You Schopenhauerians often speak of art as if you value it highly, and have a special appreciation for it, but you do not value or appreciate it as much as those of us who wish it to live on with us, rather than let it die a premature death. Who will create and appreciate art when we're all dead? No one. — Sapientia

What a silly thing to say. The planet is finite. The human species is finite. All this art you wish to preserve will eventually be obliterated one way or another. To say that humans need to be born merely to preserve it is not to understand the purpose of art, which is to release one, if only temporarily, from the suffering and boredom of life. Art is a ladder one climbs to help one flee from these things, which can then be thrown away once the destination is reached. That destination is a state of detachment from all things, for being attached to the ephemeral and finite (including art) is the cause of suffering and boredom.

But I do wonder where the original impulse to suppress the Will comes from? — Erik

Knowledge.

By considering the intentions.

I'm not saying consequences are unimportant, but I am saying they are unimportant in making moral judgments.

But anyway, you'd be practically opposed to it if you practiced what you preach, so to speak. — Sapientia

Alright, in this sense, which was the sense I originally used, I can agree. Celibacy is to be practically opposed to giving birth, though not necessarily theoretically.

Also, rejecting any and all reasons (thus far) for having a baby is exactly what an anti-natalist would do. — Sapientia

But that doesn't make me an anti-natalist, though. I share this in common with them, true, but I crucially lack the theoretical (moral) opposition to birth.

In this case, I just think that to avoid performative contradiction, you ought to do a bit more than shrugging your shoulders. — Sapientia

By doing what? Answering in the negative if some person randomly asks me if he should have kids? How about this: I might do this, but it would not be in a moral sense. If one ought not to do something, this could imply immorality or irrationality. I conceive of having children as irrational or foolish rather than immoral. Does this make me an anti-natalist? I still think not, since it is universally construed as a moral position or stance.

The decision doesn't need to be up to you or within your power in order for you to be opposed to the plan. — Sapientia

But then the only way to be opposed to it would be in a theoretical sense. How, exactly, am I "practically" opposed to it?

for any member of the general public to be opposed to a governmental plan — Sapientia

... Which would have to be theoretical opposition. Practical opposition would entail becoming a lawmaker, or voting for one, who would work to repeal or amend it.

if I genuinely tell you that I plan to go out and impregnate a woman, and ask for your frank opinion or advice, it wouldn't make much sense for you to casually reply "Whatever, dude, it's up to you. I don't mind one way or the other" . — Sapientia

Why, though? Why wouldn't it make sense? Once again, the punch line is missing.

I'm aware of those arguments, but I find that they all collapse into and have as their root some form of consequentialism. I only want to say for the moment that, on my moral presuppositions, which are not consequentialist, my position on birth follows.

You can't fool me, villain. Your username gives it away.

Well, I had a thought while in the bathroom and felt like posting now after all. Here it is.

Your position is far from being in favor of birth — Sapientia

Yes, as I clearly stated. Well done.

If someone informed you that they were planning on having a baby, then you would probably be opposed to that plan on the grounds that it likely isn't justified or good or necessary. — Sapientia

No, not quite. It's not up to me to decide who gets to have a baby or not, so I cannot oppose that which is not within my power to oppose. Hence, I am neither practically opposed nor theoretically opposed (which you already cede) to birth.

unconvinced that there is any reason good enough to justify having a baby — Sapientia

Quite so, but this is not to be opposed to birth.

It wouldn't make sense for someone in your position - which is not a position of neutrality - not to be opposed — Sapientia

It wouldn't make sense how?

You're not absolutely opposed or opposed in principle, but you're opposed nevertheless. — Sapientia

So you say, but I seem to have missed the punch line. Again, why am I opposed to birth? All I've gathered from your post is that you think I secretly am, and so on this basis declare that I am. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm telling you that I'm not opposed and it is your job to show me why I am.

You hold moral qualms against sexual activity — Wosret

So I do. But they're not set in stone and not relevant to the points I made in this thread, you confused SOB (if we must use infantile acronyms).

No demonization of sexual activity has occurred. I can do so if you like, but it wouldn't affect or have to do with my original claims.

Your allegation that I haven't done so has not been shown. — Sapientia

What? Try this on again:

The root word "natal" refers to birth. When the prefix "anti" is applied to it and used as a noun, it can only mean "opposition to birth." I'm not opposed to birth, so I'm not an anti-natalist. But not being opposed to birth is not to be in favor of it. That would be a non-sequitur. The natalist has all his work still ahead of him to convince me of any positive reason for why birth is necessary or good.

Recall that I did actually make a distinction between strong and weak anti-natalism, but felt the weak form, which would apply to me, did violence to the very clear and basic etymology of the term just explained to you yet again. — Thorongil

Now please explain how I am wrong, otherwise you've no right to throw my accusations against you back at me like some parrot.

