It’s been quite a while since I posted some questions, but to be fair, I didn’t really get any. So there you go. But hey, now I have two, so here we go.
Referring to the previous Ask, John Douglas says:
I am interested in your paragraph beginning ‘The obvious antinatalist reply…’ in your answer to Travis (‘Is there a connection between eugenics/transhumanism and anti-natalism?’) which appears to at least imply that antinatalism assigns a positive value to suffering because striving against it gives humans a reason to exist. It then goes on to assert that without suffering there would be no reason for humans to exist at all. Surely, if you subscribe to the antinatalist equation (the amount of suffering exceeds the amount of pleasure/any suffering at all renders non-existence preferable), then a world in which there is no suffering at all (a ‘pleasant’ existence), far from strengthening the non-existence case, would actually invalidate it (unless the fact of death itself – albeit a suffering-free, pleasant death – is still seen as a negative value present in such an existence).
For your first point, no, I don’t agree that striving against suffering gives humans a reason to exist. I said it gives people a reason to live and strive, which is very different. I don’t think there is any reason for humans to exist, but once they exist, suffering does give people a reason to go on.
As for the second point, I’ve pointed out many times that antinatalists are not doing some kind of weird utilitarian comparison between pleasure and suffering (however you could do that). But do suppose that we live an existence with no suffering at all. Yes, obviously a lot of the antinatalist case would be invalidated, but as I said before, what would be the point of such an existence? Therefore teleological arguments would still be in full force.
I know that it’s pretty lame to ask for attention like this, but I just wanted to know if I was able to provide some interesting feedback on your articles. Not to whine, but I feel a bit left hangin’ after I maybe said something a little dumb, but I tried to correct it. I’ve been thinking about writing comics in the future and adding social and cultural criticism into the mix.
I have commented on a number of your articles. The first that commented on was “Free Speech is elitist,” which really struck my fancy. I am, in the rarest of the rare, sick to death of everyone glorifying it and the constitution to hell and back and everyone backstabbing each other just to hold it up. I am saying this because I can be categorized into a few certain groups. I have Asperger’s Sydrome, have been questioning my sexuality for a long time (you probably don’t need to hear my ordeals,) and am formerly Catholic.
The second article that I commented on was “Morality as a tool of control,” which is where I apparently logically slipped up. I do know that everything in this based on perception, which is why I prefer not to believe and just do, if you understand me. What I was trying to say was that morality is something that is invisible and shaped into whatever form he or she who invokes it finds the most convenient and to appeal to some sort of higher imaginary power. The more we insist on enforcing these systems of “good and evil,” the more we lose our ability to use our brains to properly analyze and determine like the organic computers they are. Therefore, I feel that the best solution is to simply let go and learn from experience.
The third article I commented on was “Why I am against gay marriage.” I agree with the claim that marriage is a generally oppressive and conformist institution, but that’s not really my main point. My main point reflects on our sensationalism of marriage the so and so’s about it. My problem with same-sex marriage is that we gave it a name and attention in the first place. We talked and began fighting over it when we never really had to because we’ve all been brainwashed by our democratic setting.
Basically, Instead of just going ahead and living and studying ourselves the way we wanted to live, we’ve been forced to seek out approval when it’s not remotely required and if none of this ever happened, we would already be living in a utopia, pardon my idealism.
Anyway, that’s my feedback history and I hope that you and as well as your other visitors found them insightful. If they weren’t up to par, I’m open to some constructive criticism myself. I consider myself to have a radically different worldview compared to everyone else and have gotten little to no feedback with it from other people.
I’m sure there are other people who read this blog who share your positions. I don’t know if they’ll comment about it or not, but there you go, I’ve posted your question so everyone can read it.
As for me not replying, I just want to point out that I often do not post replies to comments, because I’d rather not say anything than just blandly agree or disagree. If I don’t have anything interesting to say, I usually just shut up. I especially don’t reply on comments to older articles, for some reason.