String theory, or perhaps a fancier word I can't think of that as you said describes "everything that can happen either has or will in an alternate dimension" theory.

Few paradoxes I can think of off the top of my head. The destruction of a universe or "the multiverse" as a whole. The possibility of someone transcending their universe and entering another one (like in the movie The One, pretty good btw more sci-fi than psychological thriller but it's there). Whatever started or "created" the universe, the idea of it "not happening" or happening in a dramatically different way such as a universe that is actually comprised of multiple universes or somehow "outside" the multiverse? These can all be, in my opinion, lazily disproven or made invalid by simply saying "that's not how it works" or these actions and their consequences are not included in "everything that can happen". Who knows. I'm no physicist.

What if, however. And bare with me now. The big bang/singularity actually occurred when one of these paradoxes occurred, due to it rather, thus resulting in a massive explosion that wiped out the old universe and created a new one, thus correcting the paradox. Perhaps in the old universe society advanced to interstellar travel, numerous advanced species interacting on an intergalactic scale, and nearly all scientific questions answered and adapted into devices and technology we can't even fathom. Then! Some scientists tried to push it further, perhaps there was talk of interplanetary war and sought the power to change spacetime and gain some kind of crazy military advantage that was then feasible. They succeeded alright.. they wiped out the enemy. And the entire universe in the process. This occurred approximately 14 billion years ago. We refer to this incident as the big bang or birth of the universe. But perhaps if it was simply it's death and rebirth? This is something we will never know. All I do know is, the more mankind plays God and coddles his science as it were alive, one day we may all pay a very dear price. Perhaps.. in an ironic twist of fate, ignorance is the only true way to save the planet, the galaxy, and entire universe. Who's to say.

Is man an imperialist being? If you've ever raised a child, this answer is painfully obvious. What you work hard and have struggled for to be able to make and give him are "his things" and if you ever attempt to show the difference between having and not having in a means to encourage effort or appreciation so that he could do the same himself someday, you are the enemy.

That portion of your house is no longer "your house" but his own. Though he likes to know your around, after he discovers a sense of identify, the realization there are some problems he cannot solve on his own yet before he begins to realize, perhaps he can.

Is a person, be they man or woman more likely to admire or want to get to know someone with a mansion and a yacht or a one bedroom apartment and a kayak they use on weekends. Sure perhaps the latter if the person can adequately diminish the value of the former but this is still casting dominion over a man and his being if not the world, not to say devaluing or removing the idea of success from possibility but devaluing the idea of objective failure from being unable to achieve what was originally desired thus increasing the value of an objectively lesser state of circumstance and life itself.

Wait, one can be crazy, and happy and contented also — boagie

Whether one holds a rational or irrational belief is contingent on the knowledge available and such a quality is independent from whether it is factual, absolute, transient, or not. None of these terms are mutually exclusive or intrinsic pairs. Followers of geocentrism used all the same standards, methods, and systems of rationality we have today, they were simply without the tools to see more than what was available. Were these men crazy? No they where brilliant scholars, the best of their time, more likely so than either you or I. The followers of heliocentrism were in fact the ones who held the correct belief, yet were labeled as crazy because no evidence to the contrary was presented due to the fact the tools to do so were simply unavailable.

What's actually crazy in my view is a man who thinks that in this world of violence, strife, and immense personal greed, who is actually aware the universe is populated with trillions of planets and many galaxies we cannot even see as well as phenomena that can only be "explained" in incomplete and half-assed manners (ie. black holes, they probably go somewhere, we think), can even muster the audacity to think he knows what happens after death let alone the full nature of life and existence, it's borderline insanity. It's disgusting. They need to be rounded up in the street and locked far away from our children who still have a chance at true knowledge that is only unlocked when we at least have the seed of faith that is.. perhaps there's more than what we see. This is what religious people shield society from, close-minded thinking. The repulsive and insidious lie that the entirety of all there is to ever know, see, or experience is dictated solely what can be observed from the first opening and final closing of one's eyes in life. This is the reality of an infant and I for one refuse to let an entire generation of young men and women remain stagnant in this backward minded thinking without as little as a shout.

