Philosophy Now Forum

alpha wrote:"neither here nor there"? where else, then?

See the 'neither'? The point being that having goals that one does not achieve does not necessarily entail being bummed about them.

"should"? unsubstantiated claim.

But one based upon mine and others experience. Whereas you appear to be unhappy and unsatisfied with your 'higher' goals?

doing something to achieve one's goals, or not, isn't very relevant to my argument. the point i'm trying to make (let's consider this from a purely philosophical perspective, and not subjective) is that no one has the right to dictate (or even suggest) what any person should want, or not want. no one should say that you should/shouldn't have this or that ambition (even if they're supposedly unrealistic), and so on.

Who's doing any of that? It was you who raised the idea that because one has higher goals one is led to being dissatisfied with living?

i think it's clear (if we accept this notion) that "doing nothing to strive for one's unrealistic ambitions" is not unreasonable, because they are, after all, "unreasonable" ambitions.

So are your 'higher goals' such things?

alpha wrote:is it only me who thinks that conscious intelligent beings shouldn't be brought into existence without their consent.

Tell us how we can get their consent?

Arising_uk wrote:

alpha wrote:is it only me who thinks that conscious intelligent beings shouldn't be brought into existence without their consent.

Tell us how we can get their consent?

i wasn't talking about us. although, not procreating at all, is foolproof. i was talking about god or the universe. god can do it either through omniscience, or in the absence of that, by creating a person's consciousness in a temporary form, and after giving that person a good idea of how their life would be (not necessarily details, just how bad, or how good), asks him/her whether or not to proceed to the next stage (full existence).

alpha wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

alpha wrote:is it only me who thinks that conscious intelligent beings shouldn't be brought into existence without their consent.

Tell us how we can get their consent?

i wasn't talking about us. although, not procreating at all, is foolproof. i was talking about god or the universe. god can do it either through omniscience, or in the absence of that, by creating a person's consciousness in a temporary form, and after giving that person a good idea of how their life would be (not necessarily details, just how bad, or how good), asks him/her whether or not to proceed to the next stage (full existence).

Wow!!!

alpha wrote: i was talking about god or the universe. god can do it either through omniscience, or in the absence of that, by creating a person's consciousness in a temporary form, and after giving that person a good idea of how their life would be (not necessarily details, just how bad, or how good), asks him/her whether or not to proceed to the next stage (full existence).

How do you know that didn't happen? Naturally, if you remembered that awareness, it would take all the fun and surprise out of this wild and crazy movie you might have signed up for. Heck, you might have written the whole script for yourself.

alpha wrote:i was talking about god or the universe. god can do it either through omniscience, or in the absence of that, by creating a person's consciousness in a temporary form, and after giving that person a good idea of how their life would be (not necessarily details, just how bad, or how good), asks him/her whether or not to proceed to the next stage (full existence).

Lacewing wrote:How do you know that didn't happen?

nothing suggests that it did, so i have the right to presume it didn't.

Lacewing wrote:Naturally, if you remembered that awareness, it would take all the fun and surprise out of this wild and crazy movie you might have signed up for.

you might've missed this part "giving that person a good idea of how their life would be (not necessarily details, just how bad, or how good)". not having details ensures "fun" and surprise. also, there are hundreds of millions of people currently (and many in the past, and the future) who are not having any fun.

Lacewing wrote:Heck, you might have written the whole script for yourself.

what possible reason would i have had to choose this miserable script?

Alpha, you seem to have a very firm idea of how you think things should be, and how they are. And nothing that anyone says is going to deter you from that (as you have admitted). Normally I would say, "Have fun with that!" But even that statement doesn't seem to apply to you.

I don't think this "human realm" is typically aware of a lot of the workings going on behind the curtain... but I suspect that we have a hand in it. Often when people are asked if they would go back and change their difficult lives in order to do it differently, the answer is No... because a lot of people recognize the value and necessity of the journey... even when parts of it are horrific.

alpha wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Heck, you might have written the whole script for yourself.

what possible reason would i have had to choose this miserable script?

I don't know -- but you seem to still be working on it now. Someone who focuses on developing their own self-mastery seems to learn/discover how to enjoy and find value in what is -- anywhere, anytime -- without needing things to be a certain way. Your requirement that things be a certain way, would therefore seem to indicate a lack in your understanding and flexibility... and perhaps a weakness. Because your need seems to be unyielding and un-fillable and miserable? Many enlightened masters teach: "Nothing needs to change. Only you need to change." But perhaps you've effectively blocked that resolution by deciding that it's all out of your hands to change anyway?

I don't know... but I wish you well.

Lacewing wrote:Many enlightened masters teach: "Nothing needs to change. Only you need to change." But perhaps you've effectively blocked that resolution by deciding that it's all out of your hands to change anyway?

i consider what's on the outside to be real, not what's in my head (or anyone else's head). and though i might be able to change my way of thinking, i consider that to be delusion, because one is creating a reality in their mind that's not in alignment with what's outside.

