Philosophy Now Forum

alpha wrote: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.

alpha wrote: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.

Dalek Prime wrote:

alpha wrote: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.

And as you and I know, there are n guarantees, except that some harm will ensue (As opposed to none in nonexistence). It's a crapshoot, and unethical for that reason, as it is unethical to risk another's life. And there is no ethical imperative to cause pleasure.

alpha wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

alpha wrote: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.

And as you and I know, there are n guarantees, except that some harm will ensue (As opposed to none in nonexistence). It's a crapshoot, and unethical for that reason, as it is unethical to risk another's life. And there is no ethical imperative to cause pleasure.

i might agree with that, but i can't really blame sheeple for what they do. i'm a determinist, so i believe that certain causes necessitate these outcomes.

henry quirk wrote:"shitty world"

Eye of the beholder.

Dalek Prime wrote:

alpha wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: And as you and I know, there are n guarantees, except that some harm will ensue (As opposed to none in nonexistence). It's a crapshoot, and unethical for that reason, as it is unethical to risk another's life. And there is no ethical imperative to cause pleasure.

i might agree with that, but i can't really blame sheeple for what they do. i'm a determinist, so i believe that certain causes necessitate these outcomes.

I'm not a solid determinist, myself. We have choices presented to us, which within limits we can choose from.
a compatibilist (soft determinist) perhaps? of course even they don't believe in any genuine choice/freedom, just the illusion of it; artificial freewill, if you will.

I may have asked elsewhere, but have you read Thomas Metzinger, alpha? The Ego Tunnel is well worth the read. Bases his determinist philosophy on neuroscience.
you asked another member (i don't recall which one), but no i haven't. the problem with science is its limited scope, and limited resources (means) at our disposal. logic on the other hand, is unlimited, and its laws are absolute. if one believes in the logical (not just physical, but metaphysical as well) law of causality, he'd have no choice but to accept determinism, since the only way for any real freedom/choice to exist, is in a vacuum where causation is suspended. that of course is both logically, and physically impossible.

henry quirk wrote:"shitty world"

Eye of the beholder.

alpha wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

alpha wrote: i might agree with that, but i can't really blame sheeple for what they do. i'm a determinist, so i believe that certain causes necessitate these outcomes.

I'm not a solid determinist, myself. We have choices presented to us, which within limits we can choose from.
a compatibilist (soft determinist) perhaps? of course even they don't believe in any genuine choice/freedom, just the illusion of it; artificial freewill, if you will.

I may have asked elsewhere, but have you read Thomas Metzinger, alpha? The Ego Tunnel is well worth the read. Bases his determinist philosophy on neuroscience.
you asked another member (i don't recall which one), but no i haven't. the problem with science is its limited scope, and limited resources (means) at our disposal. logic on the other hand, is unlimited, and its laws are absolute. if one believes in the logical (not just physical, but metaphysical as well) law of causality, he'd have no choice but to accept determinism, since the only way for any real freedom/choice to exist, is in a vacuum where causation is suspended. that of course is both logically, and physically impossible.As long as the premise is sound, logic works brilliantly. But a solid, unassailable premise is hard to come by.

alpha wrote:by logical law of causality, i meant the principle of sufficient reason.