If don't even want to make those changes, then what on earth are you asking for advice about? What kind of response do you think I'd get if I wrote a dozen threads whining about how I wasn't yet a millionaire but refused any and all advice about how to become one on the grounds that it would entail me actually having to do something? — Isaac

Unnecessary tone..

Anyways, thats the conundrum. The millionare analogy is not apt as in that case someone wants to be a millionaire. The premises of life are set. One has to abide them or die. There is no choice excepting suicide. The only choices are to accept the game. Thats no choice though. You are looking at playing it well or not. Im looking at it from not even accepting the terms, even if they are set.

Clearly you are stuck inside your own negative premises. From which there is no escape without motivation. — A Seagull

No I mean it. Let's say you have a severe illness that completely ravages your body and internal organs. Let's say you slowly recover. What does one do with that? Oh boy, it's just a raw deal? Yep, yes it is. But what else is that? Well, that is what happens in a contingent universe? Oh yes, real comfort food there. Well, getting over harsh conditions, strengthens ones disposition? Besides, that one might have come out weakened, not strengthened physically, I don't know why that should be a sign that one is better off to now have dealt with more pain. It is just more grist for the mill. You are the grist in this case. The mill didn't like you very much. Keep moving. Keep working. You need to survive again in "normal" conditions. No one gives a shit. That's life. Just accept it. Try to improve yourself. Take stock. Look at the premises and do better at abiding by them. You see the theme I am getting at? Yeah it is just a bit cynical, but that might be what is called for here.

@Bitter Crank @Artemis @3017amen @180 Proof @Isaac

Ironically, you can be a miserable piece of shit in your mood, treat people like shit, but not openly criticize the premises of life, and because you are at least "contributing" to the game are deemed fine and worthy.

If you are a nice, caring, friendly, person but openly criticize the premises of life, even if you are "contributing" you are deemed as unworthy. It doesn't matter your character, how you treat people. It matters that you don't denigrate the game itself, you contribute willingly and fully. It's all about accepting the premises or not openly criticizing it to be accepted. I see it here. And of course in open real world society.

My advice - just lie down where you are. If that displeases you, think of something which would please you more and do that. If the thought of doing something distasteful simply because it displeases you less than some other thing displeases you, then think something else, something which displeases you less. Your thoughts do not arrive out of the ether fully formed that you have to just accept them by default. They are constructed by your brain to suit the behaviour you put them to. Your feelings of displeasure with the premises of life are not a rational judgement which you must treat as sacrosanct. They're just the story your brain thinks best explains your behaviour and sensory inputs. Change your behaviour and sensory input and your brain will change the story. — Isaac

The disposition is not about "change your behavior". That is implying that something should or can be changed. Let us say that really, there are people that simply don't like the premises of life, no matter what. It's not that they don't think they can't "improve" some goals in this or that (by simply living, one has to do that in some way, so that's not really in question), but the OVERALL game itself- the fact that this improvement is or has to even taking place. All of it is not liked.

It's a conundrum. And we like to think of life now as a machine that can be corrected. Thus therapists and such are somehow the machine service people that ensure the outliers are running smoothly. There's no philosophical way out. Therapists have to be aboard the accepting crew. They need to account for well-adjustment in society. Nothing to see here.. Keep moving. Don't complain. YOU are the problem. This machine needs to run.

Pollyanna. It's easy to say rewards, good things, etc.

Could you give me an example? — BitconnectCarlos

The example is exactly someone who would ask the question, "What if you don't like the premises of life?" Nothing more or less.

I guess I can explain by going back again to dealing with. An analogy might be something like a game. If you were on a game that you can't get out of except through death, well there are a couple options. Some people "accept" the game (what many people including you suggest), and then offer ways to get better at certain aspects of it. But then there are some people who simply don't like the premises, the very game itself. Yes, they know there are people with ways to "improve" how to play it, but they don't like the fact that they are dealing with the game, whether improving it or not, in the first place. I also think, as you suggest, that improving doesn't necessarily apply to all individuals, but that is a different debate. Let's just stick to the analogy of improving aspects of the game vs. not even wanting to deal with the improving or dealing with the circumstances of the game in the first place.

