Here's an article on demagoguery, self-restraint, and Republican derangement: how the cult of Trump's GOP confirms the ancient Greek philosophical critique of democracy.
Hello, I hope that you're doing well. I've been reading your blog for a while now and I have found it to be very informative and enlightening. I have been dealing (more specifically, arguing against) a lot of extremely pessimistic and anti-life ideologies these days. This includes antinatalism and it's more extreme forms efilism (all life should be eliminated) and promortalism (dying as quickly as possible is good). I have been concerned with the resurgence of such views in recent years, although I can understand that the contemporary era is a great time for such dark views to "shine" (or darken the world). I was particularly surprised to see a 14 year old kid on the promortalism sub asking for suicide methods and talking about murdering people secretly to alleviate suffering. The responses, instead of guiding the kid towards a better path, instead only said vague things about the plan being "impractical" and damaging the "reputation" of the movement. Then of course, we have people like Gary Inmendham, who has openly said things I never thought a man could say. I don't believe in sins, but all I can is that I have very little respect for those who associate with a person who was openly said that he would kill a pregnant woman (and a lot of other terrible stuff). I will post links to a couple of compilation videos at the end of this comment, which will further demonstrate the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of this "compassionate" philosophy. Personally, I am a Hindu. However, I wanted to see if the antinatalist ideas could really be justified by utilitarianism, as they claim it can be. The idea of asking for the consent of a non-existent being doesn't make sense. It appears to be an arbitrary threshold since a person cannot assent to being created either. Furthermore, a non-existent person doesn't have the capacity for consent, unlike somebody like a coma patient. This doesn't mean that we should create beings who would suffer more, since being a positive utilitarian (not a negative one) entails maximising the happiness of society. I also believe that the so-called "asymmetry" doesn't make sense and applies double standards. I see no reason why the absence of pleasure should not be bad if the absence of suffering is good. Benatar appears to advocate for the idea of the absence of suffering as being an abstract good, while considering the absence of pleasure only in an experiential sense. Non-existent beings don't benefit from a lack of suffering. They aren't, assuming a naturalistic framework, in some heavenly abode begging parents to not create them. Therefore, the ideal position seems to be one where the absence of suffering and pleasure is neither good nor bad. This would imply that there is no absolute moral imperative to create people or to not create them. The pessimists also claim that most people are "biased". This claim seems problematic to me. Firstly, I think that there are strong commonsensical grounds based on our own observations that most people are obsessed with everything that's wrong with the world (which might explain why pessimistic philosophies are in the vogue these days). Secondly, the pessimists downplay happiness by calling it "biological addiction/slavery, whilst completely ignoring that suffering isn't something apart from being biological aversion to a thing either. Also, our "biases" are only bad if they are actually harmful for us in the long term. I don't believe that being genuinely happy is bad, regardless of happiness being a result of "chemical processes" (a favourite phrase of theirs).
