quote
follow
|
04-01-2014 Have you been away being happy?And also I've noticed most AN are broken idealists... Can you make a video on how massive disappointment usually leads to pessimism and AN ? |
[ link ] |
05-01-2014
Have you been away being happy? I've been both. And also I've noticed most AN are broken idealists... Well, not only ANs, pessimists in general, cynics... I'd say, disillusionment. Before I was thinking animals in the wild lead relatively happy lives and die quickly not painfully. It was an illusion of a harmony. The reality is dreadful and there is no way to justify or explain away the horrors that take place every moment. "This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel". - i think this about describes the situation. |
|
04-01-2014 Regarding the kid torturing the kitty... it doesn't necessarily mean that the kid was abused thought in some cases that might be true. There are a lot of psychopaths who have never been abused by their parents and who turned out to be, well...psychopaths. In fact, torturing small animals in childhood is a very common behavior in psychopaths.Having said that, if I saw a kid torturing a cat, I would probably beat the shit out of the kid. I'm a very empathic person ( I think) and I don't believe in free will but still, it's like you say, no matter how intellectual one may be, there is a visceral reaction that simply cannot be avoided. And animal suffering happens to be the one thing that I really can't stand. I would be so consumed by rage that no amount of rationalization would be able to stop me from hurting the kid. On top of that I would want to make sure that the kid would never hurt another animal again... |
[ link ] |
05-01-2014
Yeah, not necessarily. Just wanted to make a point about a vicious circle of misery. Parents are messed up because of their own parents, they mess up their own kids, and so it continues... And I also don't believe in free will any more, but even if somebody was born psychopath it doesn't make the case for them worse in my opinion. One has no control over what genes they inherit just as what environment they'll be raised in. It'd be like blaming a predator for beng born a predator. I can totally relate. I feel the same in many situations. The urge for revenge just appeas even though you should know better. But in other, less severe cases the fact that I don't believe in free will prevents me from becoming too angry for a long time. Upset, disheartened at the whole situation - that can settle in for a while. |
|
05-01-2014 "but even if somebody was born psychopath it doesn't make the case for them worse in my opinion. One has no control over what genes they inherit just as what environment they'll be raised in. It'd be like blaming a predator for beng born a predator."Oh, absolutely. Couldn't agree more. That's why I believe in morality but not in "moral responsibility". Unfortunately, despite the fact that free will is an illusion, we still need to imprison people. Why ? Because everyone else will be better off. What we don't need is "retributive justice". That is plain nonsense. And we need laws and public policy that levels the playing field. |
[ link ] |
05-01-2014
Yep. Can't avoid punishment as it is a deterrant. Well, retributive justice probably keeps people (victims and their loved ones) from taking the law into their own hands. So again we have to choose between bad and worse. Such is this world. |
|
05-01-2014 To clarify, I'm obviously a fan and agree with most of your arguments and have that same empathic nature also.Still I can see a growing community of like-minded sufferers if you will and once you get to that desolate place of diminishing hope, isn't it unproductive to wallow in misery? If animals is the center of your caring, that would seem to me to be the center of your future purpose & direction. |
[ link ] |
05-01-2014
Being either content or miseable isn't productive or unproductive, they're just states a person can be in. In either of those states one can be both productive or unproductive. So I'm not sure what you mean by wallowing in misery. There is such a thing as philosophy and it's about describing the reality and the possible courses of actions, the ethics of certain behavor etc. Usually before some social change takes place an idea of a new direction must be formed and defended and 'win hearts and minds'. I'm not too optimistic though about AN idea but it can prevent some people from making a mistake and that will already be good enough. Maybe you mean some real gloomy and joyless people, well, don't have to like them, let them find somebody on their wavelength. But whether they want to change is their own personal choice, we shouldn't be trying to shut anybody up just like we're not shaming stupid shallow people who post celebrity gossip and nail polish tips. They're not very productive either. |
|
05-01-2014 Well-said. Also, many people dislike the 19th century romantic philosopher Schopenhauer due to his abundant pessimism, but I think pessimism is very useful to keep us down-to-earth and not high above the clouds. Happy new year beautiful Irina !! |
