So besides being snarky, what are you getting at? Either list some real harms or move on.

We are surrounded by harm.

No, that would be a conclusion from all this harm. But I did mention inconsiderate people. Also mentioned was any hostile, bitter, stressful, spiteful, resentful, disappointing experiences with interperonal relationships with close friends/family, acquaintances, and strangers

Sure I feel down every now and then, and I recognize the constant 'background' suffering that motivates my actions (eg, I seek entertainment out of boredom, relationships out loneliness, food out of hunger, etc), but I still enjoy things by and large. I have some good relationships, I'm optimistic about the future, I enjoy my interests, my work is bearable, food is good. — dukkha

So, yeah you have a choice to try to emulate the detached stoic.. or you can realize that human psychology pretty much sets things at the usual bar of "when things are going well, I forget or want to forget what it was like when things did not go well"..

One can be a philosophical pessimist without being psychologically pessimistic. — dukkha

I agree.. One can think that the logic of antinatalism is such that suffering will occur, etc.. and still be quite happy with current circumstances.. Of course, hope can be a tricky thing as well- it sets up disappointment, but also provides the carrot and the stick.

Of course I don't know you and might be totally off base, but from what you write it sounds like you hardly enjoy anything, or find anything to be worthwhile and meaningful. You might be clinically depressed and are gravitating towards philosophical pessimism and anti-natalism, because it's a way to justify and explain your horrible experience. ''I feel horrible because life itself is horrible'' kind of thing. — dukkha

You are correct in not knowing. I've written many things, mainly in the old Philosophy Forum about being a Philosophical Pessimist without being depressed as you explained above.

Being depressed can feel like you're seeing the truth of the world - that life is actually just constant psychological and physical suffering, meaninglessness, and has no value. This is simply not true, there are plenty of joys in life, but you can only experience them if you're not suffering from clinical depression. I would be very careful to not fall for this 'truth' aspect of clinical depression. It really feels like you're seeing and experiencing the world how it truly is deep down, almost like you're enlightened to the fundamental nature of reality (suffering, void, worthlessness). Happiness experiences can feel fake and unreal, and you can feel as if you only feel happy about x or y thing, or are only having z enjoyable experience because you're not experiencing some suffering or another as much. For example, you might feel that the 'joy' of eating is nothing more than a reduction in the suffering of hunger, and you might as well just not have felt hungry in the first place because all you've achieved is reduced your suffering to the same neutral level of suffering the dead are privy to. What was the point, you'd be better off dead. — dukkha

No, I quite enjoy eating.

This is not true. There is plenty of joy/enjoyment to be had in this world. Actual pleasurable and net positive sensations do exist and can be experienced. Relationships truly can be a great source of meaning and fun - you just have to find someone you like, and not be suffering from clinical depression. It's hard to see the worth in life when it's literally impossible for you to enjoy anything because you're depressed. — dukkha

So, did you read the posts as to WHY these broad themes like "relationships" are not as pleasurable? It is not that I don't think they can be, but it is the difference between analog and digital.. The digital response when asked post-experience or in summary is "relationship yay".. the analog of living through the seeking, cultivating, maintaining, etc. can be quite different and more nuanced.

I mean how much deep down do you really care about preventing the suffering of non-existent unborn people? Not saying you're lying or not being genuine, there just might be other motivations at work here aside from just empathy in espousing and convincing others of anti-natalism. For example, it might bring you psychological comfort to have other people confirm and validate your pessimistic views. — dukkha

Yeah, you are not uncovering any underlying truth here about my motivations.. I even say it quite clearly in my last post:

This is where antinatalism can be a philosophy of consolation.. Not out of its practical implementation, but more out of an embracing of one's own dignity as an individual.. Understanding this pessimistic/antinatalist ethic instills in the individual the understanding that even though they find themselves in existence and are trying to make meaning and dealing with suffering, and are told that they are given the the "opportunity" to pursue personal ends (like contributing technology, meaningful work, intimate relationships, "flow" activities, entertainment, , etc.), that none of these things are guaranteed, and that much of them cause harm, and that we are all just coping at this point, swinging the pendulum between survival through cultural upkeep and maintenance, and turning boredom into entertainment goal-seeking. — schopenhauer1

I guess an existentialist might ask "Are you genuinely and authentically" following your system or are you doing it because that is what the wise philosopher MUST do? Are you trying to fit into an image, or genuinely doing out of your own authentic self? This might be trickier than it seems..as who is to say if you trick yourself into believing this or that notion or if it is in fact something you really "feel" is correct. Is it something that "seems" like it works because it "seems" to work for everyone else, or is it something that genuinely fits your understanding of the world that is unique to you? I guess that is how an existentialist might integrate or not integrate a systems approach..

This post is not necessarily meant to avow or disavow systems or existentialism.. just trying to answer the question as to how one might inform the other or how they can be related.

@Bitter Crank
I think I lost my own point amongst all this pragmatic "solutions" to the problem.. My point was that if pair-bonding (or some sort of intimate bond relationship) is such a vital and meaningful part to our social existence, life certainly does not provide a guaranteed, easy, or even clear way to attain and keep such a high priority.

