Anti-Natalism, Can It Really Exist?

[Mr. Veech]

Quote Originally Posted by ToALonelyPeace

@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.

[Ibrahim]

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech

Quote Originally Posted by Ibrahim 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?

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech

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.

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.

[Mr. Veech]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech 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.

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.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech 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.

[qcrisp]

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.

[Mr. Veech]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech 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.

[Mr. Veech]

@ 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.