I mean don't get me wrong... you can solve a lot of these problems. But when you just throw out like 8-9 different areas of life that people struggle with (romance, wealth, sickness, etc.) it's just so broad that it's tough for me to say anything meaningful. I'd much rather narrow the focus.

I think in general though some of it can be fixed and others you just can't. If something is unfixable you'll just have to come to accept it. The vexing ones are the ones that are maybe solvable. — BitconnectCarlos

Well you are assuming this is about fixing something. That might be the wrong approach. The question is "What if you don't like the premises of life?" So it already points to the idea that accepting isn't even part of the equation. That would be more like, "How can I improve my life?" That would be someone who is open to the idea that there is some sort of positive building going on, that should be sought after. This is more like someone who knows well ideas like "self-improvement" and doesn't even accept the premises themselves, that others might find can be "improved" upon.

Since I can concretely identify the issues which are causing me trouble I wouldn't really describe the problem as "the premises of life." I don't know how it is with you though. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, I guess the "dealing with" part is how it is. I tend to think everyone has to deal with those dealing withs, and people manage positively sometimes, and don't question the dealings with. Others do question it (me I guess). I asked for advice on people who don't like the dealings with besides suicide or "go see someone" (see a therapist.. making it just a psychological disposition that needs to be "fixed" through cognitive-behavioral or other type of therapy).

Unleash your inner existentialist. We may take issue with the way life is and see no meaning or logic behind it, but if this is so, the importance lies not in this area, but in creating one's own meaning.

As Nietzsche once said: 'To live is to suffer. To survive is to find meaning in the suffering.'

From a philosophical perspective, I suggest research into Camus' Myth of Sisyphus or Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra. — The Abyss

Yes I am aware of these philosophies and am actually against them. You are aware that Nietzsche tried to overturn Schopenhauer's philosophy, correct? I think Nietzsche and Camus is simply the "accepting" crowd. I am a bit more rebellious than that in my outlook. Accepting the premises (let's just distill it to suffering in some way as you have seemed to elude to), is simply trying to justify that there is suffering in the first place. It does not turn suffering on its head- it simply enables it. It's not even clever. In other words, screw Nietzsche's idea of finding meaning in the suffering, haha.

Life is an abattoir, not an argument. — 180 Proof

Hehe.. I can agree with that.

You need to be more specific about what exactly you don't like. I can't discern it just from you mentioning "the premises of life." — BitconnectCarlos

You can't distill some premises on your own? Do I need to explicate?
If I had to characterize the premises, it is being thrown into the world with an orientation for "dealing with". Now just complete the sentence with all that you have experienced:

Dealing with...other people, their differing personalities, expectations, judgements, affects on your well-being
Dealing with...survival through cultural institutions and situatedness (socio-economic means)
Dealing with... illnesses, disorders, disasters, accidents, injuries
Dealing with...finding relationships, love, connection
Dealing with...cause and effect in general, the affects/effects of one's own decisions- poor or otherwise
Dealing with...one's own inability to be satisfied

Keep going if you wish. I've given you a nice starter.

Enjoy! Life is for enjoying! — A Seagull

Say that to someone extremely ill. Is the illness supposed to be good because if one gets through it life seems better? You gotta do better than that.

Shirley there must be fresh and novel methods! — Bitter Crank

Indeed.

One can flail away at the unfairness of life's ingravescent inimicalities, but they are not going to go away. So Schop, find a place that is not too awful and endure the bad situation. It will all be over before you know it. — Bitter Crank

It is just bad situations heaped on each other, over and over again, sometimes the grinding down process is like a drill.. life just throws painful moment after moment.. sometimes it is like a slow turning screw, ever so steadily grinding you down.

I am in that boat as well, so I wonder if the category of human beings under consideration aren't just supposed to accept burden and discontentment as part of life, and deal as anyone in their situation - through resilience and endurance. Then again, this may appear contrary to the spirit of the question, i.e. why have resilience and endurance?