Edit: I see you edited your post. Very well. I will reply, but tomorrow, as I'm getting tired.

No more large than your apparent assumption that consequentialism is true, I'm afraid.

You misunderstand completely. I never demonized sexual activity in this thread, so you've no justification for thinking that I have. What I hold outside of what I have said in this thread is irrelevant to the points made herein. Address them or hold your peace. Or start a new thread.

it just indicates your unwillingness to acknowledge their importance. — Sapientia

On the contrary, if consequentialism is untrue, then consequences are not important in judging the morality of actions.

I used the word "tantamount" for a reason. It means "equivalent in seriousness to; practically the same as". — Sapientia

Yes, and it is this alleged equivalence that you haven't shown.

I don't see a distinction. — Wosret

Between what?

The consequences of birth are of the utmost importance. — Sapientia

I'm not a consequentialist, mon ami.

And not accepting any reason for having children as morally justifiable is tantamount to anti-natalism — Sapientia

The root word "natal" refers to birth. When the prefix "anti" is applied to it and used as a noun, it can only mean "opposition to birth." I'm not opposed to birth, so I'm not an anti-natalist. But not being opposed to birth is not to be in favor of it. That would be a non-sequitur. The natalist has all his work still ahead of him to convince me of any positive reason for why birth is necessary or good.

Recall that I did actually make a distinction between strong and weak anti-natalism, but felt the weak form, which would apply to me, did violence to the very clear and basic etymology of the term just explained to you yet again.

I don't know if it is really necessary to be actively opposed to birth (or, really, any position for that matter), unless of course one has the passion and dedication to do so. — darthbarracuda

In terms of the relevance of this statement to my thread, I don't care about whether one is passionately opposed to birth but whether this entails that one is an anti-natalist. I think it does, and so because I am not opposed to birth qua birth (there's nothing immoral about an organism leaving a birth canal), I don't feel I can call myself an anti-natalist despite the fact that I know of no morally justifiable reasons for having children.

Life is hard, and often miserable, so why demonize one of its few pleasures? — Wosret

I wasn't demonizing sexual activity (though I have serious moral qualms about it just as I do with reproduction).

To practice contraception is to be practically 'anatalist' — John

I can admit that practicing contraception and being celibate are both sufficient but not necessary forms of practical anti-natalism, yes.

Unfortunately, life itself is such a coercive situation, since it is impossible to consent to being born, and all 'decisions' made while alive are within the context of that coercive establishment. — The Great Whatever

So we are coerced into living by being born? "Living" is equivalent to handing over one's wallet and "being born" to having a gun pointed in one's face, to parallel the other example you gave?

If so, I quite like and am drawn to your argument, but I find there is one issue with it. "Who" is being coerced into being born prior to being born? Fetuses are not persons, as far as I'm concerned, so there is no one to be coerced and no one to consent in the first place.

These issues depend on empirical evidence for me. We have evidence that strictly limiting or outright forbidding the private use of arms results in drastically lower rates of mass shootings and homicides. Look at the UK, Japan, and Australia, for example.

In the case of drugs, the opposite is true. We find that decriminalizing drugs results in less addictions, homicides, etc. See Portugal and other European countries for evidence of this, for example.

So for me, I have no principled reasons why we ought to uphold the second amendment or why marijuana, cocaine, etc ought to remain illegal. If I did, I would maintain such principles directly in opposition to the facts at hand.

Private property, most basically, is property not owned by the state but by an individual or group of individuals and not merely for personal use. There is no contradiction in saying that there can be both private property and cooperative ownership of the means of production. And indeed, this state of affairs exists right now. There are cooperative businesses, factories, etc operating without having abolished private property.

I didn't contradict myself.

No.

. I mean if I can get a perfectly good introduction to the thought of some guy instead of having to drudge through countless books then I'll take the former route. — darthbarracuda

You can't ever know if you're getting a "perfectly good introduction" to the thought of some guy unless you actually read that guy for yourself. I'd rather think for myself and make up my own mind than have someone else do it for me in tortured "academese."

I don't understand the claim of snobbery. Academics, the writers of all this glut of secondary literature, are among the most snobbish people you could ever meet.

I completely agree. Reading secondary literature really ought to be considered a grave offense, as well as the writing of it. It's the worst prose imaginable and bores me to tears. It could just be because I'm a grad student and forced to read copious amounts of this tripe, but I have no intention of purchasing very many secondary sources whenever I have enough money to complete my book collection. It will be 95% primary sources.

Education-----Very good idea; let's try it. — Bitter Crank

(Y)

Ban ammunition — Michael

>:O

Was that an audience member screeching? That felt like peering into a madhouse for a few moments.

