Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:No, Christian. Nothing else matters.

You've apparently not read your religious history nor any 'intellectual' history, whatever that is?

Arising_uk wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Meaning takers. Hey, do what you want with it, Arising. I'm not stopping you. But know that your reply to IC is just a regurgitation of a Nietzschean theme of life-affirmation in the face of lack of true meaning, and I've never bought into that.

Is that because you believe in a 'God'?

No, because anything else is not rational. I just following arguments to conclusions. And whatever the conclusion is, needs accepting, whether or not I'm happy with it.

Dalek Prime wrote:No, because anything else is not rational. I just following arguments to conclusions. And whatever the conclusion is, needs accepting, whether or not I'm happy with it.

Pardon? you think it rational that the theists 'God' exists but then don't believe in 'it'?

Arising_uk wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:No, because anything else is not rational. I just following arguments to conclusions. And whatever the conclusion is, needs accepting, whether or not I'm happy with it.

Pardon? you think it rational that the theists 'God' exists but then don't believe in 'it'?

No. Technically I should be an agnostic. At times I waver in favour of a useless god who has not my interests at heart. At other times, I doubt his existence. But I'm always sincere however I waver.

Oh, I see what you mean, Arising. No, I'm not saying belief in god is rational. I'm saying belief in meaning, without a foundation such as god, is not rational.

Dalek Prime wrote:Oh, I see what you mean, Arising. No, I'm not saying belief in god is rational. I'm saying belief in meaning, without a foundation such as god, is not rational.

Now, see, that I can respect. Good on you for your courage and intellectual honesty, Dalek. My hat's off to you, whether we agree or not.

Thank you IC. You have my respect as well. I wish I had half your capabilities of reasoning and debate. I appreciate what you write, whether I agree or not. I know its well considered.

What I've said about meaning, brings me back to why I am an antinatalist. I won't subject any progeny to a world without meaning, or one where I do not agree with the meaning. It is an ethical form of personal nihilism which is acceptable to me, and harms none.

Which brings me also to the difference between a nihilist and an antinatalist. We both acknowledge a deficit of meaning, but an antinatalist cares about suffering (inclusive existential), which is experiential, and seeks to limit it. A nihilist does not care about suffering, all things being meaningless to him.

In a very strong sense, I am very much akin to Hindus and Buddhists, who seek relief from Samsara. I just take a more direct approach to ending the Dharmic cycle, by recognizing its roots in birth, and taking action upon it.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox.

Dalek Prime wrote:What I've said about meaning, brings me back to why I am an antinatalist.

Interesting. The concept you hold of Dharma (duty) -- do you ground it in anything particular? Like, to what is the duty owed, and how is it paid?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:What I've said about meaning, brings me back to why I am an antinatalist.

Interesting. The concept you hold of Dharma (duty) -- do you ground it in anything particular? Like, to what is the duty owed, and how is it paid?

Sorry, I was merely comparing the similarities, and using their terms, perhaps inappropriately or off-meaning, to explain how we differ. I'm not saying I accept their ideas. I use one way off the "wheel of life" ie. by not procreating. They have others, meditation, etc. Is that any clearer? I don't accept that I have duty in a meaningless world, except perhaps to not perpetuate meaninglessness. But I am seeking what they might term moksha or nirvana, but what I call nothingness or oblivion.

I don't like suffering. I personally know it exists, at least in my frame of reference. I do not wish to extend that to others who needn't experience it. Hence I do not procreate.

Please ask me to clarify if need be, IC. I realize I'm all over the place with this. Some days are better than others.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:What I've said about meaning, brings me back to why I am an antinatalist.

Interesting. The concept you hold of Dharma (duty) -- do you ground it in anything particular? Like, to what is the duty owed, and how is it paid?

Sorry, I was merely comparing the similarities, and using their terms, perhaps inappropriately or off-meaning, to explain how we differ. I'm not saying I accept their ideas. I use one way off the "wheel of life". They have others, meditation, etc. Is that any clearer? I don't accept that I have duty in a meaningless world, except perhaps to not perpetuate meaninglessness. But I am seeking what they might term moksha or nirvana, but what I call nothingness or oblivion.

I don't like suffering. I personally know it exists, at least in my frame of reference. I do not wish to extend that to others who needn't experrience it. Hence I do not procreate.

Please ask me to clarify if need be, IC. I realize I'm all over the place with this. Some days are better than others.

