Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

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.

I would argue that any pessimism that doesn't fall into nihilism must be inherently hopeful

What are the countless counter examples to the current extinction event we are the direct cause of? You know we are linked to that chain and biodiversity loss on top of irreversibly polluting the world with plastics and forever chemicals? What is the example I'm missing that counters those factual things??

Hmm. But the piece wasn't encouraging regular old pessimism, but "hopeful pessimism", no?

[removed]

[deleted]

You get to enjoy a more circuitous and fruitful route with optimism.

[removed]

Pessimism acknowledges, as the piece said, that sometimes it is OK not to be OK. And that we don't gave to pretend that we are or will be in order for our worldview to make sense

And pessimism?

A little mania does a society wonders.

My thoughts exactly. I think realistic optimism would be a better term for what they describe.

Isn't that skepticism, not pessimism?

Sorry I won't be dragged into semantic nonsense. The sentence is perfectly clear, as are its implications.

Blind faith/optimism as you describe is bad, but full-on pessimism is if anything, blowing up in their faces at the moment.

It isn't proving to be anymore of a viable solution as "eternal optimism" is.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

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.

You say: "I am not explaining my beliefs further to you" yet you clearly can't let go of this conversation.

"You completely disregard my view at how there is beauty even in something that isn’t eternal."

Yes, because (as you agree with the manuscript example) temporary things are lost forever on naturalism.

"You completely disregard how I am more than comfortable living as I am, having wasted years on that search anyway when you think I should spend my whole life doing it."

Yes, because I am intentionally here to spur people who have chosen to die away from that choice. I do think life is worth spending every moment searching for.

"How arrogant of you to think I didn’t do enough research, that I should dedicate the rest of my life to finding your faith instead of being a good person in the world."

Unless you are omniscient, there is always more to learn. I doubt you know everything there is to know about every non-naturalistic view. I never said you should dedicate the rest of your life to finding my faith (Christianity) though you're very welcome to. And I never said you shouldn't be a good person- be a good person. Though that will be difficult on naturalism because there is no such thing as objective moral good on naturalism any more than there is such thing as objective evil.

"You do not need to convince me to live a fulfilling worthwhile wasteless life through theism bc I already do with my agnosticism."

There is no such thing as an objective purpose on naturalism, therefore there is no way to fulfill anything in your life in any real meaningful way as there never was any real point to it. There is no such thing as a wasteless life on naturalism, since it will all be destroyed. On naturalism, we are simply the byproducts of biology, accidents of natural forces, and orphans in the universe. There really is nothing more to it, and nothing noble about what you describe.

"My only loss is if I am going to hell despite being a good person in which I am thankful for not falling prey to an evil god who is more interested in worship than in humankind being good"

Again, there is no such thing as a good person or evil God on your worldview in any objective sense. All you're saying is something like "I'm glad I did what was enjoyable in my own eyes; I don't like God!" This post has revealed what is only confirmatory of my suspicions: naturalists are more in love with their own throne, their own temporary power over this life than Life itself. People like you choose eternal death.

> This attitude is why pessimism leads nowhere but the grave.

I have some bad news about where optimism leads, too.

Relax nothing is under control. - Guy McPherson.

> Pessimism will never be as motivating as telling people about the bright future ahead if they <xyz>

But this is a false dichotomy. There is no reason to tell people that they must do anything unless there is something to dread.

Example:

Assume that leading AI experts recommend halting advancement of super-human AI due to the danger of hostile AI.

"If you pass this law to prevent the further advancement of super-human AI, then the singularity will not reshape the world."

This does not mention any danger, and thus implies that if they do not prevent the advancement of super-human AI, there will likewise also be good consequences.

So many words and yet you still have not developed any reason to think your claim is true in any possible world.

"Some more grasping at straws and more evidence that you're being far more generous if it comes to how you hold on tight to your own views to such an extent that it makes you unable to adopt the views of others, be it even just as a hypothetical."

A hypothetical can be conceived of, evaluated, and still judged as false.

"Doesn't have to be a given it just has to be hypothetically possible and if it hasn't been falsified or if it is unfalsifiable it's logically possible. Anything else again is purely distraction."

We already went over this. Logical possibility does not imply something is metaphysically possible. You have to understand the basics before you dive into something you don't understand and look foolish.

"It doesn't have to be actually possible."

If it's not metaphysically possible, then there is no possible world where objective purpose exists on naturalism.

"I think your God in actuality is (at least very close to if not completely) impossible but theism still allows for objective meaning based on their statement that a personal God exists and gives people objective meaning. Logical possibility is all that matters for this to hold truth hold truth value."

I was already explicit about this too. Theists don't defend the idea that because God allowing for objective meaning is logically possible, it's possible in some world. They would go on to defend why it's possible in some world and give an account on how that works. If an atheist were to refute this defense, we would be left with no reason to think what is logically possible is actual. That's how this works.

