I mentioned love because love and moral consciousness for me is the motivation which is authentic, prompting us to respond against the grain of social cliches and to see people for what and who they are. It produces real happiness. — TimeLine

But romantic love also has something to do with attraction. It also has to do with signaling that attraction, and pursuing that attraction. It also has to do with luck (is the person available). It also has to do with social cues (don't look like a fool, seem charming, don't be too nervous, etc.).

Then there is the idea that people are mostly self-interested. To let another person be a focal point may be the biggest downfall for many people who just cannot get over themselves as their only focus point. Any one of these things I mentioned, can doom someone to be alone.

In this world, it's easier to find oneself alone and unloved than to find oneself with someone and truly loved (perhaps eventually in the way you describe: authentic, prompting us to respond against the grain of social cliches and to see people for what and who they are. It produces real happiness.). Hence, I put in the category of the tragic.

“There are no ideas which occur in metaphysics more obscure and uncertain than those of power, force, energy or necessary connexion, of which it is every moment necessary for us to treat in all our disquisitions. We shall, therefore, endeavor in this section to fix, if possible, the precise meaning of these terms, and thereby remove some part of that obscurity which is so much complained of in this species of philosophy.”

First of all, I disagree with Hume calling this 'metaphysics.' Even during the days of Aristotle, concepts of power, force and energy relate to physics and not metaphysics. Hume refers to 'necessary connexion' because it is impossible to establish cause and effect without a connexion between the two actions or events. This is what makes it necessary. — Ron Cram

This is metaphysics because we are discussing the nature of forces- what it "is". It is not simply predictions, experimentation, observation, modelling phenomena, and data collection of the physical universe (things that science does).

Hume again writes:
“When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operations of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connexion; [that is] any quality which binds the effect to the cause and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other. We only find that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard ball is attended with motion in the second. This is the whole that attends to the outward senses. The mind feels no sentiment or inward impression from this succession of objects: Consequently, there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, any thing which can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion."

Let me state it again. Hume is wrong here. We are able "in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connexion... that binds the effect to the cause." Hume's statement is demonstrably false. Once a person has learned the nature and properties of kinetic energy and how the transfer of kinetic energy works, then one can recognize a new instance of that power at work even though they have never seen it in that setting before. A child can learn about the transfer of kinetic energy in school and will immediately recognize that cause and effect on the billiard table. Similarly, if someone has never seen electricity before, with a proper experiment he can immediately grasp that electricity is the cause of the light bulb coming on. — Ron Cram

Again here, Hume is not doubting the science of kinetic energy that we observe. He is doubting that we have any basis for how observation comes about in the first place, as you can only use past observations to justify the future which is using inductive reasoning itself to justify itself. There is no basis for why our observations should hold consistently true each new instance except by custom. Now, you may disagree with his radical empiricism, but what you must understand is Hume is discussing the epistemology of inductive reasoning (which leads to the custom of cause-and-effect), not the findings that one may have from the reasoning (that one thing is caused by another).

Your debate about causation is unwittingly just a debate about realism (laws of nature real and "out there") vs. idealism (laws of nature are in our heads).

but Schop was a misogynist of the 'don't know em, so i know i dont need to know em' stripe. — csalisbury

True.

Either way, I can't take him seriously on romance, good as he is on some stuff. — csalisbury

I don't know, he seemed pretty insightful on certain aspects. Mainly when I invoke Schopenhauer here, I don't mean his specific writings on love and women (which I agree are of his lesser writings) but his general principle of will and the structural tragedies entailed in it (which is the kernel of his worldview and are extremely insightful). I also invoke him in contrast to Nietzsche, who tries to pull a fast one by embracing of what is painful to try to incorporate it in full acceptance. These are the people who prefer the frustrations, dramas, and soap operas because they want life to be its own drama that the individual plays out- a goal to strive for. Every Jack cannot have his Jill.

But romance isn't just [boredomcureX]. Certain cases are escapes from boredom, yes, no question. But romance isn't like drink or metal gear solid (my two boredom escapes.) Sometimes, it just really is romance and gosh it's nice. Romance doesn't last forever of course, so that 'gosh it's nice' has to evolve. but, still - that 'gosh it's nice' isn't reducible to [treat x ] staving off boredom. It's something very ..... Well, I mean, you have some soft and sweet childhood memories, I'm sure, otherwise you wouldn't be a pessimist. It's like those memories, only in addition to the sweet sadness, its hot too. — csalisbury

Yes, I am aware. Romance is a "good" in the positive sense amongst a handful of them. However, it is still a longing out of a restlessness. If we were simply content, we wouldn't need Romance or anything else for that matter.

It cannot dwell where, as Plato says, continual Becoming and never Being is all that takes place. First of all, no man is happy; he strives his whole life long after imaginary happiness, which he seldom attains, and if he does, then it is only to be disillusioned; and as a rule he is shipwrecked in the end and enters the harbour dismasted. — Schopenhauer

However, the main point of my response here is how poorly this supposed "good" is attained and maintained. We haven't figured out the key to our own happiness in this seemingly important matter and so we fall into overanalysis, tropes, and other vague guidelines that simply make things worse. This story illustrated some of this.

As BC explained, this really isn’t a good solution..if that wasn’t half joking :razz:. For whatever reason humans seem to desire having a significant other to have an emotional and physical bond with. It’s actually quite foundational. My pessimistic theory incorporates it under the category of boredom. As I’ve said before, loneliness is just one layer beyond the baseline restless boredom that lies at the heart of the human experience. This doesn’t solve the problem of restlessness as it is never ending and moves to the next goal to focus. However, relationships may be considered a “good” though many times this is fleeting and causes more frustration.

Anyways, for such a desirous and foundational goal, it has some of the worst systems for its attainment and/or maintenance. It is tragic, and like all other tragic things, we sweep it under the rug as some Nietzschean “pain makes life better”. And Schopenhauer shakes his head.

