So why is seeking ‘happiness’ or ‘satisfaction’ the most important thing? — Possibility
↪baker I imagine you can this being viewed as wanting something for nothing. Do you view a ‘good life’ as getting something for nothing perpetually without worries of ‘burdens’?
Where do you stand on buddhist ideas and nihilism? — I like sushi
What does this mean? Just more volunteer at charities and government and non-profit interventions? Oh wait.. that is already the case.. so basically basic stuff that we already do and just more involvement in these things we already do. It's just the progressive/humanist cause reiterated in vague terminology. — schopenhauer1
WHAT are you trying to say?? Say it plainly or explain neologistic terms meticulously before using them. Your moral/value recommendation is to "collaborate, connect, and be aware". Besides the obvious that we do this already to get by every day.... — schopenhauer1
which is all part of the human experience — Possibility
And if we value a reduction in suffering overall more than the existence of any single being (which appears to be the essential argument of antinatalism), then we should be willing to endure a little more suffering ourselves, even risk our own death, rather than choose to ignore, isolate or exclude any longer. We just need to be honest with ourselves about this - that nothing we will ever do with our existence is worth more than what we do to reduce suffering for others. And if we’re still alive, then it means we haven’t done enough. — Possibility
I know...this all seems rather extreme - but this is the argument of Schopenhauer and antinatalism, FULLY applied to human existence. And interestingly, it has Buddha at one extreme, and Jesus at the other. It’s fucking scary to take it this far, but this is basically what it’s saying - we’re just too frightened to apply it to this extreme, if we’re honest. This is why ‘the agenda’ persists - it’s our excuse, our safety net, our illusion, nothing more. And we can’t quite bring ourselves to dismantle it, even though we know it’s harmful. It’s not forced, it’s preferred. — Possibility
Cabrera develops an ethical theory, negative ethics, that is informed by this phenomenological analysis. He argues that there has been an unwarranted prejudice in ethics against non-being, a view he calls "affirmativity". Because affirmative views take being as good, they always view things that threaten this hegemony as bad; particularly things like abstention from procreation or suicide. Cabrera criticizes affirmative ethics for asking how people should live without asking the radical question of whether people should live tout court. He argues that, because of the structural negativity of being, there is a fundamental "moral disqualification" of human beings due to the impossibility of nonharming and nonmanipulating others. Nonharming and nonmanipulating others is called by him the "Minimal Ethical Articulation" ("MEA"; previously translated into English as "Fundamental Ethical Articulation" and "FEA"). The MEA is violated by our structural "moral impediment", by the worldly discomforts – notably pain and discouragement – imposed on us that prevent us from acting ethically. Cabrera argues that an affirmative morality is a self-contradiction because it accepts the MEA and conceives a human existence that precludes the possibility of not-harming or not-manipulating others. Thus he believes that affirmative societies, through their politics, require the common suspension of the MEA to even function.
Cabrera's negative ethics is supposed to be a response to the negative structure of being, acutely aware of the morally disqualifying nature of being. Cabrera believes children are usually considered as mere aesthetic objects, are not created for their own sake but for the sake of their parents, and are thrown into a structurally negative life by the act of procreation. Procreation is, Cabrera argues, a harm and a supreme act of manipulation. He believes that the consistent application of normal moral concepts – like duty, virtue or respect – present in most affirmative moralities entails antinatalism. Cabrera also argues that a human being adopting negative ethics should not only abstain from procreation, but also should have a complete willingness for an ethical death, by immediate suspension of all personal projects in benefit of a political fight[5] or an altruistic suicide, when it becomes the least immoral course of action. — Julio Cabrera Wiki Article
Sufferings are not only natural, but also social: because human beings are put in a situation of scarce time and space to conduce their lives, they are constantly compelled to hurt the other’s projects with their own and to apart the others from attaining their own objectives. (Sartre’s phenomenological descriptions of human conflicts can be of benefit at this point). This I called “moral impediment": instead of saying that all human beings are "immoral", within a naturalized ontology it is more correct to say that they are all "morally impeded". The narrow space full of pain occupied by human beings has morally disqualifying effects, independently from the calculi of goods and harms presented by utilitarian thinkers.
Concerning the issue of procreation, the main reason for not to make people coming into being is not that, in the balance, "pain prevails over pleasure" (something that cannot be asserted in absolute terms given the usual uncertainty of the results in the Utilitarian calculus), but that coming into being means to put someone in the terminal structure of being, to give him or her a being which is in process of termination from the very beginning, independently of the contents of life, a process monotonously characterized by friction, decadence and conflict.
Procreation is morally problematic in the strict measure that we know perfectly well, before birth, that all these natural and social sufferings will inevitably happen to our sons or daughters, even when we do not know if they will like to study English or live in Brazil or eat chocolates or play chess.
