Really though, nobody understands the entirety of a complex modern machine (including social machines like governments). They may understand how to use it, or understand a single component by itself (which is useless by itself), or the may have a vague high-level understanding of how all the components work together, but no single person can possibly understand a machine in its entirety, let alone all of the machines that are now used in our lives; nor can the average person have any real say on anything either.

Gone are the days where tool-making went alongside tool-using, with every step of the process being understood by everyone. Now we have experts, specialization, technological giantism, etc. — _db

Wasn't Edison's lab the model for the modern groups of engineers/technicians who create the patented technology? Also the Fords and early chemical manufacturers. The knowledge was specialized, but these groups are brought together and then the worker simply fabricates and fixes it. The consumer consumes it.

It all leads back to forces much greater than us that are the backdrop of our throwness. Those who get to put together these groups of creators and manufacturers being more embedded in the vast ocean for which we consume and are bandied about as laborers upon the waves of.

I just wanted to add that I think this title would look great on the NYT best seller list: Series in Pessimism, by Schopenhaur1.

But you can exit life. Just don't let the hospital get a hold of your half dead body, they'll resuscitate it. — frank

You might not be far off. I believe Schopenhauer's best selling books were his essays and aphorisms that are found under the title Studies in Pessimism.

Resigning and moving on is not really resigning though is it as you’ve merely transformed or exchanged your game for another (easier/harder)

Euthanasia says otherwise regarding your second point. — Deus

But that's the point. Intra-worldly, you exchange games. The treadmill continues or you die. There is no reprieve from the treadmill.. There is no time out.. A Platonic land of rest. Once you are thrown into the world, you must keep treading along.

‘I won’t play any more,’ you too, when things seem that way to you, say, ‘I won’t play any more,’ and leave, but if you remain, don’t complain.” — Ciceronianus

Tread or die.. Don't tread on me.

I thought we're just pawns in the game. :chin:

But you aren't thrown into the world. A part of the world coalesced. And that life that you were grew, that is did what life does. It's as if you are something other than your body and got put in a body. But you are a body and bodies are life and participate, given their nature, in life. And one can de-coalesce if one chooses. But that body wants life as shown by it's growing and multiplying and seeking food and experience. Yes, later it may no longer want it and then would need to take measures to de-coalesce, but there is no someone to get thrown in and the moment that someone exists, like all life it strives for life, an engaged participant. There's no you trapped in that thing yearning for life that doesn't want life, though humans, later can change their minds.

like all life it strives for life — Bylaw

Really? If humans live in society and people don’t like the workings of society, isn’t that rejecting life? All the people who reject society refute that idea we strive for life. We are existential beings because we are self-aware. We could do other than instinct. So I fully disagree with this. The problem is, once a life is started, that person MUST go through the gauntlet or die. Since there is no alternative, starting a life on behalf of someone else is problematic. Human life becomes problematic because of its lack of options outside the premises of life. We humans can IMAGINE better scenarios or games, but we KNOW we can only play this one.

No complaining, please.

Really? If humans live in society and people don’t like the workings of society, isn’t that rejecting life? — schopenhauer1

Well, that would be rejecting society not necessarily life. But my point doesn't hinge on that. The way you framed the issue was as if someone was thrown into life. But really they only ever existed as life. And when they begin that life (as a fertilized egg, in the womb, on the way out, however you think of the beginning) they are life that wants life, that will eat and will grow. Later, yes, some humans anyway may decide they don't like life and then they have the option to end it.

e could do other than instinct. So I fully disagree with this. — schopenhauer1

Sure, we can. But there is no creature that wants to who is thrown into life.

The problem is, once a life is started, that person MUST go through the gauntlet or die. — schopenhauer1

Yes.

No complaining, please. — Ciceronianus

Request denied. Imagine having the possibility for no choice though. I mean I could have complied :wink:. Not in the case of life. Comply or die. And you or I can move on to something else (infra-worldly affairs). Not so in the life treadmill game. You’re on it and if you want off, you are out.

they are life that wants life — Bylaw

No, a parent wanted a life. A decision was had based on a reason. We are a species with reasons. I had a whole thread on this which poster @Banno and @Ciceronianus didn’t seem to get the import of.

Later, yes, some humans anyway may decide they don't like life and then they have the option to end it. — Bylaw

That’s also the point. There is no better version of the game of life (inter-worldly affairs) and so all you can do is kill yourself if you don’t like it(or die from a mishap from playing the game itself but that’s still affirming the game).

No, a parent wanted a life — schopenhauer1

That doesn't contradict what I said. I didn't said a child chose a life. But that matter that was made after the choice of the parents wanted life, it strove for life. You cannot birth something that does not strive for life or it will miscarry. There is no bringing into life something that doesn't want life.

