"I couldn't agree more qohelet: there's no escape. I've only ever experienced that sort of euproric feeling we call happines when my perception was not conforming to reality: high hopes, fantasies, glamour, illusions. Very short lived and painful when shattered is happiness.
I have eventually attained some prosperity in my life and no longer live in permanent worry about tomorrowbut and... I am still depressed and still suicidal, just as I've been ever. I may be having more money now and freedom to travel or do whatever, but what am I left to do in life, and for what reason? What's a good reason to stuff myself with sensations and experiences and gorge on expensive foods? It's no coincidence that the well off so often end up leading a life of orgies of all sorts from shopping to sex to eating to hunting - it just proves the point that here's no point to living, to experiencing things for the sake of... experiencing things.
I've become pretty much incapable of having illusions and high hopes, which I find insufferable now, therefore incapable of feeling "happiness". But the oher day I still got caught up thinking some glamour thoughts as I was driving along. And then in an instant I saw at the side of the road a poor bird partially run over flapping its wings in agony unable to move away as its crushed flesh was sticking to the tamac. The glamour bubble burst and I came back to reality... it won't be much longer until I'll take the exit way with a heroin overdose or something."
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Eh, it's not like you have an obligation to help him as a stranger on the internet.
Something like that would have to come internally, or from family and friends.
A counter point that doesn't involve drugs and therapy is that if he just feels hallow regarding spending money on himself, perhaps he should consider spending it on others and see if their happiness improves his outlook.
And incapable of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, either. XD
I mean, really, the fact that gang rape exists means no one should be born? Does he know that we have police to stop people from doing bad things, and that if the world was that horrible, no one would have bothered to consider making a police force?
I'm glad I don't try to argue with these people directly. I'd either end up getting banned myself for resorting to name-calling, or I'd end up banning them for being obnoxious.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I'm not so sure that could be called drawing a conclusion and more stabbing a piece of paper with a crayon and calling the results a conclusion.
It's like he took the statement said "I'm going to use this for MY argument." Except instead of doing that, he sets it all on fire and screams "THE UNIVERSE IS PAIN! THE UNIVERSE IS PAIN!"
I'm also getting this strange pandysthiesm vibe from it...
If we are made of the same elements that compose the universe, and when this thing has condensed itself, it created all this non-sense and pain, would it be wrong to consider the universe a malignant entity?
I really, really want to make a Homestuck joke here.
In other news, this was posted in the comments section of a blog where an antinatalist talks about his struggles with depression.
"My cheery view: you just need to be around smart people, period. My bestie claims he was so outcast in high school that even the D&D people wouldn't play with him, but once he escaped to Harvard he was golden and has had a string of super-smart model-hot long-term girlfriends (no he's not rich) and is a social hub of the community. I don't think it's about antinatalism; an echo chamber would just depress you more. It's actually way more exciting to be surrounded by people who challenge your beliefs.
Much as you might disagree, it is completely obvious from your writing that you are likable, introspective, and interesting.
Could you escape to Smartlandia?"
The person who posted that was also an antinatalist.
For all the shit I give ANs, it's nice to know that there are at least few basically decent people among them.
"i) Procreation is a selfish and aggressive act as it involves creating senting beings for the parents' own edification - sentient beings who will sufffer and die
ii) There is no free will - this is a superstitious belief originating in Christian mythology and not at all backed up by modern science
iii) There is no such thing as a unitary self with a fixed identity. Our subjective experiences are merely the end result of electro-chemical activity in our brains
iv) Homo sapiens are irrational, insane, and deluded animals who continually deceive themselves in order to make their lives tolerable. We are primarily survival machines, not reality machines.
iv) Sustained and uni-directional moral progress is a pipe dream. Morality does not magically keep in step with scientific and technological progress. This is going to become abundantly clear in the coming decades.
v) All things being equal, it would be better if all life on Earth came to an end sooner rather than later
vi) Although morality is merely a superstitious fiction inasmuch as a code of conduct is not written into the very fabric of space and time itself, I still regard procreation as an amoral act because it is, at its heart, a selfish and aggressive act."
The thought occurs that he'd have a much easier time prescribing moral courses of action if he didn't insist on dysphemistically terming all human constructs "superstitious fictions".
A lot of youtube antinatalists see themselves as committed to the Enlightenment project of disenchantment. This leads to an interesting dynamic when they argue with non-antinatalist atheists where both sides are convinced that the other is not a "true" atheist and is stuck in religious modes of thought. The pronatalists, generally taking their cue from Nietzsche argue that ANs refuse to move on from the nihilism induced by the Death of God and are stuck with the gnostic view of the universe as evil. The antinatalists on the other hand, believe with John Gray that happy atheists simply haven't thought out their beliefs enough and are stuck with a Christian narrative of progress..
Plus, from what I can gather, Inmendham started as out as a fanboy of the Amazing Atheist, which tells you something.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"Homo sapiens are irrational, insane, and deluded animals who continually deceive themselves in order to make their lives tolerable. We are primarily survival machines, not reality machines."
Unless I find out this came from a very well read ape, Dolphin, or Mouse. I declare this nullifies the entire argument.
