quote
follow
|
20-02-2013 "And did I ever said 'bad people'? You're the one talking 'nasty' vs. 'decent'. When you say you believe the majority of people are genuinely decent what do you mean by that? That they were born this way? That they have some ingrained moral compass shining thru? Even if that were true, the Milgraim's experiments show that 'decency' is very shaky and history demonstrates very clearly how decency goes down the drain over and over and how people are capable of doing horrible things to each other, the vast majority of people."I was just trying to say that I think that decency isn't shaky in that sense because the fact that people can be taken advantage of doesn't mean that they're not decent any more than the fact that everybody is only motivated by their own happiness doesn't really mean that everyone's selfish. Maybe I'm just making excuses for people. "I meant the bigger scale. No wars, no genocides, no famines - nothing ever makes us stop and think why continuing creating new lives here. It's always marching ahead, stepping on corpses, dancing on the graves, but looking at the stars with awe and singing 'what a wonderful world'. Our brain has evolved to reject the negative thoughts so we go thru life not worrying about the odds of numerous diseases and accidents which can befall us and our loved ones any time, we overestimate our chances of succeeding, and death - that's always something that happens to somebody else. Our brains got equipped with mechanisms to deal with the nightmares of everyday living. So the stupid show goes on." I can't argue with that accept to say that things like looking at the stars, or whatever it may be that makes you feel that way shouldn't be invalidated by the fact that there's so much crap in the world. It doesn't take the shine off the good stuff, if anything it makes it more impressive because of the shit we've got to compare it to. It's important for me to keep seeing this world as a good place because it is compared to the alternative of it not being here, in my opinion. Maybe I'm doing everything that your describing but I'm glad that I can block out the bad stuff at times, as long as I never forget that it's there. "And that's exactly what I wanted you to do, since you've seemingly only applied this standard to the bad side, but not the good side. "there's very few genuinely nasty people around and they normally have a reason for being that way." I'm just applying your logic further, doesn't that follow then that the achievements of good people have their causes in something other than their genuine good charachter? Since genuinely bad people have been made so by the circumstances." Of course, but like the Newton example I used, it doesn't mean that he's intelligence was any less impressive. I know I'm using double standards here by using the same excuse I'm using for nasty people to show that others deserve the credit for what they do, but I'm not really excusing them. I don't think that murderers and rapists should be excused because of what they probably went through in their childhoods. As a comical example, Andy Murry is a credit to Britain when he wins and a useless Scottish twat when he doesn't. Being able to look at things in more than way is a very useful ability and it's only natural to take advantage of it to view the world in a better light. I'm happy to do that as long as I'm aware that I'm doing it. |
[ link ] |
21-02-2013
I was just trying to say that I think that decency isn't shaky in that sense because the fact that people can be taken advantage of doesn't mean that they're not decent any more than the fact that everybody is only motivated by their own happiness doesn't really mean that everyone's selfish. Maybe I'm just making excuses for people. I know I'm using double standards here by using the same excuse I'm using for nasty people to show that others deserve the credit for what they do Well, you clearly want to "view the world in a better light" as you say. I did that for a while and I know it's possible. Today I'm interested in how things are in fact. It is, of course, much less poetic and romantic. Though not necessarily misanthropic either. You seen 'The experiment'? It's based on the Stanford Prison Experiment. Very good movie btw. But the experiment itself once again demonstrated how people can become basically whatever the situation invites them to. When you put all such information together you sort of conclude we are clay. We become what the circumstances push us to become. And when you see the power of the environment to shape peoples behavior you really have to ask how much of ingrained, strong qualities each of us has. What we call a spine, you know, some core. If a spine bends 360° easily it probably isn't a spine at all. That's why I say, so much for decency... I don't think that murderers and rapists should be excused because of what they probably went through in their childhoods. Well, in a way, they should, if we approach the question rationally. But we can't afford it as a society because punishment serves as a deterrent for future crimes. Oh yes, almost forgot about the stars! things like looking at the stars, or whatever it may be that makes you feel that way shouldn't be invalidated by the fact that there's so much crap in the world. It doesn't take the shine off the good stuff, if anything it makes it more impressive because of the shit we've got to compare it to. I don't think it makes stars more impressive. It just makes you realize the stars couldn't care les about the horrors of this world, they don't shine for us. No matter what happens to you and your loved ones, the sun will shine and the birds will sing and the earth will roll.. You're just a dust in the wind. Btw, stumbled on Tyson's video the other day, it's pretty good
|
|
22-02-2013 "Well, you clearly want to "view the world in a better light" as you say. I did that for a while and I know it's possible. Today I'm interested in how things are in fact. It is, of course, much less poetic and romantic. Though not necessarily misanthropic either."Don't you miss it? How things are in fact is subjective, it depends what you choose to focus on. If you only ever focus on the suffering and what's wrong with world and never pay attention to what's right then that's not really the truth either, at least not the whole truth. Feeling bad for them doesn't improve their lives, although I suppose if everyone thought the way you do then a lot more would get done to improve their lives. "You seen 'The experiment'? It's based on the Stanford Prison Experiment. Very good movie btw. But the experiment itself once again demonstrated how people can become basically whatever the situation invites them to. When you put all such information together you sort of conclude we are clay. We become what the circumstances push us to become. And when you see the power of the environment to shape peoples behavior you really have to ask how much of ingrained, strong qualities each of us has. What we call a spine, you know, some core. If a spine bends 360В° easily it probably isn't a spine at all. That's why I say, so much for decency..." I haven't seen it but I've heard about it. I'll watch it in the next couple of days. I wanted to see that but I forgot about it. We do have a say. We're not just the products of our immediate environment. We're the products of everything that we've experienced in our lives and of our genetic code, and so all the people who came before us. Survival is our strongest instinct and we're all capable of things that we don't realise we're capable of. If we weren't then the human race would never have survived. Again, that doesn't make us bad people. "Well, in a way, they should, if we approach the question rationally. But we can't afford it as a society because punishment serves as a deterrent for future crimes." It's not easy to think rationally about people like that if you're a victim of one of them, especially if you're the victim of a murderer. In all seriousness I don't think their past excuses them, it just gives a reason, not an excuse. "I don't think it makes stars more impressive. It just makes you realize the stars couldn't care les about the horrors of this world, they don't shine for us. No matter what happens to you and your loved ones, the sun will shine and the birds will sing and the earth will roll.. You're just a dust in the wind. Btw, stumbled on Tyson's video the other day, it's pretty good" Yes, but the fact that the stars and the birds and stuff couldn't give a crap about me and I'm just dust in the wind makes me feel great because it means we're part of something much bigger than ourselves. Specks of star dust being able to form into something capable of reflecting on it's place in the universe is a incredible thing. We're not insignificant, for all we know we're the only part of existence capable of doing that. Doesn't that make you feel even a little bit special? Thanks for the video, I hadn't seen that. |
[ link ] |
22-02-2013
Don't you miss it? How things are in fact is subjective, it depends what you choose to focus on. If you only ever focus on the suffering and what's wrong with world and never pay attention to what's right then that's not really the truth either, at least not the whole truth. Actually, there I was talking about the truth of human psychology and how it works, and you can investigate that with experiments, a lot of that at least. But as to the world as a whole, what you're trying to say is that positive somehow balances out the negative. Like 1000 smiles (pick any other number) make up for one broken bone or something? A newborn pays off for the dead one? I don't think so and I don't need to count how much good there is in total and weigh it against the bad because the happiness of one person doesn't fix the torments of another. Some people lead relatively nice lives while others get torn to pieces like rubbish, who repays them for what they had to endure? Maybe in your brain their "minus" is balanced by someone else's "plus", but they are in minus and that's how they leave this world - having suffered for nothing. Why should I accept the injustice and say 'it's ok, it balances out on the whole'? Schopenhauer thought: “Pleasure is never as pleasant as we expected it to be and pain is always more painful. The pain in the world always outweighs the pleasure. If you don't believe it, compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is eating the other.” There were people on this planet, who got eaten alive and experienced tremendous pain each second of which felt like a minute. What makes that right? What possible happiness? And whose? Haven't you heard of horrific things happening to children? What justifies that? Some future joys of other people? To say that one needs to take into account both suffering and pleasures of this world because joys and pleasures make the existing of suffering all right is like saying biblical heaven makes the existence of hell all right and people in heaven shouldn't concentrate on the suffering in hell. That's rubbish. If something is horrendous is present in the world nothing makes this presence all right. A health spa on one part of the Earth doesn't make the existence of a forced labor camp on another all right. Otherwise I'm saying those happy people in the spa are more important and worthy than those in a labour camp as I choose to remember them and forget the others. "The man who managed, by an imagination overflowing with pity, to record all the sufferings, to be contemporary with all pain and all the anguish of any given moment – such a man…would be a monster of love and the greatest victim in the history of the human heart. We need merely proceed to an investigation of ourselves, only undertake the archaeology of our alarms; we believe they suffer because they lack sufficient will, courage, or lucidity. Each suffering, except ours, seems to us legitimate or absurdly intelligible; otherwise, mourning would be the unique constant in the versatility of our sentiments. But we wear only the mourning of ourselves. If we could understand and love the infinity of agonies which languish around us, all the lives which are hidden deaths, we should require as many hearts as there are suffering beings. And if we had a miraculously present memory which sustained the totality of our present pains, we should succumb beneath such a burden. Life is possible only by the deficiencies of our imagination and our memory." Feeling bad for them doesn't improve their lives, although I suppose if everyone thought the way you do then a lot more would get done to improve their lives. It helps not to contribute to the problem because overwhelmingly, people who see the world as rosy don't hesitate to throw another baby in here. We're not insignificant, for all we know we're the only part of existence capable of doing that. Doesn't that make you feel even a little bit special? Yeah, in a way, sure, I feel like a very sophisticated joke has been played on me. A dust has been given the eyes to see how it's going from the abyss back into the abyss, whitnessing others do the same, powerless to change anything, having no say in the matter, like a movie you're forced to see. |
