But in this case life remains inescapable. So clearly your problem isn't so much with the inescapability from "the game" itself, but rather the inescapability of suffering within the game. If it is sufficiently easy not to suffer in the game, then it's ok to impose the game. Agreed? — khaled
they can sufficiently "escape", so barring other information, this seems permissible. — schopenhauer1
So how is this situation just — schopenhauer1
What a petty game this god has set up.. — schopenhauer1
So again, your issue is not with how difficult it is to escape the game, but how difficult it is to escape suffering within the game. — khaled
Okay, even if you succeed in demonstrating that having kids is bad and unjust (in a philosophical sense), I can accept that. But that alone isn't sufficient to convince me not to have kids. Having kids is not nearly the worst thing I can do.Oh Wheatgrass, no no. You can have an unjust situation and have someone enjoy their life. Precisely why my argument is more than the simplicity you deem it as. It is hard for some people to wrap their heads around an unjust situation that people can still feel happy subjective states. Someone who feels joy despite X activity that's Y (bad/unjust) doesn't mean that X activity is a good state of affairs. — schopenhauer1
the injustices of life — schopenhauer1
The point is "If this is X, why can it not be made more X? Therefore this is not X" is not valid at all — khaled
Depends on your standard I guess. In other words, life is not pretty because you choose to compare it to something better. — khaled
For the purposes of discussion, sure, since you seem so convinced utopias are impossible and I don't care to argue that. They serve well enough for a thought experiment. — khaled
Experience and observation of others' experience.
Also the fact that it's physiologically possible should imply that it's possible. — khaled
That's the nub, the heart, of the issue. :chin: — TheMadFool
I'm afraid that won't do. — TheMadFool
Food for thought: assuming our imagination bears the mark of experience in the real world, ever wonder why our conception of hell has exquisite detail compared to our idea of heaven? — TheMadFool
What if a baby was guaranteed to be born into a lava pit and you can convince the parent not to do that? You would, correct? The thing is you are not seeing life as properly that volcano.
You are arguing that (B3) represents an injustice. What about (A2) and (C3)? Are both or either of them unjust? — Srap Tasmaner
How do you differentiate between when a game is “too hard” (too hard not to suffer) and not? In other words, what makes someone who says that “escaping suffering in life is easy enough such that having kids is ok” wrong?
Beforehand you made it seem like the difficulty of escaping the game is what determines whether or not it’s ok to inflict. Obviously a game that requires you to kill yourself to escape is too difficult to escape. But now we know that what you’re really concerned with is the difficulty of escaping suffering within the game, not the game itself. So it’s not at all obvious anymore that life is “too hard” in that sense.
I would think everyone agrees that forcing people into a game where it’s too difficult not to suffer is bad. It’s true by definition (that’s what the word “too” is used for). And the majority still aren’t AN. — khaled
It could be said that his efforts go as far as preventing fertilization, or maybe pregnancy or birth, but that’s about it. His efforts cannot be stretched beyond that. — NOS4A2
what, in your own words and opinion, is the root cause of the suffering that you seem makes life unjust, other humans or nature? — Outlander
I don't think that a majority of people thinking something at a particular time makes it right. — schopenhauer1
forcing people into a game where it’s too difficult not to suffer is bad. — khaled
You are automatically thinking escape means suicide. — schopenhauer1
Now it's more like: Any forced, inescapable game, where it's too difficult not to suffer, is a target for scrutiny and criticism. If so: Life as is right now, in many places, offers easy enough ways of escaping suffering within the game.Any forced, inescapable game is a legitimate target for moral scrutiny and criticism. — schopenhauer1
That world is precisely the world I am saying this is not. — schopenhauer1
You are arguing that (B3) represents an injustice. What about (A2) and (C3)? Are both or either of them unjust?
— Srap Tasmaner
Not sure where you are going, but A would be an injustice if that something was bad (like B). If C is a known fact, then it conflates into B, essentially. — schopenhauer1
Please read my profile, it explains essentially the answer to your question — schopenhauer1
I find it funny that one of our needs is the need for overcoming challenges to give our mind engagement.. Flow states or simply taking up mental space with X. Schopenhauer described this phenomena when he said "What if every Jack had his Jill.. everyone had what they wanted".. People would kill each other (read as make more strife for themselves) because our wants and needs are never really satisfied. There seems to be a "lack" at the heart of everything.. — schopenhauer1
I have focused less on this core philosophy lately because I think there are simpler ideas like the injustice of putting more people into an inescapable game, and inevitable harmful experiences that can and should be argued for. No amount of economic or political change overrides the negative existential situation itself. The animal with the pendulum between pain, boredom always needing that pendulum to get in the middle somewhere but it never stays.. as Schopenhauer analogized. — schopenhauer1
Show that life is too difficult a game. We all understand you think it is, that alone is not convincing.
I will add to what you read there this:
I find it funny that one of our needs is the need for overcoming challenges to give our mind engagement.. Flow states or simply taking up mental space with X. Schopenhauer described this phenomena when he said "What if every Jack had his Jill.. everyone had what they wanted".. People would kill each other (read as make more strife for themselves) because our wants and needs are never really satisfied. There seems to be a "lack" at the heart of everything.Most people are sort of aware of this.. However, because of group-think and the need for social pressures to keep "things going" in its own self-perpetuating fashion via culture.. People try to pretend like this is something to embrace and a "good" when, in fact, it is simply existential/metaphysical turmoil within our self-aware animal nature.
the fact that some people like how it is, the good and the bad, the give and take, the uncertainty — Outlander
life sucks because the pendulum swings from striving for goals because of boredom, and feeling boredom after you've strived for it — Albero
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't jealous :rofl:I really don't think I've ever been bored for more than five seconds at a time in my entire life. I have more goals than I know what to do with. I just wish I didn't have to sleep.
