Philosophy Now Forum

"you're welcome to try me. bring your axe and everything you've got... and don't forget to write your will."

In other words: 'my life, my being, my existing, is important enough to me to fight for, to fight to preserve'. So: all your talk about 'not existing' being superior to 'existing' is a load of dung.

henry quirk wrote:"you're welcome to try me. bring your axe and everything you've got... and don't forget to write your will."

In other words: 'my life, my being, my existing, is important enough to me to fight for, to fight to preserve'. So: all your talk about 'not existing' being superior to 'existing' is a load of dung.

superior philosophical argument, henry. impeccable reasoning. in fact, you've gotten me to reconsider my position on determinism, as well. even though freewill is logically impossible, i might start believing in it again, simply because of your infallible logic. well done! very impressive!

Al,

How am I wrong?

You claim 'not being' is superior to 'being', have expressed a distaste for your own life, have said you're looking for a way out, but then say you're willing to fight to preserve your life.

Surely you see the inconsistency, yes?

Again: how am I wrong?

Explain it to me...slowly...simply.

henry quirk wrote:Al,

How am I wrong?

You claim 'not being' is superior to 'being', have expressed a distaste for your own life, have said you're looking for a way out, but then say you're willing to fight to preserve your life.

Surely you see the inconsistency, yes?

Again: how am I wrong?

Explain it to me...slowly...simply.

ok, since you asked nicely, i'll explain... slowly.

1- my main argument about nonexistence being superior to existence is a philosophical one, which has nothing to do with my circumstances. i said that something that doesn't exist has absolutely no needs, whereas something that does exist has countless needs. even if the existing thing had all its needs met, it would still be inferior to something that had absolutely no needs at all. now compare that to something that has a million needs, with only a fraction of them met.

2- what i said to that parasite fella, wasn't to say "i'll fight you because i don't wanna die". it was simply to put him in his place. in addition to that, i have no desire to be killed (or worse, mutilated) with an axe.

3- i didn't exactly say i was looking for a way out. i already know how i wanna do it; i just don't have the means yet. like i said, it must be done properly, and since you're not in the "suicide business", i'd appreciate you not giving me advice and suggestions, as i've done much research on the matter. cutting one's wrists is one of the stupidest ways to do it, both because of a very low success rate, and pain, duration, permanent side effects if one survives (most do survive), etc.. not to mention how grizzly and disgusting it is.

i'm asking you nicely, henry, drop it. i'm not interested in discussing this further, with you, or explaining myself to you, or that parasite.

"drop it"

I've never, in the entirity of my time in forums, ever had someone ask me to leave it be.

I have no choice but to respect your wish.

For the record: it was never my intent to make light of what is, it seems, a weighty thing for you.

I really do believe 'here' is better for you than 'not here', but it's your life and I can't say what's in your best interest.

Good luck, truly.

thanks, henry, i appreciate it.

Lacewing wrote:It’s often like a den of rattlesnakes. I was horrified upon arrival... but now I find it good training/transformational ground and a good/humorous release for my own venom... for a little while at least.

I'm still in the horrified stage :)

Lacewing wrote:It seems that the most natural evolvement/progression would ultimately be towards improvement, refinement, expansion, etc. The “unconsciousness” that we see in humanity at present seems like an “exploratory-but-sure-to-fail state” (and it’s infectious). There certainly appears to be significant advancement toward greater/increased consciousness occurring as well. There is so much that we ALL don’t see on many, many levels. It’s always easier to recognize that when looking at those who appear “less conscious” than ourselves... because perhaps we know that language (from travelling through it).

Many would argue against the idea of progression but the development of the Earth and the universe make compelling evidence. We are optimistic but many here aren't.

Alpha wrote: i want everyone to consider this: having absolutely no needs (as is the case for something that's nonexistent) is superior to something (existent) that has many completely satisfied needs.

I can see your point for the unlucky ones who are leading terrible lives but I wouldn't swap my lucky life for non existence. As with many, my life has been terrible at times but I've now had an extended good period, which became especially pleasant once I retired. I'll ride the wave while it lasts and hope it lasts longer than tomorrow. I wake up when I like, go bushwalking with the dog, bum around on the net, see family and friends, make music, make love, sometimes go out for meals or see shows. There's some graft, health problems and random hassles but I can't imagine why I want to swap this life for non-existence.

