THE NIGHTMARE NETWORK
Go Back   THE NIGHTMARE NETWORK > Wayward Distractions > Philosophy
Home Forums Content Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Contagion Members Media Diversion Info Register
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes Translate
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #31
Mr. Veech's Avatar
Mr. Veech
Grimscribe
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 817
Quotes: 0
Points: 12,053, Level: 76 Points: 12,053, Level: 76 Points: 12,053, Level: 76
Level up: 1% Level up: 1% Level up: 1%
Activity: 83% Activity: 83% Activity: 83%
Re: Anti-Natalism, Can It Really Exist?

Quote Originally Posted by ToALonelyPeace View Post
@Mr Veech: You're right. What he says on pg 169 explicitly contradicts with what he says on pg 175 in which he states:

Quote
Therefore the principle of sufficient reason is again the form into which the Idea enters, since the Idea comes into the knowledge of the subject as individual.
Maybe what Schopenhauer means on pg 169 -plurality does not apply to the Idea- is from perspective of the will. The will's one objectivity is the Idea. From perspective of the representation, plurality does apply to the Idea.

It's very strange how he didn't bother to reread 6 pages back what he wrote.
I believe every philosophical system must encounter some inner contradiction because our concepts "distort" reality. It's possible that Schopenhauer's concept of "plurality" has more than one connotation. However, I don't think there's any textual evidence that suggests that - as far as I'm aware.

What continues to draw me towards Schopenhauer is the overall impression his worldview has left on me. I believe he is essentially correct, but the manner in which he tries to support said worldview with philosophical arguments is riddled with plenty of flaws, some of which are elementary. I don't need a perfect philosophical system to convince me that there's something horribly wrong with existence. Experiencing numerous personal hardships is self-authenticating evidence for me. The very notion that a philosophical argument alone has ever changed a person's beliefs is one of the biggest lies humanity has propogated. Reason and logic are always used to retroactively support what we already believed. Luther and Ligotti, two opposed spirits, agree. Amusingly, the subservient nature of philosophy was already recognized by theologians. In Plato's defense, he did maintain that we never discover anything new, epistemologically speaking. Knowledge always involves recollection.

As for how Schopenhauer could have possibily contradicted himself within the matter of a few pages, it seems probable that he wrote everything out of order. I personally do that whenever I write.

"In a less scientific age, he would have been a devil-worshipper, a partaker in the abominations of the Black Mass; or would have given himself to the study and practice of sorcery. His was a religious soul that had failed to find good in the scheme of things; and lacking it, was impelled to make of evil itself an object of secret reverence."

~ Clark Ashton Smith, "The Devotee of Evil"
Mr. Veech is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
ToALonelyPeace (4 Weeks Ago)
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #32
Ibrahim
Chymist
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 383
Quotes: 0
Points: 4,862, Level: 47 Points: 4,862, Level: 47 Points: 4,862, Level: 47
Level up: 56% Level up: 56% Level up: 56%
Activity: 17% Activity: 17% Activity: 17%
Re: Anti-Natalism, Can It Really Exist?

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Ibrahim View Post
Before we can prove that something exists outside of space and time, shouldn't we first establish that things exist within space and time?
I'm not kidding; i know these -time, space- are just abstractions, and not ( i hope ) descriptive, but nevertheless, is it helpful to the general argument to see time containing anything or space being around anything?
Well, the contemporary scientific view is that space and time are not receptacles. They were for Newton, but they are not so according to Einstein's general relativity. Space and time are not separate "things;" they are an intrinsic feature of matter.
My point exactly. Where's the sense in holding to the materialistic worldview while applying it to concepts that precede it/partake of a different context entirely?

"What can a thing do with a thing, when it is a thing?"
-Shaykh Ibn Al 'Arabi
Ibrahim is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Mr. Veech (4 Weeks Ago)
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #33
qcrisp's Avatar
qcrisp
Grimscribe
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,050
Quotes: 0
Points: 68,532, Level: 100 Points: 68,532, Level: 100 Points: 68,532, Level: 100
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 17% Activity: 17% Activity: 17%
Re: Anti-Natalism, Can It Really Exist?