P.S.: I wonder if loving and being loved isn't supposed to change that attitude. On one hand, love means caring, which implies suffering. On the other hand, caring is investment in life and a sense of purpose. — simeonz

Yes, I've noticed that acceptance seems to always be the "go to" for any of this. But how is this not trivial? Isn't living every day, default "accepting"? Also, what of things like sickness, and accidents? A lot of people think that by enduring this, that it enriches their life when they make it through. I don't know, for me, it just dulls life that much more that on top of the everyday dealings with other people, BS in general, societal maneuverings of the daily kind, there is the pain and suffering of being struck by enduring illness, injury, and the like.

As far as romantic love, how does this ameliorate anything? Building a loving relationship, and keeping one, are even more difficult these days than back in the day when it was an expectation (though leading to much unhappiness for staying in bad relationships). Besides, even the best of relationships can lead to pain from differences in expectations.

But anyways, in this more recent climate of shallowness, self-absorption, and short-sightedness, intimate partners are harder to come by these days. The whole caring about someone who is particularly special to you and you to them is diminishing as the years move forward. Increasingly, you're on your own in sickness and health, except for perhaps your immediate family (if they are still alive and well and in communication).

I don't agree. It's a style that overlaps other approaches to philosophy.

Please don't make stuff up about me. — Banno

I'm not making stuff up. You said earlier that you didn't like it in comparison with other methods/schools earlier. I am saying to make the distinctions clear, it is good to compare and contrast with other methods.

If it's a style, what makes it distinct? What would NOT be that style? I can replace analytic with any synonym at this point- vague vs. precise (analytic) philosophy. But that is a shallow understanding of analytic philosophy if it isn't just a synonym for "whatever I find to be exacting and precise logical thinking". I have outlined three basic things that I think analytic philosophy takes into account. You can see my previous post if you'd like to discuss that. Otherwise, your vague answers to the question, don't seem to move the dialogue forward as to what analytic philosophy is.

It's what I do. — Banno

Yes I've noticed. One thing I disagree with you on is that it can be hermetically sealed as something that does not need to be in distinction with other forms of philosophy. If there is analytic philosophy, then it would be revealing what is NOT analytic philosophy or what other schools of philosophy would look like in comparison. Otherwise, anything can be considered analytic philosophy. By that I mean nothing can be considered analytic philosophy either. You need some distinction there with other methods to compare it to.

Perhaps you can elucidate your own views. You seem to not put any positive statements about analytic philosophy, thus shooting others down from the back row. You can't ask others to do something and not participate yourself. I think 3017amen had some correct understanding of early analytic philosophy. Perhaps then, there is no analytic philosophy then. I myself, have given three defining features in a previous post, but no one really made a comment on it one way or another.

I would love to hear from other's....or perhaps you might could elucidate some... . — 3017amen

Perhaps the analytics would say that Schop has to define "Will" more precisely. They would not let him get away with making his own definition. Rather, they would want the theory to be tied to some empirically verifiable psychological one. Thus, they would probably find an appropriate model in psychology that corresponds to Schop's Will and use that as a jumping off point to explain Will. Then they would use perhaps counterexamples of other psychological theories and show how those would not work. However, I think most would simply not make a jump to posit Will as a force beyond psychology as that would be a category error perhaps. Overall, they would find the claims too speculative. Making leaps from human subjective viewpoint to the whole world.

But not existential phenomena associated with living life and the sentient human condition (why we wonder about things, care about things like Love, the Will, and other metaphysical/psychological wants and needs, etc.). — 3017amen

Good points. Even though, it's anachronistic (because he lived before the distinction of analytic/continental), Schopenhauer would be a great model for (good) continental philosophy. He sets out a large overarching premise about life/universe (the world is Will and Representation), and then builds a system, step-by-step, using mainly Kantian distinctions of phenomena and noumena, to explicate how the world can be subjective and objective. This would probably not fly in analytic circles. Would you be able to explain perhaps, 3017amen, how it is analytics would object to Schopenhauer's approach? Based on what you wrote, the main thing they would object to is mixing a priori with synthetic, which is the Kant approach.

