It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:45 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
PlanetOfTheApes wrote:
The burden of proof whether procreation is ethical is on the pro-natal lobby.

The burden of proof that anything like ethics actually exists (other than in your imagination as mere opinion) is on you, a priori to your subsequent demand that procreation must be proven to be ethical. And I don't think you can prove that about ethics (since no one else has ever been able to).

Additionally, do you also demand that non-human species must also justify their procreation? If not, I would like some logical and rational justification of that view, since reasoning ability the species is a matter of degree, and not an absolute demarcation line. It may even be the case that some non-human species are more intelligent (although in slightly different ways) than some humans (not even taking into account humans with mental disabilities). But even if you can stipulate what that line of demarcation is, what is the scientifically proven relationship between rationality and ethics?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:34 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Well said m0002a, I must have missed that (now seemingly obvious) point.

Ethics is a tough enough subject to argue about at the best of times, but for you POTA this is going to require a substantial, well reasoned and quite frankly put "Amazing" answer.

Good luck.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:30 pm
Posts: 103
PlanetOfTheApes wrote:
The burden of proof whether procreation is ethical is on the pro-natal lobby.

Clear and convincing evidence as in legal burden of proof.

m0002a wrote:
The burden of proof that anything like ethics actually exists (other than in your imagination as mere opinion) is on you

Really. Moral/ethical nihilists consider morality to be make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise not in accord with fact or reality. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. -- wikipedia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:30 pm
Posts: 103
andyb wrote:
Quote:
The benatarian argument

It makes sense at a totally rational level - but only withing the parameters of what it talks about.

A number of the points in the argument fall to pieces when you look at human beings themselves rather than this interesting argument that is totally void of "humanity", the argument could easily be talking about any species on the planet. Humans, due to evolution have needs wants and desires that change as we go through our lives, these needs, wants and desires are very different to a child compared to an adult - but they all have one thing in common - we cannot control many of these needs, wants and desires - they are programmed into our brains or controlled by glands and hormones.

Take a look at social interactions - these can heavily influence and change us, just as we as individuals can influence and change those around us, you only have to look at religion - every child is born free of religion, then these bullshit ideas are inserted into the child's mind like a virus of untruth along with all of the truth that is fed to the child, this knowledge and lies are considered the same to a child, as children will believe anything that they are told by an older authoritative person e.g. parents and other older relatives, teachers, scout leaders, and priests (liars).

All of the points above are avoided by "The benatarian argument", the reason is obvious - it is an argument created by a lobbyist that has a single purpose and that is to peddle their perspective as the truth - they wouldn't know the truth if it kicked them in the balls, what you need to do is have a look at the other side of the argument, or at least listen to some scientists who know what makes "humans" tick.

Quote:
The imposition argument

This is a much less convincing argument that is again totally void of "humanity" and all of those needs wants and desires.
Andy

Well said andyb, I must have missed the we can't control our desires argument. Paedophiles are going to love it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:07 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
Clear and convincing evidence as in legal burden of proof.


Drop in a few links, I will have a laugh at them later :lol:

Quote:
Really. Moral/ethical nihilists consider morality to be make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise not in accord with fact or reality. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.


There are crazy people of all types in this world, such as the "Moral/ethical nihilists" that you talk about, I have never met or even heard of someone who actually believes that - (although I do actually live in the same house as someone with "Psychopathy") - this is not to say that they don't exist, but they must be a very rare type of crazy - and this has not moved you any closer to proving that having children is "immoral".

Personally I think that it is immoral for very poor people to have lots of children in the UK, knowing that all of us tax-payers are going to end up paying for it, that is an example of immorality relating to children but is a very long way from your crazy notion that having any children in any circumstance is inherently immoral. Surely you would have to admit that not having any children is more immoral as your ultimate plan is to wipe out the human species.

Quote:
Well said andyb, I must have missed the we can't control our desires argument. Paedophiles are going to love it.


You might have missed the point when you say "Paedophiles are going to love it.", so are homosexuals, heterosexuals, animal-molesters, people who like hairy women, "feeders" who love women to be over 20-stone, gigantic tit lovers, anorexic lovers, foot fetishists, and animal-fuckers....... the list goes on and on, and although some of these "sexual preferences" are detestable (and obviously criminal if acted upon), there is mounting evidence (or total proof) to suggest that they are all "naturally occurring", and there is little or no external forces at work to bring these "sexual preferences" about - let alone to spontaneously create them with a simple idea - and likewise they will not go away with drugs or electrocution-therapy as has been proven with homosexuals in the past.

Also I never said that "we CAN'T" control our desires", I just said that they cannot all be controlled all of the time by everyone - a suggestion for you to try, get a friend to stand 10-foot away from you and get them to throw a brick at your face - see if you CAN control your body so well that you wont actually move when you see it coming - if you can I applaud your ability to tap into (one of) the deepest and least controllable parts of your body. If you can manage that, your next task is to control your body to the next level - your target is to stop your heart from beating for 5-minutes - if you can do that you have proven to me beyond doubt that Humans REALLY can control their body's desire to keep that heart beating.

I give you commiseration in advance, as I know that you will not be able to achieve either of these feats - thus proving my point. If you dont even attempt the first feat, I will consider you to have failed by not trying.

I have won already :mrgreen:


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
PlanetOfTheApes wrote:
Clear and convincing evidence as in legal burden of proof.

In a legal proceeding, the facts (as determined by the evidence) are applied to the law (which is a given, based on legislation, regulatory ruling, court ruling, etc, and not mere opinion and not decided by the judge or jury). The jurors (or Judge if he/she is deciding the case in addition to presiding) does not decide what is right or wrong, they only decide the facts.

