Just wanted to let you know that the person who runs the schopenhaueronmars.com blog might write a response to this post of yours: https://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/02/debate-with-youtube-antinatalist.html?showComment=1636547288022&m=0#c6309203700950732633
You can find the conversation regarding that here: https://schopenhaueronmars.com/2021/09/15/antinatalism-vs-the-non-identity-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-50
Okay. I'd be interested in reading it. But that review of mine isn't my main article on antinatalism. It was just a written criticism of Inmendham's arguments, which supplemented by video responses to him.
I address antinatalism in "The Question of Antinatalism," and I summarize some objections in the more satirical article, 'Is Infamous YouTube Pessimist "Inmendham" Hero or Villain?' My last article that addresses the subject and whether our species should go extinct is "The Unmasking of Misanthropy: Jordan Peterson and David Benatar on Antinatalism."
But those are all older articles, especially the main, first one and the debate with Inmendham. They're from 2012 and 2014. I haven't written at length on antinatalism in awhile.
Oh, I think you meant that that antinatalist might write a reply to my comment under the article itself, not to the article which is related to Inmendham.
Thanks for the reply. I am not sure if he plans to reply to the comment or the post, though I am inclined to believe that it's the latter. He might write his own post. This is the exchange I saw on his blog:
"Hi there, thank you for your further response. I’ve already read that guy’s blog, and wasn’t impressed with what I saw. I’ll have a more detailed look at that later on, and consider responding. As a point in fact, I’m certain that I have interacted with that guy before. Perhaps it was on his blog, or perhaps it was on Reddit or Youtube. Anyway, back on to your ‘points’…
I too have eaten when I wasn’t hungry, and it has been my experience (perhaps this isn’t true of yourself) that I can only enjoy food to the greatest extent when I’m hungry, and sometimes it has actually been quite frustrating when I’ve wanted to go to a fast food outlet that I like when travelling, only to find that I can never seem to generate the hunger that would make eating the food satisfying. I can eat things like sweets and snack foods and get gratification for them when I’m not actually hungry, but even in these instances, I have observed that there is some kind of need for stimulation. And those types of food aren’t really to be eaten in order to satisfy hunger anyway, but to satisfy that craving for gustatory stimulation. But in my experience, if I lacked even the craving itself, then I wouldn’t even enjoy eating sweets, crisps or chocolate, or drinking tea. I do need to have either a hunger or a craving. Nonetheless, the more important part of my point is that there isn’t some disembodied soul floating around the ether who is worse off for not enjoying the goods of life....."
"I see Benjamin replied to your last post here, join him in conversation if you feel like its worth following: https://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/02/debate-with-youtube-antinatalist.html?showComment=1636547288022&m=0#c6309203700950732633"
"I’ll maybe have a go at responding to that post shortly. I have debated him before, though, I’m certain of it."
He goes by micgooflander on YouTube, if I am not mistaken.
As far as my views on the topic are concerned, they might be summed up as: You cannot have (-1) without the 1, so don't be too hasty in trying to remove the former without considering the latter.
I look forward to your replies to any potential responses from him. Hope you have a great day ahead.
My last thoughts on AN: My apologies for dragging this on, but there are certain statements made in that conversation which are too amusing for me to ignore. Like the idea of "causing torture".
First and foremost, I don't see how the creation of a person is synonymous with "causing torture". Nobody wants to create people who would have bad lives. The only thing is that there are also many deeply valuable lives (that sometimes exist in extremely harsh conditions) which don't deserve to be eliminated/prevented. Secondly, creating a person brings them into existence. External factors that lead them to having a potentially bad life have their own causal power, so I don't see how the a act of creating someone is the same as torturing anybody. At most, one could say that an individual acted with bad intentions in knowingly creating a person who would have a bad life. Yet, even here I am not sure if it's a case of infliction, or malicious aloofness. Lastly, it's not the case that creating a positive state of affairs requires torturing people. As I've said before, you don't necessarily need to hate somebody in order to love someone else.
