I believe civilisation really is only a very thin veneer, easily dropped under various circumstances. — Benkei

:100: sadly. — Bitter Crank

Then why condemn what happened to Rushdie?

Sure, that happens. But the point is you don't risk death or maiming by strangers all around the world for decades. Nor will anyone throw acid in your face for being a woman daring to gain an education. For my money you can't compare these expressions of 'authority'. — Tom Storm

Don't confuse an absence of action with an absence of motive. At this very forum, moderators get to tell people to kill themselves or express the desire to kill others. Just in the last couple of weeks, at least three instances of this, by two moderators.

And even if they were exactly the same, this would amount to a tu quoque fallacy.

It wasn't an attempt at justification, but pointing out that those who so severely condemn the "Rushdie attack" are not beyond harboring the same hostility that they so criticize.

Artists in the West can generally be hatefully critical towards power elites and government and religions and not face these problems.

What's the use of being "hatefully critical"?

As for "not facing these problems" when criticizing the government or the elite or religion: absence of retributive action doesn't automatically mean approval or tolerance. Perhaps such retributive action just isn't high on their priority list. Or they are allowing it for their own PR purposes.

Whatever you may have seen does not necessarily warrant calling the quote 'politically correct' as a kind of pejorative. That's a Fox News style comment. But you are correct that some people are hypocrites. Sometimes you can tell if they are or not by how much their public comments have cost them.

And further, for a religious person to request input on how to practice their religion -- from outsiders of that religion??? (Like in the passage you quoted earlier.) This is absurd.

Xtrix is a good mod and I haven't noticed anything untoward in his posts. — Jamal

I'm thinking of leaving this forum because of Xtrix. He is authoritarian, he is patronizing, he acts in bad faith. And now that he's a moderator, we can't do anything against that.

I searched for when he said "kill yourself", and found several hits, not just one, e.g.

Kill yourself — Xtrix

Then kill yourself — Xtrix

He tells people to kill themselves. And he's getting away with it.

Equivocating a fatwa with a rule of law is just plain wrong. A fatwa isn't law and in this case the rule was also intended to have retroactive effect, because it imposes a punishment for behaviour that existed before the rule was communicated. — Benkei

That's just the thing: It _is_ law. It is _Islamic_ law.

Since nobody is harmed by Rushdie's book,

The Islamic authorities disagree.

they can after all choose not to read it, punishing it is quite frankly ridiculous.

Would you make the same case for hate speech?

If you don't want to be aggravated or insulted, don't interact with people at all, don't read, don't watch television and don't listen to the radio.

Wrong. It's not about not wanting to be aggravated or insulted. It's about not tolerating such aggravation or insult.

Nobody specifically wants to be aggraved or insulted. It is not fair to expect some people to quietly tolerate aggravation and insult, while others get to revenge themselves.

In a similar vain, treason that could never damage people or protects a higher norm, shouldn't be punished either.

Blasphemy does damage a higher norm.


Example: If a person who is not a citizen of the US says or does something that the US authorities consider harmful to the US, what does the US do? They punish this person, and this punishment can include death. When another country does this same kind of thing, why is this problematic?

Name one instance where it's not like this.
— baker
Literature. — Tom Storm

I majored in literature. An authoritarian endeavor it is. It's all dogma and power games through and trough. "Independent exploration" my ass. At the end of the day, you're supposed to think, feel, and speak about a literary text the way your superiors expect you to, or you fail the grade.

Oh, the political correctness!
— baker
What point are you making?

The passage you quoted is an example of the kind of talk I've heard before, from people from other religions. I've seen it myself that when such an invitation is accepted and the requested challenge in fact posed, the religious get offended. All too often I've seen religious people be like one person in their public talks, but then, when personally addressed, it's like they become someone else, another person.
In my experience such requests were never meant to be taken seriously. It's just religious grandstanding, much like when the RCC pope issues a public apology.

Indeed, countries differ in how they treat flag desceration. In some countries, you can go to prison (for years) for burning the flag. (I brought up flag desecration because it seemed like the universal example of an item of symbolic value, where the value of the item is far more and far different than the material it is made of. The decriminalization of flag desecration seems like a relatively recent development; I wasn't aware of its extent.)

