You predict incorrectly - I’m saying that we don’t need to procreate in order to find a more satisfying way of life - and that procreation/child-rearing is in fact the most primitive and inefficient method. But it is nevertheless evidence that this ‘agenda’ is highly variable, and that as self-aware persons we are not bound by the same agenda as our parents, nor even the adjusted agenda we were born and raised into.

You make assumptions about the intentionality of every parent based on how they tend to describe their own sense of satisfaction. But of course this will appear selfish. They’re only describing the positive experiences they get out of the interaction themselves because they disagree with your claim that life sucks and that’s all there is to it. They can’t answer for the child, or for the agenda, and neither can you. And they’re not going to tell you about all the little decisions they made everyday between respecting and prioritising an open agenda for the child, and making sure the child is aware of the potential for harm that also comes with that freedom - because the agony of that experience is almost impossible to put into words, and only a parent could understand it. There is so much more to this interaction that you’re not acknowledging because it cannot been conceptualised or quantified for you. You clearly haven’t been a parent, and show no consideration for your own parents’ attempts to raise you.

I’m not here to argue for procreation - I absolutely think the ignorance of prospective parents needs to be addressed, and that the potential for alternatives to procreation should be prioritised. Because I also think that your moral indignation here is based on ignorance that is much more deliberate and harmful than that of any parent, and your pessimistic call to simply ‘gripe’ against a supposedly ‘forced agenda’ actually undermines antinatalism more than anything else.

That you are ignoring how much your awareness of individual potentiality and value factors into your arguments here continues to astound me. You switch from past to future tense as if it’s nothing, without recognising that you’re switching between actual and potential structures of a person. The potentiality of a person is NOT what you or I or their parents perceive it to be. Nor is it what the agenda or society dictates. It is what the person themselves perceives it to be - and it is more valuable as such than any iteration of being or ‘self’ that might be actualised and then judged by you according to some impossible moralistic stance of ‘zero potential harm’.

But it is nevertheless evidence that this ‘agenda’ is highly variable, and that as self-aware persons we are not bound by the same agenda as our parents, nor even the adjusted agenda we were born and raised into. — Possibility

But the agenda are the dictates of life (sociocultural economic way of surviving and overcoming dissatisfaction). So no, there aren't these magical variables, just contingencies in a situatedness of the ways of living that were forced upon a new person.

experiences they get out of the interaction themselves because they disagree with your claim that life sucks and that’s all there is to it. — Possibility

This is laughable. You are trying to sugar coat the fact that the parent's edification is coming from someone else carrying burdens of life and harms, etc.

Because I also think that your moral indignation here is based on ignorance that is much more deliberate and harmful than that of any parent, — Possibility

Assertion with no evidence examples to back it up or give any reasoning for the premise.

and your pessimistic call to simply ‘gripe’ against a supposedly ‘forced agenda’ actually undermines antinatalism more than anything else. — Possibility

Doesn't undermine anything. People who already exist gripe.

The potentiality of a person is NOT what you or I or their parents perceive it to be. Nor is it what the agenda or society dictates. It is what the person themselves perceives it to be - and it is more valuable as such than any iteration of being or ‘self’ that might be actualised and then judged by you according to some impossible moralistic stance of ‘zero potential harm’. — Possibility

You simply don't have an answer for why it is justified to make someone else go through the gauntlet of life.

You simply don't have an answer for why it is justified to make someone else go through the gauntlet of life. — schopenhauer1

I’m NOT claiming that it’s justified and I’m not arguing FOR procreation. My position is non-moralistic. It is YOUR narrow view that all harm (intentional, ignorant and self-inflicted) is inherently immoral. I’m only saying the intention is NOT to force an agenda, as you claim, but to open it up to variation.

But the agenda are the dictates of life (sociocultural economic way of surviving and overcoming dissatisfaction). So no, there aren't these magical variables, just contingencies in a situatedness of the ways of living that were forced upon a new person. — schopenhauer1

‘Survival’ may be a dictate of life, but it is NOT a principle of conscious (potential) existence. At this level of awareness, the concept of ‘survival’ is only a limitation on actuality, not on perceived potential. A conscious existence is more than capable of acting in opposition to ‘survival’ - even as their potential for survival approaches a perceived upper OR lower limit - without necessarily resulting in death. Death is only actual at the moment a potential for survival reaches that limit of actuality.

