What you still haven't explained is why you've chosen your new possibility, when the existing one already explains everything. — Pseudonym

I was trying to get at that by asking: What does a desire for any X thing look like prior to language? You still have not answered this question fully but seem to avoid it. I say that there is nothing for how it looks like, because it does not exist for humans. I have never seen a human have a pre-linguistic thought as such. How are we to tell? Language is already encoded by the time we are 2 years old, so it's pretty hard to judge a pre-linguistic desire. Also, what empirical evidence is there that "I want to raise a child" is hard-wired? Rather there is much more evidence that one sees other people have babies, the media, friends, family, and just the desire to experience something one has not experienced, or do something that gives more meaning to a life, to have a child. But all these reasons are linguistically and culturally mediated. In other words they come from interactions with society and mediated through language. They are not standalone innate thoughts. Almost all thoughts that are linguistic have a culturally inherited element. Due to our shared cultural nature, much of who we are, the very linguistic adaptation of our brains, and the preferences that we strive for are mediated through interaction with society. Clearly procreation is a very valued preference of society that people take on as something worth pursuing.

I understand the distinction you're making I don't understand why. It doesn't matter how many times you keep repeating it it doesn't magically make it true. — Pseudonym

I'm not sure why you think it's untrue. I am trying to understand where you think that humans have an "innate" desire to raise children by asking

Again, how do concepts like "child" or "taking care of" occur before pre-linguistically? What does a desire for any X thing look like prior to language? I cannot conceive of such complex ideas being "desired" prior to language in humans. Basic things like hunger, thirst, warmth, pleasure, fear, etc. I can see being pre-linguistic, but how is something as complex as "I desire to raise a child" anything but linguistically-based? How does that kind of complex statement work prior to language? You need a conception of self, other, the idea of raising something, etc. These are all linguistically derived. I don't see how it is otherwise. — schopenhauer1

We don't have to be going around in circles if you understood the difference between instinct (i.e. innate behaviors) vs. culture (i.e. socially learned behaviors mediated through language transmission).

Your argument there is a classic false equivalence and strawman. I never said that the elephant doesn't desire to have children in its own way. What I did was make a distinction in how these desires manifest.
The elephant's "desire" to raise a child is instinctual. The desire is present due to instinctual origins. The human's desire to raise a child is cultural. The desire is present due to cultural origins. What I also said was for humans, desire for raising children, being that it is not instinctual, does not have a pre-linguistic origin. The cognitive process for humans works through linguistic mediation where the cognitive process for other animals works through pre-set instinctual mechanisms that happen non-linguistically.

Why? For what sound logical reason are you proposing (insisting, in fact) that humans, despite having evolved in exactly the same way as all other animals, mysteriously lack an instinct present in all other animals, even though the evidence for it is so clearly present that you've had to come up with some other explanation for it. — Pseudonym

I explained it here:

Well, evolution comes in the picture in that humans evolved language/conceptual abilities (along with other cognitive tools that bolstered this). This separated behavior that is purely motivated by innate instinct with cultural transmission to a very high degree. Then, survival becomes a "virtual world" of cultural integration mediated through the primary language of the community. Thus, biological evolution does play a role in this in shaping our cognitive faculties to have a conceptually-wired brain. This same brain being the one that helps produce cultural practices that maintain the tribe, etc. A more interesting question perhaps is why is it that reproduction/procreation became so important for the tribe. Clearly, children were a utility and perhaps a source of pride, but again, that all circles back tot he fact that it is still conceptual and based on the communities values in the first place. What we can say is it is a strong preference for human communities that gets enculturated as the values of the individuals of the community and then gets passed down the generations. — schopenhauer1

You keep insisting that the desire to raise children is cultural in humans but instinctive in all other animals without providing any reason at all why that should be the case. — Pseudonym

Again, how do concepts like "child" or "taking care of" occur before pre-linguistically? What does a desire for any X thing look like prior to language? I cannot conceive of such complex ideas being "desired" prior to language in humans. Basic things like hunger, thirst, warmth, pleasure, fear, etc. I can see being pre-linguistic, but how is something as complex as "I desire to raise a child" anything but linguistically-based? How does that kind of complex statement work prior to language? You need a conception of self, other, the idea of raising something, etc. These are all linguistically derived. I don't see how it is otherwise.

That literally all other animals raise young - some in quite complex and long-term ways. How on earth do you think they do this without a desire to do it motivating them. Are you suggesting that Elephants spend 16 years nurturing, feeding and protecting their young entirely by accident? — Pseudonym

Yes, it is an instinct for the elephant parent. For the human it is cultural to raise a child. Again, for the human (which is redundant as other animals do not even have the capacity for language), how is "I desire to raise a child" anything but a linguistic notion? Does the concepts of "child" or "taking care of" happen pre-linguistically? I do not think so. These concepts are picked up through interaction with other linguistic users in a cultural environment. Other animals do not need to pick up concepts through interaction with their cultural environment as much of their parenting behaviors and "desires" are innate.

