:broken: :heart:

It appears that there's a strong causal connection between self-awareness and suffering. The latter induces/effects the former.

Self-awareness $\propto$ Suffering. The more we suffer, the more self-aware we become.

If so, humans being (most) self-aware, are suffering (the most).

Draw your own conclusions...

If so, humans being (most) self-aware, are suffering (the most).

Draw your own conclusions... — Agent Smith

I've explained in my other threads.. We are the only species that can do this:
"I have to keep justifying to myself why I have to keep doing a task I rather not do in order to survive".

Animals just survive. They don't have to motivate, justify, create stories for why they do. This burden of freedom is touched upon by Sartre when he discusses authenticity. The person is doing something out of authenticity when they don't give up their understanding that they can do otherwise. But it's the bummer fact that doing otherwise is almost always starvation and death that one keeps doing ones undesired role.. and goes back to making the widgets or any X task that may be less than desired.

:up:

We're caught in a trap of sorts - we don't like it (life) and so, we search for justifications to like it (life). That's positive thinking on a whole new level, oui?

Algos & Thanatos (deadly duo of suffering) force us to imagine stuff like souls, the very essence of selves, that somehow survive both kinds of suffering...to live happily ever after. A fairy tale.

We're caught in a trap of sorts - we don't like it (life) and so, we search for justifications to like it (life). That's positive thinking on a whole new level, oui? — Agent Smith

Yep..talk talk talk.. justify justify justify..

Algos & Thanatos (deadly duo of suffering) force us to imagine stuff like souls, the very essence of selves, that somehow survive both kinds of suffering...to live happily ever after. A fairy tale. — Agent Smith

This almost doesn't even matter to me. The boring making of widgets and repeat matters. That's the real. That's First Principles. You need to survive before anything else.

The phenomenology of the contingent harms mixed with the inherent harms of having to survive with the self-reflective capacities of knowing one can do otherwise, yet also KNOWING that really (by default of death and starvation) that one cannot.

Decadent tripe. Nothing is "justified", existence doesn't require "justification" (e.g. Zapffe, Camus, Cioran, Rosset) – being here now is gratuitous. The paradox of freedom, brothers & sisters, comrades & friends! Sisyphus is happy. :death: :flower:

If so, humans being (most) self-aware, are suffering (the most). — Agent Smith

Our "spirtual" glory says Freddy – amor fati! :fire:

Our "spirtual" glory says Freddy – amor fati! :fire: — 180 Proof

Are you advocating fatalism?

Humans have a longer developmental time than other animals. They are ready for the world while we spend our first years creating an image of what life must be. Our expectations are not always met however. You mention Sartre, who I was reading today, and he talks of bad faith and the paradox of conscience. We know that we are conscious but do we know we are conscientious? Someone shouldn't complain that life is unfair unless they have full knowledge of their innocence. Job thought he was perfect but in the trial proved not to be

Are you advocating fatalism? — Agent Smith

I advocate intellectual and moral courage (i.e. ataraxia, ekstasis, non serviam, carpe diem, sapere aude, ...) Whether or not this makes me a 'fatalist', that's not the same as being futilitarian.

I advocate intellectual and moral courage (i.e. ataraxia, ekstasis, non serviam, carpe diem, sapere aude, ...) Whether or not this makes me a 'fatalist', that's not the same as being futilitarian — 180 Proof

Superb monsieur, superb!

Reminds me of Skynet in Terminator. The first thing Skynet thinks of after it becomes self-aware is humans are an existential threat.

Nothing is "justified", existence doesn't require "justification" (e.g. Zapffe, Camus, Cioran, Rosset) – being here now is gratuitous. — 180 Proof

I don't mean justification on a grand scale but on any task we do that we otherwise might not do if we didn't have to survive. Animals don't need this extra layer of,..."Oh fuck today, I'm taking a mental health day cause I don't want to do this today..." Why on earth is there a species that doesn't just "do" what is needed to survive without all the self-reflection? I can choose to do nothing at all and starve myself, but then I'm in that predicament. But I know I am in that predicament.

non serviam — 180 Proof

I am advocating that.

Someone shouldn't complain that life is unfair unless they have full knowledge of their innocence. Job thought he was perfect but in the trial proved not to be — Gregory

Don't know what you are getting at. Just being born doesn't conform you needing to do anything. It is your choice to do whatever you do and to have a justification for you. No one can fill that for you. That is what he means by not living in bad faith. Assuming because you are born you must be conscientious about something is bad faith if this involves some constraint on one's own free choice.

However, what Sartre de-emphasizes here and what I am trying to emphasize to the Nth degree is that we are de facto caught in a place where we are in a situatedness of the already-existing-system that we may not have freely chosen but we have to constantly every moment freely choose to participate in it, lest we want to die by not surviving (starving, no access to the goods/services for survival in the behemoth economic system) or outright suicide. It is that conundrum I am addressing constantly.