As for the part about "onus", well, the onus isn't on those who want to preserve all that's good; it's on those who want to eliminate it to justify their monstrous need for "fixing" something that nobody asked to be fixed/fixing it by creating a solution that's more of a problem than a solution.
I shall resist seeing further replies to that thread, since I cannot bear the irrationality of the concerned arguments for much longer :p
These conversations on antinatalism are getting a little confusing in that they're spread out on my blog and on the antinatalist's. I should point out that I've already outlined some objections in the comments under another old post of mine, which I'll link below to help connect these discussions.
You make some good points about AN. I think the antinatalist would have to grant that most parents don't directly torture their children. The antinatalist would have to explain how you can indirectly torture someone even if that's not your intention. Clearly, parents know that most people suffer to some extent in their life, so they'd know their children will too and may even grow up to suffer a lot. It's the world that brings pleasure and pain, together with our actions that are rewarded or punished, fairly or not. The question is whether bringing people into that world is wrong, based just on that knowledge of probabilities, especially when the hardships are typically mixed with amusements and with the benefits of being alive.
Most people see life as a blessing rather than as a curse, despite all the disappointments and obstacles. In many cases, those assessments are based on religious delusions about the need to suffer through a flawed life to obtain a better one in an afterlife. So another question is whether the overall positive assessment of human life can be rationally justified without resorting to religious or secular fantasies.
Discussions about a confusing ideology are bound to be confusing. Your analysis seems to be quite accurate, so I don't have anything to add to it. The only thing I would like to say is that it's not always the case that a person would only value their life due to some religious obligation. I personally know many people who genuinely value their lives even though they don't have eternal bliss to look forward to. I don't deny that some people might be harbouring delusions, but delusions can occur everywhere, including in situations where one finds the void to be a preferable state of affairs.
Just wanted to let you know that the person who runs the schopenhaueronmars.com blog might write a response to this post of yours: https://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/02/debate-with-youtube-antinatalist.html?showComment=1636547288022&m=0#c6309203700950732633
ReplyDeleteYou can find the conversation regarding that here: https://schopenhaueronmars.com/2021/09/15/antinatalism-vs-the-non-identity-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-50
It's in the comments.
Okay. I'd be interested in reading it. But that review of mine isn't my main article on antinatalism. It was just a written criticism of Inmendham's arguments, which supplemented by video responses to him.
DeleteI address antinatalism in "The Question of Antinatalism," and I summarize some objections in the more satirical article, 'Is Infamous YouTube Pessimist "Inmendham" Hero or Villain?' My last article that addresses the subject and whether our species should go extinct is "The Unmasking of Misanthropy: Jordan Peterson and David Benatar on Antinatalism."
But those are all older articles, especially the main, first one and the debate with Inmendham. They're from 2012 and 2014. I haven't written at length on antinatalism in awhile.
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.ca/2018/03/the-unmasking-of-misanthropy-jordan.html
Oh, I think you meant that that antinatalist might write a reply to my comment under the article itself, not to the article which is related to Inmendham.
DeleteThanks for the reply. I am not sure if he plans to reply to the comment or the post, though I am inclined to believe that it's the latter. He might write his own post. This is the exchange I saw on his blog:
Delete"Hi there, thank you for your further response. I’ve already read that guy’s blog, and wasn’t impressed with what I saw. I’ll have a more detailed look at that later on, and consider responding. As a point in fact, I’m certain that I have interacted with that guy before. Perhaps it was on his blog, or perhaps it was on Reddit or Youtube. Anyway, back on to your ‘points’…
I too have eaten when I wasn’t hungry, and it has been my experience (perhaps this isn’t true of yourself) that I can only enjoy food to the greatest extent when I’m hungry, and sometimes it has actually been quite frustrating when I’ve wanted to go to a fast food outlet that I like when travelling, only to find that I can never seem to generate the hunger that would make eating the food satisfying. I can eat things like sweets and snack foods and get gratification for them when I’m not actually hungry, but even in these instances, I have observed that there is some kind of need for stimulation. And those types of food aren’t really to be eaten in order to satisfy hunger anyway, but to satisfy that craving for gustatory stimulation. But in my experience, if I lacked even the craving itself, then I wouldn’t even enjoy eating sweets, crisps or chocolate, or drinking tea. I do need to have either a hunger or a craving. Nonetheless, the more important part of my point is that there isn’t some disembodied soul floating around the ether who is worse off for not enjoying the goods of life....."