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech View Post
The very notion that a philosophical argument alone has ever changed a person's beliefs is one of the biggest lies humanity has propogated.
I am doubtful that this assertion is true. I think I've been convinced of things I didn't believe before by argument alone. It's too early in the morning for me to think of examples from my own life, but this is from a letter that Bertrand Russell wrote about Frege:

Quote
As I think about acts of integrity and grace, I realise that there is nothing in my knowledge to compare with Frege's dedication to truth. His entire life's work was on the verge of completion, much of his work had been ignored to the benefit of men infinitely less capable, his second volume was about to be published, and upon finding that his fundamental assumption was in error, he responded with intellectual pleasure clearly submerging any feelings of personal disappointment. It was almost superhuman and a telling indication of that of which men are capable if their dedication is to creative work and knowledge instead of cruder efforts to dominate and be known.

ôSpecialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved." - Max Weber
qcrisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Mr. Veech (4 Weeks Ago)
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #34
James's Avatar
James
Grimscribe
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,887
Quotes: 0
Points: 20,264, Level: 98 Points: 20,264, Level: 98 Points: 20,264, Level: 98
Level up: 41% Level up: 41% Level up: 41%
Activity: 99% Activity: 99% Activity: 99%
Re: Anti-Natalism, Can It Really Exist?

I have definitely changed my views after online debates on a bunch of issues, though I don't generally expect to persuade people when I am myself arguing. It's mostly a silly mind puzzle to keep my fingers busy while I listen to music.

'I believe in what the Germans term Ehrfurcht: reverence for things one cannot understand.'
― Robert Aickman, An Essay
James is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
miguel1984 (4 Weeks Ago), Mr. Veech (4 Weeks Ago)
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #35
Mr. Veech's Avatar
Mr. Veech
Grimscribe
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 817
Quotes: 0
Points: 12,053, Level: 76 Points: 12,053, Level: 76 Points: 12,053, Level: 76
Level up: 1% Level up: 1% Level up: 1%
Activity: 83% Activity: 83% Activity: 83%
Re: Anti-Natalism, Can It Really Exist?

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech View Post
The very notion that a philosophical argument alone has ever changed a person's beliefs is one of the biggest lies humanity has propogated.
I am doubtful that this assertion is true. I think I've been convinced of things I didn't believe before by argument alone. It's too early in the morning for me to think of examples from my own life, but this is from a letter that Bertrand Russell wrote about Frege:

Quote
As I think about acts of integrity and grace, I realise that there is nothing in my knowledge to compare with Frege's dedication to truth. His entire life's work was on the verge of completion, much of his work had been ignored to the benefit of men infinitely less capable, his second volume was about to be published, and upon finding that his fundamental assumption was in error, he responded with intellectual pleasure clearly submerging any feelings of personal disappointment. It was almost superhuman and a telling indication of that of which men are capable if their dedication is to creative work and knowledge instead of cruder efforts to dominate and be known.
The passage itself is certainly noble sounding. Nevertheless, I will stick to my assertion that my own experience, not a dry philosophical argument, is the foundation of what I believe. Philosophical argumentation is merely there to help me understand what I already know to be true.

No offense, qcrisp, but I'm not buying it.

"In a less scientific age, he would have been a devil-worshipper, a partaker in the abominations of the Black Mass; or would have given himself to the study and practice of sorcery. His was a religious soul that had failed to find good in the scheme of things; and lacking it, was impelled to make of evil itself an object of secret reverence."

~ Clark Ashton Smith, "The Devotee of Evil"
Mr. Veech is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
Nemonymous (4 Weeks Ago), qcrisp (4 Weeks Ago)
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #36
James's Avatar
James
Grimscribe
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,887
Quotes: 0
Points: 20,264, Level: 98 Points: 20,264, Level: 98 Points: 20,264, Level: 98
Level up: 41% Level up: 41% Level up: 41%
Activity: 99% Activity: 99% Activity: 99%
Re: Anti-Natalism, Can It Really Exist?