|
05-01-2014 I think you'll enjoy this video about one woman's experience with outlandish optimism in America today. It's quite an interesting take on the absurdity of "the power of positive thinking" as it relates to working culture as well as those suffering from illness.http://youtu.be/KvwyhSeLZT8 Thanks for sharing your thoughts, rinaweb. It's always a pleasure to see your vids. |
[ link ] |
05-01-2014
Thank you, Joe, I've seen her presentation before. Very eloquent and true. Thank you for watching my videos) |
|
12-01-2014 Brilliant video, Irina! It seems here in the U.S. that the poor are out breeding everyone else. Our government is pro-natalism and pays people for breeding. Insanity. |
[ link ] |
16-01-2014
Thanks, Brian. The poor have always been breading, in older times - to raise themselves another pair of hands to help around the house, work on their gardens and finally care for them when they're old. They'd have 5-6, 2-4 of them would die before reproducing. It was considered normal. |
|
25-01-2014 I'm impressed. That doesn't happen too often I must say I've been debating with believers and atheists for a long time (on MySpace, then Facebook), I first thought atheists were smarter, then I discovered that at least the Dawkins-fans are usually not acting very smart at all (especially many male atheists of that kind sound like psychopaths when you start debating). But when I accidentally bumped into some of your video's on YouTube lately it was a nice surprise. I first thought you were just another 'antinatalist', but I soon got a different impression. I think you are against corruption of life by means of false ideas about what life really is. In one of your video's (not the one on this page) I saw your agreement with empathy "not doing to others what you don't want them to do to you", so I understand you are far from being negative. You're trying to make sense. You're a good thinker, your thoughts are rational and also balanced. About the new age and happiness and positivity stuff... I tend to leave things in the open. If people are positive, and it isn't all too "fluffy" (if you know what I mean), I may empathize with it. Human beings happen to create meaning, it's what they do, and doing so is not necessarily a delusion I think. To believe that all things are increasing suffering wouldn't be correct either - many people are happy at many times, that's an argument for the existence of happiness (whatever its definition may be). When mama's have children, I am reminded that whenever things go wrong in this world (wars kill the love, let's say), well, mom's tend to love their baby's, so there is a mechanism in nature that has the power to bring human beings back to love always, don't you think? There is at least a positive argument here. However, I would agree with you that we also need to accept the way things go in nature and with the world. We do of course "resist nature" in many ways (after all, you wouldn't wear those nice earrings and those clothes if there wouldn't be those industrialization and manufacturing processes which somehow "cultivate nature" in a number of ways). We all somehow subscribe to this trend, our "culture". But there is a difference between "working with nature" and "working against it". We shouldn't work against nature. In this sense, I can follow you perfectly - it is good to learn to accept for a great deal the way reality works. But I will still resist at many points. For instance, I tend (in 'my own philosophy' so to speak) to accept that I will suffer, but not to accept that I can afford to cause suffering to others. In other words I hate self-complaint and I also highly favorite forgiveness when others do wrong. What do you think, would that be "too much positivity"? I don't see it that way. Somehow, both of these (revoking self-complaint and trying not to diminish complaints of others because of me) tend to increase my happiness. It is not a bad thing to do your best to make society a better place as far as that is possible. I try to work "with society" - but this means mostly working with (empathizing with) the weakes ones among us - not with the greedy ones. In this I may be more intuitive than rational, but i'm not so sure if this isn't the most rational way to proceed. Anyway, I've learned a few things from the few video's I saw so far. I guess I'll try to follow up on you, more or less;) |
[ link ] |
25-01-2014