In the situation you raised, a certain action (having children) is raised as to whether it is ethical. You are not arguing the facts (we all know whether or not someone has or has not had children) but the law itself (in this case the ethical law as to what is moral or not moral). However, determining what is moral in the sense you have raised is not so easy as just reading the rules imposed by governments in the name of law. So your comments about "legal burden of proof" are completely misplaced.

m0002a wrote:
Really. Moral/ethical nihilists consider morality to be make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise not in accord with fact or reality. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. -- wikipedia

Quoting dribble does not constitute a satisfactory answer to the question raised.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:39 pm
Posts: 11
Back when I was a student I battled with a severe bout of depression, which was largely brought on by a sense of purposelessness in life. I confronted those feelings by spending a lot of time reading a lot of "classic" novels.

Kurt Vonnegut, an atheist with simple, pragmatic approach to the problem of existence, was influential in lifting me up out of the doldrums:

God made mud.
God got lonesome.
So God said to some of the mud, "Sit up!"
"See all I've made," said God, "the hills, the sea, the
sky, the stars."
And I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look
around.
Lucky me, lucky mud.
I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
Nice going, God.
Nobody but you could have done it, God! I certainly
couldn't have.
I feel very unimportant compared to You.
The only way I can feel the least bit important is to
think of all the mud that didn't even get to sit up and
look around.
I got so much, and most mud got so little.
Thank you for the honor!
Now mud lies down again and goes to sleep.
What memories for mud to have!
What interesting other kinds of sitting-up mud I met!
I loved everything I saw!
Good night.
I will go to heaven now.
I can hardly wait...
To find out for certain what my wampeter was...
And who was in my karass...
And all the good things our karass did for you.
Amen.


There's no a priori argument that anyone can make for why you should try to enjoy your life. There's just a whole bunch of people out there, like me, who have considered the alternative and decided that - logic be damned - that's what we'd rather do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 7:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:30 pm
Posts: 103
I hadn't noticed the last post, better late than never...

gregrah wrote:
Back when I was a student I battled with a severe bout of depression, which was largely brought on by a sense of purposelessness in life. I confronted those feelings by spending a lot of time reading a lot of "classic" novels. Kurt Vonnegut, an atheist with simple, pragmatic approach to the problem of existence, was influential in lifting me up out of the doldrums:

Thanks for sharing this. I'm glad to hear you were able to maintain your psychological equanimity by reading the classics.

gregrah wrote:
There's no a priori argument that anyone can make for why you should try to enjoy your life.

Correct. Now that we're here, we should make the best of it and do/perpetuate no harm.

Antinatalism is a philosophy based on rational arguments (no dogma) that places a negative value judgement on reproduction because it creates new centres of suffering.

gregrah wrote:
There's just a whole bunch of people out there, like me, who have considered the alternative and decided that - logic be damned - that's what we'd rather do.

Sorry to hear that you've decided to reject it.

I see not having kids as a positive: more freedom to do what I want, more money, less responsibility. And why should I share my partner's attention with children?

I considered having kids once, fortunately I was the last of the litter and wasn't under any pressure. Later I discovered it's just ego, and I don't need kids to boost or maintain my self-esteem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:22 am
Posts: 379
Location: maine
no kids here either..
if life was a gov't, some soldiers need to die defending it.

some can claim life sucks if you die doing so...
but some are still standing because of the defense.

to be caught up in such a selfish thought..."life sucks"
it does not last long. the spirit of psychos analyzing, are caught up in themsleves..
false judging battles needed, false diagnosis and prognosis...

life does suck, if someone put you there to believe it.

my own story snaps heads. the battle theory works for me...

_________________
DSFg$57%udRTYnh


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:05 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
andyb wrote:

There are crazy people of all types in this world, such as the "Moral/ethical nihilists" that you talk about, I have never met or even heard of someone who actually believes that -


Actually moral nihilism is a respectable position in moral philosophy with many adherents. It's origins can be traced back to the ancient Greeks with the Cynics, Stoics and Epicureans. Buddha, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu could be considered moral nihilists depending how one reads their texts. More modern versions usually are said to begin with Nietszche. Bertrand Russell was a moral nihilist, or at least a moral anti-realist, for a while, as was the later Marx. Hume was a moral skeptic. There was a cultural and political groundswell of nihilism in 19th century Russia, including writers such as Turgenev. In fact, many artists and writers of the 19th and early 20th centuries were nihilists.

Twentieth and twenty first century philosophers who were or are moral nihilists, moral anti-realists, moral error theorists, moral skeptics or non cognitivists are: John Mackie, Ian Hinkfuss, Alasdair MacIntyre John A. Burgess, Kai Neilsen, Richard Garner, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Richard Joyce...just to name a few off the top of my head.

And they all believe in it.

If you think moral nihilism is simply crazy, perhaps you could offer reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:54 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
When quoting someone who is responding to something that was also a quote, and I may add from some time ago, please include a little more in the way of "quotations" - context is often of crucial importance when quoting someone.

Below are the complete quotes.

PlanetOfTheApes wrote:
Really. Moral/ethical nihilists consider morality to be make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise not in accord with fact or reality. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. -- wikipedia


My answer.

Quote:
There are crazy people of all types in this world, such as the "Moral/ethical nihilists" that you talk about, I have never met or even heard of someone who actually believes that - (although I do actually live in the same house as someone with "Psychopathy") - this is not to say that they don't exist, but they must be a very rare type of crazy - and this has not moved you any closer to proving that having children is "immoral".

Personally I think that it is immoral for very poor people to have lots of children in the UK, knowing that all of us tax-payers are going to end up paying for it, that is an example of immorality relating to children but is a very long way from your crazy notion that having any children in any circumstance is inherently immoral. Surely you would have to admit that not having any children is more immoral as your ultimate plan is to wipe out the human species.


Now I have the detail out of the way, here is my response to your most recent post (which I will quote for the damned sake of it).

Quote:
Actually moral nihilism is a respectable position in moral philosophy with many adherents. It's origins can be traced back to the ancient Greeks with the Cynics, Stoics and Epicureans. Buddha, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu could be considered moral nihilists depending how one reads their texts. More modern versions usually are said to begin with Nietszche. Bertrand Russell was a moral nihilist, or at least a moral anti-realist, for a while, as was the later Marx. Hume was a moral skeptic. There was a cultural and political groundswell of nihilism in 19th century Russia, including writers such as Turgenev. In fact, many artists and writers of the 19th and early 20th centuries were nihilists.