But back to the question. An established term has established definitions and these are generally more or less accurate. At least good starting points.

Mental health is obvious. Having the willpower to avoid performing actions that violate whatever the hell the government says makes you crazy. Or in a more friendly way, the ability to function as an independent and productive adult and provide for oneself regardless of circumstance whilst avoiding extreme actions deemed dramatically counterproductive to a free society.

Emotional health can probably be likened to having a good time and positive mental attitude while doing so. More often that not, at least. Oh and smiles. Or at least recognizing the emotional states of others and genuinely feeling they have value. Not necessarily more so than yours but value just the same.

While it is my wholehearted belief that honest and intellectual effort resulting in coherent thought (as the introduction suggests) is the not only the spice of life but the fruit itself in disguise, would it be possible for you to summarize your prevalent sentiments or arguments, "your point" rather, in thumbnail, bullet points, etc?

I love stories. Stories have inspired men from dwelling in caves to orbiting the planet. I genuinely have the desire to read the post fully, and with any luck or perhaps chance I will. Though as the driving force, the oil in the machine as it were, as far as philosophy is questioning, I have one. How can one expect to believe you to grasp any concept you're attempting to convey, if it cannot be simplified (therefore assessed and understood while being assembled in a coordinated format) if you yourself cannot?

Imaginary innovation is by far the easiest to create and develop because the only limitation is the suspension of the audience’s disbelief, and that can be rather generous. — praxis

Is it really? People aren't stupid. At least we live in societies where we mutually benefit or suffer, burden sharing I believe is the term. There is no castle without a king. No collection without a collector, I suppose. And the darker sides of life are more than omnipresent enough to distinguish one who can alleviate them, if not at least in one's thoughts and mentality.

If a man can come to such a place and yes one could say trick, deceive, or con or as you say create "suspension of the audience's belief" does he not simply expose not only the vulnerabilities but further journey one has to travel as far as understanding? One that yes may be fraught with challenges and great risk, but also gilded with exciting and worthwhile challenges and opportunity for further learning and chances to conquer fear? I like to think so. Don't you?

Disagree. I think the OP is essentially asking about what matters. Does "building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand" really matter, or really lead to happiness? It certainly has the potential to lead to wisdom, at least wisdom in the Western sense. — praxis

Right but nobody is disagreeing with that, not even OP, though he may believe so. See by even questioning the value of that which is, OP becomes Hume, he becomes Socrates, and "Kneechee". All without even realizing it. OP has committed a first-degree murder of his premise with a smoking gun in his hand that he can't even see! Yet by simply demanding more out of who and where we're expected to learn from he places himself on an amazing path of discovery he can't even see! Who knows what fertile lands, green pastures, and lush oases OP has the potential of reaching without the distractions of rigid instructions from times past. Sure, these were brilliant and great men who advanced not only themselves but entire societies writ large. We would be fools to ignore them, at least the "trendy" meme-ified versions of their wisdom whilst scrolling through social media and living our modern lives. He came, he saw, he questioned. And that opens one to a plethora of contentment that few who conquer nations and people will ever know. For if all we know is to take what we can, how will we ever know how to receive what we otherwise could not? This is the reality of a small child, one that philosophy helps us break free from. OP may be wrong, entirely and indisputably. Yet his desire to question the works of others and at least acknowledge the possibility he and he alone may educate himself to the highest degree of learning, is what I believe, is the goal of any real philosopher who ever lived, which is simply in a word, freedom.

Where it becomes nonsense is if you'd start arguing that you're just as a good a tennis player as the professionals, but you just play by a different set of rules, and who's to say which rules are the ones we ought to follow. — Hanover