"I see Benjamin replied to your last post here, join him in conversation if you feel like its worth following:
https://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/02/debate-with-youtube-antinatalist.html?showComment=1636547288022&m=0#c6309203700950732633"
"I’ll maybe have a go at responding to that post shortly. I have debated him before, though, I’m certain of it."
He goes by micgooflander on YouTube, if I am not mistaken.
As far as my views on the topic are concerned, they might be summed up as:
You cannot have (-1) without the 1, so don't be too hasty in trying to remove the former without considering the latter.
I look forward to your replies to any potential responses from him. Hope you have a great day ahead.
My last thoughts on AN: My apologies for dragging this on, but there are certain statements made in that conversation which are too amusing for me to ignore. Like the idea of "causing torture".
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I don't see how the creation of a person is synonymous with "causing torture". Nobody wants to create people who would have bad lives. The only thing is that there are also many deeply valuable lives (that sometimes exist in extremely harsh conditions) which don't deserve to be eliminated/prevented. Secondly, creating a person brings them into existence. External factors that lead them to having a potentially bad life have their own causal power, so I don't see how the a act of creating someone is the same as torturing anybody. At most, one could say that an individual acted with bad intentions in knowingly creating a person who would have a bad life. Yet, even here I am not sure if it's a case of infliction, or malicious aloofness. Lastly, it's not the case that creating a positive state of affairs requires torturing people. As I've said before, you don't necessarily need to hate somebody in order to love someone else.
As for the part about "onus", well, the onus isn't on those who want to preserve all that's good; it's on those who want to eliminate it to justify their monstrous need for "fixing" something that nobody asked to be fixed/fixing it by creating a solution that's more of a problem than a solution.
I shall resist seeing further replies to that thread, since I cannot bear the irrationality of the concerned arguments for much longer :p
These conversations on antinatalism are getting a little confusing in that they're spread out on my blog and on the antinatalist's. I should point out that I've already outlined some objections in the comments under another old post of mine, which I'll link below to help connect these discussions.
DeleteYou make some good points about AN. I think the antinatalist would have to grant that most parents don't directly torture their children. The antinatalist would have to explain how you can indirectly torture someone even if that's not your intention. Clearly, parents know that most people suffer to some extent in their life, so they'd know their children will too and may even grow up to suffer a lot. It's the world that brings pleasure and pain, together with our actions that are rewarded or punished, fairly or not. The question is whether bringing people into that world is wrong, based just on that knowledge of probabilities, especially when the hardships are typically mixed with amusements and with the benefits of being alive.
Most people see life as a blessing rather than as a curse, despite all the disappointments and obstacles. In many cases, those assessments are based on religious delusions about the need to suffer through a flawed life to obtain a better one in an afterlife. So another question is whether the overall positive assessment of human life can be rationally justified without resorting to religious or secular fantasies.
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/02/debate-with-youtube-antinatalist.html?showComment=1636647163575
Discussions about a confusing ideology are bound to be confusing. Your analysis seems to be quite accurate, so I don't have anything to add to it. The only thing I would like to say is that it's not always the case that a person would only value their life due to some religious obligation. I personally know many people who genuinely value their lives even though they don't have eternal bliss to look forward to. I don't deny that some people might be harbouring delusions, but delusions can occur everywhere, including in situations where one finds the void to be a preferable state of affairs.
Delete