What's the implications of this E.M. Cioran quote?

The implication seems to be that the only purpose of suicide is to somehow be a solution to past suffering. The conclusion follows only from this assumption, but it can be falsified by taking into account future suffering.

Two obvious cases: You're taken prisoner as a spy and have secrets that will be tortured out of you before you are put to death. Or you have a painful form of cancer making what time you have left a hell (and a financial burden) for yourself and your caretakers. You voluntarily choose to eliminate that suffering by taking an early exit.

Second case is dementia. You still have your marbles but know you have say Alzheimer's. In a short time you will no longer be of sufficiently sound mind and body and will doom yourself and your caretakers to the same burdens as above. The time to make the decision is now, not later when the marbles are lost.

Both cases above falsify the assertion made by Cioran. The latter one is more interesting since the time to make the decision is well before the action is to take place. It might be as little as some kind of DNR, but it might be a more proactive action to be taken by what will at that point be an unwilling state.

Quoting schopenhauer1

All of this then implies that it was best to not have this brought about in the first place.

Which is not an option open to anyone who's already-born. Preventing new births likewise accomplishes nothing because the already-born continue to suffer; perhaps only reducing net suffering of the already-born is possible, or worth striving for. I rephrase Cioran's insight as

It's not worth the bother of killing yourself or refusing to procreate, since you always kill yourself and go extinct as a species too late.

:fire:

Quoting noAxioms

The implication seems to be that the only purpose of suicide is to somehow be a solution to past suffering. The conclusion follows only from this assumption, but it can be falsified by taking into account future suffering.

Two obvious cases: You're taken prisoner as a spy and have secrets that will be tortured out of you before you are put to death. Or you have a painful form of cancer making what time you have left a hell (and a financial burden) for yourself and your caretakers. You voluntarily choose to eliminate that suffering by taking an early exit.

Second case is dementia. You still have your marbles but know you have say Alzheimer's. In a short time you will no longer be of sufficiently sound mind and body and will doom yourself and your caretakers to the same burdens as above. The time to make the decision is now, not later when the marbles are lost.

Both cases above falsify the assertion made by Cioran. The latter one is more interesting since the time to make the decision is well before the action is to take place. It might be as little as some kind of DNR, but it might be a more proactive action to be taken by what will at that point be an unwilling state.

So I get what you're saying if we took Cioran too literally. However, I think there are layers to this quote. We have to follow the implication to the end.

"You always kill yourself too late" Why?
Because you were given a problem(s) to overcome.

The problem was being given the problem to overcome. There is no escape from being in a position of having to deal with in the first place. Even suicide being perceived as the only option is itself problematic.

The fact is being born is a hot potato and you can let your hands burn or pass it, but potatoes keep being tossed in your lap.

Quoting 180 Proof

Which is not an option open to anyone who's already-born. Preventing new births likewise accomplishes nothing because the already-born continue to suffer; perhaps only reducing net suffering of the already-born is possible, or worth striving for. I rephrase Cioran's insight as
It's not worth the bother of killing yourself or refusing to procreate, since you always kill yourself and go extinct as a species too late.

The problem is that this means the only way out is through. As I was saying to noAxioms, this itself is the Problem (big P). Creating the need for need. The damage is done and it is inescapable.

Reply to noAxioms Reply to 180 Proof

Also, combining Cioran with Schopenhauer's quote:

Schopenhauer:Suicide may also be regarded as an experiment — a question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man’s existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer.

Once dead, the relief is not had. No relief is had.

Quoting schopenhauer1

[s]The problem is that[/s] this means the only way out is through.

Amor fati.

:death: :flower:

Reply to 180 Proof
But it is the Problem that is created and perpetuated.

Is there no symbolic catharsis? The conclusion doesn't default to thus condoning and embracing the Problem. When things are written as poetry (like Thus Spoke Zarathustra) then manic embracing of the Problem seems charming. But that's not life. That is a simulacrum of life used as a cudgel against the Pessimist (his dear teacher Schopenhauer).

Reply to schopenhauer1 "The problem" is suffering (Buddha, Epicurus, Epictetus, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Zapffe ... Cioran ...), that is, how we use our minds (i.e. metacognitive habits), not "existing" as such.

Reply to schopenhauer1 The Buddha asserts the cessation of all suffering (i.e. Nirv??a, which is not mere non-existence). But having been born, the gordian knot which binds beings to existence has to be cut, otherwise existence (and therefore suffering) are bound to continue. So for that reason, seeking the cessation of 'continued becoming' by ending one's own individual life does not actually achieve its end, as the 'drive to become' will always find a way to make itself manifest again.