My point is that there are material and non-material items of symbolic value in a culture the desecration of which is punishable by law. Just like the national flag isn't just a piece of cloth, words aren't just sounds or ink blots. This notion isn't limited to primitive cultures.

There is a trend in interpreting the stance of Iran as somehow irrational, that they are "working themselves up over nothing" and severly punish a person who is not guilty of any crime.

I'm pointing out that Western, supposedly democratic, secular cultures can be charged with the same criticism. Just about different things. For example, high treason is punishable by death or life imprisonment in many democratic countries.

The fatwa against Rushdie is equvalent to our notion of high treason. So where seems to be the problem?

First step on the road to the slammer. — Metaphysician Undercover

But if Trump will in fact face punishment (including jail time), what does that mean for America?
A civil war, for sure.

Independent exploration is criticism — Tom Storm

Name one instance where it's not like this. I can't think of any field of human knowledge and endeavor where "independent exploration" is not considered criticism.

I'm asking Muslims in the West a very basic question: Will we remain spiritually infantile, caving to cultural pressures to clam up and conform, or will we mature into full-fledged citizens, defending the very pluralism that allows us to be in this part of the world in the first place? My question for non-Muslims is equally basic: Will you succumb to the intimidation of being called "racists," or will you finally challenge us Muslims to take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam?

- Irshad Manji

Oh, the political correctness!

Really?? That's strange. You Dutch.

Flag desecration is often a crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

If the Quran is supposed to be divinely inspired then the suggestion some of the text is the consequence of political considerations is blasphemous. That part seems relatively straightforward, if possibly alien/ridiculous to most Christians and atheists. — Benkei

If you were to burn the Dutch flag in public, what would be the consequences?
It's just a piece of cloth, isn't it?


IOW, it's not only some "primitive" or "violent" nations or religions who punish people, but Western democratic (" ") nations also punish (including with death) the transgression of certain rules.
The execution of these punishments is just a matter of practical means, not a difference in the motive for punishment.

The prophet comes across as a great man, and there is no contempt for Islam in that book whatsoever. — Olivier5

You don't get to decide that.

Your response is typical for the way secularists approach the matter: They see themselves as authorities over "how things really are", as arbiters of the Truth. They see themselves as the ones who get to decide how others should think, feel, speak, and act about things. It's plain old authoritarianism under the guise of humanism.

But the actual resolution of or living with these feelings isn't a well known or even presently knowable process, at least in a general way. — Moliere

It's not such a secret.

Samvega was what the young Prince Siddhartha felt on his first exposure to aging, illness, and death. It's a hard word to translate because it covers such a complex range — at least three clusters of feelings at once: the oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived; a chastening sense of our own complacency and foolishness in having let ourselves live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle. This is a cluster of feelings we've all experienced at one time or another in the process of growing up, but I don't know of a single English term that adequately covers all three. It would be useful to have such a term, and maybe that's reason enough for simply adopting the word samvega into our language.

But more than providing a useful term, Buddhism also offers an effective strategy for dealing with the feelings behind it — feelings that our own culture finds threatening and handles very poorly. Ours, of course, is not the only culture threatened by feelings of samvega. In the Siddhartha story, the father's reaction to the young prince's discovery stands for the way most cultures try to deal with these feelings: He tried to convince the prince that his standards for happiness were impossibly high, at the same time trying to distract him with relationships and every sensual pleasure imaginable. To put it simply, the strategy was to get the prince to lower his aims and to find satisfaction in a happiness that was less than absolute and not especially pure.

If the young prince were living in America today, the father would have other tools for dealing with the prince's dissatisfaction, but the basic strategy would be essentially the same. We can easily imagine him taking the prince to a religious counselor who would teach him to believe that God's creation is basically good and not to focus on any aspects of life that would cast doubt on that belief. Or he might take him to a psychotherapist who would treat feelings of samvega as an inability to accept reality. If talking therapies didn't get results, the therapist would probably prescribe mood-altering drugs to dull the feeling out of the young man's system so that he could become a productive, well-adjusted member of society.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/affirming.html

If you wouldn't feel sadness and heartache, you wouldn't appreciate the good things in life. — ssu

Hence the recipe for a good marriage is 1 kiss + 1 slap in the face. That really makes one appreciate the kisses!!!!