Besides, if we truly believe that this is all there is, what is there to lose? If there's truly nothing before life and nothing after it, why should life be considered any kind of problem? Most rationalists I know would see life more or less as a brief window of opportunity that's framed by nothingness. I neither agree or disagree with them because I don't know.

Alpha wrote: i want everyone to consider this: having absolutely no needs (as is the case for something that's nonexistent) is superior to something (existent) that has many completely satisfied needs.

Greta wrote:I can see your point for the unlucky ones who are leading terrible lives but I wouldn't swap my lucky life for non existence. As with many, my life has been terrible at times but I've now had an extended good period, which became especially pleasant once I retired. I'll ride the wave while it lasts and hope it lasts longer than tomorrow. I wake up when I like, go bushwalking with the dog, bum around on the net, see family and friends, make music, make love, sometimes go out for meals or see shows. There's some graft, health problems and random hassles but I can't imagine why I want to swap this life for non-existence.

Besides, if we truly believe that this is all there is, what is there to lose? If there's truly nothing before life and nothing after it, why should life be considered any kind of problem? Most rationalists I know would see life more or less as a brief window of opportunity that's framed by nothingness. I neither agree or disagree with them because I don't know.

i guess some people just don't quite understand how 'needless' is superior to 'needy'.

another matter is that if one's ambitions are no more than walking a dog, or seeing family, etc., then if these needs are met, they'd consider life worthwhile. those who've set their sights higher, on the other hand, would have a much harder time seeing any worth in this existence.

Greta wrote:

Lacewing wrote:It’s often like a den of rattlesnakes. I was horrified upon arrival... but now I find it good training/transformational ground and a good/humorous release for my own venom... for a little while at least.

I'm still in the horrified stage

I admit, it still comes and goes for me, although much less-so than initially. Lately I seem more inclined to set it aside and not miss it when it's not making me laugh or inspiring me.

Alpha wrote:I guess some people just don't quite understand how 'needless' is superior to 'needy'.

Well, of course, you are assigning values and labels as YOU see them (what you think is needless, and what you think is needy)... which understandably cannot be a universal standard. I do this a lot myself.

Alpha wrote:if one's ambitions are no more than walking a dog, or seeing family, etc., then if these needs are met, they'd consider life worthwhile. those who've set their sights higher, on the other hand, would have a much harder time seeing any worth in this existence.

"Set their sights HIGHER??" According to whom and what? Glimpses of the vastness and depth of the universe can be experienced in a teacup or a blade of grass. My most pivotal cosmic revelations in life have been while doing very simple and natural things. Sight is not dependent on specific things or activities of this world. Rather, it is probably more about seeing and realizing BEYOND what is in front of us (i.e. beyond the distractions and illusions and intoxication). Activities, religions, credentials, all of it... surely pale in comparison to who/what a person actually is and does with their energy... yes?

All of life including ourselves appear to have many, many layers. What could be a greater adventure to experience and explore than that, since we find ourselves here? Perhaps our "suffering" is simply a side-effect of whatever layer we think we're stuck with at any given time. Why would there NOT be so much more than we can fathom at any given time? And why would we have no interest in seeing what there might be beyond where we are?

Alpha wrote:I guess some people just don't quite understand how 'needless' is superior to 'needy'.

Lacewing wrote:Well, of course, you are assigning values and labels as YOU see them (what you think is needless, and what you think is needy)... which understandably cannot be a universal standard. I do this a lot myself.

this can be easily resolved with two super simple questions; 1- does something nonexistent need anything? 2- does something existent (such as humans) have needs? what you do a lot, has nothing to do with what i do.

Alpha wrote:if one's ambitions are no more than walking a dog, or seeing family, etc., then if these needs are met, they'd consider life worthwhile. those who've set their sights higher, on the other hand, would have a much harder time seeing any worth in this existence.

Lacewing wrote:"Set their sights HIGHER??" According to whom and what? Glimpses of the vastness and depth of the universe can be experienced in a teacup or a blade of grass.

if you can see all that in a cup of tea and grass, you're a much more enlightened person than i am.

Lacewing wrote:My most pivotal cosmic revelations in life have been while doing very simple and natural things.

"cosmic revelations? wow! we're not all prophets, or spiritual grandmasters, so "cosmic revelations" is a foreign concept to us.

Lacewing wrote:Sight is not dependent on specific things or activities of this world. Rather, it is probably more about seeing and realizing BEYOND what is in front of us (i.e. beyond the distractions and illusions and intoxication).

my thoughts exactly; which is why some of us consider this world worthless.