To come into being is to be ontologically impoverished, sensibly affected and ethically blocked: to be alive is a fight against everything and everybody, trying all the time to escape from suffering, failure and injustice. This strongly suggests that the true reason for making someone to come into being is never for the person’s own sake, but always for the interest of his/her progenitors, in a clear attitude of manipulation. “Although the ontological manipulation of the offspring is absolutely inevitable, it is perfectly evitable not to bring him or her into being, and this is precisely which indicates the way for a morality of abstention…” (Critique of affirmative morality, page 61). — https://philosopherjuliocabrera.blogspot.com/2011/05/negative-ethics.html
How many times has this phrase been used to gloss over or justify human suffering? Repackage it so it is just inevitable. But it isn't. — schopenhauer1
So life should be a horror show of extreme sacrifice to reduce suffering.. Then we really really gotta double down on that prevention part...more antinatalism. — schopenhauer1
Yes Schopenhauer was about compassion to the extent of sacrifice. Lessening other people's suffering to a "saintly" extent. The problem is, without proper context it is just doing to do.. I can volunteer at charities all my waking life and give away all my belongings.. Now let's extend this to everyone in existence doing this.. Oh wait.. everyone and no one needs help now.. It is rearranging the chairs on the Titanic as an ethical end.. That doesn't make sense. — schopenhauer1
Rather, the context is that we were all brought here and have to deal in the first place. Ironically, religion, with all its mythos and bullshit had the function of reorienting people to existential context. Most people in a post-modern mindset only know the context of the small... little screens of discrete information or simply work/home contexts. The whole Big Picture is lost and given perfunctory anything. Yet the Big Picture is what I am advocating we are constantly aware of (to use one of your lauded words). The picture is We are Fucked and to recognize it.. Dark/existential humor is one way to deal with it.. But that's not enough.. It has to be taken to the conference room, the board room, the political sphere and beyond. In other words... We all love to laugh at dark humor until it's time for work or "something X must get done or Y will happen" (getting fired, products being made, output getting outputted.. losing a house).. Banks, and customers, and investors, and consumers, and owners.. need their flesh and they don't give a fuck if you think life is a burdensome whatever.. Our Desires and Demands and Wants and Needs fuck each other over and over.. Humor is lost.. time to put the "nose to the grindstone" and "self-actualize" and "develop one's skills, talents, and usefulness". In other words comply... There is no getting around it.. No Ultimate Compassion Theory that will drowned the situatedness of existence and historical contingency of human life out. — schopenhauer1
I was hoping to steer away from that topic and address the OP. Looks like that is no going to happen. — I like sushi
but nor is it entirely avoidable. — Possibility
Life IS a case of sacrifice to change suffering, either way. But you orchestrate the overall direction and depth of focus. — Possibility
You’re trying to predict an endgame, but in the end you’ll always come face-to-face with a contradiction. Have another think about your prediction: ‘everyone and no one needs help now’. Regardless of whether or not it makes sense, how is this a bad thing? — Possibility
Because the problem is that there are serious logical and structural errors in the Big Picture that we’re afraid to dismantle, and it has to do with how WE structure politics, money, potential, value and significance in relation to our desires and demands and wants and needs. — Possibility
Immortality projects are one way that people manage death anxiety. Some people, however, will engage in hedonic pursuits like drugs, alcohol, and entertainment to escape their death anxiety—often to compensate for a lack of “heroism” or culturally-based self-esteem—a lack of contribution to the “immortality project”.[4] Others will try to manage the terror of death by “tranquilizing themselves with the trivial” i.e. strongly focusing on trivial matters and exaggerating their importance — often through busyness and frenetic activity. Becker describes the current prevalence of hedonism and triviality as a result of the downfall of religious worldviews such as Christianity that could take “slaves, cripples... imbeciles... the simple and the mighty” and allow them all to accept their animal nature in the context of a spiritual reality and an afterlife.[5] — The Denial of Death WIki
Philosophize This is a really nice series. Well presented and gives a nice overlay of different philosophical thoughts and works. — I like sushi
You seem to be overlooking the superstructures already in place. The situatedness of the current political, economic, and social arrangement. We went over this. I cannot just will whatever arrangement I want. I am always working on something that is a system that is not what I would have wanted. — schopenhauer1
Because the endgame is the only one. It is what Schopenhauer's thesis is (and my OP) from the start. That is, it is all dissatisfaction all the way down. It is at the heart of why we are here, why we need help, why there cannot be a utopia. And in my conception, why we can't meditate our way out. — schopenhauer1
In other words, all our needs and wants as a consumer, producer, are inextribly tied up in other people doing work. Work that you wouldn't do otherwise unless cohersion from your own needs and wants.. There is a "lack" at the bottom of things that we are all unfortunately a slave to. No rearrangement makes this go away.. — schopenhauer1