Well done

In my thread about work, I emphasized that the individual with his individual personality (created through a combination of experiential and biological interactions) , must confront the givens of the physical and social world. Here is what I said:

My point was about acquiescing freedom of thought to the demands of the given. Here we are with a personality (granted it is created from group interaction, but exists as a phenomenon nonetheless), and this personality has preferences, beliefs, values, and ideas that must aquiesce to the given. — schopenhauer1

And this:

I see the fact that individual needs/wants/goals, though being wrapped up in the social world, are also thwarted by the givens of the social world. There is always a negotiation. I say that to make people negotiate is a reality once born. To have new people that need to constantly negotiate through the world of the give, is questionable. What is it about seeing new people navigate the social/physical world that is valuable to you that this needs to be procreated to a next generation? — schopenhauer1

In the case of this thread, the main theme here centers around the dating world. The individual personality has to confront the givens of the the dating world. This confrontation of the individual with the given, just like in the working world, can lead to all sorts of unhappiness and frustrations. In this case, the norms are actually a poorly designed to solve the problem of finding, signaling interest, and maintaining a relationship with significant other to have sex and other experiences with. With no set rules, the system gets bogged down with meta-analysis and confusion.

With something so pervasive in the human psyche as looking for a significant other, you would think we would have better signaling systems but we don't. Instead we have tropes, expectations, and other poorly defined guidelines that lead to unhappiness.

In a way, the givens of the dating world have problems that are inverse to the givens of work. In the modern world, the working world usually has very rigid, defined, and strict guidelines that must be dealt with and creates unhappiness. The dating world lacks of almost any guidelines, but also crates unhappiness as a result.

I'm interested in your take on this as well:

The problem is people usually want significant others. This is where humans are utterly hopeless with poorly designed social systems to solve the problem of finding, signaling interest, and maintaining a relationship with significant other to have sex and other experiences with. With no set rules, the system gets bogged down with meta-analysis and confusion. Then you people simply falling back into tropes as the prisoner's dilemma sets in. Anyways, as we both agree this creates much unhappiness. Writers use this unhappiness and confusion to write mediocre short stories and soap operas. They seem to be the only ones benefiting.

The point is that in their works appear views that can be compared. Hume's alleged anti-realism and Newton's realism regarding "forces" being an obvious such view. — Πετροκότσυφας

Sure, and I just explicated that in my last post. However, I did not really see Ron Cram making any of these points. Rather, I just saw mixed up notions with regard to Hume's analysis of the foundation of cause-and-effect.

He might internalise the necessity aspect of causality but I don't think he makes it transcendental. — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't know what you mean here by "internalise the necessity" but doesn't make "transcendental"? He does seem to indicate that cause and effect are indeed "custom" and "in us" rather than "out there" which opens the door for transcendental idealism. As far as having a full-blown Kantian version of this, he does not seem to provide that detailed an explanation. In other words, time/space/causality and categories of cognitively structured world are not present in his philosophy. He is more concerned, it seems, with establishing a skepticism of whether these laws are somehow "out there".

The characters in Cat Person were both operating within an envelope where vague rules are mixed in with vague romantic notions common in our culture. When things don't work out well, (as they often do not) individuals tend to interpret the poor outcomes in terms imported from the main culture. — Bitter Crank

That was my take. I said earlier: The problem is people usually want significant others. This is where humans are utterly hopeless with poorly designed social systems to solve the problem of finding, signaling interest, and maintaining a relationship with significant other to have sex and other experiences with. With no set rules, the system gets bogged down with meta-analysis and confusion. Then you people simply falling back into tropes as the prisoner's dilemma sets in. Anyways, as we both agree this creates much unhappiness. Writers use this unhappiness and confusion to write mediocre short stories and soap operas. They seem to be the only ones benefiting.

There's more to it than that. See this, for example. — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't see how this really diminishes the point I was making between Newton and Hume. Newton was answering questions about mathematical concepts as applied to observations. Hume was discussing the foundation of principles like cause-and-effect and the problem of induction. If anything Hume was mainly critical of some of the more superstitious part of his writings (related to religion mostly). It also seems to me that Hume's skepticism lead him to be an anti-realist when it came to things like "forces", "energy" and the like. He believed strongly that there were habits of thought that humans viewed the world with, and this seemed to be the source of regularities. At least in this interpretation, we see a proto-Kantianism (transcendental philosophy) coming through.

I understand what Hume is saying. I understand that he is not denying the existence of causes and effects. — Ron Cram

This is the opposite of what he said. He WAS denying whether the ground for cause-and-effect was certain, due to the inability of induction to prove itself outside of circular reasoning.

Hume is denying that they are observable or ascertainable in any way. — Ron Cram

No, that is not what he is saying. As I said earlier, "Thus, he is not doubting that you have senses and impressions and ideas and can extrapolate from experience using these cognitive tools some sort of understanding of how the world works, but rather, is doubting that the basis for this understanding has any justification outside human habit. In other words, he is looking for a justification of certainty between cause and effect, and he sees that it is lacking DESPITE the fact that indeed every time we observe certain "constant conjunctions" it does appear to us to be some sort of immutable law of cause-and-effect going on"

Kinetic energy is well understood and the transfer of kinetic energy can be observed. Hume's billiard ball example is a perfect example of observing cause and effect even though Hume claims he cannot see it. I also gave you the example of electricity flowing through your body as a way to determine cause and effect. Did you read that? Care to respond? — Ron Cram

Yes, I did, and you are completely missing Hume's point. See my responses above.

Hume's argument is a frontal attack on Newton's Law of Cause and Effect which states that causes and effects are observable and knowable. Indeed, if they were not observable and knowable, science would have no foundation. — Ron Cram

Newton was doing science as it was practiced in his time. Hume is doing philosophy. Newton is simply describing the "habits of thoughts" of what appears to be cause and effect relationship. Hume is trying to explain the ground for cause and effect. These are two different investigations.

I will include @StreetlightX again.

