Old Antinatalism/Efilism discussion

ONGOING ANTINATALISM/EFILISM DISCUSSION
Posted on 27th Oct 2020 by Professor Alexander Hartdegen

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 months ago (edited)
Regarding the “is/ought gap”; there is no objective fact in the universe that suffering ought not to happen, but there is the universal reality that suffering has negative value. If there is any life that you would not want to be forced to live, then logically, you have no ethical defence for justifying why it is OK for you to bring someone else into existence who would be at risk of experiencing those harms that you would not find acceptable for yourself. It’s not “objective” in the sense of existing outside of our perception, but it is a universal reality that suffering does have value, and that value is negative. There is nothing external to the minds of sentient organisms that desires or needs pleasure, so therefore you cannot make an argument that you are bringing someone into existence for their own sake. You have to create the need in order for satisfying the need to have any value. And even then, the only value is the prevention of harm. The chair in which I am sitting is not deprived of wellbeing. Wellbeing is not a concept that applies to the chair at all, and hence there are no problems. If you want to give the chair a wellbeing state, then you create the potential of torture without demonstrating that you have any need to do so, other than because it suits your own interests. Positive wellbeing is an instrumental good, not an absolute good. If we don’t create things that need positive wellbeing, then the absence of positive wellbeing is not a bad thing. The chair in which I am sitting cannot wish itself sentient, however if you decided that you were going to suffuse the chair with sentience, then you would take the unwarranted risk of creating such an intense sensation of suffering in the chair that it would wish that it had not been made sentient.

How can an ethical vegan possibly justify bringing new sentient beings into existence? Procreation is a clear cut case of breeding animals for exploitative purposes. Nobody can come into existence for the sake of serving their own interests, because nobody would have interests unless they existed.

This isn’t a trolley problem. If you don’t bring anyone into existence, the people who would have existed aren’t floating around some kind of ethereal antechamber groaning with deprivation. The people who would suffer are those who would have brought children into existence. However, it should not be a right to impose suffering on an innocent party for the sake of alleviating your own suffering. Especially when that ends up being a pyramid scheme wherein the suffering is never prevented, the burden of preventing the suffering is just passed on to the next level of the pyramid.

I’m happy to discuss this at length with anyone who is interested. Especially AskYourself.

11

Ask Yourself
Ask Yourself
2 months ago
Do you think you can cross the is-ought gap? If so, yeah I’m happy to walk you through the error on Discord.

3

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 months ago
@Ask Yourself Well, it depends on what would be required to cross the is-ought gap. If it would require being able to prove empirically that there’s an actual law in the universe, external to consciousness that states that one may not procreate, then obviously the answer to that must be “no”. I don’t believe in god, and therefore I do not believe that there are any commandments woven into the fabric of the universe that we need to obey. Ethical truths are not discoverable in the way that we discover the properties of the physical universe. But the same would apply to any kind of ethical argument. You cannot “prove” that there is some cardinal law that you may not breed animals, torture them and kill them for consumption. You cannot prove to me that if I were to microwave a live cat for my dinner tonight, I’d be violating some material moral truth. So if you were holding yourself to the same standards that you expect me to meet, what would be your argument against me microwaving the cat? If we’re disregarding the pain of the cat just because the physical universe itself will not censure me for my action, then what argument do you have?

But unless you were a psychopath, why would you require such justification in the first place? The point of promulgating the antinatalist message is to inform people of the fact that their unborn children don’t need to come into existence, and show them that there’s no justification for procreation other than their own desires and interests. Once you’ve talked them through the arguments, that then makes them morally accountable for the decision that they end up making. If they choose to have children, then I cannot stop them, but hopefully if they have paid attention to my argument, they’re going to know that they’ve opened the door to torture for that child and they did NOT need to do it.

There’s a strange paradox about being a parent. Most people in civilised societies would probably agree that it is the parent’s responsibility to protect their child from harm. But the paradox is that, in the very act of becoming a parent, you have irrevocably violated your obligation, because you have needlessly put your own progeny in the way of more harms than you can even imagine.

So like the name of your channel would suggest, it’s about entreating people to “ask yourself” whether procreation is something that they can have on their consciousness.

