A monopoly? — Shawn

No that's not a monopoly, that is increasing prices. Any business owner can do that.

Essentially, a market failure or lack of competition in neoclassical economics. — Shawn

No you can have any type of company raise prices if they perceive a higher demand.

Yeah, that can be true. — Shawn

Cool

Sounds Marxist. I'm sorry; but, modern day economics is based on rationality. To say that greed dictates the evaluation of prices or even price gauging (which is abhorred in economics) sounds fruity. — Shawn

Um, what do you call it when someone raises prices on a customer because he can make a better buck, yet still has plenty for a good standard of living? Even so, take the greed part out.. my point was describing WHAT causes the raise in prices. If you want, it is simply the supplier increasing prices based on a perceived rise in demand.

Sounds fruity is not very rational itself, but certainly points to a trolling tendency. I'd use better descriptors.

Does this sentiment resonate with anyone else? How do you negate a mood if it is imbued as an ethical pathos? — Shawn

I think of it as an aesthetic understanding of the world. It is similar to Buddhism in the way that the world is seen as a sort of striving but for nothing. It is the motivation behind actions and goals to begin with and the consequences of this (a whole system whereby to survive, maintain, and entertain ourselves). The pessimist asks why this should be continued over and over again. It does not entail that we negate that pleasurable moments and moods exist. That would be a mischaracteriztaion of pessimists.

I think repetition can be looked at differently. Can not a man live in a way that his memory does not come in way of his experiencing? Why should I be thinking about my sexual experiences with my ex-girlfriend when I am making love to my girlfriend. Those two experiences are by no way same. This point can be discussed more elaborately. — Zeus

I never said you had to deny pleasure in the moment to go all contemplative if you didn't want to. Rather, it is just an overall understanding. I understand that we are still here and we still have to make it through however way gets us by with the least suffering. Pursuing goods is also not frowned upon. It is more of of an aesthetic understanding. It is about the need for need and what this entails.

So, does antinatalist philosophy lead man (who is already existing) to truth and clarity which will help him lead his life (now that he's born) better? No. It won't. On the contrary, a good case made for antinatalism will deprive life of all meanings. Now, is that what man wishes? No. A man (who is born) wants to be happy. That's ingrained in the tenets of biology making it a fact. Of course it's a point worth considering. But, it just that. A point worth considering. If a man deliberately wants to sad, he may brood over this topic, but the only kind of men who would want that are:
1. Men who seek only intellectual stimulation.
2. Men who want to find an excuse for their circumstances (circumstances which could very well be improved if a man dwells in a different view-point)

So, is it not worth it to find a philosophy which will make THIS life better? — Zeus

I don't think we can say one way or another about happiness ingrained in biology. There is a tendency for humans to prefer certain goods, but it would be extremely difficult to near impossible to pinpoint that to a biological process. Rather, the most we can say is humans tend towards certain goods, and when they experience them, tend to have positive feelings associated with it.

A pessimist would not necessarily try to discourage trying to maximize your preferences. What they might do is say that there is a pattern in our own psychology whereby we cannot simply "be" but only becoming, where we must find some goal in the distance that we think needs to overcome to give us something to cling to. They may recognize the absurdity of the repetition of even the goods of life (relationships, pleasure, beauty, humor, etc.). They may recognize that we are all in this together. So if there were a lot of pessimists, a communal pessimism, there may be a feeling of brotherhood in our rebellion against that which puts us in this position. In a way, there is a positivity in this shared recognition.

Think of the economy. You are but a pawn in it as your needs and wants force others to work, and their needs and wants force you to work. Your survival needs force you to work even if you were in a completely isolated one-person economy. The repetition to keep you alive, so that you can stay alive, so that you can stay alive, so that you can stay alive.. All forced repetition. Then the epiphenomenal institutions that are created which look at you not as the individual but as the laborer.. You are a laborer who they want output from.. enculturate it so that it happens, etc. etc. Keep the system alive and going with more people. Perhaps the pessimist can recognize it for what it is. It is the foundation of government policy, economic policy, and businesses. You cannot escape it, it is forced upon you lest you die. The pessimist rebels against this and does not accept it. He sees it for what it is, the manipulation. Group think right now works in the way of preserving it.

1) Keynesianism takes the view that the government can curb economic downturns by public sector replacing the falling aggregate demand in an economic recession. Classical economics simply takes the view that there has the economy simply has to get back to it's balance by the market mechanism and this implies that we have that economic downturn. After it the economy is far healthier. Keynesian economics means that the government tries to manage the economic downturns and hence easy the depth of an economic recession or a depression. — ssu

Yes, I know that, but I am talking very specifically here. So why would government spending be bad in classical economics? They think it will cause inflation and worse-off results. Keynesians would say that it does not necessarily cause inflation as it can only target certain sectors and not all at the same time.

