What is the point of life?

[Birdjaguar]

I didn't expect to bump into philosophy threads on this forum, but it's nice to see.

There is no point to life. Life is mostly purposeless suffering. The philosophy of antinatalism teaches us that one of the most immoral things that a person can do is to procreate. Since life is pointless and only suffering is guaranteed in life, bringing another person in it is automatically immoral. Most people lack either the intellectual or the moral capacities to comprehend antinatalism, and thus their act of reproduction could be classified as ignorant as opposed to outright evil. That's their only excuse. I would have wanted to add something but since it's based on criticizing religion I just assume it's against forum rules to bring it up, since as of 2021 most forums in existence have forfeited full freedom of speech.

David Benatar's "Better Never To Have Been" is very good read on the subject.
Inmendham's videos on the subject of antinatalism are also top notch.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing religion here. They key is not to attack posters for their beliefs and not to just troll folks for what they hold to be important.

For example, I could say that antinatalism is a philosophy that lacks a sound foundation in reason, defies generics and is mostly rubbish cobbled together by flat earthers and be fine. If I called you stupid for being one, that would cross the line. For the record, I know nothing about antinatalism beyond what you posted.

Welcome to OT. We talk about almost anything here.

 

[Tiberiu]

Welcome to OT. We talk about almost anything here.

Thank you! You are very kind. Yes, I understand what you said from those examples.

What I wanted to say is that it is in a way very telling that one of the key things to remember from the Genesis in the christian religion is: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion” over all creation (Genesis 1:28)"
I mean, it's literally the worst thing to do, from the antinatalist perspective that assigns a negative value to birth.

This said, I want to add that I meant no offense to any people out here who might have kids. May your kids live a life with as little suffering as possible!

 

[Joij21]

life is pointless and only suffering is guaranteed in life

So does that mean antinatalism supports suicide? What's the moral stance to the individual if it's already living? You know, beyond reproduction.

 

[Tiberiu]

So does that mean antinatalism supports suicide? What's the moral stance to the individual if it's already living? You know, beyond reproduction.

No, antinatalism assigns a negative value to birth. As such, people who are already born would not undo the harm that has already been done by birth, and it could potentially serve as to create even more suffering (for the relatives, for the person who botches the attempt, etc).
edit: as they say, "two wrongs don't make a right".

Antinatalism would, on the other hand, lead to extinction of the human race slowly by absence of reproduction. This is seen as a good thing, because there would be no one to experience suffering, agony, misery and horror.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Antinatalism would, on the other hand, lead to extinction of the human race slowly by absence of reproduction. This is seen as a good thing, because there would be no one to experience suffering, agony, misery and horror.

And no one to experience the joy, love and elation of being alive among friends and family.

 

[Tiberiu]

And no one to experience the joy, love and elation of being alive among friends and family.

I really don't want to feel like I am highjacking OP's thread with this subject, relevant as it is to the question that is being discussed, as such maybe a separate thread could be used to discuss antinatalism.

But please allow me to make one last commentary to your last remark "And no one to experience the joy, love and elation of being alive among friends and family.", in the form of a paragraph from Professor Benatar's assymetry argument:

Asymmetry between pain and pleasure
Benatar argues there is crucial asymmetry between the good and the bad things, such as pleasure and pain, which means it would be better for humans not to have been born:

1. The presence of pain is bad.
2. The presence of pleasure is good.
3. The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
4. The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.[7][8]

Scenario A (X exists) Scenario B (X never exists)
(1) Presence of pain (Bad) (3) Absence of pain (Good)
(2) Presence of pleasure (Good) (4) Absence of pleasure (Not bad)
Implications for procreation

Benatar argues that bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.

Benatar raises four other related asymmetries that he considers quite plausible:

1. We have a moral obligation not to create unhappy people and we have no moral obligation to create happy people. The reason why we think there is a moral obligation not to create unhappy people is that the presence of this suffering would be bad (for the sufferers) and the absence of the suffering is good (even though there is nobody to enjoy the absence of suffering). By contrast, the reason we think there is no moral obligation to create happy people is that although their pleasure would be good for them, the absence of pleasure when they do not come into existence will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
2. It is strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide to create them, and it is not strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide not to create them. That the child may be happy is not a morally important reason to create them. By contrast, that the child may be unhappy is an important moral reason not to create them. If it were the case that the absence of pleasure is bad even if someone does not exist to experience its absence, then we would have a significant moral reason to create a child and to create as many children as possible. And if it were not the case that the absence of pain is good even if someone does not exist to experience this good, then we would not have a significant moral reason not to create a child.
3. Someday we can regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we created them – a person can be unhappy and the presence of their pain would be a bad thing. But we will never feel regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we did not create them – a person will not be deprived of happiness, because he or she will never exist, and the absence of happiness will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
4. We feel sadness by the fact that somewhere people come into existence and suffer, and we feel no sadness by the fact that somewhere people did not come into existence in a place where there are happy people. When we know that somewhere people came into existence and suffer, we feel compassion. The fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and suffer is good. This is because the absence of pain is good even when there is not someone who is experiencing this good. On the other hand, we do not feel sadness by the fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and are not happy. This is because the absence of pleasure is bad only when someone exists to be deprived of this good.[9]

 

[warpus]

The only way to remedy problems with pain and suffering would be to get rid of all life from the universe.