How do you know it is not all shoveling sand with a pitchfork? Does the hope of some achievement, the supposed "insight" from some educational material, the mental absorption of some activity, or the hope of some relationship make the difference? Think of that feeling of a Saturday with nothing to do- you worked all week, you are not with anyone in particular, you join a group but still feel alone, you read a bit, write some ideas down, work out some puzzles, but there is that sense of lack. What are you even working and maintaining for in the first place? Take that feeling and expand it- that is what is really going on. All the work, all that enthalpy, moving around, concern, for nothing in particular. Exist to exist to exist. Work to entertain to work to entertain. Repetition. Instrumentality. No hokey romantic visions of artists and creativity..just pure instrumental nature of a striving that has no goal, a lack of something, just being to be to be. We have to stop speaking as if life is that last five minutes of a news program, the human interest stories that try to portray the uplifting nature of the human experience. Let's talk in frank terms of the instrumentality of being, of what we are doing in the first place. Take off the damn broad-rimmed granny hat, throw down the damn paint brush and knock over the damn easel in the damn French countryside and look at it straight on! :P

No, because we are in competition with other humans and animals, that's the nature of evolution. If all we did was produce children, but another tribe produced them, taught and kept them healthy and generally well cared for, the latter tribe would soon out-breed the former. — Pseudonym

I just meant that all that needs to take place for procreation is for a functional process to be in place. Competition can be part of that process if you like. I don't see how competition negates what I meant, and is sort of a non-sequitor.

The avenue can be instinctual (I.e. innate like other animals) or it can be cultural (like humans).
— schopenhauer1

Yes, but it's a vastly more likely and a simpler explanation to say that humans have the same instinct to successfully raise young adults any other animal, why would we invent a new reason for our own apparent desire? — Pseudonym

It's not about simpler or not simpler, it is simply about what is occurring. You have to see how you are using these phrases. What do you mean by "desire"? Desires in humans, manifest in language. Now, there are basic drives like hunger, warmth, pleasure, fear, etc. but beyond these basic emotions and physical necessities, desires have a linguistic nature to them. "I desire to do x" is a linguistic event. What evidence have you that "I desire to raise a child" is anything but a linguistic notion where first you have to have a notion of self, world, other, caring for, reproduction, etc. etc. These are all complex concepts, and are not innate. These are not primal emotions like fear, hunger, etc. In other words, they are not things which you can say are pre-linguistic or at the least, pre-conceptual (if you want to divorce the two).

Rather what probably happens is, reproduction, caring for, etc. is considered valuable by the community. This becomes encultrated by the individual and desirous to them. It's like if there is a family that puts a lot of emphasis on sports, I bet you the children in that family will also take on sports as something that is desirable as they grew up with this being valuable to their close-knit family community. Thus, why would this work any different? Just because reproduction is important to the propagation of the species, does not mean that it is innate. As long as there is something that functionally perpetuates the species (like encultration of values), it will keep going.

I just don't understand how you can say this in the face of the overwhelming evidence from evolution that this is not the case. Am I missing something? It sounds like you're trying to make an argument that despite the urge to successfully raise young being evident in literally every living thing that has ever been, and it being an absolute necessity for a species to survive, the human version of it is entirely cultural, that we're the only animal to have ever lived that doesn't have an instinctive desire to raise children but luckily (for our survival thus far) we just happen to have replaced our missing instinctive desire with a culturally imposed one. You realise that sounds crazy. — Pseudonym

Well, evolution comes in the picture in that humans evolved language/conceptual abilities (along with other cognitive tools that bolstered this). This separated behavior that is purely motivated by innate instinct with cultural transmission to a very high degree. Then, survival becomes a "virtual world" of cultural integration mediated through the primary language of the community. Thus, biological evolution does play a role in this in shaping our cognitive faculties to have a conceptually-wired brain. This same brain being the one that helps produce cultural practices that maintain the tribe, etc. A more interesting question perhaps is why is it that reproduction/procreation became so important for the tribe. Clearly, children were a utility and perhaps a source of pride, but again, that all circles back tot he fact that it is still conceptual and based on the communities values in the first place. What we can say is it is a strong preference for human communities that gets enculturated as the values of the individuals of the community and then gets passed down the generations.

I apologise if my tone had offended you, it was not my intention. — Pseudonym

Thank you for toning it down a bit!

I just don't think you can suggest with any authority that the desire to raise children is not a natural instinct. Any creature which did not have the desire to both have, and successfully raise, young hard-wired into their DNA would simply have become extinct long ago. It is absolutely without doubt that if anything at all is a natural instinct then raising children is. — Pseudonym

I don’t see how this necessarily must be the case in humans. All that needs to take place for procreation is any functional process that creates more humans. The avenue can be instinctual (I.e. innate like other animals) or it can be cultural (like humans). If institutions in society perpetuate certain preferences for procreation then these preferences will work their way into individual preferences. The goal being people channel their activities towards the preferred social preferences. The thing is “raising a child” and “birth” are conceptual. That is these are linguistically-based. That is, they are derived socially through more complex learning. They are not innate. In fact, very few behaviors or cognitive processes (like concepts) are innate. There maybe predispositions for certain moods, dispositions, tendencies, etc, but no one is born with full blown complex conceptual notions.

