no-self
— Possibility

Anatta. — Agent Smith

No, anatta is not "no self".
We've been over this.

Part of the recommendation was preventing future suffering. The other half was building collective realization of our suffering.. Like non-religious communities of realization of the pessimism... It should be talked about all over.. and communities of consolation created post haste.. Instead of (tacitly) optimistic ones of X, Y, Z "project" we should have communities recognizing our existential position. — schopenhauer1

In the past, and implicitly still now, there were whole categories of people who were not supposed to marry and/or procreate.
Soldiers and servants, monks and nuns, for example.

I think part of the problem is that we are now under the dictature of sameness, an absolute egalitarianism ("everyone is supposed to have the same basic goals in life, having children being one of them"), even though this is a historical novum.

I will die, whether I comply with the dictates or not - that’s the reality of being. Compliance/non-compliance changes the overall arrangement or relational structures of being, not the limits. — Possibility

No, it's about the limits. No matter what else you do, you're a lifeform that requires oxygen. There is no way around that. This is what living in this body is defined by, and it carries with it a number of other givens.

Our overall arrangement of being is much different now than it was a thousand years ago, because the agenda has changed.

No, the agenda has always been the same, only its external manifestation varies according to circumstances.

This only seems pessimistic if you’re hung up on the illusion of the ‘individual’, which it appears that you are.

Riiight, the good old "no man, no problem" solution to all of life's problems!

I don't view evolution quite so cut-and-dry in humans regarding procreation. Procreation becomes a choice, unlike eating food or going to the bathroom. It's something we can choose to carry on. It is simply cultural reinforcement and personal preferences that perpetuate it. — schopenhauer1

It's certainly convenient to frame it that way, it makes it easy to criticize it.

The antinatalist's particular socio-economic situatedness makes the antinatalist unfit to procreate, but it says nothing about the procreative fitness of other people or about procreation per se.

Once we introduce particular socio-economic situatedness, all notions of egalitarianism or universalism (things that would be true for all people) are off the table, and we are firmly in eugenics.

There are people who have procreated and who really do not have any compunctions about it. People who are fit to live, fit to procreate.

The kind of general antinatalism you're advocating is not compatible with the Theory of Evolution.

That depends on your interpretation. The idea of ‘getting through the gates of heaven’ seems to me a misunderstanding of enlightenment in the first place. The joke portrays an incongruity between the Buddhist notion of ‘no-self’ and a self-actualising perception of enlightenment. Given there is no consensus on this in Buddhism, I guess it depends on your perspective, doesn’t it? — Possibility

No. From what I've seen, insiders understand it immediately to be about the idea that one should "postpone" one's enlightenment in favor of "helping others".

It's a belief that the blind are nevertheless fully qualified to lead the blind and to be trusted (blindly).

Mahayana criticizes Theravada for being "selfish", for not caring about others, and only focusing on one's own development. Theravada points out the folly and the danger of the blind leading the blind.


I brought this up in reference to your proposition that we should help others, even at the expense of our own lives. It's an absurd proposition that serves no other purpose but to bolster one's ego.

But not Jainism? What is the difference here? They both say the same thing and Buddhism would not exist without the ascetic Jains. — I like sushi

??

Where did you get that??

Early Buddhism.

Is world peace possible? And what will that look like? — Vincent

How can you end suffering if all life is effectively framed as ‘suffering’ (albeit a weaker sort of ‘disgruntlement’ and/or ‘dissatisfaction’)? — I like sushi

By seeing that there are two kinds of suffering:
1. suffering that leads to more suffering,
2. suffering that leads to the end of suffering.

Yes, we die, but it's one or the other at the same time. You either comply or you die. You will die eventually, but at that point, you no longer will be or have to be complying.
/.../
You live in the situatedness of history, physics, socioeconomic reality. You can deny it, but I can deny gravity and that wouldn't mean jack shit on its truth. — schopenhauer1

I think part of the problem is that you're simultaneously holding onto two theories/philosophies which are mutually exclusive. Namely, one the one hand, Schopenhauerian pessimism and on the other, the Theory of Evolution. The two together make for a supertoxic mix.

From an evolutionary perspective, antinatalism is a dead end; antinatalists are evolutionary detritus, they cull themselves out of the gene pool, while evolution, and life, march on, ever on. Antinatalists who adhere to the ToE have no right to complain (or rebel).

