Recent comments in /f/philosophy

MountGranite t1_j9g54ss wrote

Maybe in some sort of obligatory defense of the status-quo (conscious or subconscious); ultimately even science is limited by institutional structures, presumably. Kind of lays to rest the idea that anyone and everyone can pull themselves out of any given societal/socioeconomic condition with enough personal responsibility.

Though I’ve been reading a lot of Marx lately, so I might be a tad influenced/biased with this take.

1

HeinrichWolfman t1_j9g308v wrote

I seem to remember you were preoccupied with issues surrounding anti-natalism. In any case, in regards to your questions, I'll bite.

  1. 'Nobody asked to be born into a risky world with suffering', too late. No refunds.

  2. Did you (as in, the person making these arguments) obtain consent to blow up earth?

  3. I'll take a leaf from Peter Singer's book, by which he suggests we ought to consider the interests of animals. I don't think it is in their interests to be blown up, as is the case with being made into hamburgers either.

  4. Suffering is a part of the human condition, along with happiness. Although, I would say, there is an onus to prevent foreseeable suffering, the kind of utopia you describe is not possible, in my opinion.

  5. Did Thanos obtain consent when he killed half the world's population?

2

HippyxViking t1_j9g0vh0 wrote

I don’t think they’re wrong in saying Epicureanism lacks selflessness, even if they’re behaving a bit disingenuously. Epicurus (and many of his contemporaries) seem to be concerned primarily with how the comfortable might best live and conduct themselves, without really concerning themselves greatly with the condition of those who might not be reading philosophical texts. Epicurus would counsel that it’s better to be a wise man who delights in simple pleasures than a rich one enjoying rich pleasures, because rich pleasures will not always be available and come with downsides like miserliness and jealousy - but that doesn’t really address the poor man who doesn’t have enough to live on, or is subject to the slings and arrows of a callous or even malicious society.

Maybe I haven’t read enough Epicurean philosophy, but it does seem to me that it’s got a kind of paternalistic naivety regarding poverty you see in a lot of works by rich people which counsel moderation - they’re just sort of assuming the idyllic simple life of the commoners and imagining it must be nice to not have so many demands on your time and resources, without really understanding the experience of poverty or deprivation.

7

Tuorom t1_j9fz01d wrote

He also got rid of 'fate' which to me always seemed to be another cop out and appeal to a higher power rather than people engaging with the extent of their autonomy.

"it is my fate"/"it's god's will", some bullshit lol

39