Twentieth and twenty first century philosophers who were or are moral nihilists, moral anti-realists, moral error theorists, moral skeptics or non cognitivists are: John Mackie, Ian Hinkfuss, Alasdair MacIntyre John A. Burgess, Kai Neilsen, Richard Garner, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Richard Joyce...just to name a few off the top of my head.

And they all believe in it.

If you think moral nihilism is simply crazy, perhaps you could offer reasons.


I am not denying that Moral Nihilism exists, but as you will see from my previous post (quoted above), it must be a rare occurrence to "exist" in the mind of an individual without the individual knowing that "they are Morally Nihilistic", in just the same way that "Psychopathy" is not a common trait amongst human beings, and a great deal of them actually have no idea at all that they are "Psychopathic" simply because their brain is "wired" differently from others and they very often "act out" compassion, altruism and empathy, but usually hit a hurdle when it comes to "forgiveness", all of this has been studied a great deal, and the reasons explained beyond doubt.

Now I come to my point to answer yours.

A "true Nihilist" or a "true Psychopath" is simply not capable of having such discussions about said subjects, and likewise none of those Philosophers and great thinkers that you have mentioned above were "true Nihilists" or "true Psychopaths", that I can guarantee by one simple fact (that at least applies to Psychopathy), there is no (or very little) brain activity that covers empathy, compassion or altruism (because the brain is wired differently) - therefore they cannot actually feel such emotions/impulses and as such cannot see the world from any other perspective - but they can mimic those emotions and impulses very well indeed.

My above answer needs a little extra explanation to truly make sense.

Musing about things such as Nihilism is certainly not a bad thing to do (I have mused about many strange and odd things before, and "mentally swapped places with people" to argue a point from their perspective), thinking about things in such manners is a totally normal thing to do - and and I would suggest is a sign of intelligence, but all it is is thinking.

However, persuading yourself that "Nihilism" or "Psychopathy" is a good and sensible thing to believe is taking it a little further.

Telling others about such beliefs is a totally natural thing to do, but trying to persuading people to believe it as well is nothing but preaching - and as I am sure you are aware, trying to preach such things to people will mostly get people walking away from you with a frown, usually with a quick glimpse over their shoulder to check if the "freak" is following them. As you can see, I don't like walking away from such "musings" and different thinking, I will argue my point, and ask you to rationalise yours - so at the very least we can look each other in they eyes and understand what each other really means and is trying to communicate to the other.

I believe that I have made my opinion quite clear on the original point of this topic, I hope that you understand my point. I understand yours, I just totally disagree with it on a number of different fronts - the main one being that I am a complex biologic life form based on rather complex chemistry that was (ultimately) created in the furnaces of distant and long since gone sun's when they went supernova - everything about me (as an organism) says that I must create more life, defend the life I have, defend lives that I reciprocate with, whilst fighting those that wish to do harm to my interests - that is undeniable. However if you want to take an entirely mental position from the perspective that "I" am not alive therefore "I" can think freely without my body and pretend that I am not a living organism that is "programmed" to survive a replicate then what yo9u ask is a tall order indeed, for "I am Human", I suggest asking a computer program that has been programmed specifically to be devoid of any human traits.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:05 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
andyb wrote:
When quoting someone who is responding to something that was also a quote, and I may add from some time ago, please include a little more in the way of "quotations" - context is often of crucial importance when quoting someone.

Below are the complete quotes.

PlanetOfTheApes wrote:
Really. Moral/ethical nihilists consider morality to be make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise not in accord with fact or reality. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. -- wikipedia


My answer.

Quote:
There are crazy people of all types in this world, such as the "Moral/ethical nihilists" that you talk about, I have never met or even heard of someone who actually believes that - (although I do actually live in the same house as someone with "Psychopathy") - this is not to say that they don't exist, but they must be a very rare type of crazy - and this has not moved you any closer to proving that having children is "immoral".

Personally I think that it is immoral for very poor people to have lots of children in the UK, knowing that all of us tax-payers are going to end up paying for it, that is an example of immorality relating to children but is a very long way from your crazy notion that having any children in any circumstance is inherently immoral. Surely you would have to admit that not having any children is more immoral as your ultimate plan is to wipe out the human species.


Now I have the detail out of the way, here is my response to your most recent post (which I will quote for the damned sake of it).

Quote:
Actually moral nihilism is a respectable position in moral philosophy with many adherents. It's origins can be traced back to the ancient Greeks with the Cynics, Stoics and Epicureans. Buddha, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu could be considered moral nihilists depending how one reads their texts. More modern versions usually are said to begin with Nietszche. Bertrand Russell was a moral nihilist, or at least a moral anti-realist, for a while, as was the later Marx. Hume was a moral skeptic. There was a cultural and political groundswell of nihilism in 19th century Russia, including writers such as Turgenev. In fact, many artists and writers of the 19th and early 20th centuries were nihilists.

Twentieth and twenty first century philosophers who were or are moral nihilists, moral anti-realists, moral error theorists, moral skeptics or non cognitivists are: John Mackie, Ian Hinkfuss, Alasdair MacIntyre John A. Burgess, Kai Neilsen, Richard Garner, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Richard Joyce...just to name a few off the top of my head.

And they all believe in it.

If you think moral nihilism is simply crazy, perhaps you could offer reasons.


I am not denying that Moral Nihilism exists, but as you will see from my previous post (quoted above), it must be a rare occurrence to "exist" in the mind of an individual without the individual knowing that "they are Morally Nihilistic", in just the same way that "Psychopathy" is not a common trait amongst human beings, and a great deal of them actually have no idea at all that they are "Psychopathic" simply because their brain is "wired" differently from others and they very often "act out" compassion, altruism and empathy, but usually hit a hurdle when it comes to "forgiveness", all of this has been studied a great deal, and the reasons explained beyond doubt.

Now I come to my point to answer yours.