My point earlier about technology/science is how that too has nothing about it which makes life meaningful. There is no reason to have children so that they can experience or contribute to technology, despite the rhetoric by some that this must be so.

My point earlier about the group (and specifically work) I said:
"As far as life is expressed by the work we do.. I don't know, that's a pretty romantic vision of work. It seems like an ad hoc justification for a forced activity. Saying "Hey, we all have to work, but maybe you can find work that expresses your creativity", does not take away the fact that we are FORCED to work, whether there is a benefit we might get out of it or not. The forced part might be the sticking point here.

You also mentioned luck which is a good point to bring up. Free labor markets have an element of luck to it. There is no way to know what jobs might have been the most optimal, where they are available, and how good they will be once you actually start working there. Also, some people just might be at the right place at the right time, and some may not leading to two completely different career paths- one more to the liking of person a one not as much to the liking as b. Moving from one job to another is stressful and has many costs so it is not just about "jumping ship and leaving". However, the luck aspect which you brought up is really secondary to the main problem which is that work is a forced situation."

Anyways, the point is that we are forced into life, and we make ad hoc reasons why it must be meaningful since, you know, we are already here.

This is where antinatalism can be a philosophy of consolation.. Not out of its practical implementation, but more out of an embracing of one's own dignity as an individual.. Understanding this pessimistic/antinatalist ethic instills in the individual the understanding that even though they find themselves in existence and are trying to make meaning and dealing with suffering, and are told that they are given the the "opportunity" to pursue personal ends (like contributing technology, meaningful work, intimate relationships, "flow" activities, entertainment, , etc.), that none of these things are guaranteed, and that much of them cause harm, and that we are all just coping at this point, swinging the pendulum between survival through cultural upkeep and maintenance, and turning boredom into entertainment goal-seeking.

I get that there are numerous modern avenues to try to make friends and meet partners. This is certainly not guaranteed. Again, I maintain my original premise that relationships are unevenly distributed whether people seek it out, or it just happens organically. And as you acknowledge, many times relationships are a source of harm once obtained, so there's that too. We play at trying to disturb life's dull void with this and that.. and it leads to suffering much of the time.. We cannot stand the void, and we cannot stand the flux with disturbing the void (whatever pursuits we seek).. But always avoid the Noid.. whoops.. I got carried away there.

We are born and the void is disturbed.. we must further disturb it with our goings about with various cultural pursuits of survival and entertainment goal-seeking. Is the void real or just a placeholder for the ideal of calm/tranquility which is rarely obtained? Obviously the latter so don't start bringing up ideas that I am not trying to make..the literalists in here.. you know.. the people who will immediately call out that there is no void without someone to perceive it yadayada.

Do you really believe that you are better off without any relationships? Do you live out that belief, avoiding friendships, avoiding human contact and keeping solitary as much as you can? Unless you do that, it seems that you are arguing for a position that you do not believe. — andrewk

This started off more about intimate pair-bond type relationships (or more for the polyamorous type?). But it isn't too plausible to stretch this out to any type of relationship. I'm not saying I personally avoid people at all. However, it is not inconceivable that many people do not find good "partners" or any "partners", have but shallow friendships, find themselves alone amongst other people because there is not much common ground, etc. etc. There are a multitude of ways that people simply don't, cannot, or are not in the right circumstance connect with others.

If you do think you live that out, have you reflected on why you participate in a forum like this rather than just reading philosophical books and papers? Are you sure that wanting human interaction is not a part of that? — andrewk

My claim is not that people do not or should not seek out relationships.. quite the contrary. It is rather that because it is such an important thing in our lives (to be social.. to have intimate partners, to have friends) that it is

1) highly circumstantial in organic nature of development (it is not something that you just "will" it sort of happens out of repeated events with the same person that you have mutual interests, proximity to, and other connections) and unevenly distributed.. This is especially so with intimate relationships but again, can be expanded to simply "good friends". Thus some people seem to have a lot of strong connections with intimate lovers and friends, and others do not.

2) Good intimate relationships are hard to cultivate, and even when they do persist, they lead often to frustration, annoyance with the other person, boredom, etc., and can easily be lost after much hard work in gaining and maintaining the relationship.

I understand what you say here, it's interesting, but quite different to my perspective. So are you saying that it is the will which is directing the form of the representation, in its striving towards its goals?
Is the representation the experience of the being, or is that something else? — Punshhh

Well this is Schop's ideas.. I'm just presenting them. I don't necessarily agree with his metaphysics, though I sympathize and have my own understanding similar to his. He does not explain how it is that an atemporal Will can "objectify" if it is monisitic, but this can be due to the nature of how hard it is to convey a non-spatial/temporal concept in a conceptual way. Also, he has to deal with the odd notion that if representation starts with the first organism and the Will is flipside of phenomena, the first organism has to be in an odd way eternal.. Perhaps if he pushed back representation to simply the first matter/energy, that might repair this, but then you have an eternal universe, which may or may not be true.

To answer your question, yes Will IS in a way the forms represented, somehow imbuing Platonic essences that will then be further individuated in space/time. I also have trouble accepting his Platonic Ideas in the metaphysics which seems to be a mediator for Will go from monistic flow, to individuated objects in space and time.