Well, it's certainly true to an extent. I would argue that we're better reality machines than any other animal, but then again, the illusions some people craft for themselves are probably more sophisticated than any rodent's.
In any case, I'm sure he's implying a degree and prevelence of insanity beyond the minimum possible literal interpretation of the statement.
He says "primarily," not absolutely. It's not particularly radical or controversial to suggest that evolution selects for survival (and reproduction) or that human knowledge is a construct of some description contingent on what we are able to discover and filtered through our own senses and biases.
I won't defend the conclusion he draws from that (insane in relation to what, pray tell?), but I doubt he meant to go so far as to suggest that everything he says, including that argument itself, is nonsense. Otherwise you're left with a kind of liar paradox.
Antinatalism certainly isn't the only philosophy to believe that humanity is fundamentally irrational and there's enough evidence of the various cognitive biases we have all had drilled into our heads over the course of multiple OTC threads that it's easy to believe in this day and age but in DE's case I think he says it so he can believe his philosophical opponents are literally insane, and he doesn't need to take their arguments seriously. It's the same train of thought that motivates that "DNA borg" nonsense or Cultural Phillistine blaming everything on cultural indoctrination.
But DE's Psychology Graduate Superpowers mean that he's risen above the irrationality of mankind and can sneer with pity at all the optimist fools beneath him.
Does he really tout a degree as something that gives him authority to make these claims? I'd find that odd considering that it's something granted and shared by fellow humans that I assume aren't likely to share his philosophy.
People with no real substance to their argument tend to make those claims all the time, in the hopes that just waving some credentials around will get the weaker-minded to shut up and believe them (and, frequently, give them money; this is a favorite tactic of medical quacks).
At least DE has some claim to know what he's talking about. Most of the youtube antinatalists are just armchair psychologists.
To give an example, David Benatar a philosopher who supports antinatalism tried to make his point with this asymmetry that he believed was part of normal moral reasoning.
(1) The presence of pain is bad. (2) The presence of pleasure is good. So far, pleasure and pain are symmetrical in their goodness and badness. But they are not symmetrical with respect to their absence. More specifically: (3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone, but (4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody (an actual somebody) who is deprived by its absence.
You see that highlighted word? Now most of us know what Benatar is getting at here: He's trying to show that the absence of pleasure isn't bad, in and in itself it you can't miss it. That's all that he means by deprive and deprivation
The antinatalist community, in their drive to formulate an Antinatalist Theory of Everything, decided that Benatar must actually be saying that the concept of "deprivation" is central to his account of the nature of the human mind(note: Benatar does not actually formulate an account of the human mind in his book) and started using the word "deprivation" ad nauseam, in place of less dysphemic words like desire, drive, lack, want, or need(although they'll occasionally use the word need in this cute little slogan they've developed:" There is no need for need"). So yeah, pleasure doesn't exist and is just "the fulfillment of a deprivation" because evolution is blind, and thus, life isn't fair, even though this runs counter to both common sense and what we know about the functioning of the human brain.
And that's what bugs me, I guess; pleasure is an emotion that doesn't need qualifiers and should not be ultimately subject to Cultural Cringe. Because, really, that's what this is about: seeing people suffer in the third world makes it seem like they're not worthy to enjoy what they've got, and they they should either end their lives or live as an ascetic.
Which is where I start getting annoyed with them. First, it seems like they're looking a gift horse in the mouth. You have a good life in a relatively rich country with not much in the way of logistical problems or political strife, you're personally not struggling to survive like the people you pity so much are.
Second, the fact that you're not struggling to survive puts you in a position to actually help the ople you see as suffering so much. As I've noted before, there are plenty of ways to help the poor and the less well-off, and contributing to them would be a good thing, as it would convert pity (which is kind of a passive-aggressive thing) into actual caring.
Unfortunately, it also seems like blame-shifting is a big component of this. It makes sense, as it's a common feature of depression. These are people who don't want to really face their own demons and would rather blame society itself for their own ills. And that I can't support, either.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"I won't defend the conclusion he draws from that (insane in relation to what, pray tell?), but I doubt he meant to go so far as to suggest that everything he says, including that argument itself, is nonsense. Otherwise you're left with a kind of liar paradox."
Regardless of what he meant, I see this argument come up all the time in the antinatalist camp. And, yes, he probably meant to exclude what he was saying. But that just makes it textbook liars paradox.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Well, like I was getting at, if you follow up "Homo sapiens are irrational, insane, and deluded animals who continually deceive themselves in order to make their lives tolerable. " with "Except, I don't do that," it's very close to saying "everything I say is a lie...except that."
this is the fable of the antinatalist and the antinatalist.
The first antinatalist was a shark antinatalist. He argues that sharks are by their very existence a blight upon the world, and that all sharks deceive themselves into happiness by feasting upon fish and squid. The second antinatalist is a human, and he argues much the same about us, and does so on the internet (sharks do not have internet, they have intercoral)
Tragically, while the two were conversing, an Old God arose from the sea and proved them both wrong in a hilarious manner.