Presumably I'm not explaining myself clearly enough. Despite two attempts to explain otherwise, you still seem to be working on the idea that I'm saying all activities related to having children are directly the result of instinct without any other input. — Pseudonym

Yep, you are not explaining clearly enough I guess. You don't need the whole dramatics of the "despite two attempts".. just say what you are going to say without the unnecessary attacks. At the least I can have more sympathy with your style if not the substance.

I've said twice now that behaviour is the result of a reaction between instinct and the environment (culture/nature). No matter how much cultural /environmental involvement you posit, desire has to ultimately be innate otherwise we would never do anything. How do you think a culture creates a desire? — Pseudonym

Again.. don't need the "I've said twice now..". Do you want to have a pleasant disagreement or a brawl? Your choice. Anyways, now you are changing your terms from instinct to desire. Most desires are not innate but shaped by culture. For example, the desire for eating or pleasure may be innate (very basic desires) but other preferences (which may be built on more basic desires) are shaped by social interaction. Thus, a culture that values anti-natalism might create a more weighted preference for such, and a culture that values natalism (which are most) might have that preference more weighted. Where does society get this from? They are simply preferences that have been passed down. Basketball is another preference that has been passed down. People like playing games. Is basketball innate? There may be some more primary motivations (like for example, survival, boredom, seeking comfort) but how this is channeled is very contingent on cultural institutions.

From Google search of "instinct"
Instinct: an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.

So, I don't know what definition you are using, but if its not a fixed (innate) pattern than I do not consider an instinct. So the pleasure instincts, aggression instincts, things like that may be considered instinctual, but more complex behavior would be more than a stretch to include under the category of "instinctual". Raising a child is conceptual. It is something you learn, not something you know or feel right off the bat. It is something you need to be enculturated for. So what you seem to be doing is saying any behavior belongs under the categorical concept of "instinct". This is overmining the concept of instinct. Instinct means something that is innate. Concepts learned through culture do not seem to be innate but learned through the process of enculturation.

As far as utilitarianism, how are you using the term? Usually it means something like trying to maximize happiness for the greatest number as a guiding principle. So what principle are you using to justify why having more life is better than refraining from having more life? What is your justification or teleology that you think justifies it? As I've said, I haven't heard a compelling argument.

I entirely agree with you that there is no logic whatsoever to creating new life under an assumption of both utilitarianism and free-will, which seem to be the assumptions you're working under. Entirely for the arguments you've put forward, there cannot be argued to be any net utility gain, which is exactly what Schopenhauer said. — Pseudonym

Ok, so we agree that it is better never to have been but not that it is a possibility to not have children for some people.

A) We cannot choose not to, what some people choose is a lifestyle which (at an instinctive level) some part of their brain is telling them will support other people who are raising new life and whose DNA will be similar to theirs. — Pseudonym

This is nonsense. First off, you have to believe in the premise that the concept of "having and raising a child" is an instinct. I think it is a linguistically/culturally created concept that may be pushed along with chemicals like oxcytocin, but certainly not to the "must do" urge you claim, like say, going to the bathroom, or even the sexual urge (which is not the same as the "urge" to have a child, just something that may lead to it).

But even if one assumed your premise that "having and raising a child is an instinct", then one can refrain from it like one would any instinct. Say humans have an instinct to take pleasure in sweet tasting foods. However, an individual is on a diet, this individual refrains from all sorts of sweet tasting foods on the diet. Say humans have an instinct for aggression when angry, but instead of giving into the aggression instinct an individual learns to control it and channel it in ways other than violence or conflict. Thus, I don't see the "inevitability" of your argument. All I see is a cultural preference that people choose to follow.

B) See above - You might want to look at people like Edward Wilson for some ideas as to how non-breeders could have evolved despite the disadvantage of not passing on their DNA, but it's basically to do with increasing the life chances of closely related people.

I think you are taking evolutionary psychology too far. Human behavior is far more complex than instinctual drives. When you add in linguistics/culture the picture is more than "what behavior is related to what evolutionary advantage". In fact, much of what we do has nothing to do with evolutionary advantage. You may have a stronger argument for sexual fitness, but humans can divorce sex from birth and often do. So do not conflate sexual activity or sexual fitness or sexual advantage with birth as humans can and do divorce the two all the time.

C) Only if you already believe that's what they're doing. Otherwise, this is a non sequitur. How do you know they're going against their 'natural' instincts? Have desires got little labels on them that we can check? Do 'natural', ones show up in a different colour on fMRI scans?

I don't know, you were the one who says that humans cannot do otherwise except breed. This leads me to believe you meant that we have instincts to breed that we cannot bypass, and I have demonstrated otherwise by both a) undermining that we necessarily have instincts to breed (as opposed to sexual pleasure urges), and b) if we did have instincts to breed, we do deny our instincts all the time.

D)The 'is' 'ought' problem is only a problem for those who believe in free-will. abandon free-will and there is only 'is'.

True, people have preferences that may be tied to their environmental interaction/upbringing/social forces/genetics/biology/epigenetics, etc. etc. but nonetheless, people can choose to do otherwise than what one would expect them to do based on factors that have shaped their preferences. It happens. Even in a deterministic universe, what choice will be made is not known until it is made. You must not confuse determinism with self-fulfilling prophecy (he/we/they are always like this so he/we/they will always be like this).

