As time moves on and we learn more, we often change how we refer to people and places. We used to refer to people and nations in stereotypical ways that most of us choose not to use anymore. I am sure you would not accept, all us Scots, being called mean and tight with money for example.

India has already changed many of its City names from the names imposed by imperialist Britain.
In Russia, Stalingrad and Leningrad are gone. Many countries changed their name after becoming independent by casing off their imperialist conquerors. Is India trying to do something similar here? or is this just Modi's attempt to get a little closer to his real wish, which I think it to re-name the place Hindustan.

Do you think my suspicion of Mr Modi's real agenda here is far fetched Existential Hope? — universeness

You may find these articles on the topic to be of some use:

https://thewire.in/history/bharat-india-hindustan-history

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/in-debate-between-india-bharat-hindustan-missing-8926730/

Those who are asking to drop India may not be comfortable with Hindustan as it has Persian links and is widely used by Muslims. Previous governments also changed colonial names, but those names were not as old as India and neither did they occupy as important of a place in Indian history as India does. Again, the key thing to remember is that people are not demanding that the name should be changed; they are asking for one of the names to be removed. When you see this together with the attempts to distance secularism from the nation (due to its "foreign" roots), the picture that emerges is a murky one. Then, there is also this: https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/theres-a-case-for-we-the-people-to-embrace-a-new-constitution-11692021963182.html

It is true that the word "India" has an external origin. However, the issue is that this mentality of throwing away anything that has a source outside the land has no real end. For example, the word "Hindu" was also coined by those who were not native to the land. India may not have a direct translation to Hindi, but our founders already included Bharat in the constitution. For decades, we have followed the policy of using India in English and Bharat in indigenous languages. India was the word used by almost all of our freedom fighters. Soldiers have died for this name and numerous talented sportspeople have been inspired by the chants of this name. ISRO, which brought India to the Moon, is known as the Indian Space Research Organisation. Is there no point at which the so-called "other" becomes one of our own?

Furthermore, I think that there is a darker element to this. In recent years, some figures belonging to the far side of the right wing (who also favour using only Bharat, ironically enough in English, and dropping India) have begun to advocate the view that ideas such as secularism are colonial concepts that cannot be applied to Indic religions. These people have no love lost for Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru (who were also affected by the allegedly colonial mentality according to these individuals). They tend to downplay caste-based discrimination and also question the widely-accepted Aryan migration theory (preferring to argue that they were natives). Therefore, a shift towards removing India could become a triumph for some pernicious sections of the society.

Having a family and being able to contribute to the survival of humanity (and all that is good) can indubitably be a source of hope and happiness for many. However, as an optimist, I don't think that blindly romanticising procreation is a wise idea. Life has a beauty that possesses a strikingly diverse nature. It is possible the slope to be an enchanting mountain, even if that recognition depends upon one's current position and taking a few steps back.

So existential is considering both the positive and negative as the moral points, while shopenhauer1 is only considering the negative as the moral obligation points to consider. Does that sound about right?

It might just be a conceptualization difference. "Positive" and "Negative" are really relative terms. schopenhauer, couldn't the view point that you're noting is really about making life less negative overall? Which doesn't that translate into the relative idea that you're making life more positive overall? Someone being happy is a less negative experience then not feeling anything at all right? The point is I don't think its possible to compare negative without positive, as negative needs what is positive as a relative comparison. Vice versa naturally.

As for doing this comparison ourselves about having kids, that's extremely difficult. Should Steven Hawking never have been born if science had predicted he would have ALS in the womb and that's all we knew? Deciding to have or not have a kid based on known negatives of the kids life in the future runs parallel to abortion, and that debate is not likely to be settled anytime soon. That's why I think its more important that the person willing to have a child goes in with trying their best, while those who aren't interested should pass on having a kid. — Philosophim

I think that this is probably accurate. I don't think Schopenhauer1 does not see any value in the positives, but it is obvious that they are supererogatory for him. For me, they matter just as much as the negatives do.

To me, actions that make life better or worse are the ones that have moral relevance. However, I am willing to grant that states of affairs that are devoid of a person can still be good or bad in an impersonal sense. What I take issue with is arguing that only the absence of suffering possesses the unique capacity for impersonal value. Although I don't believe that positive experiences must be preceded by negative ones, I do agree that the presence of negative experiences can lead to a greater appreciation for the good.

I respect your nuanced position on this knotty subject.

It would be foolish of me to presume that I can put forth an unbiased viewpoint, but I think that the central issue is having a partial understanding ethics. I find it troublesome when people act as if life is a bubble of unadulterated joy that should never be questioned. Entitled parents act in this manner and this is verily reprehensible. Yet, I also fail to see much substantial value in making everything about risks, harms, and impositions. Opportunities, benefits, and benedictions are also of interest.

Oddly, this is just bolstering the AN point. This is how it works when someone is born (they just live their life without your negative interference). However, from the future conditional perspective, you are not going to start negatives for another. It is not letting known harms occur (that could have). — schopenhauer1

Which is a mirage. Negative interference and positive intervention both have a role to play. The only thing is that an existing person can live a decent life without the latter, whereas there is no life at all before birth.

But we are not talking about unmitigated good are we. Perhaps if a paradise only universe existed and guaranteed you might have some argument. So hey, at least I'm giving you that point! But alas, we know this world is not that. But I'd even argue, EVEN in that scenario, though it is perfectly permissible to go ahead and start that life, not starting it isn't unethical. As you admit, not starting something does nothing for no one. Nothingness doesn't "hurt" anyone. — schopenhauer1

I am thankful to you for your magnanimous attitude. However, I cannot but continue to disagree. If, hypothetically, we lived in a hellish landscape devoid of all love and beauty without any hope, your view would have had immense worth. But as we are not discussing boundless harms, ignoring the good cannot be ethically justifiable. Your next statement about that possible utopia further reflects your deep-rooted pessimistic bias by forgetting about the fact that procreation can also have unimaginable value for those who exist. Finally, not starting anything benefits nobody either.