That's just anecdotal. One might as well say 'sometimes food tastes nice and sometimes it doesn't, so there's no point in eating it'. — andrewk

But that's a false equivalence. Food is pretty easy to find these days.. one's that are easier to satisfy tastes than presumably something as substantial as a relationship.

What matters is not whether there are sometimes bad relationships or bad food, but whether having food or relationships is in general conducive to our flourishing, and in both cases the evidence is an overwhelming Yes. — andrewk

What is flourishing here? And what is general? The so-called "majority".. this committee of people that become the standard for others?

There are people in life who have no relationships. They are those who because of bad luck or bad management have ended up isolated in life - living alone in an apartment on a pension, with no visitors or people ringing their phone, nobody that they go out to meet and talk to. The option of living like that is available to anybody that is retired on a pension, and for those not yet old enough to retire, there exists a halfway house of going to work to earn a salary, talking to nobody there except where necessitated by the job, going straight home and having no social contact.

Almost nobody chooses such a life, because for anybody except somebody with a very unusual psychology, it would be a desperately sad, lonely, miserable, despairing life. — andrewk

Indeed this is just one example of circumstance.. but it does not have to be so black and white.. How about situations where you can meet people but there is no quality relationships and the second major reason.. the harms from relationships that do form.. Your underlying assumption is the boot-strap approach.. that person isn't following some prescribed method that these others are doing.

So to put your two thoughts together.. 1) some people's suffering is ok because at least the vague "majority" doesn't suffer in such a way 2) these people are not doing the relationship thing right anyways, so they are a poor example.. Or is there something else you are saying that is more nuanced and perhaps agrees with my argument more than I seem to be picking up here?

I quite like Sartre but that is one of the stupidest, most ignorant and dishonest things I have ever known a philosopher to say. I can only hope that, like many sayings attributed to famous people, he never really said it. — andrewk

He may have been trying to get to a point.. I never really read the book it came from but I think that was more about his existential view of authenticity.. Other people make you the "other" and transform you from your subjective freedom into an object.. or something along those lines.. but again, I could be off on that.

I think you undermine your case by stapling those two issues together.

Given that an individual is here, alive and conscious, there is every reason to make the best of it, regardless of how much one may have thought it would have been better never to have been conceived. And IIRC there is no end of empirical evidence that maintaining plentiful strong relationships is conducive to happiness. — andrewk

The point though is, despite the fact that this particular phenomena is picked out as one of the top reasons for meaning, it is so fraught with its own negative downsides, this pinnacle of human meaning is also a great cause of suffering due to its uneven distribution and harmful aspects.

The issue of procreating however is far more complex and multi-faceted. It is possible to be the world's cheeriest person, with the best imaginable circle of friends, and still believe it is better not to procreate. And it is possible to be the world's most miserable, pessimistic curmudgeon and yet either want to procreate or believe one has a moral duty to do so. — andrewk

This may be true, but only one outcome leads to certain suffering- disposition happy or not. Anyways, the point is, whether from the disposition happy or the disposition curmudgeon perspective, relationships can be of high quality and/or abundant for some and it could be quite barren, and not the right circumstances for abundant or quality relationships with others.. Also, whether relationships are quality/abundant or not, the harm of cultivating, maintaining, and losing them are their own world of frustration, woe, disappointment, tediousness, etc. etc.

So we got a double whammy bad situation here. One supposed candidate for meaning to life becomes something that some people can enjoy and others cannot and that even if enjoyed, become a source of harmful experiences anyways. This supposed font of meaningful experiences is not had by all, and may never be for some. How sad it is that something that is supposed to be so quintessential can ultimately allude many due to various circumstances, contingencies, and perhaps even personality types. Again, my theme here is that all these reasons become moot for justification of the pollyanna enthusiasm for life (happy disposition or not).

My guess is many people have a hard time peeling away the actual raw sadness of this situation because they are fed puff stories in media (movies, news stories, books, etc.) that seem to provide some sort of consolation through art/achievements that individuals under bad circumstances somehow sublimate through their pain. These people supposedly turn their grief into some sort of great achievement or other. I have a feeling this is very few people that really achieve this sort of salvation through pain (if really this is a thing). Rather, these aesthetic sublimation stories and seem to be in the romantic vein of what I call the "Nietzschean idea of transforming the pain of life into meaning". This seems like ad hoc justification.. some sort of after the fact excuse needed to make pain seem necessary, transformative, or otherwise..

So we got strands of thought from very different directions trying to cover up this mess of the harms from life (including from relationships or the lack thereof).. the boot-straps people.. "work harder...it's YOUR fault".. the Nietzschean types "Hey, you were given lemons..but look at all this tragic comedy fodder you can have from your tragic-comedy kind of absurd life".. and probably a few more.

It's just I have a theme here lately.. the big REASONS of modern society are unsatisfying for meaning... Science, technology, the group, relationships, etc. etc. What sounds meaningful when seen from afar is really just bumpy and more chaotic up close. When people are asked to sum up meaning, the analog of life becomes a digital response (0 or 1).. Relationships, technological advancements, learning.. etc.. The analog of the everyday and actually living through life reveals that it's really a lot of energy used up in various strategies of cultural upkeep (cultural survival and maintenance through job, consumption, maintaining premises and property, etc.) and boredom. All of these motivations cause many problems in their own right... and the spin offs continue into other spin offs.

