Very Socrates of you..ha

They they they. Duh. Stop talking about others, and instead come forward clearly stating what's in it for you if other people don't have children. — baker

If I advocate that people shouldn't murder, it shouldn't matter what's in it for me. It's the moral thing to do. ALSO, I gave you some ideas in my first reply so now you're beating a dead horse.

You can ask the same thing to literally anyone philosophizing..

Why does @Banno advocate for Wittgenstein's ideas?

Why does Plato advocate the forms? He should keep it to himself right?

Why does Russell care about the logic behind math and publish works about it for everyone to see and review? It just works, right?

I mean this literally can be applied to anything a human does that other people might be an audience of.

When people see a truth of some kind (at least as they see it), they tend to want others to also understand it, grapple with it, have a dialectic about it, and so on and not just have a conversation with themselves only.

Besides attraction (which is its own difficulties to explain in terms of instinct) and the desire for pleasure, can you describe what the "I want a baby" deep-rooted instinct looks like and explain how its an instinct?

It's simple and crystaline, yet unacceptable to our human nature. Hence, the tension in this thread. — Tzeentch

What makes it paricularly part of human nature and not a pervasive culturally pressured preference that can somewhat easily be overrided? Agree with you otherwise.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Nowadays, birth can be reasonably prevented.

Motive is essential to establishing whether an act committed is a crime or not. — baker

But I don't get what you are trying to imply with motivations of antinatalists. Are you trying to say why are antinatalists trying to "deprive" parents of having children?

I think if that's the case, you must rethink where where the focus should be on. It shouldn't be: "I WANT a child for X reasons, and I am suffering because I cannot satisfy this desire".

Rather, the focus should be on how the parent is bringing the conditions for ANOTHER person to suffer from their actions. Why should just wanting something be a reason for someone else to pay consequences?

Again, I gave the example of WORK. Just because you might not mind laboring to keep yourself alive, doesn't mean that the person you are going to bear into existence will want this situation. It is de facto "forced" on this new person- the alternatives to laboring being sub-optimal options such as homelessness (and slow death) or rapid death through suicide.

But look at the converse. If you DON'T have a child, no ONE is deprived of the (pleasure?) of production/work, because no ONE exists to be deprived. This asymmetry can be applied to any negative outcome for the child (experiencing disease, discomfort, physical/emotional anguish, etc.).

There are plenty of things that one can do that isn't so profoundly affecting someone else. Again, someone else should not pay for another person's sense of satisfaction. And it is this focus on doing harm to another person based on one's actions, that the antinatalist is focusing on.

There are other examples where one is doing harm to others by satisfying one's own wants.. In these circumstances we also seem to look down on this. But somehow this very important and much more permanent and profound example of procreation, gets a pass.

I'm with you Benkei, haven't heard of the term until now.

What you may want to consider is what makes mental/cognitive states different than other processes. It would seem that the a priori mental representations of the mind/brain are what presupposes any other process including digestion, gravity, or whatever. I know it is a bit cliched to do the "If a tree falls in the woods.." but it is part of the inextricably intertwined and part of the equation for why this problem is not as straightforward as it might seem. It especially makes it harder to simply analogize mental states to digestion, as presumably, digestion isn't a presupposition for our very knowing, but mental states are. In other words, digestion on its own cannot induce "inner sensations and representations", but brain states can. There is something about brain states that allows the very knowing of all the other states and this is really what makes it unique.

So it is not just equivocating brain states with mental states, but what we are really asking in a philosophical sense is why is there an "inner feeling" at all with mental states?

I have read some of his work. I get what you're saying, I just don't think that answered it.

I get that he thinks there is Will..

I get that my "will" is this Will, and that there is a world as appearances which the will "objectifies". My question is more about really what this "objectification" of the world really "is", and why? Why not just "will"? And I think one answer may be 1. in my OP. but not necessarily "the" answer.

The PSR and causality/time/space and appearances.. needs more explanation why that needs to be in the equation along with Will.

See (reread) third paragraph in previous post. — 180 Proof

Yeah I get that.. but don't think it answered what I'm getting at sufficiently.