But is this not the true nature of philosophy at its core? To question the rules, the benefit, the efficiency, not to dismiss or belittle the gold standard but to explore it with the hopes of finding paths yet unseen to unlock the true future of a better tomorrow. Sure sometimes we'll fail, and we should expect to be criticized when we do, especially with such elevated and perhaps even omniscient sounding sentiments like we may perceive from the OP. But as iron sharpens iron only by making mistakes, I'm reminded of Thomas Edison. Great guy. Never met him but I use his stuff everyday. One of his better known quotes, that weren't womanizing and self-centered was "I have not failed. I have only discovered 10,000 ways that won't work". And he was right. Imagine the first person who discovered or rather invented the candle. He literally lit up the houses and lives as well as the hearts and minds of an entire generation. But what if we failed to stop questioning and criticizing then? The candle was perfect, flawless, it addressed every need that was once left unanswered. Yet we continued to criticize what was established, what worked, and what solved problems beyond sufficiency. This was not arrogance, or perhaps it was. But dang it through this negativity or perhaps simple failure to be placated by what already solved our needs we discovered that which was truly great and in my view vindicated any arrogance or ignorance in the process. For philosophy truly is the love of wisdom, and love is an open ended action that never ceases. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to run around my house and turn all my lights on and off in rapid succession like it was my first time discovering electricity.

Kudos, OP. I can honestly say and feel TPF is a better place for you having posted this thread. Cheers. Keep up the good work. Don't ever let them get you down, kid.

I just have to add in OP's defense. Who influenced the influencers? Sure, other influencers. But somewhere up the line... there was nobody. Or was there? This singularity in philosophy and knowledge through generations and studies will not go away. OP offers an answer to this singularity by embracing what all great men do. Being open to possibility, even if that possibility is your own. For is that not the essence of what freedom is? I'll be the first to admit the OP leaves much to be desired, blindly following the sentiments of the OP will likely lead to not only ignorance but a life unlived. But at least in my view, the OP is redeemed because it has the spark of true wisdom and philosophy that, if nurtured and exposed to the right intellectual catalyst will grow into a raging inferno of enlightenment and with any luck, happiness. A spark that is smothered when we fail to ask a simple question, that one almost futile-sounding one word protest to all that is reprehensible and undesirable in this world that is "Why?"

Thank you for endorsing this discussion, It really means a lot to me. — Average

Why do I feel a vague, possibly powerful, insidious sense of sarcasm lodged ever so craftily in these alleged sincere words. Perhaps my own frailties or manifested malfeasances reflected back at me are what I see. I'd almost hope so. Almost.

You have qualities of God, it is the other qualities that you equivalate with these that concern, believe it or not me more than you. Now, that is.

You're talking about a fictional character — Tom Storm

What will you be to those who come after you who never met you. A vague idea or visage that exists solely in faded photographs and annoying holiday conversations. You may create your own fiction, but others will create your reality long after you're unable to.

This is actually, perhaps unintentionally, a really good question. Does one who theoretically has the power to do anything really have free will? You can do anything so in theory you would, because why wouldn't you? But that's a whole can of worms for another day. The question that relates to us normal people in the here and now is since we do NOT have the ability to do ANYTHING and/or EVERYTHING at any given moment, does that give us freedom or take away freedom? Sounds like an easy answer or nonsense, but just think about it for a moment. Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown.

That which either detracts from, balances, dissolves, or perhaps even adjudicates or "makes right" what we call ugly in this life. For most people this is an elegant painting, a well-sculpted statute, or I suppose more relevant today a nice designer phone case or hot chick I guess. For some this is not any of these traditional things. Beauty could be found in a discarded meal tray crawling with maggots and flies, for this shows that all things have purpose and the destruction of the old and no longer usable only helps make room for the new and fresh. Something like that. Right? Somebody help me out here.

First, well secondly rather I heard this was a controversial thread due to certain remarks from positions of authority. I'm eager after posting my, as you said or seem to be advocating for, "uninfluenced" or "organic" reply to your OP, to delve through and see what deviltry lies within. It's like, why can't they just use sock accounts like every moderator on basically every other forum anywhere? I don't know. Nextly I suppose, anyone who incorporates my new favorite word "benighted" into their dialog is a good person in my book. It's so.. mentally captivating. Imagine, someone you disagree with who you believe ignorant is not just "stupid" or "dumb" or "a moron" they are, as the word suggests overtaken by, nay- shrouded in darkness. As if everywhere they go this darkness just follows them and negatively affects every person or thing around them, which is exactly what happens minus the cool visuals. But I digress.