Thanks, let's say there is will and representation going on. Is this in the sense in which this process results in our finding ourselves in the world we know? Or is it more in the sense that the process is in reconciling, or adjusting ourselves with our existence, or existence in this world? — Punshhh

Can you clarify your question? I'd like to answer, but not sure exactly what you mean by reconciling with our existence and adjusting ourselves with our existence. His idea is essentially considered "pessimistic" as our lives cannot escape the underlying suffering that drives existence. The Will is trying to objectify itself by striving for goals that can never satisfy it. All objects are gradations of this overarching Will and at some level, the internal aspect of things are equivalent to Will. Thus, he has a kind of proto-panpsychism going on. Animals have more complex manifestations of Will and humans are the most complex manifestation. There are so many layers of emotional ways of suffering in the complex human mind. Most of it, according to Schop comes from the main pursuits of our existence which seem to be motivated from little other than boredom and survival needs. From this we become highly goal-seeking, transforming our boredom into goal-seeking pursuits. These goals cause suffering in their ceaseless end.. They represent the unsatisfied Will. We are always becoming but never being.

Yes, it looks as though I am asking about Thing-in-itself. Is this what Schopenhauer was talking about in the work of his that you mentioned? — Punshhh

Yes, in the World as Will and Representation.. These two articles are good introductions:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/schopenh/

If you're that miserable, get counseling. Except for extreme situations, you can be helped and you don't have to be so miserable. — Terrapin Station

Again, it's this kind of rhetoric that makes me not want to respond, because you personalize it.

At any rate, it's obviously a matter of how someone is looking at things, how they're assessing them, etc.--that's all that harm, suffering, and so on are in the first place. — Terrapin Station

There's also people's biochemistry, and the underlying needs and wants that all people have that are never satisfied..

And for most folks, there's a degree of malleability in how they look at things. They don't HAVE to look at things in a negative way. They can have positive attitudes, they can enjoy things for what they are, etc. — Terrapin Station

This is a bit pollyanna.. Many people end up in the throes of this or that and do not even look at the bigger picture.. Rarely are people provoked to answer questions of their overall well-being, and when they are.. it is skewed as people generally want to look like they enjoy their life, despite whatever they actually thought in this or that moment of pain or suffering..

Not looking like a "debbie downer" is a good way to save face.

You're looking for anti-natalist support or something like that? <puzzled> — Terrapin Station

So things are unevenly distributed.. some people will be successful in relationships (regardless of hard work or not), some will not.. Some will be exposed to good relationships, some will not.. Relationships that are gained are often lost, and lead to more strife.. these are the inherent harms of relationships.. their uneven distribution, and the possibility of harm that comes from gaining them anyways.. If relationships are such a large part of what makes a meaningful life..exposing a new person to a phenomena that is so vital yet so unevenly distributed might be cruel at best..

Just like having a child which will knowingly struggle with adequate job satisfaction.. having a child that will knowingly struggle with relationship satisfaction (or varying degrees of success depending on circumstances and individuals) seems to need more justification. The lengths we go for therapy alone.. seems to indicate that we are far from ideal.. reframing the debate that its YOUR fault. not the universe.. how is that an airtight argument against someone coming along and accusing you of turning the tables to try to make the idea go away by putting the onus on the person who was exposed to the harm's shoulders?

So if there are ten apple trees in your orchard and three of them have sour or rotting apples for whatever reason, you don't harvest the other seven? If we do nothing that has the potential to hurt us or where success is not guaranteed we do nothing at all. All good is unevenly distributed. That's the very nature of the Universe. You can elect to have nothing to do with it and die of starvation (cutting your nose off to spite your face) or embrace whatever good there is to be found in it and live. — Barry Etheridge

Yes, so with all the flaws and harms of relationships, is it a good reason to expose new people to life? I say this because, it is often used as a way to justify why it is a good idea to continue more people.. relationships, advancing science, technology, knowledge, art, music, achievement, honing abilities in this or that talent..etc.

(Re "trolling," I define that as someone (a) saying things that they don't believe, where (b) they're not doing so for comedic purposes, and (c) the motivation is primarily to get other people upset/worked up. I suppose you define it differently though.) — Terrapin Station

I'm not sure you went into this argument with good faith. You said:

You can't have some narrow preconception of what those things should be like — Terrapin Station

and then effectively trash what you've got just because it doesn't closely resemble your preconception. — Terrapin Station

without shifting to a bad attitude about that stuff. Again, this requires some effort on your part. — Terrapin Station

Already you framed the debate in very personal and provocative terms.. which really wasn't what I was looking for. If you want to play pseduo-pragmatic "Your philosophy is nothing but personal failings and thus no argument.. now here's some therapy now cram it up your ass you damn fool" then do it on another thread.

You said that what I described was a struggle, right? — Terrapin Station

You are leading me down the troll-den.. Yep.. struggle.. hard work, difficult task.. And I said it is harder work for some than others.