There is no telos, no metaphysical why. (re #2) — 180 Proof

But why would there be appearances along with Will? What is the connection? I think that is a legitimate question. The World as Will AND Representation. He seems to vacillate between
1. the world as it IS (metaphysics) which is WILL and the world as it SEEMS (appearances).. which is EPISTEMOLOGY and NOT METAPHYSICS..

AND

2. The world IS WIll and IS appearances (That seems odd though since he expounds so much about the MAYA of the appearances.. thus NOT metaphysics).

Go to the source instead: WWR, vol 1. — 180 Proof

Yeah.. may do that...

Analogously (re #2), how can rain not be related to the impact of winds in a rain storm? The Will is all, for Schop, so "external factors" are mere illusions due to the finite perspective of "your will". Each wave appears (to itself) to be (more or less) separate from, or independent of, the ocean; this, Schop, describes as a phenomenal conception (outside-in, re: FFR), and yet from within all phenomena (inside-out, contra Kant) the noumenon of The Will is the unitary force that connects all distinct, manifest, phenomena. — 180 Proof

Right but (and I could be wrong).. It seems like Schop is a RADICAL idealist.. that is to say... the world is created from MY WILL... (Which is also THE WILL).. Yet, MY WILL is somehow creating externalities that are outside my will.. and in fact, impinge upon it.

Further, if MY WILL is not THE WILL.. then the constraints of the world of appearances (PSR, causality, time, space, etc.) come from what if is all "in my head" and is an "illusion"?

He seems to be begging the question and brute asserting two aspects.. while saying ONE of those aspects is the REAL (metaphysics), and the other is just "in your head".. But how, where, why? Now that is NOT just metaphysics but something itself that needs explanation. Otherwise you are just saying, "The world is the world". That isn't saying much.

Not according to Buddhism; and this is because merely dying doesn't guarantee cessation of suffering.
Your "solution" to the problem of suffering doesn't solve it; it amounts to "no man, no problem". It's akin to saying that the solution to global warming is to nuke planet Earth out of existence.
But Buddhism proposes a solution to the problem of suffering that people can actually experience.
Not that I'm a Buddhist, BTW, I'm just comparing your approach with another one. — baker

So let's break it down into one case.. work.

Scenario A: A world exists in which people are more-or-less born into having to LABOR to stay alive and comfortable.

Scenario B: A world exists where people are not born into having to LABOR to stay alive and comfortable.

Scenario A is a de facto "force" upon someone (lest they choose to slowly die via homelessness and neglect, or rapid suicide).

Scenario B is NOT de facto "forced" upon any "ONE" (as there is no "one" who exists to be "forced" not to work).

Even if someone "LIKES" work, that doesn't justify to go ahead and force others to do the same, because they simply "like" it. However, scenario B can never be symmetrical to scenario A because even if someone would have "liked" work if they were born, no "one" is actually deprived of such a thing if prevented from coming to an existence.

This asymmetry holds for other things as well, not just de facto forced situations, but also suffering in general.

1. The Will, other than being self-devouring (with "appearances" (i.e. maya) nothing more than "the 10,000" skins shed, shredded & regurgitated by the insatiable ouroboros), has no telos. — 180 Proof

Then why and wherefrom the world of representation/appearances? I know it's "illusion". It also is an "objectivation" of the Will. The best description I can find right now is here:

Yet, if the world is composed of undifferentiated willing, why does this force manifest itself in such a vast variety of ways? Schopenhauer’s reply is that the will is objectified in a hierarchy of beings. At its lowest grade, we see the will objectified in natural forces, and at its highest grade the will is objectified in the species of human being. The phenomena of higher grades of the will are produced by conflicts occurring between different phenomena of the lower grades of the will, and in the phenomenon of the higher Idea, the lower grades are subsumed. For instance, the laws of chemistry and gravity continue to operate in animals, although such lower grades cannot explain fully their movements. Although Schopenhauer explains the grades of the will in terms of development, he insists that the gradations did not develop over time, for such an understanding would assume that time exists independently of our cognitive faculties. Thus in all natural beings we see the will expressing itself in its various objectifications. Schopenhauer identifies these objectifications with the Platonic Ideas for a number of reasons. They are outside of space and time, related to individual beings as their prototypes, and ontologically prior to the individual beings that correspond to them.