I think the first sentence in your OP pretty much sums up any larger point expressed and frankly simultaneously answers any potential controversial replies or criticisms (which I can't wait to see) of said OP. Generally speaking when I was in my late teens I ordered pretty much every philosophy book around. I ended up reading very few and remembering even less. Or did I? The one book I remember was Philosophy for Dummies, not only because it was so simple and easy to digest, well perhaps that was why. But it also highlighted or outlined certain "de facto" rules or common avenues of philosophical thought in a clear and easy to follow format that offered mainstream views on each "item" or idea as well as fun anecdotes and "what ifs" that really made me actualize the philosophical thought process .Without this turning into a product review, some books are a great starting point.

That said. I don't think anybody is arguing a mentally sufficient person devoid of any books or even modern education would be unable to be a brilliant philosopher or an otherwise incredibly educated and learned person with more wisdom to share than they have the time to.

Edit: After re-reading your OP (and still without looking through the discussion) I gather your prominent assertion is the value of non-Western (which one would assume would be Eastern) philosophy over Western philosophy, casting Western philosophy as "much ado about very little". Am I somewhat on the money here?

From what little disciplines and mainstream knowledge I have about both types (which you encourage and say is good, right?) it would seem, and correct me at any moment for the slightest reason, Buddhism/Eastern philosophy is about tackling the problems of life by humility and casting life as something designed to be difficult and by investing one's time and being into it only causes harm to one's happiness or life whereas Western philosophy states the opposite that it only happens to be difficult and by investing one's time and being we alleviate these difficulties if not for ourselves but for others who come after us. Something like that?

It's not that complicated really. You can have the same discussions and reach the same conclusions just they don't really matter that much when your wrong or even if not especially when you're right for that matter. Nihilism is the true dark shadow of religious faiths in my opinion. The "bastid" child of religion and philosophy that nobody told was actually adopted and not related to either that decided to move in to both homes at once without asking and now refuses to pay rent whilst simultaneously decreasing the property values of both.

The Aztecs for example tried to placate the gods with sacrifices to ensure a successful harvest but these days those kinds of practices are seen as barbaric by many. — Average

Necessity, much like ignorance, is not a constant but a circumstantial.. circumstance. The four year old child may be unaware of the next logical step in a basic mathematical equation just as the forty year old professor may be unaware of the next logical step in a complex equation that describes complex nuclear fission.

We all want things. We act based on what we deem is the most efficient way to get them. For example, you probably placate your hunger and various cravings with unhealthy food and other substances, as do I. I forget my point, though as you hold this discussion to be fruitful or at least of some purpose no matter how vague or minute, so do I with this post.

I like this guy. He has a question or concern so does his research and goes to an appropriate place and attempts to ask those who would be qualified enough to provide a solution.

So basically you hold the notion that perception and subjectivity is as close to truth as we can get to the absolute nature of the universe, which has been right (fire is hot) though has also been wrong (the Sun appears to revolve around us) whereas the other guy desires to place the absolute nature of truth and reality outside of what our senses can perceive. There are benefits and consequences for each viewpoint.

I'm the drunk guy, and I hope you guys will be fair. — Troll hunter

Just buy the pizza. If you can afford the booze what's a few dollars spent on someone whom you deemed worth consuming not only your time but ours as well.

I think we can do better than references and reasonable claims especially when it comes to important life or death questions. — Average

Well then by all means, the floor is yours. You think you say, which predicates or at least opens the possibility of an action. An action whose consequences and benefits you will undoubtedly take note of and either file under 'successful' or 'to be avoided'. Of course, most things in life are not single actions but rather chain reactions that lead to an understanding few will discover. Patience is a fleeting trait of the modern human. Perhaps by design. And looking around at all the readily-accessible tools of wholesale destruction, perhaps not a moment too soon at that.

In other words we have no way of knowing how many lives would be saved or how many lives would be sacrificed. We also have no way of knowing who would be saved and who would die. — Average

Precisely. :smile:

As you've alluded to we have references and reasonable enough claims, at least in comparison to others. Nothing more. Nothing less. The charm that is the mystery of life. I suggest programming languages and mathematics to satisfy this need for certainty you have. Besides, it may not be life, but it sure has a mark on it.