This comment is a continuation of the previous one. I was particularly surprised to see a 14 year old kid on the promortalism sub asking for suicide methods and talking about murdering people secretly to alleviate suffering. The responses, instead of guiding the kid towards a better path, instead only said vague things about the plan being "impractical" and damaging the "reputation" of the movement. Then of course, we have people like Gary Inmendham, who has openly said things I never thought a man could say. I don't believe in sins, but all I can is that I have very little respect for those who associate with a person who was openly said that he would kill a pregnant woman (and a lot of other terrible stuff). I will post links to a couple of compilation videos at the end of this comment, which will further demonstrate the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of this "compassionate" philosophy. Personally, I am a Hindu. However, I wanted to see if the antinatalist ideas could really be justified by utilitarianism, as they claim it can be. The idea of asking for the consent of a non-existent being doesn't make sense. It appears to be an arbitrary threshold since a person cannot assent to being created either. Furthermore, a non-existent person doesn't have the capacity for consent, unlike somebody like a coma patient. This doesn't mean that we should create beings who would suffer more, since being a positive utilitarian (not a negative one) entails maximising the happiness of society. I also believe that the so-called "asymmetry" doesn't make sense and applies double standards. I see no reason why the absence of pleasure should not be bad if the absence of suffering is good. Benatar appears to advocate for the idea of the absence of suffering as being an abstract good, while considering the absence of pleasure only in an experiential sense. Non-existent beings don't benefit from a lack of suffering. They aren't, assuming a naturalistic framework, in some heavenly abode begging parents to not create them. Therefore, the ideal position seems to be one where the absence of suffering and pleasure is neither good nor bad. This would imply that there is no absolute moral imperative to create people or to not create them. The pessimists also claim that most people are "biased". This claim seems problematic to me. Firstly, I think that there are strong commonsensical grounds based on our own observations that most people are obsessed with everything that's wrong with the world (which might explain why pessimistic philosophies are in the vogue these days). Secondly, the pessimists downplay happiness by calling it "biological addiction/slavery, whilst completely ignoring that suffering isn't something apart from being biological aversion to a thing either. Also, our "biases" are only bad if they are actually harmful for us in the long term. I don't believe that being genuinely happy is bad, regardless of happiness being a result of "chemical processes" (a favourite phrase of theirs). I don't believe that they have the right or wisdom to suggest that each individual's life is not worth existing. People can find their lives to be meaningful even in the darkest of times. I personally believe that there are more valuable things in life than just superficial pleasures, which is why I am not a utilitarian. I do hope that we can have the right to die so that nobody is forced to live if they truly cannot find any value in their lives. Transhumanism is another idea which can help drastically reduce suffering. Reading posts by people talking about creating a nuclear bomb/grey goo to end all life has made me realise that we do need to work together to create a better society, whilst rejecting ideologies of hatred and extremism.
Your work has been a source of inspiration for me and I am sure a lot of other people. Thank you, for everything. I hope that happiness, peace, and truth prevail. I pray that you have a wonderful day and a blessed life!
Here is the wisdom of Gary, I thought you might find it amusing: 1.https://youtu.be/dRL3zyfNG7M
I am not sure if my comments on antinatalism went through on this post. If not, I would be grateful if you could let me know. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Thanks. I'm glad you got something out of my writings.
I talk about a number of these issues, including Benatar's asymmetry argument, utilitarianism, and Inmendham's pessimism in my articles on antinatalism. I had a YouTube "debate" with Inmendham. (I'm not sure if you read them or saw the videos, so in case you're interested I'll link them below.)
I haven't written about antinatalism recently because I think it's more a mental health issue than a philosophical one. Regardless of the technical details, the underlying problem with antinatalism, or with anti-life stances is that they're presumptuous. Only in extreme cases is it clear that a person's remaining life will be filled with agony or will do more harm than good. As far as the future of our species goes, no one knows whether it will amount to more of the same or whether we'll transcend to a more enlightened state. Gary the efilist says transhumanism is just another bogus religion, but technological progress is hardly an illusion.