|
22-02-2013 "But as to the world as a whole, what you're trying to say is that positive somehow balances out the negative. Like 1000 smiles (pick any other number) make up for one broken bone or something? A newborn pays off for the dead one? I don't think so and I don't need to count how much good there is in total and weigh it against the bad because the happiness of one person doesn't fix the torments of another. Some people lead relatively nice lives while others get torn to pieces like rubbish, who repays them for what they had to endure? Maybe in your brain their "minus" is balanced by someone else's "plus", but they are in minus and that's how they leave this world - having suffered for nothing. Why should I accept the injustice and say 'it's ok, it balances out on the whole'?"I never said it's okay that people are suffering or that the happiness of one person justifies the suffering of another, I could never think like that. You seem to be suggesting that negative emotions are somehow more valid and important than positive ones and I don't think that's the case. I suppose overall I'm saying that all the good in the world balances out all the bad, but that doesn't mean I think that any suffering is okay. It's how I choose to deal with the suffering that I'm powerless to do anything about. "Schopenhauer thought: “Pleasure is never as pleasant as we expected it to be and pain is always more painful. The pain in the world always outweighs the pleasure. If you don't believe it, compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is eating the other.”" That's not a very fair example. It's completely arbitrary and doesn't say anything about the world outside the example of an animal being eaten alive. Compare the respective feelings of two animals playing. Survival of the fittest is what drives the evolutionary process. It what makes the hunters and the pray better animals, stronger, faster, cleverer, you know that. Without the weak being eaten or starving to death there could never have been the increase in complexity that gave those animals and us the capacity to feel anything, including the loving emotions which they're obviously capable of as well. "There were people on this planet, who got eaten alive and experienced tremendous pain each second of which felt like a minute. What makes that right? What possible happiness? And whose? Haven't you heard of horrific things happening to children? What justifies that? Some future joys of other people?" I know. There was fairly a recent one where a woman got eaten alive by a bear and it took over an hour for her to die. For reason she didn't pass out. She phoned her Mum who had to listen to the whole thing. I'm normally able to dissociate with other people suffering suffering to some extent but that one still makes me feel sick. That had so much of an impact on me when I read it. I think it's the phone call that does it. It's horrible. "To say that one needs to take into account both suffering and pleasures of this world because joys and pleasures make the existing of suffering all right is like saying biblical heaven makes the existence of hell all right and people in heaven shouldn't concentrate on the suffering in hell. That's rubbish. If something is horrendous is present in the world nothing makes this presence all right. A health spa on one part of the Earth doesn't make the existence of a forced labor camp on another all right. Otherwise I'm saying those happy people in the spa are more important and worthy than those in a labour camp as I choose to remember them and forget the others." Of course I'm not saying that one persons happiness makes up for anothers misery, but all the sorrow and heartache that exists doesn't make the joy and happiness that exists any less meaningful any more than the joy makes up for the sorrow. Focusing only on the bad is just as skewed as focusing only on the good. ""The man who managed, by an imagination overflowing with pity, to record all the sufferings, to be contemporary with all pain and all the anguish of any given moment – such a man…would be a monster of love and the greatest victim in the history of the human heart. We need merely proceed to an investigation of ourselves, only undertake the archaeology of our alarms; we believe they suffer because they lack sufficient will, courage, or lucidity. Each suffering, except ours, seems to us legitimate or absurdly intelligible; otherwise, mourning would be the unique constant in the versatility of our sentiments. But we wear only the mourning of ourselves. If we could understand and love the infinity of agonies which languish around us, all the lives which are hidden deaths, we should require as many hearts as there are suffering beings. And if we had a miraculously present memory which sustained the totality of our present pains, we should succumb beneath such a burden. Life is possible only by the deficiencies of our imagination and our memory." - Emil Cioran, 'The Key Of Our Endurance'" I don't think for a second that the people who suffer deserve it because they brought it on themselves, they're lazy, they had it coming or whatever. It winds me up when people assume that. I remember you mentioning that on your video. I've never fallen into that trap. By deficiencies in my imagination and memory are supposed to be there and I'm grateful for them. I can't carry the burden of all the pain in the world on my shoulders and I don't know how you can carry so much of it. "It helps not to contribute to the problem because overwhelmingly, people who see the world as rosy don't hesitate to throw another baby in here." That's why I don't really ever want kids. Part of me does but I don't want the responsibility of bringing someone into this world who has no choice in the matter and could end up suffering even if the world doesn't go to shit in their lifetime. I don't want that on my conscience. I also really like only being responsible for myself and being forced to worry about someone elses security and well being. "Yeah, in a way, sure, I feel like a very sophisticated joke has been played on me. A dust has been given the eyes to see how it's going from the abyss back into the abyss, whitnessing others do the same, powerless to change anything, having no say in the matter, like a movie you're forced to see." It's a good movie. Drama, comedy, and yes, tragedy. It has everything. That's what makes it life. The good stuff wouldn't seem good if it wasn't for the bad stuff, it would just be normal. You can't have one without the other. It's not right and it's not fair but that's just the way it is. I'm being apathetic, I just don't want to end up a wreck. |
|
22-02-2013 I just want to clarify a couple a couple of things.This should be "I also really like only being responsible for myself and NOT being forced to worry about someone elses security and well being." "I don't think for a second that the people who suffer deserve it because they brought it on themselves, they're lazy, they had it coming or whatever. It winds me up when people assume that." I was saying that it winds me up when people assume that those who are suffering somehow deserve it. And finally, "I can't carry the burden of all the pain in the world on my shoulders and I don't know how you can carry so much of it." I wasn't suggesting that I'm a better person than you could because you can face more of the suffering than I can. I admire that you can do it. I'm just worried about your soul. I wouldn't want to annoy you by not being clear and having you take something the wrong way because I think this is actually the best conversation I've had on line. |
[ link ] |
23-02-2013
That's ok, I think I understood you right the first time, but thanks. Good to know so far you've enjoyed the conversation - me too - , but you just might change your mind, who knows I never said it's okay that people are suffering or that the happiness of one person justifies the suffering of another...I'm saying that all the good in the world balances out all the bad ??? how exactly does this balance is taking place then if not on a global scale where you put some sort of abstract collective suffering against the abstract collective enjoyment? Or do you mean every living person has a balanced amount of pain and pleasure? Where's the balance? that doesn't mean I think that any suffering is okay. It's how I choose to deal with the suffering that I'm powerless to do anything about. I can relate to that, we all have to deal with that somehow.
It's not skewed really, not in the slightest. Say I have a choice of creating a balanced world with 20 children in it. A magic kindergarten where there will be 2 rooms, 10 kids in each. In one room kids will be playing videogames, eating sweets, dancing and singing and will be very happy. But in the other room 10 chidren will be continuously tortured, crying, puking out blood and pissing themselves. Would you say focusing primarily on the horrific experience of the tortured children be skewed? There would be a mathematical balance of happiness and torment, but are they really equal in value??
The fittest for what? For chasing and eating the weak? So the complex beast with good eye-sight, strong muscles and sharp teath is the pinacle of existence that we should applaud? A more complex sentience with emotions appearing in in this grinder is a bad and cruel joke. It's something to mourn not to celebrate because this place doesn't deserve sensitive, feeling beings capable of love and empathy. This is the shit we're talking about: billions of years of 'gladiator wars' and it's still happening every minute::
It makes me shiver when I think about it. By deficiencies in my imagination and memory are supposed to be there and I'm grateful for them. I can't carry the burden of all the pain in the world on my shoulders and I don't know how you can carry so much of it. I can't either, I wouldn't be talking to you now if I gave in to the wave of awareness for too long. I'm distracting myself as best as I can, I just don't deny it any more, do not try to minimize it to keep the illusion of a great world and life as a gift.
Halleluyah. ;) But seriously, if someone loves kids, there are lots of them in this world who need parents.