The OP is asking what one should do. — I like sushi

Can you copy-paste it? I read the OP again, and don't see that question there.

If you have an answer then that would be a ‘good life’ of a sorts right? Is a ‘sort of good life’ better than a ‘no sort of good life’? If so and your response is it doesn’t matter because we suffer anyway, then you have not made any meaningful distinction between the two.

I think there is a "good life", it's just that I think it's not one directed the usual way, into consumption in the pursuit of sensual pleasures. But, rather, it is one of making an effort to end suffering (not merely reduce it).

There is an old inside joke in Buddhism about Mahayana heaven:

Outside of the heavenly gates, crowds of bodhisattvas bowing to eachother, making a gesture with the hand, saying, "After you!"
— baker

:ok: — Possibility

Why the :ok: ?

The joke is actually a harsh criticism of the idea of postponing one's own enlightenment in favor of others.

Comply or die. Anything besides immobility would be acting on it so de facto X would be acting on it, and it "owning us". — schopenhauer1

Actually, even if you were a deaf, mute, and blind tetraplegic, you could still be in compliance mode. The comply-and-die is first and foremost in the mind.


I want to say more, but I am in too much pain from complications from my injury. I'll try to get back to the forum in a few days.
So much for people easing eachother's suffering.

My latest posts with Possibility (still waiting for a response in last post), is that our dissatisfactions create for each other the de facto forced situation of having to at all comply with the agenda of a society (going to work, paying bills, anythign we do for survival and comfort and entertainment within a broader socioeconomic framework..in our society's case),

because if we don't, we will die (through slow starvation and depredation or outright suicide). — schopenhauer1

This is actually an overstatement. You're assuming a general model, an abstract notion of life -- those 75 years or so that one must somehow get through.

But you don't actually know whether this scenario applies to you, you just take for granted that it does. And perhaps in doing so, you actually make it happen.

An airplane engine could fall on your house and crush you tomorrow. An aneurysm in your brain could burst and off you are in the following hour. You could die in a hundred ways long before you reach those 75 years of age.

Again, dissatisfaction rules everything. There is no way out. Not in theory, nor in practice. — schopenhauer1

At least theoretically, there is a way out. Early Buddhism proposes it.

I imagine you can this being viewed as wanting something for nothing. Do you view a ‘good life’ as getting something for nothing perpetually without worries of ‘burdens’? — I like sushi

As for the other response you gave I will say the same thing I said to Schopenhauer fellow here … ‘no’ is not a helpful answer for me if am I to understand your position. Why no? — I like sushi

This has already been addressed earlier in the thread. E.g.

the idea is that any kind of existence is burdensome. It's about a dissatisfaction that would persist even if one had all the health, wealth, beauty, fame, family, friends, etc. in the world. — baker

But every act of ignorance, isolation or exclusion brings ongoing harm and suffering to ourselves and others that we cannot avoid, because we’re not paying attention to it. And if we value a reduction in suffering overall more than the existence of any single being (which appears to be the essential argument of antinatalism), then we should be willing to endure a little more suffering ourselves, even risk our own death, rather than choose to ignore, isolate or exclude any longer. We just need to be honest with ourselves about this - that nothing we will ever do with our existence is worth more than what we do to reduce suffering for others. And if we’re still alive, then it means we haven’t done enough. — Possibility

There is an old inside joke in Buddhism about Mahayana heaven:

Outside of the heavenly gates, crowds of bodhisattvas bowing to eachother, making a gesture with the hand, saying, "After you!"

What does this mean? Just more volunteer at charities and government and non-profit interventions? Oh wait.. that is already the case.. so basically basic stuff that we already do and just more involvement in these things we already do. It's just the progressive/humanist cause reiterated in vague terminology. — schopenhauer1

It seems the point is to have a theory about the matter, a certain mental framework. Hence the vagueness, the abstractness, the lack of concrete examples.

↪baker I imagine you can this being viewed as wanting something for nothing. Do you view a ‘good life’ as getting something for nothing perpetually without worries of ‘burdens’?

Where do you stand on buddhist ideas and nihilism? — I like sushi

So why is seeking ‘happiness’ or ‘satisfaction’ the most important thing? — Possibility

It's a truism. It goes without saying that people don't want to suffer and that they look for ways out of suffering.

Then why did you address your reply to me?