I never said that technology doesn't have its naysayers or that it isn't nowhere close to being perfect. Nevertheless, j remain hopeful for a better future, as long as we work together. Thanks for the link btw, it was an interesting read :)
It must be remembered that there is no real reason to expect anything in particular from mankind; good and evil are local expedients—or their lack—and not in any sense cosmic truths or laws. We call a thing "good" because it promotes certain petty human conditions that we happen to like—whereas it is just as sensible to assume that all humanity is a noxious pest and should be eradicated like rats or gnats for the good of the planet or of the universe. There are no absolute values in the whole blind tragedy of mechanistic nature—nothing is good or bad except as judged from an absurdly limited point of view. The only cosmic reality is mindless, undeviating fate—automatic, unmoral, uncalculating inevitability. H.P. Lovecraft
Hello, I hope that you're doing well. I've been reading your blog for a while now and I have found it to be very informative and enlightening. I have been dealing (more specifically, arguing against) a lot of extremely pessimistic and anti-life ideologies these days. This includes antinatalism and it's more extreme forms efilism (all life should be eliminated) and promortalism (dying as quickly as possible is good). I have been concerned with the resurgence of such views in recent years, although I can understand that the contemporary era is a great time for such dark views to "shine" (or darken the world). I was particularly surprised to see a 14 year old kid on the promortalism sub asking for suicide methods and talking about murdering people secretly to alleviate suffering. The responses, instead of guiding the kid towards a better path, instead only said vague things about the plan being "impractical" and damaging the "reputation" of the movement. Then of course, we have people like Gary Inmendham, who has openly said things I never thought a man could say. I don't believe in sins, but all I can is that I have very little respect for those who associate with a person who was openly said that he would kill a pregnant woman (and a lot of other terrible stuff). I will post links to a couple of compilation videos at the end of this comment, which will further demonstrate the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of this "compassionate" philosophy. Personally, I am a Hindu. However, I wanted to see if the antinatalist ideas could really be justified by utilitarianism, as they claim it can be. The idea of asking for the consent of a non-existent being doesn't make sense. It appears to be an arbitrary threshold since a person cannot assent to being created either. Furthermore, a non-existent person doesn't have the capacity for consent, unlike somebody like a coma patient. This doesn't mean that we should create beings who would suffer more, since being a positive utilitarian (not a negative one) entails maximising the happiness of society. I also believe that the so-called "asymmetry" doesn't make sense and applies double standards. I see no reason why the absence of pleasure should not be bad if the absence of suffering is good. Benatar appears to advocate for the idea of the absence of suffering as being an abstract good, while considering the absence of pleasure only in an experiential sense. Non-existent beings don't benefit from a lack of suffering. They aren't, assuming a naturalistic framework, in some heavenly abode begging parents to not create them. Therefore, the ideal position seems to be one where the absence of suffering and pleasure is neither good nor bad. This would imply that there is no absolute moral imperative to create people or to not create them. The pessimists also claim that most people are "biased". This claim seems problematic to me. Firstly, I think that there are strong commonsensical grounds based on our own observations that most people are obsessed with everything that's wrong with the world (which might explain why pessimistic philosophies are in the vogue these days). Secondly, the pessimists downplay happiness by calling it "biological addiction/slavery, whilst completely ignoring that suffering isn't something apart from being biological aversion to a thing either. Also, our "biases" are only bad if they are actually harmful for us in the long term. I don't believe that being genuinely happy is bad, regardless of happiness being a result of "chemical processes" (a favourite phrase of theirs).
ReplyDeleteThis comment is a continuation of the previous one.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly surprised to see a 14 year old kid on the promortalism sub asking for suicide methods and talking about murdering people secretly to alleviate suffering. The responses, instead of guiding the kid towards a better path, instead only said vague things about the plan being "impractical" and damaging the "reputation" of the movement. Then of course, we have people like Gary Inmendham, who has openly said things I never thought a man could say. I don't believe in sins, but all I can is that I have very little respect for those who associate with a person who was openly said that he would kill a pregnant woman (and a lot of other terrible stuff). I will post links to a couple of compilation videos at the end of this comment, which will further demonstrate the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of this "compassionate" philosophy. Personally, I am a Hindu. However, I wanted to see if the antinatalist ideas could really be justified by utilitarianism, as they claim it can be. The idea of asking for the consent of a non-existent being doesn't make sense. It appears to be an arbitrary threshold since a person cannot assent to being created either. Furthermore, a non-existent person doesn't have the capacity for consent, unlike somebody like a coma patient. This doesn't mean that we should create beings who would suffer more, since being a positive utilitarian (not a negative one) entails maximising the happiness of society. I also believe that the so-called "asymmetry" doesn't make sense and applies double standards. I see no reason why the absence of pleasure should not be bad if the absence of suffering is good. Benatar appears to advocate for the idea of the absence of suffering as being an abstract good, while considering the absence of pleasure only in an experiential sense. Non-existent beings don't benefit from a lack of suffering. They aren't, assuming a naturalistic framework, in some heavenly abode begging parents to not create them. Therefore, the ideal position seems to be one where the absence of suffering and pleasure is neither good nor bad. This would imply that there is no absolute moral imperative to create people or to not create them. The pessimists also claim that most people are "biased". This claim seems problematic to me. Firstly, I think that there are strong commonsensical grounds based on our own observations that most people are obsessed with everything that's wrong with the world (which might explain why pessimistic philosophies are in the vogue these days). Secondly, the pessimists downplay happiness by calling it "biological addiction/slavery, whilst completely ignoring that suffering isn't something apart from being biological aversion to a thing either. Also, our "biases" are only bad if they are actually harmful for us in the long term. I don't believe that being genuinely happy is bad, regardless of happiness being a result of "chemical processes" (a favourite phrase of theirs). I don't believe that they have the right or wisdom to suggest that each individual's life is not worth existing. People can find their lives to be meaningful even in the darkest of times. I personally believe that there are more valuable things in life than just superficial pleasures, which is why I am not a utilitarian. I do hope that we can have the right to die so that nobody is forced to live if they truly cannot find any value in their lives. Transhumanism is another idea which can help drastically reduce suffering. Reading posts by people talking about creating a nuclear bomb/grey goo to end all life has made me realise that we do need to work together to create a better society, whilst rejecting ideologies of hatred and extremism.