If you are interested in further discussion, I would prefer doing so in the comments, but if you have a strong preference for Discord, then I would be willing to download it.

9

Ask Yourself
Ask Yourself
2 months ago
I CBF to read all that. If you think you can cross the gap, which means giving a valid inference with is premises and ought conclusion, then come by the server, get verified, and ping me in #ay-inbox, then I’ll walk you through the error.

3

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 months ago (edited)
@Ask Yourself If you aren’t going to read my comment here, then why would I think that you would read my comment if I take the trouble of downloading Discord and discuss it there? It seems ridiculous to surmise that I’m making an error if you won’t even read and acknowledge any points that I’m making. I don’t know why anyone would bother going on Discord if you’re going to lecture them without reading anything they have to say in response.

6

Ask Yourself
Ask Yourself
2 months ago
CBF to read, follow above steps. Stop wasting my time in text.

4

justanotherutuber3
justanotherutuber3
2 months ago
So at first you have claimed you’re only using the word universal instead for subjective because that would prevent a needless discussion (yeah, sure) and now you’re actually arguing against objectivity, good to see that you are another weasely assh0le.

1

justanotherutuber3
justanotherutuber3
2 months ago
There is an objective fact because of which we shoud prevent suffering that fact is suffering being objectively negative whilst the word is intertwined with the word negative so we ought to prevent the bad because it’s only logical to prevent bad things from happening.

justanotherutuber3
justanotherutuber3
2 months ago
Too stupid simple for you not to get it

Ask Yourself
Ask Yourself
2 months ago
Do you think you can cross the is-ought gap?

justanotherutuber3
justanotherutuber3
2 months ago
@Ask Yourself There is no is-ought gap so why would i need to cross it🤭

2

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 months ago
@Ask Yourself I answered you, and you refused to even read it. I’ll refer you back to my earlier answer. I’m not typing it out again.

4

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 months ago
@justanotherutuber3 You are useless and a liability to furthering this cause. I’m not going to use language that is deliberately going to cause people to cavil about the word that I used and ignore the actual ethical issue.

1

justanotherutuber3
justanotherutuber3
2 months ago
@micgooflander95 Im useless????? Lmao. No! Liars like you are the useless!!! Liars have no connection or business with the tool of discertion reality which philosophy is but go on, distort the truth just in order to convince someone and keep thinking your “universal” word is somehow magicly special and safe from nitpickery😂

justanotherutuber3
justanotherutuber3
2 months ago
@John Toas you’re a tiny minority

2

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 months ago
@John Toas Because it helps you to avoid worse suffering. If you’re enjoying an experience merely for its own sake, then it isn’t suffering. By definition.

3

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
I’m a former Efilist. I’ve seen both sides of the argument. I’d like to see this conversation or discussion pursued further. I have a different take on morality than the usual subjective/objective paradigm that’s attributed to it. I’ll be completely forthcoming with my points. Any takers?

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
For starters, here’s my blog: https://superspock.in/

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
Be reasonable. That’s my only condition for the discussion, if it ever happens.

By that I don’t mean be ready to be persuaded by my points. I just mean, “Be able to reason.” It’s quite literal.

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 weeks ago
@SuperSpock State your argument and I’ll respond.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 I don’t have an argument for or against anything. I’m simply interested in a discussion. By saying this I’m not trying to be ambivalent.

I’ll address any points you wanna make. I just need to see this conversation or discussion pursued to the end. Ask me any questions you’d have asked AY himself but while keeping in mind the differences between his and my positions. Thanks for responding. I was expecting someone else than you to take a potshot at me and call it a day.

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 weeks ago
@SuperSpock I’ve been discussing antinatalism for years, and I think that I’ve gotten pretty good at it. I am always interested in discussion, because the onus is on efilists to be the one actively disseminating the philosophy and not walking away from a debate or discussion because it is annoying.

I don’t understand that you do not have an argument, because there is obviously some reason why you rejected ‘efilism’. What are these reasons?

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 An argument if I had any would go along the lines of “good and bad are not on the opposite ends of the spectrum. They’re simply detached from each other. They’re qualitatively different. On this, we’d agree. But also, ontologically so.