See I don't want it the way it is. The way it is is shit. Has some chocolate in it too, but it isn't worth the shit you have to take for every bite of chocolate. And I wasn't given a choice, that's what makes this movie wrong. I didn't need to see it. Nobody does. There is no need in non-existence, and there is no problem in there. No complaints. |
|
23-02-2013 "That's ok, I think I understood you right the first time, but thanks. Good to know so far you've enjoyed the conversation - me too - , but you just might change your mind, who knows"Not if I change yours first. "??? how exactly does this balance is taking place then if not on a global scale where you put some sort of abstract collective suffering against the abstract collective enjoyment? Or do you mean every living person has a balanced amount of pain and pleasure? Where's the balance?" I meant it in an abstract sense but it is sort of true in a very loose sense when you apply it to individuals. The worse your life is the more you appreciate and enjoy the little things that people who are better off take for granted. People who have lead very easy stress free lives can't handle it when things do go wrong. The rich and famous suffer from depression because they get used to what they have and their situation can't really improve so they've got nothing to look forward to. It not the having things that feels good, it's getting them. "It's not skewed really, not in the slightest. Say I have a choice of creating a balanced world with 20 children in it. A magic kindergarten where there will be 2 rooms, 10 kids in each. In one room kids will be playing videogames, eating sweets, dancing and singing and will be very happy. But in the other room 10 chidren will be continuously tortured, crying, puking out blood and pissing themselves. Would you say focusing primarily on the horrific experience of the tortured children be skewed? There would be a mathematical balance of happiness and torment, but are they really equal in value??" Well those two examples aren't anywhere near equal in the first place, but I see your point. No it doesn't balance. "The fittest for what? For chasing and eating the weak? So the complex beast with good eye-sight, strong muscles and sharp teath is the pinacle of existence that we should applaud? A more complex sentience with emotions appearing in in this grinder is a bad and cruel joke. It's something to mourn not to celebrate because this place doesn't deserve sensitive, feeling beings capable of love and empathy. This is the shit we're talking about: billions of years of 'gladiator wars' and it's still happening every minute::" That sensitivity, love and empathy is the only thing that will improve the situation. "It makes me shiver when I think about it." I hope you already knew that. I know how much empathy you have and I don't want to be responsible for traumatising you. "I can't either, I wouldn't be talking to you now if I gave in to the wave of awareness for too long. I'm distracting myself as best as I can, I just don't deny it any more, do not try to minimize it to keep the illusion of a great world and life as a gift." And what if it ends up as a much better world? It will be because of the shit it went through to get there. "Halleluyah. But seriously, if someone loves kids, there are lots of them in this world who need parents." It's great that people do that, but I'm not sure if I could. "See I don't want it the way it is. The way it is is shit. Has some chocolate in it too, but it isn't worth the shit you have to take for every bite of chocolate. And I wasn't given a choice, that's what makes this movie wrong. I didn't need to see it. Nobody does. There is no need in non-existence, and there is no problem in there. No complaints." And no joy, wonder, laughter or happiness of any kind. It's got to be better than nothing. |
[ link ] |
23-02-2013
The worse your life is the more you appreciate and enjoy the little things that people who are better off take for granted. Not necessarily. You see others having what you'd want for yourself but can't and you envy and feel angry for the injustice. The rich and famous suffer from depression because they get used to what they have and their situation can't really improve so they've got nothing to look forward to. It just proves once again we weren't build for prolonged happiness but for chasing a carrot that's always in front of us. There's always something that you don't have but at some point you realize once you get it it will seize being something you want and thus a source of pleasure. I was in the mall today and saw a stand with Barbie dolls. I remembered how I wanted one like that when I was little and how my parents saved money to buy it for me. Specific sweets were also of high value to me than and it seemed if only I could have that I'd be very happy. Then you grow up and your needs grow with you, now you're able to buy lots of things you couldn't before but your horizon also expands and again you want things you can't get. It's endless. Millionairs compare themselves to billionaires. Offer your vision of balanced. In any example I fail to see how permanent torment can be balanced by anything. It's just wrong and it shouldn't be taking place period. I hope you already knew that. I know how much empathy you have and I don't want to be responsible for traumatising you. The examples I already knew of are similar so I don't think I'm likely to hear of anything much worse than what I already was aware of. And what if it ends up as a much better world? It will be because of the shit it went through to get there. If it happens tomorrow afternoon - about fucking time, but somehow I don't think so. We're better off cutting our losses, by which I actually mean stopping to create more people in a vague hope of a better world in some future, a world for which billions of people who never volunteered will be sacrificed.
No joy, wonder, laughter or happiness AND no deprivation of them. It's not my argument but a popular one because it's spot on: there is no deprivation on Mars, on Jupiter, on Venus... No life and no longing for it. See only the existing people have needs for happiness because otherwise they're miserable, their existence is painful and tough, happiness is the pill for the needy, for those who are initially deprived of it. There is however no need to bring a deprived organism into existence so it can then chase happiness and relief from it's multiple vulnerabilities and satisfaction of its numerous needs. |
|
24-02-2013 ""Halleluyah. But seriously, if someone loves kids, there are lots of them in this world who need parents.""Where'd my go? I didn't do that. "Not necessarily. You see others having what you'd want for yourself but can't and you envy and feel angry for the injustice." Yes okay, that can and does happen, but it can also inspire people to get those things themselves. People who have something that you want can inspire motivation as well as envy, and little things feel sweeter the less you have. I've never understood that mind set anyway. Admiration feels so much nicer and does you far more good than envy. "It just proves once again we weren't build for prolonged happiness but for chasing a carrot that's always in front of us. There's always something that you don't have but at some point you realize once you get it it will seize being something you want and thus a source of pleasure. I was in the mall today and saw a stand with Barbie dolls. I remembered how I wanted one like that when I was little and how my parents saved money to buy it for me. Specific sweets were also of high value to me than and it seemed if only I could have that I'd be very happy. Then you grow up and your needs grow with you, now you're able to buy lots of things you couldn't before but your horizon also expands and again you want things you can't get. It's endless. Millionairs compare themselves to billionaires." Yes, and that's our incentive to keep improving ourselves. There's no end point where we can say 'right that's it, I'm happy now". I really like your analogy of chasing a carrot. That's exactly right. It means we constantly want to be better than we are now, which is a good thing. Without that there would be no chance of improvement. Unfortunately a lot of people aren't very ambitious and settle for just trying to increase their material wealth. Having money is nice but it's not the be all and end all. We don't just get used to having things, we get used to not having them as well. Negative emotions also lessen in time if our situation doesn't change. "Offer your vision of balanced. In any example I fail to see how permanent torment can be balanced by anything. It's just wrong and it shouldn't be taking place period." In one room the kids are playing computer games, playing with puppies and eating sweets, and in the other room it's exactly the same accept that all the kids have a very mild tooth ache. I completely agree that suffering of the kind you described is just wrong and shouldn't be taking place. That's why I said that it doesn't balance. But I think you gave an unfair example where the nasty situation heavily outweighs the nice one. Mine is the other way round. Mine doesn't show that pain isn't as important as happiness and yours doesn't show that happiness isn't as important as important as pain but like I said, I do see your point, and the level of suffering you described can't be matched by any amount of positive emotions. "The examples I already knew of are similar so I don't think I'm likely to hear of anything much worse than what I already was aware of." Good, well you know what I mean. "If it happens tomorrow afternoon - about fucking time, but somehow I don't think so. We're better off cutting our losses, by which I actually mean stopping to create more people in a vague hope of a better world in some future, a world for which billions of people who never volunteered will be sacrificed." People are never going to stop having kids. The population may fall (which it needs to) but there's still going to be plenty of people for a long time and I think there's hope that things will improve for them, if enough of the people around now help them by teaching them the right things. "No joy, wonder, laughter or happiness AND no deprivation of them. It's not my argument but a popular one because it's spot on: there is no deprivation on Mars, on Jupiter, on Venus... No life and no longing for it. See only the existing people have needs for happiness because otherwise they're miserable, their existence is painful and tough, happiness is the pill for the needy, for those who are initially deprived of it. There is however no need to bring a deprived organism into existence so it can then chase happiness and relief from it's multiple vulnerabilities and satisfaction of its numerous needs." A lack of longing for happiness doesn't make a dead planet better than this one. Why isn't happiness just as valid and meaningful as misery? They're two side of the same emotional coin. There will always be both in this world. If you want to think that negative emotions are more worthy of acknowledgement than positive ones then the world will seem like a harsh place. I know that for a lot of people harsh doesn't come close to describing it, but (and please don't hate me for saying this) it seems worse to us than it does to them because we're not used to it and we're comparing it to our lives. Everything you said about happiness being temporary is true but it's also true, at least to some extend for negative emotions as well. Happiness is not just a cure for misery, it's something special that makes life worth living. You seem to think of happiness as neutral and negative emotions as the only ones that really matter, as if happiness is just a temporary distraction to the reality of misery. I don't think that's true and I don't want it to be true. I don't believe that I'm just seeing the world through rose tinted glasses here. Things will get better. Poverty will decrease and the wealth that's being horded by the elite will eventually by spread around. You probably think I'm being naive but it think we're seeing the start of it now. People are getting pissed off, governments aren't trusted as much as they used to be, and the behaviour of huge monopolising corporations is coming to light. Things might get worse before they get better, maybe much worse, but it won't last forever. |
[ link ] |
24-02-2013
Yes, and that's our incentive to keep improving ourselves. There's no end point where we can say 'right that's it, I'm happy now". I really like your analogy of chasing a carrot. That's exactly right. It means we constantly want to be better than we are now It just means we gotta find something to do otherwise existential terror sinks in "now what? what am i doing here? what is this all about?" We don't want to improve ourselves, we just want to keep experiencing pleasure, which is what junkies are. We don't just get used to having things, we get used to not having them as well. Negative emotions also lessen in time if our situation doesn't change. True, adaptation. Though it's not possible for everything, some types of pain, for example, one can never get used to. In one room the kids are playing computer games, playing with puppies and eating sweets, and in the other room it's exactly the same accept that all the kids have a very mild tooth ache. You gotta put on weights the strongest positive against the strongest negative so I said kids in the first room are happy - whatever that means, as happy as people can be, to the max. I completely agree that suffering of the kind you described is just wrong and shouldn't be taking place. That's why I said that it doesn't balance. But I think you gave an unfair example where the nasty situation heavily outweighs the nice one. Exactly, it's hard to find a match for a chronic sharp pain that some people have to live with for years. You don't find a corresponding strong pleasure that lasts in this world. An orgasm lasts seconds to minutes, but an agony can have you for how long? Surely much longer than that. Any kind of euphoric state doesn't last long. But torments can. There you have the asymmetry already. So you can call it an unfair example, but it's not the example that's unfair, it's life itself. We can't come up with a better example because it doesn't exist. Unless you count drug-induced euphoria which reportedly lasts longer but we don't rely on drugs in our everyday life, we have to exclude them from the equation. I completely agree that suffering of the kind you described is just wrong and shouldn't be taking place. That's why I said that it doesn't balance. Ok.