Lacewing wrote:I don't know... but I wish you well.

thank you, and likewise.

alpha wrote: ok, we're "creators" of reality, but we still have no actual choice in what we "create", which is a problem.

Lacewing wrote:Why is it a problem? Is there only value if we are each a completely separate entity from all else, in total control of all that we want to be in control of? Is not the entire universe a system of systems within systems within systems? What is wrong with being part of (and comprised of) many systems that are functioning at greater levels than any of the parts may be individually aware of? And don’t systems have needs (which you have indicated is somehow inferior to non-existence)?

I'd also question alpha's claim that we have no choice in what we shape with our creative imagination. If we have no choice it's a reflex. Creative imagination is a vastly more complex and controlled activity.

alpha wrote:extremes are the true test of any claim. if a claim fails to address the most extreme scenarios, it's relatively worthless.

That is not true. Let's test the claim that solar systems can support life. If we look at the extremes - Mercury and Neptune - we might decide biology is impossible. In most areas of life there is a "sweet spot" between extremes that yields the best results.

Greta wrote:I'd also question alpha's claim that we have no choice in what we shape with our creative imagination. If we have no choice it's a reflex. Creative imagination is a vastly more complex and controlled activity.

regardless of how complex it is, it's still predetermined.

alpha wrote:extremes are the true test of any claim. if a claim fails to address the most extreme scenarios, it's relatively worthless.

Greta wrote:That is not true. Let's test the claim that solar systems can support life. If we look at the extremes - Mercury and Neptune - we might decide biology is impossible. In most areas of life there is a "sweet spot" between extremes that yields the best results.

i don't think we're talking about the same thing. what i was saying, is that certain "solutions" might work with small/simple problems, but fail when it comes to more serious problems. i don't need these kinds of "solutions".

Arising_uk wrote:The point being that having goals that one does not achieve does not necessarily entail being bummed about them.

and it doesn't necessarily entail being ok with them, either.

alpha wrote:"should"? unsubstantiated claim.

Arising_uk wrote:But one based upon mine and others experience. Whereas you appear to be unhappy and unsatisfied with your 'higher' goals?

neither one's goals, nor ones reaction to them, is exactly by actual choice (though i know many would disagree).

alpha wrote:doing something to achieve one's goals, or not, isn't very relevant to my argument. the point i'm trying to make (let's consider this from a purely philosophical perspective, and not subjective) is that no one has the right to dictate (or even suggest) what any person should want, or not want. no one should say that you should/shouldn't have this or that ambition (even if they're supposedly unrealistic), and so on.

Arising_uk wrote:Who's doing any of that? It was you who raised the idea that because one has higher goals one is led to being dissatisfied with living?

yes, but suggesting that a person actually chooses their goals or their reaction to their goals is baseless.

alpha wrote:i think it's clear (if we accept this notion) that "doing nothing to strive for one's unrealistic ambitions" is not unreasonable, because they are, after all, "unreasonable" ambitions.

Arising_uk wrote:So are your 'higher goals' such things?

some of them are unrealistic for this world in general, and some are unrealistic for my circumstances.

Lacewing wrote:
Logic is deductive reasoning yes? Based on the extent of what we understand at
a given time? How is that not confined and even distorted by human limitation?

Our understanding of logic may be limited but the logic we do understand cannot be subject to interpretation
Since axiomatically deductive systems of logic such as mathematics reference objective truth. So for example
one plus one equals two is a simple mathematical statement that cannot be questioned as its logic is absolute

surreptitious57 wrote:Since axiomatically deductive systems of logic such as mathematics reference objective truth.

Not so, because mathematics is inherently tautologous precisely because it is axiomatic. Mathematics can make no truth statements about the objective validity of the physical system it is applied to because it can only model a specified narrative of such a system which must be defined in advance. In other words mathematics is only a tool which can model what we think is going on in the world around us but it cannot establish whether what we think is going on is actually what is really going on.

surreptitious57 wrote:So for example
one plus one equals two is a simple mathematical statement that cannot be questioned as its logic is absolute

This is not a statement of logic but a statement of definition.

I am so sick of this bullshit back and forth. Antinatalism isn't about us, the existing. It is about the absolute unnecessity of creating more people, except for YOUR needs, not the needs of anything that doesn't exist. So cut the shit about talking about yourselves and your happiness. It's not about you, you vain creatures. Go ahead and continue to exist. Make the most of it, and be happy with that. But don't think you're doing anyone any favours by creating another existence. It's your ego talking.

My daughter says you're wrong, she likes existing and is pleased we created her.

I think you should be thankful to us who have created others as they're are going to be paying for your pension, nursing you when you're ill and wiping your incontinent arse later on.