I think you are against corruption of life by means of false ideas about what life really is I'm just talking/writing my thoughts. If people are positive, and it isn't all too "fluffy" (if you know what I mean), I may empathize with it. Human beings happen to create meaning, it's what they do, and doing so is not necessarily a delusion I think. For most people, I suppose, it's a necessary thing to go thru life without being depressed. I see that as a coping mechanism and thus I even hesitate to ruin that for people. But as I said in the video, unfortunately, this seemingly harmless thing becomes a justification for perpetuating life, and then - more people are in the same shithole needing the same defense mechanisms... To believe that all things are increasing suffering wouldn't be correct either - many people are happy at many times, that's an argument for the existence of happiness (whatever its definition may be). I don't think calculating or weighing suffering or happiness in the world does any good. Even if the world consisted of 99% happy people but 1% would've been miserable I still wouldn't see it ethical to create that 1% of suffering just so that 99% could enjoy themselves. When mama's have children, I am reminded that whenever things go wrong in this world (wars kill the love, let's say), well, mom's tend to love their baby's, so there is a mechanism in nature that has the power to bring human beings back to love always, don't you think? There is at least a positive argument here. No, I don't. So mothers tend to love children. Yet the history of humany is a bloodshed on bloodshed, even though everybody has mothers. Look at any conflict in the world right now and tell me how mothers' love makes any difference. But there is a difference between "working with nature" and "working against it". We shouldn't work against nature. Thats a fallacy. Nature isn't an authority. It is not a bad thing to do your best to make society a better place as far as that is possible I agree. We are here and that's a fact. As long as we are we should try and cause as least suffering to each other - and I'd include other sentient beings of this planet - as possible. Also nothing wrong with trying to make the best of the time you've got and to try and be happy. As long as that doesn't extend to creating a new human being. |
|
25-01-2014 Let me clarify the first phrase you quoted from me ("I think you are against corruption of life by means of false ideas about what life really is"). I may have expressed myself badly here. I meant to say you seem to oppose corruption of life, the way people corrupt it with false ideas about what life really is.Overall, you don't seem to agree much. I didn't expect you to agree, but I'm still convinced that underneath the position you defend there is something else going on, like resistance against false, overstated (and religious) beliefs about life. Which I can understand and respect. The 'anti life' position is more rhetorical I believe. It is difficult to see how the AN position itself would be solid. After all, nature does have authority, of course it has. This whole planet somehow 'knows' how to handle hostility against its geological, biological, ecological principles. The whole system developed ways to protect against disasters. This is the authority of laws of physics and other laws. And in much the same manner as the planet may destroy life that does not respect its ecosystem, it also developed procreation. It is impossible to teach animals not to procreate - and if we would prevent it, we are working against nature. Yet, we can control what we want to do with our lives of course. In this, you are correct - but the argument cannot be generalized. Anti-natalists would always eliminate themselves from the planet, while 'natalists' will go on. Nature will always win in the end. Also your point against my 'mama love argument' was disputable. Mama's tend to love their kids. Wars and most violence and abuse in the world is a man's business. There is no doubt that 95 percent of that sort of suffering is caused by males and their tendency to dominate, to strife, to conquer, to win, to use. The rule of nature remains true in all of this: nature brings human beings back to love. It is the reality, or at least part of the reality. Suffering is also a part of reality, but this is either because of (a) human violence/abuse or (b) the uncontrollable ways of nature. The first aspect is something we can work on. The second aspect we have not under control - neither through excessive procreation nor through efilism or AN. |
[ link ] |
26-01-2014
I'm still convinced that underneath the position you defend there is something else going on,like resistance against false, overstated (and religious) beliefs about life. Which I can understand and respect. If you see just an atheist in me you're mistaken. I do not believe in gods but I do not make a big distinction between belief in gods and belief in 'Nature' or 'Cosmos' or humanity's big mission on this planet etc. What's the practical difference between a religious breeder and those who have children because they believe in the absolute value of human progress or whatsoever. All of them force their worldview on a new person who never subscribed to that. All justify the creation of life and death (it's one package after all) by their own beliefs. The 'anti life' position is more rhetorical I believe. This whole planet somehow 'knows' how to handle hostility against its geological, biological, ecological principles. And in much the same manner as the planet may destroy life that does not respect its ecosystem I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly. There are various processes taking place on the planet. Are you implying planet has some sort