Hey, now it's my turn to hope for a better world with wiser people who above all do no harm. Not a dead - uninhabited. By needy vulnerable organisms exploiting one another to postpone their inevitable deaths. The prevention of suffering has much more merit than bestowing of benefits. That's why happiness isn't as valid as misery. Because to prevent 10 children from being tortured is more important than create 10 happy ones. No sentience means no suffering (+) and no deprivation (+), while sentience means suffering (-) and happiness (+). It's really simple. If no sentience exists there are no losers. I know that for a lot of people harsh doesn't come close to describing it, but (and please don't hate me for saying this) it seems worse to us than it does to them because we're not used to it and we're comparing it to our lives. You can always choose to believe that. It's not that bad, or 'god never gives a person more than they can handle'. Some people don't get used to their struggles too well, and it's often harder for intelligent people to trick themselves into accepting their demise because they see the proposed coping mechanisms for what they are - coping mechanisms. Like saying to yourself some people have it worse (when some clearly have it better), or that there's some hidden point to suffering (for which there is no evidence for), or that it's going to get better (a miracle will happen and the incurable disease will go away even though the odds of that are close to zero). What you've just expressed is called minimization - a way to cope with unpleasant information, to say that it's not as bad as it appears to be. Another way would be to deny or to blame the victim - you don't do those two. Everything you said about happiness being temporary is true but it's also true, at least to some extend for negative emotions as well. Everything passes, including us.;) Happiness is not just a cure for misery, it's something special that makes life worth living. So life is misery without happiness? Imagine a life without one happy moment - who would want that? You seem to think of happiness as neutral and negative emotions as the only ones that really matter, as if happiness is just a temporary distraction to the reality of misery. We come to this world with needs. And then spend our whole lives fixing ourselves. If we don't do that - we will suffer. No effort is needed to suffer - that's the status quo in this world, it comes naturally. So it is a reality of misery. You can't just relax and look at the clouds and the sun and smile and be happy once you're here, you don't even have that option. You are born broken, forever a slave of your body's needs. You can accept that as normal and adapt - which is what we're doing not to lose our sanity, because the realization of yourself as a victim in a trap isn't at all pleasant, it's really horrific. Things will get better. Poverty will decrease and the wealth that's being horded by the elite will eventually by spread around. You probably think I'm being naive but it think we're seeing the start of it now. I think you've already expressed your hopefulness. My best hope is a huge asteroid hitting this dump, quick and painless. |
|
25-02-2013 "Where'd my go? I didn't do that."There it happened again. Either my wordpad or you site is editing out the bracket and colon emoticons. Oh, it might be the new online spell checker I've started using. I make a lot of mistakes when I type. I'll have to watch out for that. "It just means we gotta find something to do otherwise existential terror sinks in "now what? what am i doing here? what is this all about?" We don't want to improve ourselves, we just want to keep experiencing pleasure, which is what junkies are." Feeling good is supposed to be a reward for accomplishing something. Taking drugs is a way of cheating that system and feeling good without improving yourself in some way. It's not the same. "True, adaptation. Though it's not possible for everything, some types of pain, for example, one can never get used to." Which shows that we're not built for prolonged sorry either. Some types of pleasure can't be acclimatised to either. I'll never stop being in awe of the scale of the universe and the simple laws that can create so much beauty. Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE It's called the game of life and it show how a very simple set of rules can give rise to great complexity. Do you want to see something truly beautiful? Well I think it is. It's physics but written in a way that hopefully makes it understandable to people who aren't trained scientists. It's relativity. If you're interested: http://scienceforums.com/topic/27223-relativity-made-simple/ And then this this, which I think will be confirmed very soon. This is how beautiful the universe is of the smallest scales: http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html "You gotta put on weights the strongest positive against the strongest negative so I said kids in the first room are happy - whatever that means, as happy as people can be, to the max." Yes, and in that example there's obviously now amount of happiness in one room that can make up for that kind of suffering in the other, even if it was one child against a trillion. I accept that there's a certain level of pain that outweighs any kind of happiness. But if you think about it nationally (as you did for murderers and rapists), then that really shouldn't be the case. The fact that it is, and would be to the vast majority of people shows that human nature is sympathetic to suffering. See, there is hope. "Exactly, it's hard to find a match for a chronic sharp pain that some people have to live with for years. You don't find a corresponding strong pleasure that lasts in this world. An orgasm lasts seconds to minutes, but an agony can have you for how long? Surely much longer than that. Any kind of euphoric state doesn't last long. But torments can. There you have the asymmetry already. So you can call it an unfair example, but it's not the example that's unfair, it's life itself. We can't come up with a better example because it doesn't exist. Unless you count drug-induced euphoria which reportedly lasts longer but we don't rely on drugs in our everyday life, we have to exclude them from the equation." Drugs can only stimulate the produce chemicals that it's already capable of producing. Any high that people can get from drugs can be experienced without them. "Hey, now it's my turn to hope for a better world with wiser people who above all do no harm." That would be lovely. Lots of people are always going to want to have kids because it's only natural to want to extend your own life and having kids is a way of doing that. Then there's the coupes who really are in love and want to create something that is a combination of both of them and think by doing that and bringing up their children in a warm and loving environment will improve the world, and it normally does in that situation. And then there's the evolutionary component. People who didn't want kids didn't have them and people who did want kids did have them, and passed their DNA down so that their children probably share that desire and will end up having kids of their own. There's around seven billion people on this planet. Baring some major catastrophe people are going to be around for a very long time. All will can do is try to inspire people younger than us to create a better world. "Not a dead - uninhabited. By needy vulnerable organisms exploiting one another to postpone their inevitable deaths. The prevention of suffering has much more merit than bestowing of benefits. That's why happiness isn't as valid as misery. Because to prevent 10 children from being tortured is more important than create 10 happy ones. No sentience means no suffering (+) and no deprivation (+), while sentience means suffering (-) and happiness (+). It's really simple. If no sentience exists there are no losers." No sentience means no joy (-) and no sorrow (+). Sentience mean joy (+) and sorry (-), and the potential for the world to improve (+) or get worse (-). Without our minds to interpret the external data we're constantly getting there's no universe. When we die the universe disappears with us. If we all died it would disappear completely if there's no life anywhere else and go back to being nothing more than its true form of just an equation, and all of this disappears with it. While we're here there's always hope that it will be somewhere worth living for everyone one day, especially when you take into account all the technological advances that are bound to happen. Even if you don't believe that will happen and think that things will just carry on getting worse, it's still possible that one day it will happen and if we were to disappear then that possibility disappears with us. It's not only about all the pain and suffering vs all the good things, it's about what could happen. People don't realise how much power they have. If we could all work together instead of against each other there's no limit to what we could accomplish. "You can always choose to believe that. It's not that bad, or 'god never gives a person more than they can handle'. Some people don't get used to their struggles too well, and it's often harder for intelligent people to trick themselves into accepting their demise because they see the proposed coping mechanisms for what they are - coping mechanisms. Like saying to yourself some people have it worse (when some clearly have it better), or that there's some hidden point to suffering (for which there is no evidence for), or that it's going to get better (a miracle will happen and the incurable disease will go away even though the odds of that are close to zero). What you've just expressed is called minimization - a way to cope with unpleasant information, to say that it's not as bad as it appears to be. Another way would be to deny or to blame the victim - you don't do those two." I'm not trying to minimise peoples suffering, well okay, I suppose I am to some extent, but I still think it's a valid point. You said it yourself, adaptation. Don't talk to be about god. There's nothing I hate more than the idea of a fairy fucking god father. To me everything that exists constitutes god, in a sense. If you think about it, it's omnipresent, all powerful, contains all the knowledge that can ever exist, and it's even intelligent (it has us). That's my god. "Everything passes, including us." The past isn't going anywhere. The only thing that creates our perception of a moving time line is the fact that we remember the past but not the future. That's all you need to create a distinction between space and time. The universe is a four dimensional (at least) fixed structure, we're just not capable of perceiving it that way because it would be impossible for us to think. We're all immortal. "So life is misery without happiness? Imagine a life without one happy moment - who would want that?" Without misery to compare it to there could be no happiness. It's the contrast that creates of perception of positive and negative emotions. "We come to this world with needs. And then spend our whole lives fixing ourselves. If we don't do that - we will suffer. No effort is needed to suffer - that's the status quo in this world, it comes naturally. So it is a reality of misery. You can't just relax and look at the clouds and the sun and smile and be happy once you're here, you don't even have that option. You are born broken, forever a slave of your body's needs. You can accept that as normal and adapt - which is what we're doing not to lose our sanity, because the realization of yourself as a victim in a trap isn't at all pleasant, it's really horrific." We're born as part of this world and part of this universe, and we need other parts of to survive because it's all connected. It doesn't mean we're broken. "We're connected to each other biologically, we're connected to the Earth chemically, and we're connected to the rest of the universe atomically"- Neil deGrasse Tyson. "I think you've already expressed your hopefulness. My best hope is a huge asteroid hitting this dump, quick and painless." It just makes me sad that you seem so sure that we're doomed. I feel like like that too sometimes, but I'd hate to feel like that permanently. The right music, martial arts, or just thinking existentially in the right way can help lift me out of it. Isn't there anything that lifts your outlook? I'm not talking about distractions like spending time with friends and stuff. It really breaks my heart to read that. I know the suffering of people who have done nothing wrong should break my heart more but I'm not talking to them, I'm talking to you. You said that you used to see the world differently and in a better light. If you don't mind me asking, what changed your mind? Did you have a sudden epiphany that life is shit or was it gradual? Was there a specific reason? I was there was something I could say to you to make you more optimistic and make you think that the world as a whole is worth the struggles that people a forced to go through. That's one pissed off looking kitty I'd love to know what's going through its mind. I think it's owners either told it that it's adopted or they're getting a dog. |