Although the laws of nature presuppose the Ideas, we cannot intuit the Ideas simply by observing the activities of nature, and this is due to the relation of the will to our representations. The will is the thing in itself, but our experience of the will, our representations, are constituted by our form of cognition, the principle of sufficient reason. The principle of sufficient reason produces the world of representation as a nexus of spatio-temporal, causally related entities. Therefore, Schopenhauer’s metaphysical system seems to preclude our having access to the Ideas as they are in themselves, or in a way that transcends this spatio-temporal causally related framework. — Arthur Schopenhauer, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So if this is an accurate description of Schop's metaphysics/epistemology, then why is it that there is the Fourfold Root of the PSR, and the Platonic Ideas anyways? Why is everything not just Will if it is all unified? What is the relation of the representation to the will other than saying, it's illusion?

2. The Will is neither an intentional nor an intelligent agency. 'Lesser wills' (i.e. appearances) are merely ballistic flotsam and jetsam in the ceaselessly raging superstorm of the 'Greater Will' as well as its constituent ephemerae. — 180 Proof

Yes I get this, but how is my will related to the external factors that impinge upon my will? If everything is my will, in a sense "objectifying" (I kind of see this as "creating" the world from itself), then how is this objectifying happening for things outside my will that is external to it?

No, I mean the covid restrictions. — NOS4A2

Oh because you said:

while maintaining the freedoms so many have fought and died to attain. — NOS4A2

And I thought it ironic that fighting for those freedoms involved coordinating on a federal level in exactly the way that you seem to be opposing. I gave examples of it including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and certainly WW2.

You mean the coordinated effort of the Civil War and WW2 and the like by federal GOVERNMENT? :roll:

You mean the UNION of the states to come together to form Committees of Correspondence to fight the Revolutionary War?

correlates to, but is not caused by, the former. — 180 Proof

Last I checked, being alive is a prerequisite for suffering. It's just not the direct cause of an instance of suffering, but the necessary background for which it (by empirical observation of what happens in life) definitely will occur.

Also, 'not procreating' causes the vast majority of the Already Born to suffer, so the balance between addressing actual and hypothetical suffering favors preventing, or reducing, actual suffering. 'Preventing life' does not prevent, or reduce, suffering; relieving (ideally, as much as possible) the experience of harm to living (i.e. already born) persons prevents, or reduces, suffering. — 180 Proof

Why are you assuming I'm some sort of "totalizing utilitarian" whereby I must add up everyone's suffering and use people as pawns to get the greatest good? That isn't what I am proposing.

Right, so now apply that to the act of procreation. But one major difference is that procreation will lead to someone getting harmed (or being forced into a way of life, society, laboring person, etc..which pertains to other forms of de facto, unavoidable coersion that goes with being a self-aware person born into the world that has to survive in a social setting, etc.).

Nationalism becomes a thing when theres dispute over territory and the territory matters to people.

Same shit, different flies. Those who would "prevent others" would be trying to escape their own, as well as the species', historical contingency of being biological aka "reproductive species", which you admit, no one can escape. 'Existence preceeds essence', no? Well, species-beings are what we are preceeding the individuals who we (can) choose to be; individuals cannot escape being enabled-contrained by belonging to an evolved (i.e. adaptive, therefore reproductive) species. All "antinatal" (or less than pronatal) species are already extinct, schop1 – homo sapien sapiens ain't one of them (with the exception of an insignificant fraction of individuals aka "mutants"). — 180 Proof

I just meant I agree essentially that it is too late for the already born. Yet, you can prevent yet another person from the historical contingency. It's prevention on the margins, not necessarily wholesale.

However, you have probably heard my idea of catharsis by now, right? There is a catharsis in antinatalism for us already born who can't escape the existential situation. There is something to the idea that we can communally recognize the negatives, and then are deciding to do something about it on an existential level (not just at the everyday micro level). It's more an aesthetic of understanding.

Prevent a future child. This prevents what is occurring now, occurring to someone else in the future. It just takes looking a little bit into the future.. next generation. By ignoring this, you are perpetuating the current suffering.

And don't start making the move to utopianism.. especially funny if you do being you seem to be an arch-conservative.. anyways go on.

We cannot escape it. Prevent others from entering it.

How is this not subtle manipulation? You don't want to work??? Go complain to someone who cares.. now get back to work!!! Fuck ya all then.