"Antisocial" is someone who is against the laws and/or customs of a society and also who is considered an annoyance to and is disapproved by the society. So, if someone fits these criteria, he can be certainly called antisocial.So the default position for the modern person is to think that to be anti-work is to be anti-social — schopenhauer1
I can see that you mean that from the moment we are born we are forced to play this game. And that no one asks us if we wanted to. So, maybe your question is not really about "anti-work" --since there are a lot of things in our society and economic system that one can object to-- but our choice about living. I remember we have talked about that (Re: your topic "Is never having the option for no option just?")"... entering the economic system itself was a forced game ..."
"... we are forced to play it at all lest we die an agonizing slow death ..." — schopenhauer1
The slave has no choice: he cannot choose his job or be on strike or refuse to work.Like the happy slave, the laborer has no other choice — schopenhauer1
hasn't shop1 shown tons of reasons in other posts why life is too difficult a game to be played? — Albero
"What if every Jack had his Jill.. everyone had what they wanted".. People would kill each other (read as make more strife for themselves) because our wants and needs are never really satisfied. There seems to be a "lack" at the heart of everything.
life sucks because the pendulum swings from striving for goals because of boredom, and feeling boredom after you've strived for it. He thought (and I'm guessing Schop1 does too judging from these posts) that life was just dealing with dissatisfaction — Albero
because of group-think and the need for social pressures to keep "things going" in its own self-perpetuating fashion via culture.. People try to pretend like this is something to embrace and a "good" when, in fact, it is simply existential/metaphysical turmoil within our self-aware animal nature. — Albero
Is that a no to both then, neither of the others are in themselves unjust? — Srap Tasmaner
So, back to my original question which perhaps is already answered, what needs to be changed? I suppose the stock question would be, if you were God and wish to make this possible, suffering free world to your hearts content and your minds eye, what would have to happen? What would it be like? How would it differ from now? — Outlander
who are you to think so let alone do so in a life you claim to be negative and worthless? And more importantly why should others listen to you? You have to have some worth and positivity from somewhere, even if you choose to ignore it. — Outlander
Regardless of whether I agree with them, hasn't shop1 shown tons of reasons in other posts why life is too difficult a game to be played? — Albero
Schopenhauer himself stated that no matter where you are, life sucks because the pendulum swings from striving for goals because of boredom, and feeling boredom after you've strived for it. He thought (and I'm guessing Schop1 does too judging from these posts) that life was just dealing with dissatisfaction, annoyance, toil, and seeking comfort and entertainment to avoid boredom that's always hanging over our heads. To me this sounds like the game shouldn't be played for anyone. I would like to see what you think since I've been enjoying your debate here. I remember you stating you don't agree with pessimistic arguments for AN, but I've honestly been wondering why? Where I disagree with Schop1 is that these seem way more convincing than injustice, pain/pleasure asymmetries, consent, etc — Albero
I’m just pointing out there is no recipient to your behavior. It affects no one but yourself. The suffering you prevent, and the beings you’re saving, are imaginary. So why pretend? — NOS4A2
No. Because everything he said, everyone is already aware of.
The conversation typically goes like this:
shope: Having kids is an action of type X and actions of type X are wrong! (X can be, for example, "unconsented imposition", in this case it's "putting someone in inescapable game" typically, why actions of type X are wrong is left unexplained, but barring that...)
Me: But *insert activity here* is also of type X and you don't think that's wrong
shope: Well, this activity is not X enough to be wrong!
Me: So how can you tell between activities that are X enough and ones that are not X enough? We all agree that activities that are too X are wrong (true by definition of the word "too"), but we just don't think life qualifies as too X.
shope then proceeds to either "delineate" the argument for 20 replies, or outright not respond, then comes back in another week with another X and we do the same thing all over again. Repeat ad nauseam. — khaled
Thing is, it has never been my experience that this is the case. Never has it seemed that way in my own experience or others' experiences.
But even if we accept this, it is absolutely not the case that: — khaled
This has 0 proof. If it were the case that we're all deeply dissatisfied animals only pretending to be happy, you wouldn't expect anonymous happiness polls to come back positive. You'd expect people to "break" and show their "true feelings" of deep dissatisfaction at a much higher rate than they are. — khaled
The consequence of "life is an escape from boredom or dissatisfaction" isn't necessarily "we're all deeply unsatisfied animals pretending otherwise", there is 0 evidence for that. Even if we accept the first statement, it could just be the case that NOT everyone is a lying Oscar worthy actor, and instead, it's just easy to escape boredom and dissatisfaction so on the whole people find the game worthwhile. — khaled
I don't know though how exactly yourself see "anti-work", except that you are talking "an economic system that runs on work" and as a "condition of life". — Alkis Piskas
I can see that you mean that from the moment we are born we are forced to play this game. And that no one asks us if we wanted to. So, maybe your question is not really about "anti-work" --since there are a lot of things in our society and economic system that one can object to-- but our choice about living. I remember we have talked about that (Re: your topic "Is never having the option for no option just?") — Alkis Piskas
"Antisocial" is someone who is against the laws and/or customs of a society and also who is considered an annoyance to and is disapproved by the society. So, if someone fits these criteria, he can be certainly called antisocial. — Alkis Piskas
The slave has no choice: he cannot choose his job or be on strike or refuse to work.
The laborer has: he can do all of them! :smile: — Alkis Piskas
A is lacking enough information — schopenhauer1
C is ignorant of the connection — schopenhauer1
Unjust remains but the connection of the birth to the situation of inescapable situation is not recognized. — 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.