Cause and effect can be known. It can be observed and experienced through other senses as well. I don't know if you have read the entire discussion here or not. One of the examples I gave was that the flow of electricity and interrupting that flow by turning the switch on and off is a cause for the light bulb going on and off. One way to know this is to cut and expose the wire, hold both exposed wires and then feel the flow of electricity go through your body as the light bulb lights up.

Alternatively, you can also observe the transfer of kinetic energy when one billiard ball strikes another billiard ball and causes it to move. Hume seems to be completely ignorant of the existence of kinetic energy. But this is an observation any child can make once the existence of kinetic energy is understood.

There is no circular reasoning involved. — Ron Cram

I think you are fighting imagined arguments. Hume is not saying that observation itself is suspect, but rather that the ground for which cause-and-effect takes place- that is to say induction, has no certainty to it because induction is using its own logic to justify itself. Thus, he is not doubting that you have senses and impressions and ideas and can extrapolate from experience using these cognitive tools some sort of understanding of how the world works, but rather, is doubting that the basis for this understanding has any justification outside human habit. In other words, he is looking for a justification of certainty between cause and effect, and he sees that it is lacking DESPITE the fact that indeed every time we observe certain "constant conjunctions" it does appear to us to be some sort of immutable law of cause-and-effect going on.

I meant to include @StreetlightX too.

I don't get Ron Cram's concerns. Hume is simply stating that certainty can never be gained from matters of fact. Cause and effect, is just a habit we have to get by in the world. We see something in constant conjunction and tend to use this to conclude that they will always be conjoined. However, we are using past experiences to justify this connection, something we cannot justify without using past experience itself (i.e. circular reasoning). You are using the very method of induction to prove induction. Thus cause and effect (and all synthetic reasoning) can never be truly justified with any certainty. Make all the laws of physics you want, it can never be 100% certain. This, however, is built into the model of science. Scientific "facts" may seem eternal, but new evidence at a future point can change these "facts". Thus, why science is based on strong theories that support the current evidence.

I also thought this quote was good about science and math:

Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover- Bertrand Russell

Mathematics has fascinated people for longer than Galileo's rhetorical success. Pythagoreans worshiped mathematics. Mathematics was the model Platonic form and somehow was integral to the entire cosmological scene. — darthbarracuda

True, but I mentioned Galileo in conjunction with science because it seemed with him to have been the start of connecting math with the natural world (rather than engineering or pure math), in ways that worked out extraordinarily for physics and other sciences later on. Actually one can argue maybe it was Copernicus.

Yes, we have global communication networks and vaccines, transistors and atomic bombs. Good job everyone, rah rah rah, we're the best, I guess. — darthbarracuda

Yes, but these are the things that make people not look too far outside science for their metaphysics, so what do we do about this? What is the response?

The mind-body problem is probably the single most devastating criticism to be made of physicalism, materialism and/or naturalism. How consciousness, the mode of intentional, qualitative appearances, is derived from a mundane, mechanistic matter continues to be a complete mystery. This is not a god-of-the-gaps argument: the existence of consciousness (an indubitable fact, contra eliminative materialism), which is the mode in which metaphysical speculation occurs, directly contradicts the thesis that only matter exists. It makes no sense to deny the existence of the very thing that makes this denial even possible, i.e. it is a performative contradiction. The only way out of this is to see mind as ontologically primary and matter as derivative (idealism), or re-configure our understanding of what "matter" is (so that we get something like neutral monism, or Aristotelian hylomorphism, etc). — darthbarracuda

Yes, people trip over the hard questions of consciousness. They assume the very thing they are explaining and often confuse the easy questions for the hard one. That's great that it is X, Y, Z phenomena that correlates with mental events. How is it the same thing though? If that becomes a category error, then we are already doing too much furniture rearranging for this to be straghtforward science.

The postulate of the mind as something other than matter, which is organized only by efficient and material causation, brings with it the possibility of religion. That materialism coincides with atheism is no coincidence. In my opinion, the death of religion leads to the estrangement of consciousness from the rest of the world; religion is a plea for a home. Religious experience is the feeling of "belonging" to the Real. Now the question is: how does consciousness "fit" into the rest of reality? If it fits, then there must be a function, which implies teleology, which typically implies some form of divinity. If it doesn't fit, then the only way of describing the world so far as I can tell would be to call it weird. Very weird; disjointed, broken, falling apart, irrational. What we call "science" is I think perhaps only the tip of the iceberg. Map vs territory; I think the excessive confidence we put in science is a leftover from the faith we had in God. — darthbarracuda

I think the unreasonableness effectiveness of math and the study of its patterns in nature since Galileo has made science compelling, so I can see why there is so much confidence. Also, technology seems to indicate validation of some sort of its rightness.

I think there are a couple things I can add here. This falls under the category of short story form. It may further be considered a "slice of life" short story. Certainly both of these can be considered "art" in that it is literature that is readable and has a structure. I as one who never produced something with too much literary value can see the value that others are able to produce in the realm of narrative and the general form of literature.

However, does this piece stand up as a "great work of art"? That to me would be harder to contend for this story. To make something great, it has to do something great- whether that be its use of symbolism, its compelling plot, its use of visualization and description, its character development, its ability to bring together philosophical or abstract themes. Does it even inform you about the world around you? Did you learn something about politics, science, history, art? No, not really. It was a very limited point of view. This story probably does little of these things, in my opinion. It provides a good view into a certain perspective of perhaps a certain demographic.

That brings me to the real issue. A real question from this is why do so many people not identify or would not want to identify with the character, even in this very limited scope of dating dynamics? Well, I'll throw something out there- the main character is privileged in a way. The reader is getting a point of view of someone who can get who she wants (well, at least from the content we are given in the story). This is not an underdog story. This is about a person who does have ability to attract others and keep their interest- to the point of them being possessive. There is something not that interesting about those with a privileged perspective. A person who can get what they want (in this case in the dating world), but finds out they don't really want it, is just not that interesting to a lot of people, and hard to identify with unless you are someone who also falls into that demographic.

All this adds up to more reasons why this story is unimportant. It's "chick lit" for New Yorker and L.A. types. — Bitter Crank

Yep and yep.

