What some posters also don't get is that a paradise is still a paradise, even if it is unobtainable. The question wasn't "Is paradise attainable', but "What is paradise?". — schopenhauer1

But, it has to be in some sense 'attainable' for anyone to even entertain it as being realistic?

"growth-through-adversity" (The Standard Model of Natalism) — schopenhauer1

Is there any other way to state it (life, suffering, existence, etc.)? I tend to think it's a brute fact of existence, no?

It is a gross generalization to assume that the Standard Model of growth-through-adversity is what is necessary to be experienced by anyone, period. — schopenhauer1

But, the difference here lays in stating a fact that life is inherently full of suffering and adversity, rather than pointing out that life without suffering would be preferable. Even the Buddhists would seemingly agree here to some extent. (Although, I've always treated the notion of pure bliss that is the cathartic state of being that is Nirvana as a sort of jump discontinuity in being itself)... A sort of metaphysical solipsism.

Maybe people don't demand enough when it comes to thinking about putting more people into the world. — schopenhauer1

Isn't that put simply a gross overgeneralization?

Well, given your awareness of all of those problems, why would you conclude that you'd prefer it over what you do know?! You'd risk a nightmarish existence, like in one of those "be careful what you wish for" horror films? — S

But, would a life with suffering be worse-off than the idealistic notion of a life without suffering (Nirvana)?*

*Conversely also...

You haven't made clear your thinking about what I said: whether you agree with my prediction, disagree with it, aren't sure one way or the other... — S

I can only speak for myself here I suppose, so I would amend my comment to the sort of statement of fact, that I would prefer to live a life without suffering. But, we then digress into wishful thinking, and the near-incomprehensible notion of what such a life would look like(?)

You're not interested enough to do so yourself, then? Even though you were the one who seemed to be offering up that speculation about how most people would respond as some sort of support behind the notion that a life without suffering is preferable. — S

I am satisfied with this thread. If you aren't, then go ahead and start the poll.

For the matter, I should also point out that it's a near impossibility to asses such a sentiment. Ask me why...

Why don't you do create a poll on the forum? My money would be that most people on the forum would choose a life with suffering, because a life without it would be much worse. It would be horrible. And I think most people on this forum would be intelligent enough to realise that. — S

If you're sincere, then go ahead and start one, just to asses the reasonableness of our lot, hereabouts.

Now all you have to do is actually explain why you think that. — S

Because it elucidates under what conditions an antinatalist would allow one to procreate or not? Surely, you can see some merit to assessing that, rather than arguing over how much this world sucks...

My contention here seems to be of the sort, in what kind of world would it be justified to have children. For the matter, I don't plan to have children *Wallows proceeds to feel as though he has taken a big burden off his shoulders*...

I also don't think it is sane to procreate with defects that could be passed on to one's offspring (hence my eugenics quip).

But, life is fundamentally rife with disappointment and struggle, and if we assume that this is true regardless of fantastical or wishful thinking, then I suppose there is no other way to put it than state that the antinatalist simply demands too much from themselves or others in order to procreate.

I want challenges, and frankly, even some drama. — Coben

Well, here I chime in and to the defence of schopenhauer1 (which has been extremely dogged in his asymmetric and symmetric notions of suffering) would say that suffering is a choice. If one were allowed to choose between a life with suffering (which can be called even a brute fact of existence), then I again suppose that most people would coffer a choice of no suffering. See the idealism here with respect to an existence in the "real" and "paradise" world?

Hmm, requesting bannings of other members is forbidden. lol

And if anyone for whatever reason can't tolerate the notion of a paradise, then just talk about "perfect worlds".

What is it with people in this discussion and avoiding direct questions? Are you in training to become a politician? — S

Ok, so your talking about intentions here I suppose?

My main point with the notion of a paradise where an antinatalist would actually allow one to procreate is an abstraction of the highest sort. If you fail to see any merit in discussing a perfect world where an antinatalist would actually allow procreation on their part is a failing on your part I assume.