Getting someone a traditional gift, and handing someone a box of gifts with tremendous burdens are two very different things, and to equivocate the two is rhetorical obfuscation. — schopenhauer1

Receiving a pointless burden that stands in the way of a free and happy life is quite different from being given the very ability to experience the positives (and not by dragging inexistent souls from a superior state of existence). Evasion resides on many territories.

Only totalitarian regimes would force people into opportunities and post-facto justify it. It is totalitarian thinking to think that one forces another's hand in the name of "opportunities" and then say, "Well, let's get the suicide machines out" as a consolation prize. Cringey. — schopenhauer1

Your usage of the word "force" despite the absence of any evidence that demonstrates the desire of non-existent beings to avoid existence is indicative of your excessive faith in the negative. Only dictatorial dispensations would seek to eradicate all potential good due to their failure to observe value in it. It's myopic to think, "Well, I can see that you sincerely love your life, but since you were not there to ask for it, they ultimately mean nothing and, if given the chance, I would have prevented your existence." Is it "cringey"? I cannot answer that. Nevertheless, I believe that it is unfortunate. It's also not as frivolous as getting the machines out. It is undeniably tragic that people have to go through terrible afflictions. Our efforts to address this have to be incessant and multifaceted (without annihilating the good). If no other option remains, being able to find a graceful exit should not be an unconscionable demand.

That capacity exists as a real state of affairs. Again, that is what we mean by "future conditionals". It's not inconsistent to understand how future conditionals work. You are denying a whole range of states of affairs don't exist. — schopenhauer1

I am denying that the absence of states of affairs can be better/worse in any meaningful way without a being. More importantly, I reject the double standard that attempts to devalue that which is positive.

That's the point. Don't bring about X so Y doesn't happen. Cause and effect. Future conditional. If this, then that could happen. Don't do this. — schopenhauer1

X not happening results in A happening instead, which is good for Z. When Z is not there in the first place, the absence of X or A means nothing to Z. However, if it does in one case, I don't see any good reason to think that it doesn't in the other.

You are confusing how epistemology works. Future conditionals are only understood by someone who exists to know "If then statements". It is from the POV of someone who can comprehend "If then statements" that we know this to be true. — schopenhauer1

Not really. It is you, I think, who is projecting value judgements onto nothingness by conflating the absence of a being and the presence of some good that supposedly comes from it. Also, if/them statements stretch beyond the negative.

I hope it wouldn't be too presumptuous of me to put my two cents here by mentioning that this is only a part of my argument against anti-natalism. The other half revolves around the issue with disregarding the good just because there isn't a deprivation, but the absence of suffering is apparently better, even if there is no fulfilment.

I'm sorry it doesn't work that way. I can't assume someone wants me to do a "happy" thing for them. But I can safely assume, and in fact am morally obligated not to purposefully harm someone when I don't have to. Certainly, not because I think the pain intendent with whatever happiness I bestow will be "worth it" in my own estimation. You can't keep doing this reverse role and think it comes out the same. It doesn't. — schopenhauer1

I am sorry, but I am afraid that it does. No matter how many times it is repudiated by some, the fact that the good is relevant is inescapable. Just as one may choose to rescue someone based upon their judgement of the perspective of that person and then find out that they wanted an end without making their action wrong when it occurred, one can also decide to do the right thing for someone else when they cannot attain the positive themselves. In the end, your worldview is far too narrow due to the pessimistic biased that fuel it and restrict it to risks and burdens, not opportunities and gifts. And, once again, for those who exist, not directly harming them can, usually, be enough. This is not a about reversal; it is about not being obsessed with one dimension of life. I think that it is far too deficient of a worldview.

When that person is born, it will be real. That is how the future works. Do you believe in a state called "the future"? Sounds like you don't. I wonder why :roll:. — schopenhauer1

And then, when they do possess the capacity to be harmed and benefitted, we will hopefully behave in an ethical way. I have little time for imaginary goodness or inconsistent ideas.

Future conditionals exist. If you do X, then Y will happen. You are preventing Y from happening. You don't need someone for the statement "Y will happen" to be true, because there will be a person who exists. Get over this argument. It's not a good look. It really shows special pleading and lack of common language usage. — schopenhauer1

They certainly do, but this does not automatically lead to the manifestation of value for someone. If X does not happen, then Y will have absolutely no significance for anybody who is absent. "Common language" and intuitions can be wrong. It is not a good look to arbitrarily argue that the absence of harms can be good sans true benefits, but the lack of happiness is not a worse state of affairs simply because nobody can ask for it.

No because as stated earlier, happiness-giving is not an ethical act but a supererogatory one. Not causing avoidable suffering is ethical though. Even more so, willingly wanting to cause suffering because it brings about good is more than negligent, and certainly misguided. — schopenhauer1

Giving happiness is an ethical act. If you do not cause me pain, you have allowed me to live a happy life, which is good (though, admittedly, it isn't the same as actively doing something for others). The mere fact of practical limitations of providing happiness does not diminish its worth. Not creating positives is unethical. Willingly wanting to prevent all of it because one is unable to look beyond their obstructed perspective is even more wrong-headed.

I don't think so on any substantive level. The person presumably to be born will have varying amounts of happiness just as your friend. The scenario is the same for each so it's not even considering individual levels, just broad experiences like "appreciating friends, art, achievements, etc.". — schopenhauer1

However, I think otherwise and believe that you are mistaken here. It isn't the reality of happiness that is pertinent. Rather, the point is that there is a non-trivial difference between doing good for one who already exists and has a particular state of well-being, and someone who does not. In the former case, current positives should compel us to rethink the necessity of risks, whereas in the latter case, the dearth of any existing level of happiness and interests put the harms and the benefits on equal footing.

I take from Hegel the idea of philosophy as a graveleaping Conversation that accumulates the treasure of experience. You and I largely are that Conversation. It is our substance, that which is most human in us. Here and now we continue to it, trying to compress it, extend its mastery, highlight its relevance. Our work is stored in (potentially anyway) in tribal memory, within this Conversation as part of what gets passed on. In other words, 'theology itself is God' --- or philosophy is the process of divine self-recognition. Humans 'perform' the divine, progressively liberating and empowering themselves through a self-consciously critical and ever-unfinished discussion. — plaque flag

This would gel nicely with the Jnana Marga of Hinduism that is essentially about the divine spark realising its true nature.

