[deleted]

Aren't you a textbook case of "unbridled/toxic optimism" when it comes to pessimism?

Blindly supporting it since you can't name a single historical instance when it did us any good?

But I did step into your story. I said the naturalist ought to join his religious friend in prayer. If what you mean is that I'm not agreeing with the way you've reimagined the boat analogy, then yeah- it's faulty, because it misinterprets what naturalism entails (no life jacket).

"It is completely unreasonable to assume that by believing there isn’t an afterlife, naturalists must therefore have no desire to preserve their own life."

I wasn't making that point at all. In fact, I'm saying the opposite: the naturalist's life preserving instinct should motivate him to seek to disprove naturalism, since that worldview entails perma-death. You seem to be confusing my statement that naturalism entails perma-death (no life jacket) with an assumption that naturalists wouldn't try to survive perma-death. As I said, I very much think they should try and survive perma-death! But this would be a rejection of naturalism, since naturalism leaves no room for such things when the universe is destined to perma-death itself (heat death) and leaves no room for things like afterlives.

"Your strawman is a fallacy, your story is absurd, and you can talk with any naturalist to realize this yourself if you want to do more than speculate."

I mean, I've been discussing this with literally just about everyone on this comment section (mostly naturalists), and I don't find your assessment accurate. In fact, this whole post has been heartening to me, since this hostile comment section (reddit being what it is) has had little to say that I haven't already discussed or thought of with colleagues and theological minded friends of mine. I think if I were on that boat, an effort to survive would be a clear choice.

Lol. I wasnt there for any major historical decisions where the pessimist in the room talked sense into the rest. I can point to numerous examples where optimism has failed us greatly though, we have great records on that. You demanding examples is just a demonstration that you have no argument really for your optimism, and instead would like to strawman something away from your poor philosophical stance. Especially your errant declaration that "it's time for more unbridled optimism!". Super shortsighted and childish.

Pessimism is like salt. Pepper is like optimism.

It's pretty clear when you've used too much salt.

It's a lot harder to use too much pepper. There's a healthy balance.

Pessimism might not be a great cheerleader but every margin of error, every hedge, every tolerance, every conservation effort has roots in pessimism. It’s not sexy but it works, and it’s just what we need to counter the morons who believe in the myths of infinite growth and ever greater fools.

[deleted]

Addressing the first set of premises you suggest:

"The problem with these is that P5 becomes a complete non-sequitur. Whether or not naturalism is true, hence whether or not I might get infinite utility, is independent of what I believe. So what reason do I have to disprove or abandon my belief?"

This gets back to P2: a worldview that entails infinite positive utility is preferable to a worldview that entails losing out on that (reworded for clarity and to entertain the changes you suggested). If it made little difference, the motivation would be weak, but given the magnitude of loss on naturalism, it seems like that would be a good reason to hope it's not true and therefore good reason to seek to disprove it. That is, if you desire to be well and live (a fair assumption for most people).

In light of the boat analogy: even if you are convinced you are likely going to die, fighting to live is preferable to doing nothing because the possibility of living (despite being small) is preferable to dying. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts in terms of this analogy, since this is where my intuition for this idea started.

To the second set of premises you suggest:

"The problem with these is that they may not both be true for someone. In fact, I'm quite sure they're false for someone familiar with the relevant philosophy on how to live a virtuous and happy life under naturalism."

I know many naturalists think this way on the basis of philosophical reasoning, but (no offense) to me it seems like a sort of coping mechanism in the face of an execution date, the very thing naturalists often accuse theists of (especially the suggestion of therapy). This is why I've tried to argue throughout the comment section that naturalism offers only a objectively purposeless, meaningless, and altogether hopeless outlook i.e. I reject that there is a way to live happily on naturalism when it's taken to it's full conclusions (except by self-delusion or something).

Doesn't answer my initial question. Give me an example that supports your claim that it's necessary, by showing that it's effective.

Doesn't matter what headspace, pessimism is necessary for seeing things as they are. The unbridled optimism peddled by capitalists to continue plundering resources has already doomed the world. Optimists are useful tools against science and progress more than benefits to society.

If Thunberg is to be taken as the “arch-pessimist” of this article, then that is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the approach. Thunberg is a high profile activist figure, but her pessimism leaves her vulnerable to attack by her opponents who may offer a brighter, or at least less alarmist version of the future. It also weakens her impact on the sympathetic, those most directly pressured. They call her and have her castigate them for ruining the world as a secular penance.

Climate change calls for a specific action to address it. Objectively speaking, there is a lot that can still be done. The only ethically correct message when it comes to climate change is a specific, effective one.

Pessimism will never be as motivating as telling people about the bright future ahead if they invest in climate mitigation now.

Over optimism can become carelessness. But even a small amount of pessimism leads to fatalism.