Speaking of quotes, I have one from Schopenhauer0, to wit:

Quoting Schopenhauer's Compass, Urs App

In order to always have a secure compass in hand so as to find one's way in life, and to see life always in the correct light without going astray, nothing is more suitable than getting used to seeing the world as something like a penal colony. This view finds its...justification not only in my philosophy, but also in the wisdom of all times, namely, in Brahmanism, Buddhism, Empedocles, Pythagoras [...] Even in genuine and correctly understood Christianity, our existence is regarded as the result of a liability or a misstep. ... We will thus always keep our position in mind and regard every human, first and foremost, as a being that exists only on account of sinfulness, and who is life is an expiation of the offence committed through birth. Exactly this constitutes what Christianity calls the sinful nature of man.

I suspect Cioran would agree ...

[quote=Cormac McCarthy, d. 2023 (today)]There's no such thing as life without bloodshed. I think the notion that the species can be improved in some way, that everyone could live in harmony, is a really dangerous idea. Those who are afflicted with this notion are the first ones to give up their souls, their freedom. Your desire that it be that way will enslave you and make your life vacuous.[/quote]

It's certainly not worth doing so too early in case it causes one to miss the indefinable positives of life (assuming that the prevention of suffering is good for those who don't exist).

Reply to 180 Proof Those who believed in creating a better tomorrow did not necessarily ignore the negetive aspect of reality:

"I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature....

But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

We do want to drive out the beast in the man, but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.

The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence."

—The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi

Reply to Wayfarer If "Brahmanism" refers to the Upanishads, then one has to remember that they don't really suggest that existence is completely bad. Instead, they seek to elevate us to a state of existence that is truer/a significant improvement over our current material existence.

Buddhists, too, believe that simply ending life would not accomplish much as rebirth would still occur. Each person's path is going to be different.

Reply to 180 Proof
Not sure what you mean here.

Quoting Wayfarer

. So for that reason, seeking the cessation of 'continued becoming' by ending one's own individual life does not actually achieve its end, as the 'drive to become' will always find a way to make itself manifest again.

Speaking of quotes, I have one from Schopenhauer0, to wit:

In order to always have a secure compass in hand so as to find one's way in life, and to see life always in the correct light without going astray, nothing is more suitable than getting used to seeing the world as something like a penal colony. This view finds its...justification not only in my philosophy, but also in the wisdom of all times, namely, in Brahmanism, Buddhism, Empedocles, Pythagoras [...] Even in genuine and correctly understood Christianity, our existence is regarded as the result of a liability or a misstep. ... We will thus always keep our position in mind and regard every human, first and foremost, as a being that exists only on account of sinfulness, and who is life is an expiation of the offence committed through birth. Exactly this constitutes what Christianity calls the sinful nature of man.

I agree with Schopenhauer here, however, let's not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy either and participate in it. Evolution might bring about suffering beings, but we don't have to.

it is indeed a different ethic to believe one should force others to suffer because there is also good accompanied by that initial force. But indeed, as the quote says, the force was done, and the problem has already been presented. The stoppage of the problem brings no relief post-facto. It is a "gordian knot" indeed. Once in the mess, there is really no "out of it". That's because death is not the opposite of being born. They are incommensurable.

Reply to DA671 ‘Brahmanism’ refers to Vedanta. Both it and Buddhism seek mok?a or Nirv??a, release from the cycle of birth and death. There’s no real equivalent in Western culture.

Quoting Wayfarer

‘Brahmanism’ refers to Vedanta. Both it and Buddhism seek mok?a or Nirv??a, release from the cycle of birth and death. There’s no real equivalent in Western culture.

There is no real equivalent in Western culture because the speculative notion of rebirth has never played a significant part in that culture.

Reply to Janus :up:

Reply to schopenhauer1 'One suffers much more from one's attitude towards suffering than from the mere fact that one can / does suffer.' That is what I meant – paraphrasing the insights of thinkers I listed in my previous post. And IME I've found that this is more often than not the case.

Reply to Janus It did, up until around the 4th century AD when it was anathematised by the Church on dogmatic grounds. It seems to have been accepted at least in an implicit sense by Plato and Origen (who taught the pre-existence of souls - that the soul was not created by God at the time of conception but existed prior. That was the specific belief that was anathematised by the Church.)

Quoting schopenhauer1

I agree with Schopenhauer here, however, let's not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy either and participate in it.

And how can one avoid participation?

Quoting 180 Proof

One suffers much more from one's attitude towards suffering than from the mere fact that one can / does suffer.' That what I meant – paraphrasing the insights of thinkers I listed in my previous post. And IME I've found that this is more often than not the case.

I’m more interested in the inextricable nature of being caught in this inescapable situation than how people are just “overblowing suffering” and should just “get over it”. But the fact that one has to get over it is the whole point. The problem(s) have already been put into motion. There is no escaping one has to overcome in the first place.