Interesting that Marx liked to think of the communist utopia in terms of everyone being both a workman and an intellectual. Fish in the afternoon, literary criticism in the evening, etc. No one is left out of the 'priesthood.'

I can't say that I live in hope for that kind of thing though. I reluctantly accept that utopia will not and even cannot arrive. I wouldn't preach this, try to convince others.

So it's gallowshumor and muted post horns and deep conversations with those attuned to frequencies that I can't help preferring. I still believe in the good, but for me it's very local. I'm kind to strangers that I meet in my little world. I try to tolerate otherness. My way is not the only way, maybe not the best way. That kind of thing. — plaque flag

Even if perfection is elusive, we can always strive to do our best and leave the rest to the lap of the future. The voyage can be prepossessing without reaching a final destination.

Just for clarity, the number three was accidental. Jesus and Socrates are Jerusalem and Athens (two deep sources of our current culture.) Shakespeare throws in London, and he represents a possibility truly other than Jesus and Socrates. — plaque flag

Beautiful accidents can be miraculous. Still, thank you for the clarification.

Slight digression, but I recently read What The Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula. The key point in this context is that the wiseman or saint has to be part of the economy. Does he live on alms ? A holy bum ? Is Diogenes a kind of holy man ? But the issue for me is that this cannot be generalized. Not everyone can play this game. Most people have to marry, breed, work, and enjoy the holy man as an otherness, as a symbol or doll. 'The envelope is the letter.' This may work great in traditional societies, but even there a true renunciation of the world cannot be sincere. The monks are essentially subsidized performance artists. — plaque flag

I wholeheartedly welcome the detour. Indeed, the path of wisdom, the quest for truth, is one that beckons the wiseman, the saint, to immerse themselves in the tapestry of existence. The intricacies of the world, the ebb and flow of life's currents, they cannot be fully grasped from the shores of detachment alone. No, the wiseman is not a mere observer, detached from the economy of being. Instead, they partake in the dance of livelihood, for the world is their stage, and they are both actor and spectator. It is true that the wiseman may be seen as a symbol, a doll in the theater of spirituality, embraced by a world that yearns for transcendence while mired in the mundane. The envelope, as you mentioned, becomes the letter itself. In traditional societies, this interplay may be more pronounced, where the renunciation of the world dances with the subtleties of insincerity. Monks, these performers of devotion, find their sustenance bestowed by those who seek a glimpse of divinity in their otherness.

I don't consider this a shameful thing, but I do want a spirituality to grasp its own role without illusion. That's my inheritance from Socrates and Hamlet -- I want to know myself truly. Someone like Joyce understood the artist to 'forge the conscience' of a people, from within the world, explicitly selling the strange form of scripture known as serious literature. Joyce (an updated Shakespeare figure) had a family, got his hands dirty, got his life dirty, but also articulated a transcendence rich enough to mock itself. Ulysses follows its protagonist to the toilet, because that's part of reality, taking a shit while reading a newspaper. What I'm getting at is the fearless embrace of every aspect of reality (nothing human is alien to me) which is also transcendent, wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove (Leopold Bloom, when pressed by abuse to evangelize for a moment, insists that hatred is no life for men and women ---that love is the point of being here --a stupidly simple message which is nevertheless the truth.) — plaque flag

Yes, I think that wisdom lies in not casting a pitch-black shadow of shame upon this interdependent interlude, for it is within this delicate dance that spirituality finds (or can find) its footing, grappling with its role sans illusion. Your post reminded me of the fact that the aims of a Hindu are not confined to asceticism and negation. Artha (wealth), Kama (good pleasure), and Dharma (righteous behaviour) are also vital. A multi-pronged approach can be of ineffable value. In this mosaic of contemplation, turning our gaze to the artist, as you have rightly done, is inevitable. The artist is the one who wields the pen as a sword, piercing the veils of perception to forge the conscience of a people. Joyce, a maestro of words, understood this symphony. He walked the path of life, gathering its grime upon his hands, while his art bloomed like a lotus in the mire. Occasionally, we stumble upon a truth that is too good to be false. Love can be seen as one of them.

"We must widen the circle of our love till it embraces the whole village; the village in its turn must take into its fold the district, the district the province, and so on till the scope of our love becomes co-terminus with the world."

—Mahatma Gandhi (YI, 27-6-1929, p. 214)

"If love or non-violence be not the law of our being,….there is no escape from a periodical recrudescence of war, each succeeding one outdoing the preceding one in ferocity…

All the teachers that ever lived have preached that law with more or less vigour. If Love was not the law of life, life would not have persisted in the midst of death. Life is a perpetual triumph over the grave. If there is a fundamental distinction between man and beast, it is the former's progressive recognition of the law and its application in practice to his own personal life. All the saints of the world, ancient and modern, were each according to his light and capacity a living illustration of that supreme Law of our being. That the brute in us seems so often to gain an easy triumph is true enough. That, however, does not disprove the law. It shows the difficulty of practice. How should it be otherwise with a law which is as high as truth itself? When the practice of the law becomes universal, God will reign on earth as He does in Heaven. I need not be reminded that earth and Heaven are in us. We know the earth, we are strangers to the Heaven in us. If it is allowed that for some the practice of love is possible, it is arrogance not to allow even the possibility of its practice in all t he others. Not very remote ancestors of ours indulged in cannibalism and many other practice which we would today call loathsome. No doubt in those days too there were Dick Sheppard's who must have been laughed at and possibly pilloried for preaching the (to them) strange doctrine of refusing to eat fellow-men."

—Mahatma Gandhi (H, 26-9-1936, p. 260)

It’s not ethical to judge for someone else the amount of harms is appropriate for the “treat” of goods. In fact, that’s perverse. You are playing god of misery and pleasure on behalf of someone. Remember this “gift” is given, it’s not requested. And they can’t “tweak” it beforehand to their liking or predict what it is. — schopenhauer1

It is not ethical to judge for someone else that a good they could be deeply grateful for should not be bestowed because one has been tempted by the religion of pessimism. Gifting something that cannot be requested is not unethical.