I know this still doesn’t dent Benatar’s argument in the sense that they’re still comparable as experiences. But, I’d say there’s some room for disagreement here. I’m stating that the bad while felt by Consciousness is still purely a remnant of mechanism. Reactions that trap Consciousness from expressing itself in it’s pure form. A form that currently doesn’t exist because not all of us are free. Refer to my post Good vs Evil (Embodied Consciousness vs Mechanism). Consciousness, to me, is what would be free if we could perfect existence. Now, the question naturally arises that why would we try to do such a thing? Well, it’s because the alternative is impossible. We cannot eliminate all life on the planet. We can nuke it but that wouldn’t destroy all life. We can try to convince everyone that AN is the right cause but that is a hopeless task. Yes, population has plummeted in developed countries due to basic needs being taken care of and there being decent education for both sexes and other freedoms most of the world is still struggling for. But, even if that leads to extinction of humans in the future by humans eventually ending up agreeing with each other that the right course is to exit peacefully ala AN end goal, there are still animals to worry about. Now I can’t think of a way to handle the issue of peacefully putting the animals to eternal slumber.

And all this is just for starters. I have more to say I’d bet. But, it needs to be eked out of me through inspired discussion. I can’t argue or debate worth much. But, I’m solid in a discussion. That said, I’ve just presented some arguments in good faith (i mean “good faith” in the sense that I’m not usually one for arguing).

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 You see, I rejected efilism because it didn’t ring true to me. I didn’t by the end of it feel like I’ve accurately summed up existence. This could mean anything for all you know but what I intend is that I felt there were facets to human psychology and Consciousness that I hadn’t entirely explored. Now, of course I don’t wanna explore what you’d call the bad, which is eloquently put in it’s own right in Benatar’s asymmetry argument.

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 weeks ago
@SuperSpock With regards to good vs bad, good tends to be the relief of or prevention of bad, in real world terms.

The argument of whether it is practically feasible to end all life is the only way to challenge efilism, in my opinion, because the philosophy itself is unanswerable in my opinion. I do not agree with your view that it would not be possible to kill off all life on the planet; I think that we could be technologically capable of killing off at least all but micro-organisms. Not being able to kill off micro-organisms would leave the possibility that sentience could re-evolve. However, it’s important to note that this is not an overnight process and the amount of time that life could have to evolve sentience again is not unlimited as there are external events that can render the planet permanently uninhabitable for complex organisms.

I can’t prove how it would be possible to kill off all life, but that is a practical discussion, not a philosophical one. It is possible that promulgating antinatalism could end up backfiring if it fails in its ultimate objective but is successful in gaining mainstream traction and only those least suited to be parents continue to procreate, but that is also more of a practical debate.

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 weeks ago
@SuperSpock I don’t see how it could not ring true barring some kind of religious awakening. It doesn’t seem that there’s anything that consciousness is doing is creating wounds and then trying to heal them. I’m not really sure what else one needs to know about it in order to determine that it’s too dangerous to be playing god with something that can cause so much suffering. If you reject efilism, then you’re effectively signing up other people to have to experience the worst of the worst; but if you don’t want to explore the bad, how can you endorse allowing other sentient organisms to be forced into it without consent?

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 I’d be ok with a position that lets the ones who want to live, to live out their lives until their own ends are reached, not including procreation. These are people who just want to live but won’t hinder AN. Second, AN will have to be done by peaceful means. I would be opposed to smashing the red button or using any other similar scenarios like nuclear bombings to render earth lifeless. A nuke solution also wouldn’t work, tbh. Refer to Dr. Avi’s take on the nuke solution in AY discord archive channel. By this don’t assume I’m picking sides. I just found the points convincing. I will try to find the link if I can.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 https://youtu.be/XFXDB_funww

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 I don’t know what a religious awakening would be like. All I know is that knowledge has ended for me. Thought has lost it’s stranglehold on me. I don’t feel it’s presence even when it’s clearly operating. So, in other words I don’t have a self or mind. It emerges when I’m bombarded with information or my body goes through pain or some other sensations pleasurable or otherwise. But, most of the time I am not conscious of my mind. I also make a distinction between Consciousness and mind.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago (edited)
@micgooflander95 Good doesn’t necessarily need to be the alleviation of bad. There are plenty of experiences that are well worth experiencing on their own right. This is where the is-ought gap remains severed. What the assumption is, is that deprivation is the natural state and good exists only to relieve that. Don’t you see the one-sided bias of bad against good. This is not even given that they’re completely different qualitatively and ontologically.