A "true Nihilist" or a "true Psychopath" is simply not capable of having such discussions about said subjects, and likewise none of those Philosophers and great thinkers that you have mentioned above were "true Nihilists" or "true Psychopaths", that I can guarantee by one simple fact (that at least applies to Psychopathy), there is no (or very little) brain activity that covers empathy, compassion or altruism (because the brain is wired differently) - therefore they cannot actually feel such emotions/impulses and as such cannot see the world from any other perspective - but they can mimic those emotions and impulses very well indeed.


I hope I quoted enough of your post this time.

Who are you to say who a "true Nihilist" is? All the philosophers I mentioned are true nihilists. Most of them claim to be so explicitly. I also don't know why you seem to equate nihilism with psychopathology. They have nothing to do with each other, especially since the latter is a fictitious medical label that has never been proven.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Posts: 1728
Location: Switzerland
Well, there are different kinds of moral nihilism.
What's funny is that andy's making nihilistic arguments (the pseudo-neuroscience about "programmed" behavior and so on). That sort of unskeptical and unexamined nihilism is a gateway to self-righteous teleologies.
The point of philosophical nihilism is precisely to get rid of such teleologies, which is why accomplished moral nihilists are likely to have sounder morals than andy's, in the same way that atheists typically have sounder morals than fundies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:35 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
I hope I quoted enough of your post this time.

Who are you to say who a "true Nihilist" is? All the philosophers I mentioned are true nihilists. Most of them claim to be so explicitly. I also don't know why you seem to equate nihilism with psychopathology. They have nothing to do with each other, especially since the latter is a fictitious medical label that has never been proven.


I am sorry, I seem to have missed the "Philosophical" point of discussion of Nihilism - you are talking of Nihilism from the "true" perspective, e.g. Philosophy rather than how the word is now commonly used. The first 3-points are what I was understanding you to mean.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilism

I was coming at it from the "common" but quite incorrect point in the same way that Millions of people miss the the understanding of the word "Theory" when talking about Scientific things. To a Scientist a theory is FACT, in the common tongue it has become a word that best translates as "an Idea".

I am afraid that we were discussing a different point, which I expect now makes a great deal more sense to you, as to why I was also discussing "Psychopathy" in parallel, as there is often a lot of cross-over.

I shall not discuss with you your opinion that "Psychopathy" is something that is "made up" - live in the same house as one, you will soon change your mind.

Quote:
Well, there are different kinds of moral nihilism.


Yes there are, most likely as many as there are people - that is true of almost everything in the Philosophical world - people can be singing from the same hymn sheet, but the tones, timing and so on will always be different.

Quote:
What's funny is that Andy's making nihilistic arguments (the pseudo-neuroscience about "programmed" behavior and so on). That sort of unskeptical and unexamined nihilism is a gateway to self-righteous teleologies.


I have no issues with making (Philosophic) Nihilistic arguments at all, I however miss your point in the second sentence....... There are huge mounds of FACT that Human beings (as well as other living organisms on our planet are "pre-programmed" - that is not to say that the "pre-programming" is everything and that FATE exists, of course I don't believe such things, I am far to skeptical for that.

Quote:
The point of philosophical nihilism is precisely to get rid of such teleologies, which is why accomplished moral nihilists are likely to have sounder morals than Andy's, in the same way that atheists typically have sounder morals than fundies.


I will admit that I am not an "accomplished moral nihilist" and that my morality changes with the particular situation, but that is a good thing. Moral Absolutism is not a good thing in the same way that Absolutism of any stripe is a bad thing as it defeats skepticism, and skepticism is a good thing - those who can change their minds are in a better position than those that cannot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

For those of you (like me) who are wondering what a "fundie" is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundie

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fundie


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Posts: 1728
Location: Switzerland
andyb wrote:
The first 3-points are what I was understanding you to mean.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilism

Only one of these 3 points can remotely be connected to psychopaths. Equating them is still backwards because they remain very different things even if there is an overlap.
Regardless, I'm glad you finally agree that people who think differently than you do aren't necessarily crazy.

andyb wrote:
people can be singing from the same hymn sheet, but the tones, timing and so on will always be different.

There are different things one can be nihilistic about, making for quite different "hymn sheets".

andyb wrote:
I however miss your point in the second sentence

You deny things without being deliberately nihilistic. That tends to lead to replacing the common sense ideas you got rid of in spite of their practical use with other ideas which can be even more fanciful, self-serving and pathological than the old ones.
I don't know you of course. But it's common enough: see Dawkins and gang. Or check out Curtis' flicks. It's a common theme in his work.

andyb wrote:
There are huge mounds of FACT that Human beings (as well as other living organisms on our planet are "pre-programmed" ... I am far to skeptical for that.

Shouting doesn't make it so.
What evidence could there possibly be for this "pre-programming"? This has all the problems of "intelligent design", and then some. Your skepticism seems very selective.

andyb wrote:
my morality changes with the particular situation

Is it really what you mean? A hypocrite's morality changes depending on what suits them.
On the other hand you can have a pre-defined morality which takes circumstances into account. One's morality wouldn't change with circumstances, only the morality of particular actions.

andyb wrote:
Moral Absolutism is not a good thing

Yet that's the position you asserted in this thread (see appeal to nature, sociobiology) against the anti-natalist poster.
Moral nihilism is one opposite of moral abolutism by the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:05 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
andyb wrote:

I am sorry, I seem to have missed the "Philosophical" point of discussion of Nihilism - you are talking of Nihilism from the "true" perspective, e.g. Philosophy rather than how the word is now commonly used. The first 3-points are what I was understanding you to mean.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilism

I was coming at it from the "common" but quite incorrect point in the same way that Millions of people miss the the understanding of the word "Theory" when talking about Scientific things. To a Scientist a theory is FACT, in the common tongue it has become a word that best translates as "an Idea".

I am afraid that we were discussing a different point, which I expect now makes a great deal more sense to you, as to why I was also discussing "Psychopathy" in parallel, as there is often a lot of cross-over.