Palestinian terrorism would justify Israel's state terrorism, but not vice versa. — David Mo

Not quite the same. A state will do what is in its power to stop terrorism or threat to its population. Terrorists who act from remote countries, well this will look different when the terrorists are right next door or in your midst. In a country the size of New Jersey with the terrorist actors literally in the same land areas, this is going to look the way it does. Now, there are extremists on the Jewish side that can sound and act pretty crazily too. I mentioned one that killed Rabin. But, unlike the Palestinian side which seems to use it as a weapons, get praise, and is seen as a "win" for their side, I suspect if the Israeli government got ahold of a plot from the extreme right on their side, it would be tried, and they would be punished accordingly. This is something I've never heard the Palestinian side do. Instead, many people in government on the Pals side are behind it I suspect. This is particularly the case with Hamas, etc.

Again, it is a miscalculation on the Pals side to use terrorism as a weapon. One of the reasons is their goals are unreasonable. Many in leadership still don't want to give up and make concessions. That is what negotiating is. You have to give something up. Everyone will not walk away with what they want. That is THE key in resolving this. Some of the stated goals are to literally push Israel into the sea. You can't work with that. I will say, in order for this to work, moderates have to step up to the plate on both sides. I agree with that much. Otherwise, it is a permanent stalemate, with each side doing what it knows how to do best.

Other branches of philosophy don't do this? — Banno

I was trying to keep it 10 words or less. To elaborate, as far as I know, continental philosophy is based on more of a historical approach/ systems approach. It is more free form. Analytic philosophy is mainly based on a few assumptions in its methodology: language analysis matters (as errors in vague language can lead to pseudo-statements or "nonsense"), science matters (as what is said about the universe must be assumed to be verified/falsified through empirical observations/experimentation), and logic matters (as how ordinary language can be reconstructed to become coherent analytic statements is most important for any "truth" to be discovered about the terms used). Analytic philosophy is thus heavily based on analysis of language for underlying logic, analysis of empirical/scientific data, and making sure language is clear and precise without any ambiguities. At least, that is the goal perhaps.

What gets lost with this emphasis is often the structural understanding of metaphysics/epistemology that you would get with the contintentals who are more willing to provide big picture understandings. This approach is more adventurous and related to normal human thought-process, but the downside is the terms are often bogged down in vague self-referential terms. However, continental philosophy done well, takes into account clarity of language used, defines its terms well, and provides a step-by-step basis for the system-building.

In both analytic and continental traditions, often people can be speaking past each other as each are working in their own little sphere of historical development where the terms are only clear to those specialized in them. The most useful philosophical texts, in my opinion, would provide historical understanding of terms, methodology, and approaches, thus providing context of why they are using the ones they are. This is of upmost significance in philosophy where nothing is set in stone. It is not a science like chemistry, where terms can be assumed and not explained from historical development. That is my opinion though.

Not the story they taught me.
The best-seller books of history maybe. — David Mo

I don't know what you really meant by counterfactual history. What I meant was that a major part of history is analyzing the decisions that were made and how that negatively or positively affected a later outcome. I don't know what you're trying to get at. In this case, instead of working on a plan for a Palestinian state, the Arab countries along with the Palestinians decided that this was not the route they wanted to go. Rather, full annihilation was more important. As I judge it, that was a poor decision during the years when that was possible to create some sort of independent state.

Do you blame the Jews for not knowing how to negotiate with Hitler? — David Mo

This is a ridiculous statement. This analogy is extremely bad, and in poor taste. It's actually beyond poor taste. When did Jews in Europe ever have a chance to "negotiate" with Hitler? Palestinian leadership has had plenty of chances to negotiate with Israel. The problem is the negotiation tactics have been "Israel should be driven to the sea", and "suicide bombers will do the negotiating for us through terror and scare tactics". Again, this is another poor tactic, similar to the decision not to make a state when they could have. Why is this a poor decision? In a land the size of New Jersey, when you feel your very life is threatened on any bus or cafe or public area, and that it is happening frequently and at any time, you will vote for a strongman who will prevent things from happening and use maximum force if threatened, take maximum security check measures, and less likely to give in to demands.