This literally is the scenario on both cases . Future conditional in both cases. You’re non-identify argument is weak and special pleading. I’d drop it. — schopenhauer1

It isn't. In one case, one's actions are affecting a real person. In the other, nobody is being left in a more desirable or less desirable state as a result of what we have done. And if the prevention of harms can be good without a person being there, the prevention of happiness is also bad, even if there is no experience of hankering for the positives. Consistency and consideration for the range of applicability should not be hastily dropped. Although, their robustness is not something to be trifled with.

Not understanding so no comment. — schopenhauer1

Fair enough (and apologies for possible equivocation). All I meant was that the nature of giving happiness differs to existing beings who already have varying levels of well-being differs from those who are yet to exist.

This is still wrong. If I give my friend a car and they might get into an accident is a different calculation than if I give my friend a car but they will get various pains and woes of life. — schopenhauer1

An accident would qualify as a woe, but the car can also save one's life as one is attempting to reach the hospital or enable one to spend time with their significant other, even if they live far away. Unless all the concomitant pleasant aspects of existence are sitting in the car alongside the woes, it would undoubtedly be immoral. And it's not as if the benefits alone are adequate. What also matters is whether these positives would put the person in a preferable state to the one they would have found themselves in without them.

The action isn’t about an existing person, it’s about a future person that could exist. In lingistics this is the future conditional tense. — schopenhauer1

Which is why it has no value. If it can be bad, then the condition is that it can also be good.

Happiness giving is not ethical but supererogatory. If I don’t give someone happiness in my daily life but don’t cause suffering I have done nothing wrong. If I cause suffering, at least potentially I have. — schopenhauer1

A society where people were constantly being bombarded for gifting happiness would be sawing off the branch it was sitting on. For most existing people, not directly harming them is surely enough for them to live lives that they find worth living. However, when one is creating people (a state which nobody prefers), the positives matter as much as the negatives.

It makes all the difference. For a friend (a sentient being with a well-being that deserves protection), one has to act in a way that they do not experience any loss of a good that they never needed to bring sufficient value to their lives. It would be problematic to make someone run a marathon so that they can experience the relief of sitting. The struggle becomes acceptable if the good (like the bliss of relaxing) is absent. Only when we can establish that the benefit would actually be greater than the harms and would not put the person in a worse state than they were before does the action become justifiable. It is evident that non-existence helps (or hinders) nobody. But if preventing suffering is good in an impersonal sense, then providing happiness is also important.

@Tzeentch @plaque flag Many of these positives do exist at the same time with a number of the negatives enumerated here. There is heartbreak , and yet there is a spirit of adventure that can lift one from it.

If one is absolutely sure that the harms would be outweighed by the good, then it would indeed be better to focus on the latter. However, procreation is certainly different because one's actions are not affecting an already existing person who may have interests that diverge from our perspective and who may not require the positives for living a life they value. In this case, one's purportedly benevolent act would either be unnecessary (if the person is already in a state they cherish) or downright detrimental (if it carries overwhelming risks that would destroy the good that is present). When it comes to procreation, there isn't pure knowledge about the future, which is why one has to think about the risks as well as the opportunities. Universal anti-natalism is, I think, obstinately misconceived.

And also Zen. — Wayfarer

The emphasis on direct experience and the interconnected nature of reality are definitely common elements.

Mark Watts who has managed his intellectual property since Alan Watts’ untimely death from alcoholism in his 50’s. — Wayfarer

I am glad that Mr Watts has done so much to preserve and disseminate the valuable ideas of his father.

Believe it or not, Alan Watts has a popular interpretation of this idea. I tossed it to the oracle who responded: According to Watts, the Divine, which can be understood as the underlying essence of all things, is omnipresent and all-encompassing. However, in order to truly experience and know itself, the Divine must temporarily forget its true nature and engage in the illusion of otherness. This is accomplished through the process of incarnation, where the Divine takes on the form of individual beings and forgets its true nature (cf Plato ‘anamnesis’.) — Wayfarer

This is essentially Advaita Vedanta. Brahman, through the power of Maya (often translated as "illusion"), limits himself as a form of divine play (Lila). These limitations then, as a consequence of their ignorance, mistakenly think that the world of distinctions forms the fundamental layer of reality. It is only when non-difference is understood that moksha (liberation) is attained.

"According to the mantra 1-4-10 of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Sri Shankara's commentary to that mantra, it is Brahman which has superimposed limitations upon itself, realizes by the grace of THE GURU who is none other than Brahman Itself, that it is the limitless Brahman Itself. It is Brahman/Atman realizing itself as Brahman/Atman. It is The Infinite which limits Itself and takes Itself to be a 'me' and then, when taught by a Guru who is none other than Brahman, realizes Itself as "I AM ".THIS IS THE DIVINE DRAMA that is being enacted and going on."

—https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2019-October/053468.html

I think that Mr Watts was also influenced by Advaita Vedanta.

As a Hindu, I am inclined towards a panentheistic interpretation, but I do have immense respect for Adi Shankaracharya and Advaita.

Beautiful line ! Entwining echoes gets it just right, and the synthesis is indeed climbing, greater than the sum of its parts. — plaque flag

Thank you very much. And I can't help but agree.

Along these lines, we can imagine a person who understands everyone, who can always look into a soul and find something familiar there, something he knows from the inside. Nothing human is alien to Shakespeare. Everywhere he goes, he finds pieces of his own harmonized internal chaos. Most of these pieces are dissonant, finite, and therefore engaged, attached, trying to prove something, sure that their enemy is truly other. Shakespeare's other is Shakespeare. — plaque flag

So true. I also think that there can be a glimpse of the ultimate symphony as the melange is perceived in its entirety.

Good point. It's impressive to what degree material challenges can be overcome if the mind/spirit is developed and trained to maintain morale and control. — plaque flag

Doubtlessly. The materiality of the immaterial should not be impetuously discarded.