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 weeks ago
@SuperSpock I don’t know which goods we experience which are neither the prevention or alleviation of bad. As there always seems to be the other side of the coin wherein you are deprived of the good and suffer because of that. But I don’t conclusively close the door on the possibility that such goods are. What I do close the door on is any claim that we can bring someone into existence because it is what is best for them.

I don’t really see the “is-ought” gap as something which applies here. Every sentient being can be harmed and is heavily motivated to avoid what severely harms them. The only instances in which they are not doing this is to save themselves from a perceived greater harm down the road, or save other sentients from harm. The negative value that we experience which is known as “suffering” or “harm” is very real; and people have no appetite for their own suffering being squandered without good reason, and they have no real argument to explain why if their suffering matters too much to be recklessly squandered, why they should be allowed to gamble with anyone else’s, when the alternative to doing so would be a zero harm condition. Yes, it is true that we cannot divine moral codes from the physics of the universe; but we do recognise real value when we feel it, and that value is universal. And someone yet to exist is not deprived of any good value in the universe, because they do not exist.

To elaborate on my claim that deprivation is the baseline state; consider the welfare state of a person who exerts absolutely no effort at trying to satisfy their basic needs and desires. They just sit there and do nothing. It will not be long before severe suffering obtains. Given that suffering is the state that will obtain when we do nothing, it is reasonable to consider that to be the baseline state. Pleasure on the other hand is much less stable, because it is something that needs to be constantly sought after and strived towards. And even striving towards it with all our effort often isn’t enough, because we require sufficient luck to ensure that we do not suffer so terribly in the meantime that pleasure becomes impossible.

To give another example; let us consider the human body; which consists of a vast number of different parts. If all of these parts are working as they should and not causing discomfort, then with sufficient effort, we can enjoy pleasure. However, should even one of these parts fail in such a way as to cause severe discomfort and distress, then pleasure is off the agenda altogether. It is impossible. The best we can do is to try and ameliorate the suffering and identify and seek a cure for whatever has gone wrong.

But you don’t even need to accept these examples to see how it is unethical to put another non-consenting being in danger of harm when the only reasons for doing so are those which exist in your mind.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 I’m not allowing any beings to be forced into a world without consent. Their parents are.

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 weeks ago
@SuperSpock If you’re trying to argue that efilism or antinatalism is wrong, then you are enabling those parents.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 I tried to answer as many of your queries as I can in this brief period. I hope I haven’t upset you in some way by some of my views, which are not really that complex but to reach the simplicity I had to dissolve complexity. So, to understand these views you may have to undergo a simplification of your own in my shoes. I’m also willing to put myself in your shoes. I can see that this discussion may be being a bit sloppily handled but pardon me for that. We both come from entirely different worlds, espousing conflicting views although there may be certain commonalities.

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 weeks ago
@SuperSpock I don’t get upset. I get angry sometimes, but haven’t reached a state of pique yet in this conversation. Did you read through my detailed reply and have any feedback on that?

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 I’m on it. Will read asap! This is quite an exhilarating experience. The good discussions I have are few and far between. Gimme a few minutes to read and respond.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 I’d instead choose the baseline state to be one that is specific to specific organisms. To average out would be to deny all the good we’re already currently experiencing for various reasons whether that be that we were given them or obtained them. Now, that said I see your point about deprivation being the driver of motivation. But, I don’t consider all deprivation to be bad, much less consider a baseline of total deprivation to be the start where all you can do is relieve it. While there are certainly lives out there experiencing horrible deprivation and thus suffering, we right now have the capability to alleviate or mitigate it substantially at least in it’s worst form of world hunger, accidents, poverty and crime. What we don’t have are the resources to cure all the diseases or make the world accident-free. Now I’m aware that these cases are all true. What I contend with is the solution being therefore all life needs to end. I would rather we deal with life on a case by case basis as a species, instead of using someone else’s misfortune to steal another currently living person’s chance at life by saying you’re not worth another person’s suffering. In what way is this person causing suffering if he’s just living a normal life and not interfering in the other person’s life?