Also, as I've stated, similar to your observation on Schopenhauer, I recognize that procreation will not stop any time soon. My goal is not that quixotic. Rather, it is to simply have more people question the fact of why they are bringing new people into the world in the first place. What are they trying to accomplish? What is the teleological assumption people hold for why a new person needs to be created? Why is creating a new person better than refraining from making a new existence? Again, I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why more people need to be born. You seem to agree.

Because we are compelled to either make a new being or assist in the raising of one relatively related to us, by the very chemicals which run our brains and bodies.

Given the complexities of the environment and the multitude of effects it may have on us, what some people deduce is the best way to assist in the raising of young can be quite varied to say the least, but I'm convinced that remains the driving force.

The problem is you're starting out presuming it's a choice we make, to have these desires which is really ironic considering your moniker.

“Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills” — Pseudonym

Odd you use the quote from Schopenhauer, who though not explicitly an antinatalist, said "“If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?”

But, I think it is indeed a choice we can make. How is it not so? Besides which, you aren't really getting the point. It is not necessarily to try to get everyone to stop procreating, but to stop and ask themselves why is it better to make another existence rather than to refrain from creating another existence? Again, I have not heard a compelling argument. Your idea that it is simply instinctual drive doesn't really answer much. A) We can choose not to. B) People have chosen not to. C) People can go against "natural" instincts. D) How do you answer the "is" "ought" problem- just because its instinctual (if that is even the case) why should one ought to follow the instincts?

My perpetual question is why do we make new people experience life. I have not heard great answers thus far and each presupposes an unnecessary teleology (i.e. progress, goods of life, experience is rewarding in itself, personal achievement, relationships, etc.). I have not yet heard a compelling argument why making another existence is better than refraining from making a new existence.

We're still fairly close to a time when people had over-arching meaningful contexts, so there's still the habit of it in society. But eventually, over time, that habit will fade (so long as that worldview is believed to be true). Already, one has the sense that talk about meaning is fading into pious nostrums that glide off one's mind, commodified in books, chatted about by Oprah for 5 minutes, and forgotten. — gurugeorge

These possibilities are all foreclosed by materialism/mechanism - which boils down to sequences of quantifiable efficient causes without any sort of over-arching context (i.e. stuff just happens to happen the way it happens, the Universe is a stupendous accident, destined for an ignominious end). — gurugeorge

Indeed, you hit upon a major difference in modern and post-modern outlooks. Modernists may have left an over-arching theme of religion behind, but they replaced it with the over-arching theme that science, technology, and social engineering can bring us to a more ideal state (i.e. Marxism, Hegelianism, Secular Humanism, Liberalism, etc.). The post-modern outlook rejects meta-narratives and over-arching themes of human life. With this outlook, it insists we are all telling narratives and there is only meaning in relation to the context of that story. Or at least that is one view of the split between the two. There is never an overriding narrative to bind them all.

My take is that life is simply an instrumental affair. I call this concept instrumentality. We survive, maintain our comfort levels that are acceptable to our own and society's standards, and we flee from boredom. We do this repetitiously, day in and day out. Hope keeps us rushing through it trying not to dwell on it. However, we are striving for nothing in particular, but that death/dying seems painful or scary and we know nothing else except to live another day, the way we are used to doing it. It is a grinding, slow march to oblivion for the individual, choosing our ways to "work" "maintain our environment" and "entertain ourselves". That is it, not much more than that.

Nisargadatta said that birth is a calamity. Well, you're in a life because you're the protagonist in one of the infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories. Therefore, it would be quite meaningless to speak of the person distinct from the life. The person, by his/her very nature, is in the life. — Michael Ossipoff

Can you prove this? I can see what you mean in a "possible worlds" scenario but that is not quite the same as a soul migrating to different bodies. It goes back to the idea of what makes me "me". Can I ever be otherwise? Is that even a legitimate question? I don't think it is. If I was not me, there is/was/will be no me. However, the possibility of a person can be projected, though this is not the same as the possibility can be actualized by just any birth-related event. It would have to be that birth related event to be me.

Have you ever had the experience of waking from a dream in which you knew something that was really important,and really, indescribably, good, but not remembering what it was?

A number of people report that experience. Spiritual teachers say that it wasn't a dream. They say that you were waking from deep-sleep, and experiencing a rare memory of it. — Michael Ossipoff

Possibly. But this just speaks to the fact that, every night, people mostly look forward to this blissful state of conscious-nothingness. Unfortunately for me, I'm a bad sleeper, so rarely experience this. I'd say that is the ideal state. No stress, no decisions, no suffering, just purely existing. Yes, the brain is doing "something". It is not complete physical-nothingness. However, it is very close to conscious-nothingness. As with birth, what is the point of experiencing at all? What are we really trying to do here in waking life with all this instrumentality of the everyday?

Thank you, succinct summary of the vagueness of apokrisis/Pattee's references to the almighty "epistemic cut". Apokrisis has to actually address this issue if he is to move anyone on this forum, yet he continually just hand-waves this off and tries to deflect real explanation of the problems you bring up. If he puts onus on you, then he can never be responsible for the burden of explanation- it is your fault with your interpretation. Also, you cannot repeat definitions of dodgy concepts with more dodgy concepts and think that it will come out square. You cannot get blood from a stone.