I shall not discuss with you your opinion that "Psychopathy" is something that is "made up" - live in the same house as one, you will soon change your mind.


Dictionary definitions are not the final arbiter of what is the 'common' usage of a word, especially internet dictionary definitions. The first three meanings listed for nihilism in the online dictionary that you cherry-picked may be common usage for newspaper op-ed columnists but I would suspect most people would not use the term that way. My guess is most people do not fully even understand the term and would, if asked about it, probably seek further clarification from more online sources:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nihilism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

If, after the other meanings have been understood, there is any "cross-over" with psychopathy, it is merely tangental. You purport to live with somone whom you label as a 'psychopath', most likely because their behaviour upsets you, not because they have an actual verifiable medical condition that needs treatment. Incidently, in recent years the term psychopath (along with the term 'sociopath') has been grouped under a larger category called 'anti-social personality disorder' in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the 'bible' of the psychiatric industry.

Pyschopathy is supposedly a condition in which a person displays, among other symptoms, a lack of empathy towards others. Leaving aside whether this constitutes a real medical phenomenon, this is not the same or even similar to moral nihilism. The defining characteristic of moral nihilism is a disbelief in the existence of objective moral principles. One could be a moral nihilist and have both empathy and sympathy towards others, as I'm sure most of the philosphers I mentioned do (or did). One need not believe in morality in order to have empathy. The later Karl Marx did not beieve in morality, but had a great deal of empathy and sympathy and identified with the working class.

The obverse is also true. One need not have empathy to believe in morality. When the Iraqi Special Tribunal executed Saddam Hussein, they obviously had no sympathy or empathy for him, as they believed they were doing the 'right' thing. Lots of cruel and horrble things are often done with the best or highest 'moral' intentions. I doubt I also need to mention the Holocaust here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:22 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
What evidence could there possibly be for this "pre-programming"? This has all the problems of "intelligent design", and then some. Your skepticism seems very selective.


Here is a "children's" website for you, that explains things in easy to understand terms.

http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-4_u-92_t-21 ... -are-they-

Why do organisms reproduce without "thinking about reproducing.? Please explain how such things are not "pre-programmed" to do things such as reproduce.? This entire topic has gone, backwards, forwards, and sideways, mostly sideways, usually with people dodging one of the most basic points that has been raised on this topic by others as well as myself - reproduction is innate within every living organism on this planet - those who deny this are very very stupid, I hope that you do not disagree. Also, please note that I have not mentioned "God" or any other kind of "Divine" power, I have not suggested anything supernatural at all in any way that seeks to explain such things.

Quote:
Is it really what you mean? A hypocrite's morality changes depending on what suits them.


You misspeak sir - please read what Hypocrisy is and refer back to my post about me changing my position depending on circumstances, I do that constantly, crossing the road for example, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, fast moving heavy metal objects usually define the "circumstances", sometimes I think that using "X" to sort out situation "A" is just fine morally, but if that situation is "B" not "A" then "X" might not be the solution, "Y" might be better.

You might want to call this "common sense" rather than "Hypocrisy", and why I believe that "Absolutism" is a silly thing to go along with, I for one will not take an "Absolutist" viewpoint on crossing roads for example, some people refuse to cross a road at anything other than a sanctified crossing point, others who will likely lead a very short life will take an alternative but also absolutist viewpoint and cross any road at any time. The rest of us use "common sense", and I am sure you wont call them Hypocrites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Quote:
On the other hand you can have a pre-defined morality which takes circumstances into account.


And you accuse me of being a Hypocrite........ one moment you claim that "pre-programming" on the genetic level is not-correct (does not exist.?) but you claim to believe that "pre-programmed" morals are just fine - At least we do agree on something though, there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that certain morals are not just "pre-programmed" into Humans, but many other Mammals as well, and quite likely other organisms.

NOTE: When I say "pre-programmed" I mean genetically, e.g. genetics over thousands of generation has shown that "positive-reciprocation" is better than otherwise, "Empathy" is a great example of this, why do we flinch and then have an overwhelming urge to help an elderly lady who falls over in the street.? Genetic "pre-programming" is the answer.

Quote:
Yet that's the position you asserted in this thread (see appeal to nature, sociobiology) against the anti-natalist poster.
Moral nihilism is one opposite of moral abolutism by the way.


As I have pointed out many times in this thread, the OP has suggested quite clearly that if all humans stopped breeding it would make the world a better place, and seems to ignore the consequences of such things as simply beneath him, e.g. the extinction of Humans.

If you read back through this thread, you will see that I do not have an "Absolutist" perspective on this matter - although I am quite sure you have mistakenly missed those points.

Quote:
Dictionary definitions are not the final arbiter of what is the 'common' usage of a word, especially internet dictionary definitions.


Hence why I accepted and pointed out my error, what more do you wish me to do, bow down before you and kiss your feet :roll:

Quote:
The first three meanings listed for nihilism in the online dictionary that you cherry-picked


LOL, cherry picked :lol: more like clicked on the first "Dictionary" answer that Google listed - example below (note Google may very well give a different answer in your country.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&cp=4&gs_ ... 0&bih=1007

Quote:
The first three meanings listed for nihilism in the online dictionary that you cherry-picked may be common usage for newspaper op-ed columnists but I would suspect most people would not use the term that way.


Ask your friends and family what Nihilism is, see what they say, a decent number will likely look it up in a dictionary, others will refer to it as it is represented most commonly, e.g. in conversation and the media - I will leave that to you to discover, I already know the answer - which will likely be different from yours anyway, in the same way that the meaning of a word is often different in different places.

Quote:
If, after the other meanings have been understood, there is any "cross-over" with psychopathy, it is merely tangental.


I hate having to quote myself so many times to illustrate a point that I have already made, even though you have already done this for me, so I will take it to the next level and highlight the parts that you have failed to read or understand, and to add further clarification, I will add a few extra words in Italics.