The idea that it is hardships that make us appreciate the good things is patently absurd, however popular it may be. It's sado-masochistic. It's depressing. The bad stuff doesn't make us appreciate the good stuff, but it can lead us to question whether the good stuff is all that it's popularily made out to be.

Ironically, both the antinatalists as well as the natalists are still firmly immersed in the pursuit of sensual pleasures, they differ only in which types of sensual pleasures they pursue.
The pursuit of sensual pleasures necessarily entails suffering.
— baker

Not sure why you think that, but ok. — schopenhauer1

Why I think what? To which sentence are you refering?

Well, I would say that I have quite a lot of things I enjoy, but at the end of the day I still question myself whether it´s all worth it. I love my family, friends, have an interesting job, enough money, love long walks, driving, cooking, coffee….but still there’s something at the back of my head saying - is it enough?

Also I do think that preferring “nothingness” is a stupid concept, because for me there’s nothing after death, no “you” to “enjoy” the preferred nothingness :roll: . For now suicide seems irrational.

So therefore the question why go on or better yet how to go on, what to strive for? (I mean it still could be just symptoms of depression, but who knows :confused: ) — rossii

It's how the recognition feels that depending on impermanent things for one's happiness is precarious.
That is, you recognize that depending on impermanent things for you happiness is a recognition that feels uneasy; for most people, it's depressing.

A secular psyhotherapist will approach this recognition as a pathological symptom, something to be done away with.

Some spiritual/religious people believe it's the beginning of the spiritual path (using here "spiritual" for the lack of a better word). Not a sign of depression, but a mark of seeing worldly things for how they really are: impermanent and ultimately unsatisfactory, and thus not worth striving for.

But despite these differences, there is an unbending view that a Jew of any stripe is a Jew. — Hanover

Why should the same kind of reasoning apply to other religions?

Designating someone as a member of a particular religion is sometimes purely an artifact of secular religiology.
For example, the people who consider themselves Christians do not necessarily mutually recognize one another as such.

As they say, Hitler saw no distinctions.

He's hardly an authority on religious identity, is he.

But, Jewish terrorist groups need to be condemned, and if they aren't, the leaders need to explain why.

Why do they need to explain that? Can you explain? Who are you to impose on them that necessity?

I'm not trying to assert perfection here, just trying to decipher meaning from silence so I can figure out where they stand.

More importantly, where you stand.

And if we're believers in liberal democracies, we're believers in religious freedom. — Baden

No. If we're believers in liberal democracies, we're believers in religious superficialism: "It's okay to be religious, you can be any religion you want, as long as you don't take it all that seriously."

There is a tendency among beleaguered minorities to never criticize one another publicly. — Hanover

It could be that, or it's simply that such criticism would in some cases amount to interfering with the internal affairs of another country.

Moreover, perhaps they don't think there is anything to criticize.

It's an ill fated strategy based upon strength in numbers, but it predictably destroys credibility to the entire group. — Hanover

You think they care whether you find them credible or not?

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

The angle I would take wouldn't focus excusively on Islam but use this event as an example of a wider problem--extreme religious fundamentalism, which is a stain that bleeds across different religions in different ways and is destructive in different ways. But getting back to the OP, I think it's absolutely right to expect loud condemnations from Muslim clerics worldwide. — Baden

1.

The government of Iran is an Islamic theocracy that includes elements of a presidential democracy, with the ultimate authority vested in an autocratic "Supreme Leader";[26] a position held by Ali Khamenei since Khomeini's death in 1989.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

2. Iran is a sovereign country.

3. Iran doesn't have a secular legal system the way Western secular countries typically do.

For a foreign country to interfere with a decision issued by the Iranian Supreme Leader would be a case of said foreign country interfering with Iran's internal affairs.

Iran effectively declared Rushdie to be an enemy of the state of Iran. As a sovereign country, it has the right to do that.


But the real issue is that secularists believe that Iran's fatwa was somehow frivolous. Leaking classified military documents and diplomatic cables is bad enough to consider someone an enemy of the state, but saying disrespectful things about a religious figure is somehow not. This is how secularists deny the autonomy of the religious.

