People believe the minority that live a life of suffering are a reasonable sacrifice for everything else life has to offer.

Have you heard of The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas?

People believe the minority that live a life of suffering are a reasonable sacrifice for everything else life has to offer.

Have you heard of The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Have you ever heard of the crab who escaped from the bucket? Me neither. Though he stepped on all his fellow crabs and saw things they could only dream of and imagine through stories told in their little crab language. Unfortunately, just as heavy hangs the head that wears the crown, first come is quite often first served.

Still, definitely looks like a unique read. Though.. sometimes not all that glitters is gold.

And in case I misread this I have no problem with the elves. I support them. I always did.

Reminds me of Eastern religions and Gnosticism: being born on Earth is a mistake, gotta get out of the cycle of reincarnation. Reach bliss by extinguishing desire (sounds a bit like a contradiction).

People believe the minority that live a life of suffering are a reasonable sacrifice for everything else life has to offer.

Have you heard of The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas? — Down The Rabbit Hole

When one shuts his mind to the suffering of others, his mind will become severely constricted and wither. Sooner or later his own happiness will disappear.

Considering the unimaginable amount of physical and mental pleasure that occurs every day on this planet, day by day, for millions of years and counting, as well perhaps on countless other planets, which would make the Universe essentially a giant pleasure chamber, the philosophical view of Efilism seems rather… — RAW

Your argument works equally well to establish the exact opposite of Elfism just by replacing two negative descriptors with positive descriptors. Its a weak and fallacious argument.
What are my thoughts on Elifism? Its fucking dumb. (you asked, thats my thought on it.)
Like Antinatalism it depends entirely on putting the negative in a lofty, exalted status and ignoring the positive altogether. It is a philosophy for the weak, the spineless, the whiny the immature and the wannabe clever. Elfism is the same…self indulgent garbage with no philosophical merit.
Also, Im calling it now: RAW is here to plug his stuff, not for discussion.

People believe the minority that live a life of suffering are a reasonable sacrifice for everything else life has to offer. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yeah, I don't see how one can justify that either. Watch how quickly they change their minds when they end up in the suffering team, and that team in reality, is made up of the majority.

Have you heard of The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I haven't, just checked it, the summary, very interesting and related. Thanks for mentioning it. I'll definitely look into it more a bit later.

"YouTube philosopher" forsooth.

"Joy is but the shadow pain casts."
Captain, Swedish curling team, The Simpsons.

Reminds me of Eastern religions and Gnosticism: being born on Earth is a mistake, gotta get out of the cycle of reincarnation. Reach bliss by extinguishing desire (sounds a bit like a contradiction). — litewave

Was thinking of reincarnation recently, how scary, for the lack of a better word, it is that essentially the same sentient I within all the sentient species ( a bird I, a lion I, a human I), is to play the same cruel game of life over and over again, a whatever bird species "I" suffers, eventually dies, but another same bird species "I" jumps in,...and so for all the sentient species, all the I "types" are persistent, reincarnated over and over again, prisoners of the loop...

What's the point of efilism?

What are my thoughts on Elifism? Its fucking dumb. (you asked, thats my thought on it.) Like Antinatalism it depends entirely on putting the negative in a lofty, exalted status and ignoring the positive altogether. — DingoJones

I appreciate the honest opinion. Isn't the imbalance between the 2 at the core of it, the observation that the negative, the suffering is 1. far greater / numerous 2. sensationally far stronger, 3. durationally far longer than the positive?

My point is, there really appears to be a reason or a number of them, some I listed, to put the entire negative at a much higher status than the entire positive, not to say that the 2 are almost incomparable.

Also, Im calling it now: RAW is here to plug his stuff, not for discussion. — DingoJones

Didn't get this? If you mean what I think you mean, absolutely not.

I appreciate the honest opinion. Isn't the imbalance between the 2 at the core of it, the observation that the negative, the suffering is 1. far greater / numerous 2. sensationally far stronger, 3. durationally far longer than the positive? — RAW

I think this is just what I said: exalting the negative, focusing only on the negative. How would you even begin measuring these things? They are completely subjective. There are people who are in objectively negative circumstances that none the less feel like the good outweighs the bad. Likewise there are those in objectively better/positive circumstances that none the less feel the bad outweighs the good.
There is no solid ground from which this argument can be made.