Nope.

Inflation, the rise of prices, basically happens because when money loses it's value. If something is high in demand and the supply cannot meet up with it, that is normal market mechanism at work when the prices rise. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Asset inflation is a bit different, but has the same mechanism behind it. — ssu

So this debate came from a debate I had and I too was mentioning the classic inflation from money supply increase due to monetary policy from central banks. However, there is also demand-pull inflation which causes inflation from government spending (causing debt).

So usually more money is pumped into the system. But the actual increase in prices comes from certain human behaviors. JUST having more money in the economy doesn't in itself raise prices. What does raise prices is suppliers anticipating this increase in supply and/or seeing demand rise, and realizing they can make more money by increasing prices.

@fdrake Maybe you can provide some ideas here.

I'm guessing this is about boredom, but many of us don't count boredom as a big issue. To me it's aging, disease, accidents, and crime/injustice that speak against existence. I can think of many experiences that I'd love to repeat again and again. — jjAmEs

No, not quite boredom, unless existential boredom. It's more like this:
1) The sun goes up and down, round and round.
2) You go to bed and get up again and again.
3) You eat and shit over and over.
4) You read your book, watch your movie, do your exercise, talk to your friend, again, again, again
5) You make it a point to travel to "new" (to you) places again and again and again
6) You seek out relationships over and over and over
7) You go to work each day again and again and again
8) You do stuff for maintenance like laundry, dishes, over and over
9) You take that millionth walk/run around the block or on your treadmill

It doesn't matter how many "novel" things you do to stay ahead of the curb, it's all repetitive actions to fulfill our primal motivations of survival, comfort-seeking, entertainment. But this is just repetitive actions that fill time and provide the absurdity I talk about. It's all been done to the umpteenth time by billions and billions of people over and over. There is no need to keep repeating the repetition again and again and again...

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking about distribution of taxation or social welfare? — Shawn

No, for example, the US is spending trillions of dollars on aid and stimulus bills. Classical and Keynesian economists might differ on the efficacy of that.

Inflation, classically is defined as an overabundance of money to every individual in the market, creating an inflation in prices. — Shawn

So yes, that is what inflation is, but it is not quite the cause of inflation. It's a necessary condition, but not sufficient. Something else besides more money, creates inflation. My theory was that because there is more money, suppliers anticipate this, or they see behaviors (like people being able to buy more), and then they see they can maximize more profit and increase their prices.

@Zeus
So Zeus, your thread was taken down because there are a lot of antinatalism threads already. Here is an example of one. I tried to get that back up or added to another thread, but seems like that's not going to happen. That being the case, if you would like to continue the discussion, feel free to here.

Here's a problem for your perspective. Most people would decline a clean and painless exit from the world. To be sure, some people do commit suicide. And suicide rates would increase if it was made cleaner and easier and less taboo. But I suggest that most would choose to live. And that's an argument for uncertain life's positive expected value. The more philosophical argument against pessimism is simply to insist that value judgments aren't objective.

Have you seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_(1993_film) ? Look what some people will do in the short term for an attachment to the apparent promise of a future known to be uncertain. This is why I'm in the tragicomic camp. Life is horrible in many ways but we are mostly in love with it, we poor curious masochists. — jjAmEs

You are simply not separating a life worth starting vs. a life worth continuing. The logic for a life worth starting is the following: The absence of good is not bad, if there is no actual person who exists to be deprived of this good. The absence of suffering is good, even if there is no actual person to enjoy this good.

The logic of those already existing to continue to exist is something along the lines of the following: Even if it was better if they did not exist, now that they exist, the pain and suffering of either the pain or fear of death, along with already-set interests in goals, may be enough to continue living once born. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar for the full argument.

From the Wiki:

1. We have a moral obligation not to create unhappy people and we have no moral obligation to create happy people. The reason why we think there is a moral obligation not to create unhappy people is that the presence of this suffering would be bad (for the sufferers) and the absence of the suffering is good (even though there is nobody to enjoy the absence of suffering). By contrast, the reason we think there is no moral obligation to create happy people is that although their pleasure would be good for them, the absence of pleasure when they do not come into existence will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
2. It is strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide to create them, and it is not strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide not to create them. That the child may be happy is not a morally important reason to create them. By contrast, that the child may be unhappy is an important moral reason not to create them. If it were the case that the absence of pleasure is bad even if someone does not exist to experience its absence, then we would have a significant moral reason to create a child and to create as many children as possible. And if it were not the case that the absence of pain is good even if someone does not exist to experience this good, then we would not have a significant moral reason not to create a child.