Just dressed up nihilism.
— Xtrix

Wrong again.. At least get your terms correct. Nihilism in ethics, it he belief in no values. A nihilist wouldn't give a fuck if you procreated or not. They generally don't take positions that put values on things. Rather, it is philosophical pessimism, and it's not dressed up. — schopenhauer1

Ironically, both the antinatalists as well as the natalists are still firmly immersed in the pursuit of sensual pleasures, they differ only in which types of sensual pleasures they pursue.
The pursuit of sensual pleasures necessarily entails suffering.

Whether it is or isn't enough really is up to you. It's your relationship to the world, to yourself, to your emotions and needs and people. There is no "reason" someone can give you to make you feel any differently about those. The unjust thing about this world is that it's probably not even your fault you feel this way -- but because it's your life, your emotions, your desire, well... it still falls to you to learn how to live with it. — Moliere

A person doesn't live in a socio-psychological vaccum. Thus neither the existential problem nor the solution to it are within the person's power.

In a sense food lost its numero uno position in re labor to second place, below other more, let's just say, sublime aforementioned activities. To me this is a significant upgrade to the status of work which should matter — Agent Smith

On the contrary. People generally don't value food production enough, hence the abuse of the planet.

Come on. We're talking about matters of life and death. Guessing isn't good enough.
— baker

It's all we've got. What's your alternative?

I either guess which course of action/inaction will cause least suffering or I just act randomly. I prefer the guess. — Isaac

To begin with, it's not clear how to quantify hardship and suffering (importantly, the two should be distinguished one from the other). Do you measure them in dollars lost, in sighs? So the point seems moot from the onset.

Further, in the same external circumstances, one person suffers a lot, and the other suffers less. For one person, living in poverty is agonizing, for another, it's not. How do you explain that difference?

How do you decide what kind of material comfort is relevant? Did the peasants in 15th century Europe suffer as much a modern day person probably would if they suddenly had to live that kind of peasant lifestyle? Why exactly should a 15th century peasant lifestyle not be regarded as "good enough"?

I either guess which course of action/inaction will cause least suffering or I just act randomly.

It's not clear it's possible to act "randomly", although it's certainly possible to retrospectively classify one's action as "random". As far as I can see, people always act out of some motive, and usually, this is the pursuit of sensual pleasures. At that, they act in line with their current assessment of which sensual pleasure will be greater and thus, which one to pursue. As such, they live in a tightly interlinked net of their pursuits of various sensual pleasures and the results or consequences of those as they take place.

Well, people have had some silly ideas about right and wrong, so I don't see why that should be any concern of mine unless their ideas are supported by arguments that can be scrutinized. — Tzeentch

It should be your concern when those people act on those ideas, and you're on the receiving end, and not in a good sense.

I also don't see how my stance, if it can even be called that, could be genuinely classified as evil.

I wonder about that too. Clearly, some people think the antinatalist stance is all kinds of wrong (from psychopathic to evil). Although they generally refuse to present a clear case, in fact, they generally refuse to discuss the matter in any depth.

Still, if your take on the matter is right, then we need to explain how come not everyone thinks that way (and what to do with the differences).

Twisting of how language works...

Conditions X are a necessity of Y state of affairs.

Someone brought about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.

Someone could NOT bring about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.

Being born (Y) ALWAYS entails X (working in some manner to survive). One doesn't just "come into existence" without someone else making this happen. Some act had to be done previously.. decided upon or allowed to happen, etc. THIS situation is how I am using "forced". It is obvious how it is used. I shouldn't have to explain it like this, but since cases are being made from nothing, I'll do it to appease my pedantic interlocutors (even though they know themselves how I am using it).
— schopenhauer1

Except that some people are happy to be alive (in fact, they're so happy that they wish you'd die).

How do you explain the difference between yourself and them?

Your little eeyore video simply implicitly extolls common decency, while your religion/spirituality promotes the pursuit of sensual pleasures. (The pursuit of sensual pleasures which is inevitably linked to the destruction of other living beings: animals, plants, other people.)

You yet have to show that you're not another one of Sisyphus' waterboys.

