Philosophy Thread....

[Somedude]

On 3/12/2021 at 5:38 PM, dasari4kntr said:

i saw one youtube video yesterday...about this book...

definitely going read or listen it...

Closer to Truth ani oka channel untadhi Youtube/FB lo by person called  Robert Lawrence Kuhn. He is well known person. He discusses 3 things - Religion, Consciousness and Science/Cosmos. Except his religious topic, I like the other two very much. They are in different topics General & Special relativity, String theory, multi-verse, Quantum physics, Maths, freewill, death, mind-body problem, study of brains, psychedelic drugs and how those drungs and meditation impact the brain and etc. He discusses the things mostly with wll known Univ professors (Penrose, Kip Thorne, Machio Kaku and etc) from Oxford, Cambridge, MIT and etc. He had PhD in neuroscience.

https://www.youtube.com/user/CloserToTruth1

[galiraju]

my philosphy is dont put fingers in somebody and smell.....put your finer in you and try smell better everyday...tahtz it...

[Lonelyloner]

5 minutes ago, galiraju said:

my philosphy is dont put fingers in somebody and smell.....put your finer in you and try smell better everyday...tahtz it...

lol......hahahaha

[dasari4kntr]

5 hours ago, zarathustra said:

https://thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/episode93-2

They have a second part about death, karma and suffering. Check it out. 

@Somedude

seems she is more knowledgeable...i need to hear this again...

[zarathustra]

“If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?” - Arthur Schopenhauer

[dasari4kntr]

7 hours ago, zarathustra said:

“If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?” - Arthur Schopenhauer

its very deep statement....mind boggling...

to be honest...initially i couldnt understand this....but after some internet research was able to get some idea...

 

good explanation from internet...:

 

This is Theodore.

Theodore presently exists. Because Theodore exists, there are things that are good for Theodore, and things that are bad for Theodore. For instance, ice-cream is good for Theodore. For instance, being hit by a truck is bad for Theodore.

Now, imagine that we have transported to the time that Theodore’s parents were thinking of trying for a baby, but were not yet pregnant with Theodore.

“We should move to an estate with good childcare facilities,” Theodore’s mother opines, considering that a good childcare would be good for Theodore when he is born.

“But first, you should lay off the wine,” his father chimes in. You get the message.

Here, how can Theodore’s parents talk about things that are good, or bad, for Theodore even though Theodore does not yet exist? It’s simple — we imagine that Theodore exists, and contemplate if something is good or bad for him. If something is good for existent-Theodore, we can take it to be good for nonexistent-Theodore. The same applies for things that are bad for him.

This page thus argues that existence is bad for him. By bad for him, it means that the possible world in which he exists is worse-off for him than the possible world in which he does not exist.

---

This argument relies on the premise that to exist is to suffer. This is not a novel insight at all. Of course, there are pleasures to be had in existence. Ice-cream, for example, is great. On what basis, then, do I claim that existence is necessarily a harm despite the fact that existence contains within it pleasure?

I now turn to what David Benatar calls the Asymmetry of Pleasure and Pain.

There is a parity between the following:

(1) the presence of pain is bad; and

(2) the presence of pleasure is good.

However, note that this symmetry does not extend to the absence of pleasure and pain. More likely, the disparity can be shown as:

(3) the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone; and

(4) the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

The Asymmetry of Pleasure and Pain

This asymmetry is not particularly novel — it explains our intuitions on why we should always opt to avoid bringing suffering into the world, but why there is no duty to bring pleasure into the world.

The upshot of this asymmetry is that the sum total benefit derived from the presence of pain and pleasure in a case of existence is outweighed by the sum total benefit derived from the absence of pain and pleasure in a case of non-existence.