Now, if the question is posed existentially in the manner of a explanation for reality then that’s more appropriate because now it’s in the realm of philosophy rather than practical solutions which in the case of AN would most certainly lead to disaster. The existential case being, matter itself is something that in creating life builds the potential of suffering into it. Yes that’s true. But, that’s not all it does. It isn’t just a survival game. We have essentially carved a path out of natural selection. We get to choose to evolve the way we want to, our future. I’m sure life will here on have more potential to get better when we cure an array of diseases in this century and maybe even all of them in the coming one.

Now, your main argument is Benatar’s asymmetry which i refute by saying good is not the opposite of bad. They’re qualitatively and ontologically different. They’re not on a linear scale with left being bad and right being good. Sure, deprivation and it’s alleviation could be handled far, far better but we’re still in the early stages of civilization.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 All this is not taking into account all the people who are currently suffering. For them I think the solution is to give them what they need whether that be resources which we have plenty of but are stuck with the problem due to distribution issues. AND we should allow for those who want to opt out of the game to do so. I root for assisted suicide. Give six weeks notice to the families and celebrate or mourn or both and then exit peacefully. Whatever bill that needs to be passed for this to happen or however many concrete decisions we might have to make to societal structures, it would be well worth it.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago (edited)
I’m typing on a smartphone. So I am replying slowly. I’m glad you’re patient.

It’s 2am but I can keep going. Awesome discussion so far on your part. Hope mine is somewhat thought-provoking too.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 It’s important for me to know if you’ve read my blog because I’m drawing from my previous posts heavily. I see axiological definitions and dealings in a different light than most. I wish you’d take interest in my blog posts because then we can better understand each other at a minimum and also you can ask me any questions regarding my blog itself. I’m curious what others think of it. I’ll do you the courtesy of reading your posts and comments anywhere else on YouTube or other social media, if you’re interested in sharing.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago (edited)
I think for the sake of brevity, we could try a point by point format. Like this:
1)
2)
..

And address each corresponding point you make with an appropriately numbered one of my own, respectively.

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 weeks ago
@SuperSpock I don’t want to go about trying to impose structure on the argument, because that just isn’t the way that I operate. Especially if it means that I have to restructure the points that I’ve already made in order to conform to that. Perhaps it would be better for you to wait until you can post from a computer. I’m not particularly interested in going through your blog to find things, but if you want to cite things from your blog and then redirect me to the relevant post, then that could work.

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 weeks ago
@SuperSpock People definitely ought to have the right to die in the most peaceful, painless and reliable way possible, unless they’ve done something to warrant forcing them to remain alive. But that still doesn’t justify creating a new life in the first place to have suffered to reach that point. And even if the law was established, there would be no way of guaranteeing that it would always exist for whenever the child wanted it.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 Well, my blog is mainly about Consciousness and the epistemological and metaphysical concerns regarding it. I thought you might be interested since understanding Consciousness is critical to making decisions regarding it. But, I’ll respect your decision.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@micgooflander95 I prefer structured discussions because they help get to the point and also make corrections quickly and efficiently. But, again I’ll respect your decision.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago (edited)
@micgooflander95 Creating a new life doesn’t always lead to tremendous suffering. Most people are grateful they’re alive. They wouldn’t have it any other way. For the some that do suffer we can create a workaround solution but how do you expect civilization to stop in it’s tracks and change course? That kind of solution would require something substantially convincing in the form of argument or you’d have to enforce a law which as you said, doesn’t work for the few. How will it then work for the many?

I understand that we’re getting sidetracked here. Your argument is that it’s unfair to impose life. Philosophically speaking, I disagree. There’s a lot more to life than just suffering. And that justifies coming into existence. Especially, when there’s a real shot to fixing the problems of life there’s no need to now destroying the civilization. Surely, birth rates will plummet once the quality of life gets better. And then the only ones who will be parents will be the responsible ones because they will have acquired a decent enough upbringing to create the right environment for their children.

justanotherutuber3
justanotherutuber3
2 weeks ago
@SuperSpock Whats your take?

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
2 weeks ago
@justanotherutuber3 Read my blog. My take is that I wanna negate Language until I find the fundamental or the source of all Thought.