|
25-02-2013 Which shows that we're not built for prolonged sorrOW either. Some types of pleasure can't be acclimatised to either. I'll never stop being in awe of the scale of the universe and the simple laws that can create so much beauty. Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE It's called the game of life and it showS how a very simple set of rules can give rise to great complexity. Do you want to see something truly beautiful? Well I think it is. It's physics but written in a way that hopefully makes it understandable to people who aren't trained scientists. It's relativity. If you're interested: http://scienceforums.com/topic/27223-relativity-made-simple/ And then thERE'S this, which I think will be confirmed very soon. This is how beautiful the universe is oN the smallest scales: http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.htmlFucksake! |
[ link ] |
25-02-2013
Look, you can point me to all the beauty in the world - as though I haven't seen it before - but what's beauty and complexity and the peculiarities of remote odds and shit in the face of the high price we pay to whitness it? I do at times feel the awe for the beautiful and complex stuff but I also feel the sorrow and the horror for the sentient beings. Not only others, but myself included, I do and will have more problems of my own. Would I start this world if it depended on me - after weighing the good things in it against the bad - not a chance in hell, I'd say it's a horrendous deal, the commodity is way overpriced. So why would I treat it any differently when it is here and I'm in it? It's still a shitty deal. Why should I whitewash the injustice and misery? If I would have hated certain tragedies to happen to my loved ones, people I care about deeply, why should I perceive those same tragedies happening to strangers (who are somebody's family, friends, loved ones) as any less terrifying and devastating? Every horror that takes place is one too many. Doesn't matter that I don't know those people, they are essentially like me, they could perhaps be my friends had we met and I'm just supposed to sweep it under the rug and keep walking as if nothing happenned? The beauty of the world doesn't help me when my loved ones are suffering, I don't view it as something redeeming or relieving or counter-balancing the suffering of the people I care about. So why would I think it somehow put things right when strangers are hurt? Especially since my loved ones could be next. Drugs can only stimulate the produce chemicals that it's already capable of producing. Any high that people can get from drugs can be experienced without them. Chemicals are produced in certain amounts. We produce morphine but cancer patients can't produce enough to relieve their pain, so practically - it's not possible to reach a needed effect without drugs. That would be lovely. Lots of people are always going to want to have kids because No need to tell me the reasons, I've wrote extensively on them on this blog. People who didn't want kids didn't have them and people who did want kids did have them, and passed their DNA down so that their children probably share that desire You're assuming. But antinatalists do not give birth to antinatalists. The decision not to follow one's bilological drive is a rational one and many people today are making it, the more educated people become the less kids they have. Sentience mean joy (+) and sorry (-), and the potential for the world to improve (+) or get worse (-). So still back to "zero". Without our minds to interpret the external data we're constantly getting there's no universe. When we die the universe disappears with us. I don't care about the universe, I care about what's happening to living beings while they're alive. Let universe worry about the universe, my loyalties lie with my kind. While we're here there's always hope that it will be somewhere worth living for everyone one day, especially when you take into account all the technological advances that are bound to happen. Again you're only looking at the bright side, even in technological advancements. You know they keep inventing more sophisticated weapons? And wars are still here with us. Antibiotics will soon be useless because we fed them to animals we were eating. Even if you don't believe that will happen and think that things will just carry on getting worse, it's still possible that one day it will happen and if we were to disappear then that possibility disappears with us. That possibility disappears with us but we are the only ones who need that possibility. Future people don't have that need and thus will not lose anything when that possibility goes away. Unborn can not be deprived. While at the same time we might have prevented another Holocaust from taking place. It's not only about all the pain and suffering vs all the good things, it's about what could happen. People don't realise how much power they have. If we could all work together instead of against each other there's no limit to what we could accomplish. What exactly could we accomplish besides keep cleaning up the mess we create? We create needy people then we feed and clothe some of them and pat ourselves on the backs for this 'accomplishment'. We learn to treat diseases better but we are the ones sending more people here who will have those diseases. If we stop lighting up the fire there will be nothing to put out. What other accomplishments do you mean except from bettering human conditions on this planet? Sending a man to the moon? Who needs that? And were all the wars and famines an acceptable price for that?
Ironically, there is not much difference in the way religious people justify every atrocity in the bible and the eternal torment in hell and the way optimistic atheists justify the presence of suffering in this world and glorify the evolution and how it picks the fittest and how beauty makes up for the spillt guts. You both have gods. Doesn't matter if it is a personified old dude with a beard or a more abstract 'nature' or 'universe'. Both are attributed some sort of wisdom, a hidden plan and whatnot. We're all immortal. ;) Now wouldn't that be good news? No, it wouldn't. Without misery to compare it to there could be no happiness. It's the contrast that creates of perception of positive and negative emotions. Just what I said previously in other words: one has to be born with needs to experience pleasure from their fulfillment. There is no need for happiness unless you are unhappy. Without the hunger you won't feel pleasure from eating. You're saying it's great that we have huger because now we can eat. I say it's ludicrous to play the carrot-chasing game.
You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you. A world where even a small percentage of people is suffering is unacceptable to me. And I can't imagine a 100% of people ever being happy in this place. I know a lot of people seem to think that the majority of happy people is already fine. It's not to me. We're all equal and the majority doesn't become 'more equal' because of their numbers and the minority doesn't become something to just write off as a collateral damage just because they are few. There will always be people who aren't happy to be born here without their consent, whose heart will break apart from seeing animals eating each other, who will feel extremely lonely and ostracized by the optimistic majority and I don't see why I should say it's ok that their lives will be full of misery before they shoot themselves and leave. And the majority of happy people who are capable of going through their lives not caring about the minority - why should I applaud their existence? So no, there's nothing you could say to me to make me feel different about the state of affairs. Once someone realizes how bad things really are ther's no way back, it just can't happen (although i'd be selfishly happy to be wrong on this one). Unless you can explain how I should care about the beauty or hope or whatever more than I should about things like this that happen every day to my fellow human bengs:
I just hate to be here and having to whitness such horrors. I can try and tell myself all sosrts of soothing crap but that is just trying to destroy a part of me - empathic part (which I was feeding all sorts of religious and kwazi-religious justifications before and telling to myself 'it's not as bad as it looks'). And presume I accomplish that somehow (frontal lobotomy? haha) - what was the point? Would that be an accomplishment? To adjust to the world which is insane? Where parents send their children here to die? Where too much empathy is an obsticle to pleasant living but an average Joe with a beer belly who couldn't give a crap about anything is a better fit for survival and happiness? My rationality fails to see the point. |
|
25-02-2013 I also WISH there was something I could say to you to make you more optimistic and make you think that the world as a whole is worth the struggles that people a forced to go through, not was there was something I could say to you to make you more optimistic and make you think that the world as a whole is worth the struggles that people a forced to go through, I meant if you you think about it rationally, not nationally, sentience meanS joy, don't talk to Me about god, drugs can only stimulate the production of chemicals that our brain is already capable of producing, and all WE can do is try to inspire people younger than us to create a better world. I forgot to read through it before I posted it. It's like dyslexia accept I jumble up the words in a sentence instead of the letters in the words and sometime write words that just happen to sound similar. So annoying. You're up late. You must be a night owl like me. Isn't it even later were you are? I'm going to reply properly to your post tomorrow, but I'm getting the impression that I've moved from giving you a stimulating conversation to getting on your nerves. I'm sorry, I know I'm digging my heels in but I am listening to what you're saying. Good night. ::wink.gif:: |
|