of interests and goals? Are you also saying it only destroys life that theatens its ecosystem? Are you aware more than 90% of species that ever existed are extinct? Do you see some pattern in why all those are gone? Were they all threatening the planet? It is impossible to teach animals not to procreate Well that's obvious to a 5-year-old isn't it? - and if we would prevent it, we are working against nature. Is Nature - God who has given us commandments to follow? Again, you're implying there is some plan, some intent in nature, that it doesn't simply exists but it has some purpose, goals and values. You're simply repeating the same appeal to nature fallacy. Besides, if humans are a part of nature, everything we do is happening in nature and we can't possibly go against it because we are it and how do you know that what humans are doing isn't a part of nature's big 'plan' if we assume the existence of such. Yet, we can control what we want to do with our lives of course. In this, you are correct - but the argument cannot be generalized. We have demonstrated the capacity to advantage of contraception. Instead of having 6 kids with only half of them pulling through to maturity we now 'go against nature' in saving those lives that would otherwise be lost to disease. We are even transplanting organs today which is unthinkably far from natural ways of relying simply on one's immune system. Yes, we can genaralize. People can and do choose to have less kids now that they have control and knwledge. Anti-natalists would always eliminate themselves from the planet, while 'natalists' will go on. Nature will always win in the end. Well then no problem, just wait? :D Seriously though, your claim is based on the assumption that anti-natalism is some genetical trait. Do you have any evidence for that? Of course not. My parents weren't and aren't anti-natalists. Some people who've had kids became antinataliss later in life. The rule of nature remains true in all of this: nature brings human beings back to love. It is the reality, or at least part of the reality. This is just some kind of poetry. You're claiming that nature - though mothers love - puts an end to wars? And that this is some kind of achievement that all the horrors end at some point? How does that differ from claiming GOD puts end to war because people are praying to him? Same unproven poetic assumption. You can easily flip that and emphasize that people keep going back to wars and conflicts. I don't see anything great about the fact that there are wars and lots f people die horribly in them and they never see any going back to peace because for them it's the end, they get no justice and no compensation for their torment.
Humans are part of nature so it's all one category: suffering is in the fabric of this reality, it is pre-programmed in it and no life is spared certain amunt of it. That's why by starting life one imposes suffering together with it. The amount of which is unknown. It may be a relatively good life or it may be agonizing horrors. It's a black box of "nobody knows what the hell is in it". Except for death. Death is in it for sure. Look, it's simple: you don't have a kid - there is nobody to suffer and nobody to experience deprivation. Don't tell me it's not under our control. Just as people control not to have 6 kids but only 2 they can control to have none if they so choose. It's only a matter of whether we Want to control it. And that's a different question. A lot of people wount. But some will. And they will both prevent a needless suffering and possibly protect themselves from anguish of seeing their children hurt in this brutal world. |
|
26-01-2014 No, Irina, of course I don't "just see an atheist in you". Maybe you defend too much, or too quickly. Maybe I misunderstand some of you vocabulary and you misunderstand some of mine. I am an atheist too but I would find it an insult to be reduced to 'just an atheist'. When you say you "do not make a big distinction between belief in gods and belief in Nature or Cosmos or humanity's big mission on this planet etc", I would say it depends a lot what kind of beliefs we are talking about. Beliefs in an interventionist god are irrational, wishful thinking - and so are "big mission" beliefs, be they religious or new age nature/cosmos beliefs. Other beliefs are more in agreement with real observation of he sceptic eye. To see nature through Darwinian eyes and the cosmos through Carl Saganian eyes (so to speak) may still include a certain 'belief' but at the basis there is the acceptance of certain laws of nature and (astro)physics. Such beliefs are also informed by reason. When you ask "Are you implying planet has some sort of interests and goals?" - I would say yes - but as I said, those are in fact laws of nature and physics. And when you ask "Are you also saying it only destroys life that threatens its ecosystem?" - then my answer is no, I'm not implying this at all. Evolution, or descent with modification, includes lots of collateral damage, and those that remain alive are still threatened by the unpredictable whims of the planet, from