So did Schopenhauer use the classical definition of the noumenon? I understand he was critical of Kant's use of the word in saying it amounts to the thing in itself. — Punshhh

Yeah, he did not like the term.. replace it with Thing-in-Itself then. In terms of the world as it is intself and how it appears to us, it is similar.

What does that have to do with whether a characterization counts as a "struggle"? — Terrapin Station

It depends.. I qualified it with this: of course my point was for some people it is less a struggle than for others.. easier.. unequally distributed, circumstantial.

So for some it is much harder work than others..

But this picayune back and forth is now making your statements troll-like.. Either say something substantial about it besides hard work and attitude makes this not a real harm, or move on..

Maybe you'd describe anything that you have to put any effort into, where it doesn't just fall into you all as a "struggle," but I wouldn't. — Terrapin Station

Maybe you downplay any harm as just attitude and hard work.. Which is to dismiss the negative aspects in the name of whistling dixie.

First, it doesn't have to be a struggle. Looking at it that way is already entering with an attitude that probably won't be beneficial. — Terrapin Station

This is from how you were describing it.. I was just mirroring that. As you stated:

Of course you also have to work at achieving those things in the first place--employment/a career, friendships, romantic relationships, etc. You can't expect them to just fall into your lap. — Terrapin Station

That seems more a struggle.. of course my point was for some people it is less a struggle than for others.. easier.. unequally distributed, circumstantial.

You won't necessarily feel that they are worth the "struggle" once you have them and compare that to your other options. But most people who have them, and especially those who do accept them for what they are rather than assessing them on some narrow, preconceived notion of what they should be, do feel that way about them compared to their other options. Of course, if you don't have those things in your life and you're perfectly content with that, then there's no need to worry about them so that you're even wondering about whether, and in what contexts, they might offer something to you. — Terrapin Station

Your hypotheticals here don't seem to conform with reality. You are minimizing the harm that I brought up that comes with the relationship phenomena. The person who does not care can exist in small batches, but most people are pretty damn social animals.. Again, downplaying this to make some point that there is no point seems like a good way to pretend the problems don't exist. I can say the same about a number of events that are actually harmful.. It doesn't make them less harmful because I claim it isn't so.

Also, if what I'm saying is just "repeating truisms" then there can hardly be grounds for disagreeing with me. We should all hope to say things that are true, and truth isn't correlated with novelty. — Terrapin Station

No, truisms but in the way that "working harder can lead to getting things" says anything.. That doesn't say much for the harm that exists in the "hard work" in getting, obtaining, and falling out of various relationships. It is to downplay and dismiss a bigger problem.

Understanding posts often requires some effort, too, by the way. A large part of my point is that good relationships aren't about the details of the relationship. They're about how you look at them, your attitude towards them, and whether you're making any effort towards them or your attitude towards them. — Terrapin Station

Again, whether this is true or not, does not take away the pain involved in this "meaningful" phenomenon. It is on the top of many lists of meaningful things (along with learning, achievement, etc.), but can be quite problematic. Ad hoc justifications of tragi-comedy.. seem like lesser versions of Nietzschean eternal return.. the sufferer who accepts all suffering..The meaning in the suffering of relationships, etc. One can use this type of hallow excuse for any number of phenomena of suffering..Change your attitude so you can deal man.. But the harm exists in the first place.

Of course you also have to work at achieving those things in the first place--employment/a career, friendships, romantic relationships, etc. You can't expect them to just fall into your lap. — Terrapin Station

And so why is the struggle to achieve career, friendships, romantic relationships.. worth the struggle?

Again, this requires some effort on your part. — Terrapin Station

Why does simply trying to say "work harder" become a remediation of the problems I brought up? You are simply restating truisms as if this diminishes the two points I brought up in the OP:


1) Good relationships, a candidate for one of life's most meaningful phenomena are not guaranteed for all, and unlike commodities like "bread and circus" could not even be something provided to the masses like in some weird hypothetical totalitarian regime. You cannot force relationships, just force proximity to others. Relationships, and especially cultivating strong ones, are organic and highly subject to context. They are their own ecosystems which cannot be created out of fiat. Therefore, this candidate for an intrinsic "good" of life, even if it should be cherished is highly circumstantial and is unequally distributed such that some people may have it in abundance and others experience varying degrees of its deprivation.

2) Good intimate relationships are hard to cultivate, when they do persist they lead often to frustration, annoyance with the other person, boredom, etc., and are easily lost.

How can something that is unequally distributed and has the potential to be a source of even more suffering in the short or long run be a reason for embracing life or providing new life to other individuals (i.e. reason for procreation), or being in any way a reason for having a positive outlook in regards to the lot of the human experience?

Psuedo-pragmatic posturing aside, these are still problems with a cherished notion of what makes the human experience meaningful.

Though one can provide the the usual stock answers of "just work harder!" and "the tragedy brings with it the meaning as the flip side of the joy.." these somehow seem to fall short as ad hoc justifications and ways of saying "nothing to see here".