26-02-2013 I can't get online, no bloody service. The whole sky is one thick cloud so you got a days break. I'm in the library. It will take more than that to stop me. That's how much I care! Actually it's a two minute walk from my flat it it's on the way to the shops, but that's not the point. I care."Look, you can point me to all the beauty in the world - as though I haven't seen it before - but what's beauty and complexity and the peculiarities of remote odds and shit in the face of the high price we pay to whitness it? I do at times feel the awe for the beautiful and complex stuff but I also feel the sorrow and the horror for the sentient beings. Not only others, but myself included, I do and will have more problems of my own. Would I start this world if it depended on me - after weighing the good things in it against the bad - not a chance in hell, I'd say it's a horrendous deal, the commodity is way overpriced. So why would I treat it any differently when it is here and I'm in it? It's still a shitty deal. Why should I whitewash the injustice and misery?" I don't think we should. I'm not saying it should be whitewashed. Far too many people do that already, but why should we whitewash the beauty for the sake of the injustice and misery? All that does it create more misery. You don't need to forget about the suffering to see that the world is a very special place. If this is the only planet with life on it (highly doubtful) then it's not just special, there wouldn't be a word that comes close to describing how amazing it is. All the struggling and carrot chasing we have to do doesn't negate that. It actually makes our accomplishments taste sweeter if we had to struggle to get there. "If I would have hated certain tragedies to happen to my loved ones, people I care about deeply, why should I perceive those same tragedies happening to strangers (who are somebody's family, friends, loved ones) as any less terrifying and devastating? Every horror that takes place is one too many. Doesn't matter that I don't know those people, they are essentially like me, they could perhaps be my friends had we met and I'm just supposed to sweep it under the rug and keep walking as if nothing happened? The beauty of the world doesn't help me when my loved ones are suffering, I don't view it as something redeeming or relieving or counter-balancing the suffering of the people I care about. So why would I think it somehow put things right when strangers are hurt? Especially since my loved ones could be next." If you or someone close to you is suffering then I'm very sorry. I don't mean to marginalise that. I know what it's like to be in pain, I really do. I'm normally very strong but something happened that I just couldn't handle. Just over a year ago I had a complete nervous breakdown because of it. I can't believe how low I sunk. It's the only time I ever thought this shit ain't worth it. It's so weird looking back at it. It's just like trying to remember a dream, a very bad dream. I know I couldn't hear music. Music's so underrated. People take it for granted but if you think about what's actually happening, our brain creates what we think of as sound based on nothing more than pressure waves in the air and as if that wasn't amazing enough, it can recognise patterns in those differences in air pressure and create music out of it. This is the kind of incredible stuff our minds can create out of practically nothing. I'll never forget No Good by Depeche Mode. It's the first thing I heard that sounded like music again. I liked it before but now it's my alltime favourite track because of that. It made me realise that I was going to be alright, I was getting worried. The situation still isn't resolved and I'll always be haunted, but I can use that as fuel. People who are content are useless. It feels nice but it's not productive because they've got no reason to do anything other than what they need to to keep ticking over. Look at all the best artists. It's beauty that creates more beauty, it's pain! It creates an incentive. Action/reaction. I want to be able to look back one day and think that it was worth it. "Chemicals are produced in certain amounts. We produce morphine but cancer patients can't produce enough to relieve their pain, so practically - it's not possible to reach a needed effect without drugs." Okay, but that's a different issue. I thought we were talking about using drugs to get high. Not that there's anything wrong with that if that's what people want to do. It's a risk if they make a habit of it but it's their risk to take. Up until a few months ago I smoked weed every day, a lot of weed and I'd been doing that for well over a decade. I still smoke it occasionally but nothing like I used to. It's nice, and nicer now I don't do it as much. I haven't had any for over six weeks. I wouldn't touch anything else because I know how addictive they can be. I know plenty of people who do though. Weed's easy to stop. I think that you're going to use drugs then it should only ever be to enhance reality rather than escape it. That's what creates alcoholics (the hardest drug to kick btw). "No need to tell me the reasons, I've wrote extensively on them on this blog." But I bet you didn't word it as optimistically. "You're assuming. But antinatalists do not give birth to antinatalists. The decision not to follow one's bilological drive is a rational one and many people today are making it, the more educated people become the less kids they have." It's an average. Nurture is more of an influence but there's still a correlation based on inheritance. "So still back to "zero"." Accept that our carrot chasing makes the world a better place. If you want to be wealthy you have, at least you should have to create something that people want, and most people get pleasure from seeing those around them being happy. If it wasn't for the odd few messing things up there'd be a noticeable improvement in living standards across the globe. "I don't care about the universe, I care about what's happening to living beings while they're alive. Let universe worry about the universe, my loyalties lie with my kind." Living beings are every bit as much a part of the universe as every star, planet and moon. It's not just a place to live. I've been writing a lot about the universe lately and it's right at the front of my mind, sorry. "Again you're only looking at the bright side, even in technological advancements. You know they keep inventing more sophisticated weapons? And wars are still here with us. Antibiotics will soon be useless because we fed them to animals we were eating." I didn't know that. I knew that we're becoming immune but I didn't know it was because we're feeding them to animals. Yea we've got enough wmds to make most of planet uninhabitable, and when was the last time one was used? We're still just using guns to shoot each other. Nukes basically ended the second world war. They're one hell of a deterrent. We'd still obviously be much better off without them though. "That possibility disappears with us but we are the only ones who need that possibility. Future people don't have that need and thus will not lose anything when that possibility goes away. Unborn can not be deprived. While at the same time we might have prevented another Holocaust from taking place." They'll lose out by simply not being here to experience it. You're using double standards by saying that we might prevent a holocaust and ignoring all the good that could happen by trying to invalidate it by implying that even if it does improve, it wouldn't be worth the struggle it would take to get there. Future people will loose the chance to contribute to the world and make it a better place for the people who come after them. "What exactly could we accomplish besides keep cleaning up the mess we create? We create needy people then we feed and clothe some of them and pat ourselves on the backs for this 'accomplishment'. We learn to treat diseases better but we are the ones sending more people here who will have those diseases. If we stop lighting up the fire there will be nothing to put out. What other accomplishments do you mean except from bettering human conditions on this planet? Sending a man to the moon? Who needs that? And were all the wars and famines an acceptable price for that?" We could create a utopia with no hunger or disease dedicated to learning and understanding the world, the universe and our place within it for a start. There's still some extremely profound discoveries to be made. Search for noetic science. Seems we're not just along for the ride. It's a dynamic two-way process. We can influence the universe in ways that we don't understand yet. There's lots of weird stuff that they've apparently found. I not sure whether I believe it but I hope there's something in it. I think that our brains are just aerials that pick up some field or current or neutrinos maybe and turn them into thoughts. I've thought that for a while because it makes more sense to me than a lump of organic mush being capable of producing consciousness independently. I think I also know what causes de javu. We have a short term and long term memory as completely separate systems, and if something that's just happened simply gets filed in our long term memory by mistake then it's going to feel like it's happened before. All the wars and famines aren't directly connected us going to the moon. Doing that inspired a lot of people. We could have done that without the wars and famines. The fact that we didn't is a great shame but it doesn't tarnish going to the moon or all the other amazing things people have done. "Ironically, there is not much difference in the way religious people justify every atrocity in the bible and the eternal torment in hell and the way optimistic atheists justify the presence of suffering in this world and glorify the evolution and how it picks the fittest and how beauty makes up for the spillt guts. You both have gods. Doesn't matter if it is a personified old dude with a beard or a more abstract 'nature' or 'universe'. Both are attributed some sort of wisdom, a hidden plan and whatnot." Not hidden. The universe is only sentient because we're here. I don't think there's some higher intelligence to it. It's just life, we're basically gods. I'm not trying to justify the suffering of people, and looking at the suffering of animals in an evolutionary sense does help me deal with it because without it there would be complexity and beauty. I know it's not fair, but there's sod all I can do to make it fair so I choose to focus on the outcome of the process of living beings being ripped to shreds because at least then there's something good that comes out of it and that shouldn't be ignored. When the second world war ended there were a lot of people that wanted all the knowledge gained by the nazis destroyed because of what they did to learn it, and it was a lot of new knowledge. That would have been a ridiculous thing to do. It would have meant that those people suffered for nothing. That's kind of like what you're doing by ignoring what comes from the spilt guts Now they're still saving lives to this day. Does that excuse what happened? Of course not! Does that mean that the people benefiting from it should feel guilty about the people who died? Fuck no! They're honouring them! Everything that we are survives after death. Nothing in the universe can be created or destroyed. You probably know, it's called the conservation of energy. We get reincarnated in a very literal sense. The carbon and other elements are recycled. Something that experiences pain when it dies will come back. Does that help at all? I'm not talking about a hidden path or anything like that. The universe is only sentient because it has life in it. You're talking about taking away the one thing that makes the universe special, and yes there's a price, but I believe it's a price worth paying because besides all of good stuff and the fact that there wouldn't even be a universe as such without life, things will improve, and carry on improving to the point where people don't have to suffer any more. One is based on verifiable truth and the other is based on an obvious lie. It's not even close to being slightly similar. "Now wouldn't that be good news? No, it wouldn't." Well it helps takes the sting out of knowing that you're going to die, kind of. Although it definitely wouldn't for people who have had a shit life. "Just what I said previously in other words: one has to be born with needs to experience pleasure from their fulfillment. There is no need for happiness unless you are unhappy. Without the hunger you won't feel pleasure from eating. You're saying it's great that we have huger because now we can eat. I say it's ludicrous to play the carrot-chasing game." There you go again, treating happiness like it's neutral and as if we're no better off being happy than we would be if we weren't here to feel anything. It's not something that counteracts misery, it's what makes it all worth it. It doesn't last but that's what allows us to progress and improve ourselves and the world. Get out of that one smeghead. "You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you. A world where even a small percentage of people is suffering is unacceptable to me. And I can't imagine a 100% of people ever being happy in this place. I know a lot of people seem to think that the majority of happy people is already fine. It's not to me. We're all equal and the majority doesn't become 'more equal' because of their numbers and the minority doesn't become something to just write off as a collateral damage just because they are few. There will always be people who aren't happy to be born here without their consent, whose heart will break apart from seeing