Yep. I've just explained at length why I wouldn't invest a cent in the sad dualistic combo of mechanicalism+romanticism. So what's your point exactly? — apokrisis
Why are we choosing to be part of the maintenance crew? — schopenhauer1
The best we can do is make peace with this fact and try to live accordingly. — Thorongil
I'm not saying we should launch the nukes. — darthbarracuda
But certainly we can still approach an Armageddon with open arms. — darthbarracuda
Technology has shown its ability to change something that seemed to be metaphysically un-changeable. — darthbarracuda
Because people are going to procreate whether you like or not. It's all well and good to point out the contingency of civilization and our existence, but it's also objectively pointless. I agree with you, but the agreement changes nothing, for there isn't a live option between continuing and not continuing as a species that this thread is going to settle. The best we can do is make peace with this fact and try to live accordingly. — Thorongil
Yes but it's the questioning that is important. — schopenhauer1
Why is the questioning important if your answer is that nothing matters? — apokrisis
Why shouldn't people see this for what it is? Are you advocating for Plato's Noble Lie? — schopenhauer1
It is to see it as the striving-but-for-nothing that it is. — schopenhauer1
Nope. I'm asking what is consistent about claiming existence is essentially meaningless and then getting so het up about people who don't appear to believe your truth. How could it matter if you are being true to your own professed belief here? — apokrisis
Schopenhauer, for example, is ambiguous on this point. — Thorongil
I really don't have to give a shit about whether people see it or not. — schopenhauer1
It is a catharsis more than anything. It is staring it face down. — schopenhauer1
But your angry language shows you do in fact care. As does your endless reposting of the one argument. Your actions give the game away. In your own words, you are a paid up member of another of those social institiutions performing some meaningless sub-contract.
There...is...no...escape. Heh, heh. It is all quite natural. — apokrisis
The only question then is what pragmatic goods does it deliver to its cult followers? It has to be beneficial to their lives in some practical sense. — apokrisis
So you think I have trapped myself in a self-refuting argument.. — schopenhauer1
The pessimist argument, if you want to cast it as an institution (which is contestable in itself), has the goal of broadening people to the idea that they are forced by other institutions for the sake of nothing. — schopenhauer1
You frame the argument as if "pragmatic goods" are already the default goal! — schopenhauer1
Not just for me but for anyone who is caught in the harms of this or that situation of life. — schopenhauer1
Now, by talking about once you SEE what is going, by living your day out with this in mind, you can CONSOLE with others and have more understanding about the harms that befall us all.. — schopenhauer1
However, I see you as in fact the callous one. Here you are.. prophet of the SYSTEM.. professing to know what it wants.. it wants perpetuation by strengthening through challenges presented to the individual and individual's collectively coming together to strengthen society to create more individuals etc.. Whether the individual experiences harm in all this challenge strengthening does not matter to you.. Who is the cult leader here? — schopenhauer1
Thus, ascetic denial of Will, somehow breaks the cycle for the will-less hero.. Even if his metaphysics was true.. do you believe someone has the ability to deny their will to such a degree? Would you say a yogi in India or the truly enlightened Buddha? What does that even look like? Is this Ego-Death? Is it truly not caring about anything or anyone? That is the most ambiguous. — schopenhauer1
Or rather, the inevitable outcome. Existence is whatever works. I mean you haven't even tried to argue against the evolutionary points I've made. You already accept the basic logic of pragmatism. Your claim is instead that you can transcend reality in romantic fashion to scoff at its illusions of doing anything worthwhile. — apokrisis
Ah, now back to harms again. We speak of the negative values that themselves demand the counterfactuality that which would have been the good. We are doubling down on the self-contradiction so that first existence is meaningless, now it is structurally black. Yet if we are weighing harms in the balance, we have already admitted the issue is about balance. And for normies or zombies, the phenomenological truth is that pain and pleasure are intwinned in the way I describe as the desire to "live hard".
Your failure to argue back I took as acceptance you had no useful counter. And now we are back to just repeating assertions about existence being obviously meaningless and obviously bad. — apokrisis
It smacks too much of wanting a socially acceptable excuse for not engaging in the gift of life that has been given to you. — apokrisis
But you can't diagnose or correct imbalance unless you have a workable theory about a life in balance. — apokrisis
I thought I said I in fact value pain as part of the deal. But I also made a careful distinction between accidental pain and pain that is indeed part of some valued deal.
These are the kind of subtleties of my position that you hurry past so as not to be disturbed from your dogmatic slumbers. — apokrisis
I never stated that we can transcend reality- simply cope with our situation and prevent future suffering. — schopenhauer1
Also, the only positive claim you made "to live hard" has NO justification. — schopenhauer1
And here we can see your bias poking through.. Life is a gift.. there we go. — schopenhauer1
Why do you keep insisting on the naturalistic fallacy. — 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.