Materialism and Anti-Natalism

[Carl Jung]

In a materialistic universe the following must be true:

- The sense of self is an illusion.

- The inner experiences of that self is also an illusion.

- Our sense of free will is an illusion.

- Suffering and love must also be re-defined because they have no basis in reality.

- The choice between coffee or tea has the same kind of significance as the choice to commit suicide or not. The suffering of the victim and his family is but an illusion and the man whose life is on stake is not the life of a free moral agent. It is but the life of a pre-determined mass of neurons suffering from the illusion of having pain or anxieties.

- As Kant said we all judge all of our actions. That is not to say that we have a universal absolute morality - but we have a universal tool with which to judge all of our actions. We know instinctively if an action is "good" or "bad". This sense is also an illusion.


Now, if this is true - doesn't Anti-Natalism make perfect sense? Wouldn't it be the logical thing to put a negative value on being born?

[porker]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

In a materialistic universe the following must be true:

- The sense of self is an illusion.

- The inner experiences of that self is also an illusion.

- Our sense of free will is an illusion.

- Suffering and love must also be re-defined because they have no basis in reality.

- The choice between coffee or tea has the same kind of significance as the choice to commit suicide or not. The suffering of the victim and his family is but an illusion and the man whose life is on stake is not the life of a free moral agent. It is but the life of a pre-determined mass of neurons suffering from the illusion of having pain or anxieties.

Why? I don't see why any of your assumptions are necessary.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

In a materialistic universe the following must be true:

- The sense of self is an illusion.

By this do you mean that it is not a separate entity?

- The inner experiences of that self is also an illusion.

I don't know what you mean by illusion here.

- Our sense of free will is an illusion.

I believe this is true under any metaphysic, unless you can explain how libertarian free will might work.

- Suffering and love must also be re-defined because they have no basis in reality.

What's your definition? Suffering and love happen, so they are real.

- The choice between coffee or tea has the same kind of significance as the choice to commit suicide or not. The suffering of the victim and his family is but an illusion and the man whose life is on stake is not the life of a free moral agent. It is but the life of a pre-determined mass of neurons suffering from the illusion of having pain or anxieties.

Again, you'll have to explain how libertarian free will works.

- As Kant said we all judge all of our actions. That is not to say that we have a universal absolute morality - but we have a universal tool with which to judge all of our actions. We know instinctively if an action is "good" or "bad". This sense is also an illusion.

Apparently everyone doesn't have the same instincts.

Now, if this is true - doesn't Anti-Natalism make perfect sense? Wouldn't it be the logical thing to put a negative value on being born?

If you're going to get all depressed about it, perhaps so.

~~ Paul

[Carl Jung]

Originally Posted by porker

Why? I don't see why any of your assumptions are necessary.

I agree - I don't see why they are necessary in a scientific sense - even though most people involved in the hard sciences seem to hold this view. However the state of philsophical materialism is pretty well described by my assumptions. Or so I think.

[Carl Jung]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

By this do you mean that it is not a separate entity?


I don't know what you mean by illusion here.


I believe this is true under any metaphysic, unless you can explain how libertarian free will might work.


What's your definition? Suffering and love happen, so they are real.


Again, you'll have to explain how libertarian free will works.


Apparently everyone doesn't have the same instincts.


If you're going to get all depressed about it, perhaps so.

~~ Paul

I don't feel at all under the obligation to explain free will in order to accept in intuitively. I don't have to explain how walking works in order to be able to walk, right? I don't have to explain the sun in order to plant my fields and use its power to grow veggies?

But you, who state this position, finish of by saying "If you're going to get all depressed about it, perhaps so." - and that just even more clarifies my point. You assume that I have free will, a choice, whether or not I am going to act as a "Cry-baby" or not. But in your own world-view, I don't have that capacity.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

I don't feel at all under the obligation to explain free will in order to accept in intuitively. I don't have to explain how walking works in order to be able to walk, right? I don't have to explain the sun in order to plant my fields and use its power to grow veggies?

You can see those two things happen. If we could see libertarian free will, it wouldn't be an open question in philosophy. But even if we accept it, we don't know how it works, so you can't rule it out of physicalism anyway.

But you, who state this position, finish of by saying "If you're going to get all depressed about it, perhaps so." - and that just even more clarifies my point. You assume that I have free will, a choice, whether or not I am going to act as a "Cry-baby" or not. But in your own world-view, I don't have that capacity.

Nevertheless, if you're going to get all depressed about it, then you might decide that antinatalism makes sense.

~~ Paul

[Carl Jung]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nevertheless, if you're going to get all depressed about it, then you might decide that antinatalism makes sense.

~~ Paul

I don't understand your point. What does "If you are going to" and "you might decide" mean unless you have already accepted the will as being free?

The very language you speak is a language of libertarian free will.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

I don't understand your point. What does "If you are going to" and "you might decide" mean unless you have already accepted the will as being free?

The very language you speak is a language of libertarian free will.

Why do you say so? One makes decisions regardless of free will. That is, unless you are loading the verb decide with "only makes sense under libertarian free will."

I wouldn't put too much importance in my somewhat snarky comment.

~~ Paul

[Carl Jung]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Why do you say so? One makes decisions regardless of free will. That is, unless you are loading the verb decide with "only makes sense under libertarian free will."

I wouldn't put too much importance in my somewhat snarky comment.

~~ Paul

Well, I don't know what to say...I'm just at a loss for words.

One makes decisions regardless of free will? Does an apple falling from a tree make a decision to move a bit sideways when the wind hits it?

Could you please explain what making decisions regardless of free will means? I don't understand that at all.

Just let me go get a beer and put on my coziest pair of pants because I assume this is going to be a good one.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

One makes decisions regardless of free will? Does an apple falling from a tree make a decision to move a bit sideways when the wind hits it?

It depends on your definition of decision. If, as I said, you require that decisions involve libertarian free will, then we make them if there is such a thing, and we don't if there is not. If you're willing to allow a human without free will or a computer to make a decision, then libertarian free will is not required. It's just a question of definition.

Could you please explain what making decisions regardless of free will means? I don't understand that at all.

It means that past events plus the current state of affairs is used to determine whether to take one action or another. We attribute decision-making to humans and some animals, but not to trees and rocks. Some of us attribute it to computers. After all, humans make nonconscious decisions all the time. Why is that any different from a computer making a decision?

Just let me go get a beer and put on my coziest pair of pants because I assume this is going to be a good one.

Why would you select a cozy pair of pants if you're going to become incontinent when you read my response?

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal, when it's just a matter of definition. The big deal is whether libertarian free will is a coherent concept. No point in defining decision-making in terms of it if it is not.

~~ Paul