Reply to Wayfarer The pre-existence of the soul is not the same idea as metempsychosis. I am not sure if the latter idea is explicitly espoused by Plato, or even the Neoplatonists. My familiarity with their works is too scant, but I suspect that just a few references even to the pre-existence of the soul were made in Plato's works through the voice of Socrates, and that even there it was treated more as a speculative possibility than an established fact. Pythagoras seems to be the only strong proponent of the idea, but even there I believe we only know his ideas as far as they were referenced by later thinkers. I'm open to being further educated on all this though, since I'm certainly no scholar of ancient Greek thought.

Whatever may be the case regarding Plato and the Neoplatonists, I don't think it was a belief that captured the minds of a significant part of the culture, as there were always rival schools of thought: for example, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Skeptics, the Cynics, the Epicureans, so what I am saying is that it never became a central cultural motif in the West.

Quoting Wayfarer

And how can one avoid participation?

Don’t throw more people into it. Nature will make people suffer. Therefore, I will make more people that will suffer does not compute. Not saying you’re saying that, but I can see the idea that suffering is going to happen no matter what so therefore I can do X thing that makes people eventually suffer being some sort of justification.

Reply to schopenhauer1 So, basically, avoid pro-creation. Which is of course reflected in ascetic celibacy, although I think their rationale also extends beyond that.

Reply to Wayfarer
Yes. The ascetics have it. They veer away from it when they do summersault justifications like, "Humans are needed so they can break samsara, thus making more humans to suffer to escape suffering..." I just see it as a post-facto and circular justification.

Reply to schopenhauer1 I still can’t draw a line between what you say and nihilism.

Quoting Wayfarer

I still can’t draw a line between what you say and nihilism.

Nihilism doesn't have any ethics. Pessimism is more fitting.

Reply to schopenhauer1 I have ordered the book I got that quote from, Schopenhauer’s Compass, Urs App. It pays particular attention to his notes on the Upanishads. My observation would be that neither Vedanta or Buddhism are pessimistic. They both declare that existence is pervaded by suffering, but they also declare the release from suffering, and that is not pessimism. My reading of Schopenhauer is that he acutely perceives the unsatisfactory nature of existence (‘dukkha’ in Buddhist parlance) and kind of intuits something beyond that, in his allusions to the value of ascetic detachment. But he didn’t have the examples of actual practitioners or teachers from those lineages which limited his realisation of actuality of release.

Edward Conze, a Buddhist Studies scholar, while acknowledging many convergences between Schopenhauer and Buddhist philosophy, describes Schopenhauer’s shortcomings like this:

[quote=Edward Conze, Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels] (A) Schopenhauer fails to appreciate the importance of disciplined meditation. Educated non-Catholic Germans of the nineteenth century were quite unfamiliar with the practice of spiritual contemplation. On the other hand, for relaxation they habitually visited art galleries and went for walks in the countryside. It is no wonder, therefore, that Schopenhauer sees the foretaste of "the exalted peace" of Nirv??a, not in trance (dhyana), but in "pure esthetic contemplation." Although the contemplation of beauty has some analogy to the conditions prevailing in trance, it is on the whole an undisciplined faculty, and its results are rather fleeting and have little power to transmute the personality. In this respect, the German bourgeois town-dweller was a lesser man than the Indian man in the forest.

(B) Secondly, Schopenhauer teaches that the Will is the Thing-in-itself, whereas in Buddhism "craving" operates only within the conditioned and phenomenal world, and the unconditioned noumenon lies in Nirv??a, which is quite calm as the result of the abolition of craving. Unacquainted with the practice of conteplation, Schopenhauer did not know that at the bottom of every mind there is a calm quietude which is the prototype of Nirv??a*. His central metaphysical thesis is, however, incompatible, not only with Buddhism, but also with his own soteriological aspirations. It is, indeed, not only hard to see how any cognitive act can ever reach the Thing-in-itself, but it also remains incomprehensible how thought can ever have the strength to stand up against the Will, and, what is more, how as a part of the purely illusory phenomenal world it can possibly overcome and effectively "deny" it. This was early recognized by Nietzsche and J. Bahnsen, Schopenhauer's immediate successors, and led them, respectively, into nihilism and a pessimism unrelieved by the hope of escape. [/quote]

* Although I do note in the preview of Urs App’s book that Schopenhauer dicsussed what he called ‘illuminism’ which he seems to associate with mystical states of quietude. I’ll know better when I’ve read the book.

So there’s the purported origin of pessimism and nihilism which seems to characterise your philosophy also.

Quoting Wayfarer

So there’s the purported origin of pessimism and nihilism which seems to characterise your philosophy also.

Nihilism is multi-faceted. It's like "realism". Art realism? Metaphysical realism? Epistemic realism? Etc.

I just find the term unhelpful really. What are you trying to say by it? What is the purpose of labeling it as such? In other words, what are you trying to indicate or imply with it?

In the quote it looks like nihilism is basically the "suffering" part of Buddhism but with no escape. Is that it?

