So this had to do with the idea that we have no option for "no option" when it comes to being born. — schopenhauer1

This is a totally different thing. You didn't mention anything like this in your description of your topic, which referred to options in general, in fact, to all kinds of options ...

This "new stuff" refers to the known "No one asked me if I wanted to be born!" This indeed indicates a lack of option, a "no option", as you call it. We can say then that "no option" indicates a forced action. It can also indicate something less realistic: Fate! A lot of people believe that all things, their life etc. are predetermind, already preplanned. So, they believe that they actually have no choices in their life! Consequently, they believe that there's no such a thing as free will! How sad!

I'm not convinced that we had no option regarding birth. I can see souls sitting around, bored out of their minds with eternity and infinity. And, while not necessarily uncomfortable with being All, they decide they want to drill down on being a part of All instead of All itself. After all, someone has to do it. So they say "This time I'll be that (person, place or thing)." And presto! It happens. Their memory may be wiped for having made the decision (it wouldn't be you if you started out with a slate full of knowledge, and life is learning, after all) and so they start anew.

Some go on to whine about not having been given a choice. But that's cool too. Maybe, as a soul, they said "I'd like to live and not like it. I'd like to live and blame someone else, like my parents. Someone has to do it."

I'm not convinced that we had no option regarding birth. I can see souls sitting around, bored out of their minds with eternity and infinity. And, while not necessarily uncomfortable with being All, they decide they want to drill down on being a part of All instead of All itself. After all, someone has to do it. So they say "This time I'll be that (person, place or thing)." And presto! It happens. Their memory may be wiped for having made the decision (it wouldn't be you if you started out with a slate full of knowledge, and life is learning, after all) and so they start anew.

Some go on to whine about not having been given a choice. But that's cool too. Maybe, as a soul, they said "I'd like to live and not like it. I'd like to live and blame someone else, like my parents. Someone has to do it." — James Riley

Right but this just has all the problems with hard determinism. On a meta-level there it is all mapped out and you cannot change the situation, but on a daily level, it seems as if you can. Since we can never know the meta-level.. It is not even knowable, all you can do is look at the daily level part where we all believe we can effect/affect things.

This "new stuff" refers to the known "No one asked me if I wanted to be born!" This indeed indicates a lack of option, a "no option", as you call it. We can say then that "no option" indicates a forced action. It can also indicate something less realistic: Fate! A lot of people believe that all things, their life etc. are predetermind, already preplanned. So, they believe that they actually have no choices in their life! Consequently, they believe that there's no such a thing as free will! How sad! — Alkis Piskas

Same response as to James Riley.

Right but this just has all the problems with hard determinism. — schopenhauer1

I don't see a problem. And I don't see a map that can't be ignored. In consideration of All, choice can still remain while not running afoul of it. Literally anything is possible, and not, at the same time. Not knowing, having the slate wiped clean, is the beauty of it.

I don't see a problem. And I don't see a map that can't be ignored. In consideration of All, choice can still remain while not running afoul of it. Literally anything is possible, and not, at the same time. Not knowing, having the slate wiped clean, is the beauty of it. — James Riley

I don't think this answers the objections I raised about the distinction between the daily life and meta determinism problem. You will still act in such a way that people can choose.

I don't think this answers the objections I raised about the distinction between the daily life and meta determinism problem. You will still act in such a way that people can choose. — schopenhauer1

I believe in All. Which means everything you just said true. And not. In fact, there is a you right where you are, right now, that is not. How can we tap that shit? Well, it is being tapped, by you, right now. Why don't we know that? Well, you do, right now. Try harder. And not. There you go! Good job! And not. It's all good. And not. And everything and nothing in between. :smile:

@schopenhauer1 did you have any thoughts on my reply here?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/584073

Maybe instinct isn't the best term of use, but I don't think preference is the right one either. I suspect children typically represent hope. When all other reasons are lost, it's the children we're told we have to look out for. The hope for a better tomorrow, this is a life-long project for people. To take that away from them would be tantamount to the destruction of their entire reason for being, probably many would find it cruel. — darthbarracuda

I think this makes sense. Children do typically represent hope. Without the prospect of hope, people tend towards angst and despair. A typical normally socialized person, would not like to experience these feelings head-on. I also think, as I was saying to someone earlier, people in general don't think about thinks in a philosophically "robust" way. It gives them some sort of purpose and way to fill their life. It's a manifestation of a love with someone else, etc. Taking away the prospect of children, takes this avenue of feeling purpose.