tectonic plates movements to weather conditions. Yet this planet is a highly sophisticated 'system'. Without solar radiation and radioactive decay in deep Earth the system wouldn't be life-supporting. A top scientist like Lynn Margulis (former wife of Carl Sagan) also wrote a book like The Symbiotic Planet - which is not a Gaya belief, but a "gaia theory" which today is being called Earth System Science, a perfect legal branch of science. In her Acquiring Genomes she already described how the 'system' is far from being 'random' and meaningless. Nature is self-learning in many ways - although not 'conscious'. The system has been compared with a ratchet, be it not a mechanical one, as it tend to lose information and behave unpredictably. Yet the planet survives deep crises more quickly if it had been going through a similar one earlier on (even if a few million years earlier - as in the case of chalk threatening to kill life in the oceans). The system veers back as if a global memory was in operation. This behaviour is documented for many phenomena.It is clearly a full-fledged system. So yes, there certainly is "a plan" in Nature, but this is very different from a "god who has given us commandments to follow" as you suggest I'm saying (which would indeed be a "nature fallacy"). We are using terminology in different ways here I suppose. The Earth System is NOT regulated by any conscious behavior. Yet, as human beings we take conscious decisions. This, however, is not merely 'Nature'. We are, after all, the species with the longest memory (Nietzsche). We are the only species on earth that can use fire - besides a lot of other (often dangerous) tools. We are the only ones on earth who understand how the planet and the universe works. Our decisions are mind decisions, they are (or can be) thoughtful decisions and also long-term views, including world views - and we can decide about life and death for other reasons than being hungry or feeling threatened. None of these are simply 'natural' views, nor are such views scientific: they include emotions (including love and fear), intuition, common sense, metaphorical expression, and... poetry of course. Was your "This is just some kind of poetry" an accusation? Do you believe there's no poetry to your views? I doubt very much that I would find your position interesting if there was no poetry in it. Only in the writings of (some) fools, (some) very boring people, and in scientific theories I am unable to discovere poetry. I can see beauty in parts of your antinatalist position. But even in new age and (more in general) much of the spirituality that seeks to unify mankind with a 'cosmic reality', there is a poetic attempt to escape or circumvent suffering, as all humans become eternal spirits who plug into the cosmic system. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe in such a thing (neither do you I suppose) but in every battle against suffering there is poetry, because all humanism is poetic by very definition. The suffering is always still present in the background - otherwise we couldn't "deal with it" the way we do - that's the whole point. Antinatalism is a very different thing than new age, monotheism, and whatever there is - but it deals with the problem of pain just the same. It does it with a different argumentation though, and a different logic, a different poetry. Logic only works within the perimeter of its own perception, where its own parameters are being understood. A logical argument is binary: it has two operands: true and false. It can determine between truth and falsehood - but only by inferring that its premises are true. Your arguments make sense, but mostly within its perimeter of suffering being unacceptable. It clearly is also poetic in setting the perimeter, no matter how solid the internal argumentation may be. When authors like Chesterton or Umberto Eco tap into laughter as another way of dealing with suffering, they also have good internal arguments. They don't mean "laughing with someone's suffering" of course, they are rather acknowledging suffering as very real, they will also fully embrace empathy and offering relief wherever possible - but but they offer the possibility to not let suffering over-impress us and take us down. Like you, they do not impose such a view upon others. But to reach out and tell others about the possibility to accept suffering and not necessarily see it as a depressing factor, is a valid view in my opinion. Neither antinatalism nor variations of 'natalism' are necessarily "wrong" or "illogical" strictly speaking. None of these views are scientific (science does not argue pro or against life - it just analyzes the phenomena). When you say "Humans are part of nature so it's all one category: suffering is in the fabric of this reality", I can only agree - but also the ability to not be over-impressed by suffering is in the fabric of this reality - even while it is in this case more specific and more typically a 'human' thing, because we have these kind of brains and minds to make this possible. When you argue "Look, it's simple: you don't have a