Quote:
I am sorry, I seem to have missed the "Philosophical" point of discussion of Nihilism - you are talking of Nihilism from the "true" perspective, e.g. Philosophy rather than how the word is now commonly used. The first 3-points are what I was understanding you to mean.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilism

I was coming at it from the "common" but quite incorrect point in the same way that Millions of people miss the the understanding of the word "Theory" when talking about Scientific things. To a Scientist a theory is FACT, in the common tongue it has become a word that best translates as "an Idea".

I am afraid that we were discussing a different point, which I expect now makes a great deal more sense to you, as to why I was also discussing "Psychopathy" in parallel, as there is often a lot of cross-over between "Psychopathy" in its actual scientific sense and the "common-tongue" version of Nihlism e.g.

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself.


I shall not discuss with you your opinion that "Psychopathy" is something that is "made up" - live in the same house as one, you will soon change your mind.


Quote:
most likely because their behaviour upsets you, not because they have an actual verifiable medical condition that needs treatment.


The kind of behavior that is likely to "upset" anyone can be found quite easily on the Internet. As an example, I have asked many people who know my house-mate whether they agree or disagree with the questions in the following list (and others where the "score" varies with the questions, as do the medical and scientific community along with as you have quite correctly pointed out the "name" of the problem).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist

The two factors

Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"

* Glibness/superficial charm
* Grandiose sense of self-worth
* Pathological lying
* Cunning/manipulative
* Lack of remorse or guilt
* Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
* Callousness; lack of empathy
* Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

The vast majority of people who have met my house-mate a few times usually score him a 5, they usually miss-out on "Cunning/manipulative", "Lack of remorse or guilt", and "Failure to accept responsibility for own actions", this is hardly surprising if they don't really know him that well, everyone who has known this person for any length of time has scored him with a nice round 8. It is not scientific, but it is also no "illegal" to be a Psychopath (or whatever anyone wants to call it).

As far as his behavior is "upsetting" is concerned, I am sure you would be upset if there was some kind of tragedy and someone you knew said something totally "callous" about it. Some examples (paraphrased as I cant remember the words, but they are not important, what is important is the meaning with which it has been said). The Americans had it coming - Twin Towers, Who cares, they are scum - Indonesian Tsunami 2004, That's going to push up the costs of cars and electronics - Japanese Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear meltdown 2011, I have actually been standing next to him when we have both witnessed an elderly lady fall over in the street, everyone else is concerned, he laughed.

Do you want him as a house mate.? Neither does anyone else, he is now utterly friendless, has had no social life at all for about 2-years now, and I hope to be rid of him in a few months time, I will then block his phone number and not pass on my address - I don't really need to add that no-one else will either, as the only other people that he ever see's are the people in shops and 3-relatives whom he see's 2-3 time a year each....... also he spent another x-mas alone on his own, and only saw his brother for a couple of hours and spoke on the phone with his parents.

If that is not classified as "destructive" and "self-destructive" behavior I don't know what is. Personally I and everyone else actually thinks that the situation he has mad for himself is nothing short of "sad", but that's not a great surprise for people with "empathy".

The rest of your post answers itself, so I don't need to as I don't disagree with any of your points.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:30 pm
Posts: 103
andyb wrote:
Quote:
Yet that's the position you asserted in this thread (see appeal to nature, sociobiology) against the anti-natalist poster.
Moral nihilism is one opposite of moral abolutism by the way.

As I have pointed out many times in this thread, the OP has suggested quite clearly that if all humans stopped breeding it would make the world a better place, and seems to ignore the consequences of such things as simply beneath him, e.g. the extinction of Humans.


If not (sentience), then not (deprivation) and not (suffering). Explain how choosing not to reproduce is a SIN or a CRIME?

I'm sorry to inform you that human extinction is inevitable. Nature is a brainless moron that doesn't know or care about what it is doing, so why would I acquiesce to nature. Logic and reasoning is my authority.

Have a nice day/evening :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:26 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
If not (sentience), then not (deprivation) and not (suffering).


Which is a point that you have argued many times in this thread, that as I have read it you propose that the human creation of new life (other Humans), that new life has not been given the chance of choosing whether to exist or not, and as they will likely (statistically that is) be deprived and suffer, it is better that they should not be conceived.

As I pointed out somewhere in the ever expanding loop of a thread, I think that it is immoral for people to breed and let the "State" (paid for by others (I am specifically talking about within my country, not a disease ridden hellish one)) look after those kids as cheaply as they can, which often puts them into poverty etc etc, that is not the fault of the child, that is not the fault of the "State", that is the fault of the parents.

But very different situations arise as well, such as kind loving parents who are living within their means and are well off, should they also not breed.?

Quote:
Explain how choosing not to reproduce is a SIN or a CRIME?


I do not believe in this thing that you refer to as "Sin", and as for "Crime"....... well, everyone has different definitions of what a crime is or is not, in some parts of the world it is a crime to be raped, which will usually lead to the woman incarceration and or death. Being raped is obviously not a crime through the eyes of anyone who is not an Islamic Extremist (or similar), but the rape itself is a crime, as well as how the woman is treated after the rape.

What is / is not a "crime" depends on who you ask and the situation.

Is it a crime to put someone out of pain and misery where there is no chance of them getting better and a very good chance that their pain and misery will continue for a long time without them being capable of doing anything about it.! I would happily risk a prison sentence to do euthanise someone I loved who was in that situation, and if I was sent to prison I would consider that in-itself a crime perpetrated by the criminal and court system.

So, back to your question. I do think that it is a moral crime to allow people in disease ridden countries with barely enough food available to feed their existing family them to continue to breed, knowing that the latest addition to the family will suffer the most, followed by everyone else in that family as their share of food reduces during pregnancy and when the new born arrives.

I don't however believe that it is a (moral) crime for other people to breed, if only you were to compare the suffering of a well-off family's child and compare that to the child's happiness, you might find that the offset is the other way round at which point the obvious counter-argument would be:

Explain how choosing to reproduce is a SIN or a CRIME (for a well-off family), knowing that the child's deprivation will be zero, their suffering very minimal and their happiness very high.?

However, do they actually understand the situation that they will be putting their family into, do they realise that everything is about to get worse for them.? Do they even realise that there are alternatives to continue to breed themselves into further poverty, disease and suffering.?