Personally I think that trial and error is a bad idea. For example let’s suppose that you try something and it turns out to be deadly like putting radium in make up for example. Is that really the best way to solve our problems? — Average

Perhaps, perhaps not. Better the devil you know, I suppose. Not many new choices or other tools in the arsenal let alone a magic bullet. Scientific experimentation (trial and error) or observational comparison, which is still science (ie. people who eat fast food daily often become obese and have increased likelihood to suffer from health complications therefore fast food is unhealthy and causes said complications).

I doubt that you would want to be one of the soldiers or one of the patients that would be used as a guinea pig to test all of the experimental tactics and strategies or medicines and surgeries. — Average

Generally no, though when I'm feeling invigoratingly pious I do revel at the thought or opportunity of sacrificing myself to save others or for some greater good. At least people I like or who otherwise continue to benefit causes or concerns that I deem important long after I would no longer be able to. Don't you?

Thomas Edison's teachers once said and I quote he was "too stupid to learn anything". And yet, though I'd like to believe they were hardcore theists who knew the values of candle-lit living rather the arrogance and expectations that would come with the conveniences of incandescent lighting, we are nonetheless left with this quote. “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

Are you smarter than Thomas Edison? Rather, have you invented something more impactful to society? No? Then the answer is quite simple. Trial and error.

At first you simply reminded me that we can make decisions that appear to satisfy our expectations in the short term but ultimately result in some sort of misfortune in the future. I’m a bit perplexed. — Average

Count yourself fortunate then. I suppose with little immediate value my extracted answer would be "we don't" or otherwise "we can't".

Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette. Practice makes perfect. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. He who jests at scars never felt a wound. Smooth seas never made a skilled sailor (Wow do I hate that, the go to meme for every 20 year old girl- anywhere). But, yeah. Take your pick.

Why do you feel such a need to be correct and successful in everything you do. Just out of procedure, proper nature? Or some instance where all you held dear seemed to turn and become your enemy? There are no wrong answers here.

Can you think of an example where this would be the case? I think that it might enable me to understand your ideas. — Average

Buying the latest iPhone. Or just any action that constitutes what in hindsight and with greater knowledge could be called a 'mistake'. That's the thing about avoiding risk, you only know the good that you missed out on, the bad and undesirable will always remain a mystery. It's clear why risk taking is so popular.

When we realize it is actually our senses that make our choices. Rather, prevent us from using true logic. Of course, you see a degraded piece of wood, smell an expired glass of milk, feel a mushy piece of fruit in the supermarket, hear a large animal nearby, you avoid these things. That's a good decision more often than not. No argument there. And yet.. our senses are so volatile, easily influenced or afflicted, led astray as it were.

These words you use, beneficial and counterproductive, are so ambiguous. One can assume you mean toward yourself the observer, but why? What may immediately benefit you in the fashion you were expecting out of an action or experience could very well spell the opposite in a greater and more permanent sense.

If you seek certainty, philosophy is not for you. Then again neither is life for that matter. Science, mathematics, and computing sounds more up your alley. These things are certain. At least.. until you reach that one equation, singularity, newer theory, or in some cases loss of electricity.

when a therapist helps a patient they are doing so because it is their job to help them, and not because they are care — Wheatley

Not necessarily. Some people entered the profession because they were impacted by untreated mental illness in their own personal lives, not to say themselves but perhaps a family member or friend who ended up harming themselves or others.

And at the end of the day, nobody has actually cared about the mentally sick however much help they get — Wheatley

I don't think you would know that for certain. Sure after a while and depending on the severity it can start to see like there's no one "there" so to speak and your efforts are being wasted when they could be helping others only mildly afflicted.

How valuable is the help of those who do not actually care? Can a system that is based on salary replace genuine human kindness? — Wheatley

Arguably, somewhat less. You can read a book to an audience with the same (albeit feigned) excitement and dramatic tone as someone who wrote the book for the audience without much effort. There's no reason you can't follow your training as a therapist and intuition just because you'd be rather be doing something else, granted it does make it liable that in your training and education you either slacked or rushed or otherwise didn't get as much as you could have from it otherwise. So it's circumstantial and more a trifecta of competency, duty, and passion than any one. You can be the most caring guy in the world but if someone who really doesn't want to be there right now happens to be able to discern more subtleties and most important offer more effective solutions than the caring guy well, no harm no foul it would seem.