I promise I'm not lying! People calling me out on my bull#### or presenting me with new ideas/facts I didn't know has changed my views on things. Honestly, guv. Swear daaarrrrn.

'I believe in what the Germans term Ehrfurcht: reverence for things one cannot understand.'
― Robert Aickman, An Essay
James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #37
qcrisp's Avatar
qcrisp
Grimscribe
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,050
Quotes: 0
Points: 68,532, Level: 100 Points: 68,532, Level: 100 Points: 68,532, Level: 100
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 17% Activity: 17% Activity: 17%
Re: Anti-Natalism, Can It Really Exist?

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech View Post
Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech View Post
The very notion that a philosophical argument alone has ever changed a person's beliefs is one of the biggest lies humanity has propogated.
I am doubtful that this assertion is true. I think I've been convinced of things I didn't believe before by argument alone. It's too early in the morning for me to think of examples from my own life, but this is from a letter that Bertrand Russell wrote about Frege:

Quote
As I think about acts of integrity and grace, I realise that there is nothing in my knowledge to compare with Frege's dedication to truth. His entire life's work was on the verge of completion, much of his work had been ignored to the benefit of men infinitely less capable, his second volume was about to be published, and upon finding that his fundamental assumption was in error, he responded with intellectual pleasure clearly submerging any feelings of personal disappointment. It was almost superhuman and a telling indication of that of which men are capable if their dedication is to creative work and knowledge instead of cruder efforts to dominate and be known.
The passage itself is certainly noble sounding. Nevertheless, I will stick to my assertion that my own experience, not a dry philosophical argument, is the foundation of what I believe. Philosophical argumentation is merely there to help me understand what I already know to be true.

No offense, qcrisp, but I'm not buying it.
But you've made two different claims. Above, "that a philosophical argument alone has ever changed a person's beliefs is one of the biggest lies humanity has propogated", and here that you personally never believe anything new based on an argument. They're not the same claim at all.

ôSpecialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved." - Max Weber
qcrisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Nemonymous (4 Weeks Ago)
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #38
qcrisp's Avatar
qcrisp
Grimscribe
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,050
Quotes: 0
Points: 68,532, Level: 100 Points: 68,532, Level: 100 Points: 68,532, Level: 100
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 17% Activity: 17% Activity: 17%
Re: Anti-Natalism, Can It Really Exist?

Just to elaborate a little:

"that a philosophical argument alone has ever changed a person's beliefs is one of the biggest lies humanity has propogated".

Suppose this is true. Is this contingently true, or necessarily true?

If it's necessarily true - that is, if it's built in to reality itself that it must be true - then you would need an argument to explain why it is built into reality. If it was contingently true, you would need in this case, I'd say, to know the complete biographies of every person that ever existed. Do you know these?

To me, the position you're espousing seems like a way of saying, "Let's agree to disagree, because you know how tiresome philosophical arguments get. I just want to lay out my position, and you can lay out yours, but we don't have to actually listen to each other."

This is understandable as a position, of course, because of (amongst other things) the reasons amusingly illustrated here:

http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Anyway, I promise not to be a Terrible Sea Lion. I don't have much time, myself.

ôSpecialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved." - Max Weber
qcrisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Mr. Veech (4 Weeks Ago)
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #39
Mr. Veech's Avatar
Mr. Veech
Grimscribe
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 817
Quotes: 0
Points: 12,053, Level: 76 Points: 12,053, Level: 76 Points: 12,053, Level: 76
Level up: 1% Level up: 1% Level up: 1%
Activity: 83% Activity: 83% Activity: 83%
Re: Anti-Natalism, Can It Really Exist?