But how would you do this? It seems that life is capable of arising from non-life as well. How do you prevent this from happening?

Pain and suffering are inevitable. But so are hugs and love and tacos (and/or other tasty snacks)

Life is here to stay. Instead of complaining about how bad it can get, why not focus on how good it can get and make the most of it?

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Tiberiu People who do suffer pain also can and do experience joy and pleasure. It isn't ether or. I'm guessing you do not have any children but you do have parents. Ask them if they would trade your life for the discomfort you have experienced or even caused them. have you ever been in love and been unable to be with your beloved? That is suffering but few would give it up and lose the exhilaration of being in love.

 

[Lexicus]

That is suffering but few would give it up and lose the exhilaration of being in love.

The few...the proud...the lexis

Seriously tho I have spent a lot of time wishing I was asexual due to unrequited attraction

 

[Sommerswerd]

The few...the proud...the lexis

Seriously tho I have spent a lot of time wishing I was asexual due to unrequited attraction

Never give up... Never Surrender!

 

[Sommerswerd]

The only way to remedy problems with pain and suffering would be to get rid of all life from the universe.

But how would you do this?

Easy... its a snap, really

 

[gozpel]

Cogito, ergo sum: "I think therefore I am" is one of the reasons I started this thread. Descartes was on my way of thinking, why?

I didn't intend this to be a quantum physics challenge, it's way over my head. But free for all it is and you might educate me a bit.

So I am born, I can think, I can make decisions. But as other people said, does that work on plants and wildlife too? I think a dog or cat can think, but not in this obscure area.
If they do in a few hundred years, we might rethink how these creatures work.

But still, animals (including humans) and fauna likes to spread out. Total domination, take over everything.
In the future we might take over other planets, in the very far future we might take over the whole solar system and life will try to move on.
Then we take over the galaxy, "we is life", and then the universe?
But what is the reason for this?

Life is unaware of anything, except of growing and expanding, (not including human or alien thinking here)

What is life reaching for?

Are there a trillion parallel universes and all try to reach each other?

If so, why?

I might sound like an idiot, but I'm really fond of this thread and your insight. I'm not well educated, but I learn as I go.

 

[Lexicus]

Never give up... Never Surrender!

 

[Kyriakos]

Human life is pretty brief, really. But the worst - in my view - is that when you are still a kid you have a different sense of time (at least I did, but possibly everyone), so think that since it took forever to become 10, you have 7 forevers to go, which is pretty long.
But time passes differently, far quicker, after a while.

That said, as I can always read in my diary, it's not even 7 years since I first started work as a seminar lecturer. That too feels like an eternity ago.

 

[thetrooper]

What is the point of life?

Survival through reproduction.

 

[Kyriakos]

The representative of the genes in the world has rebelled.

 

[warpus]

Easy... its a snap, really

You'd think so, but apparently this snap does not affect any plant or mushroom life at all.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Cogito, ergo sum: "I think therefore I am" is one of the reasons I started this thread. Descartes was on my way of thinking, why?

I didn't intend this to be a quantum physics challenge, it's way over my head. But free for all it is and you might educate me a bit.

So I am born, I can think, I can make decisions. But as other people said, does that work on plants and wildlife too? I think a dog or cat can think, but not in this obscure area.
If they do in a few hundred years, we might rethink how these creatures work.

But still, animals (including humans) and fauna likes to spread out. Total domination, take over everything.
In the future we might take over other planets, in the very far future we might take over the whole solar system and life will try to move on.
Then we take over the galaxy, "we is life", and then the universe?
But what is the reason for this?

Life is unaware of anything, except of growing and expanding, (not including human or alien thinking here)

What is life reaching for?

Are there a trillion parallel universes and all try to reach each other?

If so, why?

I might sound like an idiot, but I'm really fond of this thread and your insight. I'm not well educated, but I learn as I go.

We know a few things about life. It is persistent. Once it finds a happy place to be, it spreads and changes. It gets more complex over time. Even after severe setbacks, if a little of it remains, it will recover. It is adaptable to unexpected conditions. Life is built with non living parts and astonishingly capable in how it uses those parts. Humans are just more of the same.

What is life reaching for? is a different kind of question. Humans appear to be the only life forms we know of that ask such questions. That says something about our capabilities. To answer it you have to make a choice on the pathways acceptable for discovering true things.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You'd think so, but apparently this snap does not affect any plant or mushroom life at all.

I think it affects whatever life the person administering the snap wishes it to... Thanos says as much explicitly in the finale, where he expresses an intent to re-administer the snap, but this time to instead "shred this universe down to its last atom" and rebuild it completely from scratch.

 

[Chicken Pizza]

What is life reaching for? is a different kind of question. Humans appear to be the only life forms we know of that ask such questions. That says something about our capabilities. To answer it you have to make a choice on the pathways acceptable for discovering true things.

How do we know that dolphins or flowers don't question life? What behaviour should we looking for (since they can't talk)?

I get Bible vibes from your post, where humans are the only animal with free will and possibility to leave God's straight plan?

The crown of the creation, given this useless freedom that's actually slavery, and then dispersed as sheep by Lucifer, with only one weapon: lies.

Eventually saved by the good sheperd, who said that the truth will set you free (really free) and went off to find the last one of the hundered sheep.

Well, good luck with that