The only reason why poor countries remain poor is due to poor leadership and corruption. — Question

That's not true. They remain poor because the rich use their money to divide them and buy their leaders. They also remain poor because of lack of patience, not waiting for the right opportunity to pounce. Not having killer instinct. The combination of those two reasons are the causes of poverty, + lack of resources in some cases.

friend who is an economist — Question

Ahh, that species of men who think they know the rules of money but actually don't. An economist is to an entrepreneur like a boxing historian is to Muhammad Ali ;)

Is your friend Gordon Gekko? — Galuchat

Yeah, he's my pal, I have a chat with him every night 8-)

Please don't reward anyone. — Roke

I didn't say causing suffering is rewarding, so don't strawman.

What kind of a guy colors his finger nails? :-}

YES - you are absolutely right. All the people who said otherwise, aren't thinking straight.

I don't think common people think of going to the supermarket as a goal. They rather think buying a bigger house in 10 years as a goal, or saving enough for a car, or starting a business, etc. Most of the time it is impossible to know for sure if you can achieve such a goal. That's why you just have to try, and keep on trying until you get there.

The future may be uncertain, but not so uncertain that I don't go shopping and fully expect the nice man at Walmart to accept my money. — unenlightened

Fock meah, since when do you get Walmart in UK? But I'd have to question this - you can refuse to go shopping and fully expect the nice man at Walmart to accept your money - it's called home delivery 8-)

In my case, I don't say a lot about God, and it gets used against me a lot. A long forgotten source said that belief is thinking the bridge will support you, whereas faith is stepping out on the bridge over the void. I have faith without belief, and that, by convention, is lunacy. — unenlightened

So what goes through your mind when you step on the bridge?

1) Suffering as currency
There is an unavoidable baseline of suffering. The more you try to avoid it, the more ubiquitous it becomes (e.g. boredom, restlessness). If you fall into the habit of avoidance, this can becomes quite pernicious. Avoidance is the wrong strategy. This baseline suffering is biological currency that can be exchanged for pleasure. Meet it head on with physical exercise, strategically directed toil, and to do good for others if you have anything left to burn. That's how you cash it out.

2) Suffering as tragedy
This is the gratuitous suffering that I'm sure we mostly agree about. This is where you find the horrors of life that give the antinatalist position any bite at all. Statistically, it's virtually inevitable that life involves some of this. It's possible to get luck or unlucky here and, on one extreme end of the spectrum, it's hard to make the case that such an unlucky life is worthwhile. That's a fuzzy line to draw and folks draw it in different places. Where you draw the line, along with your sensitivity to risk, should guide certain moral decisions like whether to have kids. Having kids is a very serious gambit. Using your own subjective threshold and risk aversion to make this decision for others is the big mis-step of antinatalism. It's simply uncompelling to them. — Roke

3) Suffering as Rewarding in and of itself
What about this one?

Sue me. — Thorongil

The consequences of that may entail a moderating owl coming around and moving the poll to the dustbin me thinks >:)

He must burden other people to do so, consenting or not, who at the same time, are also preoccupied with rolling their own boulders up the mountain. — OglopTo

I don't call an association of people a burden. If we didn't associate with other people, we would have a much harder time.

When he gets his boulder to the top and see it roll down again, can you still imagine Sisyphus happy to repeat the process all over again? — OglopTo

Absolutely! Because it's not the event of reaching the top that matters, but the process of getting there. Over and over.

we have to push to survive — Cavacava

Survival is much easier. Most people struggle with affairs that involve more than just survival - the achievement of pleasure, etc.

Beyond Good and Evil 56: — Cavacava

Nietzsche had it wrong. He fell in the camp that tried to justify life. That's the wrong camp. The right camp is the camp that doesn't need to justify life at all - the camp for which the justification of life is a non-question. Some deny life, others affirm it - but to be a true man, neither deny nor affirm.

I find less and less to admire in Nietzsche, a man profoundly sick - tormented - by an obsession of justifying life - affirming it he called it. Pah! Whosoever is bothered enough to affirm life is already sick. The cure from pessimism and the life-denying attitude isn't the affirmation of life. It's the rendering of the question useless. How?

By realising how little you matter. By letting go of egoic desire. Buddha, whom Nietzsche mocked, was unperturbed. For him there was no need to justify life in the first place. The Stoics had it right too. Don't desire what you can't have, and you have conquered Fortune.

That's a loaded question. — Noblosh

How so?

I think Camus wanted to say that regardless of fate, man creates his own values. Sisyphus is happy because he is his own man regardless of his fate. — Cavacava

I partly agree with you, but I don't think this is everything. Remember when Camus said that the struggle itself is enough to fill a man's heart?

When we analyse the symbols used...

The boulder represents your dreams. Everything you treasure. That picture you hold in your mind that you equate with success.