Strawman bro. You can still alleviate suffering for already existing person. One doesnt exclude the other. But its also a broader philosophical claim about existence itself. Its not always about the practical aims, but the aesthetic understanding. Its like art or music..theres aesthetic elements involved in having a worldview. Its not about simple utilitarian outcomes.

For example clearly you think the human project is worth perpetuating. Thats an aesthetic, a worldview, whether ya know it or not. All human decisions have justifications..even.if subtle or assumed.

Also, for the thousandth time, there IS a distinction between an ethic surrounding non-existence an people being put into existence, and people who already exist. It is a different emphasis. Preventing future people means not putting people here IN THE FIRST PLACE. Many ethics already deal with current suffering. What makes AN distinct is its prevention aspect. You are overlooking the actual argument by somehow saying the prevention aspect is illegitimate, but you haven't made an argument against it. Why shouldn't people prevent suffering, just because people already suffer? In fact, this in the long run will prevent the current suffering from continuing. The very suffering you are concerned with.

Theres no escaping your historical contingency. Perhaps preventing future people born into it. What is the purpose of anyone being born to do anything at all in the ways of a society? Work, seek comfort, keep mind occupied, repeat. Who really needs to experience 80 to 100 years of that?

Oh interesting. That does sound relevant.

Cool, why do you recommend it in this case?

There's also the political preference to not keep this survival-comfort-entertainment seeking via cultural institutions thing going. Rather, voting with our prevention of more people having to do it.

A distinction that is close to trivial. If life isn't worth living, it's not worth living, full stop, with nukes. — baker

No not at all. There is a distinction between a life worth STARTING and CONTINUTING. Different considerations, mainly involving the fact that in one case, no one exists with fears, goals, interests, and dignity. The other one does.

I guess it is not about killing humans who already born but preventing the future of some parents (not all true) of having kids if they have lack of responsibility — javi2541997

Hi Javi, to be fair, he is talking about "absolute antinatalism".. that is antintalism that thinks NO parents should ever have children because they want to prevent a future person from suffering. It doesn't matter the background of the parent, or the circumstances. All birth should be prevented if possible.

I already gave my answer as to the difference between beginning a life, and continuing a life that is already here and how ANs would not use the very things they are against (not forcing a situation onto someone, not getting consent, not harming) to prevent current suffering. The nonexistence of an actual person prior to birth makes all the difference here.

Why is it that nationality talk and Nationalism in particular is so easily acceptable, and race talk and Racism is so difficult and unacceptable? — unenlightened

.

1) Ideology... Saying, "Yay, USA!!" is really supporting the ideology of the country's (supposed) ideals. Equality under the law, freedoms of speech/assembly/press, multiculturalism (on the left), etc.

2) Cultural identity. Race talk is purely identity through biology. Nationalism is identity with a whole range of cultural factors or set of institutions.

What I find funny, is how nations form. In Europe, it was layers and layers of tribes taking over tribes. Do Germans "really" belong in Germany? Who did their hordes of Germanic tribes steal from? Britain is a mix of celts, anglo-saxon-jute-specific Germanic tribes, viking invadors and local neolithic people that hated all the newcomers probably :).

Then you have South America, US, Australia, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, etc. etc.. What "nation" did they form? Um, look at the history.. Essentially all colonized for the glory of gold. When they couldn't find that, the systematic destruction of the inhabitants, and then the systematic enslavement of other inhabitants to start plantations, or simply the wiping out of natives, bringing families from the home country and starting a new settlement, as if no one lived there. That's your "nation".

So tell me this, who the fuck deserves to live anywhere and call it "their" nation? Any UN definitions are a joke and ad hoc made up too.. Not advocating that or might makes right.

I like how all these rights and injustices are only "fixed" after the fact. It is only once a nation already has their institutions going for a long time, and the injustices are in the rear view mirror that it can be discussed. Their country is legitimate because the imperial wars happened in the past. Thus its justified. All of it is bullshit.

But then isn't it even imperialistic to think of things in terms of "injustices"? That's a very Western idea too. There can be any number of justifications for why one tribe feels that a certain "place" is theirs. Most people didn't just stay in one place and call foul to the aggressors for being "imperialistic". Again, that is Western ideas probably developing around 18th century.