I am thinking of the quandry that philosophers talk about the impossibility of understanding or knowing the noumenon(the thing in itself), while it is rational to consider that we are that noumenon, everything we know is constituted of this noumenon and nothing else. So in a sense we are this thing we can't know. Our nature and the nature of the noumenon are the same, can a study of nature, or our nature, inform us of the nature of the noumenon, so that it can be known?

Do you accept that there is a noumenon? Do you think it can be known? Do you think that our nature is the same as the nature of the noumenon.? If philosophy can't answer these questions, are there any other ways of knowing? — Punshhh

Schopenhauer wrote a whole four volume treatise on answering this question. He thought the noumenon can be known through understanding our own psychology. If you introspect you understand that you are this being that is always in a state of wanting and needing. This seems to be part and parcel of the bigger picture which is this blind insatiable force or principle which is blind striving that is never satisfied. In fact, he thought will was not a motivational force, but was the "inner aspect" of all things and any external phenomena had a double-coined internal aspect to it that was one and the same as Will.. the phenomenal individuated world of space/time/causality and objects was actually the flipside of the unified world of the principle of striving-after-nothing.

I am not an antinatalist, but I do not think "doing technology", "consuming information", or "Liking" every pile of horse shit on Facebook in itself provides any reason whatsoever to bring more people into the world, or to continue living if one is tired of life. Facebook is not life (some people to the contrary). — Bitter Crank

True true.. understood. This critique also goes to Wayfarer..but I am not just talking about the way technologies can create the inane consumerist "useless" and mindnumbing products..but rather the very fact that we can innovate and change our environment..that someone/groups of people created microprocessors in the first place, harnessed electricity.. created video technology, etc.

Love makes life worth living, not technology, or nothing does. (And not "love" of one's new IPhone 7, either.) Agape, Eros, Filio, and Storge are what makes life worth living, and the object of these loves is other people. — Bitter Crank

This is a topic for a different thread, but as a tangential point, just like "good work", "good relationships" are not a guarantee in life.. Oddly enough, while relationships, and specifically good intimate relationships are on the top of people's lists of examples of what makes life meaningful, it is among the the least guaranteed and most fickle of things we encounter. Circumstances make some people more "rich" in relationships just like some people are more "rich" in their work life. It might even be the case that even as hard it might be in finding at the least an adequate job, adequate jobs may be more readily available in "modern" society than adequate relationships.

Of course, this is not even taking into account that other people, though creating opportunities of happiness, might equalize the situation out by being a source of immense frustration, disappointment, etc. etc. People get tired of other people, look for more novel people, and in a weird way, mimic our addiction to mindnumbing technologies.. there is always a new high with some other new gadget or person. Just like the mindnumbing technologies, our reliance on the trivialities of short term encounters are valued more than cultivating long term but less novel social bonds.

So to put these ideas together.. humans are screwed in two ways in regards to what you seem to deem as high on the list of meaningful phenomena:

1) Good relationships are not guaranteed and are unequally distributed

2) Good intimate relationships are hard to cultivate, when they persist they lead often to frustration, annoyance with the other person, boredom, etc. and easy to lose

It might be helpful to take a longer-range view of technology than the last 150 years (1870 to the present) because we are very much in the middle of this unfolding process (Revolution? Maybe.) and it is much too soon to arrive at definite conclusions. A slightly longer-range view might start with Guttenberg's printing press around 575 years ago. Marshall McLuhan's Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (1962). — Bitter Crank

I didn't go back that far because I wanted to specifically identify technology that pervasively goes along with "modern" life. All the other things you mentioned, while they may be made the old-fashioned way, most of the time, even they have been effected by newer production techniques that were created in the Second Industrial Revolution or later.

I like how you show how technology changes the effort taken in our output.. but I want to broaden this a bit more to an existential level. Is technology a reason to use against the antinatalist? I ask this without the typical "but technology can create atomic bombs and global warming" response.. so, no.. As you know, many "elite" or those who think themselves so in the middle class, or any class for that matter, will simply point to the fact that we "do" technology.. that we can innovate and discover and create new possibilities as the reason why bringing new people into the world is good.. They too can participate in and contribute to the technology that is imbued in our life. According to this view, we should exalt in our technology. We must keep the species going to experience more technology.

The educational consultant I mentioned above says that children need to learn maths and literacy the old-fashioned way - lots of memorisation, lots of drills, lots of old-fashioned work. The idea that technology can take that requirement away is a glamorous illusion. — Wayfarer

But really, you are just saying that the math will be learned through older types of technology and not the absence of technology all together- digitally printed flash cards, manufactured pencils and paper, etc.. And all that math will probably useful one day if it is applied to, what else, future technology, whether it is simply the maintenance of it or to novel forms of it.