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. — darthbarracuda

This is one thesis to be sure. But it strikes me that there are about as many Jesuses as there are modern biographies of the man (assuming he existed), which is now a veritable cottage industry. He simply couldn't be all of what he is imputed to be by these biographies at once. Whatever he was historically, it can't ever be established with any certainty. History is not a science and so we are only left with the probabilistic weighing of evidence, of which we are left with only a pittance in the present case. So, was he some rural Galilean preacher rambling on about the end of the world? Who knows! But who cares! Much more interesting is the character of Jesus in the narrative of the Gospels and the New Testament as a whole. Here we have a man who is no mere prophet but someone claiming to be divine and the fulfillment of Israel and the world. And his words and deeds, as well as Paul's, are rife with the language of self-denial.

In one way, I agree with you about Jesus being an "apocalyptic" figure, for the word "apocalypse" simply means "unveiling," not the literal end of the physical world. Perhaps a world does end in what Jesus unveils, but it is the world of the ego. What he unveils within us and in the world is sin in all its forms and the means to overcome it through self denial and trust in him.

If Jesus' philosophy was so bent on the elimination of the ego, then why did his followers believe that he continued after death, that is ego continued? — darthbarracuda

This assumes that Jesus had an ego in the sense that I gave to it above. Christians would probably say that he did not. This is why he is the perfect exemplar or archetype for how to live in order to be saved.

That is, acting despite the fact. — darthbarracuda

You mean acting in such a way that I don't believe I will die? No, I don't do that. I am fully aware that I will die and meditate on death quite frequently (as do the aforementioned Hindus and Buddhists). However, I don't fear it thereby. In fact, I probably look forward to it more than I ever fear it. And if I do fear it, it is more in the sense that I find it uncanny and curious, akin to the feeling one gets after reading a profound but disturbing work of literature, for example.

Did you live in a box that year? This was widely reported. Go do a Google search to confirm what I'm saying. Like this random article: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-campaign-diversity-new-idUSBRE8A70QK20121108

It's not hard to comprehend. The older, white, middle class Republican vote is slowly shrinking and the vote of basically everyone else is increasing or staying steady (women, LGBT, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Arabs, young people, etc).

And by the way, all those Hispanics who have immigrated to the US have children once they come here (shocking I know), and they have far more children than the US average.

Different enough across the board to ensure Democratic control of the White House a decade or more after which time you speak.

I don't know where you are getting this idea that Jesus' story is to show the annihilation of the ego. Clearly, Jesus is portrayed to have risen from the grave, as an entity with an ego. — darthbarracuda

I'm talking about the empirical ego, that bundle of vain impulses, desires, fantasies, etc that people mistake for and cling to as their true selves (if indeed there is such a thing). The abolition of this ego, or at the very least its aggrandizement, is what Jesus is constantly imploring his followers to commit through both his words and his deeds. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn and give him the other. If someone employs you to walk a mile, walk two miles, etc. Finally, Jesus conquers death not so much by physically dying (though he does do that and come back to life) but by showing us how to die to the world. This is why he says, "if anyone would come after me, let him deny himself [emphasis added] and take up his cross and follow me." He has defeated physical death, so one ought not be concerned with that. What we should really fear is not dying, in the sense of dying to the world. So again, it's completely the opposite of what you (or the author) suggested.

Is it that you are not bothered by death, or rather that you have repressed the image of death and built up a tolerance to your impeding doom? — darthbarracuda

This entirely depends on what is entailed by "repression."

You mean when the demographics were very different from what they are now?

The ultimate triumph, the defeat of annihilation — darthbarracuda

But the whole narrative of Jesus is meant to show the annihilation of the ego. If the ego is destroyed, what then is death? Nothing. The fear of death is contingent upon the perceived inability to perpetuate one's ego into the future. If one gives up the ego and trusts in God completely, death is no longer something to fear.

But the irrational, subconscious side is always fearful of death. Death is always repressed. — darthbarracuda

Well, sure, if we're speaking about the instinctual fear of death, which has an evolutionary basis (carcasses carry disease, for example), then there's no getting rid of that. We are biologically determined to fear death. However, as you say, I still think one can utterly banish this fear from one's mind, such that however one's body may react, one cannot be internally disturbed.

Nope, I disagree. The numbers are simply not on the Republican side. In other words, this has to do with demographic facts that I see no reason to disbelieve, not ideology. The 2012 election especially showed that a much criticized Democratic candidate on both the left and right can still crush the Republican candidate. It was not without reason that so many right wing pundits in that election's aftermath blamed women, young people, blacks, and Hispanics for their loss.

The Republican party has moved so far to the right that it is incapable of winning a general election. It survives almost solely through gerrymandering in the House of Representatives. The Democratic party, meanwhile, is squarely centrist. Even someone like Sanders does not veer much past the center, despite whatever provocative labels he applies to himself.