E.M. Cioran, who is quoted in the OP, can be considered a sort of resignationist. That is to say, there is nothing to do and nowhere to go, so sit back. There is a sort of an inertia in his writings. That any move is pointless. See here:

E.M. Cioran, The Trouble With Being Born:
-To get up in the morning, wash and then wait for some unforeseen variety of dread or depression. I would give the whole universe and all of Shakespeare for a grain of ataraxy.

-My faculty for disappointment surpasses understanding. It is what lets me comprehend Buddha, but also what keeps me from following him.

-I am enraptured by Hindu philosophy, whose essential endeavor is to surmount the self; and everything I do, everything I think is only myself and the selfs humiliations.

-In the fact of being born there is such an absence of necessity that when you think about it a little more than usual, you are left—ignorant how to react—with a foolish grin

-The same feeling of not belonging, of futility, wherever I go: I pretend interest in what matters nothing to me, I bestir myself mechanically or out of charity, without ever being caught up, without ever being somewhere. What attracts me is elsewhere, and I don't know where that elsewhere is.

-Better to be an animal than a man, an insect than an animal, a plant than an insect, and so on. Salvation? Whatever diminishes the kingdom of consciousness and compromises its supremacy.

-There was a time when time did not yet exist. ... The rejection of birth is nothing but the nostalgia for this time before time.

Quoting schopenhauer1

I just find the term unhelpful really. What are you trying to say by it? What is the purpose of labeling it as such? In other words, what are you trying to indicate or imply with it?

Nihilism - nothing is real, nothing matters, nothing truly exists. That poem you quote is dripping with it.

Quoting Wayfarer

Nihilism - nothing is real, nothing matters, nothing truly exists. That poem you quote is dripping with it.

Ok, so if it is, so what? What is the implication? It sounds like you're trying to say something with that label.

Reply to schopenhauer1 Well, we're not talking about the same thing.

Reply to Wayfarer Yes, I understood that. The core philosophy of the Upanishads is Vedanta. Although certain ideas within Vedanta (such as the repetition of birth, karma, and the absolute oneness of being) are fairly unique, there are, naturally, theistic interpretations that see God as the all-perfect being, which would not be entirely different from Western ideas. Dvaita Ved?nta could be seen as an example of this.

I am also glad that you mentioned that Buddhism and Ved?nta are not inherently pessimistic. Both say that suffering can end. Ved?nta does not try to end existence for the sake of bringing about a valueless non-existence. And many Buddhists actually see the human birth as a blessing because it provides us with the best opportunity to achieve Nirvana.

Reply to DA671 :ok:

Reply to Wayfarer
Yeah that response that you okayed there is exactly an example of my point here:
Yes. The ascetics have it. They veer away from it when they do summersault justifications like, "Humans are needed so they can break samsara, thus making more humans to suffer to escape suffering..." I just see it as a post-facto and circular justification.

Reply to schopenhauer1 Do you think that terms such as mok?a or Nirv??a mean anything? How would you interpret what is meant by them?

Reply to Wayfarer I do find it strange that some people accept ideas in a manner that disconnects them from the larger chassis. Such as approach assumes that all those who reached a particular conclusion were right up until a point and then miraculously collectively lost their way just because their conclusions were different. And their final remedy is not trying to circularly justify anything (in a post facto manner) simply because their worldview has a spiritual element. It isn't impossible for some people to do so, but it would be a stretch to claim that this is true for everyone (or most people).

Reply to DA671 It’s an extremely complicated matter. Schopenhauer is routinely described as atheist, yet he explicitly praises Indic philosophy and religious asceticism and rejects materialism (which is the aspect of his philosophy that I’m most drawn to.)

Vedanta and Buddhism were mutually antagonistic within their own cultural sphere, although from outside it they seem to have much more in common than either side would acknowledge. (I was a mod on Dharmawheel for some time, and noticed that whenever mention of Vedanta was made, many of the most senior contributors expressed a deep, culturally-engrained hostility towards it. So much for the ‘many paths up the mountain’!)

The OP frequently writes on what is known as ‘antinatalism’ which is apparently a philosophy that stresses it would be better not to have been born or not to exist. Like many traditional philosophies, it sees existence as being inherently imperfect and painful. Gnosticism is another example. It sees the world as the creation of an evil demiurge, usually identified with the OT Jehovah, and the only hope being an escape from the created world and return to the Plelroma through gnostic insight.

Yet unlike the ancient world-denying philosophies modern antinatalism seems to have no conception of there being anything corresponding to the ‘release from suffering’. Existence is a mirage, a trap, a painful charade, but there’s nothing higher to aspire to. Only the wan idea that maybe if we don’t procreate, then we’ve made a meaningful gesture towards non-being.