That leaves a lot of room for contingency. If I take action that prevents me from being economically productive, I can sustain this action for weeks or months, and I won’t necessarily starve to death. I can live for years hand-to-mouth on a desert island or give all my time and money to the poor and depend entirely on charity. I can sit in meditation for hours on end without even coming close to death, or I can deliberately end my own life in any number of ways. I can practise raising my heart rate to its maximum and keeping it there, or holding my breath for several minutes, without necessarily compromising my survival. The more we understand about our upper and lower limits of potential and how they relate to possibility, the more varied our choices that are at least temporarily opposed to this so-called ‘agenda’.

And I can raise a child to recognise that their potential and value in relation to possibility varies well beyond any limited actuality, to the point where there is no ‘forced agenda’ to be concerned with, only upper and lower limits in actualising potential to be conscious of - apart from their own fears and desires, and the moralising judgements of onlookers or society in general. But it is FAR more efficient to simply recognise this in ourselves, and make use of what limited actuality we have in maximising our collaborative potential to reduce suffering in the world, not just minimise our own.

Because I also think that your moral indignation here is based on ignorance that is much more deliberate and harmful than that of any parent,
— Possibility

Assertion with no evidence examples to back it up or give any reasoning for the premise. — schopenhauer1

NOT an assertion - read it again. Every example of potentiality I provide you claim not to understand and dismiss as ‘saying nothing’ because you see no ‘concrete evidence’. Even though your moral judgement of parents is based on an assumption that they evidently decide to enforce a potential agenda upon a potential child - none of which you will admit even exists prior to actualisation, let alone a prior decision or any thoughts towards it. Where is the concrete evidence of a parent’s prior knowledge of either agenda or child on which to base the supposed culpability of their decision?

You would need to admit this evident potential prior to actuality in order to accuse parents of moral culpability in procreation. In acknowledging this potential as evident, you would have to also acknowledge evident potential to choose actions against the agenda (as described above), rendering it ‘not forced’.

I’m NOT claiming that it’s justified and I’m not arguing FOR procreation. My position is non-moralistic. It is YOUR narrow view that all harm (intentional, ignorant and self-inflicted) is inherently immoral. I’m only saying the intention is NOT to force an agenda, as you claim, but to open it up to variation. — Possibility

So as your arguments become more concrete, and less obfuscating, I notice they look pretty much like all the usual ones that I have encountered many times before. I have addressed this type of idea that there is so much "variation" (in hopes to justify the broader limiting factors) in whole threads, such as https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10842/willy-wonkas-forced-game/p1
My point in that thread was that parent's often give the excuse that they are giving "opportunities" for "so many choices" and thus they could not be held responsible for forcing an agenda, because life's dictates can have such variation to choose (and thus are not really dictates). This is not true in theory, nor de facto. It is not true in theory because there are still the limiting factors of having to survive itself, getting comfortable, and overcoming dissatisfaction. In fact, my whole thread here started with recognizing the human condition as comprising this limiting factors. A different way to go about surviving, doesn't overcome this fact. It is just another excusatory argument to justify the fact of the broader limiting factors of dissatisfaction/survival. It is not true de facto either, because though there are extreme "thresholds" one can choose, it is untenable for most individuals. This doesn't mean, "AHA! This shows the average activities of X lifestyle is thus correct", simply that most character-types (or personalities with a set of preferences) tend to limit their encounters with extremes. That there are extreme variations along with more common variation lifestyle choice, are still confined factors in the broader limiting factors of life. yawn..

‘Survival’ may be a dictate of life, but it is NOT a principle of conscious (potential) existence. At this level of awareness, the concept of ‘survival’ is only a limitation on actuality, not on perceived potential. A conscious existence is more than capable of acting in opposition to ‘survival’ - even as their potential for survival approaches a perceived upper OR lower limit - without necessarily resulting in death. Death is only actual at the moment a potential for survival reaches that limit of actuality. — Possibility

Right, pretty much addressed this above and with my Willy Wonka thread (just read the OP at least). However, I will add that I never meant that the socio-cultural-economic agenda is X variation. A hermit living in the woods on a handful of grubs and a bohemian-type living on a mixture of dumpster diving, restaurant leftovers or whatever, are all accounted for.. I already addressed this in my last post (and you seemed to ignore it):

It is disrespecting the dignity of the person created for your selfish means to create a being in your likeness (even if that likeness is a dynamic independent blah blah.. it is still trying to direct another being into a direction one had in mind, even if it the parameters of the direction are wider). At the end of the day, the child will encounter the sufferings of the dissatisfactions of living, and the contingent harms that come with the everyday. It is wanting to see another being go through the gauntlet of life, and thus making the political decision for that child that they must comply (or die), as the will of the parent has thus created for them. — schopenhauer1