Why would that be odd? Isn't widely differing ideas pretty much the norm for humanity? — Tzeentch

No. There is a trend toward uniformity.
And normally, one stance is considered normal, right, and all others less or more wrong, evil, pathological.

How do you quantify suffering?
— baker

Guess. — Isaac

Come on. We're talking about matters of life and death. Guessing isn't good enough.

It doesn't have to be interpreted as a negative take or mod judgement on the subject. E.g. We could say it's more convenient and efficient to have everything in one discussion. Anyhow, it took me years of careful consideration and preparation to come up with this cunning plan, so I'm not for backing down now. — Baden

Your point, while perhaps a fair one, seems not to have affected my position. — Jamal

Unfortunately, forums like this are the only place where this topic can be discussed in an at least half-way meaningful manner for ordinary people. Meawhile, the trend toward a favorable attitude toward assisted suicide and euthanasia continues. And with that, a favoring of a superficial take on the topic of "meaning of life". What is more, people who are supposedly happy with life nonchalantly advise others to kill themselves if they're not too keen on living. One would hope moderators would neither give such advice, nor passively approve of it.

My impression based on the arguments that have been put forward suggest to me most are comfortable with keeping a double standard, and feel no necessity to apply their moral principles consistently. — Tzeentch

But how come you're different than those people?

I never thought of my position of having to do with materialism. You'll need to elaborate on that one.

You don't believe in, for example, "souls" and "life after death", do you?

I don't find the other arguments logically coherent and consistent. I am not seeking to change people's minds or judge them in some way, I am just putting forward and testing ideas to the best of my ability. I don't see what there is to justify.

Don't you find it odd that different people have so widely differing ideas about some topics, specifically, procreation?

Not really, so far they are facts not beliefs. Anything saying you are not the body hasn't held up very well — Darkneos

You are your brain Baker. We've known that for decades in science now. Its not a debate. Scoop the brain out of someone and that aspect of the brain that was them is gone. It is only your imagination and hope that somehow you will continue on after death. You will not. That is fact. — Philosophim

This is a philosophy forum. This includes philosophy of science.

The OP's problem comes precisely from a lack of appreciation for the philosophy of science, and an uncritical internalization of particular scientific and popularly held claims.

I'm mainly concerned about, in a manner of speaking, junk files - they do consume valuable real estate, oui monsieur? — Agent Smith

It's not clear they do.
You're not Kelly Bundy, are you?

How do you explain that not everyone thinks the way you do about procreation?

If your position is one of materialism or something similar (as it seems to be), then how do you explain the differences in the outlook that people have on life?

And on what grounds do you justify the relevance of those differences?

I also think there's no moral problem with that because we're talking about consequences (things that you cause, effects you have on the future) and as far as consequences are concerned, having children reduces suffering more than it creates it. — Isaac

How do you quantify suffering?

And irrelevant of your status of being either a civilian or not, you might be shot, captured, tortured and injured in war. — ssu

That can happen to you in war regardless whether you're a civilian or a soldier. It can also happen to you regardless whether there is officially war or not.

And anyway, you'll probably suffer more harm from capitalists and mean neighbors in peace time than you'd do in a war from an invading force.

@rossii What should I live for or how should I live?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13302/page/p1

A person doesn't live in a socio-psychological vacuum, therefore, the answer to this question cannot be idiosyncratic.

Both created you, of necessity. Neither were done to you. — Isaac

Exactly.

We'd have to venture into a more "exotic cosmogony" in order to be able to coherently claim that the injustice of birth is done _to_ someone.

An "exotic cosmogony" like the one where living beings happily exist as "disembodied souls", but who can be embodied against their will by the act of someone else.

Stuff takes time ...

What causes life to turn on life? — ChatteringMonkey

Not enough return upon investment.

Contrary to the belief of capitalists and assorted others, people do not have an infinite willingness to invest any amount of effort, however great, into obtaining any amount of sensual pleasure, however small. You will not work the entire day just for a morsel of food.

Yes, but it exists to gather all the anti-life stuff in one place, so that it can be easily ignored. Until Baden merged them all into this thread, there were at least two or three such active discussions. We've had enough. Containment seems like the best option. — Jamal

Given the global trend toward legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia, will you rethink your negative take on the "anti-life stuff"?