Didn't get this? If you mean what I think you mean, absolutely not. — RAW

Im skeptical, Ive seen many opening posts that sounded just like that, and turned out to be thinly veiled self promotion.
Certainly I could be wrong, and honestly I hope I am.

What's the point of efilism? — tim wood

The way I understand it, it's an extension of the Anti-Natalism - immoral for people to have kids, Efilism - immoral for any sentient being on Earth and possibly beyond to have kids. Life is mostly suffering, the positives are not worth the negatives, a single child in a long severe pain due to a cancer or whatever is not worth all the happiness on Earth, and beyond, and if there is a red button in front of you that terminates all life in the Universe in an instant, you are a psychopath not to press it, kind of a point.

It does sound absolutely crazy and extreme but if you manage to dive deeper into it open minded, putting immediate reactions like disgust etc. aside and under control, and look at it solely through logical lenses, for me at least, you can't help but admit it makes sense, for some more for some less maybe.

The way I understand it, it's an extension of the Anti-Natalism - immoral for people to have kids, Efilism - immoral for any sentient being on Earth and possibly beyond to have kids. Life is mostly suffering, the positives are not worth the negatives, a single child in a long severe pain due to a cancer or whatever is not worth all the happiness on Earth, and beyond, and if there is a red button in front of you that terminates all life in the Universe in an instant, you are a psychopath not to press it, kind of a point.

It does sound absolutely crazy and extreme but if you manage to dive deeper into it open minded, putting immediate reactions like disgust etc. aside and under control, and look at it solely through logical lenses, for me at least, you can't help but admit it makes sense, for some more for some less maybe. — RAW

Your "Efilism" is nothing more than the modern interpretation of the "philosophy of redemption" by the German philosopher Philipp Mainlander.

In short:

"In a deeper analysis of the Universe, everything tends to entropy - death -, therefore, fighting against the natural progress of existence is futile, and total annihilation is the only moral and justifiable reason for humanity's existence."

"Oh, how vain, how sad is the struggle for existence! Learn to love with the spirit, mortify the love of the heart; and bless, bless every hour that leads you closer to the grave!" - Philipp Mainlander

I think this is just what I said: exalting the negative, focusing only on the negative. — DingoJones

Yes but the way you say it sounds like the negative is focused on and raised way above the scale just...because. As if there are no good reasons to do so. Aren't the 3 reasons listed sound, logical? It would be useful to hear a clear explanation why none of the 3 are true.

For instance, the reason why negative feelings are far stronger (2.) in intensity than positive lies in the fact that them being very strong prevents animals (us included) from "fucking around with their bodies", makes us all avoid hazards, taking seriously even the smallest hazards because even they hurt as hell and are undesirable from the point of preserving ones life (think of it, a simple small needle getting inside your body produces a significant pain, not to mention other far more painful experiences), thus keeping our bodies undamaged and in one piece as much as possible. Positive feelings do not need to be of same strong intensity but just enough to make you do the necessary stuff, eat food, enjoy taking a dump, have sex etc. There is no reason to have eating a food a pleasure higher or at the same level as the orgasm, does the job at a much weaker intensity. Much stronger positive feelings would be counter-productive in fact.

How would you even begin measuring these things? They are completely subjective. — DingoJones

Can you be more specific, measure what, pain against pleasure? Consider this, an orgasm, having a wild sex with Charlize Theron, you being lucky you got the dream job, a child, a girl you wanted, PC to play a video game you really like -VS- you being eaten alive by a pack of lions, torn apart slowly by a giant bear, freezing to death, having your limbs cut off and living for the rest of your life with PTSD in a wheelchair unable to do anything without assistance, I mean I can go on and on and more disturbing?

Which side of the two is sensationally stronger and more life impacting?

What is completely subjective?

There are people who are in objectively negative circumstances that none the less feel like the good outweighs the bad. Likewise there are those in objectively better/positive circumstances that none the less feel the bad outweighs the good. — DingoJones

A person suffers in life but feels it's worth all the good stuff in it?

I'm not getting what you're trying to say here or what's the importance of it to what we're discussing here. I'm talking about life as a whole, taking every sentient being into account, not just some guy that had a terrible car accident and is in heavy pain but is still happy because his 3 kids survived without a scratch and are enjoying life. It's a bad deviant argument.

I see. So, what do you think of these views, Efilism in particular?

It's pretty cringe, like any YouTube-based philosophy.

