For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Actually, he's absolutely correct. And once you answer this question truthfully, as alpha has, the rest is trivial.Jaded Sage wrote:Bitch. You know that ain't true.
then what?Jaded Sage wrote:I suppose the point of a short but pleasurable life is the short amount of pleasurableness.
Jaded Sage wrote:I completely agree. That is why we make up fantastic myths like this one: The best argument I can think of for eternal life is someone who deserves it" (William James).
Sense we know it is impossible, at least for now, to literally live for ever, that option must be off of the table, at least for now.
But the idea that never being born is the choice doesn't sit with me. I wonder if there is a substitute for an everlasting pleasantness.
there isn't.
I hear the Jewish word for eternity means "victory" and is closer to something like a perfect moment, a moment that makes all other moments worthwhile. I hear the gnostics have a similar concept they call salvation. What do we think of such a thing as a substitute for an everlasting bliss, or never having been born at all?
nothing can make pain worthwhile; specially not some few and far between "moments".
No; I answer this way when the question is posed in ambiguous language. You have the option of not asking it, of course. But if you are going to ask it, decide exactly what you intend to compare and what your terms mean.Jaded Sage wrote:Skip, do you answer this way because the answer is too obvious?
and the only one and truly honest answer is depends.Jaded Sage wrote:Phrased twice because I'm drunk:
Is it better to live a short life filled almost only of what you love or a long life filled with more of what you hate?
Is it better to live a shorter life filled mostly with the things that you love or a longer life filled with more of the things that you hate most?
That's a perfect self-contradiction.surreptitious57 wrote:Whatever the quality or quantity of your life may be the fact of the matter is that it is completely
insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Since once you are dead you will then be spending the
rest of eternity in a state of non consciousness and with zero knowledge of having actually existed
And it didn't have to happen in the first place, but on the whim of two people, without asking. I'm the youngest of five, and though I find life alright, would have preferred not at all (speaking as a present existent)surreptitious57 wrote:Whatever the quality or quantity of your life may be the fact of the matter is that it is completely
insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Since once you are dead you will then be spending the
rest of eternity in a state of non consciousness and with zero knowledge of having actually existed
I choose door number 2, Monty.Skip wrote:No; I answer this way when the question is posed in ambiguous language. You have the option of not asking it, of course. But if you are going to ask it, decide exactly what you intend to compare and what your terms mean.Jaded Sage wrote:Skip, do you answer this way because the answer is too obvious?
If you compare time intervals, put a numerical value on them. If you compare quality of life, describe it.
Would I prefer to live
a hundred years, 60 of them in a job I disliked
vs
20 minutes in sexual ecstasy
or what?
It's better to live a long life, as you're more filled to the brim with knowledge.Jaded Sage wrote:Phrased twice because I'm drunk:
Is it better to live a short life filled almost only of what you love or a long life filled with more of what you hate?
Is it better to live a shorter life filled mostly with the things that you love or a longer life filled with more of the things that you hate most?
Says the fearful young one!alpha wrote:neither. it's best to not have existed at all. the next best thing is to exist eternally (or believe that you'll exist eternally) in pure pleasure, happiness, fulfillment, etc.. anything other than these two is pure crap.
Exactly! One cannot say that to not exist would be better, as nothing could judge such a human ambiguous term, that is at least something.wtf wrote:What is it, then, that did not exist at all? Does it have a name? Is it "you?" What does it even mean to imagine that one has never existed? It's a contradiction. You have to exist in order to even ask the question. Some guy named Descartes said something about this. "I think therefore I am." Actually he said it in French. The French are always saying clever things like that.alpha wrote:neither. it's best to not have existed at all.