But how do you know you haven't in a previous life made this current one with everything happening as it does

The paradox of antinatalism

Those who produce the most children are those who suffer the most (compare birth rates between first world and third world countries). Does that mean antinatalism is bogus? No! In fact the have-nots have more children precisely because they suffer; the argument is mathematical - distribute the load as it were i.e. more the merrier.

The paradox: Suffering, instead of making people averse to birthing children (end suffering), encourages them to opt for larger families (share suffering).

The paradox: Suffering, instead of making people averse to birthing children (end suffering), encourages them to opt for larger families (share suffering). — Agent Smith

I don't think that is suffering as much as traditional cultures. Value is gotten from playing the role of parent. Women think they are being a true woman by birthing. As women and cultures in general become more Westernized, roles such as "careers" become more valued. To me, both values are patently wrong and working out of bad faith.

Also note, the minute you create a person who must "learn to play a game" (like the game of life, the economy, learning to live in a society a certain way), that action becomes morally disqualified. You are forcing someone into a comply or die situation. No one needs to play the game of life. You (the parent) are not a messiah bringing about someone else's curated experiences. No person needs to be born to learn anything. This is delusional messianic thinking on the part of the parent.

Reason does not tell us that death is a harm. It might be a wonderful experience or we might just go into oblivion in which case it is not a good nor a harm. The idea that reason alone tells us that death is a "harm" is yet another example of philosopher's over-extending their conception of reason into areas that it has no business being. Death is the great unknown. Reason alone tells us nothing of its nature. OP perhaps confuses "reason" with "instinct." Many of us have an instinct to stay alive, but reason is something different.

Reason does not tell us that death is a harm. — Moses

Death is part of nature. Like being born or eating food.

On the contrary, I think the OP was correct to say we must be nature view death as a great evil. The truth with this though is that we can unlearn this and find trasendence. Nature is one order of being, while true reality is transcendent. It seems to me we can doubt who we are, doubt what we've done, and if possible change our ways. There are many choices left up to us in life. The worst position is to be stuck saying "this is unfair"

I don't think that is suffering as much as traditional cultures. Value is gotten from playing the role of parent. Women think they are being a true woman by birthing. As women and cultures in general become more Westernized, roles such as "careers" become more valued. To me, both values are patently wrong and working out of bad faith.

Also note, the minute you create a person who must "learn to play a game" (like the game of life, the economy, learning to live in a society a certain way), that action becomes morally disqualified. You are forcing someone into a comply or die situation. No one needs to play the game of life. You (the parent) are not a messiah bringing about someone else's curated experiences. No person needs to be born to learn anything. This is delusional messianic thinking on the part of the parent. — schopenhauer1

Only the rich can guarantee their offspring a life worth living, hedonically speaking. The vast majority of us (the lower & middle income bracket) can't even assure our sons and daughters a decent income, an income which, at the very least, can make life not enjoyable but just tolerable.

Why do people have children?

But is life really about hedonism/maximizing one's pleasure? That seems like an insane way to live. "A life worth living" is a very difficult concept. I was very suicidal when my net worth was at its peak.



I don't understand why death ought to be treated as a great evil. Like @Jackson mentioned it's part of the natural life cycle. Is it really a great evil when a man dies peacefully on his death bed at age 99?

Life is wrong to start irrespective of circumstances. Procreation itself violates the dignity of the person born into a game of comply (must learn to play the game at least well enough) or die. It also puts them into a state of guaranteed suffering. None of this is moral to create for someone else. So..

Why do people have children? — Agent Smith

Many bad reasons one of which is the messianic impulse to be the arbiter for creating someone else a game of overcoming obstacles. No one needs to be born for X reason.

There is no need for anyone to have to experience anything. There is nothing wrong with the state of affairs of”no person”.

None of this is moral to create for someone else. — schopenhauer1

"Moral" in your opinion, which is seemingly based on an extreme sensitivity to suffering and perhaps consent.... no offense but you're on your own planet here. I don't know where your principles are derived from. What if I just don't care that life guarantees suffering? What if I don't view all suffering as bad? What if I don't care/view as morally relevant that being born isn't a choice? Suffering can be a great teacher. One often learns through pain. Suffering allows one to empathize.

What if I just don't care that life guarantees suffering? — Moses

Well, I'd say the suffering has to be qualified..
As you said:
Can it be consented? (No)
Is it trivial suffering (No)
Can it be escaped (no)

Then it is certainly not moral to put this upon someone else.