I got the idea from Harold Bloom and James Joyce. I often think of the trinity of Jesus, Socrates, and Hamlet/Shakespeare. The third contains the first two perhaps. — plaque flag

That is quite a novel perspective. It seems that it is inherent in the idea of a trinity that there are unifying characteristics. Hamlet's introspection and philosophical contemplation parallel Socrates' emphasis on self-examination and the search for wisdom. Both delve into existential questions, moral dilemmas, and the nature of truth. Shakespeare, like Jesus, delved into the depths of human experience, exposing the complexities of human nature and exploring themes of love, betrayal, redemption, and mortality. Both Shakespeare and Jesus have had a profound impact on literature and culture. Hamlet's tragic nature can be seen as encompassing elements of both Jesus' sacrificial love and Socrates' willingness to face the consequences of questioning societal norms and challenging authority. In view of this, a synthesis is not an unreasonable conclusion.

Thanks ! Yes I get it now. That's why I was also getting at with my talk of the symbolic realm. — plaque flag

:up:

Let me throw in a psychoanalytic theme too. Projection keeps the rat on the wheel. One way to see the wise man is as someone who embraces fantasy -- who realizes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and cuts out the middle man. There's the meme of the recluse who lives joyfully in the woods in a simple hut, untempted by the vanities of the city, finding enough entertainment in his own wild and yet serene mind, which has incorporated and sublimated the city already. I think of Shakespeare as a great spiritual figure -- as everyone and no one. Some kind of harmonic stasis is maybe achieved, if the body is healthy and safe enough anyway, because the flesh is always the foundation. — plaque flag

I am grateful for the addition of the symbolic realm and the insights from psychoanalysis. It adds a captivating layer of richness to our exploration, like the brushstrokes of a master painter on a canvas of ideas.

Within the tapestry of the symbolic realm, where meanings intertwine and dance, the wise one emerges as a visionary, embracing the wonders of fantasy. They understand that beauty is a kaleidoscope, shimmering and shifting, and they bypass the intermediaries to gaze directly into the depths of their own perception. In their solitary hut nestled within the woods, they find enchantment, undisturbed by the siren call of worldly vanities. Their mind, wild yet serene, becomes a playground where the echoes of the city intertwine and ascend to sublime heights.

Shakespeare, that enigmatic figure, stands as a spiritual giant, a ghostly presence weaving tales that transcend time and identity. In his words, he becomes the embodiment of the human collective, speaking to our deepest fears and desires, capturing the ineffable essence of our shared existence. He teleports between roles, inhabiting the souls of countless characters, and in that fluidity, he becomes both everyone and no one, an enchanter of hearts and minds. I had not thought about Shakespeare as a spiritual leader, and yet, it's bizarre that the interpretation did not come to my mind. Then again, considering my infinitesimal knowledge, it isn't really a surprise.

An equilibrium where inner symphony finds its delicate balance is surely worth celebrating. Here, the body, the foundation upon which our experiences are woven, assumes its role as a sanctuary. When the flesh is nourished and sheltered, it becomes a fertile ground for the blossoming of tranquility and spiritual pursuit. But even without this good, the mystifying resilience of consciousness persists.

Apologies for the brevity of my previous response.

When we talk about non-being as being, we are exploring the idea that there is a deeper reality beyond the transient and ever-changing nature of the material world. This perspective suggests that non-being does not imply a state of absolute nothingness or negation, but rather a state of existence that transcends the limitations and impermanence of the physical realm.

In many philosophical traditions, including Eastern and Western philosophies, there is a recognition that the material world is characterized by constant flux, impermanence, and the ceaseless cycle of becoming and decaying. This restless movement can be seen as a source of suffering and dissatisfaction, as Schopenhauer's quote highlighted.

Non-being, in this context, can be seen as a realm of existence that is free from the constraints of the material world. It is a state of being that is not subject to the transience and instability inherent in the physical realm. It is not bound by the limitations of time, space, and change. Instead, it represents a state of profound freedom, unity, and wholeness. So, one is naturally not speaking about absolute nothingness (if it is even possible).

This understanding of non-being as being can be found in various philosophical and spiritual traditions. For example, in Buddhism, the concept of non-being is related to the idea of nirvana, which is a state of liberation from the cycle of birth, suffering, and rebirth. It is a state of ultimate reality that transcends the impermanent and illusory nature of the world.

Similarly, in Plato's philosophy, the realm of Forms represents a higher reality that is immutable, eternal, and unchanging. These Forms are seen as the true essence or archetypes of the physical objects we perceive in the world of becoming.

This needs to be examined that in order for goodness you need some evil. — schopenhauer1

From a materialistic perspective, I still believe that a bottomless chasm cannot be good or bad for anyone, which is why the possible need for needs does not make the alternative better.

While some evil can allow us to appreciate the good, positive states of being don't require privations, even if they may always exist to a certain extent. Disliking others is not a prerequisite for meaningful bonds (with a person or something more abstract). There is no unrestricted evil. Harms such as loneliness also require a good (a prior feeling of contentment with one's way of life) to exist. The hole does not precede the sheet of paper. There may not be complete fulfilment, but it is also true that good experiences always exist at some level. When I used to suffer from severe pain due to high fever and extreme allergies, there was a distinctly good feeling, undoubtedly subtle at times, that never ceased. Boredom can reflect a wondrous past and a large amount of exhilarating opportunities. It could be that it is "hell" that requires the usage of the term "relative". There are more than a few bathrooms. The indefinable potency of the good cannot be pulverised effortlessly. The time is ripe

Whether true or not about Buddhism, I balk at the idea of the inevitability of being that then must be freed from it. It's my complaint in the other thread. Something is monstrous if the "disturbance" happened from the state of Nirvana. Why the disturbance? Why not Nirvana?

So ensues layers of post-facto reasoning. Here comes that shifty subversive "balance" again :smirk:. — schopenhauer1

Nescience might be inescapable at one level (particularly if we are staring at eternity), but knowledge need not be a mere dream (if that inspires angelic visions for some, I would not be astounded). I do not scurry away from a higher state that transcends the flaws of one kind of existence and is yet not utter demolition.

Reasoning can be multifaceted and be simultaneous (implicitly or explicitly) with the process of arriving at the fact. Balance can act as a bulwark against a blind leap into absolutist affirmations of any proposition that bears the risk of ignoring an indispensable aspect of reality. However, I do understand the value of a reasonable inclination towards a destination (assuming that it exists).