Climate deniers don’t know about science or care about science. — Xtrix

Two types of deniers with whom it is misguided to talk about the science of man's negative impact on climate:

Those who have an enormous sense of entitlement.
For as long as their sense of entitlement is left intact, they won't change their mind.

The consequent Social Darwinists. To them, life is a struggle for survival, and only the strong survive. They take no issue with this.

To such people, the thought, "The climate situation is dire, we need to do something about it" never occurs, or at least it doesn't seem worth pursuing.

No, it's more systematic than that. Can't you tell?
— baker

Just the obvious point that one tells the different between experiences according to their, well, differences. Clear as a bell; so clear one wonders why the question is raised at all. Surely you know the difference between being in love and lasagna. You're grasping at straws. Curious. — Constance

Too bad that in my question you don't recognize Joseph Campbell's question. He wondered how it is that one can tell whether one has indeed had a religious/spiritual experience, or whether the feel good feeling one has is simply due to having had a good meal.


Direct your attention to the difference between feeling x and being x.

Some "spiritual practices", "tips & tricks", consumption of intoxicants, altered states of mind due to physical exertion readily produce in one's mind a feeling, feeling x. This, however, doesn't yet mean that one is x.

For example, one can read some productivity literature, hype oneself up, put some of the advice into practice, and then one feels more productive. But whether one is actually more productive or not is something that yet needs to be measured.

One can make oneself "feel the presence of the Holy Spirit", through prayer, going to a church, using intoxicants. But that alone doesn't yet mean the Holy Spirit is indeed present.

There is a difference between feeling safe, and being safe.

There is a difference between feeling that one has overcome egoic thinking, and actually overcoming egoic thinking.

And so on.
Feelings are easy enough to conjure up. Facts that can be measured, not so readily.

Buddhism is certainly NOT about a "noble attainment" in the usual sense, the term 'noble' being a social and ethical concept.

Strange that the Buddhists say the Noble Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths.

Again, a bit obvious. Oddest yet: no respect for someone who almost without argument did the most extraordinary thing one could do.

Clearly, you are not aware of the wide range of opinions that one can find among Buddhist practitioners on the topic of public protest in the form of self-immolation.

So it is with shooting heroin up your veins.
— baker

A little juvenile.

Insiders have knowledge, experience that outsiders don't. It's not uncommon for insiders to be proud and to feel superior to outsiders. This is true for lovers of modern art, fine dining, religious adepts, etc. or heroin addicts.

Couldn't help but notice. Hope things improve with whatever is troubling you.

On the contrary, I'm not the one being troubled, because I'm not the one acting in bad faith.

I imagine you can this being viewed as wanting something for nothing. Do you view a ‘good life’ as getting something for nothing perpetually without worries of ‘burdens’? — I like sushi

No.

Where do you stand on buddhist ideas and nihilism?

Since Early Buddhism considers being born as a human to be precious (because it is in the human form that one can most easily attain enlightenment), clearly, Early Buddhism is not nihilistic.

Problem is that heaven and hell is Christian belief but Sider presents it outside of that context. — SpaceDweller

Exactly. Makes one wonder why.

Within the monotheistic religious doctrines that contain the concept of eternal hell, there are also specified factors that lead to it. Here, for example, in the RCC.

And I’m saying that any kind of existence can appear burdensome and dissatisfying in relation to the illusion of ‘individual potentiality’. — Possibility

Again, no. It's that any kind of seeking happiness outside cannot provide satisfaction. Whether one seeks happiness through obtaining things, relationships, or sophisticated pursuits such as art, it's all still unsatisfactory.

I’m not claiming efficacy, only potentiality. The difference is desire. I cannot have the life I want wrapped up in a bow and delivered to me, free of suffering. You say this is a ‘tragedy’, but I say get over yourself - what makes you think that was ever an option, let alone what you deserve? — Possibility

No, the idea is that any kind of existence is burdensome. It's about a dissatisfaction that would persist even if one had all the health, wealth, beauty, fame, family, friends, etc. in the world.

And I’ve repeatedly said so. — Possibility

Heh. You're not so humble.

it’s inaccurate to morally judge someone else’s actions based on your own evaluation of life.

How else is it possible to make moral judgments, other than on none's own evaluation of life?

I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m saying that we have the intellectual capacity to reconfigure how we make sense of reality, so that craving, dissatisfaction or suffering is not a ‘problem’ to be overcome. This may sound to Schop like PR spin, but there’s little difference between what I’m doing and what he’s doing - we’re just pointing people in different directions. Only he’s insisting that his description of the world is the truth, while I’m just plain wrong.