Philanthropic antinatalism is the thesis that we should not birth children because it is worse for them to exist than not to exist. If this asymmetry is true, then, it certainly seems that the better state of affairs is non-existence. It is, also, uncontentious that it is philanthropic to — with our own actions and sometimes at our own cost — bring about a better state of affairs for someone else. This asymmetry thus becomes a strong theoretical ally to philanthropic antinatalism; if we are minded to bring about the best states of affairs for those around us, and non-existence is a better state of affairs than existence, then we should be minded to promote non-existence than existence.

This argument does not extend to presently-existing people. A presently-existing person like you and I stand to be harmed greatly from the termination of our existence. This is because we have projects, plans, et cetera for which we shall incur harm if we are deprived of their satisfaction.  Because of this essential detail, the asymmetry does not apply to presently-existing people. The absence of pleasure can, theoretically, be felt by the person whose existence is to be terminated.

[zarathustra]

3 minutes ago, dasari4kntr said:

its very deep statement....mind boggling...

to be honest...initially i couldnt understand this....but after some internet research was able to get some idea...

 

good explanation from internet...:

 

This is Theodore.

Theodore presently exists. Because Theodore exists, there are things that are good for Theodore, and things that are bad for Theodore. For instance, ice-cream is good for Theodore. For instance, being hit by a truck is bad for Theodore.

Now, imagine that we have transported to the time that Theodore’s parents were thinking of trying for a baby, but were not yet pregnant with Theodore.

“We should move to an estate with good childcare facilities,” Theodore’s mother opines, considering that a good childcare would be good for Theodore when he is born.

“But first, you should lay off the wine,” his father chimes in. You get the message.

Here, how can Theodore’s parents talk about things that are good, or bad, for Theodore even though Theodore does not yet exist? It’s simple — we imagine that Theodore exists, and contemplate if something is good or bad for him. If something is good for existent-Theodore, we can take it to be good for nonexistent-Theodore. The same applies for things that are bad for him.

This page thus argues that existence is bad for him. By bad for him, it means that the possible world in which he exists is worse-off for him than the possible world in which he does not exist.

---

This argument relies on the premise that to exist is to suffer. This is not a novel insight at all. Of course, there are pleasures to be had in existence. Ice-cream, for example, is great. On what basis, then, do I claim that existence is necessarily a harm despite the fact that existence contains within it pleasure?

I now turn to what David Benatar calls the Asymmetry of Pleasure and Pain.

There is a parity between the following:

(1) the presence of pain is bad; and

(2) the presence of pleasure is good.

However, note that this symmetry does not extend to the absence of pleasure and pain. More likely, the disparity can be shown as:

(3) the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone; and

(4) the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

The Asymmetry of Pleasure and Pain

This asymmetry is not particularly novel — it explains our intuitions on why we should always opt to avoid bringing suffering into the world, but why there is no duty to bring pleasure into the world.

The upshot of this asymmetry is that the sum total benefit derived from the presence of pain and pleasure in a case of existence is outweighed by the sum total benefit derived from the absence of pain and pleasure in a case of non-existence.

Philanthropic antinatalism is the thesis that we should not birth children because it is worse for them to exist than not to exist. If this asymmetry is true, then, it certainly seems that the better state of affairs is non-existence. It is, also, uncontentious that it is philanthropic to — with our own actions and sometimes at our own cost — bring about a better state of affairs for someone else. This asymmetry thus becomes a strong theoretical ally to philanthropic antinatalism; if we are minded to bring about the best states of affairs for those around us, and non-existence is a better state of affairs than existence, then we should be minded to promote non-existence than existence.

This argument does not extend to presently-existing people. A presently-existing person like you and I stand to be harmed greatly from the termination of our existence. This is because we have projects, plans, et cetera for which we shall incur harm if we are deprived of their satisfaction.  Because of this essential detail, the asymmetry does not apply to presently-existing people. The absence of pleasure can, theoretically, be felt by the person whose existence is to be terminated.

We are talking about an anti natal movement and the axiomatic argument behind it in this day and age.