Then surely you can tell me some examples of how pessimism has done well by society or the world?

We've had toxic optimism taking us for a ride our entire species existence. We've known global warming due to human activity was a thing since the early 1900s, and we still have 'optimists' trying to run around and say everything is fine! We're not overpopulated and technology will save us! As we're ass deep in the anthropocene extinction. I don't know of a current metric that merits optimism.

I disagree with the kind of pessimism that has radical activist sorts assuming that there can be no reasoned discussion/wholesome argument between sides, and so never try to communicate their ideas.

I counter, it's time for optimism to take the scene.

My bad, perhaps I’ve just continually misinterpreted you if you only discussing the purely metaphorical permadeath bc I kept thinking you were arguing both the metaphor and the literal. I got lost in the metaphor in that case

But this is just Pascal, again. “If there is permadeath and I don’t pray, I die. If there is permadeath and I do pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I don’t pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I do pray, I live. Therefore, I should pray bc I lose nothing but possibly gain everything”

I don’t know how many naturalists would deny others of the comfort of a metaphorical life jacket to permadeath, but if someone is frantically searching and finding nothing, then it seems reasonable for a naturalist to help them come to terms with the situation instead of living in eternal panic

To be clear, dying in the boat analogy is not just death, but perma-death. Naturalists believe this is what will happen to them- why would they be looking for a life jacket (e.g. some way to survive perma-death) unless they're taking my advice and seeking to disprove what naturalism entails? I think that's what they should do, but it's not what many naturalists who are content with their naturalism actually do. Instead, they cling to their naturalism.

As for your contrast story, I don't see the contrast, and I already engaged it in my last comment. Is there something there that you think I haven't yet engaged with?

>Children’s prisons are among some of the most violent, though I don’t want to focus on the gruesome details – it only bludgeons the reader into apathy.

"Please don't think about why some of these kids are in here in the first place, just continue to be outraged."

I see the problem finally. You think that bc naturalists don’t believe in a supernatural afterlife, they must have absolutely no desire to fight for their own life and don’t even believe in the value of a literal life jacket. You won’t engage in my contrasting story bc it doesn’t affirm your rigid strawman. I can’t tell if your arguing in good faith

Cute until you remember some of these kids are murderers

I Will most likely get banned now, but religion also have a language for this, as reincarnation. But they also have a philosophical approach to wholeness, and seeing reality in a meta physical way. Gnostic tekst for example evolve around quantum fysiks. I’ve been flagged for this language before but: in a religious way, Plato’s cave are a principal conscious analogy. Outside are a wholeness goal. Like the story of Jesus, the fish analogy and so on!

>I am saying naturalism entails a number of conclusions that are infinitely bad if the worldview is in fact true. Someone who believes naturalism will thus be tethered to a worldview that should appropriately cause someone existential dread and dissatisfaction. This should motivate them to try and disprove naturalism. I don't think naturalism is infinitely psychologically harmful, to be clear.

I think we've finally worked our way towards the actual ideas you wanted to say in your argument, which with your exact wording were communicated poorly and ended up being lost.

The most important point I've been making is that a state of the word (ex. naturalism being true) is a very different thing from a belief in that state (ex. belief in naturalism), with different impacts on one's well-being. In light of this, the wording of P3 and P4 need to be changed, if you ever wish to present this argument again.

If you want to focus on the things that affect well-being by an infinite amount, your premises would be:

P3: Naturalism being true entails losing out on infinite utility.

P4: Non-naturalism being true maybe entails having infinite utility.

The problem with these is that P5 becomes a complete non-sequitur. Whether or not naturalism is true, hence whether or not I might get infinite utility, is independent of what I believe. So what reason do I have to disprove or abandon my belief?

If you want to keep the premises related to one's beliefs, as I think you should, then they would be:

P3: Belief in naturalism causes a large loss in utility.

P4: Belief in non-naturalism maybe causes a large gain in utility.

The problem with these is that they may not both be true for someone. In fact, I'm quite sure they're false for someone familiar with the relevant philosophy on how to live a virtuous and happy life under naturalism.

And if there are other ways to render P3 and P4 false other than disproving or abandoning naturalism, then P5 is a non-sequitur in this case too. Why should your recommended course of action be the one I take? Why wouldn't it be better to take up therapy or philosophy instead, and keep holding my belief?

In the end, I don't agree with the argument, but I am sympathetic to people who suffer from existential dread and take to non-naturalism to help address it. Anyways, it's been fun talking with you.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

“Follows from” indicates either a justificatory or causal relationship. It’s not clear that either requires determinism.

Free Will requires Determinism, or else your actions wouldn't follow from your decisions, and your decisions wouldn't follow from your experiences.

Of course we have free will. We don't have a choice.