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
2 weeks ago
@SuperSpock Creating consciousness always leads to some suffering, but many are happy with being alive. But the problem with that is that you cannot filter out the ones who will experience tremendous suffering, or the ones who will resent the imposition. It’s a lottery, and isn’t governed by fairness. There’s more to life than suffering; there is also avoiding suffering, which is down do luck.

I don’t see how you can justify bringing someone else into existence unless you can explain how someone who doesn’t exist is missing out on whatever is more than suffering. This stance just doesn’t make sense without positing the existence of souls who are inhabiting some kind of spectral prison, waiting for parents to rescue them by incarnating their soul into a human body. Unless you’re religious, I don’t know what necessary function that consciousness is having for the universe either.

Increasingly, the people who are becoming parents are the ones who are least qualified for it because the smartest humans are capable of thinking past their evolutionary programming.

Also, to refer back to one of your posts in order to consolidate the discussion into a single thread, I know that it might be easier for you if I were to give simple bullet points, but I just do not work that way. I always like to give a detailed explanation, so even if I were doing numbered points, each numbered point would be a long paragraph or two. I’m very verbose when discussing efilism.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
1 week ago (edited)
@micgooflander95 I don’t subscribe to your paradigm of good and bad. To me Good and bad are not on a linear scale from left to right, left being goddamn awful and right being oh so awesome. They’re qualitatively and ontologically separate. They’re not opposites. So antinatalism argument doesn’t work.

BTW why are you talking about people being qualified for parenting or not. You’re an antinatalist. Shouldn’t you be against becoming parents in the first place? Smarter parents would be qualified to do what to warrant the continuation of human race? It’s contradictory. Also, are you vegan? Then why are you not an efilist or sentiocentric antinatalist?

You can try to structure even if it’s verbose and I’ll always read all of it. I’ve read 4000 page books.

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
1 week ago
@SuperSpock There is no need for “good” in the world without sentient organisms to need it. And what is “good” is just satisfying a need that you have created. That comes with the liability of the suffering that would be caused if the future person is deprived of that good. What’s your argument for why it is ethical to visit those liabilities on someone who didn’t exist and hence wasn’t missing out on good and could not consent?

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
1 week ago
@micgooflander95 I also don’t agree on your definition of life being relegated to the limited sphere of good and bad. There are more things to experience. I assume you buy into the carrot and stick analogy?

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
1 week ago
@SuperSpock There is nothing not living that is missing out on any of these experiences. If you bring a new life into existence, you’re doing it to serve your interests, or out of carelessness; you are never doing it to serve the interests of somebody who doesn’t exist yet. Whatever you say next does not change this. There really is nothing more than the carrot and the stick, but as inmendham would say, the carrot is mostly made out of removal of the stick.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
1 week ago
@micgooflander95 That’s because you’re using fixed points.
https://superspock.in/2020/09/23/what-if/

I don’t agree on the definition of bad either. These are just confusions in Language. These philosophical problems will disappear if you clear the confusion in Language.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
1 week ago
If you’re not reading the blog posts I’m linking to then there’s very little hope of understanding my points.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
1 week ago
@micgooflander95 Are you a materialist?

micgooflander95
micgooflander95
1 week ago
@SuperSpock I’ve no idea what that is supposed to have to do with the need to bring consciousness into existence that didn’t ask to be here. To experience suffering which is a real event in the universe, which I have experienced.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
1 week ago (edited)
@micgooflander95 When you negate Language you get a perspective that is quite radical. Knowledge ends for you. And yes this is relevant to the good and bad you talk about. You can’t buy an understanding of certain things nor will any amount of explanations get you there.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
1 week ago
@micgooflander95 Coming into Consciousness has very little to do with suffering. Suffering just happens to exist. We can phase it out through technology and there’s a very good reason for a materialist to do this because it’s more practical to meet halfway with people who would otherwise not even acknowledge antinatalism as anything but death cult philosophy.

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
1 week ago
@micgooflander95 Ludwig Wittgenstein Quote: “The solution to the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem.”

SuperSpock
SuperSpock
1 week ago
@micgooflander95 This man might give you some clarity on ending of knowledge. https://youtu.be/1exoQ3W-6E4
BTW inmendham is wrong about everything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s