I agree with you that never being born is preferable to being born, because life is truly rotten. But because it is so rotten, I think it is understandable why people would cling to something - anything - to make it less rotten, even if it means bringing someone else into the mess. If you figured out how to get by without having kids, that's cool, good for you, but not everyone wants to live without hope. What do you propose we substitute, if not children? — darthbarracuda

I think that thinking long and hard on the harms of life should start chipping away at this idea.

We keep tumbling into the next generation, children are born because their parents were born because their parents were born because their parents were born...the best any person can do, if they can find it in themselves, is to not have children and accept that there is no hope. That is a very bleak worldview and so it is not surprising that most people will reject it, and I don't think we can blame them. — darthbarracuda

It is an interesting conundrum. The idea that it won't be so bad for the next generation, but it's just Sisyphus on repeat, and we are perpetuating it. I think again, just showing people not to overlook things is the key. People have to get more creative.

Same response as to James Riley. — schopenhauer1

OK, I read that reply of yours. Not much illuminating, but it's OK.
The bottom line / question is ... "Do you have a free will or not?"

OK, I read that reply of yours. Not much illuminating, but it's OK.
The bottom line / question is ... "Do you have a free will or not?" — Alkis Piskas

Here's the real question. Does it matter, if the only default is to think I do? Everything else goes from there.

Does it matter, if the only default is to think I do? — schopenhauer1

Well, it's not the only option ... You might also think that you were predestined to write this reply and what exactly to write! :grin:

Well, it's not the only option ... You might also think that you were predestined to write this reply and what exactly to write! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Yeah but for our daily interactions, and my daily identity as a person makes decisions as if it wasn't. There is no way to tell which decision was predestined.. When I made the decision, there presented to me a choice. That level of experience of making the choice is what matters.

I also think, as I was saying to someone earlier, people in general don't think about thinks in a philosophically "robust" way. It gives them some sort of purpose and way to fill their life. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, thinking philosophically is not always congruent with (healthy) living. Thinking too much about existence makes you depressed, yes. So what is the value of doing so? Self-delusion is how a healthy mind keeps itself intact. It's a shame that one of the things people do to delude themselves is having children (who will have to delude themselves too) - but do you have a real, concrete substitute for it?

Do you expect everyone to selflessly cancel all their hope and accept ultimate eventual annihilation for the sake of people who won't even be around to appreciate this sacrifice? That's just crazy, of course nobody who hasn't already been beaten by life will accept this. Nobody who hasn't already been stripped of their hope can truly accept this position without reservation. If you are going to destroy the values people hold, you need to give them new ones (Nietzsche).

One of the things that seems to remain for people who have failed in life is to strip the hope from everyone else, as a vengeance strategy: "if I can't be happy/successful/content, then you can't be either; let me show you how everything you cherish is meaningless, so I don't feel so inadequate and isolated." Just food for thought, I have no way of knowing if this applies in any way to you, nor did I intend to insult, just another Nietzschean observation.

If I break your argument down, you seem to be saying that:
Future people's suffering is less important than current people's hopefulness..
Wouldn't it be best to not impose future suffering on that person? I am not an aggregate utilitarian here. I don't think that we are obligated to reduce hopelessness in some general way, but that in the case of the birth decision, not to perpetuate the imposition on yet another person.

At the same time you are admitting the hopefulness is kind of a flimsy veneer to fix depression, and is self-delusion to keep sanity. I don't think feeding the self-delusion is justified simply because it helps keep people sane.

But at the same time you are asking for me to give a substitute. Perhaps communities of catharsis? Why perpetuate the suffering for self-delusional purposes?

Your complaint is more of the practicality of AN. I can agree with you there. It's hard to convince those who don't think about the ideas much.