Arthur Schopenhauer conceived this 200 years ago, he was a philosopher way ahead of his time but his prophecies are still as relevant today as they were when he stated those. 

[dasari4kntr]

1 minute ago, zarathustra said:

We are talking about an anti natal movement and the axiomatic argument behind it in this day and age.

Arthur Schopenhauer conceived this 200 years ago, he was a philosopher way ahead of his time but his prophecies are still as relevant today as they were when he stated those. 

yup...ee anti-natalism paina..chala videos kanipinchaai... youtube lo...

deeni prakaram.. (just for a second talking like creationism supporter...) if god created people...he did bad for people by creating them...

[zarathustra]

20 minutes ago, dasari4kntr said:

yup...ee anti-natalism paina..chala videos kanipinchaai... youtube lo...

deeni prakaram.. (just for a second talking like creationism supporter...) if god created people...he did bad for people by creating them...

Yes

[Somedude]

14 hours ago, dasari4kntr said:

its very deep statement....mind boggling...

to be honest...initially i couldnt understand this....but after some internet research was able to get some idea...

 

good explanation from internet...:

 

This is Theodore.

Theodore presently exists. Because Theodore exists, there are things that are good for Theodore, and things that are bad for Theodore. For instance, ice-cream is good for Theodore. For instance, being hit by a truck is bad for Theodore.

Now, imagine that we have transported to the time that Theodore’s parents were thinking of trying for a baby, but were not yet pregnant with Theodore.

“We should move to an estate with good childcare facilities,” Theodore’s mother opines, considering that a good childcare would be good for Theodore when he is born.

“But first, you should lay off the wine,” his father chimes in. You get the message.

Here, how can Theodore’s parents talk about things that are good, or bad, for Theodore even though Theodore does not yet exist? It’s simple — we imagine that Theodore exists, and contemplate if something is good or bad for him. If something is good for existent-Theodore, we can take it to be good for nonexistent-Theodore. The same applies for things that are bad for him.

This page thus argues that existence is bad for him. By bad for him, it means that the possible world in which he exists is worse-off for him than the possible world in which he does not exist.

---

This argument relies on the premise that to exist is to suffer. This is not a novel insight at all. Of course, there are pleasures to be had in existence. Ice-cream, for example, is great. On what basis, then, do I claim that existence is necessarily a harm despite the fact that existence contains within it pleasure?

I now turn to what David Benatar calls the Asymmetry of Pleasure and Pain.

There is a parity between the following:

(1) the presence of pain is bad; and

(2) the presence of pleasure is good.

However, note that this symmetry does not extend to the absence of pleasure and pain. More likely, the disparity can be shown as:

(3) the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone; and

(4) the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

The Asymmetry of Pleasure and Pain

This asymmetry is not particularly novel — it explains our intuitions on why we should always opt to avoid bringing suffering into the world, but why there is no duty to bring pleasure into the world.

The upshot of this asymmetry is that the sum total benefit derived from the presence of pain and pleasure in a case of existence is outweighed by the sum total benefit derived from the absence of pain and pleasure in a case of non-existence.

Philanthropic antinatalism is the thesis that we should not birth children because it is worse for them to exist than not to exist. If this asymmetry is true, then, it certainly seems that the better state of affairs is non-existence. It is, also, uncontentious that it is philanthropic to — with our own actions and sometimes at our own cost — bring about a better state of affairs for someone else. This asymmetry thus becomes a strong theoretical ally to philanthropic antinatalism; if we are minded to bring about the best states of affairs for those around us, and non-existence is a better state of affairs than existence, then we should be minded to promote non-existence than existence.

This argument does not extend to presently-existing people. A presently-existing person like you and I stand to be harmed greatly from the termination of our existence. This is because we have projects, plans, et cetera for which we shall incur harm if we are deprived of their satisfaction.  Because of this essential detail, the asymmetry does not apply to presently-existing people. The absence of pleasure can, theoretically, be felt by the person whose existence is to be terminated.

