Let's face the fact. The evil is undeniably with us. It's an undeniable part of us. Of me, of everyone,

of the universe, of the eternal gods. — Hillary

Eh?

The question is, what shall we do with it?

How could we possibly do anything about it, if it is, as you claim, "an undeniable part of us?

We are in the grand scheme of things insects in our own eyes. Bug spray? DDT? Fly swatters? Flypaper? — Agent Smith

Chameleons.

So you refused to tell me what to study from the Pali Canon. If you can't at least give me a few concepts without telling me to read the whole thing, that is at the least uncharitable in the context of this dialogue. As clearly you have "something" in mind from it.. — schopenhauer1

Again, as a meta-analysis of this dialogue:

I have no interest to convince you of anything Buddhism. I am skeptical about your certainty that we're in a hopeless situation. There are several religions, philosophies, ideologies that claim we're not in a hopeless situation (e.g. Buddhism, Christianity, Humanism, even popular consumerism). Instead of using Buddhism as a reference point for my skepticism, I could also use, say, Roman Catholicism (but I don't feel all that warmly about it, so I don't reference it much; also, there is some overlap between your arguments and Buddhism's).

Again, despite repeated requests, you have not demonstrated what the foundation of your certainty of hopelessness is.

Why you think that the Bible is a life guide, I'm not sure, but it sounds like you bought what someone else was selling. Give the "Pentateuch" a read and see if you can find where it tells you what to do.
— Ennui Elucidator

I recognize it's not the mainstream view, but see:

https://www.yoramhazony.org/phs/ — Hanover

You know those things by which to guide your life also without the Bible. You don't need the Bible for its content, you need it for the institutional justification of said content.

Without the Bible, you'd be yet another sucker "just trying to do the right thing". With the Bible, you'd be doing the exact same things, but you'd have the divine justification for them and feel righteous.

On what grounds – "principle" – does one "really believe" truth if "truth is the first principle"? — 180 Proof

Because one internalized this principle early in life, before one's cognitiive ability of critical thinking developed.

A system should be put in place which allows the crème da le crème of society to blossom into maturity, this will come at the cost of a non-egalitarian society — Wittgenstein

How is this not already happening?

What approach should morally upright social scientists & legislators take regarding the naturally occurring inequality of human individuals grouped together within a state? — ucarr

None. The classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically, even if not officially, and it prevails.

For example, theoretically, officially, we're all equal before the law. But practically, we're not.

Two related quotes from the book I found online:

“Anxiety has a purpose. Originally the purpose was to protect the existence of the caveman from wild beasts and savage neighbors. Nowadays the occasions for anxiety are very different - we are afraid of losing out in the competition, feeling unwanted, isolated, and ostracized. But the purpose of anxiety is still to protect us from dangers that threaten the same things: our existence or values that we identify with our existence. This normal anxiety of life cannot be avoided except at the price of apathy or the numbing of one's sensibilities and imagination.” — javra

This still implicitly frames anxiety as a pathological state, and, more importantly, it paints people as amorphous, unsystematic blobs.

It's not that anxiety has a purpose, it's that people have standards.

For example, when you are concerned whether you have done your work well, this reflects your good work ethics. You're not "anxious", you have standards. It's not that anxiety that alerts you to possible mistakes in your work, it's that you have standards.

There has to be something that comes from this self-imposition.. — schopenhauer1

You're committing another self-imposition: You take for granted that you're certain that there is no way out. (And that the materialistic outlook is the one and only right one).

Arguably, this is the core of your problem (and not the comply or die, or the futility of pursuing sensual pleasures).

Imagine Sisyphus happy. Amor fuckin' fati. — 180 Proof

Camus didn't live long enough for time to show whether he'd be able to live out his life philosophy to the natural end of his life, so we don't know how viable it actually would be even for its creator.
The other main existentialist, the squinter, ditched his existentialist philosophy, so no credit can be given to him.

You are kindly requested to provide a set of instructions for how to learn to love fate.

And secondly,

There is no god. We make our own purpose.
— Banno

Which is what? To help your fellow man and woman, love and educate your kids, be a force of happiness to all? Why? Seems meaningless to simply make someone's stay as comfortable as possible if you admit there was no reason for them to come and stay in the first place.

It's like being Sisyphus' water boy, tending kindly to him, convincing yourself your altruism and goodness matters, ignoring the fact that you're all involved in a meaningless struggle that will eventually end with your death and then eventually the destruction of the world. — Hanover

said love of fate has to overcome this hurdle.