A great deal of the suffering of this kind in 3rd world countries comes down to 3 points (in no specific order), tribalism, religion and lack of power for women.

The latter has been repeatedly proven to be the best way that the 3rd world can bring itself out of poverty, but Religion has got to stop telling people what to do and threatening them for this to happen, as far a tribalism, this is rather sporadic and varies a great deal across our planet.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:30 pm
Posts: 103
andyb wrote:
Quote:
If not (sentience), then not (deprivation) and not (suffering).

Which is a point that you have argued many times in this thread, that as I have read it you propose that the human creation of new life (other Humans), that new life has not been given the chance of choosing whether to exist or not, and as they will likely (statistically that is) be deprived and suffer, it is better that they should not be conceived.


I put together a summary of two AN arguments in a previous post and added it to the very first post. Each is argued from somewhat different perspectives, I believe you're mixing them up.

Benatar argues that although one would not have experienced the joys of life had one never come into existence, there would have been nobody who would have been deprived of those goods. In contrast, by coming into existence we suffer the many harms for which existence is the precondition.
Further reading: http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1902; His book is 'Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence' (Oxford, 2006)

The imposition of risk argument is a more personal (or psychological) argument.
Premise 5. There is a small but statistically significant risk that the child's life will not be worth living, and the child will wish it had never been born.

Quote:
As I pointed out somewhere in the ever expanding loop of a thread, I think that it is immoral for people to breed and let the "State" (paid for by others (I am specifically talking about within my country, not a disease ridden hellish one)) look after those kids as cheaply as they can, which often puts them into poverty etc etc, that is not the fault of the child, that is not the fault of the "State", that is the fault of the parents.

But very different situations arise as well, such as kind loving parents who are living within their means and are well off, should they also not breed.?

State the reasoning underpinning the parents' decision to procreate.

Quote:
I do not believe in this thing that you refer to as "Sin"

I was trying to be humorous :)

Quote:
Is it a crime to put someone out of pain and misery where there is no chance of them getting better and a very good chance that their pain and misery will continue for a long time without them being capable of doing anything about it.! I would happily risk a prison sentence to do euthanise someone I loved who was in that situation, and if I was sent to prison I would consider that in-itself a crime perpetrated by the criminal and court system.

The non-existent won't ever need to be euthanised. Dr. Kevorkian (smart guy) makes Antinatalist points while arguing with Fox News, see link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79qJMoWYvIk.

Quote:
I don't however believe that it is a (moral) crime for other people to breed, if only you were to compare the suffering of a well-off family's child and compare that to the child's happiness, you might find that the offset is the other way round at which point the obvious counter-argument would be:

An unborn child cannot be deprived of "happiness".

Quote:
Explain how choosing to reproduce is a SIN or a CRIME (for a well-off family), knowing that the child's deprivation will be zero, their suffering very minimal and their happiness very high.?

"knowing" Can I borrow your crystal ball please? Antinatalism is the defensive position. Refute the AN arguments or state the reasoning underpinning the parents' decision to procreate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:30 pm
Posts: 103
'Primordial Loathing' a prose poem by Thomas Ligotti. Enjoy!

http://youtu.be/yq5yflit9Ws


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:30 pm
Posts: 103
Terror Management Theory (TMT) was inspired by the writings of cultural anthropologist, Ernest Becker, and was initiated by two relatively simple questions: Why do people have such a great need to feel good about themselves?; and Why do people have so much trouble getting along with those different from themselves?

The basic gist of the theory is that humans are motivated to quell the potential for terror inherent in the human awareness of vulnerability and mortality by investing in cultural belief systems (or worldviews) that imbue life with meaning, and the individuals who subscribe to them with significance (or self-esteem).

"Terror Management Theory proposes that the juxtaposition of a biological inclination toward self-preservation common to all life forms with the uniquely human awareness that this desire will be ultimately thwarted, and could be at any time, gives rise to potentially debilitating terror. This terror is managed by the construction and maintenance of cultural worldviews.

Culture reduces anxiety by providing its constituents with a sense that they are valuable members of a meaningful universe. Meaning is derived from cultural worldviews that offer an account of the origin of the universe, prescriptions of appropriate conduct, and guarantees of safety and security to those who adhere to such instructions—in this life and beyond, in the form of symbolic and/or literal immortality. Symbolic immortality can be obtained by perceiving oneself as part of a culture that endures beyond one’s lifetime, or by creating visible testaments to one’s existence in the form of great works of art or science, impressive buildings or monuments, amassing great fortunes or vast properties, and having children. Literal immortality is procured via the various afterlives promised by almost all organized religions, be it the familiar heaven of devout Christians.

Psychological equanimity thus depends on maintaining faith in an individualized version of the cultural worldview and perceiving oneself to be meeting or exceeding the standards of value prescribed by the social role that one inhabits in the context of that worldview. Given that all cultural worldviews are fragile human constructions that can never be unequivocally confirmed, and none of them are likely to be literally true, TMT posits (following Festinger, 1954) that social consensus is an utterly essential means to sustain culturally constructed beliefs.

Because so many of the meaning- and value-conferring aspects of the worldview are ultimately fictional, the existence of other people with different beliefs is fundamentally threatening. Acknowledging the validity of an alternative conception of reality would undermine the confidence with which people subscribe to their own points of view, and so doing would expose them to the unmitigated terror of death that their cultural worldviews were erected to mollify. People consequently react to those who are different by derogating them, convincing them to dispose of their cultural worldviews and convert to one’s own (e.g., religious or political proselytizing), absorbing important aspects of “alien” worldviews into mainstream culture in ways that divest them of their threatening character, or obliterating them entirely to demonstrate that one’s own cultural worldview is indeed superior after all. From this perspective, humankind’s long and sordid history of violent inhumanity to other humans is thus understood as (at least in part) the result of a fundamental inability to tolerate those who do not share our death-denying cultural constructions."