Lacewing wrote:Activities, religions, credentials, all of it... surely pale in comparison to who/what a person actually is and does with their energy... yes?

this is based on the unsubstantiated idea of "freewill", so naturally, i disagree.

Lacewing wrote:All of life including ourselves appear to have many, many layers. What could be a greater adventure to experience and explore than that, since we find ourselves here? Perhaps our "suffering" is simply a side-effect of whatever layer we think we're stuck with at any given time. Why would there NOT be so much more than we can fathom at any given time? And why would we have no interest in seeing what there might be beyond where we are?

perhaps i lack imagination, and need things spelled out for me. if there is much more than i can fathom, someone (universe/god/etc.) should show me. i'm not clairvoyant.

alpha wrote:I guess some people just don't quite understand how 'needless' is superior to 'needy'.

Lacewing wrote:Well, of course, you are assigning values and labels as YOU see them (what you think is needless, and what you think is needy)... which understandably cannot be a universal standard. I do this a lot myself.

alpha wrote:this can be easily resolved with two super simple questions; 1- does something nonexistent need anything? 2- does something existent (such as humans) have needs?

I don't think those questions "resolve" anything. I think the question that is more telling is "WHO defines the idea of superior"? You are the one deciding whether needs are good or bad. For some people, needs may be an awesome experience compared to nothing.

alpha wrote:what you do a lot, has nothing to do with what i do.

In most cases, I'm sure that's true! But I was talking about "assigning values and labels as you see them" -- are you denying that you do such a thing?

Lacewing wrote:"Set their sights HIGHER??" According to whom and what? Glimpses of the vastness and depth of the universe can be experienced in a teacup or a blade of grass.

alpha wrote:if you can see all that in a cup of tea and grass, you're a much more enlightened person than i am.

Well, from what I've experienced... it's all there, and everywhere, all the time. It's just a matter of attuning to see/sense/be it. I've only had it in brief glimpses... but it's like a peek behind the curtain of all our judgments, fears, separatist ideas... and you cannot "unsee" it. That is why I think there is so much more than we are currently clued into.

Lacewing wrote:My most pivotal cosmic revelations in life have been while doing very simple and natural things.

alpha wrote:"cosmic revelations? wow! we're not all prophets, or spiritual grandmasters, so "cosmic revelations" is a foreign concept to us.

That's just my colorful language to describe something beyond our typical thinking and concepts. What seems more of a FOREIGN concept to me is that we would think that what we are currently attuned to see is all there is.

Lacewing wrote:Sight is not dependent on specific things or activities of this world. Rather, it is probably more about seeing and realizing BEYOND what is in front of us (i.e. beyond the distractions and illusions and intoxication).

alpha wrote:my thoughts exactly; which is why some of us consider this world worthless.

And which is why some of us consider this world/life intriguing and worthwhile. We don't "toss it" based on surface appearance at any point in time.

Lacewing wrote:Activities, religions, credentials, all of it... surely pale in comparison to who/what a person actually is and does with their energy... yes?

alpha wrote:this is based on the unsubstantiated idea of "freewill", so naturally, i disagree.

Really? You think all that surface stuff identifies the person?

Lacewing wrote:Why would there NOT be so much more than we can fathom at any given time? And why would we have no interest in seeing what there might be beyond where we are?

alpha wrote:perhaps i lack imagination, and need things spelled out for me. if there is much more than i can fathom, someone (universe/god/etc.) should show me. i'm not clairvoyant.

Has humankind expanded it's understanding and awareness over time? Could you have fathomed everything you know now at age 2... or age 18? WHY WOULD YOU EVEN BE THINKING THAT THERE'S NOT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE STILL THAT YOU DON'T FATHOM? Please explain this to me. I honestly don't understand what kind of logic people are using to be convinced that they've arrived at their monumental point of seeing and "knowing", considering ALL there is over the span of time (and one's life) that would so easily and obviously suggest otherwise.

Thanks.

alpha wrote:i guess some people just don't quite understand how 'needless' is superior to 'needy'.

That reminds me of Buddhist thought. Buddhism originated in Asia, which has been crowded, competitive, dangerous and uncomfortable for a long time. In context, the notion of non-existence being preferable is logical.

However, the ancient Asiatics lacked modern means so they did what they could to be happy. Since they couldn't avoid significant problems in the physical world they worked on their mental world. If they could eliminate the ego/self they could at least create the feeling of non existence, free from life's trials.