That leaves a lot of room for contingency. If I take action that prevents me from being economically productive, I can sustain this action for weeks or months, and I won’t necessarily starve to death. I can live for years hand-to-mouth on a desert island or give all my time and money to the poor and depend entirely on charity. I can sit in meditation for hours on end without even coming close to death, or I can deliberately end my own life in any number of ways. I can practise raising my heart rate to its maximum and keeping it there, or holding my breath for several minutes, without necessarily compromising my survival. The more we understand about our upper and lower limits of potential and how they relate to possibility, the more varied our choices that are at least temporarily opposed to this so-called ‘agenda’. — Possibility

Yep, already addressed this in my above quote. Variation doesn't negate the limiting factors of dissatisfaction/survival. Your whole "we have so many choices" thing is not justification for the broader limiting factor.. Willy Wonka's Forced Game.. Read it..

And I can raise a child to recognise that their potential and value in relation to possibility varies well beyond any limited actuality, to the point where there is no ‘forced agenda’ to be concerned with, only upper and lower limits in actualising potential to be conscious of - apart from their own fears and desires, and the moralising judgements of onlookers or society in general. But it is FAR more efficient to simply recognise this in ourselves, and make use of what limited actuality we have in maximising our collaborative potential to reduce suffering in the world, not just minimise our own. — Possibility

Right so you are doing what I said in the beginning of my response.. Just demonstrating that people will tend towards the averages, doesn't mean that THUS we have proved anything about the dictates.. It is still forcing dictates on someone. This is besides the point that once born, people will tend towards the middle of the extreme versions of lifestyle to minimize stress on themselves. Also, this whole "collabortie potential to reduce suffering" was already predicted and addressed earlier when I said:

It is selfish on the part of the parent to try to play tinkerer.. trying to direct here, and adjust there, and protect hither and think that by just doing the right inputs, they will create a child that will be a self-actualizing/society contributing blah blah blah. It is disrespecting the dignity of the person created for your selfish means to create a being in your likeness — schopenhauer1

Basically, you have failed to overcome my objections raised in that earlier post a couple pages ago. You are just sounding like people need to be born so they can self-actualize and follow Maslow's Hierarchy (as predicted).. You can obfuscate by talking about limits and potential..but it amounts to about the same. Maslow also never defined what self-actualizing is.. but it amounts to what you are saying and I object to yours as his reasons for the excuse to give people "opportunities". The illusion of choices does not excuse the collateral damage and dissatisfaction/survival dictates (that tends to averages within those boundaries anyways).

Even though your moral judgement of parents is based on an assumption that they evidently decide to enforce a potential agenda upon a potential child - none of which you will admit even exists prior to actualisation, let alone a prior decision or any thoughts towards it. Where is the concrete evidence of a parent’s prior knowledge of either agenda or child on which to base the supposed culpability of their decision? — Possibility

Oh for fuck's sake.. We all know that children can be born when one does X.. If one allows this to happen, one is agreeing that this life is appropriate for that child to live.. It doesn't even have to take much thought (which is clearly evident in many parents' choices). But it is enough that they think this life is "good enough" for someone else to live.. That their choice is something that should profoundly affect another. You know this though.

You would need to admit this evident potential prior to actuality in order to accuse parents of moral culpability in procreation. In acknowledging this potential as evident, you would have to also acknowledge evident potential to choose actions against the agenda (as described above), rendering it ‘not forced’. — Possibility

I don't know what you are saying here. What I do know is this is all gaslighting.. At the end of the day your ideas represent a manager giving his workers more work and then saying "I am giving you opportunities to grow".. I spit on this shit. I call it middle class, not because it has to do with Western culture-office spaces.. I just broadly label that mentality to those who make others work and in paternalistic arrogance that this is "necessary".. But of course none of it was necessary prior to birth itself.. It's just a reflection of the agendas and goals of the parents willful nature.

Once we are already born, yeah we have to "grow" and " collaborate" and shit like that, but it is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS in the fact that we were forced into this scheme of inherent suffering and collateral damage. This "growth through adversity" scheme is just PC MIDDLE CLASS, high grade, transparently manipulative excusatory bullshit. The same as the manipulative manager giving you opportunities to grow..

Updated last post.

Variation doesn't negate the limiting factors of dissatisfaction/survival. Your whole "we have so many choices" thing is not justification for the broader limiting factor. — schopenhauer1

It does negate the limitation as ‘forced’ - the limiting factors apply to life, not to our capacity to act against these factors. Dissatisfaction and survival factors can influence and obscure but not eliminate choices we are able to make that take us beyond these limits.