Source: Handbook Of Experimental Existential Psychology (Jeff Greenberg, Sander Leon Koole, Thomas A. Pyszczynski)

-----

http://youtu.be/o3jUNlTlif4

"Antinatalism (AN) does not serve a death denying function."

"People who don't consider procreation an ethically problematic act, find AN threatening because it undermines their belief system that 'life is good' and is something that should be perpetuated enthusiastically and with a clean conscience until mankind becomes extinct."

"We're self-conscious suffering and dying animals in a meaningless and pittilessly indifferent universe with a penchant for fabricating 'death denying cultural constructions'. Constructions that we are willing to wage war for."

"Remaining childfree isn't a 'self imposed catastrophe.' It's the rational and compassionate course of action to take in the face of the absurd and pernicious nature of life."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Posts: 524
Location: 128.0.0.1
This non-sense again.

Shouldn't you be enjoying your childless freedom, your money, your lack of responsibility, your partner's full attention?

Or is the suffering of your unrequested life making you come here to try to make others miserable too?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:49 pm
Posts: 1202
Location: UK
Is this perhaps the most miserable topic ever? Really, stop worrying about it and get on with life.

_________________
Silverstone SG03B: E8200, Asus P5E-VM HDMI, 2Gb RAM, Leadtek 9600GT+S1 rev. 2, Samsung 500Gb, Seasonic X-400, 2x Akasa 120mm, Scythe Zipang 2 fanless


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:30 pm
Posts: 103
tim851 wrote:
This non-sense again.

Please explain why you think this topic is "non-sense".

tim851 wrote:
Shouldn't you be enjoying your childless freedom, your money, your lack of responsibility, your partner's full attention?

The topic is about antinatalism not antinatalists. I prefer the term 'child-free' and I think abstaining from procreation is being responsible. Can you quote me next time thanks.

Antinatalism is based on the principle that suffering of whatever kind or degree should not be caused or perpetuated, and that human existence necessarily entails suffering that we can neither escape nor justify, least of all by experiencing pleasures. Thus, the only way to end all suffering would be to cease producing beings who suffer.

tim851 wrote:
Or is the suffering of your unrequested life making you come here to try to make others miserable too?

I think the topic title is clear enough, I'm not deceiving or forcing anyone to read my posts. If you find it too depressing then don't read it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:49 pm
Posts: 1202
Location: UK
PlanetOfTheApes wrote:
I prefer the term 'child-free' and I think abstaining from procreation is being responsible.

If there is a gene that causes you to spout this miserable durge over and over, I think it's a good thing that you don't intend to procreate.

On a lighter note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M

_________________
Silverstone SG03B: E8200, Asus P5E-VM HDMI, 2Gb RAM, Leadtek 9600GT+S1 rev. 2, Samsung 500Gb, Seasonic X-400, 2x Akasa 120mm, Scythe Zipang 2 fanless


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:30 pm
Posts: 103
edh wrote:
If there is a gene that causes you to spout this miserable durge over and over, I think it's a good thing that you don't intend to procreate.

No we don't inherit our philosophy.

durge
- A lament for the dead, esp. one forming part of a funeral rite.
- A mournful song, piece of music, or poem.

Why would I lament or mourn the dead when the only escape from the cage of life is death. Perhaps you didn't like the Ligotti poem, well that's just a question of taste then. This topic (antinatalism) is about the prevention of unnecessary harm. Should we ask Mothers Against Drunk Driving to stop spouting their "miserable durge over and over"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:49 pm
Posts: 1202
Location: UK
PlanetOfTheApes wrote:
This topic (antinatalism) is about the prevention of unnecessary harm.

How about you prevent unnecessary harm by stopping this thread?

You've made your point, people can look at it if they want. Everyone can see that you're just trolling by carrying on. Whether you have some kind of deap seated childhood issue or are in some other way mentally imbalanced, you've said what you felt you need to say, so don't keep on saying it.

Question to mods: why has this not been locked as a troll thread?

_________________
Silverstone SG03B: E8200, Asus P5E-VM HDMI, 2Gb RAM, Leadtek 9600GT+S1 rev. 2, Samsung 500Gb, Seasonic X-400, 2x Akasa 120mm, Scythe Zipang 2 fanless


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:00 pm
Posts: 182
This topic is almost identical to my thinking while I was in high school.

Bottom line, it's useless and pathetic. Either you kill yourself or you don't.
If you set in motion an action to actually kill yourself but can't because you feel a visceral block(I called it biological imperative) most likely you will never kill yourself.

Now, while everything said in the OP is true and life certainly is an abysmal state of being which can naturally only conclude with systemic degradation of body and mind(without any purpose other than which you assign for yourself), thinking about it is useless and wasteful.

I imagine when I get older and reach a point when everything will go down hill fast, I will definitely kill myself. As you are probably aware suicide rate amongst older population is way higher than their percentage of general population.
This is of course perfectly reasonable and expected. After all, we have the common sense and humanity to euthanize old dogs who can barely walk but due to immature development of human civilization which still has its roots in superstition we force people the endure the torture of old age.

What you can do specifically now is donate your money here. If you ever think about donating money to anything that's the one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Life Sucks
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Posts: 524
Location: 128.0.0.1
PlanetOfTheApes wrote:
Please explain why you think this topic is "non-sense".
Because a great deal of people are not finding life all that depressing, but enjoying it. You imposition that life is suffering is plainly wrong. Your life may be - but you can do something about that.

Quote:
Antinatalism is based on the principle that suffering of whatever kind or degree should not be caused or perpetuated, and that human existence necessarily entails suffering that we can neither escape nor justify, least of all by experiencing pleasures. Thus, the only way to end all suffering would be to cease producing beings who suffer.
It's not a principle, it's an assumption. I don't suffer. If one day I should, it will have been worth it, 'cause my life's been great thus far.

Quote:
I think the topic title is clear enough, I'm not deceiving or forcing anyone to read my posts. If you find it too depressing then don't read it.
I really want to, but this is like Jersey Shore. I'm hating myself a little for it, but I'm just curious of what non-sense you'll come up with next.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group