The ego is deeply involved in two areas of life - safety and pain. Meditation was traditionally a risky pastime because one is obviously less alert to threats while meditating than if fearfully watching and waiting. Being absorbed, "in the zone" or Zen - the temporary disappearance of the self while absorbed in a task - is similarly risky. The sculptor absorbed in creation on a rural property will be less likely to notice a killer creeping up on her from behind than one who is fearfully sitting on her balcony, nervously making sure her loaded gun is nearby.

Who will live longer - the sculptor or the vigilant defender? Who is having the better time? Who is taking the greatest risk? I would say that the sculptor will probably live longer, is having a better time and taking less of a risk (the other risk being wasting your life with pointless hypervigilance).

People have long wondered why a deity would bother making an imperfect creation that had to struggle its way to perfection. Why not do a proper job from the start and save everyone a lot of time and trouble? Nearly every single organism on the planet that's every lived is dead. 93% of humans who have been born are dead. No doubt most suffered in ways we have never known before they died. For what did all these innocents suffer and die?

Wouldn't it be so much easier if none of it happened? It would seem easier. The problem for nihilists is that, irregardless of their druthers, all this does exist. Things don't come into existence for no reason. There is always an underlying pressure that leads to larger events. I expect that before the big bang was some kind of built up pressure in the existent reality beforehand. Likewise, irresistible chemical pressures seemingly preceded abiogenesis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElMqwgkXguw.

So, it would have not have been easier if nothing and no one existed. There would have been an unsustainable buildup of pressure of "something" and it had to be released. This is how reality arrives - either gradually or in sudden bursts when progress is stoppered for a while and then explosively released. This natural dynamic is echoed by capacitors in electronics, combustion engines, volcanoes, supernovas, many things.

So, since this life and existence appear to have always been necessary and inevitable, it makes sense to focus mostly on the good rather than the negative. Besides, we don't know what happens when we die so we don't ultimately know how helpful or harmful death is.

alpha wrote:another matter is that if one's ambitions are no more than walking a dog, or seeing family, etc., then if these needs are met, they'd consider life worthwhile. those who've set their sights higher, on the other hand, would have a much harder time seeing any worth in this existence.

If your "depth" is making you miserable then it's not true depth, but illusory. I am old enough to have been there done that. I had plans when I was young and I fancied myself as smarter and deeper than most too. Then I gradually opened my eyes and started to notice the depths and intelligence present in others that I'd been too self absorbed to notice. That's where you appear to be up to, no offence meant. I wasn't a bad person when I thought that way either, but ego was an issue that I needed to resolve to better enjoy life.

BTW, I have actually done a smidgen more with my life prior to retirement than bushwalking with the dog. Bushwalking with a canine friend is an extremely pleasant and grounding activity. Try it.

Is death a harm?

Is this even a question? Death is a fact of which no questions need be asked.

In the past fortnight I've been to three funerals, all of people I've known for over thirty years. Funerals are not for the dead. Only death is for the dead. Funerals are for the living to find meaning in being alive.

You're quite right, Greta. Walking in the bush with the dog is a good example of such a meaning and I always do plenty of that. Today is my grandson's birthday, which is another good example. There are many such examples and the secret of living is to find them and embrace them.

alpha wrote: 1- my main argument about nonexistence being superior to existence is a philosophical one, which has nothing to do with my circumstances. i said that something that doesn't exist has absolutely no needs, whereas something that does exist has countless needs. even if the existing thing had all its needs met, it would still be inferior to something that had absolutely no needs at all. now compare that to something that has a million needs, with only a fraction of them met. ...

Er!? Philosophically something can't be inferior to something that doesn't exist? No needs or not.

3- i didn't exactly say i was looking for a way out. i already know how i wanna do it; i just don't have the means yet. like i said, it must be done properly, and since you're not in the "suicide business", i'd appreciate you not giving me advice and suggestions, as i've done much research on the matter. cutting one's wrists is one of the stupidest ways to do it, both because of a very low success rate, and pain, duration, permanent side effects if one survives (most do survive), etc.. not to mention how grizzly and disgusting it is.

You saving to buy a car?

Still, slitting ones wrists in a nice bath works perfectly well if you slit downwards. The ones that survive this do so because they tell someone they are going to do it or change their minds once they start.

alpha wrote:... those who've set their sights higher, on the other hand, would have a much harder time seeing any worth in this existence.

Surely not? As they have lofty sights to aim for. Are you saying it's because they can't achieve them? If so they should learn to set realistic achievable ones.