In the depths of a programme, there can be efficiency and wonder that provides something beyond the universal essentials. An anchor to a consequential hope can lead to the materialisation of a genuine good. But this should not translate to untrammelled consumerism.

I don't appreciate the "vision" of multiplying expectations, even if I would prefer the disruption to come from a nuanced understanding of life.

In the end, we will, hopefully, continue to create happiness and passionately defend the positive. The significance of the cause certainly should not be downplayed as the effect (the provenance of which may lie in the abstract realm) is intimately connected to the joys of life.

When the inner light is not extinguished, external sources of succour become less urgent.

Non-being as being (this isn't intentional) closely aligned to being is a fascinating idea. In this perspective, non-being is not synonymous with nothingness or annihilation but rather represents a state of freedom from the limitations and fluctuations of the material realm.

Just for context, I don't count myself as an antinatalist. I'm also not a pro-natalist. I'm nothin' -- I'm a stone-hearted analyst in this context, fascinated by the social logic involved. — plaque flag

I am not a universal pro/anti natalist either. I believe that procreation can be ethically justifiable, but it is not obligatory.

I agree with you. I mean that from a 'greedy' personal perspective it may be good to experience parenthood. Especially these days, with our technology, and especially if you are rich. Joyce is one of my heroes, and the family man experience is useful to a writer in its near universality. But the nonfamily men buy books too, I guess -- maybe more books on average.

'The life of the child is the death of the parent' gestures towards the life cycle to me. Schop liked to talk about insects dying after mating, their purpose served. He really had his eye on the centrality of sex and death. The mating instinct and the nurturing instinct tie us to life, along with narcissist/status projects, some of which are probably delusory escapes from annihilation. — plaque flag

I would say that people of all economic backgrounds can benefit from being able to raise a person, witness their journey, and help them become a better person. Although there undoubtedly are many selfish parents, I wouldn't say that it is impossible to wish to procreate because you want others to experience the positives of life. If this is still greedy or selfish, rhen I would argue that not procreating is also selfish. After all, non-existent beings have no need to not be created.

Schopenhauer, predictably, had a negative interpretation of the life cycle—one thar I don't agree with. It can also be seen as a symbol of continuity. If it were the case that not procreating bestowed a significantly longer life upon someone, ae would definitely find ourselves in an interesting situation. However, since this is not necessarily the case, the life of the child can also be the life of the parent (as, at least in the case of humans, it can give them a purpose that keeps despair at bay). Generation possesses the capacity to transcend annihilation.

I hope that you will have a beautiful day!

One's life does not have to be someone's death if one's is not forced to contribute towards the cause of life by physical or psychological pressure. I would say that procreation can certainly have value, just as life-extension and exploring the esoteric aspects of life do.

Being a pessimistic missionary against the continuation of life is probably slightly worse than frivolous parents ignorantly pushing everyone to reproduce, though I acknowledge that the latter can easily become extremely troublesome.

Burdens and boons both exist. There may be decay, but there is also creation and sustenance of that which already exists.

In the US we are now struggling with accepting diversity — Athena

My recent experiences have shown me that flaws lie everywhere, even in the places where one has traditionally seen acceptance:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/06/godse-cult-gandhi-assassin-india/661154/

https://www.siasat.com/boycott-banner-on-muslim-traders-in-karnataka-temple-fair-2502764/

I think that possibly spiritual experiences can easily be corrupted when people start to bring politics into everything and insist that their interpretation is the only correct one (and every other position is completely wrong or evil). Mahatma Gandhi probably admired the fundamental idea of sacrificing oneself for the truth while not agreeing with every aspect of Christianity (just as he appreciated the discipline and simplicity of Islam without condoning its violence). The following article provides a gripping summary of Mahatma Gandhi's views on Christianity:

https://www.mkgandhi.org/africaneedsgandhi/gandhis_message_to_christians.php

To experience that instead of all the responsibility that goes with living in a democracy, would be wonderful. It is not possible to have that relationship with Jesus or a pharaoh when we hold secular concepts of democracy and a sense of our civic duty that is so much more than periodically voting. — Athena

I can't hope to speak for everyone, but my opinion is that one can have a genuine relationship with their understanding of the divine without relinquishing secularism and democracy if it is not understood as a process of languid devotion to a concept, but as a significant piece of a larger puzzle that also involves helping the fellow sentient being. We don't have to believe that the borders of the "kingdom" are so small or that the "will" is necessarily narrow.

I hope that you will relish the drinks while stealing some glances at the Moon (YouTube could act an a good option in overcast conditions).

:pray:

India is launching a mission to the Moon this month. It's doubtlessly an invigorating time to be alive and behold the astonishing human achievements. They are "totally" ours, yet the legacy of creation has the potential to take us back to source that is reminiscent of what we call consciousness. The direction, however, must remain forward.

If only there was some elasticity already present, sir. Between people for whom the mere suggestion of the pervasiveness of consciousness is blasphemous and eliminativists who deny first-person consciousness exists at all, I am merely attempting to introduce some flexibility. Failure or success here are both too esoteric for me.

I am not entirely convinced of anything (including natalism), but I would certainly agree that I support panpsychism. I don't see it in conflict with all forms of panentheism. The cosmopsychism of Hindu panentheism can avoid the combination problem while providing an underlying unity. It also brings what people call "God" closer to man (too close for many monotheists). Since consciousness is already a part of the natural world, I believe that it would not be impossible that the definition could be extended beyond the strictly physical aspect to incorporate a greater consciousness.

The material reality, according to panentheism, is not separate from God. If natural could someday include the conscious, then perhaps we may not require other words. I think that distinguishing omnipresence as a general claim about the infinite extent of God's power from an actual presence of consciousness in every living and non-living element of reality could be useful. Panpsychists say that consciousness exists everywhere (even in the smallest particle), and that is essentially my view.

By "rigid", I was referring to insisting that only a certain text or interpretation should be accepted while other perspectives and experiences are not worthwhile. And like I earlier wrote, I do think that Brahman does undergo changes due to the inseparable nature of the physical world and consciousness. I would also like to repeat the fact that existence is eternal for Hindus, so the question of being intentionally created for a purpose is not that significant. Nevertheless, I would say that being created would not reduce our available options and our capacity to act in a way that benefits us.

