i disagree. i dont think the only thing we are sure of existence is ourselves. i think the only thing we are “sure of” is that we know nothing.

and to ponder on whether or not we are in a simulation/illusion is a ridiculous waste of time. who cares if we are, what do you do then? what difference would it make from that of “reality?”

this shit literally is the basis of cogito ergo sum. you are exploring a pointless thought that some dude hundreds of years ago panicked about already.

myth of sisyphus

the stranger

the plague

all albert camus. i wouldnt say optimistic nihilism is the best “philosophy” to follow. to be a nihilist is to define life’s meaning as “meaningless,” when, in reality, it is trying to define something which we cannot define.

life might be meaningless. it might not be. you don’t know, and its arrogant to say that it is.

language is the use of words that reference ideas, which make it so you can put that idea into someone elses brain

language both limits and allows understanding of things. it can be used to trade thoughts, philosophies, ideas, trade, and emotions, but it will not be able to communicate the subjectivity of our own experience.

there is a word for the subjectivity of your experience, and its called qualia. essentially, it is how it feels to experience. how the fuck would you tell a blind person what its like to see? you cant. that is the one true barrier of language. we are, essentially, alone in our own experiences - our own qualia

start by asking what perfect even means. how do you even define perfect, and if feelings something you can attach that adjective to.

that being said, its a question that leads nowhere.

i always kind of hated this “we live in a simulation” shit

okay, lets say that we are in a simulation. then what. what the fuck are you gonna do about it. youre gonna live anyway, so whats the difference? its literally just some “what if?” ass question. its essentially the same thing as asking “what if we were put here by a god?” you dont know, and it doesnt matter either way.

Yes, but it seems it only comes about easily in situations that are analogous to the evolution conditions in which humans first evolved: small isolated groups where survival is not guaranteed. We live in a very different world from that, and I am certainly of the opinion that one of the many crises plaguing our world as it is is a distinct lack of social trust; having a routine to potentially nurture it is therefore very useful

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.

This is the only viewpoint that has ever made sense to me. Free will is only real in the sense that we “feel” like we’re in control.

The ability to act based on reasons. No robot that has ever been produced has been able to act based on reasons and if, one day, we have AI that CAN reason, then it WILL be free.

Interesting read, thanks for sharing

My question is, & in a Nietzschean vein, is there value in continuing to suffer so that in the future we may have unanimous consent to self-eradicate as a species?

The value is an eventual unanimously consensual annihilation of our species, and an increase in autonomy in the interim due to increased normativity of others acting toward the same goal. I have run into Sorites paradox with this line of reasoning: n people in agreement is not unity; n+1 people in agreement is still not unity.

Unity of mind increases autonomy for the group in agreement, but begins to dwarf autonomy for those outside of the group, especially if the group is the large majority.

​

I don't think my thought process overcomes the reasoning for antinatalism in your version of negative utilitarianism, but perhaps a slow extinction due to partite participation in pro/anti-natalism increases FNF to a degree (both for existing & non-yet-existing persons) that there are additional duties for some not-yet-existing individuals to be born.

​

I am not an accredited philosopher in any sense of the word & I understand if you find my question frivolous. I wanted to note that your essay (article?) reinvigorated my interest in philosophy, as well as my participation in denouncing contemporary normative society as you have shown that the burden of proof lies upon the hegemony. I am looking forward to reading many of your other publications.

[deleted]

I'll take that to mean the same as, "Is there a duty to conceive a child so that it may experience a god's love" as the question seems to be a double negative (Would it be not ethical to not give.... by not permitting it to not exist)

Does god's love increase or perpetuate the frustration of a child's fundamental needs?