Once again, you are assuming the same pessimistic outlook for everyone. Well, everyone doesn't share that view of life, including me. — NKBJ

I guess its not a view, its a reality. You are deprived and have needs and wants, whereas, colloquially speaking, "nothing needs anything".

I know that's not true of me, so therefore it is not true of all humans. — NKBJ

Really? Once born, the primary goal is survival. Humans with big brains, and social systems create complex cultural ways to survive. The human navigating this cultural landscape is part of survival. Also, humans prefer comfort, so there goes maintenance seeking activities that aren't about survival or entertainment. Then, our restless minds need entertainment- relationships, complex games and hobbies, and even meditation all fall under this. Its really quite simple in its complexity.

It's nonsensical to compare it's non-existence to existence. So existing can never be better or worse than not existing. — NKBJ

You can compare states of affairs comparing being born and having good/bad experiences and not being born and not having any good/bad experiences, or even have an actual person to be deprived thereof. Of course, this is done retrospectively, but it is comparing them nonetheless.

What you meant to argue I think was that, it is some sort of logical error to talk about non-existent people. But I believe you can since we use conditional speech all the time. Johnny could have done this, but he did that. If born, a human must survive, maintain, entertain, a condition that would not be the case if not born. Since humans are self-aware as well, there is always the existential question of why start it in the first place. As Zapffe might put it, we are in a sense, tragically self-aware.

Crank is reading an excellent Sci Fi piece by Cixin Liu, The Three Body Problem trilogy in an English translation by Ken Liu. Much better than Cat Person. The Three Body problem belongs to the Trisolarians. Their three-sun system produces constant instability, and they -- having become aware of earth because of a foolish astronomer's actions during the Cultural Revolution, have decided that Earth would be a better place for them to live, so they are on their way to wipe us out and take over the planet. It will take them about 400 years to arrive. In the meantime they have sent entangled protons to the earth (which unfold to higher dimensions, turning them into super-smart spies with instant communication abilities).

Earth is trying to figure out how to survive, given the advanced's civilization's numerous advantages. — Bitter Crank

That is way more interesting than this particular story, I agree!

But yes, modern dating seems to have turned into its own kind of unhappiness. That's because our routinely super-educated young folk insist on analyzing the meta aspects of rituals which lead to people getting properly laid. A metaanalysis of these rituals invariably leads to intensely unsatisfactory sexual experiences. The secret to getting properly fucked is to stop thinking about it and just do it. Of course it's an act of disgusting animality -- but that who we are, that's what we do. So get busy.

Just do it and enjoy every minute of it, and when you are all done and washed up, have had a smoke and a beer, go to sleep. In the morning think about something else. Do not engage in restaurant-review-criticism of your sexual partners. If it felt good, schedule a rematch. If it didn't, get back to the bar or go on line and find the next study partner with whom you can gain carnal knowledge. — Bitter Crank

I think this only works if you are interested in casual sex only, which perhaps would suit some people, and worth following. The problem is people usually want significant others. This is where humans are utterly hopeless with poorly designed social systems to solve the problem of finding, signaling interest, and maintaining a relationship with significant other to have sex and other experiences with. With no set rules, the system gets bogged down with meta-analysis and confusion. Then you people simply falling back into tropes as the prisoner's dilemma sets in. Anyways, as we both agree this creates much unhappiness. Writers use this unhappiness and confusion to write mediocre short stories and soap operas. They seem to be the only ones benefiting.

I agree that the ending turns in into something like this, but I think, before that, it does something more interesting - all those tropes are there, floating around, but there's a lot more of them too (there's a weird class dynamic going on, there's a mutal drawing from the manic-pixie quirk well etc.) but they're all bumping around in a kind of incoherent way. I think the story is good in that, until the end, it doesn't commit to any one of these tropes definitively. They're more like a mental environment, or half-conscious background, that's both part of the date, and also a frantic attempt to make sense of the date. You could say, I think, that the collection of tropes present is incompossible, so both Margot & Robert are just kind of tossed around from one to another ( I think you're right, that if we saw Robert's point of view, something similar would be going on) — csalisbury

Perhaps the meta meta point is that modern dating is its own kind of unhappiness. The ending kind of ruined this possible conclusion by trying to make Robert over-the-top disgruntled. It then just becomes a cautionary tale, when it seems at parts, this was supposed to provoke social commentary about the psychology and sociology of dating culture. There is the unhappiness of finding a mate, the unhappiness of trying to create attraction or romance, there is the unhappiness of feelings that are not mutually shared, etc. etc. This stuff has been happening since the beginning of time, but of course the modern spin has information technology interwoven which creates more opportunities for unhappiness.

This falls in line with what I've said about the given and work. It is the individual versus the social dynamics of the given. Vulnerability and uncertainty brings with it awkward social realities of unhappiness. Loneliness is just one psychological layer away from restless boredom. It is the will constantly striving.

What does @Bitter Crank think?

-Nothing needs to be started. But it also doesn't need not to be started. — NKBJ

Ok, what is the outcome of not starting the life for the child? There is no child to be deprived. Once the child is born, it is indeed deprived, needs to survive/find goals (and this possibly entails Schopenhauer's vision of constant deprivation), and general existential circularity on top of the contingent suffering of being born with certain traits, certain situations, and certain happenstances.

-Yes, there are a multitude of experiences I hope my child has. — NKBJ

What about experiences needs to be carried out in the first place?

-Nope. — NKBJ

How are you so sure? Where is the cues to have children coming from? Cultural cues, perhaps?

-I don't believe that is true. — NKBJ

I doubt you can disprove that. Almost all goals fall into one of those three categories. At the bottom of things is restless will, the needs of survival the wants of something interesting to do, the middle-ground of comfort and maintenance seeking.

-Life is risky, but that doesn't mean it's not worth having. — NKBJ

Are the potential goods of life that important for a new person to experience? If they don't exist, what do they lose? There is no they, so nothing can lose. Something can definitely lose once born. The goods of life needn't be an issue with non-existent nothings that are simply placeholders for potential somebodies.