Asymmetry between pain and pleasure matrix is proposed by David Benatar in Better Never to Have Been. There are number of podcasts or interviews of David Benater in Youtube. His arguments are very logical and profound. People who understand and comprehend the concept of non-existance deeply can obey with each one of his points.

Btw, I have listened to every interview of Benatar.

There is an AN group in FB.

[zarathustra]

16 minutes ago, Somedude said:

Asymmetry between pain and pleasure matrix is proposed by David Benatar in Better Never to Have Been. There are number of podcasts or interviews of David Benater in Youtube. His arguments are very logical and profound. People who understand and comprehend the concept of non-existance deeply can obey with each one of his points.

Btw, I have listened to every interview of Benatar.

There is an AN group in FB.

Yes but Schopenhauer is the first one to have proposed such a theory 200 years before our current time.

He didn't explicitly state the axiomatic argument that David Benatar had suggested but the essence is pretty much the same thing. 

[Somedude]

45 minutes ago, zarathustra said:

Yes but Schopenhauer is the first one to have proposed such a theory 200 years before our current time.

He didn't explicitly state the axiomatic argument that David Benatar had suggested but the essence is pretty much the same thing. 

Not deneying that about Schopenhauer. I am big fan of his writings/quotes. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Sartre, Fyodor and other old timers represented the broader spectrum of philosophy of pessimism nihilism and existentialism. One needs to have special interest and good analytical skill to get the meaning out of their writings. That's why their works are largley limited to academic circles. Benatar's writings & arguments are more distilled into AN and easily understood by the common folks and stright to the point. He is big influencer in modern times. Compared to others, I see his articles regularly in the newpapers, podcasts. I am member of AN groups. From the comments and discussions, I noticed many people are influenced by his writings.

[zarathustra]

Just now, Somedude said:

Not deneying that about Schopenhauer. I am big fan of his writings/quotes. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Sartre, Fyodor and other old timers represented the broader spectrum of philosophy of pessimism nihilism and existentialism. One needs to have special interest and good analytical skill to understand the meaning out of their writings. That's why their works are limited to studies in Universities. Benatar's writings & arguments are more distilled into AN and easily understood by the common folks and stright to the point. He is big influencer in modern times. Compared to others, I see his articles regularly in the newpapers, podcasts. I am member of AN groups. From the comments and discussions, I noticed many people are influenced by his writings.

Good point. Yes it took me quite a few readings to understand and appreciate the depth of Schopenhauers philosophy. Same with Nietzsche. 

I still haven't figured out what Hagel's dialectic exactly means. It's almost as if that dude didn't want anyone to understand what he means.

Currently reading the conspiracy against the human race. A tad dense to read through quickly but I should be done reading it today. 

[zarathustra]

3 minutes ago, Somedude said:

Not deneying that about Schopenhauer. I am big fan of his writings/quotes. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Sartre, Fyodor and other old timers represented the broader spectrum of philosophy of pessimism nihilism and existentialism. One needs to have special interest and good analytical skill to understand the meaning out of their writings. That's why their works are limited to studies in Universities. Benatar's writings & arguments are more distilled into AN and easily understood by the common folks and stright to the point. He is big influencer in modern times. Compared to others, I see his articles regularly in the newpapers, podcasts. I am member of AN groups. From the comments and discussions, I noticed many people are influenced by his writings.

Sartre while an idealist also comes across as a bit of an opportunist at times. Try to read his debates with Camus and you can see that Sartres upper class upbringing weights in on his philosophy, Camus on the other comes from a much more proletarian background.

If you haven't heard of Karl Popper definitely  check him out. I find his insights a lot more in depth compared to Sartre, although I wont deny the influence that Sartre had on society at large. 

[dasari4kntr]

few pages... about hagel dialect from the book which i am reading...

not sure about the accuracy of this...because of the writers controversial reputation...