Essentially this is what happened during the 90s and 2000's. A bunch of suicide bombings created an atmosphere of distrust of left-wing politicians to protect them. Certainly, on the Israel side, it was terrible that Rabin was assassinated as he was trying for a path (even if he was working with a less than willing partner). Certainly it was terrible that Arafat could not negotiate with Ehud Barak over something like a very miniscule amount of land. But unfortunately, on top of those relatively unstable attempts at peace, the main "negotiating" tactic on the Palestinian side has been terror. Again, a bad decision for them as instead of terrifying the Israeli population into leaving or giving into any demand, it just made them vote for more conservative strongmen. Memories are pretty long in that part of the world. I don't know Israeli politics that closely, but my guess is that the fear of any letting up on security measures or strongmen tactics would precipitate more terror attacks and thus continue the cycle.

What can be done on the Palestinian side? Moderation with the genuine desire to curb terror activity. What can be done on the Israeli side? Vote in someone willing to go back to the negotiating table. However, what will probably happen is once someone more left-leaning gets voted in, the rockets and suicide bombers will see an opening, the Israeli public will get fearful again and vote in another conservative strongman.

Let's not start with counterfactual scenarios. — David Mo

Yet, that is exactly how history can be analyzed. Anyways, I don't see anything you said as countering the fact that this is about an issue of the inability to negotiate.

Respect to the human rights or justice. Call it as you like. — David Mo

And how many countries started without respecting human rights in some way and continue to do so? Should they be dismantled as countries? China doesn't respect certain rights of privacy, speech, religion, and so on. Should that country be dissolved? Russia has a fake democracy. English and French kings and lords violated human rights all the time with torturing and quartering enemies and prisoners. Germany enacted a Holocaust as late as the 20th century and precipitated the immediate need for Jews to have a place that can be considered their own. America expanded into what some would say was sovereign territory by the Native Americans and enslaved peoples from Africa. Native American tribes often killed men and women, and kidnapped small children to raise them in their own tribe. Are all these nations less worthy of land they own?

But I know the counter argument that two wrongs don't make a right. I agree. But, let's look at the facts on the ground. The West Bank and Gaza did not want to form into a state between 1948-1967. Or at least, Jordan and Egypt didn't want to encourage this. They wanted the whole thing or nothing at all. Israel got the West Bank and Gaza, and the Sinai, after being threatened from imminent attack in 1967 and again in 1973.

Then came an intractable problem. From the 70s onwards, there were bombings and terror acts against Israeli civilians by suicide bombers. You have to have "reasonable" negotiating partners in order to make a deal. Suicide bombing does not engender reasonableness. It was a bad strategy if you wanted to negotiate in good faith and not simply want the other side obliterated or driven out. This cycle continues to this day. Suicide attacks will cause the population to not trust "liberals" who will not protect the citizens, and drive the peace process further backwards. Both sides want a stalemate because they don't see a way out.

Either way, I don't see it as a human rights thing as much as an inability to negotiate. Nothing is one-sided.

What seems obvious is that claiming rights from two thousand years ago based on legends would turn the international map into a chaos of claims and struggles. That is the main idea. — David Mo

What gives any nation authority or legitimacy?

AP relies on conceptual analysis and formal logic/truth tables.

A. fuckin'. Men, schop! :clap: :clap: :clap: Hallelujah. — 180 Proof

Thank you! You highlighted and emphasized all the major points too. I like that :grin: .

Besides, early evangelists couldn't proselytize to Roman citizens that an official of Rome had lynched the very Lord who would "save" them, so the propaganda (Gospels) had to blame the "Jewish mob" - thus, by extension all Jews in perpetuity - of "deicide" who extorted Pilate to "Crucify him!" (i.e. blood libel)

Muslim antisemitism merely plagiarizes Christian antisemitism. Such is history. — 180 Proof

Good points.