animals eating each other, who will feel extremely lonely and ostracized by the optimistic majority and I don't see why I should say it's ok that their lives will be full of misery before they shoot themselves and leave. And the majority of happy people who are capable of going through their lives not caring about the minority - why should I applaud their existence?" I don't think you should applaud their existence, but they're not the problem, as long as they're not hurting anyone. I certainly don't mean to make you feel ostracised. If that's what I'm doing I apologise. I just think that you have very high standards that the world has to live up to. Take a look around. Having the intelligence to invent the wheel and harness fire was incredible. No words can express what the human race has managed to achieve. We're the tits. (: It doesn't mean forgetting about the suffering, but I think you should give us a bit more credit. "So no, there's nothing you could say to me to make me feel different about the state of affairs. Once someone realizes how bad things really are ther's no way back, it just can't happen (although i'd be selfishly happy to be wrong on this one)." Well, let's see if I can prove you wrong then. I'm not giving up on you just yet. ::wink.gif:: "Unless you can explain how I should care about the beauty or hope or whatever more than I should about things like this that happen every day to my fellow human bengs:" Because if you carry on down this path it could destroy you, and that would be a great shame. Optimism can help to make the world a better place by improving the positive things. Pessimism can help to make the world a better place by improving the negative things. Both are important. "I just hate to be here and having to whitness such horrors. I can try and tell myself all sosrts of soothing crap but that is just trying to destroy a part of me - empathic part (which I was feeding all sorts of religious and kwazi-religious justifications before and telling to myself 'it's not as bad as it looks'). And presume I accomplish that somehow (frontal lobotomy? haha) - what was the point? Would that be an accomplishment? To adjust to the world which is insane? Where parents send their children here to die? Where too much empathy is an obsticle to pleasant living but an average Joe with a beer belly who couldn't give a crap about anything is a better fit for survival and happiness? My rationality fails to see the point." You used to be religious. You mentioned that on one of your videos that I saw but I completely forgot. I take it you were brought up with it? How else does someone with your level of intelligence and critical thinking ever believe in that steaming pile of horse shit? I think I should explain my hatred for religion. It creates an excuse to justify anything. If something good happens, it's gods will. If something bad happens, god works in mysterious ways. It can't fucking loose. Utter bullcrap! If all this is the result of some cloud persons boredom then that would cheapen everything. If it's just here by default then it's the most amazing thing I could have ever hoped for. Think about it. Every event, every thought, every emotion is just purely coming out of the laws of nature. Incredible. I've had a few spats with god worshipers. I'm one of those angry atheists who attacks religion. I've got a little story about that. I annoyed one completely brainwashed American so much that he came to England to find me! After trying to explain to him how evolution works amongst other things I asked him whether he thought that doing what you're told to avoid going to hell and to get into heaven would impress his god more than people who do the right thing for its own sake without needing an incentive. He didn't like that. That was when I was working at the hotel. All he knew was that I worked for a decent hotel in Cambridge and a few minor details about me. I knew who it was as soon as I laid eyes on him. He kind of looked a bit like the avatar he was using and there was just something about him that made me know who it was. He came looking for me, found me and didn't even realise and I had no idea he was coming and knew who he was straight away. He was really insane. I put the boot in by winding him up about it afterwards. I probably shouldn't have done that. That was taking it a bit too far. He was obviously not very stable. I can get a but carried away sometimes, especially on this subject. I know for a fact it was him because when he left one of the people I was working with told me that he basically interrogated him as well to find out if he was me. I don't know what would have happened if he'd realised that he'd found who he was looking for. God worshipers are batshit crazy! No offence. I don't want to be too presumptuous but do you think maybe that makes you view the world in a negative light now? I've always wondered why these people are so resistant to obvious evidence that what they believe in is based on nothing remotely plausible, but I've never been a believer so I don't know what it's like. I think you've made me realise what the problem is. If you think that everything happens for a reason and it's part of some higher purpose, and that justice prevails in the afterlife, then the idea that nothing is in control apart from us must be very scary and make the world seem like a very cold and unfair place, just like it would to me if I found out there is a god. If there's no afterlife then life isn't meaningless, it's all that matters. It shouldn't make life seem more hollow, it should make it seem amazing, but like I said, I've never believed so I can't compare. I'm going to be a bit more understanding towards them from now on, a bit. Thinking about it, it can’t be easy for them to give up something that makes them feel like there's some grand design. You had comfort but choose the truth. Not a lot of people would have done that. I'm very impressed. I know that was another quite a long post but I sat through more than one of your videos expecting you to get to some kind of point so this is my revenge! It's a bloody good job you're pretty! Sorry. I like the way explain things and take you're time, lots of time. It's soothing. So soothing I actually dozed off a couple of times. I'm really sorry. I'm in a very cheeky mood today. I honestly do think you have a lovely and disarming way about you. I like your style. No joke. |
[ link ] |
27-02-2013
You don't need to forget about the suffering to see that the world is a very special place. If this is the only planet with life on it (highly doubtful) then it's not just special..All the struggling and carrot chasing we have to do doesn't negate that. It actually makes our accomplishments taste sweeter if we had to struggle to get there. I don't mind people having that as a personal opinion. That it's been worth it and it is worth it for them. The problem begins when they say 'it's going to be worth it for the new people I'm going to create'. There's a price attached to this life thing, and you shouldn't force another person to pay it. Other than that - be happy all you want. If you or someone close to you is suffering then I'm very sorry. I don't mean to marginalise that. I made a point that every stranger is somebody's family or friend. Okay, but that's a different issue. I thought we were talking about using drugs to get high. No, it was in the context that there is no prolonged euphoria in this world except a drug-induced, to which you said we can produce drugs in our bodies, to which I said we don't produce enough to reach a euphoria (or relieve sharp chronic pain) so still - drugs is the only easy source for euphoria and they come with consequences. Whatever. It's an average. Nurture is more of an influence but there's still a correlation based on inheritance. Where are you getting your data for this 'average'? The majority of people who live in developed countries have few kids, it's the underdeveloped world that still has to rely on kids for labour and old age support have a bunch. Besides, 'People who didn't want kids didn't have them and people who did want kids did have them, and passed their DNA down so that their children probably share that desire' - how do you imagine it practically? Most everybody used to have children because there was virtually no way of avoiding it as a consequence of sexual relationships. So where did all the childfree people get their 'not fond of having kids' genes? Nowhere. It's a decision, a preference. "So still back to "zero"." Again, No sentience means no suffering (+) and no deprivation of joy (+), while sentience means suffering (-) and happiness (+) - then you insisted on adding "and the potential for the world to improve (+) or get worse (-)" What did that change? Still back to 0 at best. While non-existence is actually a +. You can't lose there, because you do not exist. "Unborn can not be deprived. While at the same time we might have prevented another Holocaust from taking place." Who will? Who are they who will lose? Point me to them. You're using double standards by saying that we might prevent a holocaust and ignoring all the good that could happen by trying to invalidate it by implying that even if it does improve, it wouldn't be worth the struggle it would take to get there. Future people will loose the chance to contribute to the world and make it a better place for the people who come after them. Something has to exist in order to be either harmed or benefited. Agree? If yes - you must agree that non-existent can not be harmed by anything, including by not coming into existence. Otherwise, if we truly think they can be harmed by not being brought to this world, we should feel obliged to save as many as possible from that harm of non-existence and make as many babies as possible. That is just logical. Future people will loose the chance to contribute to the world and make it a better place for the people who come after them. Well, why don't you sympathize with the sorry ordeal of your non-existent 9th brother and 15th sister (you don't have that many siblings I assume)? Why don't you mourn their sad lot? You're saying they are deprived, are they as deprived as starving people on this rock? Then send them my deepest sympathy for their torments there in nothingness. "What exactly could we accomplish besides keep cleaning up the mess we create?" So we could create a utopia, huh? With no hunger and disease? Guess what, there is no hunger or disease in non-existence! It's flawless. The fact that you might think there should be somebody exploring the universe only says what you see as value, you're curious about that, and you see the struggles and torments as an acceptable price to pay for it. No problem there (ehem...kind of), it only begins when you justify the creation of more people without their consent to pursue what you see as your mission. "I don't care about the universe, I care about what's happening to living beings while they're alive. Let universe worry about the universe, my loyalties lie with my kind." Sorry, but how is that poetic retoric relevant to "I don't care about the universe, I care about what's happening to living beings while they're alive." ? I though I was clear in saying I value sentience over flying rocks of inanimate matter be they stars or moon or whatever else. Yea we've got enough wmds to make most of planet uninhabitable, and when was the last time one was used? Point is, we are constantly developing lots of potentially very harmful technologies. And should they ever fall into the wrong hands - it won't be pretty. All the wars and famines aren't directly connected us going to the moon. Doing that inspired a lot of people. We could have done that without the wars and famines. We could have done without wars? I guess you can declare anything like that, it doesn't require any evidence, does it? We can just say we could have lived in perfect harmony but just due to a few bad apples (as usual) all hell got lose purely accidentally and continued on throughout our history. The fact that we didn't is a great shame but it doesn't tarnish going to the moon or all the other amazing things people have done. It puts all our achievements in the proper context. A price tag on a picture doesn't change whether it's beautiful or not, but it does tell you how much is asked to own that picture. In this world, the