Genuine kindness? No, but it can reward it (eg. so and so receives many positive reviews therefore it makes sense to consider so and so for more hours or perhaps even a promotion, customers like so and so and as a result is good for business). What it can introduce however is patience and professionalism in an individual. You don't go to a place of business for "kindness" you go for a latte or maybe a designer phone case. You don't need them to be kind you need them to facilitate your purchase of a product or service without being intolerably rude. This is what salaries are for.

Some jobs are different of course. Social work, elderly care, nursing, teaching, therapy. It's not a perfect world. Fortunately abuse is often reported and reviews can be left by clients that can sometimes offer enough information to go by.

What do you think is the reason why most people, even very educated people, seem to have difficulty engaging with ideas that challenge their views? — thesmartman23

Investment. Time is money. When people find out their stocks are worthless, well, I'm reminded of the movie Highlander. Or Wall Street executives who discover the same. We have evolved to safeguard whatever ingrained mental beliefs, patterns, mannerisms, etc. that have allowed us to survive for a considerable time. It only makes sense, doncha know?

Not in the context of your example but yes. Otherwise live births would resemble a horror movie. Even more so that is.

To your point though, it's not so much about weakness or strength in the traditional physical sense. If a volcano erupts and a pack of 1,000 pound grizzly bears share an adjacent forest with a flock of birds that weigh a tenth of a ounce, who would you wager will be the survivor and who bites the dust? See, didn't think of that now did you.

I am not sure if you are trying to make a point by being sarcastic or if you are being sincere? I suspect what you said is based on misogyny and that you were not being sincere. Am I right? — Athena

I'm being superfluously expressive.

Are you really going to sit there and call a man admitting a woman is the most important part of the household if not humanity altogether misogynistic? Are you serious? Now I'm being angry if not concerned, or morbidly amused. How is that OK with you? Can you not see the larger picture?

Please read my profile, it explains essentially the answer to your question — schopenhauer1

I have, and it does. But perhaps not in the way you might think. It'll be taken care of in due time.

I find it funny that one of our needs is the need for overcoming challenges to give our mind engagement.. Flow states or simply taking up mental space with X. Schopenhauer described this phenomena when he said "What if every Jack had his Jill.. everyone had what they wanted".. People would kill each other (read as make more strife for themselves) because our wants and needs are never really satisfied. There seems to be a "lack" at the heart of everything.. — schopenhauer1

Funny? That sounds entertaining, aka enjoyable. Who are you trying to fool here.

That's a velocitous point (the Jack and Jill thing) but easily refuted by the counter-argument that since as you say things are undesirable, Jack sometimes settles for Jane instead of Jill for multiple reasons perhaps lack of education, dire circumstance, desperation, ignorance, you can take your pick. If you get the metaphor, which I'm sure you do. So, back to my original question which perhaps is already answered, what needs to be changed? I suppose the stock question would be, if you were God and wish to make this possible, suffering free world to your hearts content and your minds eye, what would have to happen? What would it be like? How would it differ from now?

I have focused less on this core philosophy lately because I think there are simpler ideas like the injustice of putting more people into an inescapable game, and inevitable harmful experiences that can and should be argued for. No amount of economic or political change overrides the negative existential situation itself. The animal with the pendulum between pain, boredom always needing that pendulum to get in the middle somewhere but it never stays.. as Schopenhauer analogized. — schopenhauer1

It's a nice analogy. Yet we still seem to be deviating or at least dismissing (which if you choose to admit and broadcast will result in utter failure of any alleged important goal) the fact that some people like how it is, the good and the bad, the give and take, the uncertainty. That's great that you don't and see yourself as some person above those who disagree with you who must achieve this conquest for a greater good us ignorant and blind animals could never understand, but again I ask a simple question: who are you to think so let alone do so in a life you claim to be negative and worthless? And more importantly why should others listen to you? You have to have some worth and positivity from somewhere, even if you choose to ignore it.