Deep sleep is close to nothing as far as perception in the living human.

Actually now that I look at it, we probably agree on this. I don't think that a private language exists. I do think that people have mental experiences though, which is pretty common sense.

I don't.

Qualia are a nice example, though. If a qual is a private thing then following the private language argument there is no point in talking about them. But if they are a shared part of our world and language, they are nothing different to ordinary things like the smell of coffee or the colour red.

Either way, nothing is gained by their inclusion. — Banno

Hmm, I think then that you may not be making the distinction between the origins of the qualia and the phenomenon of qualia itself. The origins may be socially constructed as you seem to agree with here:

if they are a shared part of our world and language — Banno

However, this does not mean that once constructed, the person is not having a private mental phenomenon of red. The origins are shared, but each individual instance is private for the individual perhaps. So red would not be there perhaps without the social construction, but once there, the person is indeed having an experience of red.

Yet you also understand Wittgenstein but apparently leave room for private mental furnishings. — Banno

How do you define private mental furnishings? Are you talking about the origins of the mental furnishings which is a combination of self and interaction with others through social or are you talking about the phenomenon of mental furnishings itself- in other words of personal mental imagery/self-talk/introspection/qualia etc.

To be clear there is a continuity of personality through moods. A good mood doesn't wipe out years of linguistic and physical habit. But a person in love can be terrified of death as nothingness. They can be terrified that the species will go extinct and the experience of being in love (and so on) lost forever. Reproduction is our flight from death. Sexual love is arguably our sweetest pleasure. No big surprise that this kind of system would be evolved.

And in a truly bad mood that sees life as a net evil, the fear is that we won't go extinct. I may escape to the grave, but I am also in the others not yet born. Occasionally there's a story about a parent killing their kids and themselves. I can only understand this in terms of a depression that is (in its view) protecting the children from suffering. They all flee to death together. I remember a story where the parent was the father. He did the apparently evil dirty work. He took the guilt and evil on his shoulders to do the misunderstood good. As awful as the crime is, this is one of the more generous readings of the father's motives. — dog

I'm going to reply here with a reply I had to Bitter Crank in another thread:

People read into their happy emotions too easily. Sex happens at a time of optimal contentment. Feelings of oxytocin start pouring in and dopamine and all of a sudden every care in the world is washed away in ideas of future ideals of two parents and babies in household, etc.

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.

Indeed. In a bad mood I tend to think of all the terrible stuff that could happen as well as the terrible stuff that will happen. I also feel for life's bigger losers (we're all at least small or medium sized losers). In a good mood I'm absorbed in the object or project. In this approximately neutral mood I can turn things around in my mind abstractly.

You may not believe me, but I think I understand your position. I think I could argue from an approximation of it. But I could also argue the other side. In my life, my 'real' position varies with my mood. I may write the feel good novel of the year and then get depressed and hang myself. It's possible. The hanging wouldn't necessarily be any more definition of my true nature than the feel good novel. A final action doesn't necessarily have any extra weight, just as death-bed mumblings aren't the sum of a man's thinking. I've known artists whose art was joyful to kill themselves. I've known depressive types live to be old men. I think lots of artist types swing back and forth from higher Heavens to lower Hells. — dog

But again, should mood dictate evaluation of life. Is it possible to prevent suffering for future generations sans our own mood at the time of evaluation? It may be hard, but if the argument from structural and contingent suffering is taken into consideration, perhaps it can.

Believe it or not, I get your point. In a good mood, you may lose perspective. Life seems to be going well, so why would I tempt fate by thinking of its negative qualities? This just belies our superstitious natures.. "Best not tempt the gods by thinking of the negatives, in the throes of my positive experience". I get it, man meets women, falls in love, doesn't understand why the world is so bad. Again, the question is can humans separate evaluations from their particular moods? You seem to be indicating that this is an absolute no.

My point is that these are the voices of moods. If I get disgusted with life, then I'll agree with you. If things turn sweet again, that why will have a largely ineffable answer. And you won't believe the words that I do find. Not unless you are also lifted by a mood.

I have read bad-mood-writing in a good mood and the reverse. It's illuminating. Every passion has a philosophy. Life-love, death-love. If a mood lasts long enough, we begin to believe in substance again. We think that we are simpler than we are and more fixed. (So it seems to me.) — dog

Do you think it is short sighted to think that the good moods mean that life must be good? Can evaluation be separated from mood? If not, why not? Why is it that new people should experience life? Because you are in a good mood? Does mood justify bringing new people in existence? What is the point of more people experiencing life? If my premise is life is survival, comfort, finding entertainment- why should those things be experienced by yet a new person? This is just in reference to structural suffering (see previous posts for definition).

How about contingent harms? This would be the classical Western view of "good experience' and "bad experience". Why do the good experiences make up for the bad ones? What about the unforeseen bad experiences? What about the variables of people's psyches, physiology and circumstances that make some people prone to worse experiences than others?

For each wave its voices and philosophy. The Hell wave sings a song of anti-natalism. The Heaven wave sings a song of reproduction and passing the torch. The Blah wave sings this song of waves and their singing, neutral on the matter. — dog

But there doesn't have to be waves in the first place. Why should we experience the waves?