True. But I'd say the economic aspect of technology is what makes this so. The reason we have so much technology is because technology is profitable, and it's profitable because we want to live more comfortable lives. I can respect technology that helps us live more comfortable lives. — darthbarracuda

Who are these people that say these things specifically? — darthbarracuda

I agree it's mainly profits that drive the investment in new technologies. The people that say these things are just hypothetical people that may use this as another way to try to counteract antinatalist thought. I can see technology and our living-through-technology being some sort of reason why pessimistic attitudes towards existence are not seen as legitimate or as a failure to see the greatness of living with technology.. As I said to Wayfarer above:

I guess my question to you is does science and technology provide a meaning in itself to humans that justifies the Human Project even if we have negative feelings towards existence..including all the contingent and circumstantial harms we experience and all the understanding of what I call our "existential boundaries" which are the feelings we have when contemplating existence as a whole.. things like absurdity, instrumentality, angst, ennui, etc. Its so pervasive in our life that any other candidate for worthwhile human activity is really touched by it..aesthetics/art/music, entertainment activities, learning, relationships, etc. All things fall into the milieu of technology.. and thus one might argue that we should have feelings of awe, gratitude, and positive evaluation of the fact that we have such novelty, innovation, and harnessing of our environment. The mod of living-through-technology itself becomes a purpose. — schopenhauer1

I guess my question to you is does science and technology provide a meaning in itself to humans that justifies the Human Project even if we have negative feelings towards existence..including all the contingent and circumstantial harms we experience and all the understanding of what I call our "existential boundaries" which are the feelings we have when contemplating existence as a whole.. things like absurdity, instrumentality, angst, ennui, etc. Its so pervasive in our life that any other candidate for worthwhile human activity is really touched by it..aesthetics/art/music, entertainment activities, learning, relationships, etc. All things fall into the milieu of technology.. and thus one might argue that we should have feelings of awe, gratitude, and positive evaluation of the fact that we have such novelty, innovation, and harnessing of our environment. The mod of living-through-technology itself becomes a purpose.

We surely benefit from technology, no doubt about that. But at what cost? Was it all really worth it in the end? Or are we just massaging our egos? — darthbarracuda

But surely you know that we are integrated with technology so heavily, there is no way for our species to escape it as something we are working for. Think about it, almost everything you touch involves technology.. In fact, your whole mode of survival relies upon and involves the maintenance and growth of technology, whether you are conscious of what we are doing or not. There's not a day that goes by that you are not affected by technology and not only technology but technology stemming from the last two centuries.

With the utility that comes with technology, many people will point to this as a summum bonum of modern society. How can one have feelings of ennui and world-weariness when we can master our environment, create new possibilities, and be able to participate in the maintenance of these newfound ways of surviving and living, so people will say.

Interesting Wayfarer.. You kind of went in a different direction but also important direction. Are electronic devices ruining our culture.. So, as engineers expand the capacity of electronic devices, perhaps its overusage has provided a degradation of what makes us a more holistic and communal society?

An argument I can foresee is that you are picking too much on electronics.. Can one argue that any technology that disrupts the current condition be deemed as bad? The automobile, when it was first mass produced in the 1910s and 1920s was seen as contributing to the breakdown of community culture.. kids leaving their home area.. making out in cars..not slowing down. Or is there something particularly troubling about this newest technology?

We have extensive choices in all of this ONLY if we happen to have been born into great wealth. Otherwise, group norms and obligations apply with force. For 99% of us, there are personal preferences, but there is little choice. We are assembled, bent, shaped, molded, machined, and packaged to become more-or-less effective units of production and/or consumption (both are essential). There is a certain "looseness" in our construction which allows for preferences and choices.

If we are unlucky, we are given, find, or develop the illusion that we have many choices and are largely free of all of these obligations, and uncultured habits. Unlucky because these ideas of freedom are essentially incompatible with the facts of life, and anyone holding these illusions is going to crash into a great deal of cognitive dissonance, flak, resistance, friction, and control measures. — Bitter Crank

Agreed..Funny I answered a post you had in a similar thread in as far as the work part goes (see further down this thread with Cavacava). Anyways, what is that saying about the situation of being forced into existence that we are "assembled, bent, shaped, molded, machined, and packaged" to become more-or-less effective units of production? Of course, my stock answer is to embrace antinatalism as a philosophy of consolation.. Not out of its practical implementation, but more out of an embracing of one's own dignity as an individual.. Understanding this pessimistic/antinatalist ethic instills in the individual the understanding that even though the group created them, has given them the "opportunity" to pursue personal ends within the framework of the group.. the whole existential project of enduring life was forced and thus the feeling of gratitude and obligation to the group is more or less an outcome of not quite understanding the bigger picture.

Even if work sucks, that doesn't mean that having no work will be better. Even the suckyest work place is likely the source of many people's vital social relationships. It's often the very suckyness of work that has bound people together. — Bitter Crank

This is forced circumstances of interaction. If people need to be forced through work to socialize and find meaning, perhaps the Human Project has more to worry about. If existential angst is so great that work situations are necessary in order to calm it, this is not saying much for existence itself.

Insofar as life is expressed by the work we do, our actions go beyond the material labor in which they are employed. Yes, we all have to work, and luck plays its part, but in free society we are not forced to work for any specific employer. — Cavacava

As far as life is expressed by the work we do.. I don't know, that's a pretty romantic vision of work. It seems like an ad hoc justification for a forced activity. Saying "Hey, we all have to work, but maybe you can find work that expresses your creativity", does not take away the fact that we are FORCED to work, whether there is a benefit we might get out of it or not. The forced part might be the sticking point here.