3. Someday we can regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we created them – a person can be unhappy and the presence of their pain would be a bad thing. But we will never feel regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we did not create them – a person will not be deprived of happiness, because he or she will never exist, and the absence of happiness will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.

4. We feel sadness by the fact that somewhere people come into existence and suffer, and we feel no sadness by the fact that somewhere people did not come into existence in a place where there are happy people. When we know that somewhere people came into existence and suffer, we feel compassion. The fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and suffer is good. This is because the absence of pain is good even when there is not someone who is experiencing this good. On the other hand, we do not feel sadness by the fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and are not happy. This is because the absence of pleasure is bad only when someone exists to be deprived of this good.[8]

We know that a universe with life in it exists (otherwise nothing would be known anyways). It may be that that means that there is a high probability in this type of universe that life will inevitably take shape based on the conditions. I think the real hidden value that should be questioned here is why life is considered so different than other physical processes. One can say that any other physical thing "may" not have happened if certain other events before that didn't take place. We are quite amused at our own place in the universe, probably unwarranted, but inevitable being we are a self-aware species, and awe at our own being would seem common for such a species.

Exactly. Pessimism is always characterized in this way as a sort of moral failing - a personal weakness on the part of the one espousing it. The pessimist just needs to stop being so soft and weak minded, to stop being so pathetic and just get on with it like the rest of us. It is through this attacking of the pessimists character that the content of his or her arguments or views can just be tossed aside, much like the rantings of a drunk. I suspect it functions as a sort of defense mechanism - far easier to attack someones character than to confront your own pessimistic doubts and niggles buried deep within. — Inyenzi

Yes. Well put.

I don't see how these "you're just depressed", "you are deficient", "you are weak-minded", responses are in any way an argument against antinatalism. I would think it's more proof for the opposite - why bring more children into the world when there is a possibility they will be afflicted by a malfunctioning mind that makes them see the entire human project as absurd and pointless? Why have children when they may suffer a deficiency in character that makes life seem a tedious process of bodily and social maintenance? There are zero reasons, for the child's sake, to take this risk. To 'be' unborn is the ultimate peace, why disturb it? — Inyenzi

Very good points. Well put.

@Pfhorrest @jjAmEs I refer you to Inyenzi's post.

Inyenzi, that is a great response. Most of the times, I am very impressed by how you state more succinctly what takes me a long-winded time to convey. Do you know if you can elaborate in your own words what I am trying to convey about the absurdity bit? It seems this part goes over peoples' heads and they think that I am trying to get at some comparison with permanence or something (like a god or heaven or something), but that is not quite it. They don't understand what I mean by the repetition and how it relates to any act and behavior we perform in our survival (in the West the form of production, consumption, utility of products and service via participation in enculturated institutions), comfort (doing things that keep us more comfortable, not needed for survival), and entertainment pursuits (anything else leftover that keeps our minds occupied and finding flow or meaning in something for a time so as not to turn in on being itself).

Yes I saw that one. Very appropriate for this discussion. I noticed the major theme there seemed to be to incorporate the lessons of the epidemic. Everything should not be as it was.

Incidentally, I saw this Onion recently. It's an oldie but goody :rofl:
https://local.theonion.com/newborn-loses-faith-in-humanity-after-record-6-days-1819573929


@Inyenzi @jjAmEs @Pfhorrest gotta check that one out.. very funny and unfortunately true!

I love your philosophy!!!! — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, nice! I'm glad you do!

The ultimate system sounds like a great target for annihilation. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah through discontinuing it, perhaps. Passive resistance, if you will. What does a collective pessimism mean you thin? A society that acknowledges these truths, lets say. Or, if you want to be subjectivist like @Pfhorrest, then who share this "mindset" or point of view?

I agree, but then the system is also just relatively happy people protecting their relative happiness. IMV we are a fairly selfish species. We don't want our party interrupted. We don't think of the homeless as we initiate sex with a new partner or open our latest package from Amazon. We just don't generally feel the suffering or the pleasure of others. So 'suffering is your problem' is not just metaphysics but simply us all being in different bodies at different levels of health in different environments. — jjAmEs

Again, what would collective pessimism look like rather than individual dispositions for pessimism? What of the fact that having new humans affects OTHERS. And how about of the fact that your putting them into the world, is a political statement that society/life is something someone ELSE should live? What does it mean to know that now a new person will "deal with" life, and that is deemed ok to do for someone else? What is it that HAS to be continued so that MORE people yet again, have to deal? If the answer to this is no particular good reason, then of course, start from square one. Why put more people into the world? It's just a bunch of needs and wants continued, absurdly, repetitiously, thrown to the system/community that needs more workers, sustainers, and contributors to keep IT going as well. More people who use and more importantly, will be used. But why do this to someone? We know of the struggles of the ever present striving will of wants and needs (pace the perennial philosophies of Schopenhauer, Ecclesiastes, Buddhism, and the like). We know of the near endless externally imposed sufferings of the world on the individual (pace our negative encounters with the world). To say that the goods of life are why we have and need more people, is to not recognize the alternative clearly enough. The alternative is no one needs anything prior to birth. If no new humans scares you, then perhaps THAT is something to examine- the fear of nothing. But the alternative is the stress and dealing with of living that more new people will endure- brought about from the previous generation through their fear of nothing and of childishly pinning one's own hopes to be lived out THROUGH the experiences of the said child.