I disagree with both of you, I think neither of your perspectives is universally viable, but requires that a person has a sufficient measure of health and wealth in order to live in accordance with either of your perspectives.

I’m not going to defer to his perspective as ‘the truth’, and he’s not going to acknowledge my perspective as anything but an invalid default, because apparently only one of us can be right, and it must be him.

So much for democracy!

But I honestly think that BOTH our perspectives are valid, and the fact that I choose to live my life as if it has value doesn’t negate his choice to live his life as if it doesn’t, and vice versa.

What's up with this validity business? Are we looking for someone's validation?

I’m okay with that, and I actually think there is potentially a lot we can gain from a charitable discussion. But apparently I need to be discredited by any means, because everyone needs to defer to his perspective as ‘the truth’. I’m not okay with THAT.

Why aren't you okay with that? Can you explain?

The fact you don’t recognize that we are all burdened with the task of subsisting at all and overcoming it, is denied by you. We can try to work together but it would be in this recognition of the tragedy and not through obfuscating misdirection of vague optimistic slogans. — schopenhauer1

It's not that they don't recognize this task of subsisting, it's that they claim it's a matter of your choice, not of something forced on you.

In their view, when you're hungry, you _choose_ to eat. Your predicting that you will be hungry tomorrow and the day after that and so on, and therefore need to find ways to satisfy that need (by work, theft, reliance on mercy) is also something they see as a matter of your choice.
Perhaps with some arm twisting, they'd even declare that breathing is a matter of choice.

They are not alone in this view. A few more examples:

A Buddhist teacher once said in a speech words to the effect "your body is perfectly willing to die" and that it is a matter of your choice that you feed it, take care of it, etc.

Some spiritual teachers go further and say things to the effect that until you take responsibility for having been born at all, your life cannot really begin (Caroline Myss, IIRC).

In some religions, such as some schools of Hinduism and Buddhism, it is believed that one was born because one wanted to be born. Mormons, too, believe that one is born because one wanted to do so and chose it.

"Comply or die" isn't tragic to them, it's the baseline, the bare minimum. In order to see things from their perspective, you need to forget about what secular constitutions of democratic countries and the Declaration of Human Rights say about the value of a human being, human dignity, and so on. To them, this is merely about human potential, not about actual people. In their eyes, you get no credit simply because you happen to be a human. You yet need to prove yourself to be worthy.

I grew up on rock. It's much milder in the emotive department. The blues makes me blue, but it's a good kind of blue. Country music is too much, like I said, it fills me with infinite sorrow and desolution. — god must be atheist

This indicates a less than optimal fictionality competence.

The basic default of what a person must get out of life

So if you are not slated to lead a country, or to lead a country to war, or to get the Nobel Prize, or the Oscars, then what you absolutely must do is this: to have your baby walk down the street. — god must be atheist

And if someone doesn't do that? You will do what? Nuke them? Draw and quarter them?

How do you distinguish the influence between the good feels in general? — Constance

That's not what I asked you about.

One simply does.

No, it's more systematic than that. Can't you tell?

How would Thích Quảng Đức.the Buddist monk who immolated himself in 1963 be pathologically assessed? The answer? Very easily.

Killing oneself in a public place for a political reason is not a sign of a noble attainment.

I push kriya yoga to its limit. Pays off. It's only a pathology if you are on the outside looking in.

So it is with shooting heroin up your veins.

You may be averse to unorthodox approaches,

I'm averse to hocus pocus and to shallowness being masqueraded as depth.

but you should know where orthodoxy itself has it end. It is like this: Try any interpretative reduction that is possible, any at all, and you will end up in the contingency of language, aka, deconstruction. Deconstruction is all pervasive, because language itself is its own indeterminacy.

Again: In its proper application, the analytical mind exhausts itself.

This is what Buddhism is all about, I would argue: for language has its "grip" deep into the conditioned psyche; a lifetime of socializing that began in infancy.

Your description seems to hint at the jhanas.
There is, however, more to "Buddhism" than the jhanas. People often forget what it takes to get to them.

I've managed well through life without your gratuitious advice, so you can keep it.
/.../
That is really not a fair criticism, but then maybe you’re trolling, which you seem to be doing in many of your comments. — Wayfarer

If after all this time, you still think that ... then go fuck yourself.