What comes to my mind is the way that lust/curiosity transforms (with compatibility) into what's called love: trust, friendship, warmth rather than excitement. The woman well known and much loved gets cast to some degree as a mother. She's no longer the unknown frontier. Her body might be great, but it's no longer a wonderland for him. It's territory that only becomes exciting within the act or when possession is threatened. (Jealousy sex is psychedelic.) (Yeah, it's occurred to me that I might just be an endlessly ambivalent jerk. Nevertheless, I think I speak from 10 above average quality years of marital experience. Folks is complex in they minds.)

The friendship can be great, but it's not quite like a great friendship with another man. You have to argue with this chick about how to arrange the household and where and how to be. It's like democracy. It's the least worst system perhaps. Sometimes it's paradise. You look over at her to see her reaction to some good TV. Instead of staring at one another, you look out on the world together.

Doesn't have to lead to children, but of course for many it does. I'll let others speak of the satisfactions and frustrations of parenthood. I do love petting the silly bitch who sleeps on my couch. (I don't mean my wife. She doesn't sleep on the couch.) — dog

Day in day out...Granted, better with a significant other, but still the same instrumental existence. You had it more accurate with moving of furniture than the starry-eyed narrative. Not to mention, relationships cause a lot of strife- getting them, keeping them, maintaining them, losing them. This falls under contingent suffering- some people are more fortunate than others in many "goods" of life. Who is to say what new person brought into the world will have more of these goods or very few. Either way, the repetitious nature of our striving wills cause no lasting satisfaction, just a new object of striving.

Right, suggesting your motives aren't 100% pure for bringing up your 10+ years experience on the forums is certainly troll-like behavior. — Noble Dust

I'm not saying your trolling- just "troll-like" behavior.. Something to rile for the sake of riling.

Wait, you've read my threads, none of which I can remember you responding to, but you think I'm in agreement with your overall position? That's definitely not correct. — Noble Dust

Honestly, I'm just remembering a thread where we discussed suicide. Just a note, I do not usually identify as nihilist, but a philosophical pessimist of sorts, as nihilism has too many meanings depending on context. Philosophical Pessimism and association with Schopenhauer is more up my alley.

What I want is a point-by-point defense of your nihilistic views. — Noble Dust

Was your second paragraph about me making a point-by-point defense of nihilism? I've said plenty, and can copy and paste a number of things I would probably be repeating. So, why don't we change it up. Why don't YOU state a position, and we can go from there. You started to with your nice paragraph about labels and such at which I agreed. But if you have a point that you would like to make, make it.

Hey, futility is my theme, so why not.

Oh dear, you've been saying the same things for 10+ years like a broken record? >:O — Agustino

I did say consistent right? Hey, you may have a protege, it looks like your style here :p.

And please, bringing up 10 years experience is obviously not a 100% innocent ploy. Don't placate me with histrionics. — Noble Dust

You are getting unpleasant and troll-like at this point. What do you want from me, sir? There is no innocent ploy... just that as far as these forums are concerned, my positions are fairly consistent. It doesn't have to do with experience, just how long I've been saying similar points of view.

As far as your question about expanding on my phrasing.. I said earlier:

Whether life is a loaded question is something prior to me asking about it.

So the thread is "What do you live for everyday".. Yes, I think there is an answer, and perhaps I had something in mind along the lines of instrumentality. I thought you essentially had it right with your first paragraph there. As far as the second one that we have been circling, I don't really understand. Based on the consistency of your other threads, I would think you are mostly in agreement, but perhaps you also are showing disagreement for the sake of getting some dialectic out of me. You want something from me, that I am not providing, I don't know.. so again, what is it you want from me?

So since I'm a mere 1-year guy, I'm not worth debating? Got it. Sorry. — Noble Dust

Oh stop with the histrionics. That's beneath you, no? You clearly know my point of view, since you are stating it now. My point was that no one was expecting me to tie it all together with a nice bow.

No, lol. If your worldview is that life is not worth living, and then you make a thread called "what do you live for everyday", then you're definitely asking a loaded question; begging the question, essentially, from your own point of view. — Noble Dust

But you are missing the point of how I phrased it. And, most people know my point of view here, I would suspect after 10+ years on this and the previous forum. Though, some newer posters have probably caught the drift rather quickly.

What are existential animals? — Noble Dust

Animals that can self-reflect on their own existence. They know they have an existence and question what is the point.

A person who's always 'in love' can't take nihilism/pessimism seriously. They can cognize the abstractions, but it's natural for them to advise the ultimately emotional retort: be fascinated as I am in a project and that futility vanishes. Of course we can't will ourselves into fascination, even if we can seek out the conditions for its possibility. — dog

Ah yes, those oxcytocin feelings of love.. that doesn't last, is not sustained, life moves forward, the novelty wears off. In fact, it is these type of enthrallments that beget more life which brings more instrumental existence on a new person.

That's unrelated to whether this thread was a loaded question, and obviously a diversion. — Noble Dust

No it's not actually. Whether life is a loaded question is something prior to me asking about it.

I fully identify with that sentiment. — Noble Dust

Cool.