With the Christian hatred, as others pointed out, it is the deicide charge in Matthew and John mainly. As a complete atheist and historically-minded person (not theological/propagandist history) on this, what I see that happened was a basically ethnic-tribal religion (Judaism) had its own mythological history and set of laws. People such as Paul of Tarsus used the platform of this obscure Jewish figure (Jesus) to make a new sort of ideology whereby the Jewish god comes in the form of a man (or son of man or son of god or some variant of all three), and is "sacrificed" for your sins. Thus, somehow the old tribal Mosaic law is no longer necessary and thus anyone who is not of the tribal religion is "saved" by this event if they "believe". Besides the fact that this is all nonsense horseshit made up in ancient times, what it effectively did was steal a tribal religion's historical myths and then PERSECUTED the very people who invented them for not following their own tribal historical myths correctly. Think about this.. This is CRAZY. It is as if an Englishman or a Frenchman came into China and said, "Hey we REALLY understand Confucius better than you Chinese do!". Are you nuts?? You cannot steal a culture's myths, change their meaning and then kill off the original copywriters to make your "twist" on it legitimate. The same can be said happened in Islam. Jewish historical-myths were taken, changed to fit an Arabian setting and then when local Arabian Jews were like, "That's not how the stories go.." he got angry and turned against them. This along with other politics of tribal affiliations and political alliances, etc.

What was probably the case was Jesus fit very firmly in his cultural context of 1st century Judea. Based on his sayings and his outward focus, he was probably a radical or reformist Pharisee (focused on the margins of society and intent behind the law). He had his own opinions on Mosaic law (as there was no INTERPRETATION of the law codified yet in anything like a Talmud, at least for the Pharisee sect). Also, he was probably an apocalyptic Pharisee which made him unusual as most Pharisees were "wait and see". They knew too much focus on End of Times would get people killed by Roman authority. Thus by going to the "Lost Sheep of Israel" and getting them to be what he thought was better Jews, he thought the hastening of the Kingdom of God would occur. He probably incorporated that part from the same ideas as John the Baptist who came right before him. When he went to Jerusalem, he probably thought the Kingdom of God was literally going to start happening, and he was going to do some miraculous event. I have a feeling, the most historical lines in the whole New Testament was, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" If not whitewashed, that actually indicates that he really thought hew as going to get something done to change things and this didn't happen. Pontius Pilate (noted by Josephus and Roman historians as overly ruthless, even for Rome) had him crucified, like almost every other Jewish claimant to be the Jewish king. Oh, it didn't help it happened on Passover, the very holiday that Rome looks for Jewish "freedom fighters" and messianic claimants because it was a holiday revolving around liberation from a foreign culture (mythological Exodus story).. Rome knew this and acted swiftly. At that time, the High Priests and the Temple priests in general were in the pockets of Rome and were essentially their lackeys, helping them keep "order". This all makes sense. Jews that were of the radical Pharisee sort, Apocalyptic types, One -off Messiah claimants, Essenes, and Zealots would be not looked upon kindly if they acted up against Rome or Temple Priestly authority.

Anyways, a couple decades later, Paul's ideas of the death/resurrection of Jesus set the stage for Replacement Theology.. whereby the "new" Israel were believers in Jesus. Interestingly, early Gentile Christianity represented by people like Marcion wanted to completely detach from the "Old Testament" as he thought it might even be a separate god. However, in Roman society, ancient cultures were deemed more legitimate than "new age" innovations. Thus, early gentile Christians realized that to spread the theology of Paul (Jesus died for your sins), they NEEDED to attach the idea to a culture that was more ancient (Judean/Jewish culture) to have it seen as more legitimate amongst the converts around the Mediterranean. So, this is what the early "Church Fathers" did and succeeded in converting most gentiles to the new religion by the year 400 CE. Thus, the original Jewish Jesus sect died out basically in those first couple centuries. The Pauline gentile variant spread. With the idea of Replacement Theology, Jews were considered to be stubbornly "wrong" in interpreting their own religion. They needed to be persecuted to be corrected. Then of course the whitewashing of Jesus' death so that they are deemed as "Christ-killers" etc. This made Judaism even more insular as it needed to protect itself from interference and persecution. The rest is history. That hatred permeated in various forms throughout history up until the 20th and 21st century. So in the end it is the very basis of Christianity (Replacement Theology) to "kill" the original copywriters and "correct" that culture's own ideas about its mythological history. Again, that's crazy.