Right so you are doing what I said in the beginning of my response.. Just demonstrating that people will tend towards the averages, doesn't mean that THUS we have proved anything about the dictates.. It is still forcing dictates on someone. This is besides the point that once born, people will tend towards the middle of the extreme versions of lifestyle to minimize stress on themselves. — schopenhauer1

That’s not what I’m saying here at all. I’m saying that raising a child is neither as efficient nor as effective as pushing against the extremes of your own life to reduce suffering for others.

Basically, you have failed to overcome my objections raised in that earlier post a couple pages ago. You are just sounding like people need to be born so they can self-actualize and follow Maslow's Hierarchy (as predicted).. You can obfuscate by talking about limits and potential..but it amounts to about the same. Maslow also never defined what self-actualizing is.. but it amounts to what you are saying and I object to yours as his reasons for the excuse to give people "opportunities". The illusion of choices does not excuse the collateral damage and dissatisfaction/survival dictates (that tends to averages within those boundaries anyways). — schopenhauer1

No, people don’t need to be born - why do you keep bringing this up? People, once born, are wasting valuable resources if all they’re going to do is avoid dissatisfaction and survive. The fact that you didn’t choose to be born does not excuse your decision to continue wasting precious energy on complaining about it with no intention of changing your part in the system. This has NOTHING to do with self-actualisation. If you don’t consider your own life to consist of opportunities, then the MORAL action would be to give all of your resources and potential to those who will use it to its fullest, not continue to piss it away on yourself. Because it’s honestly not about your ‘self’. There is no moral value to an individual who cannot or will not choose to exist in relation to the world.

But it is enough that they think this life is "good enough" for someone else to live. — schopenhauer1

What life?

It does negate the limitation as ‘forced’ - the limiting factors apply to life, not to our capacity to act against these factors. Dissatisfaction and survival factors can influence and obscure but not eliminate choices we are able to make that take us beyond these limits. — Possibility

Huh? Our capacities and choices are all in relation to the dissatisfaction/survival. There is no metaphysical leap beyond it as you imply here.

People, once born, are wasting valuable resources if all they’re going to do is avoid dissatisfaction and survive. The fact that you didn’t choose to be born does not excuse your decision to continue wasting precious energy on complaining about it with no intention of changing your part in the system. This has NOTHING to do with self-actualisation. If you don’t consider your own life to consist of opportunities, then the MORAL action would be to give all of your resources and potential to those who will use it to its fullest, not continue to piss it away on yourself. Because it’s honestly not about your ‘self’. There is no moral value to an individual who cannot or will not choose to exist in relation to the world. — Possibility

Are you kidding? This is EXACTLY the type of thing I mean by self-actualization (your version). In fact I predicted your pretty common middle-class response earlier (and you ignored to quote)

It is selfish on the part of the parent to try to play tinkerer.. trying to direct here, and adjust there, and protect hither and think that by just doing the right inputs, they will create a child that will be a self-actualizing/society contributing blah blah blah. It is disrespecting the dignity of the person created for your selfish means to create a being in your likeness (even if that likeness is a dynamic independent blah blah.. i — schopenhauer1

Here you are finally showing all your cards. You are literally just saying in your own words here to comply with the agenda or kill yourself (at least "go away" in some fashion). It's the mentality of Willy Wonka's Forced Game.. Did you read it? "I made this world for you. If you don't like it, you should double down on playing my game even more and learn to play my game better.. Or you can just kill yourself and stop complaining!!".

Your implications are exactly the amoral/immoral idea of the individual I thought you would bring up too. For you it's "Fuck the individual.. you are part of the collaborative game (insert maniacal laugh here).. Go play your part because who gives a fuck that it's the individual that bears the brunt of living his whole life".. You are also doing EXACTLY as I predicted earlier by trying to weasel out of the fact that an individual is the locus of the interactions with the world, even though they OF COURSE have to interact with the world de facto by living. In other words, you overshoot the individual to try to pretend like its all a system of interactions and you don't recognize the great harms and suffering of the individuals. It is not the system that feels the harms and sufferings, it is the individual EVEN THOUGH, people's collaboration (OBVIOUSLY) is necessary to keep the individuals alive and comfortable. Your only advice is to double down on the "lovingly" created game for you (the individual) to have to interact with or die. Great. Great. Keep the apologetics going for the collaboration game. Fuck individual. Long live the game? Is that it? If you can't beat em, join em. In other words, comply or die with the agenda, is that it? As I thought.

I noticed no response. I guess my points landed.

I guess my points landed. — schopenhauer1

On the contrary.
I think you vastly underestimate just how alien your -- and Schopenhauer's -- ideas are to most people.

