Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:How so? Anyone who has children and then argues the anti-natalist stance is pretty much a hypocrite.
Arising, it's called a learning curve. You seem to be having a problem with "your" history. Not everyone can pop out of the womb as brilliant and complete in knowledge as I have.

Everyone here that was born knowing everything, never learning anything since, please raise your hand.

I thought not!!!

as they wish to deny others what they have, I also think it very easy for males to take this position as by and large males are indifferent to having children. Personally I admire that you had the courage of your convictions at such a young age, I'm not sure of your reasons at that time as as you say you had not heard of anti-natalism so it may just have been you not wanting them rather than some moral of saving the unborn from suffering but either way I think it should be you writing about it rather than those who appear to just be unhappy post-natalists. All in all I do agree that parents should think hard before having children but my take is simple, existence is better than non-existence and if it gets all to much then everyone if free to choose to shuffle off this mortal coil whenever they wish.

ncrbrts wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:existence is better than non-existence and if it gets all to much then everyone if free to choose to shuffle off this mortal coil whenever they wish.

How is existence better than non-existence? I would be interested to know your thoughts on this.

I make attempts on shuffling off this mortal coil regularly. The reasons psychiatric professionals give me for continuing my existence are entirely based on the fact that I am a mother.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:it's just a matter of perspective

Dalek Prime wrote: Optimism is a bias, and no more correct than the other, but goes uncriticised. But optimists don't get ad hominemed for it.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/bfr3/blogs/ ... alism.html

While optimism appears to be a healthy orientation, things are not quite so simple. Some researchers identify two classes of optimism: realistic and unrealistic (Weinstein, 1980). Unrealistic optimists are at risk for self-deception, especially in domains such as risk assessment (Collingwood, n.d.). Realistic optimists, on the other hand, more successfully incorporate data about situations and events, balancing the best of optimistic and pessimistic perspectives. The realistic optimist point of view could be summed up by the adage: "hope for the best, prepare for the worst"...

... the idea of optimism and pessimism as dispositional attributes is giving way to a more nuanced view of these constructs (Paul, 2011). Neither perspective is inherently "good" or "bad", both can be adopted as needed, and both may be considered highly functional depending on the situational context. To wit: in some situations, "defensive pessimism" can be a powerful motivator to make better choices. For example, being pessimistic about the economy may be a motivator to avoid debt and manage your money more effectively.

ncrbrts wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:it's just a matter of perspective

I absolutely agree that it's all about perspective. I am interested in what influences perspective though. Experiences - granted. If that's the case then how can two people with identical experiences have wildly varying world views? Same with sociological influence, religious influence and education.

Perhaps it is, as you say, brain chemistry or an inability to see the good stuff. To quote my doctor, always the professional, "you have nothing to be depressed about". And he's probably right. And yet, I see nothing to be happy or thankful for either.

marjoram_blues wrote:

ncrbrts wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:it's just a matter of perspective

I absolutely agree that it's all about perspective. I am interested in what influences perspective though. Experiences - granted. If that's the case then how can two people with identical experiences have wildly varying world views? Same with sociological influence, religious influence and education.

Perhaps it is, as you say, brain chemistry or an inability to see the good stuff. To quote my doctor, always the professional, "you have nothing to be depressed about". And he's probably right. And yet, I see nothing to be happy or thankful for either.

Your doctor sounds like an absolute idiot. You can have all the material wealth and health in the world and still feel unhappy, have a pessimistic outlook or be clinically depressed. If you don't see anything to be happy about, and you would like to change, what is stopping you?
I remember this phrase: 'you can't be optimistic with a misty optic'.
I don't think 2 people can have identical experiences, can they?
Yes, there are SO many variables which influence world view...including biological traits...
Does knowing this help?

marjoram_blues wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Optimism is a bias, and no more correct than the other, but goes uncriticised. But optimists don't get ad hominemed for it.

Optimists are sometimes described as 'happy-clappy' or 'unrealistic wearers of rose-tinted spectacles'.
Pessimists as miserable bastards, always anticipating and focusing on the worst.
Nothing is ever quite as straightforward as that.

Optimism, pessimism and realism
Realistic optimism involves a balance of both.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/bfr3/blogs/ ... alism.html

While optimism appears to be a healthy orientation, things are not quite so simple. Some researchers identify two classes of optimism: realistic and unrealistic (Weinstein, 1980). Unrealistic optimists are at risk for self-deception, especially in domains such as risk assessment (Collingwood, n.d.). Realistic optimists, on the other hand, more successfully incorporate data about situations and events, balancing the best of optimistic and pessimistic perspectives. The realistic optimist point of view could be summed up by the adage: "hope for the best, prepare for the worst"...

... the idea of optimism and pessimism as dispositional attributes is giving way to a more nuanced view of these constructs (Paul, 2011). Neither perspective is inherently "good" or "bad", both can be adopted as needed, and both may be considered highly functional depending on the situational context. To wit: in some situations, "defensive pessimism" can be a powerful motivator to make better choices. For example, being pessimistic about the economy may be a motivator to avoid debt and manage your money more effectively.

When it comes to hope; I'd prefer to feel hopeful rather than hopeless about a given situation. That is not always possible and not always the right thing to be. Need to be realistic and look at how things really are; and what, if anything, can be done.
The mind plays tricks, every which way you look.
So, 'hope for the best, prepare for the worst' - seems like a realistic and stoical view of life.

Dalek Prime wrote:By your reasoning, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are hypocritical and unworthy of counseling others away from addiction, but those who never experienced addiction, are qualified. So are ex-convicts, who counsel kids to stay away from crime. Or a former cult member. I could go on.

DP to M: A bit surprised you're talking with me again, btw lol!

marjoram_blues wrote:

DP to M: A bit surprised you're talking with me again, btw lol!

That's life.

Arising_uk wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:By your reasoning, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are hypocritical and unworthy of counseling others away from addiction, but those who never experienced addiction, are qualified. So are ex-convicts, who counsel kids to stay away from crime. Or a former cult member. I could go on.

It's a fair point, although a difference is that these people are counselling upon the possible harm done to the individual not the possible harm that could be done to a non-existent entity.

marjoram_blues wrote:DP to M: A bit surprised you're talking with me again, btw lol!
M: That's life.
DP: The Buddha would say that's part of the suffering of life; dealing with people you don't wish to...
M: Yes, I just couldn't stand the pain of following up on a discussion * with someone I perceived as filled with negativity. Who seemed dismissive of life. Sometimes, we need to let go...especially in an online situation...stand back, so as to gain perspective.
I didn't mean to give the impression that I wasn't going to talk with you ever again !!
It's a pleasure to be able to surprise, and to be surprised...on here and in life

* for anyone interested, see page 11 of: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=14348

Dalek Prime wrote:... or some warped demiurge that instigated the whole thing, to see how his puppets suffer whilst praising him.