What if I don't view all suffering as bad? — Moses

Then you are simply using people because suffering is the basis for ethics. If not suffering and it is another X reason, I can only see that as using people.
"You need to learn X thing".. is YOUR pet project above and beyond the dignity of the other person (dignity as represented by not seeing them suffer for X cause, thus using them).
And nobody needs to learn anything a priori.

Suffering can be a great teacher. — Moses

Then you are using people to bring about some messianic cause of yours (to teach people X).

Morality should not be based on USING people to see some ends come about. Already disqualified.

Suffering allows one to empathize. — Moses

Even if this is true, CAUSING someone to suffer so that they can empathize is wrong. It is moral paternalism in its worst sense to believe that YOU are here so that you can bring ANOTHER PERSON into the worlds so that THEY can produce X outcome that YOU want to see out of them. No.

Antinathalists are welcome to leave this world if they wish, yet instead they prefer to stay, suffer and push their decrepit view onto other people.

Schop, I don't want to get too bogged down in details but the main difference in our views seems to be that my metaphysic is theistic while yours is atheistic. You're doing your best to build something within that framework and that's fine. I have a few comments:

-You seemingly define "doing good" as preference fulfillment while I view this as shallow. I think there's a deeper level to a person beyond one's preferences. I don't feel obliged to help the alcoholic acquire drinks or the disabled facilitate their own internalized ableism.

-I like how you bring up dignity but we define it in differently. I define it the way the dictionary does:

the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed

What grounds dignity? IMHO not anything in nature, not anything in the material world. You ever see a man in a wheelchair with spit dripping out of his mouth as he takes 30 seconds on his name? We could go on. Nature doesn't ground dignity. Neither does reason. That needs to be transcendental. Do pigs have dignity? Then why do humans if humans are just animals? Exodus 4:10 provides a grounding of dignity.

EDIT: I can't tell how you ground morality: Human reason? Nature? From where does it find its source. You say that people need to be valued in and of themselves but I don't know from where you reach this conclusion.

OU are here so that you can bring ANOTHER PERSON into the worlds so that THEY can produce X outcome that YOU want to see out of them. — schopenhauer1

You don't get it. It isn't about me. It's about making things better and life is good. Morality can conflict with one's personal wishes so this isn't about what I want. It's just about the good.

yet instead they prefer to stay, suffer and push their decrepit view onto other people. — M777

Yet antinatalists LITERALLY don't do anything to ANYONE. Pushing a view versus pushing a whole life onto someone else. Let's see which one profoundly affects someone ELSE more.

-You seemingly define "doing good" as preference fulfillment while I view this as shallow. I think there's a deeper level to a person beyond one's preferences. I don't feel obliged to help the alcoholic acquire drinks or the disabled facilitate their own internalized ableism. — Moses

I never said that my ethics is preference fulfillment. I did have a previous thread that discussed the idea that if this was agreed as moral then this world is morally disqualified from the start. However, this world is also morally disqualified from the start because by its nature we are using people, so pick your poison.

What grounds dignity? IMHO not anything in nature, not anything in the material world. You ever see a man in a wheelchair with spit dripping out of his mouth as he takes 30 seconds on his name? We could go on. Nature doesn't ground dignity. Neither does reason. That needs to be transcendental. Do pigs have dignity? Then why do humans if humans are just animals? Exodus 4:10 provides a grounding of dignity. — Moses

EDIT: I can't tell how you ground morality: Human reason? Nature? From where does it find its source. You say that people need to be valued in and of themselves but I don't know from where you reach this conclusion. — Moses

To me, it doesn't matter where it's grounded. You can simply base it on the hypothetical imperative:
IF
you believe it is wrong to use people and cause unnecessary, inescapable suffering on someone else's behalf
then
what follows is antinatalism.

You don't get it. It isn't about me. It's about making things better and life is good. Morality can conflict with one's personal wishes so this isn't about what I want. It's just about the good. — Moses

This seems like paternalism at its worst. If the universe was devoid of people, so what? If God had no one to foist "life, the game of" onto, so what? Will he pull a zombie resurrection and then scold everyone for not procreating and continuing his plan? But God wills it right? But he doesn't, YOU will it. You can will to not procreate. Good doesn't matter if no one is here to be good or bad. And I don't know what disambiguated "Good" is. However, using people to me is not good.

By dignity here I mean that harming a person to see X outcome come about (overcoming some struggle to build character, build empathy or whatever else you choose), is indeed using people as a means to some ends and that means precludes the person qua person. When someone doesn't even exist yet to have wants or needs, creating suffering wholesale, for no reason outside of a pet project (the OUTCOME.. character building, or what not), is thus overlooking the person for the thing you want to see from the person. It is then post-facto couched as something that was "good" for the person.. But it was UNNECESSARY as that person didn't NEED to suffer FROM THE START. So no.