NO ONE WANTS TO BE JUST A HOUSEWIFE! — Athena

Just a housewife? Oh.. oh wow. My dear lady, with all due respect have you gone mad? What greater role is there in human development than the role of a constantly present and nurturing mother? Not more than I can think of- save for oxygen perhaps. Oh my dear, you have it all wrong. The woman is not confined but enshrined in the most important role a man has in his life, the future of his offspring and legacy. My dear, please. Have a cup of tea, and relax.

@schopenhauer1, what, in your own words and opinion, is the root cause of the suffering that you seem makes life unjust, other humans or nature?

In philosophy we find avenues which in the end bear no fruit — Tobias

You're not entertained? Occupied at least? Doesn't entertainment bring happiness or at least contentment? Doesn't this advance (or at least as you say bear fruit of evidence of the advancement of) the human condition and well being? Is this not the point of science?

Actually now that I read this again, you are just saying, things are futile in the long run.. The vanity of existence, etc. — schopenhauer1

No, no. Not quite. Just that as even a man of eternal prestige and power has to question his own beliefs, perhaps so should you. At least, that your own may not be as infallible and unquestionable as you may believe.

I'm not defending it because I think — schopenhauer1

Exactly. And let's be honest how many times have your thoughts resolved to anything of use. Just kidding. :razz:

But seriously, just because you think of an idea that resolves or otherwise manifests itself as concrete and measurable affect in the real world, what makes you think it's anything less than transient? Caesar ushered in what is arguably the basis of modern society, reliable agriculture via advanced irrigation, popularized indoor washrooms, and not the least of which that allows us to communicate to and fro now, a more or less open and democratic system of government. And now, his former stomping grounds are either in ruins and/or being quite literally defecated upon by invaders. Not the most powerful counterargument to your original suggestion of the futility or cruelty of life at first glance sure, but just an opportunity for some introspection to your own views.

Wanting the unjust situation doesn't make it magically unjust. — schopenhauer1

But who are you to call something clearly the majority of people enjoy (seeing as they don't check out) 'unjust' in the absolute sense, as in the eyes of any other than your own? Lots of people enjoy life. It's not your place to decide that life is "too dangerous" to be lived. What on Earth makes you think you could place such definitive and absolute definitions on something no person has even yet to adequately explain?

I am sure many a slave master wanted to keep slavery. Doesn't make it right. Their "right" to want slavery is negated. — schopenhauer1

This only furthers my point, you deny the option that some people appreciate the way things are, more often than not. Who are you to dictate that pleasure is not worth the pain? An individual? Sure, that's fine then, for you, as an individual. But please, let others choose.

The ultimate argument is not lost, in a scenario when possible outcomes are liable to be worse than a guaranteed positive, you call that unwarranted, unwise, or cruel. That's reasonable enough. You're not a gambling man. Yet, like we continue to ignore, or at least shy away from admitting, if you care so much about ending suffering by ending all life on Earth, you can't (at least it's extremely unlikely that you will) do that in the span of a single lifetime. So, it's kind of a self-defeating philosophy, really.

To be fair, life as a sandbox where the ultimate pleasure and ultimate torment can be experienced simultaneously (as arguably the two are ultimately intertwined), can be indescribably horrible. But are there not tender, glorious, at least pleasantly tolerable moments that your philosophical rampage against life denies those who would otherwise never have the opportunity or choice? Maybe another person doesn't mind a bit of pain, even disproportional for the pleasure they experience. It's easy to think you can make a choice for other people when you think you can, and even easier when you really can, but is it right? This is the real direction of the discussion I think is being avoided. And as I stated it's not clear cut. You are not only denying the right of but also discriminating against the sadist masochist, which according to some I sexually identify as apparently.

In what world does, "Do not have kids" count as philosophically abstract? Pretty concrete to me. — schopenhauer1

So basically you actively have a vasectomy or are otherwise willfully abstinent. That's cool. Just don't try to come at me with your legal papers and ribbons to mandate the same.