Free as opposed to what? — Noble Dust

Just meaning activities that we deem to be our non-work time. Much of this can be seen as arbitrary, but the way our culture has it set up, is that we psychologically/socially make space for "work-time" and then make space for our personal "free time". Of course, it can be any combination of work/non-work time that you can think of. Any activity not related directly to the attainment of some survival goal (i.e. work-to get money- to buy stuff- to live in a first world country, OR hunt/gather/build and maintain hut/subsistence farm, etc. etc.).

The feeling of futility is predicated on the very concept of completion, fulfillment, etc. So the nihilistic experience of moving from "the possibility of fulfillment" to "the loss of fulfillment" begins with the concept of fulfillment. Where does that concept come from? Not just social causes; look at any society other than our nihilistic twilight world, and you'll find concepts of fulfillment writ large everywhere. — Noble Dust

Don't follow. The very point is that it's all instrumental, yet we are self-aware of this. We are existential animals, not just animals that can "be" without knowing it. Thus, some animal-life, primary consciousness, non-linguistic, non-reflective state is not really an option.

And by the way, I was right, then, that this thread is basically a loaded question, right? — Noble Dust

I don't know, that depends- is life a loaded question? ;). What is your point though? Gadfly the gadfly right? Question the questioner.. Get it. Provide a response, make a positive claim about something.

Instrumentality- I've stated so many times.. here is one way I phrased it: Here is the idea of instrumentality- the absurd feeling that can be experienced from apprehension of the constant need to put forth energy to pursue goals and actions in waking life. This feeling can make us question the whole human enterprise itself of maintaining mundane repetitive upkeep, maintaining institutions, and pursuing any action that eats up free time simply for the sake of being alive and having no other choice. There is also a feeling of futility as, the linguistic- general processor brain cannot get out of its own circular loop of awareness of this. Another part of the feeling of futility is the idea that there is no ultimate completion from any goal or action. It is that idea that there is nothing truly fulfilling. Time moves forward and we must make more goals and actions.

Another way I phrased it is in this thread here: This long-range emptiness to all projects I call "instrumentality". It is instrumental in that we pursue but with no final satisfaction to any particular goal, just a general striving that underlies our linguistic-conceptual minds. Conceptually we can break this general Will or Striving into three basic categories of motivation: survival (in a cultural and/or economic context), seeking comfort/maintenance (e.g. you clean your house, you brush your teeth, you make your bed, etc. etc.), fleeing boredom (e.g. you get lonely, you pursue a hobby, you make art, you take a walk, etc. etc). All the most complex goals/technologies/outputs come from a combination of those three underlying motivations. However, these motivations are simply conceptual breakdowns of our originary Striving/Will that manifests from within us in the first place. It is an instrumental moving-forward-but-for-no-reason. All goals are subsumed by the simple sheer need in our waking daily lives for striving/willing.

So yes, we slap on a label after-the-fact for what we are doing it for. The problem is, as you indicated, that we are an existential creature. Whereas other animals may have motivations of survival (and perhaps maintenance/boredom for higher level animals), they are not self-reflective to our degree. We are the animals that know that we simply live to live to live. Our conceptual minds turn in on ourselves and there is no easy way out by slapping a label on why we do anything. We simply keep the continual striving for survival/maintenance/boredom-avoidance going to the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and so on and so on and so on. Meanwhile, we are plagued by the contingencies of our circumstances- mental/physical conditions, uncomfortable circumstances, tragedies, and what not.

Hence I categorize suffering into two main camps- structural suffering and contingent suffering.

Structural suffering is the instrumental nature of existence- the striving that is never satisfied, the motivations of want/desire (survival/comfort/maintenance/boredom) that lead to the repetitious Sisyphean aspect of existence (yet another day of survival, comfort seeking, boredom fleeing).

Contingent suffering is the circumstances which can be different for each person is identified with classical notions of suffering in the West (i.e. circumstances of physical/mental pain, circumstances of negative situations, etc. etc.).

Then, in the second short paragraph, I was emphasizing that the fact that we don't know why we don't live life says nothing about the implicit question of whether life is worth living, which I know you're getting at; or, as you put it, with your assumption, whether or not we should commit suicide. — Noble Dust

The question is to get people's understanding of why they think life is worth living. I am curious to see people's take on it which usually leads back to the usual theme of instrumentality.

I want you to answer this: — Noble Dust

I guess I am asking- is this about why we don't commit suicide?

Assuming Bitter Crank is answering for Noble Dust- the pain of life is not so unbearable as to go against the biological instinct/enculturation of survival. This is not an indictment that life is therefore something which is necessary, too-good-not-to-continue, etc. etc.

Also, may I add, that is the point- we are going by our nature based on our survival/maintenance/boredom motivations.. this is not a positive reason for existence, just what we do. Labels are put on after.

I feel a classical notion is that we do stuff to compensate for other stuff.. I did this negative experience so I can experience this positive experience. See, isn't life worth it? I think it's more than this simple equation.

Oh come on, you're going to go into detailed responses to others, but ignore the small second paragraph of my response you so readily agreed with? The small paragraph that goes against your views? — Noble Dust

What exactly do you want me to comment on? You said it is a matter of why we live, no? Do you want me to answer why we continue to live rather than commit suicide?