Rather humans can discontinue the suffering. We can discontinue the absurdity of repetitious survival, maintenance, and entertainment. Your thought experiment of a paradise machine that is only novel, pleasurable experiences are just that- a thought experiment. No people are there, or will get there. Certainly using current generations to try to get there is using them and causing more harm in the name of some distant cause. If Schopenhauer was correct, human nature doesn't even work that way to begin with. Rather, absurdity will be brought to an umpteenth degree of absurditude in your laughable scenario of worldly delights.

Certainly I can think of a thought experiment too.. I can be outdo you.. Rather I can imagine a world where everything can be completely dialed in.. You can choose how much struggle, suffering, and stress you want. You can choose how much pain you want.. maybe just a little so you can feel you accomplished something, and then if it doesn't work out, or you didn't like that situation, change it at will on command. You can dial up anything to extreme pleasure at all times, or if you get tired of that, go back to a bit more struggle, moderating those dials. But see, that itself is absurd.. just one step removed from the absurdity of your situation which is one step removed from what we have going on in the real world. Rather all scenarios become absurd, even if at the same time more tolerable to endure. It becomes absurd entertainment-only repetition rather than the trifecta of survival, maintenance, and entertainment conditions we all actually experience in the real world. Why want any of it? What makes good so good that it means we must endure and continue repetitiously in our condition?

Again, whats's wrong with nothing? Nothing never hurt nothing. More to the point, why does there need to be something or somebody in the first place? What is your/their goal? You want more wills in the world that need and want.. More demands on you from others and you onto others. Why? You can see that one can resign, but you know that not going to happen for most.. Rather it is going to be slogging along into the fray like usual, being pulled, pulling others, and all forced to deal with. But again, why this needs to continue rather than let nothingness take its course, is the question. In this case, it is not the metaphysical question of why something rather than nothing, but the ethical question of why continue instead of discontinue. Why have more fray and not less fray? People genuinely cannot answer this with any satisfactory answer. Rather, only the platitudes of "the good life" that can be had.. if you just followed this or that mindset and set of behaviors or tried to cultivate these experiences or those experiences. It ls a shill to justify, to overshoot the very question of why endure in the first place. Why the need for this need.

So again, what would collective pessimism mean? What would that look like? What would a community dominated by pessimists look like? And no, not the black turtle-necked wearing "sprachter" pessimists of parody, but rather philosophical pessimists- those who see the Schopenhauer and "Buddhist without incense" understanding. I call this the rebellious stance. What would that be in comparison to the default moderate optimism we have now, which is the compliance and acceptance stance?

Life entails risk, certainly, but when I weigh the scales of life vs. no life I see no contest. It’s something or nothing. It’s being or nothing. — NOS4A2

And what's wrong with nothing? Nothing never hurt nothing. More to the point, why does there need to be something or somebody in the first place? What is your/their goal? I predict your answer, and I raise you the absurd repetition that I mention pretty repetitively. Why keep that going? The goods of existence MUST be experienced by yet a new person? Is this some sort of game and there needs to be players who play the game and move the pieces? Experience is something that needs to be gained by yet more people?

From the optimistic state of mind, it's clear that the intractable problems were always illusory, and the remaining problems are in principle tractable, and something we need to get to working on. — Pfhorrest

Need to get working on is the slogan of the system. Rather, need to get working. Working. Throwing more people into the grist. What is wrong with letting the "slumber" of non-existence stay that way.. I'm being poetic more than literal here.. I know non-existence doesn't "slumber" obviously. But we cherish deep sleep, yet what is wrong with a deep sleep that one doesn't have to awake from or better, NEVER had to awake from in the first place? Why bring more people out of "sleep" and into the working, becoming world of the temporal, disturbing the non-being? I call it the "dealing with" of the conscious, waking life. Somehow this is valorized. Again, I ask you, what would communal pessimism look like to you, not just individual dispositions for pessimism?

My ultimate goal with the philosophical endeavor is to devise tactics and stratagems that obliterate systems. I credit Socratic Ignorance for aiding me with this. — Merkwurdichliebe

The ultimate system is our own condition for survival, comfort, and entertainment, followed closely by social institutions that, by feeding individuals needs, grows its own epiphenomenal needs to survive and maintain itself.