It's not clear whether the idea is justified that enlightenment is somehow an objective phenomenon, quite independent of religions, and that different religions just have different takes on it.
— baker

At last! You say something connected to what I've written. Took some doing. It is, nevertheless, a thesis I find both defensible and appealing, because it points to a genuine 'higher truth' over and above the individual manifestations that have appeared in different times and cultures. — Wayfarer

On the contrary, it's not defensible. The different religions that have the concept of "enlightenment" or something like it have quite different ideas about what exactly it is, how to get to it, and how valuable it is.

And why focus only on "enlightenment" as a "higher truth"? What about "God" or "eternal damnation"? Those notions are quite common in religion/spirituality.

It's clear, though, how such a thesis as yours can be appealing. It requires no work, no commitment, no religious choice, no practice. It allows one to sit back and rest comfortably in the conviction that all is well.

It seems the whole implicit purpose of comparative religion is to emasculate the religions, to make them seem harmless, redundant, and most of all, ineffective, so that neither the need nor the desire for actual practice can arise in one's mind.

To paraphrase you,

After all, if all paths lead to the top of the mountain, then there's no greater purpose to be served in one's religious/spiritual/philosophical quest other than possibly warm feelings of self-justification.

Here you find foundational indeterminacy, which reveals itself as a wonder and horror of our being here. One has to step OUT of texts to witness this. — Constance

Such "stepping out of texts" is, for all ordinary practical intents and purposes, impossible.
What you're doing is just ditching standard religious texts, and firmly embedding yourself in other texts.

And you remain mundane, as always. — Constance

Oh.

Do tell how you distinguish between
on the one hand, religious/spiritual/philosophically deep/profound experiences or insights,
and
on the other hand, the feel good feeling you get after a good meal, or the experience of hypoxia, or what comes up when under the influence of intoxicants
?


It seems that you're ascribing profundity where it shouldn't be ascribed, but you miss out on occasions where it does.

So, I have a deep confusion about why philosophy sees this disconnection between logical necessity and physical causation. — Wayfarer

Logical necessity is about abstractly defined relationships between terms. E.g. If A, then B.

Physical causation is about figuring out between which particular physical phenomena which abstractly defined relationship applies. If I put socks in the drawer, they are in the drawer.

It seems to me computer science relies on the connection between the two - microprocessors basically comprise chains of logic gates to effect physical outputs.

It's still like putting socks in a drawer, just on a tiny tiny scale and super superfast.

Yes - but physical causation doesn't have to be all powerful, does it? I'm the last person who would argue that it is - I accept the reality of karma, for instance, which overflows the horizons of physicalism - but within its range of applicability, physical causation and logical necessity seem to coincide, don't they? — Wayfarer

Sure, because that's how we do physics.

I kind of agree on emotional grounds, but I'd like to come up with an argument that is harder for physicalism to simply shrug off. — Wayfarer

Why?

It is your opinion that the chance of someone’s life being less than their potential is sufficient enough to warrant non-being. Plenty of people disagree with this evaluation, and you claim they’re wrong, but all they’re doing is evaluating life differently to you. You have no way of proving your own evaluation to be objective - it will always be relative to the affect of your limited experience. — Possibility

Same goes for you. You have no way of proving your own evaluation to be objective - it will always be relative to the affect of your limited experience.

A person’s immediate situatedness is predetermined, but highly variable and ultimately as temporary as they determine it to be. — Possibility

Just google "create a life you love". But it's still all craving, granted, sometimes more sophisticated, but craving nonetheless.

If the mind is separate from reality, where is it? Describe what it is to be "separate from reality." — Ciceronianus

"Separation from reality" is a party line some people toe now that threatening others with eternal damnation isn't all that fashionable anymore.
But the intention is the same: contempt.

I read and watched Dennett’s discussion with Gregg Caruso about free will and Dennett often speaks about the “Moral Agents Club” and how if you want to live in a society and enjoy its benefits you have to be held morally responsible in a similar sense that people play by rules in a game and by doing so subject themselves to punishment when they make a mistake or lose. He uses the analogy of getting a red card in soccer. It has to work that way otherwise the “game” of society collapses and ceases to function properly. — Captain Homicide

But this is true only for ordinary peope, not for the elites. The elites don't have to play by the rules.