You also mentioned luck which is a good point to bring up. Free labor markets have an element of luck to it. There is no way to know what jobs might have been the most optimal, where they are available, and how good they will be once you actually start working there. Also, some people just might be at the right place at the right time, and some may not leading to two completely different career paths- one more to the liking of person a one not as much to the liking as b. Moving from one job to another is stressful and has many costs so it is not just about "jumping ship and leaving". However, the luck aspect which you brought up is really secondary to the main problem which is that work is a forced situation.

Do I owe an employer more than the work I perform? Yes, I think so. In so far as my employer provides me with work, I am provided with a paycheck for services rendered and in so far as my employer provides me with a livelihood, a way of living, I owe my employer for this also. I do not think these are the same, this is why alienation is possible. Many work for a paycheck, but do not like what they are doing, they are not able to express the character of their life in their work. But this character of life must be expressed, and in capitalistic societies it is expressed by the accumulation of things. — Cavacava

So let's reframe this..

You did not choose to be born.. that is an impossibility. Whether you choose to leave a country or not, that really does not change the circumstances of having to work. How is it then, no matter what work you do, no matter what country, that the employer should be owed something for a circumstance we did not ask for, and which if not taken, would be certain starvation, depredation, and suicide? Essentially, to add this element it means that we were forced into a situation of work, or starvation, scorn from those who do work for leeching off the system, or suicide. So, how is this a good situation? Being given the opportunity to work is a false choice because everyone must work to survive (without abusing the system) and this is due to being born without much say in the matter. So one is given the opportunity to do what one is essentially forced to do anyways..

Work is a complicated topic. So if you are paid for a service do you owe more than that service to the person/institution paying you since they are providing you with a job plus paying you for your work. I think that depends on how the owner deals with the staff, some form of the master/slave scenario. Of course you may also be alienated from you work...the modes of production...and so on.

Maybe this depends on the other people you find yourself working with. How they are treated, how they treat each other, you and the job, how the managers manage, how the owner leads the company. I do think some companies have distinct cultures, ways of performing, esprit de corps and I think this type of company attracts a lot of loyalty (obligation).

ps. I have no clue where all the quotes came from but can't seem to be rid of them :-#

True, specific situations might matter. I guess the question is a bit broader then. Whether circumstances are favorable or not, in principle, do we owe a workplace our labor because it represents a spoke on the post-industrial survival context and being that the community is the contexst of our survival, we must contribute to its utility?

Edit: To bring it to a more specific level, alluding to what you were saying, are you at the least, indebted to your employer for hiring you on for work which is a large part of what sustains the goods/services for survival (at least in our type of society)? Or, if everyone is born, and that is simply the case, without any choice being given in the matter, is a job more or less a right? This is now getting more political, because this can be a type of justification for social programs, etc.

So tell me more about this imaginative ability. What is its psychological origins?

Is it "computational" or "inspired" would you say? Or "somewhere in-between"? — apokrisis

You are asking a metaphysics question about the origins of mental activity. This question is about the ethical argument in regards to the individual in relation to the group. The origins of mental activity is certainly related with brain states, and input from the environment (of course the nature of experience is another argument).. I'm not sure what it has to do with the ability to imagine that we are a part of a group, but were also forced into the situation and thus evaluate the larger context while still living in that contexts. That is to say, we can generate and manipulate thoughts (i.e pictures, words, ideas, predictions, etc.) that are abstracted from immediate survival needs. One of the most interesting abstractions is the ability to evaluate this whole human project that we are a part of. This produces a scenario where we can feel the absurdity of the project, while still having to deal with living in said project. No other animal can do this (maybe aliens?). However, you treat it as if we do not have this ability, only observing the fact that we indeed do live in the project. Yes, this is a truism that I am not disputing.. But we are also aware of the project while we are in it.. And thus we are aware of being born into something that "is the way it is", but at the same time we can evaluate as a whole and judge, an ability which you consistently want to dismiss because it does not fit into your picture of happy alignment of group/individual feedback loop. While almost every other animal can go along being the individual...feeling harm or otherwise without really knowing the larger context.. we do not have this simple unreflective existence where things simply are what they are.

You of course. If positive psychology has anything to offer, it is empowering you with the skills to discover what is your fault, what is the world's fault. — apokrisis

Ah yes.. so conditioning approved by the Village Green Preservation Society's standards of what counts as "the world's" fault and "your fault".. Like a lot of theories, it could simply create the belief that one then strives for.. If they create the model and make it convincing, then one can have a backdrop for therapy as now there can be benchmarks.. But any number of backdrops can be used. It's like making an article that "humans act like this".. which makes everyone become self-conscious of this, and then it actually does become a thing we focus on.

The two extreme oppositions would be soul vs machine, mind vs matter. If you can talk about people and groups in ways that sidesteps that most basic dichotomy in modern culture, go for it. — apokrisis

I think you simply downplay the human ability to imagine for simply looking at established habits. Yes, the established habits are this that and the other. The imagination can think of things outside of what is happening. We can abstract, and abstraction is not always used for purely survival or purely practical reasons. Sometimes one can abstract on existence itself. This abstraction, I think can provide insights into how life operates on an existential level.