But projecting too far into the future reveals decay and death. We generally like to accumulate value, build castles, empires, legacies. There are comforts for personal mortality that depend on the survival of a community. Yet projecting far enough ahead removes even this comfort. A critic could retort that each moment is real and has its own fragile value even as it passes. They aren't wrong. But I think there's an instinct (or something like that) which demands permanence. In my opinion, the easily mockable 'nihilistic' crisis is an often inarticulate frustration with the theoretically perceived impossibility of leaving a deathless mark. — dog

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.

I liked the rest of your post too. I do think the breakdown or classification is a little arbitrary. Not bad, just arbitrary. I suppose I see more of a chaos of particular needs/desires. True, some are especially linked to survival. But I don't see how to cleanly separate morale from survival. Boredom arguably kills indirectly in the sense that stimulation is a sort of need. But these are quibbles. — dog

Granted they are quibbles, but I think everything is really categorized in these ways very broadly. Survival-through-cultural-means, maintenance-through-cultural-means, fleeing-boredom-through-cultural means is really useful in understanding where we are coming from.

I'm wondering your reply to something I stated a few days back here:
I think the crux of much of theism of Western/Abrahamic variety is very much based on Anslem's ontological argument. This is definitely seen in Christianity (the most "romance novel" of the religions), but also seen in Kabbalistic/speculative aspects of Judaism, and some theological aspects of Islam. It's a very Platonic idea of the Good. It is the idea of the most perfect being. Do you like physical pleasure? God is the most perfect pleasure- in fact it isn't really pleasure but profound mystical bliss that cannot be described with words... or so the ideas would go.. The Platonic notions of the most perfect good. God is the most perfect completeness, the whole, the whole story, etc. etc.

In a way this idea is like the "romance novels" of religion. There is this romantic ideal of the perfect being. This vision is anthropomorphized as experiential reality is projected on a SUPER being that is equated with perfect reality. What of the idea that experienceness is only a quality of animals? How is it a quality of the universe writ large? Just human projection in my opinion.

So, my conclusion then is the superstitious nature of humans, the incomprehensible nature of reality outside our human understanding of it, provides the impetus to speculate about a god with the most perfect nature. We cannot get outside experience and it shows in our theological speculations.

By the way, this has nothing to do with "new atheism" or anything, so is not related to any of those authors.

It's from the zoomed-out perspective that the long-range emptiness of all projects appears. We look like clever animals who woke up to our eerie situation. Is life good or bad? Every mood has its own philosophy. In good moods the awake-to-nullity thinking type can speak of the fascinating show of its mysterious origin. In bad moods, he speaks of the nightmare from nowhere that at least will subside into the blackness from which it came. — dog

This long-range emptiness to all projects I call "instrumentality". It is instrumental in that we pursue but with no final satisfaction to any particular goal, just a general striving that underlies our linguistic-conceptual minds. Conceptually we can break this general Will or Striving into three basic categories of motivation: survival (in a cultural and/or economic context), seeking comfort/maintenance (e.g. you clean your house, you brush your teeth, you make your bed, etc. etc.), fleeing boredom (e.g. you get lonely, you pursue a hobby, you make art, you take a walk, etc. etc). All the most complex goals/technologies/outputs come from a combination of those three underlying motivations. However, these motivations are simply conceptual breakdowns of our originary Striving/Will that manifests from within us in the first place. It is an instrumental moving-forward-but-for-no-reason. All goals are subsumed by the simple sheer need in our waking daily lives for striving/willing.

So yes, we slap on a label after-the-fact for what we are doing it for. The problem is, as you indicated, that we are an existential creature. Whereas other animals may have motivations of survival (and perhaps maintenance/boredom for higher level animals), they are not self-reflective to our degree. We are the animals that know that we simply live to live to live. Our conceptual minds turn in on ourselves and there is no easy way out by slapping a label on why we do anything. We simply keep the continual striving for survival/maintenance/boredom-avoidance going to the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and so on and so on and so on. Meanwhile, we are plagued by the contingencies of our circumstances- mental/physical conditions, uncomfortable circumstances, tragedies, and what not.

Hence I categorize suffering into two main camps- structural suffering and contingent suffering.

Structural suffering is the instrumental nature of existence- the striving that is never satisfied, the motivations of want/desire (survival/comfort/maintenance/boredom) that lead to the repetitious Sisyphean aspect of existence (yet another day of survival, comfort seeking, boredom fleeing).

Contingent suffering is the circumstances which can be different for each person is identified with classical notions of suffering in the West (i.e. circumstances of physical/mental pain, circumstances of negative situations, etc. etc.).

The classical retort is to minimize one's purview such that you get "caught up" in something. Thus the bigger picture of existential issues will be ignored/suppressed. Thus, analyzing a spreadsheet for 8 hours, or figuring out an engineering differential equation, or writing a paper on the philosophy of biology, will keep one's mind on intra-worldly affairs and not on the global situation of our existential place. Thus, just go play a video game, just go read that book on evolution, networks, form and function, language, and logic, write that paper on biophysics, or just go knit a pair of socks.

@Bitter Crank You may want to join in with the usual critiques ;).