Reply to Wayfarer I believe that Schopenhauer's interpretation of Eastern philosophy was valuable but too pessimistic. As you mentioned later in your reply, there is something "higher" that simply cannot be ignored. I wouldn't deny that existence is imperfect, but I do think that there is more than enough good to justify existence (though I also support a right to a graceful exit if their suffering becomes unbearable).

There is definitely a degree of antagonism (which is why I find it amusing whenever Hindus holding extreme views make it seem as if all "Indic" religions are united against the Abrahamic ones, which is an analysis that ignores the complexities of life).

Mahatma Gandhi, who followed the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, did seem to believe that there were many paths up the mountain:

"I believe in the truth of all religions of the world. And since my youth upward, it has been a humble but persistent effort on my to understand the truth of all the religions of the world, and adopt and assimilate in my own thought, word, and deed all that I have found to be best in those religions. The faith that I profess not only permits me to do so but renders it obligatory for me to take the best from whatsoever source it may come."

—Harijan, 16-2-34, p. 7

Quoting Wayfarer

Do you think that terms such as mok?a or Nirv??a mean anything? How would you interpret what is meant by them?

What does this have to do with my question? If it does, "enlighten me" (get it!).

Moksha means something like "release". Because Hinduism is so diverse, it can be used in different ways, but usually associated with being released from the rebirth cycle and samsara. It's generally a peaceful state of non-attachment. Nirvana, means something similar but emphasis on release from the causes of suffering. I do know both have an aspect of illusion created by karmic events. But one is questioning the illusion which causes attachments, etc. etc. The ego is not real sort of thing.

So again, how does labeling this nihilism fit into this? Is it because it denies the ideas regarding moksha, release, nirvana, etc? If that is the case, sure, I can agree with that.

I'd like to double down on Schopenhauer's approach of pessimism then. Rather, ideas of nirvana and moksha are not isolated, but are carried out in a broader Hindu framework of Dharma and other notions. They believe in stages of life, and hierarchies of birth (the whole caste system), and things such as this. But if we take that seriously, and not even from a human rights perspective, this means that the very problem (suffering/karmic build-up) is something humans must participate in by having more humans. What would happen if no humans put more people into the whole mix? There is no "problem" to have to solve (by way of moksha or nirvana).

The only answer you can provide is that it is just bound to happen cause the universe "wills" it. But then I refer back to my idea that this is just a self-fulfilling justification (post-facto and circular reasoning). That is to say it is faulty in that it says, "Because the universe is bound to produce suffering, it doesn't matter anyways, so we mine as well produce more people that will suffer" and if taking Hindu/Buddhist ideas seriously, they will suffer so they can realize they don't need to suffer. Again, why initiate the problem (have people) in the first place to then have to overcome the very problem?

So Schopenhauer's pessimistic emphasis is called for if it is seen in juxtoposition to the life-affirming aspects of the other parts of the Hindu/Buddhist philosophies that encourage the traditional having of families, life stages (young, middle-age with family, old study Hindu philosophy and moksha).

Rather I'd present a different view of catharsis. That is, communal catharsis is recognition of the state of affairs. A world is less harsh if we all agree it sucks. It's the persistent idea not only is it good for you but that your notion of the world means other people must also live it, even though they are people with their own notions that are not yours. This then dovetails into Western ethical concerns of deontology and identity.

Deontological problem: Causing other people suffering because you have a notion that you are doing positive things on behalf of them (even though you know it brings suffering too).

Identity problem: When someone is born and has negative experiences and/or has a negative evaluation of life, that person is affected. If in a counterfactual situation, a person is not born (was not actualized even though the potential was there), that person is not affected. They are not regretful, forlorn, or deprived of the positives of life. The affect only goes in one direction, and only matters in one direction.

So yeah, all that.

Reply to schopenhauer1 Hinduism is definitely diverse and so are the views on karma (which range from ignorance to an intentional separation from God). Not having unnecessary attachments and desires is doubtlessly good for existing beings who are capable of experiencing positive experiences (which is why Mokhsa does not mean the elimination of being itself).

It is true that dharma (and most things in life) should not be seen in isolation. Right conduct is only a part of the bigger picture that also includes one's own well-being (kama) and even material resources (artha). Of course, dharma and moksha occupy a higher position.

The "problem" of existence, for a Hindu, does not have a specific beginning. A cyclical perspective is preferred, and each person's path is going to be unique. While the state of perfect existence (not existence) would certainly have been better than our flawed reality, Hindus (and Buddhists) would say that, now that the material world does exist, simply not creating people will not do anything as people will simply be created in another form (even if this takes some time). But having a human birth does give people their best chance to begin the journey towards Moksha in earnest.

Those who have already reached moksha will not suffer again. Instead, new souls will continue to be provided with the opportunity to gain liberation. Everything isn't about problems; some facets of life are also about what lies beyond them. Unlimited pessimism is an incomplete worldview.