kid - there is nobody to suffer and nobody to experience deprivation", the argument is logical within its set perimeter. From another point of view someone would argue: Look, it's simple: we decided to have a kid and we take full responsibility for that: to try to make it grow up with love, in happiness, and if possible, as someone who will contribute to the well-being of his neighborhood. There is nothing wrong with that argument either. I myself rather tend to a view that families may do well to decide not to have more than 2 kids on average (also depending on time and location). This way every 2 people are being replaced by 2 others throughout the generations. There is a 'statistical logic' to this (but this logic, too, will have its limits of applicability at some point). |
[ link ] |
26-01-2014
far from being 'random' and meaningless. Nature is self-learning in many ways - although not 'conscious'. not random does not equal meaningfull. Yet the planet survives deep crises more quickly if it had been going through a similar one earlier on (even if a few million years earlier - as in the case of chalk threatening to kill life in the oceans). The system veers back as if a global memory was in operation. Well, humans have immune system, it will in many cases repair the damages in the body and restore to the previous condition where possible. What does that prove? Bacteria if viewed as a big organism has 'memory'. How do they become antibiotic-resstant? Very simple: those that can't survive the antibiotic - die out and only those that made it multiply so later you have a new strain that 'knows' how to fight antibiotics. Does that mean bacteria has global memory? It's just evolution: random mutations and natural selection. Because the strongest always survive and breed it appears as though the species learnt something from the past, but it's not the case, it's simply the weakest died out. So yes, there certainly is "a plan" in Nature, but this is very different from a "god who has given us commandments to follow" as you suggest I'm saying (which would indeed be a "nature fallacy"). We are using terminology in different ways here I suppose. The Earth System is NOT regulated by any conscious behavior. You see the word 'plan' implies a goal. There are explainable pre-programmed processes. There are physical laws, biological laws. I don't see why we should call a system with laws - a system with a plan. Just because there is some order and predictability doesnt point to anything meaningful just like the appearance of design doesn't point to a designer (creationsim). The more we learn the more we find completely natural explanations for every previously myserious phenomenon. Was your "This is just some kind of poetry" an accusation? :D I just prefer to separate poetic expressions from logical arguments. But yours wasn't that bad actually))) Your arguments make sense, but mostly within its perimeter of suffering being unacceptable. It clearly is also poetic in setting the perimeter, no matter how solid the internal argumentation may be. Every logical conclusion is true if people accept its premises as true, this is correct. And antinatalism simply states that IF one believes that causing avoidable suffering is wrong, then bringing a child into this world is wrong. If one agrees that imposing something on another person is wrong, then imposing life is too, and the impossibility of getting consent does not mean it is granted. It claimes that if one believes in 'Above all do no harm', one must also believe in not creating new people because harm is implied in life and sometmes a very substantal one (i.e. torture, fanime, war). Clearly, none of us consider suffering acceptable. Neither me nor you. Our whole ethics and laws are about protecting people from harm and suffering. And we do not equate suffering and enjoyment, suffering always wins on the weights. For example, if 2 cars are in a traffic jam and we can only let one through, would anyone say 'let the ice-cream car get to kindergarten first, then the ambulance'. Somebody in pain always matters more than someone not having too much fun. Because experientially we all know how bad bad is, and how important it is to aleviate as much suffering as possible, and not to cause any unnecessary, avoidable suffering to anyone. We do. And the next step is to recognize that birth brings about avoidable suffering that never needed to exist. We create it, we open the door, and we must take responsibility for this choice. not let suffering over-impress us and take us down. Like you, they do not impose such a view upon others. But to reach out and tell others about the possibility to accept suffering and not necessarily see it as a depressing factor, is a valid view in my opinion. This is psychological advise on how to deal with suffering. As a pschologst myself I can agree, accepting it and even giving it meaning - works. But that's not philosophy, that's not about searching for the truth, that's a practical strategy of how to get thru life. Yeah, when youre suffering and can't stop it, you have to find ways to live with