You toil to get the boulder up the mountain. You suffer.

And then you succeed. You reach the top. But nothing happens at the top, and the boulder falls back down.

What is the struggle to the top?

The journey.

The goal, the aim - they are merely useful for facilitating the journey, but they are not the reward - they are not goods in themselves.

Sisyphus is happy because he has not lost anything when the boulder fell down.

But he has gained.

What? The struggle. The suffering.

They are enough to fill a man's heart.

Once one gives up the goal as the source of one's joy, and finds joy in the struggle and the pain itself, then suddenly the curse of the Gods becomes the reward of the Gods.

Love the process, not the end result. The process is the reward because that's when you encounter your own self, that's when you build character, that's when you acquire what neither rust nor moth can corrupt.

The loss is visible, but the gain remains invisible - except in Sisyphus's smile.

This seems to be Agustino's view for example. At least this one ADMITS there is suffering but tries to justify it. — schopenhauer1

No, I don't try to justify it, I'm saying that it needs no justification whatsoever. It's as simple as that. It exists. It doesn't need to be justified. Putting people into the world doesn't need justification. Neither does suffering.

As the boulder rolls down the mountain we must imagine Sisyphus happy. Why? — Agustino

I asked this question, I'm going to wait for anyone to answer it.

With that logic, you're implying that self-realization and fulfillment is the ultimate reward and that the suffering one has been through and the suffering one has inflicted on other people, directly or indirectly, is worth it. — OglopTo

The reward and the suffering are not two different things - they are one. So there is no question of the suffering being worth it. It's not even a question. You don't exchange suffering for a reward. The suffering is the reward.

A gentler way of putting it is that I empathize with the suffering that my hypothetical offspring will inevitably suffer. — OglopTo

And don't you make bank on your suffering? Every time you suffer, isn't the dough hitting your cash register? Aren't you learning how to deal with the pain, how to overcome it, how to transform it? Isn't suffering its own reward? Hasn't God more than provided you with what you need? The largest benefits are the direct result of suffering. Suffering and benefit are tied like cause and effect.

As the boulder rolls down the mountain we must imagine Sisyphus happy. Why?

Why is this something that should take place? Why throw more actors on the stage? — schopenhauer1

Why NOT? :s

It's like asking me why get out of bed. Why the hell not? What did Professor Trump say? Should I sit home and watch TV and spend my whole life like that, or go to the office and play the game I love to play?

Does the stage need more actors or do you simply not like the idea of no actors on the stage? — schopenhauer1

The stage needs neither more, nor less, nor the same number of actors. The idea of a stage with no actors is incoherent. The outer world is a manifestation of the inner world, and just as the inner pulses with unending and never-dying life, so will the outward. What use if you stop multiplying? Human like species will appear on a myriad of other worlds across the Universe, and even in other Universes. The dance knows no beginning and no end. Pff - one puny species stops having children. The Universe doesn't give a damn. For every child you do not have, the universe will spit out a hundred more while laughing in your face! Man is like fodder for the gods, a plaything. Nothing you can do ultimately matters to it. It shall go on, with or without your approval. You desperately shout why, and it laughs asking you why not?

What did God tell Job? Who are you to dare question my Supremacy, my infinite wisdom, my decisions, and my creation? Where were you when I made the Heavens and the Earth? You are a nobody, no one asked you for your opinion. So go back and accept your burdens with faith in Me - I know better than you can ever know.

there is 99.9999% certainty that one's offspring will experience pain/suffering — OglopTo

So what? Suffering is a part of life. It is good to taste of the fountain of suffering. Only when it hurts can you finally encounter your own will, and look at your own face, perhaps for the very first time. It is through overcoming adversity - through not yielding - that the human soul remarks itself. Being close to your loved ones when they suffer, and being there to guide them, that is of the essence.

But not having children in and of itself - just for the reason of preventing suffering (NOT talking here about spiritual reasons, so obviously I'm excluding monks) - is nothing but a coward's way out. You who hold the goblet of suffering in your hands, and out of fear and trembling cannot bear to bring it to your own lips and sip it in a single gulp, as if it were nothing - you are cowardly. FEAR rules you. The fear of not being able to overcome that suffering, to take it into you and transform it through an inner alchemy into fuel and food for your soul. You fear responsibility and doing wrong, and therefore neither can you do right.

God has thrown man into hell to show him that not even the fires of hell can consume his soul - otherwise he'd never have known the steel that he's made out of.

Why do you think celibacy was a part of many religious and spiritual movements? — Wayfarer

Because it promotes spiritual strength, that's why.

It signifies the ability NOT to be driven by biology. — Wayfarer

Sure, but biology isn't the only reason why you'd want to have children.

Which I'm agreeing with. — Noble Dust

Okay, our law is indeed based on that principle. Why is it based on that principle? It's either to do with truth or usefulness.