On a slightly unrelated note, I had a thread a while back describing how humans are uniquely in a situation where they can evaluate very negative aspects of life and yet still go through with sub-optimal options as no other choice would make the situation better. As Julio Cabrera explains, we have only intra-wordly choices but we cannot have the choice to not have a choice to begin with. There is no repose.

I suppose one should tip one's hat to antinatalism as a topic. It requires, it seems to me, enormous posts, by antinatalists, by natalists and by those who are not either of those things. But I am not going to try to recreate those posts here. — Coben

Yes, I think antinatalism does require a lot of "spilled ink" (er, um, bits and bytes?) because it is such an unusual position to those who have not heard of it and there is a lot of nuance and variations and common objections to contend with, etc.

And do me a favor, would you keep an eye on Mad Fool's optimism about how in the near future we will be able to guarantee that lives will be good and antinatalism will no longer hold, though he thinks it holds now. — Coben

I'll try my best haha. I do see the trend there to assume techno-utopian ideas will somehow be a panacea. It will not.

You and I obviously have some fundamental disagreements, but I actually think there is something, well, almost mad, in his idea there. Some fundamental not seeing what life is like, and I think this is coupled with our age's deep religious belief in technology bringing in the Golden Age. It's not the messiah that's coming it's the benevolent AI or something that will make our lives perfect.

As much as I can be bothered by antinatalism, I don't consider it a threat. I do consider that kind of techno-faith a threat. — Coben

I do see a trend in this techno-faith. Besides the climate change thing which I think is a whole separate topic, people discount human nature. I agree with Schopenhauer, human nature is never fully satisfied. I don't care how rich, how technologically advanced we are, as long as human nature is in the equation, there will always be dissatisfaction of some kind.

Oh, I think we had some pretty cranky interchanges before. Or, at least, I was cranky. You've been quite pleasant to deal with recently. Or maybe it's me, lol. — Coben

I think I've always tried to maintain being pleasant. Others though have been vociferous with attacks much of the time, but I try to abide it and be civil. Sometimes it requires forceful replies. It all depends on what the interlocutor wants to make the exchange. From what I've gathered, you seemed quite personally offended by the concept of antinatalism, and thus perhaps you thought I was some boogyman? It looks like now you are kind of understanding antinatalism a bit more and not taking it as personally? I'm not sure, but seems like even if you disagree with it, you are not as personally offended by it. Either way, cheers to being less offended and at least trying to understand the other side.

That's how precious life is to me. It's despite all the pain precious to me. — Coben

I don't have time to respond to all your points, but I want to bring up this one. My ongoing thread discusses the idea of what justifies a "positive ethic" over and above a "negative ethic". By this I mean, what justifies people forcing other people into a view rather than not forcing them into a view. Let us say that modern Western life more-or-less presents a set of challenges. We can call this X. This consists of the broader globalized socio-economic industrialized economy we live in. Then we can say, each child is born into a particular sub-environment that are degrees of better or worse on the socio-economic scale. We can call this X1. Then we can say, that each individual family dynamic could be different (abusive, loving, this or that). That would be X1A. Then we can add on each individual personality/temperament/outlook/experiences (good or bad) and call that X1A'. Admittedly, I think the last one is weighted the most important.

