Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote:Dalek,

You shouldn't ignore the shit anymore than you should ignore the roses.

henry quirk wrote:I work hard to see and appreciate both. What good is the rose, if I slip in slick shit, fall, and break my stupid neck?

Balance (and hip boots).

tbieter wrote:"Since the essence of existence is insatiable striving, and insatiable striving is suffering, Schopenhauer concludes that nonexistence is preferable to existence. However, suicide is not the answer. One cannot resolve the problem of existence through suicide, for since all existence is suffering, death does not end one’s suffering but only terminates the form that one’s suffering takes. The proper response to recognizing that all existence is suffering is to turn away from or renounce one’s own desiring. In this respect, Schopenhauer’s thought finds confirmation in the Eastern texts he read and admired: the goal of human life is to turn away from desire. Salvation can only be found in resignation." http://www.iep.utm.edu/schopenh/
I don't understand the emphasized phrase. How can a state of non-existence (nothing) suffer?

Encolpio wrote:David Benatar in “Better never to have been” says that every life is not worth starting, because human lives are so ridden with harm, even the best ones, that is preferable not to be over coming into existence in a world of suffering.

He then maintains that it is preferable not to procreate anyone, and, if a woman happens to get pregnant, we should take on a “pro-death” stance, which means that we should defend the right not to abort, abortion (or means that prevent conception) being the preferable, “normal” case. This somehow reverses the view of pro-choice activists, who in the end support life while advocating women’s right not to carry a child to term.

He says that after he (in my view successfully) demonstrated that even the happiest lives are in fact very bad, and life is full of suffering. However, what strikes me as contradictory is that he says that coming to existence is also very bad because you cannot avoid death and one cannot live as long as one desires.

Now, since human life – and the conscious lives of any other animals for that matter – is equalled to a harm, how could it be that death qualifies as a harm, as it can be defined as the (irreversible) cessation of a harm? I cannot see how the two stances hold together: either life is an unmitigated harm or death is. If death occurs to end something which is defined as a harm, now that’s a good.

Death and suicide are bad things, that’s for sure, but in my view that is true not because they shorten life – which I believe is a harm, as Benatar maintains –, but because they cause pain to our surviving loved ones. They’re not bad in themselves, then, but only relative to their consequences for the people (friends, spouse/partner, relatives, etc.) that have to go through the experience our demise.

alpha wrote:@ lacewing;
your philosophy is basically that we should just deal with it, preferably through ignorance.

Lacewing wrote:

alpha wrote:@ lacewing;
your philosophy is basically that we should just deal with it, preferably through ignorance.

Deal with WHAT IS?? What other choice do you think we have? And why do you think it's ignorance to ACCEPT and/or "deal" with it?
accepting what one doesn't understand, is ignorance.

What if it's actually the WISEST thing to do... whereas struggling and trying to control and concocting limited human definitions/rules may actually be our greatest ignorance?
it's not about control per se, it's more about understanding what the hell is going on. why create people who don't wanna exist (just the ones who don't)?

Lacewing wrote:Just curious... are people on this website smart enough to figure out the quote feature instead of using a variety of colors? How the hell are other people supposed to follow along with this and know who is saying what? With a few keystrokes you can easily identify each poster. And if you don't care if other people can follow along, then why not use PM for your conversations? Yes??

alpha wrote:your philosophy is basically that we should just deal with it, preferably through ignorance.

Lacewing wrote:Deal with WHAT IS?? What other choice do you think we have? And why do you think it's ignorance to ACCEPT and/or "deal" with it?

alpha wrote:accepting what one doesn't understand, is ignorance.

Lacewing wrote:What if it's actually the WISEST thing to do... whereas struggling and trying to control and concocting limited human definitions/rules may actually be our greatest ignorance?

alpha wrote:it's not about control per se, it's more about understanding what the hell is going on.

alpha wrote:why create people who don't wanna exist (just the ones who don't)?

Lacewing wrote:

alpha wrote:your philosophy is basically that we should just deal with it, preferably through ignorance.

Deal with WHAT IS?? What other choice do you think we have? And why do you think it's ignorance to ACCEPT and/or "deal" with it?

alpha wrote:accepting what one doesn't understand, is ignorance.

I guess you and I have a different idea of what "acceptance" means, Alpha. I do not see it as "settling"... which I'm guessing is how you are seeing it? For me, acceptance means having respect and some inner peace for something while I work with/through it. There may be things I'm not seeing below the surface... and I feel I am much more clear and effective if I approach it that way -- rather than bombarding it with my ideas of how it should be, which blocks out any other awareness I might gain.

Lacewing wrote:

alpha wrote:why create people who don't wanna exist (just the ones who don't)?

I'm sorry, I don't know what this means.