Wants and needs are not even necessary sans being born. What would communal pessimism look like? Again, as I told @jjAmEs, and I've heard this before, so this isn't my first rodeo:

So if society perpetuates its dictates based on enculturating tricks, one of the more cunning ones is to make sure that the pessimist "knows" it is THEIR fault the foundations of existence have a negative value. See, by turning it on the experiencer as just their lack of participation in the good parts of existence, then existence itself can never get the bad rap. It's a clever meme that it's YOUR fault and thus the system is sound, the system is good, it is just your "malfunctioning" view. If we were to all see it for what it was, the Schopenhauer's suffering of the internal-psychological, external suffering of all the things that we encounter, then we would rebel. The rebellion would take the form of communal pessimism- knowing this isn't right to perpetuate unto the next generation. — schopenhauer1

There's a pill for the malfunctioning soul. 'It's not our problem, it's yours.' So here's advice and maybe a pill. I'm no better in this regard. I've been around desperate people and mostly I just clutched my valuables and guarded my own fragile happiness. I've regurgitated my philosophers to those with more chance of pulling through, but my strategy is more about meeting pessimism or despair half-way. The world is disgusting and absurd. That's not an illusion. But there are nice things too. I'm not necessarily correct when I give advice from my fragile happiness to their despair. It's just what people do when they are less troubled than those they are talking with, which is reach for the platitudes or profundities or black humor and demonstrate concern --which is stuff that may not help at all, since it's all deeper than mere thoughts. — jjAmEs

So if society perpetuates its dictates based on enculturating tricks, one of the more cunning ones is to make sure that the pessimist "knows" it is THEIR fault the foundations of existence have a negative value. See, by turning it on the experiencer as just their lack of participation in the good parts of existence, then existence itself can never get the bad rap. It's a clever meme that it's YOUR fault and thus the system is sound, the system is good, it is just your "malfunctioning" view. If we were to all see it for what it was, the Schopenhauer's suffering of the internal-psychological, external suffering of all the things that we encounter, then we would rebel. The rebellion would take the form of communal pessimism- knowing this isn't right to perpetuate unto the next generation.

You cannot lecture me on heaven as that would be obviously as repetitively absurd as what we have now. If you haven't gotten it already, NO experiential scenario avoids this outside of basically non-existence. Sensual delights become repetitive, all of it. We just try to rush to novelty so as to outrun the pessimism that actually exists- that this world is just a weary tedium sameness, that goals we perceive as good only look good because they are distant and give us something to cling to. It doesn't matter how many countries you go to, how many sexual adventures you have, foods you taste, mountains you climb, how many new books you read, people you know, products you produce, things you learn, or new experiences you purport to have. It is all repetitive again and again. It is all the fishbowl. Add to this negative experiences of pains and tragedies of all sorts. This just doesn't need to be continued for more people. Keep working. Keep enduring. Keep existing. That is the theme of the common man (informally optimistic) people. They don't question why. It is too sad for them to face reality so they keep running after the goals and are indignant if some see them for what they are.. consuming time, waiting.

If you could have absolutely anything you wanted in all of its possible variety, all of it good, and yet you would still be bored and so displeased eventually, then there is still something you don’t have: interest, an internal quality, the opposite of boredom. It’s like if all the sex you could possibly want were available but you had no libido and that made you unhappy: the solution isn’t some weird new kind of sex, it’s the restoration of your libido.

If you could be of a mental state where everything around you is perceived either as a delightful pleasure (however small some of them may be) or an interesting challenge (however daunting some of them may be), then you could be happy all the time, in any circumstance. And feeling like that, life would seem worth living, and perpetuating. If life doesn’t seem worth living or perpetuating, perhaps the problem is not with the world (though it undoubtedly has plenty of problems too), but with you. — Pfhorrest

Again, Schopenhauer expounded upon and predicted all that you bring up. He really did know what he was talking about:

Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us—an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest—when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon—an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature—shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious.] — Schopenhauer

You make a great point in this thread. The pessimism is absolutely warranted. But not many will vibe with your position since, I'm willing to bet, many, if not most on TPF, (just as in the world) are already heavily invested and their interests deeply embedded in the scheme. The positive thing I take from all the absurdity: at least I now know with absolute certainty that the present generation is as stupid as I had previously suspected. — Merkwurdichliebe

Right on. As Schopenhauer stated, people like to have something to struggle for- I suspect the "interests deeply embedded" part. It's an illusion, to just keep the merry-go-round.