I'm an optimistic realist. I like life, I enjoy more in life than not, and I think most people do. I decided to procreate, in part because I think that life has more good than bad to offer. Of course there is suffering, and potentially more suffering than joy, but it is more likely for a child growing up in the environment I can provide, that the good will outweigh the bad. — NKBJ

What about life needs to be started for a new person in the first place? Is it some X experience you would like it to have? Is that the only experience it will have? Are you unwittingly doing the bidding of society's perpetuation (on the child's behalf)? What of the circularity- life is essentially survival, maintaining environment/comfort levels, and boredom-fleeing? Then what of the contingent suffering that is unexpected, unpredictable, and contextual.

Do you also see antinatalism itself as an ideation coping technique? Is anything learned about the nature of things by the ending of mankind itself? — Inyenzi

Yes, actually I do see antinatalism as a coping technique. I said one time here:

I think pessimism can be productive as a philosophy of consolation. It can be a possible alternative to "pick yourself up by the bootstrap" theories. The inherent worth of the individual's suffering is taken into account rather than self-regulating phrases to ensure people do not get too upset by circumstances (by as you said before) "blaming the victim". Anyways, everyone has harms.. some similar, some more nuanced and individual.. It is quite alright to air those to others and find some solace in it.

Besides being a consolation, it may provide perspective on existence itself. Rather than take it as "this is what must be", it provides the individual a way to look at existence as a whole. By questioning the foundations of the human enterprise itself, it lets us look at what is important and what is justified. It allows us to look at how our own psychological mechanisms work to create the structure needed for goals, how it is contingent harms play a role, and confronts the situatedness of being thrown in a world where we are experiencing the pendulum between survival through cultural upkeep and maintenance, and turning boredom into entertainment goal-seeking. All this structural/necessary harm in the background while being harmed by contingent factors along the way.. All the things listed here for example.

Believe it or not, there can be a giddyness to pessimism.. To knowing we are all in the same boat, that it is all part of a similar structure. I dare say, there may be a joy and connectedness in pessimism. — schopenhauer1

Advocating for antinatlism is itself a project, and a goal, right? Is this suffering free world devoid of humans not also just some distant hope on the horizon? I just fail to see how the cessation of the world is in any way a solution. Nobody will be better off. Is the thought more relief than the actual action?

What's the point of convincing others of your aesthetic view of the world? — Inyenzi

I have never put emphasis on the final outcome of antinatalism. I don't think its going to result in complete cessation of human experience. So no I don't have "hope" of antinatalism's final goal. However, no potential person being born translates to no suffering for that future person, which is good. There is no need to adjust to whatever coping strategies (antinatalist, Stoic, pleasure-seeking, or otherwise) because there will be no need for the coping strategies in the first place.

So in a way, the aesthetic view is more of a relief. It is seeing what is going on here and then acting from it. Perhaps I can reiterate the view from this quote:

The life lived without reflection contains suffering. The life lived with reflection, for the person of a pessimistic temperament, sees the suffering and cannot readily accept with joy or (morose indifference) that this is life and so be it. To the pessimist, this is a basic truth of life and truth cannot be simply discarded once recognized. For the pessimist, there is a reaction of rebellion that life is this way in the first place. If one does not commit suicide, one will have to live life, but one doesn't have to view the situation as good. The indifference approach is cold and does nothing more than say a truism: "life is suffering and we know this". The pessimistic approach not only takes into account that there suffering and we know this, but sees the suffering as negative or an "evil". Perhaps it cannot be overcome, but at least it is recognized for what it is and not ignored or downplayed- discounting its pervasive part of life for many people in many instances.

For those who do not "see" this truth or who overlook the suffering- it is their prerogative. I haven't seen a pessimist forcefully make anyone believe anything before. The pessimist has every right in a free society to state his views and see if he finds others who see the same thing as him/her. If people vociferously disagree due to temperamental or aesthetic differences, then they can explain their view to each other. I have no illusions that people have the exact same aesthetic tendencies towards the human condition. Each side can make their case, but this doesn't mean each side will win out the other person's view. Philosophy is all about dialectic, and the same basic themes unfolds over and over again throughout history.

I will say this for the pessimistic theme though- the pessimistic theme is pervasive throughout all of civilization, has been embraced at times by many deep thinkers (not just philosophers), and at one point or another, crosses the minds of most adults at some point in life. Perhaps these fleeting thoughts are simply judged as youthful angst or a depressive mood, but pessimists are willing to stare at it directly and explore this understanding further. The aesthetic sensibility of the pessimist sees these ideas not as fleeting depressive states but as a truth about the human condition itself. They cannot help but see it this way. Life's flux, challenges, contingent suffering, annoyances, instrumentality and existential boredom seem so pervasive to life itself that being indifferent to the suffering is hardly an option if it is one at all. — schopenhauer1

Nobody in a relationship with somebody they love or caught up in a project they truly care about really asks these questions - the worth is self-evident to them). Whereas you might respond you don't ask these questions and see the world like the antanatalist because you *are* caught up in these things (as if like a horse with blinkers on). But I'm caught up in these things because they are genuinely meaningful and worthwhile to me, and not some desperate attempt to mask or escape the true 'big picture' of life (a meaningless depressive void of purposeless striving/suffering). From my perspective, the antinatalist is sick/ill. He/she lacks a sense of enjoyment and meaning in their lives. When nothing is enjoyable or seems worthwhile, the antinatalist position makes perfect sense - life is fundamentally not a good thing, it should not be inflicted on others, the world should stop being proliferated. — Inyenzi

I'm sorry but the philosophical pessimist would not leave it that relationships and projects are all that needs to take place to keep one from seeing the aesthetic picture of the world as circularity. It does narrow the focus for a while, but these can themselves become loci of frustrations, disappointments, and deprivations. I said in another thread on here:

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

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

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

We are always hoping.. Everything on the horizon seems good- we swing from hope to hope, thinking that after this or that endeavor or long-term project, this will bring some salvation or answer. I think the worst conceit is the idea of a pyramid gleaning towards self-actualization. In fact, it is a straight line. Achievement is really the Striving of our very nature churning in its own instrumental nature to do something. Culture just gives it direction which presents itself as some "meaning".. The hope that is built-in to this social cue is someone internalizes it enough for the long-term projects to be useful for society. It is society perpetuating society. — schopenhauer1

Relationships and projects do indeed narrow the focus, but that is not seeing the bigger picture. But I've written about this idea of projects and relationships voluminously in many other threads because those are exactly the two reasons people would use to justify bringing people into the world. Either I was dead on for the main reasons people use, or you've been reading my past threads (the greatest hits package ;)). I doubt its the latter, so I'm glad my theory has been substantiated.