Accepting the things yo cannot change is not unreasonable. — Banno

And this is how might makes right. And how people end up shooting people.

It's shit -- to use even more shitty language -- retained at first and then later evacuated into a fancy toliet, at the time the evacuator chooses to do so.

women choose sex, then they choose abortion when they don't choose to have the child, and the reason the abortion is morally neutral yet unfortunate is because the fetus was not a person, but the emotional pain from the mistake is real. — Hanover

What exactly do you think the mistake was in all this?

Although I don't understand how I could have interrupted your argument before you could set it out — Hanover

You have an intimidating presence and history.

This is the wrong direction of approaching the issue. It's a direction that makes sure that the matter never gets resolved.

If, on the other hand, we focus on the intention of those involved in abortion, it all gets very clear and very simple. They act with the intention to kill. They know what that glob of cells is likely going to develop into, and this is what they want to stop from happening. So as far as intention goes, it's irrelevant whether the unborn feels pain or not, whether it should be considered a person or not. Because the intention is to kill.
— baker
Sure, but then so is using bug spray to terminate bugs and weed spray to terminate weeds. The intent is the same (to kill) but are the consequences the same - meaning is a weed's life any more important than a zygote in the grand scheme of things? To human's a zygote in a woman's womb is more important than a weed, but that doesn't mean that a zygote in a woman's womb is objectively more important. The universe doesn't care, nor does it place any value on one life over another. We do that. — Harry Hindu

It's about the intention to kill. With which many people don't seem to have a problem to begin with. That being the case, it's not clear how to get through to them ...

What if an alien race that evolved from weeds millions of years ago travels to Earth, defines humans as the pests and attempts to eradicate the infestation?

Bummer!

Again, too narrow a scope. The issue is the intention for engaging in sex in the first place. In discussions of abortion, this is rarely or never addressed.

And since you bring up suffering and magnitudes of it:

What is the greater suffering:

Enduring a sexual urge and not acting on it until it passes (after about 10 minutes),
or risking the health and life of the woman with hormonal contraceptives (and abortions, in case the contraceptives fail)?
— baker
It seems to me that one can have the intention of experiencing the pleasurable feeling of sex and the orgasm that follows, or even building stronger social bonds between you and your mate, not necessarily to have kids.

No, that's still too superficial. The issue at hand is craving, and indulging in it.

If indulging in sensual pleasures would be truly satisfying, then why must we do it over and over again?

Would it be fair to the child and to us if we were forced to have a child with birth defects? Which would cause the most suffering?

I'm not a "pro-lifer". I'm interested in a conscientious attitude toward sexuality.

Sure, going under a doctor's knife can have it's risks, but in today's modern world, that is a small risk, and I think that, as individuals, it is our own prerogative to make our own risk assessments.

It's not about risks, it's about what is at stake. It's irrelevant what the perceived risk is (which most often cannot be correctly calculated anyway), if what is at stake is important to one. It's why people apply for a job they want even though they have less than a 1% chance of getting it, and why they refrain from easy theft where there is a big chance they won't get caught.

My point was that your argument was extremely poorly reasoned (i.e. pretty stupid) because (1) it defies my experience (in that the sex I've had, I truly wanted to have) and (2) if you believe most sex is under societal duress, you're claiming most sex is rape. — Hanover

*sigh*

It's not even my argument.

I began making my argument, but you, as usual, jumped the gun. How dickish.

Jesus. The phrase I most often want to use in so many discussions here is "premature ejaculator".

The idea that we're here merely to eat and shit is egregious.
— baker
I don't know how you arrived at that from what I said. — Harry Hindu

Because I didn't. It's the theme I'm pursuing in this thread, as initiated in my first reply in this thread. The OP has a consumerist approach to life, and this is what I'm criticizing.

One of the ideas that I did propose was that we're here to initiate the next step of evolution.

I also proposed the idea that asserting that you know why you are here is something akin to a delusion of grandeur.

So, per you, us being here to "initiate the next step of evolution" is "something akin to a delusion of grandeur".

I don't think we are here for anything.

But you just said

One of the ideas that I did propose was that we're here to initiate the next step of evolution.

We each create our own purposes for ourselves

How can that be? We're not living in a vacuum.

I don't want to be here to just eat and shit either, which is why I am here having a discussion with you and doing many other things besides just eating and shitting.