The world would be a nicer place if we understood that having unrealistic expectations only makes us more miserable. I agree that it would be unethical to expect that everyone should adopt an optimistic perspective, but it would be equally problematic to suggest that it isn't just one's own existence (or the lives of some people) that may be mostly bad, but this is true for the majority/everyone. The existence of the negatives does not nullify the value of the good elements of life.

Deontological solution: Assuming that procreation can even cause any kind of harm (even though it doesn't go against anybody's existing interests and does not diminish their well-being), it would not be ethical to deliberately not give positives that one cannot demand before they exist. This is, of course, also depends upon other factors, such as one's economic conditions and other moral obligations.

Identity solution: Potential/counterfactual people don't receive any palpable benefits. Nobody is twirling in delight in nothingness. And if these are somehow apposite considerations, then the prevention of the lives of beings who could have experienced love, aesthetic value, and knowledge is nothing other than shockingly bad.

If nobody is deprived, there isn't anyone who is saved either. You give privileges to pessimism that cannot be justified.

There's a veritable mountain of experiences that cannot be hastily forgotten, friend.

Quoting DA671

who are capable

But not by default. So a problem to be resolved.

Reply to schopenhauer1 Not if there aren't any negatives that don't have a detrimental impact one's well-being. And the problems can be solved to a degree that allows one to appreciate the potent joys of life.

Quoting DA671

Not if there aren't any negatives that don't have a detrimental impact one's well-being. And the roblems can be solved to a degree that allows one to appreciate the potent joys of life.

You can't predict that. Also, who are you to determine what other people view as what is impactful or not? Also, things change all the time. One well-being may be a tragedy later. I know your idea. I get it you think that people need to be born so they can experience positives. Got it. I just think I have answered you in every way that this is wrong.

Reply to schopenhauer1 And you can't predict that the future would be filled with overwhelming harms. It isn't for you to determine that the powerful positive experiences that monks, people who recognise the strength of love, and and many others have is entirely insignificant. One tragedy, like being taken away from one's loved ones, can still be a cause of a great good, such as being able to possess a genuine sense of gratitude for what one has and the willingness to bring joy to the lives of others. My view is that there is no absolute need to create people (or to never do so). Non-existent beings don't benefit or lose anything she they do not exist. At the same time, if the absence of suffering is good, then the claim that the absence of happiness isn't bad is, I think, untenable.

Procreation must not be done impetuously. I believe that I and many others have pointed out the fundamental flaws with your unrestricted pessimism and universal anti-natalism multiple times. The valuable aspects of life will always matter immensely, which is why any view that seeks to end life in the name of compassion/ethical behaviour will always be, most probably, wrong. Still, I continue to admire your intentions and your desire to help make the world a better place. The true beauty of its fulfilment will lie in a world that could actually witness the wondrous existence of this good. I hope that you will have a beautiful weekend.

Reply to schopenhauer1

This sounds like depression. Intellectualized, articulate depression, but still depression.

Reply to Srap Tasmaner I wouldn't say that all those who hold this view are depressed. Additionally, even if this was true, it would not mean that their ideas are without merit.

I wouldn't say that my life has been particularly pleasant. A chunk of it was spent in a room as a consequence of a myriad of health-related issues. I have had an isolated life (I don't blame anyone for it), and I am not overly optimistic about my future. Nonetheless, I don't think that I would ever be able to rationally affirm the idea that there are incredibly delightful features of life that will always matter (whether or not I experience them).

Quoting DA671

I wouldn't say that all those who hold this view are depressed. Additionally, even if this was true, it would not mean that their ideas are without merit.

Should have added some context, was referring to the Cioran quote schop posted, for instance:

E.M. Cioran, The Trouble With Being Born:The same feeling of not belonging, of futility, wherever I go: I pretend interest in what matters nothing to me, I bestir myself mechanically or out of charity, without ever being caught up, without ever being somewhere. What attracts me is elsewhere, and I don't know where that elsewhere is.

Does it matter to our discussions if Cioran had depression? If Thomas Ligotti has anhedonia? I don't think it settles any of the issues, but might serve as particularly salient reminder that eloquence is not a reliable indicator of truth.

And while I'm loath to say that every philosophy is really just autobiography, it might only be the "just" that I object to, for surely it is also that. And so it is for our responses. We read the work, and ask ourselves, is this true? Cioran's account may strike a chord if you have experienced depression, but if not?

I don't know if this is just an issue of methodology or of substance. I suspect James was onto something when he spoke of philosophical temperaments.

It does strike me as silly to ignore the issue entirely, and discuss dispassionately, intellectually what is obviously a record of suffering.

Reply to Srap Tasmaner Oh, I understand. I apologise for causing any unnecessary confusion.

I agree that we cannot entirely divorce our passions from our philosophical positions. What we learn is inescapably going to traverse the multifarious territory of the experiences of sentient beings. It is unlikely that all biases will evaporate, but we can perhaps attain a reasonably good understanding by not letting extremes (optimistic, pessimistic, or of any other kind) guide us to possible oblivion.