That’s also the point. There is no better version of the game of life (inter-worldly affairs) and so all you can do is kill yourself if you don’t like it(or die from a mishap from playing the game itself but that’s still affirming the game). — schopenhauer1

I'm not arguing that one can change the game of life.

it strove for life — Bylaw

That’s more social conditioning. Babies don’t decide things yet. We tend to get hungry and fear scary stimuli. But to equate that with a reason for embracing life’s game is a naturalistic fallacy.

That’s more social conditioning. Babies don’t decide things yet. — schopenhauer1

I am talking about an organism doing what it can to live, both on a cellular level and to whatever extent it can as it can move. There is no incarnating a not wanting life organism.

I'm not arguing that one can change the game of life. — Bylaw

That’s good because that’s exactly my point. You start a treadmill that the person can by it’s nature cannot be ended without simply death. There is no platonic heavenly better way except what we can imagine and cannot attain.

But to equate that with a reason for embracing life’s game is a naturalistic fallacy. — schopenhauer1

I never said anything about embracing life's game, whatever that means.

I am talking about an organism doing what it can to live, both on a cellular level and to whatever extent it can as it can move. There is no incarnating a not wanting life organism. — Bylaw

That’s great but doesn’t quite capture human like (I.e a self-aware being that has reasons).

I never said anything about embracing life's game, whatever that means. — Bylaw

Life striving to live you said etc

That’s great but doesn’t quite capture human like (I.e a self-aware being that has reasons). — schopenhauer1

I didn't say it did. I responded, I think pretty clearly, to this idea of a parent throwing someone into life. A someone who may or may not want life. I think that model is confused.

Life striving to live you said etc — schopenhauer1

Sure, and it does.

I didn't say it did. I responded, I think pretty clearly, to this idea of a parent throwing someone into life. A someone who may or may not want life. I think that model is confused. — Bylaw

You are using “throw” as some literal term. It just means starting someone else’s life on the treadmill. Equivocating the fact that babies can’t reason/have reasons/aren’t self aware yet with”life striving” and THUS some other implication about life (that we want it?) is confused and again, a naturalistic fallacy. Our reasons don’t have to confirm with any instinctual mechanism.

You are using “throw” as some literal term — schopenhauer1

Not really, but I am taking it as a transitive verb. I mean, even as a metaphor it means transferring something somewhere. But that is not what happens. Any life was only ever life.

The problem with it as a metaphor (and certainly literally) is that it is as if a parent is putting some neutral essence into life. But no, this does not happen. Any life they create immediately desires life, the organism does, and strives to live. You can only create something living that immediately strives to continue living.

It is not some neutral or negatively aimed at life. It is life that wants to live more.

It seems like you are presenting this as putting someone in a situation it may or may not want. But no, parents can only make life.

Any life they create immediately desires life, the organism does, and strives to live. You can only create something living that immediately strives to continue living. — Bylaw

My previous post still remains my reply.

It is not some neutral or negatively aimed at life. It is life that wants to live more. — Bylaw

And this is explicitly the naturalistic fallacy as stated in last post

It seems like you are presenting this as putting someone in a situation it may or may not want. But no, parents can only make life. — Bylaw

Life that leads to a person with self-awareness and reasons. The parent chose to do it, and the adult functioning person is the one who deals with it (run on the treadmill or die).

You’re on it and if you want off, you are out. — schopenhauer1

But that's the case with games, as well. When you resign (e.g., in chess) the game is over--you're out. You may play chess again, but in that case you play a different game, you don't play, again, the game you chose to end by resigning.

You may play chess again, but in that case you play a different game, you don't play, again, the game you chose to end by resigning. — Ciceronianus

The point is you are not forced to play chess lest you kill yourself.

↪schopenhauer1

No complaining, please. — Ciceronianus

He can't stop himself; "complaining", you see, expresses schop1's will to live. :death:

It is not some neutral or negatively aimed at life. It is life that wants to live more. — Bylaw


And this is explicitly the naturalistic fallacy as stated in last post — schopenhauer1

That is absurd. First of all, I am not a moral realist. I don't think morals exist. I was not mounting a moral argument. I was reacting to an implicit moral argument on your part with a description of what I think is a factual issue. The fetus and babies will seek out more life.

I have not argued that having babies is good. I don't think that even makes sense.

You are misapplying the concept of natural fallacy.

We havta ponder all the negative aspects of life; it's a necessity if we're into selling life tickets (making babies). Explore all angles, every which way life sucks. To not do this is bad for business. @schopenhauer1' Series in Pessimism threads are crucial therfore.