I'm refering to comsumerism, consumption, in a broader sense that just eating and defecating, though. One can also be a consumer of music, art, ideas. What is blameworthy is the attitude of "we're here to consume".

Dear mother of god... Is the the soothing pleasure of the gods-given Papaveraceae degraded to anal retention here? — Hillary

Eh? You?! Talk about religion being the opiate of the people!

And "soothing pleasure"? All intoxicants sooner or later show their ugly side.

You can do this, you can give up lesser pleasures in the pursuit of better ones.
— baker

Yeah, it can be done but it's not exactly something an untrained person can pull off. — Agent Smith

If you prefer hot pizza over cold pizza, then you understand the principle of pursuing higher pleasures and are able to act on it. How consciously and how consistently is the matter at hand.

The lower pleasures tend to, well, give more pleasure for a given amount of effort.

In this case, you seem to be talking about, say, preferring classical music to rock music.
I'm not talking about such fixed scales. I'm talking about the aforementioned principle.

Oh, but man is the beauty of the world, the best thing that ever happened to the Universe! Anxiety only befalls the weak and the unworthy.

Many people think that true pleasure and happiness comes from moderation (rather than indulgence) and cutting out that which is unnecessary - hence the appeal of minimalism in this vulgar consumerist era. — Tom Storm

As long as the intention behind one's consumption is the same (to satisfy a craving), it doesn't really matter whether one goes full blown hedonism or the moderate epicureanism. Epicureanism is just an anally retentive hedonism.

You can do this, you can give up lesser pleasures in the pursuit of better ones.

The idea that we're here merely to eat and shit is egregious.

Why did Jews NOT lose their faith in a (benevolent) God? — Agent Smith

There is an answer to this, but it's too politically incorrect to talk about it in public.

So why do we consider it murder if a mother abandons her newborn in a dumpster after being born? — Harry Hindu

Probabably because we, at least nominally, live in a legal system where it is the action that is relevant.

In some cultures in the past, killing one's own child wasn't murder, but killing another person's child was.

Not to worry, Smith. If you're not a fertile female of child-bearing age, then it's very unlikely you will ever have to decide to terminate your pregnancy. — 180 Proof

It's so wonderful that the abortion dicsussion is done mostly by men. And that most women who participate in it protect the interests of men.

Yay, the best a woman can be in this world is a fool, a beautiful little fool. That's what grandma fought for.

Then the question is who suffers more and who has the power to prevent the greater suffering in using contraception instead of relying on abortion as the only option to prevent a birth? — Harry Hindu

Again, too narrow a scope. The issue is the intention for engaging in sex in the first place. In discussions of abortion, this is rarely or never addressed.

Then the question is who suffers more and who has the power to prevent the greater suffering in using contraception instead of relying on abortion as the only option to prevent a birth? — Harry Hindu

And since you bring up suffering and magnitudes of it:

What is the greater suffering:

Enduring a sexual urge and not acting on it until it passes (after about 10 minutes),
or risking the health and life of the woman with hormonal contraceptives (and abortions, in case the contraceptives fail)?

At what point are we merely projecting human qualities onto objects vs. those qualities actually existing independent of our projecting them? — Harry Hindu

This is the wrong direction of approaching the issue. It's a direction that makes sure that the matter never gets resolved.

If, on the other hand, we focus on the intention of those involved in abortion, it all gets very clear and very simple. They act with the intention to kill. They know what that glob of cells is likely going to develop into, and this is what they want to stop from happening. So as far as intention goes, it's irrelevant whether the unborn feels pain or not, whether it should be considered a person or not. Because the intention is to kill.

The argument that all sex is coerced due to societal pressures is pretty stupid. — Hanover

And back to the rule of the dick.

The surest way to keep the discussion of this topic superficial and never moving from the spot.

What is the institution that has the jurisdiction over this issue, so that one can file a complaint to it properly?

You have a point! We know for certain (?) that pleasure is better than pain. What could be more desirable than pleasure in your opinion? My mind draws a blank. Is it the same for you? — Agent Smith

There are different pleasures. Some more sophisticated than others, some with more harmful side-effects or consequences than others.

Understanding this principle, one would be prudent to opt for the less harmful pleasures, or to deliberately look for them in the first place.

The need for the abortion, after all, is typically the result of a mistake, in that they did not want to have a child at this time in their life, but they made choices that led to the pregnancy. — Hanover

There is enormous societal pressure to engage in sex, regardless whether one wants to have children or not. Regularly engaging in sex is even considered by many as the mark of a healthy relationship, and of psychological normalcy to begin with. Not engaging in sex is seen by many (including psychologists/psychiatrists) as pathological.