The antinatalist blogosphere has been pretty quiet for the last few days. The only major thing that's been posted is this and honestly? I don't buy into the idea that science can determine ethical truths either.
I agree that science alone can't determine a system of ethics, but I also made the mistake of reading the comments again. :P
If I didn't know better, I'd think these were hard-core, far-right anti-environmentalists who figure the Earth is ours to rape because Jesus will eventually fix it all. And yes, people like that really do exist; the first Secretary of the Interior under Reagan was one of them.
Comments
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
In this one, he refuses to believe his opponents when they say they don't fear death.
I have eventually attained some prosperity in my life and no longer live in permanent worry about tomorrowbut and... I am still depressed and still suicidal, just as I've been ever. I may be having more money now and freedom to travel or do whatever, but what am I left to do in life, and for what reason? What's a good reason to stuff myself with sensations and experiences and gorge on expensive foods? It's no coincidence that the well off so often end up leading a life of orgies of all sorts from shopping to sex to eating to hunting - it just proves the point that here's no point to living, to experiencing things for the sake of... experiencing things.
I've become pretty much incapable of having illusions and high hopes, which I find insufferable now, therefore incapable of feeling "happiness". But the oher day I still got caught up thinking some glamour thoughts as I was driving along. And then in an instant I saw at the side of the road a poor bird partially run over flapping its wings in agony unable to move away as its crushed flesh was sticking to the tamac. The glamour bubble burst and I came back to reality... it won't be much longer until I'll take the exit way with a heroin overdose or something."
I... really don't know how to react to this.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Much as you might disagree, it is completely obvious from your writing that you are likable, introspective, and interesting.
Could you escape to Smartlandia?"
ii) There is no free will - this is a superstitious belief originating in Christian mythology and not at all backed up by modern science
iii) There is no such thing as a unitary self with a fixed identity. Our subjective experiences are merely the end result of electro-chemical activity in our brains
iv) Homo sapiens are irrational, insane, and deluded animals who continually deceive themselves in order to make their lives tolerable. We are primarily survival machines, not reality machines.
iv) Sustained and uni-directional moral progress is a pipe dream. Morality does not magically keep in step with scientific and technological progress. This is going to become abundantly clear in the coming decades.
v) All things being equal, it would be better if all life on Earth came to an end sooner rather than later
vi) Although morality is merely a superstitious fiction inasmuch as a code of conduct is not written into the very fabric of space and time itself, I still regard procreation as an amoral act because it is, at its heart, a selfish and aggressive act."
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
In any case, I'm sure he's implying a degree and prevelence of insanity beyond the minimum possible literal interpretation of the statement.
I won't defend the conclusion he draws from that (insane in relation to what, pray tell?), but I doubt he meant to go so far as to suggest that everything he says, including that argument itself, is nonsense. Otherwise you're left with a kind of liar paradox.
But hey, maybe if he repeats himself enough times we'll come around.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.
So far, pleasure and pain are symmetrical in their goodness and badness. But they are not symmetrical with respect to their absence. More specifically:
(3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone, but
(4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody (an actual somebody) who is deprived by its absence.
The antinatalist community, in their drive to formulate an Antinatalist Theory of Everything, decided that Benatar must actually be saying that the concept of "deprivation" is central to his account of the nature of the human mind(note: Benatar does not actually formulate an account of the human mind in his book) and started using the word "deprivation" ad nauseam, in place of less dysphemic words like desire, drive, lack, want, or need(although they'll occasionally use the word need in this cute little slogan they've developed:" There is no need for need"). So yeah, pleasure doesn't exist and is just "the fulfillment of a deprivation" because evolution is blind, and thus, life isn't fair, even though this runs counter to both common sense and what we know about the functioning of the human brain.
Which is where I start getting annoyed with them. First, it seems like they're looking a gift horse in the mouth. You have a good life in a relatively rich country with not much in the way of logistical problems or political strife, you're personally not struggling to survive like the people you pity so much are.
Second, the fact that you're not struggling to survive puts you in a position to actually help the ople you see as suffering so much. As I've noted before, there are plenty of ways to help the poor and the less well-off, and contributing to them would be a good thing, as it would convert pity (which is kind of a passive-aggressive thing) into actual caring.
Unfortunately, it also seems like blame-shifting is a big component of this. It makes sense, as it's a common feature of depression. These are people who don't want to really face their own demons and would rather blame society itself for their own ills. And that I can't support, either.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
this is the fable of the antinatalist and the antinatalist.
The first antinatalist was a shark antinatalist. He argues that sharks are by their very existence a blight upon the world, and that all sharks deceive themselves into happiness by feasting upon fish and squid. The second antinatalist is a human, and he argues much the same about us, and does so on the internet (sharks do not have internet, they have intercoral)
Tragically, while the two were conversing, an Old God arose from the sea and proved them both wrong in a hilarious manner.
The End.
+50 Lazulipoints for Squiddly.
They are redeemable for mentions in album notes and e-hugs.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
If I didn't know better, I'd think these were hard-core, far-right anti-environmentalists who figure the Earth is ours to rape because Jesus will eventually fix it all. And yes, people like that really do exist; the first Secretary of the Interior under Reagan was one of them.