Maybe we're putting different weights on suffering vs. blessings and different risk valuations. — OglopTo

It's simple. Don't engage in risky things. Be patient. Build your resources and your life slowly. Only have children when you can afford to completely take care of them. Etc. Nobody said you should be an idiot and max out your risk.

John said "being equal before God", which is what I was referencing. — Noble Dust

Our human law is written in those terms. Check the prior discussion and you'll see that it's about the actual laws of society.

I get the sense of that, but how does this apply to a law that's assumed to be divine? A law that's not necessarily true, but is useful, is, necessarily, human. How could a divine law be untrue but useful? At least within a Christina paradigm. — Noble Dust

The human law of our society isn't divine. We were talking about human laws that govern our societies.

But, the law is based on the principle, which is certainly held to be true, that we are all equal before God, don't you think? — John

Well it may either be true, or it may be useful. The law isn't necessarily held around true principles, but rather around useful ones.

A high-functioning person is a more interesting, more creative, more valuable (in pragmatic terms) person, for sure. Although, as your example of Hawking shows, a person is not considered less of a person in the absolute sense, even though they might be almost totally physically incapacitated. There also seems to be a spiritual sense in which a person might be more of a person; a Christ for example, or a Gautama Buddha; but the personal greatness of such people consists precisely in the fact that they view all people as being of equal value. — John

Yeah, to clarify, my previous agreement with you there was simply with the absurdity of Sappy's argument, which indeed implies that a high-functioning person is more of a person than an ordinary guy. I disagree with that. I think it's our personhood that gives us value, not the externals.

adding to other people's worries — OglopTo

It also adds to their blessings.

eating resources — OglopTo

What else are you gonna do with them?

My training in engineering prompts me to weigh in the costs and benefits. It just seems to me that paying for one's personal happiness with these costs is not a fair bargain. — OglopTo

Right. I'm also an engineer by training, clearly we're not making the same assessment.

Why do you need to achieve something? I want to have children to share in the joy together with my wife. I don't care that it achieves nothing in the grand scheme of things.

No, I don't see what you mean. — Sapientia

It's easier said than done to believe that your imaginary friend will give you confidence to live, infinite hope, etc. But it's not easier said than done to believe that God will give that to you (in fact MANY people believe that). So the two are non comparable.

Easier said than done. — Sapientia

Exactly, see, your imaginary friend isn't God, nor is he like God.

The world is a set — Sapientia

A set is a concept, referring to objects within the world. Actually not even to objects, but rather to conceptual structures which contain (or possibly contain) more than one object. I don't see how you can say the world itself is a set.

If you don't think that the world is a totality, then what do you think the world is? — Sapientia

To affirm that the world is a totality means that you have ruled out the possibility that the world is *gasp* incomplete. What if the world isn't a thing, but a process?

No, because it lacks the necessary features. — Sapientia

You don't know what features the world as a whole has. Much more, you probably can't know, because to know would entail being able to see the world from outside.

The example I gave was of someone in a permanent vegetative state. — Sapientia

Stephen Hawking is in a permanent vegetative state pretty much. He only is able to talk because of technology. Nevertheless, what this illustrates is that someone could be in an entirely vegetative state and still be conscious and a moral agent.

Wrong. There's a fact of the matter, irrespective of interpretation. — Sapientia

Okay. Say a guy has a piece of food in hand, and mimics the gesture of throwing it towards a dog. Then he actually throws it, and the dog catches eat and devours it. Physically speaking, if we are talking just about facts, he threw the food and the dog ate it. But there's something else there. His intention. He intended to feed the dog, not to punish him, for example. The intention is not part of the facts. It has to do with meaning. What do the facts mean? The meaning of the facts cannot be yet another fact.

No, it's not right to describe that as a projection. The "projection" is typically from the other, and we are more like "receivers". We either pick up on it or do not or misinterpret it. Sometimes we project our own meaning over the top, but only sometimes. — Sapientia

Ahh it seems you actually fell in my trap by trying to negate everything I've said :D :D :D ! So you do admit that the "projection" (the meaning) comes from the other, and you can pick up on it. So there is inherent meaning in the world, which exists above and beyond the physical facts, in the sense that knowing the physical facts does not necessarily tell you the meaning.

Like an imaginary friend, but one you convince yourself is real. — Sapientia

If your imaginary friend can give you confidence to live, infinite hope, eternal life, strength, determination, resolution, etc. then sure, go ahead, believe in him!

Are there issues in Christianity that are open to interpretation? — anonymous66

Yes, of course. But not so much when it comes to moral behaviour. Things are up to interpretation in the sense of the role the Trinity plays, what a certain parable means, what is required for salvation, etc. Those kind of more abstract questions.