Reply to DA671

It's a tricky issue. In a sense all of Nietzsche's genealogical analysis works this way, and we live in an age where the ad hominem argument has gained a certain authority. I'm not itching to go down either of those roads.

But here we are. Cioran's words are pretty nearly textbook indicators of depression. If he'd had a good therapist and maybe some meds, he might have sung a different tune. What are we to make of that?

It doesn't make what he wrote untrue, quite the contrary, but it does add some context. For the anti-natalist, all that matters is that he suffered, and therefore his parents should not have brought him into the world.

We could say, what if we made sure everyone with depression got excellent treatment? Well of course we all want that, but do we all want a future where everyone is permanently happy and just the same? That's horrifying. But for the anti-natalist only the promise of such a dystopia could justify procreation.

Not sure I want to go wandering through this particular fun house again, fascinating as it is. I just found it peculiar no one had remarked on the obvious, and it does raise difficult issues of what we think we're doing when we do philosophy.

Reply to Srap Tasmaner You do raise a very relevant point about the role of one's psychological state in influencing their views on fundamental topics, such as the value of life.

Conceivably, one could not discover a treasure trove in their life and still think that, overall, the positives do outweigh the negatives. The opposite could be true as well, bur I acknowledge that these scenarios forming the greater percentage of people is a doubtful proposition.

My view may be unorthodox, but I do not believe that unfading bliss would be inherently bad as long as it did not cause more harm than good in the long term. I do, however, recognise that life is permeated with various dimensions.

I am grateful for your contribution. It would be remiss of us to turn a blind eye to the emotions underlying our arguments. It's just that discussions revolving around ideas like AN entail a substantial amount of accusations concerning one's psychological state, so it gradually becomes a habit to avoid touching upon anything except the arguments. Nevertheless, they are an indispensable part of our reality. Thank you for the reminder. I hope that your day will go well.

Reply to Srap Tasmaner
He’s talking to a hypothetical depressed suicidal for sure, if they are going to kill themselves. Your observation doesn’t matter to the point he’s making though as explained in the OP about the problem already existing and death not being its opposite, so can’t “fix” it. No relief is had once started.

Quoting DA671

it would not be ethical to deliberately not give positives that one cannot demand before they exist.

Why?

Quoting DA671

Potential/counterfactual people don't receive any palpable benefits.

No they don’t. If you knew a child was going to suffer immensely right after birth, would you not consider preventing that? Of course you would. It’s the same reasoning spread out over a lifetime, or just “existence” for short. Being born will affect someone. The argument is not affected by the rebuttal that no one exists to experience the joy of no harm. That’s not the argument. No one exists means no one is affected, period. Someone’s being born now affects someone.

Quoting Wayfarer

Only the wan idea that maybe if we don’t procreate, then we’ve made a meaningful gesture towards non-being.

But what about it? Any response that doesn’t step into the predicted rebuttals of self fulfilling idea that suffering exists, therefore we are justified to create more people that suffer? Any replies to my reply before this one?

Quoting schopenhauer1

the problem already existing

Not exactly.

The original quote could be read as a sort of paradox: if you wait until you have a reason to kill yourself, you'll have an experience bad enough that you want to kill yourself, therefore the smart move is to kill yourself for no reason, before things get bad. Quit while you're ahead.

This "argument" does not claim that you have a reason to kill yourself from the moment you're born. It doesn't even say that you are bound to have one someday. It only says that if you have one, you've already missed your chance not to, and of course that's true.

I'm not sure it bears analysing. Strikes me more as gallows humor, suggesting that life is itself kind of a sick joke.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

Not exactly.

Yes, Socrates.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

The original quote could be read as a sort of paradox: if you wait until you have a reason to kill yourself, you'll have an experience bad enough that you want to kill yourself, therefore the smart move is to kill yourself for no reason, before things get bad. Quit while you're ahead.

Whilst I think that is a perfectly valid and correct interpretation, I don't think it can be the only one read from this.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

This "argument" does not claim that you have a reason to kill yourself from the moment you're born. It doesn't even say that you are bound to have one someday. It only says that if you have one, you've already missed your chance not to, and of course that's true.

I think the quote implies futility because life will always inevitably have problems. If you look at the other quotes about consciousness and such it fits within a broader theme.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

I'm not sure it bears analysing. Strikes me more as gallows humor, suggesting that life is itself kind of a sick joke.

I mean yes it's dark humor, but he wasn't just making a joke. It's from a book of aphorisms around the theme of, "The Trouble with Being Born". You can almost start any of those quotes off with.. "The trouble with being born is... In this case, "The trouble with being born is... that you can't even kill yourself on time".

Quoting schopenhauer1

it fits within a broader theme

Sure, and one way to describe that theme is, "I have pretty severe depression and am not receiving treatment."