So, what do you think of these views — RAW

Mainlander and his "Philosophy of Redemption" seem to me to be a deep investigation into the introspectiveness of human pessimism, with the aim of transforming it into a motivating force for Man's own will - "Wille zum Tode" aka "Will to Death" -.

Mainlander's philosophy may seem extremely and utterly "dystopic", however this is not the correct reading of his work. Philipp seeks, through pessimism, an answer to the end of all the sufferings that arise with existence itself, and his logical conclusion was that, instead of deluding ourselves with a "perception of life" towards the future, we - humanity - should fully embrace the fact that "non-life is the state with the least possible suffering, as it is absolute" and thus make existence itself a little more tolerable.

Efilism in particular — RAW

It's pretty cringe, like any YouTube-based philosophy. — darthbarracuda

So, what do you think of these views
— RAW

Mainlander and his "Philosophy of Redemption" seem to me to be a deep investigation into the introspectiveness of human pessimism, with the aim of transforming it into a motivating force for Man's own will - "Wille zum Tode" aka "Will to Death" -.

Mainlander's philosophy may seem extremely and utterly "dystopic", however this is not the correct reading of his work. Philipp seeks, through pessimism, an answer to the end of all the sufferings that arise with existence itself, and his logical conclusion was that, instead of deluding ourselves with a "perception of life" towards the future, we - humanity - should fully embrace the fact that "non-life is the state with the least possible suffering, as it is absolute" and thus make existence itself a little more tolerable.

Efilism in particular
— RAW

It's pretty cringe, like any YouTube-based philosophy.
— darthbarracuda — Gus Lamarch

Ok but this is not an argument. It's just lame. I don't care if a particular philosophy comes from a drunk guy on a toilet seat, if it's sound it's sound. Care to put a little more effort and explain why exactly Efilism is "cringe", both of you?

Gus you said Efilism is a "modern interpretation" of Mainlander's work. What exactly is wrong about Inmendham's interpretation of it?

I don't care if a particular philosophy comes from a drunk guy on a toilet seat, if it's sound it's sound. — RAW

Care to put a little more effort and explain why exactly Efilism is "cringe", both of you? — RAW

There are better presentations of the same ideas. Gary's funny sometimes in his lack of self-awareness, though.

The actual arguments themselves are straightforward and uncomplicated, and I mostly agree with them. I suppose I could probably raise some objection, but it's a pain to disentangle the actual arguments from the mental illness. I have better things to do.

Hey RAW, I'm a long-standing philosophical pessimist and antinatalist myself, so you might find some of the more recent threads interesting to peruse and add to. There is one now that is still active:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11738/is-it-wrong-to-have-children/p1

Here are several more all having antinatalist/pessimist themes:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11540/is-never-having-the-option-for-no-option-just-what-are-the-implications/p1

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11469/the-most-people-defense/p1

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11441/why-humans-and-possibly-higher-cognition-animals-have-it-especially-bad/p1

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10842/willy-wonkas-forced-game/p1

You can just look through my discussions page in general and find something that will probably interest you on AN.

What is completely subjective? — RAW

Peoples ideas about whats good or bad about life and which ones are worthwhile tradeoffs. Thats going to vary greatly from person to person. Even if we accept that certain things are bad to everyone, it still wouldn't resolve anything about what bad things outweigh what good things and vice versa.

Can you be more specific, measure what, pain against pleasure? Consider this, an orgasm, having a wild sex with Charlize Theron, you being lucky you got the dream job, a child, a girl you wanted, PC to play a video game you really like -VS- you being eaten alive by a pack of lions, torn apart slowly by a giant bear, freezing to death, having your limbs cut off and living for the rest of your life with PTSD in a wheelchair unable to do anything without assistance, I mean I can go on and on and more disturbing? — RAW

This is all subjective. Each individual will have feelings and opinions about which of these things outweighs the others. Many people think having kids is worth the hardships of parenting, others do not.
Also your examples are completely one sided. All the negative ones are death and horror and the positive ones are almost all petty and fleeting.
Remember when I said you exalted the negative over the positive? Well thats what you’ve done here. Every point you are making is skewed towards the negative and thats your own subjective opinion about how the bad outweighs the good. That's true for you, but not for everyone.
You must be a pessimist in order for your arguments to work, and not everyone views things that way.