If we accept that a god's love is not a socially constructed and psychologically manipulated want, then increasing the experience of a god's love by accepting the duties or at least accepting that bringing a new sentient being into existence perpetuates human suffering. From the article:

>Pronatalists defend reproduction on more traditional grounds. My conflict-responsive negative utilitarianism offers a middle way. Since the reproducers’ claim is so bold, approaching bizarre, they do have a strong prima facie duty not to have children. Due to the clash of fundamental need frustrations, however, the final judgment is deferred and can only be made after further scrutiny and assessment.

Not being well-versed in religious ideology, I suggest that a Christian god's love does come at a cost; original sin.

In the garden of eden, there was supposedly no pain or anguish, but autonomy was dwarfed, either by divine design of humans or by coercion; by the threat of removal of needs met by existing in eden.

As Eve's autonomy was exercised, either intrinsically, or by devilish trickery: Humanity was thusly punished in mortality.

Attempting to create logical steps from theology is madness in my view. Nonetheless, I think I have shown that a christian god created the conditions for increasing and perpetuating human suffering by dwarfing autonomy in the garden of eden.

I posit that this god's love increases or perpetuates the suffering of humans, as it requires existing to experience, & that existence came at a cost of dwarfed autonomy.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Depends on my luck, buddy 👊

Excerpt from Exit Duty Generator: - “If potential parents have a right to reproduce, then some not-yet-existing individuals have a duty to be born. To be born, however, means to be brought into an existence that contains fundamental need frustration. ... Parents would be entitled to reproduce at the expense of their children’s pain, anguish, and dwarfed autonomy. ... Since the reproducers’ claim is so bold, approaching bizarre, they do have a strong prima facie duty not to have children.” - Please read the article – or the bits concerning antinatalism (the PDF is easier on the eyes) - and talk to me. Where did I go wrong? What, if anything, did I get right? – The author is here, ready to answer all your questions. To greatness and beyond, together! :)

Social trust has been around, and been nurtured, far longer than any attempts at defining it.

You are still your subconscious…. I don’t see how subconsciousness has anything at all to do with free will.

u/MattiHayry
Abstract
This article presents a revised version of negative utilitarianism. Previous versions have relied on a hedonistic theory of value and stated that suffering should be minimized. The traditional rebuttal is that the doctrine in this form morally requires us to end all sentient life. To avoid this, a need-based theory of value is introduced. The frustration of the needs not to suffer and not to have one’s autonomy dwarfed should, prima facie, be decreased. When decreasing the need frustration of some would increase the need frustration of others, the case is deferred and a fuller ethical analysis is conducted. The author’s perceptions on murder, extinction, the right to die, antinatalism, veganism, and abortion are used to reach a reflective equilibrium. The new theory is then applied to consumerism, material growth, and power relations. The main finding is that the burden of proof should be on those who promote the status quo.

I agree, I find the reasons of disability or poor living conditions to be terrible for abortion. Especially at such scale. It feels dehumanizing, insulting and like a dangerous precedent to set. Not only are disabled people still morally valuable but they often bring great value with new ways of thinking.

As for more serious disabilities we'll never learn to cure it if we kill off everyone with whichever disability. It feels like a lazy excuse to support certain policies.

I grew up extremely poor and my brother was born with severe asthma and I had ADHD not serious I know but technically it's a disability. How long till people like us would be advocated for abortion because of disabilities? Things we've both grown out of.

[deleted]

Well she did make atlas shrugged, then went on SS

Yeah, very good point. Rational thinking while being in a hyper emotional state is extremely tough. I think the trick is not to rationalize every thought and emotions but rather to reach an overall state of "acceptance" that emotions can be "irrational". This is more of a practice in meditation or in stoicism that slowly gives us an ability to make rational choices while acknowledging that what we are feeling right now transcends logic and reason and the futility of having a discussion with it or indulging in it in an investigative sort of way. For example: a stoic asks himself if the anger that he is feeling adds any value to the situation at hand. He reminds himself that this rush of emotions impairs his ability to makes rational choices and it is stupid to let it control you so much. Just this reminder to yourself every time you feel anger weakens it over time.