Philosophy Now Forum

DP,

I get your point, and the opening post...not confusing anything...simply pointing out that 'neccessity' isn't really the point of 'being' or the point of bringing new life into the world.

Best I can tell: The whole of Reality is unnecessary.

I guess what I'm sayin' is: so what?

Animals gonna get nasty, babies gonna be born, end (and beginning) of the story.

I think maybe the harm refers to the pain, not the state after the pain.

Pain can be the sign of injury, but it can also be the sign of inurement...the blanket statement "all pain is harm" is wrong and wrong-headed.

Jaded Sage wrote:Relocate, not dislocate.

Actually , as it is possible to relocate a shoulder painlessly, we can conclude that the pain being unnecessary is still a harm.
Putting a should back might be for the good, but that does not make the associated pain good too.

I would disagree with the basic premise of David Benatar's book “Better never to have been”, I don't see life as a bad or harmful thing. Yes, there is some bad or harm in being alive, but to me the good and pleasure outweigh it a great deal. Death can be either good or bad, depending on the circumstances.

henry quirk wrote:Pain can be the sign of injury, but it can also be the sign of inurement...the blanket statement "all pain is harm" is wrong and wrong-headed.

I was just about to agree. But isn't all pain injurious?

Mebbe I'm making too fine a distinction here, but, it seems to me, there's a difference between 'injure' and 'inure'.

Example: when I pull heavy snatches, it can be painful (during and after), but the pain is part of the inuring...that is: I'm not being injured and the pain is not harmful.

henry quirk wrote:DP,

I get your point, and the opening post...not confusing anything...simply pointing out that 'neccessity' isn't really the point of 'being' or the point of bringing new life into the world.

Best I can tell: The whole of Reality is unnecessary.

I guess what I'm sayin' is: so what?

Animals gonna get nasty, babies gonna be born, end (and beginning) of the story.

Fair enough. Never hurts to consider the consequences of new life that doesn't have to be, though. As humans, we can and should consider this, instead of blindly going ahead with reproducing as a unthinking default.

"we can and should consider this"

Sure, for practical reasons if not philosophical ones.

That is: don't make babies if you can't feed 'em. It's unrealistic (and just plain rude) to expect some one else to shoulder the burden of your kid(s).

one shouldn't have children unless he/she can guarantee their happiness, throughout their entire lives. and even if he/she can guarantee it, still doesn't mean it must be done.

Al,

I can't guarantee my nine year old diddly except, as long as I'm alive and as long as he needs me, he'll be fed, clothed, educated, and loved. To promise him happiness is the kind of thing that will bite me on the ass (cuz it's friggin' impossible) and get me labelled 'liar'.

henry quirk wrote:Al,

I can't guarantee my nine year old diddly except, as long as I'm alive and as long as he needs me, he'll be fed, clothed, educated, and loved. To promise him happiness is the kind of thing that will bite me on the ass (cuz it's friggin' impossible) and get me labelled 'liar'.

well, that's not enough. also, you can't guarantee that he'll be fed, clothed educated, etc., as long as you're alive, because you can't guarantee anything in this shitty world. there are no guarantees. people lose their jobs, their money, their health, even their sanity, every day. no one can guarantee squat.

edit: you can't even guarantee that you'll be alive when the child is born.

How can one know anything about non-existence? How can one know anything about nothing (non-existence)?
Tell me what you know about non-existence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgQNlotRv5s

non-existence is basically a lack of existence, so we just apply the opposite of everything we know about this shitty existence to it, and voila!

it's not rocket science. it's simply nothingness. you don't need to know anything about nothingness. i can tell you a few things about it nonetheless; a non-existent thing needs absolutely nothing, requires nothing, feels nothing, desires nothing, likes nothing, dislikes nothing, and so on.

tbieter wrote:How can one know anything about non-existence? How can one know anything about nothing (non-existence)?
Tell me what you know about non-existence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgQNlotRv5s

Subtract all of yourself and your worries. Voila. Are you really that thick?