It's kind of of ironic almost. By not ensuring your most deeply held belief is prolonged beyond the span of your own life by facing your fear or perhaps crossing into your taboo, you ensure and seal the fate that it will never happen. I wish I had the time to write a novel, this is as good as it gets. Pure gold.

a simple, unremarkable life — Satyesu

Would you prefer a complicated one? Praise and admiration from people you don't know? Or is it a powerful legacy that demands respect alongside a treasure trove of earnest-enough-gotten gains? The sands of time spare very few. Even Caesar, who conquered a large portion of the world, now only lives in the form of internet memes mocking his violent death, and a lackluster salad.

No perhaps I'm assuming again. You care not for recognition of your deeds only for the sorely needed example and influence it could bring, you care not for recognition of your talent other than to enrich, benefit, or entertain as many as possible. The idea of leaving the world a better place ignites a fire in your heart and soul, an adamant gaze of fierce determination in your eyes. The joys, praise, and affluence that come with fame mean absolutely nothing to you for know at the deepest level these things are mere transient distractions from the larger goal, which is the constant state of acknowledgement that you, did something that uplifted and changed the lives of many. They all start that way, yet more often than not, they all end the same. Good luck.

Because in one instance (the antinatalist), no new person is put in an unjust (and harmful) situation. In the other instance a new person is put in an unjust and harmful situation. As my example of the happy slave shows, you can have unjust situations despite people's subjective reporting post-facto. — schopenhauer1

What if we're all actually reincarnated from a truly worse place, and this is sort of our proving grounds to see if we've learned our lesson, plus a few legacy punishments here and there, we simply just don't remember it by divine power yet the nature that originally damned us, rather that led to the actions that did, remain ie. our vices, bad habits, negative inclinations, etc. and the point of this life is to overcome them to truly escape this 'unjust and harmful' situation, one that can not be escaped, perhaps even perpetuated by simply not having kids. Sure you or I don't know that, but not long ago a young man just like you looked out toward the edge of an ocean shore and dismissed the possibility of anything beyond what he could see too. We'll call him Frederick. Please don't be Frederick.

A father reassuring his child is trruly important at the scale of the child, but will be insignificant to, let's say, a tribe in South America, or to the Sun, or to Andromeda — Hello Human

What significance is there to an entire Universe with nothing sentient or capable of appreciating it. A tiny smiley face drawn on a cup of coffee in a barren wasteland between the last two survivors of an interplanetary war is worth infinitely more than an entire galaxy devoid of emotional intelligence or that one thing we humans often seldom dish out yet begrudgingly love to receive- compassion.

Of course, the words of another are open to scrutiny, and provided the speaker provides or at least doesn't restrict the listener from looking into not just the validity of the claim but the character of the claimee him or herself, at least as a reasonable reference (ie. if you don't practice what you preach why should another), only then can we reach higher understanding Or at least not be entrapped by the oh-so-familiar cycle of ignorance, as is often the case of those who hold dogmas, be they scientific or religious, above the greater sense of wholeness, harmony, and what simply feels right when one is not beleaguered by the ills of the world we have unleashed on ourselves out of failing to consider all things, including that which we do not know.

Of course nobody wishes for their marriage to fail, to experience a fatal or debilitating incident, or to fall into severe addiction or substance abuse, but these things happen, and more often than you might think. So where do we go from there. Somewhere is better than nowhere in this case.

I'll be the first to agree with the notion we want safety nets for the genuinely downtrodden and severely ill-fortuned to avoid becoming a fluffy mattress for the lazy and willfully inept, simply for the sake of those who actually need or deserve it and basic decency as a whole, but that doesn't mean we just throw the baby out with the bathwater all willy nilly like. No system is perfect, there will be faults and flat out abuses, especially as safeguards and the like are fine-tuned.. and threats properly assessed, which takes time. After all, you won't know how to fix something you didn't build until it reaches a less than ideal state. Stress test, throwing a wrench into the works to see what happens, burning the village to save it, sometimes these are all things that must be done. Not always. But for fledgling creations such as American democracy, and even most other things, if you don't do it, somebody else will.