The choice isn't actually between engaging in sex or not. It's between having a relationship or not; or between being seen as normal and worthy, or not.

For example, my knee hurts because of the two years of kick boxing I did, but I'm not having it scoped because I don't want to. The decision isn't moral or not moral. It's just a matter of choice.

You wouldn't have that freedom of interpretation in every country/culture. Not even when it comes to bum knees.
If anything, people are expected to trust medicine unquestioningly, and if they don't they get regarded as irrational. Refusing a suggested medical treatment could even get one categorized as a negligent patient and one could lose one's medical insurance.

What I would think would be immoral is if you got to decide for me

Depends who that "you" is. If it's "society", the legislative body, someone more powerful than you, how can you still say that it's immoral if they decide for you?

What we have to agree on is whether behavior is legal and acceptable in a diverse society. — Bitter Crank

As long as, in practice, our idea of democracy amounts to



what hope can there be ...

There is also this celebration of abortion that the left has, as if having an abortion is a badge of honor rather than a tragedy
— Harry Hindu

Where did you see this happening? Just curious, because I haven't. — frank

I don't know how "leftist" those people were, but I have seen several cases of women or fictional female characters being proud or otherwise thinking positively about having had an abortion.

For example, in a mainstream youth book (I forgot the title by now) about a teenage girl (15 or so), abortion is described as a rite of passage to adulthood and normalcy.
One of the characters in "Sex and the City" didn't think anything much about having had two abortions.
In a French documentary about the availability of abortion in post WW II France (it was illegal then), a woman vividly complained and bemoaned how her husband had to be more careful and couldn't enjoy himself properly during sex because abortion wasn't legal.
I personally know some women for whom having an abortion is entirely normal. I know one who said she wanted to get pregnant just so that she could have an abortion.


As usual in this dicussion, women have the least say. And most of those who do talk, represent interests that benefit the men most.

Letting Go of Hedonism


One cannot let go of something unless one has something better to hold on to.

Looking at the issue thus one is faced with a natural question, what then is the nature of an aesthetic contemplation, if we will care to call it that, which is free from the dependencies on external stimuli, the risk of addiction, and the desire for its continuity in time? An aesthetic contemplation which is free from the residues of “experience” (ironically) and “knowledge”? — skyblack

That would be pure art.

(Leaving off at this one sentence precisely because to say anything more would negate pure art.)

So I can reasonably assert that eating meat is NOT more healthy; as Louis believes it is. — Marvin Katz

Leaving aside that a sample of one is not representative --

Eating meat clearly is more healthy, for one's ego, if one believes that humans live to consume the planet and everything on it.

↪Judaka ↪baker ↪Philosophim
Ugh. Where to begin.

If you think the way you do here on this thread, then you have no understanding of human nature yet. — L'éléphant

Oh dear.

But you do?


"Human nature" is an ideological concept, not an empirical one, therefore, any discussion of "human nature" is necessarily going to be ideological. Ie. people making claims without backing them up with empirical evidence.

This sounds like a modernized Western rendition of Jainism. Or Quietism. Both are pernicious.
— baker

What is pernicious about it? — schopenhauer1

Even on an entirely mundane level, it's clear where they go wrong: the quietist whines and complains and is miserable, while other people are having fun. He gets nothing for all his misery, apart from a little ego satisfaction.

Ok, so I know you would like me to imbibe from the "TRUTH" of Buddhism en totale, because (like hipsters say), "I just won't get it" otherwise.. but what is the most important parts of the Pali Canon would you like me to research. I know I know, in order to really "KNOW" Buddhism, I am to become a scholar... but we are on an internet forum. I cannot expect for example, to debate someone on here by saying, "Just read WWR and all Scholarship on Schopenhauer" because that is not feasible and unfair in this platform.



As a meta-analysis of this dialogue, how do you want me to proceed? — schopenhauer1

I'm not a Buddhist nor do I advocate Buddhism. I do have some knowledge of and interest in Buddhism. When someone boldly declares that the Buddha was wrong or implies as much, I am curious as to what this person has to say. I use my knowledge of Early Buddhism to inquire of them what they have to say and test their knowledge of Buddhism.

You keep saying things like "we're in an inescapable situation" and such. I wonder where you get your certainty. I find it bewildering how a person could have such certainty.

Like I've been saying all along: Early Buddhism, the Pali Canon.