Jesus was an existential hero! — darthbarracuda

He doesn't represent the triumph of the ego, though. It's rather more the opposite. He's an anti-hero, in that he does and says the opposite of what the Jews had expected of the Messiah, who had expected a great king like David; a strong man more or less in the mold of the men you mention in the parenthesis above.

essentially, the practitioners are said to trick themselves, to "pretend" they don't want something (eternal life) when they actually really do. — darthbarracuda

I don't get this impression at all and I wonder why he does. The Buddhist and the Hindu already feels trapped in eternal life, called samsara: the cycle of birth, death, rebirth, and redeath. Eternal life is therefore precisely what they want to escape from.

Even in the case of Christianity, the "eternal life" longed for is of an utterly different kind from the character of life experienced now (that's why it's called a "New" Earth). The Christian does not wish merely to perpetuate one's ego and its desires into eternity, for this would be the wish to perpetuate one's sin and God-forsakeness into eternity. Rather, the goal is to empty oneself of self and in its place be filled with the Holy Spirit.

There is very little chance of a Republican winning the presidential election, so their likely obstruction will prove a futile waste of time as always.

A wise decision.

You're probably not? What kind of answer is that? — Sapientia

It means just what it says; that I am likely operating under a different understanding of the term than you are.

And if you aren't using it that way, then did you not think that it'd be helpful to clarify the way in which you are using it? — Sapientia

No, and for the reason I already gave.

You can tell no such thing. Do not presume to know my intent. — Sapientia

Ooh, what a tough guy. So you're not just trying to argue with me for the hell of it? Do you have a genuine interest and curiosity about me and what I believe? I find that hard to believe, especially in light of the fact that I don't much care what you believe. We're just two schmucks on an Internet forum. The truth about any given topic discussed is probably not ever going to be reached and so I post mainly to while away the time. Perhaps your intentions are much grander and purer, but I doubt it.

n the absence of a clear position from yourself, I addressed in parts of my post what I thought could be your position. — Sapientia

For what purpose? I don't think it's necessary for me to explain the entire philosophical system to which I subscribe just to show you why I apply one specific label to myself.

It is not. — Sapientia

No? You wrote: "that strikes me as a fanciful notion, unless it is reduced to, and backed up by, science and/or psychology." Sounds like a form of positivism to me.

but you might not be using the word "will" in this way. — Sapientia

I'm probably not. But see, I can tell from this post of yours that you are intent on arguing with me for its own sake. My intention, by contrast, was merely to explain a new label I apply to myself, one which involves various presuppositions. I suppose I could try to challenge the straw men you create for my presuppositions above, but I also must confess that I have no interest in doing so because of the very deep and long rabbit holes it will take us down. Since one of your presuppositions seems to be positivism, it would likely be futile anyway.

My example was specifically about cases of poisoning which do not frustrate the will of another being — Sapientia

This is oxymoronical. You can only poison people who exist, whether the effects are immediate or not. You can't poison or harm in any way that which does not exist. Note also that the harm I'm talking about here is metaphysical, as I said in a previous post: it affects the will of a person. You can deny someone's will without harming them physically. In the case of poisoning someone, it doesn't matter when the effects take place, for if poisoning is inconsonant with the person's will to live, then wrongdoing has occurred.

Why not? Seems like a cop out. Is there nothing wrong, in your view, with poisoning someone, if doing so does no immediate harm? — Sapientia

Poisoning is undoubtedly wrong, once again because it deliberately frustrates the will of another being.

That's what I thought you meant. — Sapientia

Yes.

Merely repeating that which I've already acknowledged is pointless, and your denial is without explanation. How is it not trivial in light of the fact that the contrary will be the case, according to your own reasoning, as a result? It's incredibly shortsighted not to take that into consideration. — Sapientia

Look, I'm not a consequentialist, despite what appears to be your attempts here to make me one. I don't judge the moral worth of an action based on the consequences of the action. I've given you my criterion for judging the moral worth of an action, and based on it, I cannot judge procreation to be wrong. There's nothing more for me to say.

I'm not surprised. — Sapientia

So enlighten me.

You can't care that much about frustrating the will of another being, otherwise you'd set aside the trivial exception of the time in which there is not yet a being, and instead consider a little further down the line when there will be a being, and a being with a will that'll inevitably be frustrated from time to time. — Sapientia

It's not trivial. You can't harm the non-existent. Therefore, no wrongdoing has occurred.

Believing that there is no good reason to have children is practically anti-natalism, if not technically. — Sapientia

No, it's not. Did you really read my post above? The most common definition of anti-natalism is that it is the position that assigns a negative value to birth. So having children is morally wrong according to it. Not being convinced of any reasons for X is not to claim that X is morally wrong. If you don't understand the difference here, then it's futile for me to keep responding.

Did you mean everyone or anyone? — Sapientia

I'm not seeing any semantic difference between the two.

Well, we can reopen that conversation if you insist, but I really want you to understand the general post I made above first.