Which side of the two is sensationally stronger and more life impacting? — RAW

This depends on the person. Also, refer to my point about your skewed examples. Like look at your two lists, you picked some of the worst things you could think of for the negatives and the positives you picked sex and sex and work and “child” and sex again and a video game…
Do you honestly think you’ve made fair comparisons here? If those are the best things that you think life has to offer then you either lack imagination or need to broaden your horizons considerably and I mean that in the kindest, most helpful possible sense.

A person suffers in life but feels it's worth all the good stuff in it?

I'm not getting what you're trying to say here or what's the importance of it to what we're discussing here. I'm talking about life as a whole, taking every sentient being into account, not just some guy that had a terrible car accident and is in heavy pain but is still happy because his 3 kids survived without a scratch and are enjoying life. It's a bad deviant argument. — RAW

The point I was trying to make there was about the subjective nature of the measurements you are making regarding good and bad. Hopefully what I said above provides some clarity.

Isn't the imbalance between the 2 at the core of it, the observation that the negative, the suffering is 1. far greater / numerous 2. sensationally far stronger, 3. durationally far longer than the positive? — RAW

That is your subjective experience. Many others have a very different experience of life. In regard to my experience, I can not agree with a single one of those statements.

The answer is simple though: Everyone knows where the "exit" is. No one can force anyone to play the game. Just don't go assuming that others subscribe to your world view and want to take any part in the ideas that Efilism comes up with.

What is completely subjective?
— RAW

Peoples ideas about whats good or bad about life and which ones are worthwhile tradeoffs. Thats going to vary greatly from person to person. — DingoJones

I have to strongly disagree with the whole "it's entirely subjective" assertion. The facts don't support that at all. What are the facts? People share common feelings about what is bad in life, what is good. Everybody agrees that pain and suffering is bad, the opposite or the absence of is good, more than that even better. So right of the bat you make a false incorrect statement that just doesn't hold water. There is an objective consensus among all of us that say cancer is bad, that losing your legs is bad etc. same consensus exists for many if not all the other bad things in life. Why is that? Because we all "occupy" the same kind of bodies, same anatomy, have same brains, senses, living in the same reality, experiencing more or less the same things on a daily basis in life, all of which produces the same kind of feelings in each one of us. Most of the feelings you had so far, I had them too, sadness, anger, happiness etc. My angry state of certain intensity is equal to your angry state of same intensity, and so on and forth.

A little girl having her entire hand chopped off by an axe is an extremely painful terrible event we can all agree on, there is no great variation here to be expected, someone feeling that such event is not that big of a deal. It is absolutely false and dishonest to claim otherwise.

I mean, examples are infinite. 10 random people from the street of any age and gender, cut a small finger from each person, they will all scream in pain, noone will laugh or be indifferent but experience the same kind of pain, of same level, intensity. One will not feel "greatly" less pain than others.

Even if we accept that certain things are bad to everyone, it still wouldn't resolve anything about what bad things outweigh what good things and vice versa. — DingoJones

So in this extension of your previous thoughts you kind of admit that what you said earlier is incorrect but still you insist on "it's entirely subjective".

The whole point is the asymmetry, the undeniable fact that the bad can get so incredible bad, so unimaginably bad, profoundly terrifyingly bad experiences that cannot be compared intensity wise to anything on the positive side. A female person, being kept in chains in some basement for her entire life, being raped, beaten, verbally abused etc. from the age of a little girl to an old woman only to be brutally murdered in the end, cannot possibly be justified by all the happiness in the world.

This is all subjective. Each individual will have feelings and opinions about which of these things outweighs the others. Many people think having kids is worth the hardships of parenting, others do not.
Also your examples are completely one sided. All the negative ones are death and horror and the positive ones are almost all petty and fleeting.
Remember when I said you exalted the negative over the positive? Well thats what you’ve done here. Every point you are making is skewed towards the negative and thats your own subjective opinion about how the bad outweighs the good. That's true for you, but not for everyone.
You must be a pessimist in order for your arguments to work, and not everyone views things that way. — DingoJones

Again with the "it's all subjective". Each individual will have nearly the same feelings about all of those things precisely for the reason/s I stated prior. Let me put it again, a subjective feeling by each of us of being torn apart by a pack of apex predators would be the same, we can all agree even in the absence of such experience that it's a profoundly terrible painful experience to go trough. Same goes for the other things in the negative list. The positive list? A subjective feeling by each of us of having an orgasm for example, is the same. My subjective experience of orgasm cannot possibly be "greatly" different than yours. It's one and the same thing.