I tend to fluctuate between Brahman and consciousness. As long as the word is not being used to describe a rigid concept of a divine that supposedly provided apparently inerrant ideas given thousands of years ago, I am fine with any choice.

I suppose that the concept of nothing (as a term of negation) could also depend upon the context (nothing in a box would differ from nothing in a vacuum), but I do think that, at the final point, despite the seemingly finite nature of the material reality, pure nothingness does not make sense. I am actually quite sympathetic to the CCC. As a Hindu, I don't believe in creatio ex nihilo (something must always exist according to Hindu panentheism) and prefer a cyclical model (which doesn't go against my theism, or, more accurately, panentheism). This article mentions that Sir Penrose himself seems similarities between his model and Hindu philosophy:

https://nationalpost.com/news/what-does-the-penrose-big-bang-theory-mean-for-religions

In the final analysis, Mr Nehru's relationship with Mountbatten's wife does not dilute the validity of his political stance. — universeness

True

Do you hold that brahman is true?
3m — universeness

As I said earlier, I do believe that consciousness has a higher role to play here and that it exists everywhere (possibly in a rudimentary form as some panpsychists would believe). Although this may go against the beliefs of some Christians and Muslims, it can account for the difficulty in seeing how consciousness arises from a purely material reality. Whether one wishes to all this a mind/Brahman/computer is a matter of preference.

Also, I am not sure if it would be entirely accurate to say that Brahman does not change. Since I don't disconnect the world from the ultimate reality, Brahman must change in at least some way as we change and modify our environment.

Propaganda against the first Prime Minister is a passion for many:

https://www.altnews.in/never-ending-propaganda-to-malign-jawaharlal-nehru-an-alt-news-compilation/

I don't think that claims about Lady Mountbatten make much sense. Not only were these people living livees that were always under the public eye, but Lord Mountbatten, Pandit Nehru, and many others were working so closely together that major incidents going unnoticed was unlikely (especially because there already were people who had begun to spread rumours). Also, here is what Lady Many Pamela said to Karan Thapar in an interview about this:

"I mean a very deep love. The kind of love that the old knights of old, a chivalric love really. Now days everybody assumes that it has to be a carnal love, but you can have just as deep an emotional love with two like souls in a way, people who really grow to understand each other, and to be able to listen to each other and to complement each other and find solace in each other."

In general, I would agree that atheists would have an easier time accepting secular principles than theists who are always tempted to intermix the state and religion. Personally, as a theist, I simply don't see much good coming from doing so.

Concerning theism, reason, and human achievements, I would say that human achievements are ours alone. Even if there is an ultimate mind/consciousness, we (or the material world) are not separate from it (this is what distinguishes this view from traditional monotheism) and our ability to reason is simply a smaller version of something grander. At the same time, one's will and the good they do with it are their own. I am not even sure if the possible all-pervasive consciousness is actually "supernatural" rather than a higher aspect of nature that could be understood someday (panentheism and panpsychism, which also interests non-theists like Goff, do often interact with each other). I certainly would not say that people were simply created out of absolutely nothing for the good of a celestial dictator. Rather than conduits, we can discover reflections of the ultimate. Hindus believe in a cyclical model in which individuals have always existed in some form. Mahatma Gandhi frequently focused on truth over scriptures and religious authority. I, too, think that to believe that some texts written thousands of years ago contain unblemished knowledge would be to disregard the trajectory of evolution and the necessity to keep learning. Here, the Nasadiya Sukta (a prominent part of Hinduism) comes to one's mind:

"Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
Gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whether God's will created it, or whether He was mute;
Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not;
The Supreme Brahman of the world, all pervasive and all knowing
He indeed knows, if not, no one knows"

—Rigveda 10.129 (Abridged, Tr: Kramer / Christian)
(Here, "Gods" refers to the kind of anthropomorphic conceptions of a higher power.)

Hopefully, we will continue use our fascinating faculties for the good of all.

I am going to boldly risk looking a complete ass because the temporary pain of publically making a fool of myself is minor to what I can gain from someone with your understanding. — Athena

There is much that I do not understand, but I sincerely appreciate your choice to consider my opinions.

What you wrote does make sense to me. I think that we would err to presume that the journey towards the good ends during a particular point in our finite existence. While having discussions with some antinatalists, I was intrigued to see how often this fact of deficiency was brought up to indict life. I think that this perspective, despite being understandable, is unidimensional. Why would one not adop a similar approach towards the negatives and argue that problems only arise when life is at the gates of hell itself? Also, even though we may not achieve perfection in this life, we always have a seed of the good and the truth that can grow into a giant tree. All of us may sometimes find ourselves wrestling with desires and thoughts that are contrary to our ultimate aim. What makes the difference is, as in your case, being able to recognise the unethical deviation and correcting it. Sure, perfection may remain unattainable, but we can still possess more than adequate goodness.

"I am but a poor struggling soul yearning to be wholly good-wholly truthful and wholly non-violent in thought, word and deed, but ever failing to reach the ideal which I know to be true. I admit it is a painful climb, but the pain of it is a positive pleasure for me. Each step upward makes me feel stronger and fit for the next."

—Mahatma Gandhi, YI, 9-4-1924, p126

As regards the way of life we should prefer, I think that the manner in which the Mahatma discerned the value everywhere can serve as an inspiration for us. This is what he, as a Hindu, thought about the various religions of the world:

"I believe in the truth of all religions of the world. And since my youth upward, it has been a humble but persistent effort on my to understand the truth of all the religions of the world, and adopt and assimilate in my own thought, word, and deed all that I have found to be best in those religions. The faith that I profess not only permits me to do so but renders it obligatory for me to take the best from whatsoever source it may come."

—Harijan, 16-2-34, p. 7

I believe that the example of people such as Mr Deepak demonstrates the pitfalls of being parochial. It is true that ideas such as secularism might have external origins, but that does not mean that it, with some modifications, cannot qualify as a useful tool for strengthening democracy. Eastern knowledge regarding consciousness and Western scientific implements can be an area of cooperation. In the final analysis, it will be a story of the progress of life.