I wouldn't actually presume to diagnose Cioran from his writings. I won't pretend literature is the same as confession. And I'm not saying that if it were a known fact that Cioran had depression we ought to dismiss him.

But I also don't like pretending there isn't an elephant in the room. Philosophical pessimism reasons its way to a worldview that comes naturally, without the need of argument, to those unfortunate souls who suffer from depression.

I also don't claim pessimism is unique in aligning with affective disposition in this way. I just don't think we have a good way to talk about these connections and the need is most obvious in a case like Cioran's.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

But I also don't like pretending there isn't an elephant in the room. Philosophical pessimism reasons its way to a worldview that comes naturally, without the need of argument, to those unfortunate souls who suffer from depression.

I also don't claim pessimism is unique in aligning with affective disposition in this way. I just don't think we have a good way to talk about these connections and the need is most obvious in a case like Cioran's.

Philosophical pessimism is simply recognizing suffering exists and proposes what to (refrain from) do(ing) about it. It's pretty simple.

Writing can be a sublimation for negativity. So can art. So can ascetic living or meditating. I call for community catharsis. That is to say, don't gaslight with distraction, ignoring, anchoring, etc. First we must recognize the situation. Politics starts here. Is existence worth it is as much a political question as is what government is best. Why? Because all the assumptions about what others should do start at this viewpoint. If someone is born, there is already an assumption that they ought to be born for some reason.

Quoting schopenhauer1

If someone is born, there is already an assumption that they ought to be born for some reason.

Well you know I don't agree.

By the way, ever read William James's "Is Life Worth Living?" Worth a look.

Reply to Srap Tasmaner
That birth is a political decision because involves making decisions for other people?

Reply to schopenhauer1 Because if impositions (which cause harm) matter, then so do actions that bestow beneficial positives upon someone (which cannot be asked for before existing). Some decisions that were made for us when we were unable to make them ourselves can be good (and this would apply if the concept of consent can be relevant despite the fact that no existing interests of a person are ignored when they are created). A limitless focus on the negative does not seem like a good idea to me.

Reply to schopenhauer1 I would consider it, but my primary focus would be on removing the cause of suffering before it can affect someone. If that can't be done and the harms would outweigh the good, one would still have to ask if a world with greater suffering (and comparatively less good) would be better. Once again, I don't think that a state that does not cause any meaningful benefit/loss to someone can be good or bad, but I am willing to accept this could be true for the sake of the discussion. If it would be good to not create someone who could suffer, then it would also be bad to not do so despite knowing that they could experience happiness.

Reply to Wayfarer "Non-existent, verily, this (world) was in the beginning. From that verily was born existence. It made itself as the Self (of the existence). Therefore it is called a virtuous act. Verily, that which is well made is the delight of existence; for truly on obtaining the delight of existence one becomes blissful."

—Taittiriya Upanishad, 2.7.1.

:pray:

Reply to DA671 A relevant educational opportunity - Dr John Vervaeke on Beyond Nihilism, with lectures, readings and online participation. (I'd consider signing up myself but the sessions are all at midnight in my timezone, and while I'm keen, I'm not *that* keen.)

Reply to Wayfarer Thank you for sharing this. I am sure it will be a wellspring of intellectually-stimulating ideas for many.

Quoting Wayfarer

The OP frequently writes on what is known as ‘antinatalism’ which is apparently a philosophy that stresses it would be better not to have been born or not to exist. Like many traditional philosophies, it sees existence as being inherently imperfect and painful. Gnosticism is another example. It sees the world as the creation of an evil demiurge, usually identified with the OT Jehovah, and the only hope being an escape from the created world and return to the Plelroma through gnostic insight.

Yet unlike the ancient world-denying philosophies modern antinatalism seems to have no conception of there being anything corresponding to the ‘release from suffering’. Existence is a mirage, a trap, a painful charade, but there’s nothing higher to aspire to. Only the wan idea that maybe if we don’t procreate, then we’ve made a meaningful gesture towards non-being.

My question to you is why do the majority keep on (making the mistake of) trying to make a meaningful gesture towards being? I noticed you never answered me directly but wrote generally, or to DA.

I have maintained that there is a political implication to this- that people ought to be making gestures towards being, the great IS. But why? Anything less than a paradise done on other's behalf should be justified. You cannot deny it is putting people through not only good but trials of varying degrees and kinds. That in itself means societally, and individually, it is deemed as some sort of goal to direct others towards. But, as Cioran points out, the decision, once made, is not reversible, even by suicide. So why make this choice for someone else? Thomas Ligotti called the concept, "The Cult of the Grinning Martyrs". But why more martyrs?

Quoting schopenhauer1

So why make this choice for someone else?

Obviously, because they can't make it for themselves before hand.

Reply to 180 Proof
Precisely my point. It’s someone else deciding. It’s political.