I hear you, and I feel a certain relief in not having forced someone into this maze. A different personality might feel guilty for not giving a new soul the opportunity of this maze. I've known great ecstasy and terrible suffering. I can't make a final judgment on life, though 'in youth is pleasure' makes sense to me. I'm losing the highs and the lows. It's the self-important dreams of youth that help light up life. The path of the grim sage is a strange one, and its haunted by divine laughter. 'Nothing is funnier than unhappiness.' I experience my own dark lines as a kind of stand-up comedy. As long as I stick around to gripe, I'm still invested. The gloomy existentialist still hopes for a piece of tail. The ideological violence is the rattle of a peacock feather, a seductive virtual eye of quasi-renunciation and pseudo-transcendence.

Life is a jest; and all things show it. I thought so once; and now I know it.

'My Own Epitaph' John Gay

I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kohelet-ecclesiastes-full-text

All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.

Worstward Ho! (Beckett)

This vid can be interpreted as a parody of metaphysics (also Beckett):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXoq_H9BrTE

This is nice too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpgOcWZHEcY

This last one is insanely concentrated: life is a mouth that can't shut up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4LDwfKxr-M — jjAmEs

I like that one.

Your needs and wants require others to work. Their needs and wants require you to work. I don't just mean in the economic sense, though that can be literally taken that way. Rather, our needs requires others- this shows in our inability to survive through infancy and childhood with absolutely no human interaction. Let's look at the chain of events parents are doing by having children:
1) The children rely on the parent for survival at the very beginning.
2) The parents rely on neighbors, childcare, family to help raise the child
3) The parents rely on the school systems to look after child, socialize them with peers and disciplined authority, as well as learning to do work in a timely fashion
4) That is another person who will need to buy goods and services, and then need to work under owners, managers, or in some cases the customers themselves

All of this work that we end up making each other do, to maintain our survival, comfort, and entertainment. Again, why should we keep make each other do all of this? Why should we socialize more people into the world with their needs and wants? Can you see why this makes me think that we are being used possibly more than we are using? Here we are, not of our own devices keeping the big ship going that keeps our unending needs and wants satiated.

We are forced to deal with ourselves and others. We cannot just be. As Schopenhauer stated:

Boredom is certainly not an evil to be taken lightly: it will ultimately etch lines of true despair onto a face. It makes beings with as little love for each other as humans nonetheless seek each other with such intensity, and in this way becomes the source of sociability. — Schopenhauer WWR

And here:

Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us—an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest—when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon—an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature—shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious.

That this most perfect manifestation of the will to live, the human organism, with the cunning and complex working of its machinery, must fall to dust and yield up itself and all its strivings to extinction—this is the naïve way in which Nature, who is always so true and sincere in what she says, proclaims the whole struggle of this will as in its very essence barren and unprofitable. Were it of any value in itself, anything unconditioned and absolute, it could not thus end in mere nothing. — Schopenhauer, On the Vanity of Existence

Absurd in relation to what, though? Do you see the self-eating snake? For some it's aesthetically justified. For these the extinction is the ultimate threat and not the ultimate release.

What is this vague sense of something that should be there that would be all things from absurdity? What is the meaning that would rescue humanity from meaninglessness? Even God seems like a vague approximation and not the god-shaped hole itself. Against what background are the doings of man absurd? What's he seen that he likes better? If not simply a more user-friendly environment? A new and improved Garden Of Delights? — jjAmEs

The absurdity comes from the repetition of human affairs- it all comes back to surviving, maintaining comfort, entertainment in some cultural context. We know what it is, we have seen it billions of times, yet we want more people to be born to experience this same thing.

Perhaps if we view the human project as a relay race rather than an individual race, it'll make more sense. There's the finish line - end of all suffering for humans and, if possible, for all living things. Our forbears began roughly 2 million years ago, did their bit towards ending suffering and passed on the baton to the next generation and it in turn did the same and here we are, at the present moment, playing our part in this chain of lives with the express purpose of ending the pain and suffering that comes with living.

Pandemics, disasters, wars, etc. are a part of this journey as much as sprains, fractures and even deaths are part of a relay race; the person who began the race and the person in the middle of the run will not make it to the finish line but, with courage, determination and a little bit of luck, someone will. — TheMadFool

I'm mainly in agreement with @jjAmEs. I would also add that using individuals to try to get to some utopian/heavenly realm on Earth, is still using their suffering. Also, our human natures are pretty much fixed, whatever the material circumstances. The striving dissatisfaction Schopenhauer described would make the efforts to alleviate suffering for naught. To equivocate actual release from suffering with smply economic circumstances would be a false attribution.

I don't have much to disagree with other than to say it's all a matter of opinion, but I thought I would point out that it is these kinds of crises that cause baby booms. — VagabondSpectre

Ironic, right?