Prior to the Americas/colonizations of 16th century, empires formed from smaller tribes coalescing and forming larger unions.. sometimes breaking apart and being taken over by other tribes who formed their own unions, etc. Colonization's model was different in terms of the tribes already had a sense of union prior to the invasion of other empires and tribes that were not as united. If they were united (Aztec/Incas) they didn't have the technology to withstand, so really it's the asymmetry and the amount of unification already in place in Europe that makes the difference in these cases.

Before you posted this, you should read just about any AN argument, as this is probably the most common question ANs get asked, and also the most commonly rebutted.

Most ANs recognize the distinction of what it means to prevent someone from coming into existence in the first place and ending an existence that is already here. As long as one recognizes this distinction, then this argument doesn't make sense. Clearly, an axiom concerned with things like "Harm" and "Consent" and "Forcing" would not do the very things to someone that they feel procreating itself is doing. Most ANs aren't complete negative utilitarians where the outcome is all that matters. Not all ethics is barbarically one-sided like that.

Could be a couple things depending on the AN:

Catharsis- I can't prevent my life, but I can prevent future suffering. The emotional element of satisfaction that one is following an ethical guideline such as preventing a future sufferer from having to experience suffering. Sharing one's vision of what is the case and the simple, yet novel approach to the solution.

Duty- If it is truly ethical to not create future sufferers, some might find it part of their duty to let people know what is the ethical case.

False. Consideration can be motivated by other things than just empathy and compassion. Habit, pathological altruism, pride or the desire to look good in the eyes of others can result in acting in ways that can seem as being motivated by empathy and compassion. — baker

Either way there will be a person that exists, and you are taking into consideration the suffering that person would suffer. I find it hilarious that when it comes to these forums future conditionals go out the window in the name of "metaphysics".

It's like having compassion and empathy for fictional characters in a book or a film. It's not a meaningful way to have empathy and compassion.

It's a compassion and an empathy that doesn't take the other person into consideration as they actually are, as persons -- and it can't, because that other person doesn't actually exist. It's not emapthy and it's not compassion. It's pity and it's patronizing. And people have plenty of that indeed. It seems to make them feel really good! — baker

Um, so if a couple KNEW that by procreating there is a 100% chance that the child that would exist would live a horrible life, they should not take this into consideration? Get outta here.

All along, I've been privately comparing your antinatalist stance with the antinatalism that can be found in Early Buddhism. I don't recall ever seeing the argument that the reason why one should be celibate is out of compassion for others (although the point does come up in popular Buddhist discourse).
I certainly don't find your line of reasoning convincing, even though I would, for all practical intents and purposes, describe myself as at least a selective antinatalist. — baker

Buddhism is its own can of worms. Even though technically suffering can be achieve with antinatalist policy within a generation, I believe that Buddhism believes that reincarnation into a human form needs to happen in order for nirvana and enlightenment to be achieved. So in a way, it is oddly necessary for some to procreate so people can have a chance to realize nirvana. Well, I say: OR you can just not procreate. Maybe they are alluding to a sort of inevitability of evolution on Earth to lead to other animals to suffer, including eventually, self-aware animals. My AN was always centered around self-aware animals such as ourselves.

It goes back to what's in it for the antinatalist. — baker

Preventing yet another person from suffering. Keep it nonexistent please.

Do list at least three such ways. — baker

Um, any activity you do outside of childrearing or related to childrearing. That's literally millions of things. Sports, hobbies, recreation, entertainment, anything.

I dont get why aloneness is inherently immoral. Why is there an obligation to be around others?

Yes, clever name. However, AA is trying to reform people. This is more like everyone has an understanding of the pessimist perspective and so understand everyone is in the same boat and empathizes.

So how do you think communal pessimism would take place? Do you think that it would be about people sharing their experiences in a group? I do believe that there would have to be very firm boundaries because group dynamics are so complex. My own experience of groups is that often certain people dominate. Do you think it would need a leader? — Jack Cummins

That's a good question. I would imagine it would need a moderator.

I think ground rules are always a good idea in a group setting. I would suggest giving people some time limits to allow everyone to have a chance to share.

I think people can air all the grievances they have with their life, others, situations, etc. Others can say stuff like, "Right on!" and such.. but no negative judgements should be told of the participant during the meeting itself. It's more of a support group, not therapy really. But it's support for existential situation itself, not a particular topic; that's the key thing about it.