Let's back up though. What does my term of instrumentality really mean? It means that the world keeps turning, the universe keeps expanding, that energy keeps on transferring, and entropy keeps on its steady path. That is to say, that happiness is always on the horizon (hope swinging I mentioned in other posts). When goals are "obtained" are often not as good or too fleeting compared to the effort to get it (yes yes, eye roll eye roll... it's not the goal but the process to get there BS., not buying it..just slogans to make people not think about it).. we still need to maintain ourselves, our bodies, our minds, our comforts, our anxieties, our neuroses, our social lives, our intellectual minds, etc. etc. etc. It's all just energy put forth to keep maintaining ourselves, that does not stop until death. Why ALL of THIS WORK AND ENERGY? Does it really need to be started anew for a next generation?

We really are living in the eternal twilight of Christian sentiments. There is "something" special that we are DOING here.. It all MEANS something to "FEEL" to "ACHIEVE" to "INTELLECTUALIZE" to "CONNECT".. all buzzwords of anchoring mechanisms to latch onto as our WILLFUL nature rushes forward, putting forth more energy but for to stay alive, keep occupied, and stay comfortable.. All the while being exposed to depridations, sickness, annoyances, and painful circumstances that inevitably befall us.. It doesn't NEED to be expanded to more people.

Well, that is an interesting part of our human experience that no other animal seems to share- a perpetual ability to understand itself qua itself. We live but we don't know why. This question entails not just our own personal lives but bringing forth new life. We can be what Sartre might call "authentic" and do things in "good faith", that is in knowing what we are doing in full awareness of the stark futility, or we can simply bury our heads in ongoing projects that we don't know how or why we took on, or perhaps were just kind of "foisted" on the person by circumstances. What is it we are trying to get at as individuals, as a species? This is something only we (or the proverbial self-aware aliens) must contend with. Suicide I see as an ideation coping technique. The thought of it is more relief than the actual action. As Schopenhauer stated,
Suicide may also be regarded as an experiment — a question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to an answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man’s existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer.
— Schopenhauer- On Suicide

But indeed suicide, like existential angst, extreme boredom, questioning of life, absurdity of life, and the like are on the edges of things. It needs to be pushed out for more projects to be put through. Projects good, questioning bad. Navel-gazing and self-indulgence will be the main accusations. — schopenhauer1

We are constantly trying to keep disorder at bay. We create ever more structured and systematic systems. This is a burden of life. We are born, but to what? Find food, heat, water, etc. and to utilize our cultural surroundings and tools to provide these things. We create more little beings that also need to maintain some order and remove disorder constantly. We are constantly putting more energy into the system to maintain the order. What is it that we need to create more people who are given the burden of maintaining order and keeping away disorder? We are constantly needing to do this and constantly making more people who need to do this. What an instrumental affair this all is. But as long as someone gets a kick out of Boltzmann equations and having others recognize them for this, it's all worth it. By this I mean, as long as scientific pursuits are being pursued, and we self-congratulate ourselves that some of us at least can theorize, experiment, and compute, it is all worth it. All this ordering and keeping away disorder for better textbooks. Slaves to our own curiosity. But I will not just pick on the academic-science types. Many people feel it is their duty to produce- art, entertainment, bullshit and equally want the congratulations. Slaves to our projects. The very goals that are the symptom of our restless nature. All part of the ordering process. If we have no goals, we die. If we have no projects, disorder becomes greater. Therefore, goals and projects continue. More people are born.

Most people would say that life is worth living based on how consumed they are by projects that they initiate themselves minus (-) the external pains, pressures, and annoyances of unwanted suffering or undo control by others.

I would contend that life is not worth living if one is in a continuous repetitive loop of absurdity. If one realizes that life is basically survival (economic/survival related goals), maintenance (getting more comfortable in surrounding goals), entertainment (fleeing from boredom goals). The projects no longer consume, it is biding time through these three main goal-related events. There is a sort of banality to it that cannot be overlooked by those who see it. The banality of work, the banality of maintenance, the banality of entertaining oneself. It is absurd repetition, even in its novelty. The projects themselves no longer consume as if they are a wonder to behold. They are laid bare our inherent restless natures.

Life is made even worse by not only life's structural/systemic futility but by its contingent harms (that is to say, harms based on circumstances). So your neighbors making noise which prevents you from sleeping, the ACME anvil that fell on your foot, the hurricane that flooded or completely destroyed your property, the short term or long term mental or physical illness, the annoyances of the everyday interactions with other people, technology, and social institutions in general.

The repetitively absurd tasks of existing at all. Round and round we go. Just doing stuff. Your solutions are not off from the norm: projects and community stuff. Build skills to sublimate the mind in projects and participate in community events. The stately king that belies the laughing jester showing up with diagrams of Sisyphus.

2b) Our individual wills impose upon ourselves the need to transform boredom into goals and pleasure. Being that we can never have true satiation, we are always in flux and never quite getting at anything in particular. It is a world to be endured. We may find ourselves projects to concentrate on and have that "flow" feeling, but once one is out of such a mode that might capture one's thoughts thoroughly, one sees it is just going from project to project or chasing the "flow" so as to not think about the situation at large.