it, but in philosophy of ethics we want to know whether it's ethical to enable the state of suffering for an innocent person. Neither antinatalism nor variations of 'natalism' are necessarily "wrong" or "illogical" strictly speaking. None of these views are scientific (science does not argue pro or against life - it just analyzes the phenomena). I have just demonstrated to you the inconsistency of natalism. It can only be consistent and logical if it states that it is permissible to bring about avoidabe suffering or that it is ok to use people as means to an end (i.e. to build a better world etc) or that the interests of the already living people (parents, society) outweigh the possibility of great harm to the future child. I've yet to hear from natalists what do they think gives them the right to start a life for somebody? Where do they get this right from - the same place roaches get it? Why is this question treated so lightly as if it's the most benine thing in the world? someone would argue: Look, it's simple: we decided to have a kid and we take full responsibility for that: to try to make it grow up with love, in happiness, and if possible, as someone who will contribute to the well-being of his neighborhood. There is nothing wrong with that argument either. What does that responsibilty mean? That if something horrible happens they will be sad together with the child? The responsibility that can be described as "oops"! Oops, our child got raped and tortures for days! That's horribe, we didnt mean it! The problem is they can not control the conditions and thus can not take responsibility because they are not in charge. If something turns ugly they can not fix it and re-pay the person. Then, the part that the child will contribute is treating the other person as means. A child becomes an instrument of building a better neighborhood. It's no better than slavery. The child never subscribed to that at the cost of working for a living, getting sick, losing their loved ones and dying themselves. That is what's wrong. |
|
26-01-2014 Okay Irina. You are right, I was giving advice in a given situation rather than bringing in an argument for 'natalism'. And I am glad to see that indeed we sort of agree in most of the post-natal issues: we prefer compassion above narcissism, we know we are selfish yet we can see beyond that and do better, and so on. The AN position may require some more consideration on my part. I can only say the argument "what do they think gives them the right to start a life for somebody" doesn't sound 'sound' to me, and for this reason I am a bit surprised because it is overwhelmingly clear that you are a rational thinker, even compassionate, and yet I can't match this with AN. So out of respect I can only conclude I need to think it through some more. How you get from enjoying sexuality to seeing that as claiming "the right to start a life for somebody" if clearly this is how "nature made things", I don't see it yet. Even while our mind allows us to be in control (I myself just argued for "only 2 kids" after all), it still doesn't seem to me that breaking up the "chain of life" would follow logically from the ability to control. There is no argument in nature saying anything about suffering and death NOT being inherent to life itself. Clearly they are part of it - and they can be bearable. Suffering is not always extreme but even if most of it would be, the argument probably leads to doing better science rather than a position against the chain of life altogether. So I'm not really seeing how you get there, but I may need to give it more time. Thanks for your responses so far, they are well balanced and a pleasure to read. |
[ link ] |
26-01-2014
Ok, more consideration is good)) I could answer your latest questions but I think it's best I leave you to consider the previous points for now. It was nice to have a discussion with you. |
|
28-04-2014 I see you presenting alot of problems but not solutions.if we have no free will then the parents did not choose to have a kid thus blameless, also are their solutions if we have no free will, surely we can't choose to solve the problem. psychology in practice is a method to control behavior and a fundamental problem in society which results in psychological conditioning, chemical altering of the mind, justification of taking rights away from certain people. stalin applied behaviorism to control the masses and since then government abuse such power. |
[ link ] |
29-04-2014
I see you presenting alot of problems but not solutions Quote me and say where you disagree. Otherwise stop complaining. if we have no free will then the parents did not choose to have a kid thus blameless, also are their solutions if we have no free will, surely we can't choose to solve the problem Determinism doesn't mean that things never change. It only means that every change that ever hapenned was predetermined. As for the blame - indeed, nobody is guilty of what they are because they did not make themselves. psychology in practice is a method... and your point was? |
Comments to The negatives of positivity (video)