I noticed no response. I guess my points landed. — schopenhauer1

No - I just have better things to do with my time than arguing with someone who so aggressively rejects open-mindedness and charitable discussion. I’m done here.

I’ve taken your scheme into consideration and have found it at the end of the day, just another (convoluted, obfuscated) version of comply or die.

On the contrary.
I think you vastly underestimate just how alien your -- and Schopenhauer's -- ideas are to most people. — baker

No I’m aware on a daily basis. The average workaday folk can’t understand how life can be inherently suffering. They only understand folk-harm, that of the workaday contingent variety. If you ask them on a good day, they even forget how much of plain old fashioned contingent harm exists, as built in, iterative, Pollyannaism mechanisms rear their ugly head. And they certainly can’t fathom the idea that procreating is a political agenda, forcing the dictates and burdens on another, because they feel they are messiahs spreading some goodness onto a new person or some way of life they think other people need to live out. It’s all just forcing comply or die burdens on another person and then blaming them if they don’t embrace it.

In the workaday world, complainers will not go far. When someone asks how you are doing, you had better be wise enough to reply, “I can’t complain.” If you do complain, even justifiably, people will stop asking how you are doing. Complaining will not help you succeed and influence people. You can complain to your physician or psychiatrist because they are paid to hear you complain. But you cannot complain to your boss or your friends, if you have any. You will soon be dismissed from your job and dropped from the social register. Then you will be left alone with your complaints and no one to listen to them. Perhaps then the message will sink into your head: If you do not feel good enough for long enough, you should act as if you do and even think as if you do. That is the way to get yourself to feel good enough for long enough and stop you from complaining for good, as any self-improvement book can affirm. But should you not improve, someone must assume the blame. And that someone will be you. This is monumentally so if you are a pessimist or a depressive. Should you conclude that life is objectionable or that nothing matters— do not waste our time with your nonsense. We are on our way to the future, and the philosophically disheartening or the emotionally impaired are not going to hinder our progress. If you cannot say something positive, or at least equivocal, keep it to yourself. Pessimists and depressives need not apply for a position in the enterprise of life. You have two choices: Start thinking the way God and your society want you to think or be forsaken by all. The decision is yours, since you are a free agent who can choose to rejoin our fabricated world or stubbornly insist on … what? That we should mollycoddle non-positive thinkers like you or rethink how the whole world transacts its business? That we should start over from scratch? Or that we should go extinct? Try to be realistic. We did the best we could with the tools we had. After all, we are only human, as we like to say. Our world may not be in accord with nature’s way, but it did develop organically according to our consciousness, which delivered us to a lofty prominence over the Creation. The whole thing just took on a life of its own, and nothing is going to stop it anytime soon. There can be no starting over and no going back. No major readjustments are up for a vote. And no melancholic head-case is going to bad-mouth our catastrophe. The universe was created by the Creator, damn it. We live in a country we love and that loves us back. We have families and friends and jobs that make it all worthwhile. We are somebodies, not a bunch of nobodies without names or numbers or retirement plans. None of this is going to be overhauled by a thought criminal who contends that the world is not doubleplusgood and never will be. Our lives may not be unflawed— that would deny us a better future to work toward— but if this charade is good enough for us, then it should be good enough for you. So if you cannot get your mind right, try walking away. You will find no place to go and no one who will have you. You will find only the same old trap the world over. Lighten up or leave us alone. You will never get us to give up our hopes. You will never get us to wake up from our dreams. We are not contradictory beings whose continuance only worsens our plight as mutants who embody the contorted logic of a paradox. Such opinions will not be accredited by institutions of authority or by the middling run of humanity. To lay it on the line, whatever thoughts may enter your chemically imbalanced brain are invalid, inauthentic, or whatever dismissive term we care to hang on you, who are only “one of those people.” So start pretending that you feel good enough for long enough, stop your complaining, and get back in line. If you are not as strong as Samson— that no-good suicide and slaughterer of Philistines— then get loaded to the gills and return to the trap. Keep your medicine cabinet and your liquor cabinet well stocked, just like the rest of us. Come on and join the party. No pessimists or depressives invited. Do you think we are morons? We know all about those complaints of yours. The only difference is that we have sense enough and feel good enough for long enough not to speak of them. Keep your powder dry and your brains blocked. Our shibboleth: “Up the Conspiracy and down with Consciousness.” — Ligotti

Ligotti, Thomas. The Conspiracy against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror (pp. 172-174). Hippocampus Press. Kindle Edition.

On the contrary.
I think you vastly underestimate just how alien your -- and Schopenhauer's -- ideas are to most people.
— baker

No I’m aware on a daily basis. — schopenhauer1

Then why this thread?