currency payed for the existence is suffering. You're mainly pointing to the picture, me - to the price, and also, to the fact that we force our children to keep paying for what we think is worthy. Just like our parents decided for us. I'm not trying to justify the suffering of people, and looking at the suffering of animals in an evolutionary sense does help me deal with it because without it there would be complexity and beauty. I know it's not fair, but there's sod all I can do to make it fair so I choose to focus on the outcome of the process of living beings being ripped to shreds because at least then there's something good that comes out of it and that shouldn't be ignored. How things are and how we choose to perceive them in order to deal with them are 2 different questions. First is philosophy, the second is psychology. You concede it's unfair - that'sphilosophy, describing the world. Then you say that you are trying 'to make it fair' in your eyes by concentrating on the outcome of the evolution - that's psychology. You're saying you're able to view it in a light that makes you feel allright - good for you. But that's not describing the world, that's describing how you personally choose to view it. [To which you will most likely say that my view is also just my view so I just have to clarify that the key difference is I'm arguing against the imposition of one person's view on another. And you're justifying this process by saying it's ok to have children which is essentially saying 'you have to like the world I'm sending you to because I personally think it's ok'] When the second world war ended there were a lot of people that wanted all the knowledge gained by the nazis destroyed because of what they did to learn it, and it was a lot of new knowledge. That would have been a ridiculous thing to do. It would have meant that those people suffered for nothing. That's kind of like what you're doing by ignoring what comes from the spilt guts Now they're still saving lives to this day. Does that excuse what happened? Of course not! Does that mean that the people benefiting from it should feel guilty about the people who died? I like how people say 'those people would have suffered for nothing' in regards to those slained and sacrificed against their will. As if it would make any difference to them retrospectively that somebody else made use of the outcome of their suffering. They're gone. They've died without ever knowing it made any difference and probably, the possible future service of their agony to humanity was the last thing on their mind when they were bleeding and shaking in terror feeling helpless and alone. Second, there's whole lot of useless tragedies that took place. Useless. Didn't benefit anybody, just waste. Or maybe worms were glad feasing on their corpses. Shoulsn't discount that, should we? Because everything is connected including us and worms soi we should feel tranquility returning our atoms to the big bowl of ever re-constructed matter. Does that mean that the people benefiting from it should feel guilty about the people who died? Fuck no! People should only feel guilty for the outcomes of their actions or those of the practices they defend. If the person didn't choose to be here and doesn't defend the creation of people - they have nothing to feel guilty for. But if they defend the practice of gambling with the future life - they ought to feel responsible because they are the ones perpetuating this life with all of it's injustices and tragedies. If I give birth to a serial killer tomorrow when I can choose not to gamble - the outcome of this gamble is on me. Everything that we are survives after death. Oh really? Everything that my cat was is still here but somehow it's qualitatively different thing. I won't be petting the ground it's burried in to reach for the atoms that were once his body. What's the point of stating the obvious when it doesn't change anything? The atoms are here but my cat is dead. That's what death is, it's not a disappearance of the matter from the universe, it's changing of the arrangement of the matter in a way that no longer functions the way it used to. You're just trying to re-define death in order to make it disappear from the picture completely. It doesn't change the fact that sentient beings seize to exist. The matter that composed them continues to but it is no longer them, it's just matter now. It will become parts of something else but the thing is dead. You're talking about taking away the one thing that makes the universe special, and yes there's a price, but I believe it's a price worth paying because besides all of good stuff and the fact that there wouldn't even be a universe as such without life, things will improve, and carry on improving to the point where people don't have to suffer any more. You believe it's a price worth paying. You do. You pay it. Others who disagree with you shouldn't be forced to pay. It's ony fair. And while non-intelligent life may be unfair, it's reasonable to expect fairness from our fellow human beings. That's what I'm arguing for here. You have a right to think the price is all right, you don't have a right to impose the price on others. Your hopefullness doesn't make it any more justifiable. Every parent is hopeful about the future of their child, yet all the shit that ever happenned - happenned to somebody's children. Who never asked for it. And the majority of happy people who are capable of going through their lives not caring about the minority - why should I applaud their existence?" If they keep reproducing knowing some of those they create are going to be miserable - they are hurting some people. Otherwise - be happy, by all means. I certainly don't mean to make you feel ostracised. If that's what I'm doing I apologise. I never said you made me feel anything, it's not about me and you specifically, there are people like me, there are people like you, no need to get personal. I just think that you have very high standards that the world has to live up to. And I think yours are very low. Well, let's see if I can prove you wrong then. I'm not giving up on you just yet. ::wink.gif:: I migh give up on talking to you, though, because I think we've established pretty much everything. "Unless you can explain how I should care about the beauty or hope or whatever more than I should about things like this that happen every day to my fellow human bengs:" That's it? Life will destroy me anyway. It's a deadly disease with no known cure, you know? I realize by know you put great emphasis on how things make us feel, what effect this or that fact has on us. Optimism can help to make the world a better place by improving the positive things. Pessimism can help to make the world a better place by improving the negative things. Both are important. No, truth is what is important. You come here, having this consciousness and intelligence and all you want to do is put it in the box of what is useful or convenient, to judge the conclusions you reach by whether they 'taste' good. What's the point of living a lie? Or a skewed half-truth? You reminded me of Russell: "...there can’t be a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. ... Either the thing is true, or it isn’t. If it is true, you should believe it, and if it isn’t, you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment. But you can’t... it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful, and not because you think it’s true." So for you to use the consequence of viewing things in certain light as an argument is to say "the truth is secondary to adaptation, adapt, slave, adjust, make do because otherwise you'll get hurt". I disagree. People use lies to perpetuate horrors. All important decisions should be made based on the truth. If my parents recognized the truth I wouldn't have to be here. I would be spared this dull existence. And I wouldn't miss anything. Same way a person with your level of intelligence believes that 'Everything that we are survives after death' as though we are just a sum of atoms and not a very specific arrangement of them and the product of our brain with our memories and desires and experiences. I don't want to have religion-related discussion with you right now, I think we've been talking long enough already. It was reasonably interesting to get your perspective on things And thank you for not reproducing |
|
27-02-2013 Crap! I still can’t get on line for some reason and this pc isn’t letting me view the second page so I can’t read your last reply.I think I might have gone a bit too far with my some of my comments on religion. I'm sorry if I caused any offence, I didn't mean to. Like I said, I don't know when to stop when I get on that subject. I've got to try to stop doing that. It just really winds me up. Most Christians are always trying to convert people to they're way of 'thinking' so they're fair game. They shouldn't be dishing it out if they can't take it. There's not a lot more I can say. I think I've already started getting on your nerves by not budging, which isn't something I ever wanted to do and I'd just be repeating myself now. I know I can be a little bit stubborn but it looks like I've met my match. I'm not really trying to argue the points you're making, although it might seem like that. I agree with practically everything you've said. I'm just saying that it's not the only way of looking at it. It's the truth but not the whole truth. I'm on my way up and I needed to start seeing things more optimistically to drag myself out of the huge hole I was in. I'm worried that you might be on the way down and I'd hate to see that happen to someone as genuinely nice and good natured as you. I know you're not depressed but you're obviously feeling some emptiness and I was just trying to help by giving you a different perspective. If I think of something relevant that I think might help I'll post it. I really hope you manage to find what you've lost, but this time not based on a comforting lie. |
|
28-02-2013 Wow, looks like I really did offend you. I wouldn't have been so nice to you in my last post if I'd have known you'd been so nasty to me. Definitely struck a nerve. Was it the god stuff? In just going to answer this bit because you actually asked a question: "Where are you getting your data for this 'average'?" Evolution. Tigers love water but lions hate it despite being almost genetically identical. It's because the lions who liked it got eaten by crocodiles before they could reproduce, so now all that's left are lions who hate it. People who don't want kids don't have them and people who do want them do have them. This means that more people are born with a genetic disposition for tending to want kids than those born with a genetic disposition for tending to not want kids. This has a marked effect despite the fact that it's not an absolute rule. Evolution never is. The applies to all animals of course but all the competition for food and space keeps their numbers down, while we good natured humans like to keep as many people as possible feed and sheltered (generally speaking). That's why the human population has exploded. It's not wrong for people to want to have kids, it's only natural. I'm not living a lie. All I've ever cared about is the truth. Choosing to focus on the things I like instead of what I don't like is not the same as being dishonest. I dealt with all the suffering while I was growing up and I've been able to come to terms with it, adaptation again. You on the other hand never even had to face it until you stopped believing in good because you thought there was a higher purpose. Now you're seeing suffering for what it really is but you haven't built up the strength to cope with it. That's the only reason everything seems so bleak to you. You had a skewed view, but if it had been the other way round and you'd grown up in an isolated barbaric tribe for example, only seeing misery and suffering without believing in a higher purpose and then were exposed to the outside world you'd be stunned by it's beauty. It's just a matter of perspective, and I think it's a little arrogant of you (even by my standards) to assert that how I see the world is based on self delusion while you only see the 'truth'. Think about it. Thanks for the debate, I enjoyed that. I'm somewhat sorry to have offended you. |
Comments to The thirst for afterlife?