You don't see any merit in my reply to what he said, or you don't see any merit in what he said? — S

Well, I think it is elucidating in what set of circumstances an antinatalist would warrant procreation, even if that means imagining perfect worlds or such...

Well, I am addressing your concern wrt. my sentiment or question as to what kind of conditions are permissible to have children to an antinatalist. Which, then evolved into imagining a possible state of affairs (utopias, paradise, etc.) where an antinatalist would feel comfortable in having children...

Why would anyone with any sense see any merit in that sort of abstract, unrealistic, nonsensical speculation? — S

Hah, coming from a philosophy forum, I don't see any merit to this.

I will have to meditate over your last two responses @Possibility and @Noble Dust...

@unenlightened what do you think?

Also, I did say paradise can be choosing as much adversity as you want..testing it out and leaving it when be :). — schopenhauer1

Well, that's just silly. If one were to have the capacity to tolerate adversity, and yet choose to live a life full of comfort, then I don't see how anyone would willingly choose to tolerate adversity. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too?

Well, you leave no room for adversity, and this flies against any commonsensical notion of what life is.

More fundamentalism, eh? :roll:

I'm not sure what that means. Antinatalism is not about eugenics. It's an equal opportunity no birth movement :lol: . — schopenhauer1

Well, I was concerned with the circumstances that would allow procreation? A communist utopia? No predetermined defects?

I'm more concerned about the circumstances that would allow one to procreate without adherence to eugenics or such rubbish?

At the least, antinatalism is providing a template to understand why we are continuing existence. Just stop to think about it. WHY are we perpetuating more people? I am not talking the dull, brute way nature fools us into it (sex feels good and this leads to procreation), but in a philosophically-informed way. What are we trying to do here perpetuating more people? People just don't consider this at all. It is even more existentially relevant than why continue living. It is rooted in the very questioning of ANY human existence, not just your own and thus implies much more about life itself. — schopenhauer1

Is there a moderate version of antinatalism that can be applied here?

OK, so I just stumbled upon Third Way politics in the US, and it perfectly describes what I've been getting at hereabouts.

Thoughts?

Nice post @Possibility.

But to accept suffering is not to wallow in it as such, or wear it like a badge of martyrdom, waving it in people’s faces as if I am the only one who suffers. To accept suffering in our lives is to simply absorb it and move on as if it’s just part of life. — Possibility

I feel as though wallowing is the appropriate response if life truly is suffering. One has to understand that the frantic pace we set ourselves and are imposed by society as necessary, are actually quite detrimental to one's life and way of being. It is this haphazard push for more, that is harmful actually. And, I suppose Cynicism deserves a mention here. One can either become cynical or compassionate at the suffering of others. Is there a third way?

Degrees upon degrees of batshittery.

Yet, this thread isn't about me. More of a feel-good, me-too?

Have you experienced something similar?

Yes, one wonders if @schopenhauer1 is a nice bloke in real life.

A whole bunch of things. — S

Like what? Is it manifest in language or one's POV?

And what else can be said about them?

I suppose I understand what you are saying; but, the illogical aspect of it is our desire to be happy all the time with respect to a world that doesn't accommodate such states of being all the time.

A problem with no solution, as they seem to think...

No problem in my mind...

But, aren't in contradiction in stating that a person ought to live up to an ideal, yet subterfuge into negative attitudes?

Well, it was a phase for me too. We tend to raise children in controlled and positive environments where they will flourish or self actualize. So, I suppose the acquaintance with dark moods is a sort of reality check. But, then one has to move on from such darkness, no?

I think it feels good. — Coben

In what way?

ARe you at a unviersity? — Coben

Not yet. Thinking about it, kinda.

Well, not always. But, for those who do, it's an interesting case study why they would indulge in such dark emotive states of existence (attitudes).

Angst, futility, psychological fatalism, absurdism, etc.

Need I say more?

A healthy wallow is in order.

Wallow!