Some of Schopenhauer's best insights were his ideas about the centrality of boredom. Boredom sits at the heart of the human condition.

If we were in a hand-to-mouth survival situation, that is all we would be consumed with...the means to putting food in our mouth, getting hydrated, and finding comfortable shelter from the elements.

In an industrialized, complex network of production and consumption, this is all atomized into our little "work" and "leisure" pursuits. On the other side of the spectrum, waiting for us is boredom. Boredom lays bare that existence isn't anything BUT striving-after. We strive to survive and be comfortable. Then, if we do not have any entertainment pursuits to occupy our mental space, we may get existential. "Why are we doing this repetitive upkeep, maintenance, and thrashing about?" It becomes apparent about the malignantly useless (as another author has characterized it).

A pretty face, a noble pursuit, a puzzle, an ounce of pleasure.. we all try to submerge in these entertainments to not face the existential boredom straight on. That would be too much to dwell in for too long. We design goals, and virtues and reasons, and entertainments, and standards to meet, and trying to contribute to "something". We cannot fall back on the default of existence- the boredom.

So what is one to do? If suicide isn't a real option, there is only the perpetual cycle. The illusion is that it can be broken. Schopenhauer deigned freedom by asceticism. That was a nice consolation-hope to provide, but it's simply training the mind to live with the existential striving-after more easily. That is all- a mental technique. It is not a metaphysical escape hatch. We are stuck until we are not. — schopenhauer1

:up:

Thank you :D.

Then why this thread? — baker

Because I am aware of the ignorance and bringing it to light? These are core to my philosophical viewpoints, so why wouldn't I discuss them at length with those willing to engage in dialogue?

Because I am aware of the ignorance and bringing it to light? — schopenhauer1

You seem unsure of your purpose.

These are core to my philosophical viewpoints, so why wouldn't I discuss them at length with those willing to engage in dialogue? — schopenhauer1

But there is noone willing to engage in dialogue. Exactly like Ligotti says above. Seems ironic then to pursue the matter.

Anyway, I sometimes have the impression (but it could be just me) that you're still trying to find an alternative to existential pessimism. That perhaps you're looking for the folks who comply with the Agenda to convince you that it's worth it after all. I mean, I have my doubts about existential pessimism, and I couldn't profess it with the certainty you do.

But there is noone willing to engage in dialogue. Exactly like Ligotti says above. Seems ironic then to pursue the matter. — baker

Any different than any other project one does continually? Fuck life itself is just that. It’s just that this has no set resolution, but again, life itself.

Anyway, I sometimes have the impression (but it could be just me) that you're still trying to find an alternative to existential pessimism. That perhaps you're looking for the folks who comply with the Agenda to convince you that it's worth it after all. I mean, I have my doubts about existential pessimism, and I couldn't profess it with the certainty you do. — baker

Certainly not looking for convincing otherwise.

I agree with the OP. I've made a post about "Pessimism" around almost one year ago here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11569/unpopular-opinion-nihilism-still-doesnt-reflect-reality-philosophical-pessimism-is-more-honest/p1

Yep, good stuff like here:

No. In reality, we are *NOT* free to do what we want/like, or hope, dream, expect, etc etc etc. Real life / real world / reality is very limiting in what we can do (or be). Let me ask you for example: How many of you are trapped everyday in a job or work that you don't like? And that's just one main example. I still even haven't mentioned about if you have chronic pain/disease/illness for example, it will obviously become a lot/much worse.

I think people like me also have our own valid (& logical, rational) reasons to be a pessimist (or agreeing with philosophical pessimism), when looking at the world, life, (human's) society, existence, & basically the cold, harsh, cruel reality around us everyday (I still even haven't discussed about depressive realism, antinatalism, pro-mortalism, efilism, suicide, etc etc). — niki wonoto

Just a couple things I would add here for a more complete picture.. Basically what is on my profile:

Life has necessary and contingent suffering. Necessary suffering is often considered "Eastern", similar to how Buddhism defines it. That is to say it is a general dissatisfaction stemming from a general lack in what is present. Relief is temporary and unstable. If life was fully positive without this lack, it would be satisfactory without any needs or wants.

Contingent harms are the classic ones people think of. It is the physical harms, the emotional anguish, the annoyances great and small. It is the pandemics, the disasters, the daily grind of a tedious work day. It is the hunger we feel, and the pain of a stubbed toe. It is any negative harm. It is contingent as it is contextual in time/place, and situation. It is based on historical trajectories and situatedness. It is based on the "throwness" (in Existentialism terminology). It varies in individuals in varying amounts and intensity, but happens to everyone nonetheless.