These "truths" are independent of one's general temperament. Though it is an aesthetic of sorts, I cannot see how it is a matter of perspective as really the core of the matter of the human condition. It is not even a matter of people denying these claims. Rather, it is a matter of putting 2 + 2 together to see the larger pattern going on.

The counterarguments that one can just think their way out of the situation seem to not work. One cannot choose to turn off their needs and wants- they are a part of their situation. One cannot choose to get rid of unwanted pains. The absurdity of the instrumental, discussed by many philosophers is just part of the situation. — schopenhauer1

We have discussed this at length in the messages. Can you post the follow-ups that we had so we can at least see how the discussion played out? No use repeating what we have covered. Then we can go from the latest conversation.

So when Schopenhauer says that the "absence of all egoistic motivation" is the criterion of an action of moral worth, it's not really the full picture. Because the motive interacts with an incentive to cause actions, as I said.
It should be like the "absence of all egoistic motives stimulating the incentive of egoism". — jancanc

Yes, I think you are right. Schop had the notion that everyone had a Platonic version of their character that was outside the PSR and thus beyond time/space/causality. People's characters were pretty fixed and their actions could not help but derive their incentives from this fixed character. A character that was truly saint-worthy would be one who was highly incentivized by compassion and whose motives were ones to see the lessening of suffering in others. Most characters were in a large degree incentivized by egoism/self-interest.

It's pretty weird right?! — jancanc

It's weird in the sense that in my opinion, he overmined the idea of Platonic forms. He had it for each species, for each grade of object, for each individual human's character. I just don't buy it as a metaphysical claim, though I find it interesting. His ideas on the willing/striving nature of humans though are extremely compelling and is where I find him most interesting to read. However, I think his ethics can still be useful for understanding ethical claims. I do think there is something to be said for compassion being the basis of ethics. Even his idea that some people's characters are inclined towards compassionate incentives seems to have some merit. However, is it really that fixed? Probably not. Are people's characters somehow beyond space/time/causality? Probably not.

They are actually distinct concepts for him but he nevertheless uses them interchangeable which obscures his arguments. — jancanc

Can you give an example of this? When I read that work, he seems to indeed be using the terms "motive" and "incentive" interchangeably. However, I would say he tends to use incentive as a way of talking about the three moral categories he construed (i.e. self-interest, malice, and compassion). So it is almost like a capital "I". Motives seem to be the individual instances that drive a person to do something, which may fit into the incentive of self-interest, malice, and compassion.

I think he means that to have compassion for another entails that one suffers directly with the other. So presuppose is meant as a synonym for entail here, as you first stated. If you are trying to say that presuppose cannot be a word to attribute to a verb, then it is perhaps Schopenhauer's idiosyncrasy in his writing but I don't think it takes away from the meaning he was trying to convey.

Or even better, if the OP was interested in his own thread. Often I see these newer posters start a thread and then never participate in the actual conversation. I don't get it.

If you are interested at all in the possible genes involved in the evolution of the human brain, The Birth of the Mind: How a Tiny Number of Genes Creates The Complexities of Human Thought was a good one because it delved into some genes and proteins responsible for particular brain activity and functions. It is however, a short book so you'd have to move onto larger ones if you wanted a deeper understanding of the concepts he introduces.

Is it rational to have two threads on the same topic? Hmm, :chin: — Buxtebuddha

If it makes a difference, most philosophical topics revolve around the same themes eventually, just slightly different arrangement of furniture. The revolving philosophical door just revolved a bit faster in this case :smile: . But it can also indicate a general interest in the topic. I'm not sure. If it is someone new, they might not see all the previous threads on the topic.

Welcome to the forum. I'm a resident antinatalist here and have many threads on this you might want to read. There have been some recent ones actually here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3277/modern-man-is-alienated-from-production/p1

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3306/are-there-any-non-selfish-reasons-for-having-children/p1

The general position is that life has too much suffering and therefore not worth starting for another. I usually break down the suffering into two categories:

Contingent suffering: Contingent suffering is the suffering that is contingent on situational context. These are things like disease, illness, natural disasters, physical and emotional anguish, etc. We all know that some people "have it better" than others in terms of illnesses, bad experiences, suffering experienced etc.

Structural suffering: Being a human means coping with systemic futility. Systemic futility comprises:

1) Repetitive acts of living
2) The hedonic treadmill phenomena of finding "novel" goods in life that can't last
3) Being deprived of some preference or state at almost all time (deprivationalism)
4) The emptiness behind all pursuits

Lately I have tried to hit on themes of science, technology, work, and production. The reason for this is these are concepts which people use as a rebuttal against antinatalism. However, there is an emptiness behind all endeavors. Science and technology qua science and technology are but layers we put around the emptiness. We create more stuff, but it doesn't get anywhere. Also, science and technology are used as ways to justify why it is permissible to have children. But every generation thinks that their generation is good enough.

By being born we are forced to make actions. Those actions fall broadly within three camps: survival (in a cultural context), maintenance/comfort-seeking (i.e. doing dishes, cleaning, turning up the heat, turning on the air conditioning, etc.), and boredom fleeing (i.e. playing cards with a group of friends, writing the great American novel, reading academic tomes about biological structures, etc.). There is never a time when you are not forced to make actions. You are also prone to the contingency of your environment, your genetics, and surroundings. The combined aspect of being impinged upon by the contingency of you environment and the constant existential responsibility of having to take action (usually for the three camps of survival, comfort, boredom-fleeing), this can be considered an unnecessary burden for a future person.

You must ask yourself what is it you want the child that will be born to really experience or do? If it is survive, maintain their comfort levels, and flee boredom, that seems to be an unnecessary and futile reason to start a new life. It is the same thing each generation with increased technology to make it feel as if it is more than a circularity. I don't know, usually @Bitter Crank has an interesting opinion on this, though usually contrary to mine. I do enjoy his commentary despite some fundamental disagreements.