If your position holds, then it's almost an irony that as our mistakes and circumstances clarify and worsen -as the hole deepens- we inevitably start digging with greater fervor.

Of course, it's a necessary jerk from an evolutionary-survival perspective... — VagabondSpectre

I don't see procreation related to survival or innate instincts in humans. We can decide not to do it. If it is a thought-preference, it is not an innate urge, like most other animals. Rather "I'm bored, and this feels good" is a preference of an individual based on predispositions for pleasure and avoiding boredom.

I think you give humanity too much credit. If somebody was already planning on bringing children into a world and life that involves work, suffering, sickness, need, grief, etc - into a life that culminates in an inevitable death - then I highly doubt the existence of just another way among many to suffer (covid-19) will be the tipping the point that sways them into antinatalism. — Inyenzi

True points.

I really have and continue to endure this vision. It's one lens on reality among others. I'd just add that 'meaningless' only makes sense if 'meaning' is grasped as some trans-biological vague thing that perhaps cannot be specified. Personally I think time is involved here. All things are perishable, therefore all things are meaningless. That seems to be the implicit logic. It's as if that we future-oriented beings crave/suppose something like a point at infinity (an eternal God or his surrogate) in order to feel grounded in our doings. — jjAmEs

Well the repetition of the same. We basically understand what the human condition is. Why keep perpetuating it. If humanity can realize the absurdity as a whole community and instead of forcing people into the work of life, slowly diminish that work for future generations by simply not having them. You survive, get more comfortable with your environment, and then entertain yourself. It rally doesn't have be done again and again. Even the "goods" of life (basically physical pleasure, aesthetic pleasure, feelings of accomplishment, relationships, flow states) are just the same chasing after wind over and over. Let's just realize that its worn its welcome this existence thing. Politics and economies and such just reiterate what we really are culling. Culling is the key word. Culling.

One is one's own child. One lives for one's own accomplishments and reputation rather than vicariously through the success of the child. In that sense, parents are no less narcissistic. Indeed, 'doing it for the children' is nice justification of household selfishness. Kids play a huge role in justificatory rhetoric, as I'm sure you know. — jjAmEs

Yes that was my point. But a decision to be childless will affect no future person.

People will keep breeding. I assure you. And even the poor, the least secure, will keep breeding. — jjAmEs

This seems to be true. The justifications for why don't seem to be reflected on much. Ones own vain pursuit of some goal. The next generation somehow has to be created, but why? It's all the same absurd repetition and there is a lot of suffering outside just internal wills that are not satisfied. Things like pandemics, for example. But the number and ways is seemingly endless.

Do you know this author? He treats the declining birth rate in sophisticated nations. Many of us want to remain children rather than have them. I chose this path. This is the narcissistic path. — jjAmEs

Yes I have heard of him, but never actually read any of his books. Can you explain the part of narcissism? That doesn't make sense to me at all. The view that being a parent makes you an X type of person (put any description there), seems like a way to perpetuate the whole scheme of having more children in the first place. And wouldn't that be narcissistic to prove you are X type of person by procreating a whole new life?

Why keep the scheme going? Why keep the absurd repetition going to yet another life? I mean, we get the picture.. survival, comfort, entertainment, repeat. But doe we HAVE to keep repeating!

Herr Schopenhauer- your well thought out post is a masterpiece. Well done. — Teller

Thank you kind sir!

I would, if I may, take a small issue with your thoughts in Section 1. If I understand you correctly, you are questioning the ethics of procreation in this time of uncertainty, fear, illness and death. I would say it may be wise to stop and take time to reflect on the nature of Nature.
Human beings in their wisdom or lack of it, have given us the present world. Humans will have to deal with it. I would like to think that you might not want ALL Nature to cease replicating just because of questionable human behaviour.
This may be a good time for us to reflect on the fact that we are as much a part of Nature as anything in our existence. It might be a good time to keep this in mind. — Teller

So this may not surprise you, but I question the ethics of procreation at any time. I consider my views as antinatalist- that is to say, I think that having children is not a good idea due to reasons of suffering for the future generation. I just think that in this time in particular, this would be an impetus for others to also start holding this view, especially due to the more apparent suffering that one can currently see on a mass societal level.

We are a part of nature, true. But we are not bound to replicate more people into its indifference. And precisely because of our nature in Nature, we cannot but repetitively and absurdly survive, maintain our comfort, and try to entertain ourselves. These three seemingly innocuous things lead to the striving, internalized strife that Schopenhauer discusses at length. He doesn't split it so distinctly in those nice three categories (that's my bit), but I think those cover the major forces behind most of our willful (and subconscious) needs and wants. Even religion and finding meaning falls under "entertainment" here. These survival/comfort/entertainment pursuits create the epiphenomenal organizations of societal institutions which we then become ensnared in to keep our personal pursuits of survival, comfort, and entertainment continuously going. Thus we become enmeshed in keeping this gargantuan meaningless system that uses its participants from its epiphenomenal need to maintain its power, control, and legitimacy, in order for people to pursue the basic human conditions of survival, comfort, and entertainment.