DP, I can see now that your Antinatalism is a bit of pessimism toward the world, which is in opposition to my own optimism about the world. I suppose that is why I have had no hesitation about producing the next generation, and being happy about the one following. It seems that where I see joy in the following generations, you only see despair and suffering. I suppose it goes back to the way you were brought up. Please tell me if I am wrong about that.

FYI, I don't see suffering and misery in the lives of those around me, but joy and happiness, perhaps the misery is on another level.

Perhaps if you are looking for suffering, that is what you will find. If you look for joy and happiness, that is what you will find. Maybe its all in what you are looking for.

Partially correct Doc. But it's not despair I feel. I feel joy at my investigations in this field, which are akin to revelations. And as I've progressed, I've discovered other reasons beyond the teleological above for my attitudes and beliefs towards birth. But what I was saying about my views of suffering coincide with Dharmic religion's views, and we both want the same thing; an end to the cycle of birth and rebirth or, in my terms, perpetuation by birth, (not believing in reincarnation, personally). I just tackle the issue directly. No birth = no rebirth = end to cycle.

So if you consider me pessimistic, which I admit I am, I have much company in eastern faiths (even your scriptures admit repeatedly to the hardships and sufferings of this world, though for the Christian, you have faith in God's meaning given to it.) And never forget that pessimism is no more biased than optimism. They are both subjective biases.

And it's okay that we don't share the same outlook, as long as, as IC says, we are intellectually honest about it. And I'm more than happy to have my beliefs critiqued, to ensure that I am being intellectually honest to myself. I would rather be proven wrong in my thinking, and accept it, than to live a lie, or under a delusion. There is no worth in that.

Come to think of it, perhaps that was my real reason for coming on this forum. Chatting on antinatalist forums would only serve to confirm my thinking, unchallenged. I want intellectual rigour.

Immanuel Can wrote: Interesting. The concept you hold of Dharma (duty) -- do you ground it in anything particular? Like, to what is the duty owed, and how is it paid?

Not to quibble, as I've responded anyways, but Dharma does seem to have multiple meanings, aside from duty. I think that's why your question threw me off.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma

I've posted this thought in the "theist in a foxhole" thread, but I wanted to repeat it here, with an addition:

Dalek Prime wrote:If God is good, He will understand a non-believers or doubter's (perhaps even an antagonist's) conundrum, and forgive. If He does not, will not, or can not, He is not worth the trouble.

And if He is not, well, it's a done deal.

The addition being that, as an antinatalist, I have kept my potential progeny out of harms way, whatever the 'truth' of the matter, both here in this world, and in any afterlife that may be. For everyone else's children, it's a gamble. No question. You cannot guarantee their fate or outcome, here or in the eternal. You cannot even guarantee your own, which was your own parents' gamble in bringing you into this world. You may be happy with your outcome, but you cannot know your children's, and if they'll be with their's.

Which brings me to my point; one may fairly gamble ones own welfare. But to gamble another's? It's unethical, if not immoral.

And please, this is not personal, so don't take it that way. It's something I believe is true, and needs to be stated.

Allow me to expand with a true story.

I had braces as a kid. My orthodontist, a very good man from what I gathered, had a daughter. Years later, I read in the paper that she had been kidnapped and murdered. Needless to say, it devastated him. And, let's face it, her. I honestly don't know whether they caught the murderer or not. This was in the wealthiest of towns in North America, by anyone's standard. A beautiful place to live.

The murderer is, I assume, damned. The victim and her family, tortured. And the outcome of the gamble of bringing them into this existence, which by all accounts seemed a sure winner? A loss.

This is an extreme example, but not as uncommon as you would think. Accidents, murder, rape, violence (including family violence) drugs, addictions, kidnapping, war, catastrophe, famine, poverty, illness (physical and mental), institutionalization, imprisonment, unfulfilled lives and desires, heartache, unhappiness, loss, grief, death. Perhaps damnation.

Or, everything's, well, 'okay'. That's the gamble you take on bringing someone into existence through procreation. And you've gambled with them, not yourself, based on your limited personal experience that, so far, life is good, and so your children's will be too. And guess what? That's how all gamblers think, even though their loses outweigh their profits. They think they will win, against proven house odds. And often, as you with your children's welfare, with someone else's money.

Do the cries of joy drown out the cries of sorrow? Isn't that why the crossing into existence is called the "veil of forgetfulness", and out, the "vale of tears"?