Again... are you applying the same standard (the rules are up for interpretation) to your belief system (in this case Christianity)? — anonymous66

How I am not applying the same standard?

Then aren't there some things you ought to be saying to your fellow Christians? — anonymous66

Yes, I should tell them to respect the moral rules laid out in the Bible.

Or is it merely a matter of whether or not there are rules in place? — anonymous66

My statements were merely about whether there are clear rules in place. I said one advantage of Christianity is that there are clear rules, unlike in Stoicism, where this is up for interpretation, as many modern Stoics deny it. Do you disagree about that?

Of course what people are actually doing is more important, but I wasn't talking about that.

How are you defining "fornication"? — anonymous66

The way everyone defines it. Fornication = sex before marriage.

And what makes you think the Bible has a clear position on sex before marriage? — anonymous66

Clear textual evidence? Leviticus, 1 Corinthians, Galatians?

The ones wherein you mention sex and unity of beliefs in regards to Christianity and Stoicism. — anonymous66

I mentioned merely the fact that Christianity has a clear position on sex before marriage. There may be Christians who practice it for example, and still call themselves Christian, but they can't argue that fornication is morally permissible in Christianity. What they'll most likely say is that they fall into temptation because they are sinful, etc. etc.

Whereas Stoicism doesn't have clear and established guidelines with regards to sexuality that no one can question.

So what are we trying to accomplish? — schopenhauer1

Nothing.

I don't want to get into an argument about it, but myself and many other people had truly profound experiences by those means. Of course, the wise realise that one cannot hold onto such states by those means, and the attempt to recreate them can obviously be a trap (not a trip ;-) — Wayfarer

Okay, I follow you, but I'm asking you about the metaphysics of it. How is it possible for a physical substance to consistently bring about a spiritual experience? Can matter determine/force such an experience upon one? And if so, then how is this possible?

The remaining amount was more like a catalyst than an intoxicant, i.e. it affects the way the neuronal pathways operate, because it amounted to not more than a very minute dosage of the actual substance (unlike other intoxicants and narcotics which literally flood the metabolism.) — Wayfarer

Fine, but then its effect isn't spiritual no? It just has a physical effect on the brain, which is experienced as a specific kind of experience, or how does it work?

Personhood is for persons, and the world is evidently not a person, it's the world - it merely contains persons. — Sapientia

I think this is a category error actually. To speak of the world as if it were another object in the world which can contain, etc. All such words must be mere analogy or metaphor.

anthropomorphisize — Sapientia

Anthropomorphise* :-}

The world is just the totality of it's parts — Sapientia

This is a mistake, because you're thinking of the world as a totality. To think of it as totality is to think of it as a something with a definite existence. But the world is not something - somethings are in the world.

It doesn't even make sense to look. — Sapientia

Right, because the part cannot see the whole.

We still accord them the same degree of human rights that we do to all other persons, don't we? — John

Sure, but this is a matter of the law not the truth no?

From your argument it follows that a high-functioning person is more of a person than an ordinary person. — John

Indeed.

I would be living and breathing and fed through a tube, and I would display no signs of having a personality or of having intentionality at all. — Sapientia

I don't think being glued to a bed means not being a person. Stephen Hawking has very limited capabilities. Does it follow he's not a person in any meaningful sense? Or even that he's less of a person?

We either rightly intuit it in ourselves and others, in which case it could be argued that we rightly intuit it in nature — John

Right, because intentionality belongs to the realm of meaning, not the realm of facts.

But the gist is, spiritual or mystical experiences revealed the true nature of reality, which 'straights' (nowadays, 'straight' means 'not gay', but in the 60's it meant 'not hip') couldn't see. — Wayfarer

>:O >:O >:O

Straights were caught up in a conditioned reality which was dictated to them by straight culture, the chief influence on which was the military-industrial complex and consumer-goods manufacturers (Marcuse). Acid removed the scales from your eyes, so you could basically get a window into what enlightened sages (normally, Eastern) could only see after a lifetime of tortuous spiritual discipline. — Wayfarer

>:O

The point about certain classes of drugs -entheogens, they have been called - is that they really do provide an insight into the way cultural conditioning shapes experience — Wayfarer

How do they achieve this effect (if not chemically)?

If you contend that there is no way to rightly infer intentionality — Sapientia

The way we infer intentionality is by projecting meaning onto behaviour that we observe. Intentionality consists in our own projection, it cannot be found in the world.

I don't really care what a wall out of glass bricks that distort everything I say thinks — John

>:O

LOOOOOL >:O

And why would I care? :P Trust me, you're not that important in the scheme of things - even though you have a mode of being which authentically (no really, in a rationally autonomous way) puts yourself at the centre ;) ;) ;)

Now shoo! — TimeLine

Wow, it seems you're not the only crazy around :D


Now, don't hit me please :-*