I'm not sure if this is possible, but is there a way to divide the screen into two sections- a bigger pane and smaller one.. The bigger pane would have the actual debate between two participants, and then a running commentary from the audience can be had in the smaller pane?

Right, we’ll live apart from others for the rest of our lives. What if it only prolongs the inevitable? — NOS4A2

All the countries who have done containment well is showing a decline in number of cases, and to the point where they are going back to work, so there is empirical proof there..

Also, the goal of isolation is not to completely eradicate the disease but to "flatten the curve" which means not expose oneself to the point where hospitals cannot even save people that can normally be saved.

Measures for three but not for me. — NOS4A2

What does that even mean in this context?

Asking people to give up their livelihood and the means with which they support themselves and their family isn’t asking a little. It is asking a lot, and with dire consequences. — NOS4A2

Yeah, freakn' blows...so is dying or transmitting a potential lethal virus with no cure.

I think it’s reasonable to quarantine the sick. I don’t think it is reasonable to quarantine healthy. — NOS4A2

Hmm, how do those people get sick in the first place? How do you contain the spread of a virus? Oh yeah, not being in contact with people!

So you do need to be forced or otherwise coerced into taking proactive measures to protect yourselves and others? — NOS4A2

Nope, but apparently others do. Que the guy who goes to a crowded spring break beach, with all the other people going there...

Again I don’t think it’s that black and white. You are literally not helping others, protecting others, or soothing any suffering by hiding in your house. You are hiding. You have retreated. You have cowered. Those who are helping people are the first line in this pandemic: doctors, nurses, “essential workers”. So let’s stop pretending we are in some way morally better because we hide in our bedrooms. — NOS4A2

What does this have to do with the argument? That is such a red herring! The argument was civil liberties vs. federal government intervention. Oddly you are making my case by saying how little it as asking people to do.. Most people it means stay at home as much as possible. This is the best and minimal thing you can do as a citizen. Then there is federal aid to hospitals, etc. done in a fair, quick, and smart way. That part requires federal action and money, and the orange clown in office isn't going to get us there.

In my mind the utilitarian calculus is the one that claims to save lives by denying basic civil liberties and human rights while ruining the very means with which we provide for our families. It does not follow that such measures need to be enforced in order to practice them. Do you yourself require a police-state and a ruined economy to physically distance yourself from others, to practice hygiene and to follow common-sense steps to avoid infection? — NOS4A2

So first you say quarantining isn't eve a big deal, and now its police-state. Which is it? But anyways, the major point is yes..clearly people do need to be told about this, as can be shown when many people were at bars and restaurants despite the order and some employers circumvented the intent of the law by mandating people come to work, even if they were non-essential and can work from home. It's that simple. You have watched too many reruns of Red Dawn, dude.

So leaving the country semi-open with the recommendation that people stay at home and work from home as much as they can, actually works. — Christoffer

So I had a scenario where this plays out and it turns out not well, due to employee pitted against employer and other employees. This was when the lockdown measures were not as stringent in most countries.. and I think this will be the same in any country, including Sweden. Check out the discussion here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7913/business-ethics-and-coronavirus/p1

But I do think we can (and should) criticize approaches that deny citizens their basic civil liberties and throw the global economy to the wind. Sure, that approach may work to stave off a pandemic or to prop up our inadequate healthcare systems, but the unintended consequences of such actions may end up being far worse. — NOS4A2

If Jefferson had the order right: Life comes before liberty because without a life, there is no liberty to be had. Without civil liberties, there is no pursuit of happiness. But you still need that life there first. How bad does it have to be then, for any intervention? Let's say Ebola was highly contagious and airborne, would it be acceptable then? Also, global economies ultimately depend on a more-or-less healthy population. Without the healthy population, you have an economic collapse anyways as everyone is sick in hospitals- organizations that would have no measure of help in your scenario.

It is a weird utilitarian calculus to try to boost a future economy but not help those who are dying now. Apparently the golden rule idea doesn't apply to government, only crass utilitarian ones that calculate current death with economic depressions. Depressions do indeed hurt people, but usually they don't lead to outright death. Poverty does suck as a close second though, that I'll admit, but it is second.

And I suppose zero criticism for those who are in charge of, and have jurisdiction over, their own emergency responses. — NOS4A2

The governors in most blue states actually seem to be doing the most they can.. can't say that much for the ones kissing up to Trump..