Inescapable, etc. You can opt out of the surprise party if you really wanted. — schopenhauer1
I agree entirely. Frankly I think your posts are the most valuable and insightful on this forum. I have nothing further to add but to agree. It gives me a sense of community knowing others out there feel the exact way I do as well. — Inyenzi
You can also opt out of life if you really wanted. So "inescapable" doesn't seem to be it (in quotes because neither is inescapable). What else? Or are you saying a certain difficulty of escape is required for something to be wrong to impose? — khaled
My whole point is that work is an injustice because it is an inescapable [set of challenges] you are putting someone else in that can't be opted out without completely dire consequences. The very call to not participate in something anymore is the very right taken away by the DE FACTO situation of the game itself. That is to say, sure, you can opt out of work but the consequences will eventually be starvation, homelessness, hacking it in the wilderness and dying a slow death, MAYBE free riding (making it other people's problem), or outright suicide. Of course everyone cannot free ride otherwise even more dire consequences for the whole system of (used) workers. You don't have to worry about any of those dire consequences by not participating in this thread. However, a worker who decides they are done working cannot afford such luxury.
What's funny is the very fact that this is an obvious truth makes people think it is still okay to enact on others :rofl:. Just more political agenda. — schopenhauer1
My whole point is that work is an injustice because it is an inescapable — schopenhauer1
free riding (making it other people's problem), or outright suicide. — schopenhauer1
But that's patently false. It is not inescapable. You've cited multiple ways to escape it: — khaled
My whole point is that work is an injustice because it is an inescapable [set of challenges] you are putting someone else in that can't be opted out without completely dire consequences. — schopenhauer1
inescapable [set of challenges] you are putting someone else in that can't be opted out without completely dire consequences. — schopenhauer1
Why is it you think that people often look away from these ideas? How is the injustice of putting someone else in the de facto nature of working-to-survive, not realized? — schopenhauer1
There is some good in this world, but it's not worth fighting for. — baker
Apparently there's something worth talking about and promoting, that is your version of the truth. What makes your version greater than that of another? Something of value to you, that doesn't warrant life, whereas something of value to another does warrant life. You see the dilemma an observer faces when trying to process your argument. — Outlander
I asked before, but nobody wants to reply:You sound downtrodden. What makes you so certain life isn't like a sandbox or a community pool, just because you showed up when it happens to be full of piss, doesn't mean it wasn't once before and never can be again, despite those who preach the same.
Anyways, no this isn't about me not cleaning the dishes or wanting to do "my fair share.." The whole point is that it is unjust to be put in a situation where you cannot opt out unless you die of /degradation/ or suicide..
— schopenhauer1
As noted above, some people do believe, by default, that life is a blessing and worth living. Such people cannot relate to your concern.
You could perhaps specify your point and instead of making a wholesale indictment against humanity for procreating at all, focus on pointing at the fault of producing children while failing to instill in them the belief that life is a blessing and worth living.
I think this is the point that people fail at the most: Showing and teaching others that life is a blessing and worth living.
While many people will eagerly criticize anyone who is in any way pessimistic about life as such, they are quite unable (or just unwilling?) to persuade them otherwise. They'll even go so far as to claim that something is genetically or otherwise physiologically wrong with the pessmist and dismiss them. — baker
Are you slothful by nature, but have managed to overcome your sloth philosophically? — baker
The best way to understand what work is within modern human societies is to check the Greek word.
Δουλειά=work
Δουλεία=slavery.
the only difference is at the intonation of the word.Within human societies the act of working was always a way for a third person to gain profits from other people's efforts. — Nickolasgaspar
So above a certain difficulty of escape (where escaping comes with dire consequences) inflicting something is wrong. That's your current criteria?
No I'm not going to ask you what "dire" means and pretend that suicide does not qualify as a "dire" consequence, we can agree that it does. But just want to know if this is the current criteria by which you judge when an imposition is ok or not. — khaled
As you know, I can never follow your injustice angle because when the supposed injustice occurs there is never any victim of it. At no point in the continuum of procreation is anyone forced to do something against their will.
So I think it’s wrong to say someone is placed into this situation, as if taken from the city of god and positioned in the world by the whims of someone else. It presupposes a different existence. Rather, in the world is where we begin. Each of us start and end here. There is no other state of affairs.
I find the whole antinatalist project, at least insofar as it makes ethical claims, to be humbug on those grounds. There are many reasons to not procreate, but to not procreate in order to protect a person from suffering and pain and depression is nonsense. — NOS4A2
That is more accurate.Someone is placed in this situationas if taken from the city of godand positioned in the world by the whims of someone else.
I personally don't see the need for work as wrong, — Derrick Huestis
Food is not going to just rain down from the heavens and into your mouth, will it? Shelter isn't going to manifest itself as you need it, nor will it repair itself, even if you're fine with a cave you still have to search for one. What if it becomes too hot or too cold or arid or flooded? What will you defend yourself against the beasts of the Earth with and who will make and repair it? You can't avoid work with any economic model real or imagined. — Outlander
However, I think it is a human condition. Hunting-gathering or anarchism or communism or whatever non-industiral-capital form won't change the condition of the needs of survival. It is life itself that puts (de facto) us all in a position of need, and work is one of the biggest (de facto) inescapable set of needs that cannot be overcome without dire consequences. You don't want more people put into this injustice, don't procreate more people (workers) then. — schopenhauer1
Life as a game or otherwise not worth living is far from a new concept, though any biases can be identified by a truthful answer to a simple question: Have you never experienced a moment or period in your life you enjoyed and wish to repeat? — Outlander
Apparently there's something worth talking about and promoting, that is your version of the truth. What makes your version greater than that of another? Something of value to you, that doesn't warrant life, whereas something of value to another does warrant life. You see the dilemma an observer faces when trying to process your argument.
You sound downtrodden. What makes you so certain life isn't like a sandbox or a community pool, just because you showed up when it happens to be full of piss, doesn't mean it wasn't once before and never can be again, despite those who preach the same. — Outlander
While many people will eagerly criticize anyone who is in any way pessimistic about life as such, they are quite unable (or just unwilling?) to persuade them otherwise. They'll even go so far as to claim that something is genetically or otherwise physiologically wrong with the pessmist and dismiss them. — baker
Are you slothful by nature, but have managed to overcome your sloth philosophically? — baker
A good essay on anti-work is Bob Black's The Abolition of Work. — werther
However, I think it is a human condition. Hunting-gathering or anarchism or communism or whatever non-industiral-capital form won't change the condition of the needs of survival. It is life itself that puts (de facto) us all in a position of need, and work is one of the biggest (de facto) inescapable set of needs that cannot be overcome without dire consequences. You don't want more people put into this injustice, don't procreate more people (workers) then. — schopenhauer1
It seems unjust to put others in a circumstance X whereby X means if they do not do X, they will die or other dire consequences. — schopenhauer1
By that standard, eating is unjust. — Derrick Huestis
I was actually furthering your point. — baker
By that standard, eating is unjust. — Derrick Huestis
Indeed. He that doesn't work should not eat. — baker
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.