Also being born will guarantee the crossing of ethical boundaries of others. You will be offending, damaging, punishing, transgressing, other people's ethics, even if unknowingly. Being born guarantees that you will violate some ethical principles. I know @darthbarracuda had more on that idea of intra-wordly affairs (pace Julio Cabrera).

Also, no one needs to be born to get better. That would be using the person as a third person vessel for X reason. To watch someone struggle so that they get "better" despite the suffering and (inevitable) harm that will befall the new person (and that they will inflict on others) is to use them as a means to an ends.

I will say there is some aspect of society wrapped up on this. Some people think that humans are here to create a balanced and well-ordered society. We must then ask why this society must be brought about and adhered to in the first place. The point of humans is to play roles in larger social context in some balance of individual vs. society. However, why should we create more individuals to continue the social institutions and society in general in the first place? Why would it be our mission to continue some project that we call society? I fundamentally disagree with @apokrisis but he does try to account for sociological aspects to this question.

There are goods in life- they usually fall under 6 main experiences: flow-states (being really involved in something), physical pleasure, aesthetic pleasures, relationships (laughter, significant others, family, being around friends), and accomplishment (achieving a desired goal). Accomplishment is especially touted. "Someone new needs to be born to get better at stuff and accomplish things" seems to be the mantra. What is it that someone needs to go through life to accomplish things in the first place? In the end it is still a circularity of surviving, finding comfort, and fleeing boredom. Sometimes in these pursuits, we find some consolation in the goods of life, but is it worth starting a life in order to experience these goods? Also, is accomplishment really a good, or is it merely the obvious reality of being a willing being with complex conceptual-linguistic structures that need to mold our angsty-striving-wills into concrete goals? That is just the inevitable necessary part of being born as a human.

Guess this discussion is over.

Yeah. The Romantic turns around to Science and says you have proved everything is in fact nothing. Existence is random and meaningless. Therefore - as a disappointed child addressing its cold-hearted parent - I want to die! I want my revenge of taking your nothingness and demanding it right now for everyone! — apokrisis

Well, you didn't really address the problems I pointed out with your argument, but that's to be expected.

What this statement here shows is what I'll call a "hidden false dichotomy". You set this up as to pit Romantics vs. Science. Subtly, you are aligning the general (breeding) populous (which is somehow conflated with Science because they are not demanding nothingness) and antinatalists (conflated with Romanticism and demanding nothingness). This conflating of the general populous with Science is comically ludicrous. People's reasons for having children are multicausational, and certainly most have nothing to do with balance or competition nor is it purely instinctual in some natural balance. Rather, it is combined forces of individual preferences taken from culture, personality, personal heuristics or lack thereof, expectations, etc. etc.

So essentially, you have not gotten passed your own problem of conflating people's (often arbitrary) decisions to have children with Nature (with a capital N) and then calling it good. It's a silly house of cards you play.

Again, I never said Nature is fundamentally good. It is what it is. And we get to make it what it is - for us - to an increasing extent. — apokrisis

Nietzsche in the natural flesh...

LOL. I listen to the science. Sue me. — apokrisis

Oh c'mon apo, what does that even mean? That's like religions using "Natural Law" to justify their religion. How do you "divine" Natural Law would be the first question. Your appeal to the majority as science is rather weak.

1) That is all your argument stands on. Argumentum ad populum.
2) You constantly make the is/ought fallacy. Here, maybe brush up on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
3) You constantly make the appeal to nature fallacy. Here, maybe brush up on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
4) You constantly abuse the word "nature" and conflate human decisions with appeals to nature in a 1-1 ratio as if human decisions were instinctual rather than multicausational

Am I do see you as an oracle, proclaiming the truths of reality? Of course I believe what I think is reasonable. — darthbarracuda

Funny, I saw the same hubris there :grin:

Yep. It does come down to me being happy to let nauture tell us what reality is. You have some invented image of rationality that you won’t even questioin. You know the right answers despite what nature might say. — apokrisis

Seems to me YOU'RE the one who thinks they have special privilege to the whisperings of nature. The modern day prophet/soothsayer/NATURE whisperer. I've quoted this before, but I'll say it again, a quote from Inherit the Wind (with one minor change):

GodNature speaks to Bradyapokrisis, and aporkisis tells the world! aporkisis, aporkisis, aporkisis, Almighty!

....is not an answer to the question: "Why should everyone have to serve your preference in this matter?" — apokrisis

Again, my preference leads to no negative outcomes for a future individual. No structural or contingent suffering experienced by a future person. De facto, the outcomes of AN don't harm a new person. More precisely, there is no new person to be harmed. Also, more to the OP's point @Thorongil, by having the new person, there is no reason prior to their birth that would be a justified reason for the child's sake. The child didn't exist to need any X, Y, Z projection that is hoped for it. It has to be created first and then, would those X, Y, Z projections apply. Even you mentioned, the self-interested reasons of less selfish and more socially responsible would simply be a self-interested reason and thus not for the child's sake (again, because the child doesn't exist to need interests taken care of in the first place).

Now, you could make a sidestep move and say having children in general promotes the continuation of scientific discoveries, keeps the economy going/developing, keeps the concept of human "flourishing" alive. These would all be using the individual for a means to another end. Being that the individual didn't even need to exist in the first place, you are directly affecting an individual to carry out a third-party consequence that you want to see carried out (whatever general social welfare reason you chose).

Now, you say that the child will flourish. I say that this is perhaps misinterpretation of what is going on. Perhaps it is systemic futility, aggressive circularity, instrumentality, deprivation of needs and wants, bumpiness of individual vs. the physical/social givens, and the myriad of innumerable and unpredictable contingent harms that befall an individual. Are the positive goods worth these ideas? Even if we were in a situation where it is unknown whether my perspective or your perspective was right, my outcome lead to no actual suffering for a new person.

Thus, whereby my preference literally leads to no loss (no human to have loss), yours would be
a) Creating a situation where systemic and contingent harm would take place in the first place
b) Using the new person for self-interested means
c) Using the person for a third-party means

If my perspective is "wrong" no ONE is hurt by it. If your perspective is wrong, someone is always hurt by it.