Dissatisfaction is the rule.. It is the comply or die in one word. The social-economic-historical arrangement is simply how it is carried out. But the core is still there, putting a proverbial gun to our heads. Cultural mores, expectations, and are simply epiphenomenal social "memes" that simply make it easier to accept the situation. Nothing more. — schopenhauer1
We don’t need to be a slave to lack - we feel it, sure, but it doesn’t own us unless we let it. — Possibility
Lack is just an awareness that ‘individuality’ is false at any level of existence. — Possibility
feigning completion in ‘community’ through isolation or ‘teamwork’ through exclusion, with the false notion that we might ‘individually’ appear to suffer less. Rearrangement isn’t about making lack ‘go away’, but about rendering it as a tool, instead of being led around by our own needs and wants as if they have ‘individual’ value to anyone but our ‘selves’. — Possibility
This, to me, is the voice of the agenda, the very cultural illusion we keep arranging to protect ourselves in fear of non-existence. — Possibility
But perhaps our positive vs negative evaluation - this process to render, criticise, redesign and redevelop - is precisely how we’ve been evolving conceptual reality all along, together. Some of us are focused on rendering and criticising, and some of us on redesigning and redeveloping...:smile: — Possibility
But every act of ignorance, isolation or exclusion brings ongoing harm and suffering to ourselves and others that we cannot avoid, because we’re not paying attention to it. And if we value a reduction in suffering overall more than the existence of any single being (which appears to be the essential argument of antinatalism), then we should be willing to endure a little more suffering ourselves, even risk our own death, rather than choose to ignore, isolate or exclude any longer. We just need to be honest with ourselves about this - that nothing we will ever do with our existence is worth more than what we do to reduce suffering for others. And if we’re still alive, then it means we haven’t done enough. — Possibility
I imagine you can this being viewed as wanting something for nothing. Do you view a ‘good life’ as getting something for nothing perpetually without worries of ‘burdens’? — I like sushi
As for the other response you gave I will say the same thing I said to Schopenhauer fellow here … ‘no’ is not a helpful answer for me if am I to understand your position. Why no? — I like sushi
the idea is that any kind of existence is burdensome. It's about a dissatisfaction that would persist even if one had all the health, wealth, beauty, fame, family, friends, etc. in the world. — baker
Again, dissatisfaction rules everything. There is no way out. Not in theory, nor in practice. — schopenhauer1
My latest posts with Possibility (still waiting for a response in last post), is that our dissatisfactions create for each other the de facto forced situation of having to at all comply with the agenda of a society (going to work, paying bills, anythign we do for survival and comfort and entertainment within a broader socioeconomic framework..in our society's case),
because if we don't, we will die (through slow starvation and depredation or outright suicide). — schopenhauer1
Comply or die. Anything besides immobility would be acting on it so de facto X would be acting on it, and it "owning us". — schopenhauer1
We don’t need to be a slave to lack - we feel it, sure, but it doesn’t own us unless we let it.
— Possibility
This I believe is just not true unless death. Comply or die. Anything besides immobility would be acting on it so de facto X would be acting on it, and it "owning us". — schopenhauer1
No that doesn't go together. Lack is an awareness of a feeling of what one doesn't have at the moment. The fact that we are a social animal in order to meet needs is not entailed in that point, though it's entailed in being a human animal. — schopenhauer1
It is all the same, no matter what form. Your words have the appearance of meaning, but no context to chew into.
Give me a glimpse of a vision of what your recommendation how to live looks like? Start there. You give me something, I'll show you where it breaks down into the same. That will be this dialogue over and over. — schopenhauer1
You clearly haven't found some way out.. You too are living in the situatedness as much as I am.. You can write here like you are a sage that knows a different way but you don't have one. — schopenhauer1
Actually, even if you were a deaf, mute, and blind tetraplegic, you could still be in compliance mode. The comply-and-die is first and foremost in the mind. — baker
But every act of ignorance, isolation or exclusion brings ongoing harm and suffering to ourselves and others that we cannot avoid, because we’re not paying attention to it. And if we value a reduction in suffering overall more than the existence of any single being (which appears to be the essential argument of antinatalism), then we should be willing to endure a little more suffering ourselves, even risk our own death, rather than choose to ignore, isolate or exclude any longer. We just need to be honest with ourselves about this - that nothing we will ever do with our existence is worth more than what we do to reduce suffering for others. And if we’re still alive, then it means we haven’t done enough.
— Possibility
There is an old inside joke in Buddhism about Mahayana heaven:
Outside of the heavenly gates, crowds of bodhisattvas bowing to eachother, making a gesture with the hand, saying, "After you!" — 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.