So, we have consensus regarding both sides yet somehow, somehow, comparisons we do would be entirely subjective and greatly different. That's nonsense.

It really appears to me that you just subconsciously admitted that the asymmetry is true but consciously you refuse to accept it. Because I listed some of the greatest pleasures a life can offer (missed eating a delicious food) and yet you still think the bad side is far overweight. It really does look like an admission. Lets check this. Let us you do the positive list. Can you list about the same number of positive things I listed that aren't "petty and fleeting". Name positive feelings that, to you, are more intense and lasting than what has been listed or if you will, as intense and lasting as the examples on the bad side listed.

This depends on the person. Also, refer to my point about your skewed examples. Like look at your two lists, you picked some of the worst things you could think of for the negatives and the positives you picked sex and sex and work and “child” and sex again and a video game…
Do you honestly think you’ve made fair comparisons here? If those are the best things that you think life has to offer then you either lack imagination or need to broaden your horizons considerably and I mean that in the kindest, most helpful possible sense. — DingoJones

Again, let's see your positive list that would establish the balance to say the least. Please, name 5-6 things that aren't petty and fleeting.

There are better presentations of the same ideas. Gary's funny sometimes in his lack of self-awareness, though.

The actual arguments themselves are straightforward and uncomplicated, and I mostly agree with them. I suppose I could probably raise some objection, but it's a pain to disentangle the actual arguments from the mental illness. I have better things to do. — darthbarracuda

I hear you, do agree more or less, Gary often gets so mad and animated that I can understand why someone would dislike his way of presenting these ideas.

Again, let's see your positive list that would establish the balance to say the least. Please, name 5-6 things that aren't petty and fleeting. — RAW

RAW DingoJones is just going to say things like "Creating art, love, relationships, persuing a project, delving into scientific and technological mysteries and inventions, writing, creativity, etc". You left yourself opened on the positive side as you only mentioned physical pains and not emotional/abstract (or at least more complex) pleasures/joys, or the (more abstract) idea of general "happiness" or equanimity. I don't disagree with you there, but the more advanced argument is simply going to say, "No pain, no gain" and essentially will retreat to things like, "Without struggle, there is no meaning, thus let's create other people who might have to struggle to give them meaning". They will also say that life's pleasures are worth it because of the other types of things I mentioned. I have many responses to this, but just wanted to let you know what they are going to say to this kind of comparison.

That is your subjective experience. Many others have a very different experience of life. In regard to my experience, I can not agree with a single one of those statements.

The answer is simple though: Everyone knows where the "exit" is. No one can force anyone to play the game. Just don't go assuming that others subscribe to your world view and want to take any part in the ideas that Efilism comes up with. — Hermeticus

You too with the "it's entirely subjective". Never mind, opinions are heard, I appreciate them all even though I haven't seen any sensical counter-arguments to Efilism.

RAW DingoJones is just going to say things like "Creating art, love, relationships, writing, creativity, etc". You left yourself opened on the positive side as you only mentioned physical pains and not emotional/abstract (or at least more complex) pleasures. — schopenhauer1

I hope not, that would be disappointing. We'll see. Yes, the lists can be extended, having physical and emotional feelings on both sides.

Btw I checked some of the links you provided, went through last few pages of the first thread, debate between 2 guys, interesting stuff. Might join later...

I haven't seen any sensical counter-arguments to Efilism. — RAW

I don't think you'll ever see a sensical counter-argument. You've chosen how you wish to perceive the world. Likewise, I won't ever see a sensical argument in support of Efilism (or Antinatalism for that matter).

I believe you that the world you live in is a terrible and cruel place full of suffering. The world I live in is not though.

I don't think you'll ever see a sensical counter-argument. You've chosen how you wish to perceive the world. Likewise, I won't ever see a sensical argument in support of Efilism (or Antinatalism for that matter). — Hermeticus

Yeah, the way things went so far, I share the same opinion on the counter-argument. I have not chosen to wish anything, I accept logic no matter how unappealing it may be.

I believe you that the world you live in is a terrible and cruel place full of suffering. The world I live in is not though — Hermeticus

I see, what to say, enjoy living inside that beautiful soap bubble you created. Just bare in mind, one day it will pop...