutions? To consume, to work, to live in a country is to maintain its institutions. Are we the maintenance crew of some sort of institutional perpetuation. — schopenhauer1
As for the Protest Work Ethic, what the Protestant agitator himself (Luther) said was:
…the works of monks and priests, however holy and arduous they may be, do not differ one whit in the sight of God from the works of the rustic laborer in the field or the woman going about her household tasks…all works are measured before God by faith alone.
All work is holy work, and it is through our work that we care for each other--love one another.
This is ONE VIEW of why we are here. I recommend it only to the extent that it beats whatever you've got. — Bitter Crank
Your interpretation of the Protestant Work Ethic that you provided — schopenhauer1
The context of this was to ask why we perpetuate institutions. — schopenhauer1
If you see only grey — apokrisis
We are beings that are never satisfied for long, frequently harmed, and we keep institutions going that help us survive and keep our complex mind entertained . We are the maintenance crew for these institutions. We maintain these institutions simply to maintain them, just as we survive to survive.. But that is not a justification of why we continue to do it. — schopenhauer1
Suicide is a logical thing to encourage biologically as a way to deal with the diseased or malfunctioning. — apokrisis
So self perpetuation is no evolutionary mystery. Voluntary eugenics can only ensure the strengthened identity of what you claim to detest. You are only making yourself part of the process of institutionalised self perpetuation in trying to promote the self annihilating trope of anti natalism. — apokrisis
That's the sad thing - the world has and always will be inherited by the zombies. — darthbarracuda
Rubbish. The bar on what counts as being properly human has simply been set impractically high by institutionalised Romanticism. That is the subcontract causing all the problems. — apokrisis
If you expect your life should be Picasso, Einstein and Pele all rolled into one, you might indeed view your lot rather pessimistically. — apokrisis
I don't expect it to be anything. That's you putting words in my mouth and assuming pessimism is merely a reaction of disillusionment. — darthbarracuda
You have yet to pull words out of your own mouth that would make a coherent case as to how a structurally black world could be quite fun and meaningful in practice. — apokrisis
Your best attempt was to label people who might have a different opinion "the inheriting zombies." Nice. — apokrisis
You don't have to agree with everything the pessimist says to understand the principle behind antinatalist arguments. Choice. Had I payed for a bad concert, it wouldn't be right for me to complain about its quality. I knew what I was getting into. Not so much for life. — darthbarracuda
Why must you keep misrepresenting what I say? I'm not arguing for optimism in place of pessimism, but instead pragmatism. — apokrisis
My reply to the OP was about why it would make no difference as that just creates more room for those with a wish to perpetuate their kind. — apokrisis
So your argument against antinatalism is based on a dubious empirical prediction about the consequences of adopting antinatalism in a non-ideal environment? — darthbarracuda
Stick around, act helpless, be a drag on the rest. Then the whole thing might indeed collapse (only to be reborn much the same - sorry, nature and the second law are relentless like that.) — apokrisis
Stick around, act helpless, be a drag on the rest. Then the whole thing might indeed collapse (only to be reborn much the same - sorry, nature and the second law are relentless like that.) — apokrisis
You focus too much on the efficacy of antinatalism, and not what it provides as consolation — schopenhauer1
This project causes 100% causalities, and 100% fatality, 100% guarantee of harm for all, is something forced on 100% of participants, and is only around due to a viscous circle (surviving to survive, maintaining to maintain, experience to experience). — schopenhauer1
have to laugh as life is interesting because it is complex, both in terms of its responsibilities and its delights. Yet you choose to be as crudely reductionist as possible so as see it as structurally black.
This is the actual philosophical sin here. Mistaking absolutism for profundity. — apokrisis
Yep. I've been pointing out the self-defeating nature of anti-natalism in that it in fact must result in the eugenic strengthening of the pool of willing breeders. So it really blows as a practical philosophy in that sense. — apokrisis
But yes, it is a consoling thought, that antinatalists might inflict their pessimism on everyone they possibly can, but at least not on their own kids. That counts as a small blessing I guess. — apokrisis
I have to laugh as life is interesting because it is complex, both in terms of its responsibilities and its delights. Yet you choose to be as crudely reductionist as possible so as see it as structurally black.
This is the actual philosophical sin here. Mistaking absolutism for profundity. — apokrisis
Yet you don't address the solution to the problem of the vicious circle. — schopenhauer1
This hand-waves the issues away by trying to make life seem like a mixed bag of goods and bads. We've been saying it from the start, we are not meant to be happy, we are not meant to be secure. We are meant to survive and survival requires us to suffer. Suffering is the structural integrity of life as experienced by those involved in it, i.e. the phenomenological natural-ontology. — darthbarracuda
So you're coming from the perspective that being is generally, if not intrinsically, good. — darthbarracuda
Even if antinatalism is pragmatically self-defeating (which I doubt, of course)... — darthbarracuda
Alternatively, we are meant to flourish. Or same thing, flourishing would be what would be meaningful. (Try and deny it.) — apokrisis
Why do you keep trying to make out that I say things I don't say? Is it because your argument is otherwise so weak? — apokrisis
Hah. I hear your discomfort and note you have no counter-argument on that point. You are promoting a philosophy that is self-defeating in only securing what it hopes to avoid. And that fact exposes a basic failure of analysis. — apokrisis
Yet nature is structurally a mixed bag in the end. — apokrisis
You can marginalize the failures all you want, this doesn't mean they don't exist or haven't existed for the past countless eons. — darthbarracuda
Whether you said it or not is irrelevant, — darthbarracuda
But you are again straying from nature's own logic. Failure spells non survival. So the ability to persist is definitional of what it is to flourish. That is the actual structure of the world. — apokrisis
It isn't me who marginalises failure. Failure marginalises itself. — apokrisis
And thus antinatalism is simply being unwittingly proactive in stepping up to the plate, putting its head on the block sooner rather than later — apokrisis
When I say I didn't say it, perhaps you ought to take note? — apokrisis
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.