Schopenhauer probably has the best takes on music I've ever read — Albero

Definitely. The representation of the Will itself, not just its Forms :D.

I do believe that the arts, especially writing are a form of ventilating the experience of suffering. Diaries and journals can be a way of exploring difficulties. I have just come across a relevant quote from Kafka:
'I don't mean, of course, that my life is better when I don't write. Rather, it is much worse then and wholly unbearable and has to end in madness.' — Jack Cummins

Yeah, but communal pessimism is an interesting concept I'd like to explore..Pessimism is almost always borne out in one's own head, so the idea of expressing it with others intrigues me- especially considering the hostility it gets from most.

He looks at the life and suffering of many creative individuals, including Nietzsche, Camus and Van Gogh. He does see the experience of suffering as an essential aspect of creativity. However, he does go beyond pessimism in speaking of peak experiences. So, we can ask whether the experience of anguish can give way to the possibility of peak experiences, or heightened states of creativity? — Jack Cummins

You should DEFINITELY read Schopenhauer's ideas of aesthetics, as it looks right up your ally. He believed that the arts and music were small ways people can take to perceive the Forms and "stop" (briefly) the impinging Will. It some how "arrests" the willful nature temporarily to see things in a more "being" state rather than dross becoming of everyday state.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer%27s_aesthetics

In your interpretation, does this tie to some sort of eternal phenomena? Is the eternal phenomena consciousness itself? Is the metaphysical Will similar? What does Schop say about this? — 3017amen

Not sure if you know Schop's conception, but to him, existence is two-sided. There is the world as Will and as Representation. Will is considered the "thing-in-itself" unmediated by time/space/causality. It is undifferentiated, and the only thing that can be said of it, is that it is akin to a principle of "striving". The phenomenal world of Representation is the Will (but in some sort of "illusory" state) mediated by time/space/causality and the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason. This is the subjective animal that we find ourselves in, moving about on the "stage" of the "world" perceived "out there" due to our constructs of the Representation. We are still at heart "will" and thus strive in this mediated fashion, and thus are dissatisfied and never "whole". Rather we are lacking, are impinged upon by harms, and only find "holes" (including other people who are frustrating and are different kind of 'holes :D). Anyways, how does one "escape" from the tyranny of Will, being that it is the source of being? Well, he has an idea that the ascetic character-type can somehow deny the Will so much as to achieve a state of some sort of equanimity. That is to say, the person can gain "salvation" through a Will-less state. I don't really know what this looks like, other than that the subjective/objective distinction has been annihilated but the person somehow is alive.

Just to note, this is not my philosophy per se, but Schop's.

I have been in some experiential psychotherapy groups which seem to operate along those lines. But, we can also ask to what extent is moaning useful? Also, if done in a group rather than complaining about life it can become a matter of complaining about each other. — Jack Cummins

Yes, that would make our Communities of Catharsis different than psychotherapy or something like that. Psychotherapy is going to just say, "Don't complain, you have to get better.." and Communities of Catharsis would be 100% for complaining as much as you want an not feeling judged. That's the difference. I know the strategy of the modern day is to say that it is the individual who has to "Shape up" and adapt, but CoC will allow for fellow pessimists to gripe about the unescapable existential situation and feel better that others have allowed for them to freely crap on the existential situation at hand.. It is actually quite opposite of most types of therapy which do not like complaining.. and you don't have to reiterate that point, cause I get they don't and thinks its not helpful, etc. There's just two different goals and outlooks in these groups so its no use comparing it really.

As far as complaining about each other, I guess groundrules would have to be put up that this is about other problems outside the people in the group itself.

The common takeaway there is that Being is synonymous with doing, an action verb. We were meant to be here and accomplish things through ourselves and other's. And if life is truly about relationship's, it seems that it is incumbent on us to pursue same. And in a humanistic way, through that process, perhaps we can experience your Platonic realm of Being (albeit they are fleeting...).

Take music for example, or even the discovery of some novel invention or idea (all from our own consciousness/existence). It seems we have the volition capable of such perceptions, such feelings... . — 3017amen

I'm not much for this kind of speculation, but have ever read about Philipp Mainlander's philosophy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Mainl%C3%A4nder