I would love to know the books he read because this explanation of him makes me think he was literate in Greek and understood the reasoning for democracy as it came out of Greek philosophy. I don't think religion is compatible with democracy. I think the religions have more agreements than disagreements, but their mythologies explaining human behavior are whacky. I like the notion of reincarnation and it might be part of reality but until we can test and validate that we should not be too sure of that possibility. — Athena

The fact that he wrote much of his work from prisons says something about his erudition. As a Hindu, I am unsure if religion is incompatible with democracy if it is restricted to an individual practice that also acts as a fount of unity. What I am convinced of, howebeit, is the need to separate politics and religion. Whether this conflation is done by Dharmic/Indic religions or Abrahamic ones, the results do not seem to be particularly desirable.

I should also mention that Pandit Nehru was probably a pantheist who perceived both positive and negative elements in religion. The following quotations from 'The Discovery of India' bespeak this:

"What the mysterious is I do not know. I do not call it God because God has come to mean much that I do not believe in. I find myself incapable of thinking of a deity or of any unknown supreme power in anthropomorphic terms, and the fact that many people think so is continually a source of surprise to me. Any idea of a personal God seems very odd to me. Intellectually, I can appreciate to some extent the conception of monism, and I have been attracted towards the Advaita (non-dualist) philosophy of the Vedanta, though I do not presume to understand it in all its depth and intricacy, and I realise that merely an intellectual appreciation of such matters does not carry one far. At the same time the Vedanta, as well as other similar approaches, rather frighten me with their vague, formless incursions into infinity. The diversity and fullness of nature stir me and produce a harmony of the spirit, and I can imagine myself feeling at home in the old Indian or Greek pagan and pantheistic atmosphere, but minus the conception of God or Gods that was attached to it."

"Religion, as I saw it practised, and accepted even by thinking minds, whether it was Hinduism or Islam or Buddhism or Christianity, did not attract me. It seemed to be closely associated with superstitious practices and dogmatic beliefs, and behind it lay a method of approach to life's problems which was certainly not that of science. There was an element of magic about it, an uncritical credulousness, a reliance on the supernatural. Yet it was obvious that religion had supplied some deeply felt inner need of human nature, and that the vast majority of people all over the world could not do without some form of religious belief. It had produced many fine types of men and women, as well as bigoted, narrow-minded, cruel tyrants. It had given a set of values to human life, and though some of these values had no application to-day, or were even harmful, others were still the foundation of morality and ethics."

I would credit the Greek philosophers for secularism. — Athena

He could have received the idea from sources like this one:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/03/17/the-rise-of-secular-religion/

Irrespective of the origins, the kernel of the issue lies in upholding the catholicity of Hinduism while constructing narrow walls between "us" and "them". This goes against the Upanishadic claim "Ekam sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti" (Truth is one, the wise perceive it differently). The world has already suffered severely as a consequence of our failure to learn from each other and respect that which is good. We don't have to propose that distinctions are illusory, but making all the bridges collapse is unlikely to be a decent proposition. I hope that we can continue to do the right thing.

May you have a great day/night!

I have declared myself a democratic socialist and a secular humanist, consistently on TPF. — universeness

Your comment reminded me of Wikipedia's description of Pandit Nehru:

"Jawaharlal Nehru (/ˈneɪru/ or /ˈnɛru/;[1] Hindi: [ˈdʒəʋɑːɦəɾˈlɑːl ˈneːɦɾuː] (listen); juh-WAH-hurr-LAHL NE-hǝ-ROO; 14 November 1889 – 27 May 1964) was an Indian anti-colonial nationalist, secular humanist, social democrat,[2] and author who was a central figure in India during the middle third of the 20th century. Nehru was a principal leader of the Indian nationalist movement in the 1930s and 1940s. Upon India's independence in 1947, he became the first prime minister of India, serving for 16 years. Nehru promoted parliamentary democracy, secularism, and science and technology during the 1950s, powerfully influencing India's arc as a modern nation. In international affairs, he steered India clear of the two blocs of the Cold War. A well-regarded author, his books written in prison, such as Letters from a Father to His Daughter (1929), Glimpses of World History (1934), An Autobiography (1936), and The Discovery of India (1946), have been read around the world. The honorific Pandit has been commonly applied before his name."

There are those in India (or, as those belonging to the further side of the right wing of the political spectrum prefer to exclusively say, Bharat) today who accuse Pandit Nehru of possessing a colonial mindset as he encouraged ideas such as secularism that weren't "indigenous". People such as J. Sai Deepak argue that secularism emerged out of Protestantism and that Semitic/Western principles cannot be applied to Hindus (even though Pt. Nehru never made secularism synonymous with atheism/thoughtlessly attacking religion or Dharma). The strange thing is that these are the same people who talk about the tolerance of Hinduism. However, the spirit of genuine pluralism that guided Mahatma Gandhi and others appears to be missing. For the Mahatma, the common experiences of all men and women and the constantly evolving nature of India's demographics meant that indigeneity was not a rigid concept that ignored the good that lay elsewhere. His emphasis on equating what he considered the divine with truth itself (his autobiography is called 'The Story of My Experiments with Truth') made him seek value everywhere. Mindless competition will spell doom for us. As degradation continues, one can only hope that reason will prevail.

You are from India? I have been so wanting an Indian point of view. — Athena

It's an honour to be of some use. I cannot possibly hope to represent the views of more than a billion people, but from my experiences, I would say that there value can be present everywhere if we refuse to hurriedly take things too far. Not having collective awareness will lead to the sort of problems that you mentioned. But if group identity starts to utterly dominate our minds, we begin to terminate the individual and end up harming ourselves. Examples of this in India could be parents wanting their children to choose only a few career options for the sake of tradition or the good of the family and people blaming an entire community without caring about the fact that individual opinions can vary. This is why your point about the impact on everyone is so significant. "Everyone" makes it transparent that we are, ultimately, not dealing with some monolithic organism, but people. We should respect the beauty of the diversity of the sentient experience without turning a blind eye to our deepest threads of unity. This would allow us to sincerely seek the truth as egotism and antagonism would give way to concern for the fellow being and a more profound comprehension of our shared existence.