Thus when a parent forces another life into the world (whether knowingly or not), the parent is thrusting the agenda of X1A' onto another life. Essentially what the parent is saying is "I declare agenda X1A' for this person to be more important than preventing any and all harm". The antinatalism in their "puritanical outlook" can still say at the end of the day, they forced no agendas onto others. The antinatalism can still say, by simply following the negative ethic of preventing a future child, no suffering ensued AND no actual person was deprived. No one suffers because Mars does not have children to feel happiness. No one laments because someone across the world isn't having children to feel life or joy or happiness right now. No, that is usually not how that works. What you are saying is that YOU X1A' therefore everyone should like X1A'. You accuse antinatalists of a sort of purtianical arrogance, but I don't see how this agenda which you prefer being foisted on others with consequences is not so.

if the absence of pain is good, then the absence of pleasure is bad. — Methinks

Benatar's asymmetry can also be considered based on "common sense". For example, if you knew that aliens on a distant planet were being enslaved and tortured (in a relatively human way of pain), you may feel some pity for them. However, if this distant planet (like most others) was barren of life, you probably wouldn't shed much of a tear or feel any angst or pity or remorse for there not being life on it due to the lack of happiness that is missed. Similarly, almost no one feels pain when people across the planet are not having children to feel happiness, but they certainly have some ounce of compassion for those born into some sort of harmful condition.

Methinks the assumption of asymmetry is simply false. See https://www.academia.edu/38291449/How_to_Reject_Benatars_Asymmetry_Argument — Methinks

You have to at least summarize the arguments. Even then, just looking on the internet for an anti- antinatalist paper is not really participating. Do you have your own thoughts besides these little quips? I wanted to provide you a background, not a provide a basis to send links to each other.

Correct, which is why it's considered an asymmetry. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar

Not if you read antinatalists here. How can we possibly ensure that no parent will not sexually abuse a child (if we can, we have some kind of panoticon Big brother society with other problems). How can we possibly know the child will not fall in love and never get over that first love and not want pills to fix that? There are astronomy level catastrophies that might maim and disable many people. There are people who are born and yearn for things they cannot have.

We have no brave new world that can or should make the antinatalists assume all suffering or all sad lives will be prevented.

And that is the position. Unless one has the consent of the person, you cannot put them in a situation where they may suffer.

And it will always be possible.

I feel alien from saying birth is neutral (or good or bad). I think it depends, in individual cases. But life, I like animal life, including us. Also plant life, which I think it is likely also can feel pain - though this is a tangent. And I do not like what I consider a death preferring perfectionism wihch I see antinatalism as as form of. I think natalism is also off, though less so, since it seems to think we should give birth. I just want some to, hopefully those who can parent well. — Coben

Hey you make a great case for antinatalism! :razz:

Exactly, "will" be affected, not is being affected. — Emind

This is morally relevant. If I launch a rocket launcher at someone, surely they will be affected. I believe that would be relevant being that in future time X something probably negative will occur to that person.

Whereas it seems that you would conceive that Trudy is affecting her child, I would construe it as Trudy doing something that will affect her child in the future.

It's a somewhat subtle distinction, but one nonetheless. — Emind

But all the same, that child will be affected once that future X time happens.

So it seems that although you need to exist to be affected by an act, you do not need to exist prior to the affecting act.

It seems to me, then, that you are conflating the 'existence condition' (which says you need to exist in order to be affected) with what we might call the 'prior existence condition' (which says you need to exist prior to an act in order to be affected by it). The 'existence condition' is true (I think), but the 'prior existence condition' is not. — Bartricks

This is correct. It is amazing that many people dont understand this concept that you dont have to exist prior to a certain point to be harmed ONCE you are actually brought into the world.

Methinks if perfect application of the NHP is purportedly impossible post-birth, then, since ought implies can, NHP is nonsensical. If perfect NHP is applied globally to eliminate procreation, then, at ieast within a couple of generations, it is a reductio of the principle. Silliness. — Methinks

The basic gist of the Benatarian version of the antinatalist argument is thus: Not procreating prevents suffering which is good. Not procreating prevents good experiences which is only bad if there is an actual person to be deprived. My spin on it was that another added benefit is that by not procreating, one is preventing the state of affairs whereby harm and force would befall an individual (the NHP and NAP principles). That is to say, one is not using a positive agenda ("I want a kid for X agenda) to justify violating an negative ethical principle (not causing conditions of harm for another and not forcing an agenda or way of life on another). It is not a reductio, as it is only in effect in the procreational decision. I don't see much of an argument other than you don't like it, find it silly, and you apply the term "nihilism" to it. Again, not much in the way of argument.