Philosophical pessimism deals with the fact that life has negative value and thus examines the human condition understanding these features. It is similar to atheistic Gnosticism. We are exiled in a way. Antinatalism is often an ethical response to philosophical pessimism, but is not the same thing. Philosophical pessimism often goes with pessimistic dispositions but is also not the same thing. Technically, you can have an optimistic disposition hold claims of a philosophical pessimistic nature such that there is much suffering inherent in life, and can generally agree with such philosophers as Arthur Schopenhauer and their works regarding the striving of human existence and the struggles of negative experiences.

The last posts of schopenhauer1-Possibility -debate reminds me that "Go then kill yourself" -attitude.
And same time these people (I´m not saying Possibility is one of them) find very odd when I tell, or have told elsewhere that people who present suicide as an option; that usually people under age of ten or even fifteen don´t have capabilities doing suicide.

potentiality — Possibility

The potential to suffer?

The last posts of schopenhauer1-Possibility -debate reminds me that "Go then kill yourself" -attitude.
And same time these people (I´m not saying Possibility is one of them) find very odd when I tell, or have told elsewhere that people who present suicide as an option; that usually people under age of ten or even fifteen don´t have capabilities doing suicide. — Antinatalist

Then you’re reading it through a lens. A fourteen year old certainly has this capability. Someone under the age of ten usually lacks a sufficient self-concept to make such a decision based on a preference for non-being. Either way, it wouldn’t be an intellectual decision based on awareness of an individual self - the kind you’re claiming we should be entitled to before we’re even born.

So, when it arises as an option, what prevents you from taking it? It is this question I’d like an honest answer to. Instead, I’m accused of gaslighting, while my position is misrepresented and distorted. I support antinatalism, but not this opinion that existence sucks.

My attitude is not ‘go kill yourself then’ - I think there is a gap in understanding (or just blatant ignorance) when someone argues so strongly for non-being as a preferred option, but not for actual beings. And then denies the existence of potential structures that enable actual, self-conscious beings to choose beyond a reductionist binary structure of ‘comply or die’, even as they claim to make a third choice of ‘rebellion by griping’.

The potential to suffer? — Agent Smith

Sure, but there’s more to potentiality in relation to being than a binary value, or even a linear continuum. Intentionality is an integrated, four-dimensional relation of effort and attention. You can’t reduce that accurately to ‘the potential to suffer’ - not without ignoring or excluding a whole lot of information. This is what is happening here.

Sure, but there’s more to potentiality in relation to being than a binary value, or even a linear continuum. Intentionality is an integrated, four-dimensional relation of effort and attention. You can’t reduce that accurately to ‘the potential to suffer’ - not without ignoring or excluding a whole lot of information. This is what is happening here — Possibility

:roll:

What's your opinion of the following?

1. In life there's potential for suffering and joy.

2. It's impossible, at the moment, to ensure the actualization of joy sans suffering.

3. On the whole, suffering > joy. Ask a person whether s/he wants their pain taken away from, or more joy be added to, their life? I bet they'd want the former (pain taken away).

Ergo,

4. Antinatalism.

The last posts of schopenhauer1-Possibility -debate reminds me that "Go then kill yourself" -attitude.
And same time these people (I´m not saying Possibility is one of them) find very odd when I tell, or have told elsewhere that people who present suicide as an option; that usually people under age of ten or even fifteen don´t have capabilities doing suicide.
— Antinatalist

Then you’re reading it through a lens. A fourteen year old certainly has this capability. — Possibility

Some do, I agree.

Someone under the age of ten usually lacks a sufficient self-concept to make such a decision based on a preference for non-being. Either way, it wouldn’t be an intellectual decision based on awareness of an individual self - the kind you’re claiming we should be entitled to before we’re even born.

So, when it arises as an option, what prevents you from taking it?

It is this question I’d like an honest answer to. Instead, I’m accused of gaslighting, while my position is misrepresented and distorted. I support antinatalism, but not this opinion that existence sucks.

My attitude is not ‘go kill yourself then’ - I think there is a gap in understanding (or just blatant ignorance) when someone argues so strongly for non-being as a preferred option, but not for actual beings. And then denies the existence of potential structures that enable actual, self-conscious beings to choose beyond a reductionist binary structure of ‘comply or die’, even as they claim to make a third choice of ‘rebellion by griping’. — Possibility

I will borrow my text from another thread:

The possibility of suicide of course exists. Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfil it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide.

One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible. And most importantly, not even suicide guarantees that the individual will achieve the state or non-state where s/he “was” before the decision of having a child was made. (Be it complete non-existence, for example.)