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech View Post
Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech View Post
The very notion that a philosophical argument alone has ever changed a person's beliefs is one of the biggest lies humanity has propogated.
I am doubtful that this assertion is true. I think I've been convinced of things I didn't believe before by argument alone. It's too early in the morning for me to think of examples from my own life, but this is from a letter that Bertrand Russell wrote about Frege:

Quote
As I think about acts of integrity and grace, I realise that there is nothing in my knowledge to compare with Frege's dedication to truth. His entire life's work was on the verge of completion, much of his work had been ignored to the benefit of men infinitely less capable, his second volume was about to be published, and upon finding that his fundamental assumption was in error, he responded with intellectual pleasure clearly submerging any feelings of personal disappointment. It was almost superhuman and a telling indication of that of which men are capable if their dedication is to creative work and knowledge instead of cruder efforts to dominate and be known.
The passage itself is certainly noble sounding. Nevertheless, I will stick to my assertion that my own experience, not a dry philosophical argument, is the foundation of what I believe. Philosophical argumentation is merely there to help me understand what I already know to be true.

No offense, qcrisp, but I'm not buying it.
But you've made two different claims. Above, "that a philosophical argument alone has ever changed a person's beliefs is one of the biggest lies humanity has propogated", and here that you personally never believe anything new based on an argument. They're not the same claim at all.
The two are not the same. However, they are necessarily connected. My original statement was immediately followed by the claim that reason and/or logic is always used to retroactively support what we already believe to be true.

As for your question concerning whether or not I believe my first statement is a contingent or necessary truth, my answer is that I don't know. But I believe it's ultimately irrelevant. The question assumes the statement is actually far more controversial than it is. Here's one of the claims I'm making:

"No one has ever changed their beliefs on the basis of a philosophical argument alone."

What the statement itself suggests is that a thousand other variables help shape one's beliefs, variables directly associated with lived experience. A philosophical argument alone has never been the primary reason someone has changed or refined their worldview. Only a computer or someone who has suffered nothing in life could ever believe something on the basis of a philosophical argument alone.

"In a less scientific age, he would have been a devil-worshipper, a partaker in the abominations of the Black Mass; or would have given himself to the study and practice of sorcery. His was a religious soul that had failed to find good in the scheme of things; and lacking it, was impelled to make of evil itself an object of secret reverence."

~ Clark Ashton Smith, "The Devotee of Evil"

Last edited by Mr. Veech; 4 Weeks Ago at 04:06 PM..
Mr. Veech is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
qcrisp (4 Weeks Ago), ToALonelyPeace (4 Weeks Ago)
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #40
Mr. Veech's Avatar
Mr. Veech
Grimscribe
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 817
Quotes: 0
Points: 12,053, Level: 76 Points: 12,053, Level: 76 Points: 12,053, Level: 76
Level up: 1% Level up: 1% Level up: 1%
Activity: 83% Activity: 83% Activity: 83%
Re: Anti-Natalism, Can It Really Exist?

@ qcrisp

It just now occurred to me that my initial response might have been construed as offensive. It was not my intent to imply that you were mistaken regarding your own experience - that would be absurd. The problem is that the claim I've made is not as controversial as some believe. In other words, the claim has been misinterpreted.

"In a less scientific age, he would have been a devil-worshipper, a partaker in the abominations of the Black Mass; or would have given himself to the study and practice of sorcery. His was a religious soul that had failed to find good in the scheme of things; and lacking it, was impelled to make of evil itself an object of secret reverence."

~ Clark Ashton Smith, "The Devotee of Evil"
Mr. Veech is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
qcrisp (4 Weeks Ago), ToALonelyPeace (4 Weeks Ago)
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
antinatalism, exist
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PhilosophyTube on Anti-Natalism Nirvana In Karma YouTube Selections 2 12-07-2017 11:24 AM
A Thought Experiment Concerning Anti-Natalism R.P.Dwyer Thomas Ligotti 7 08-18-2014 10:10 PM
Anti-natalism from Philip Larkin matt cardin General Discussion 24 05-09-2014 02:21 PM
Fatalism or Natalism? Nemonymous General Discussion 1 04-27-2013 12:27 PM
Do We Even Exist? Hildred Castaigne Show & Tell 112 06-14-2008 01:02 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:33 PM.



Style Based on SONGS OF A DEAD DREAMER as Published by Silver Scarab Press
Design and Artwork by Harry Morris
Emulated in Hell by Dr. Bantham
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Template-Modifications by TMS