Your work has been a source of inspiration for me and I am sure a lot of other people. Thank you, for everything. I hope that happiness, peace, and truth prevail. I pray that you have a wonderful day and a blessed life!
ReplyDeleteHere is the wisdom of Gary, I thought you might find it amusing:
1.https://youtu.be/dRL3zyfNG7M
2. https://youtu.be/ebaFnWA5-PY
I am not sure if my comments on antinatalism went through on this post. If not, I would be grateful if you could let me know. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I'm glad you got something out of my writings.
DeleteI talk about a number of these issues, including Benatar's asymmetry argument, utilitarianism, and Inmendham's pessimism in my articles on antinatalism. I had a YouTube "debate" with Inmendham. (I'm not sure if you read them or saw the videos, so in case you're interested I'll link them below.)
I haven't written about antinatalism recently because I think it's more a mental health issue than a philosophical one. Regardless of the technical details, the underlying problem with antinatalism, or with anti-life stances is that they're presumptuous. Only in extreme cases is it clear that a person's remaining life will be filled with agony or will do more harm than good. As far as the future of our species goes, no one knows whether it will amount to more of the same or whether we'll transcend to a more enlightened state. Gary the efilist says transhumanism is just another bogus religion, but technological progress is hardly an illusion.
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2012/11/the-question-of-antinatalism.html
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2018/05/is-infamous-youtube-pessimist-inmendham.html
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/02/nihilism-or-transcendence-reply-to.html
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/02/debate-with-youtube-antinatalist.html
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2018/03/the-unmasking-of-misanthropy-jordan.html
Thank you so much for those links, it was a truly enriching experience to go through them.
DeleteAnd you are absolutely right, "technological progress is hardly an illusion".
https://metadelusion.blogspot.com/2015/11/ditch-pharaohs-transhumanism-as-escapism.html
DeleteI never said that technology doesn't have its naysayers or that it isn't nowhere close to being perfect. Nevertheless, j remain hopeful for a better future, as long as we work together. Thanks for the link btw, it was an interesting read :)
DeleteHope you have a wonderful day!
"Technological progress is hardly an illusion." How would you define progress? There are many definitions of that word.
ReplyDeleteIt must be remembered that there is no real reason to expect anything in particular from mankind; good and evil are local expedients—or their lack—and not in any sense cosmic truths or laws. We call a thing "good" because it promotes certain petty human conditions that we happen to like—whereas it is just as sensible to assume that all humanity is a noxious pest and should be eradicated like rats or gnats for the good of the planet or of the universe. There are no absolute values in the whole blind tragedy of mechanistic nature—nothing is good or bad except as judged from an absurdly limited point of view. The only cosmic reality is mindless, undeviating fate—automatic, unmoral, uncalculating inevitability. H.P. Lovecraft
ReplyDeleteThe price of technology.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/5/23/22441889/our-children-are-dying-like-dogs-congo-slave-labor-cobalt-lawsuit-apple-tesla-human-rights-dell