What's your opinion of the following?

1. In life there's potential for suffering and joy.

2. It's impossible, at the moment, to ensure the actualization of joy sans suffering.

3. On the whole, suffering > joy. Ask a person whether s/he wants their pain taken away from, or more joy be added to, their life? I bet they'd want the former (pain taken away).

Ergo,

4. Antinatalism. — Agent Smith

This is what I mean by reducing potentiality to a binary value, eg. Suffering = bad; joy = good. Being is not a matter of simply choosing between suffering or joy as good or bad. If it were, then we wouldn’t be having this argument.

What is suffering?
There is a tendency to describe suffering as ‘anything that feels bad’, but it’s more complex than that.

Suffering refers to experiences of pain, humility and loss/lack. Objectively speaking, pain is what we feel when an event requires more/less attention and effort than we’ve allocated. When we touch a hot stove and burn our hand, the pain tells the body that the attention and effort we predicted did not account for the repair work to our skin that we now require. And when we run until our legs hurt, the pain tells the body that effort and attention needs to be directed to these muscles at a faster rate.

Loss/lack is what we feel when an action requires more/less time and attention than we’ve allocated. And humility is what we feel when an action requires more/less time and effort than we’ve allocated.

So, the body needs to be informed of these prediction errors, so that we make the necessary changes in future predictions, in order to prevent further suffering. If we don’t find a way to make these changes, we’ll continue to suffer.

1. In life, there is potential for good suffering and bad suffering, as well as good joy and bad joy.

When a driver has been aggressively tailgating, dangerously overtaking and speeding past you on the road, and then further along you pass him/her pulled over by the police, is that a case of bad joy or good suffering?

If we’re honest with ourselves, sometimes we feel joy in perceiving another’s suffering, other times we suffer in perceiving another’s joy. Sometimes we’re prepared to endure short-term suffering for long-term joy, other times we pursue short-term joy despite long-term suffering. When you try to reduce suffering-joy to one value, your conclusion is necessarily subjective and temporally defined.

2. It is impossible to actualise any event, good or bad, without a sufficient distribution of attention, effort and time.

When we get this distribution correct, we minimise suffering. Understanding our own limitations and building awareness, connection and collaboration with other sources of time, effort and attention increases the potential to reduce suffering overall.

3. On the whole, the relationship between suffering and joy is irreducilble to a linear relation, except subjectively and in the moment. It would be highly inaccurate to make a moral judgement of all potential being based on this.

4. I believe that antinatalism IS the objective answer to so many issues in the world. But I also understand that the same subjective, in the moment evaluation of potential being as ‘mostly suffering’ can, in another set of circumstances, evaluate potential being as ‘mostly joy’. So I disagree with arguing antinatalism on moral grounds. It achieves nothing except more suffering.

The possibility of suicide of course exists. Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfil it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide.

One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible. And most importantly, not even suicide guarantees that the individual will achieve the state or non-state where s/he “was” before the decision of having a child was made. (Be it complete non-existence, for example.) — Antinatalist

What is this state of non-existence that you value higher than being? And in what way is it more valuable in this non-state? What you seem to be referring to is the idea of unrealised human potential. But I could be mistaken.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it goes without saying that suffering serves a vital purpose. Of late, I've been drawn to the belief that there's no one wiser than Socrates Nature. 4.5 billion years of trial and error must count for something, oui? So, if suffering is an aspect of life, it must be so for a very good reason. You've alluded to it and I'm on board.

However, ever since we humans grew a brain, we've come to the realization that we maybe able to delink the unpleasantness of suffering from its purpose/function. Have we not done that with tobacco? We've elminated the risk of cancers by extracting the active ingredient (nicotine) and putting it in less hazardous delivery systems like dermal patches and gum? This idea is probably a component of the Transhumanism manifesto, the movement being, by and large, focused on the abolishment of suffering.

More can be said, but I'll leave it at that.

This idea is probably a component of the Transhumanism manifesto, the movement being, by and large, focused on the abolishment of suffering. — Agent Smith

I’ll admit I’m a little sceptical of transhumanism - mainly because I recognise the essential structure of what we call ‘suffering’ in every aspect of existence and cosmic evolution, including atomic structure, abiogenesis, etc. The idea of abolishment of suffering, while it appears noble and compassionate towards humanity, presents a narrow understanding of what suffering is and how it contributes to cosmic evolution as a whole. I have a feeling the aim is to eliminate the human experience of suffering, and that it is prepared to compromise actual abolishment for an illusion. I’ll reserve my judgement at this stage, but if that’s the case, then I’m not okay with that.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be the purpose/function of nicotine in the human body?