"I could potentially reject objective meaning under naturalism in the same manner that I reject your God belief and the supernatural but this does not change that naturalism is not antithetical toward objective meaning (as long as it's natural)"

If you reject it, then you supposedly have a reason why you reject it (i.e. you find it to be untenable). This would mean you find it to be incompatible with reality and therefore at least not metaphysically possible. Since you're a self-proclaimed agnostic about objective purpose on naturalism, you don't reject it, but you neither accept it. I am not agnostic about the matter- I do reject it for reasons I have expressed. An argument in defense of objective purpose existing on naturalism not forthcoming, I have no reason to believe it's metaphysically possible.

This next example is where your thinking really exposes itself:

"Is Harry Potter real?"

If by real, we mean actually attains in this world, then no, agreed.

"Can he then in actuality have fought a dragon and won? Probably not as again he's imaginary."

He in actuality does not exist, so again, I agree- no.

"Is there any logical contradiction in the statement that Harry Potter fought a dragon and won? No!"

So far so good.

"Then the Harry Potter Universe allows for wizards to fight dragons and win."

No, not on that basis at all! This is where you go wrong every time. While there's nothing inherent to the statement that is self-contradictory, there's no defense given for why we should think such a thing is a coherent description of a possible world. For example, is magic in contradiction with the natural laws of that world? Are such things in the HP universe in contradiction to one another? Now- maybe it is a metaphysically possible world and a description of that world wouldn't contradict itself (I think it's likely the case), but that can't just be assumed. It must be explained and developed why we should think so, because it's not obvious.

"You already admitted that there's no logical contradiction so even if it was complete fictional hogwash and impossible in any world apart from the imaginary world inside our heads (which it could be) that still wouldn't save you (as long as you can't falsify it)."

You're displaying your lack of understanding in full fledge. If it's not possible in any world, then there's no description of any world where that statement is true, including this world. That just is what it means to refute the possibility of objective purpose on naturalism to be real or actual.

"I'm not locked into naturalism so I can look at other people's views and see whether they are contradictory."

Yes, like you'd be able to look at the monism you appealed to and see that it is contradictory to naturalism. Not very helpful to your argument.

"Locked into your self-imposed theistic prison you can do nothing but accept (even as hypothetical) only the views which align with theism."

I can't imagine why you think that, since the whole point of my post is to evaluate naturalism (something I don't believe, yet regard as metaphysically possible) and then make considerations about the implications of that worldview. You're just making yourself look silly at this point flinging about accusations.

"So did I, I gave and alluded to several even."

Linking other people's arguments is not making an argument nor is it showing anything. I already said I'd be interested to read such things, but I deny that you've made, shown, or defended any claim of value in this conversation regarding objective purpose on naturalism. You've only given me reason to think you are an amateur at this. Especially given your reaction to my comments; only people who are knocked off-balance get mad like you are now.

"No, YOU are attacking the veracity of your own theism if you're using arguments against naturalistic propositions which would be just as relevant if it comes to your own God belief."

Oh look, a "no u!" in the wild lol. Anyway, the theist actually defends their worldview by attempting to develop arguments, which you have still failed to do. It's probably for the better at this rate too. Leave it to the people you linked instead.

Hello all. I am writing a substack newsletter on contractualist ethics. The linked article describes a thought experiment that intends to show the importance of freedom in this philosophy, which is basically a revised version of Nozick’s “experience machine.”

Summary: Imagine a "utility coach" who is able to maximize a person’s utility so long as the person delegates all their decisions to the utility coach. If welfare is the basis of morality, are people morally bound to subject themselves to the utility coach's commands or should people be free to make their own choice of whether to accept the utility coach's bargain? What is more important, welfare or freedom?

Well-said!

> fatalism makes you unable to see the countless counter examples that definitively prove your statements false

Some of my loved ones have given in to such thinking as well. The most frustrating thing about it is that they rant about a lot of issues but don’t do anything about them: no advocacy, no protesting, no changing their own actions—nothing! When confronted with examples contrary to their woes, they fall back upon cynicism of the solutions or outright dismissal of the contrary evidence.

I’m not going to assume that all fatalists are similar, but from what I’ve seen in my friends/family and others online, I haven’t seen any of them work towards ending the problems they point out, mainly just lashing out at those who don’t think similarly. It seems like an extremely tiring way of existing.

The reason I have rejected optimism is the same reason that I have rejected Christianity. Both seem to say that righteous, wrathful rage should never be the appropriate response. And that whenever something good does happen, then that is the natural way of the world, or God's plan, instead of a violent departure from the normal state of many of our lives. Neither of these paired attitudes offer a realistic or useful view of reality as it is. They are only marginally useful as a view of how reality ought to be.

The pessimism is what comes after decades of optimism didn't work. And from decades of being on the receiving end of bad faith arguments engineered by oil industry propagandists, tested on focus groups for maximum impact, and disseminated among purportedly well-meaning optimists. Yeah, some people are gonna get snippy with you after dealing with that. And anyway, there comes a point when optimism is indistinguishable from delusion. The eternally optimistic make it a point of pride not to be convinced of anything that threatens their optimism, and thus their worldview. Convincing people like that feels about as achievable as trying to talk a devout religious person out of their religion.