And the age of your children when you are around 42 - 53 explains that one :)
Before you start working you're happy and towards the end of it you start to get happy again...
MrJiveBoJingles
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
I don't think so. If anything, I'm slightly sympathetic to its main theme...
I found myself surprised by this. I would have thought you'd be on the cheery "Go humanity!" end of things.
DigitalPhoenix
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
I'm still not sure I want to have kids because, unlike hippie folks that just want to save the planet, I'm not sure I'd be able to look at a kid in the eye and say I love someone whom I brought to life. Even if I can share the blame with more people, heh.
I'm sorry, let me get this straight - you dont know if you could look at your child in the eye, and absolutely feel love for him/her?
The only explanation to that sentence would be, you DONT have a child, so you cant possibly understand the emotions of how a young father/mother feels for their kid...
am I rite?
Lunar Phase 7
Look at the scale you mop head.
There is at best about half a point in fluctuation. Assuming the scale maximum is 10 and minimum 0 that's 5% difference in happiness throughout your whole life.
Not a great deal.
Also re: your other thread. I genuinely thought your avatar was you.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by DigitalPhoenix
I'm sorry, let me get this straight - you dont know if you could look at your child in the eye, and absolutely feel love for him/her?
No (though that would be a logical consequence), what I said is that I don't feel I could honestly say I wish well and feel happy for someone whose existence I'm partially responsible for. So far, I'd be pretty much in doubt whether I did something cruel out of selfishness (i.e. give someone "the gift of life") or if, statistically speaking, it's a good experience after all.
In this sense, the difference between me and professor Banatar is that whereas he's categorical about the worthlessness of life, I never made my mind (though, all things considered, it still beats the hell out of death).
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I found myself surprised by this. I would have thought you'd be on the cheery "Go humanity!" end of things.
I'm not a humanist because I think humanity is awesome, I'm a humanist because I think life is already too awful an experience, so the least we can do is make it less unpleasant (remember that, in my early twenties, I supported Buddhism quite openly here on TA). Completing a quote from William Sommerset (from Se7en), "Ernest Hemingway once said that 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for', and I agree with the second part" under certain circumstances, because the first part is just utterly delusional and fighting for a better future is more often than not a very tragic idea (the good intentions notwithstanding).
However, like I said, my main goal is to find out how life can be less unpleasant (or more pleasant, if you will), so reading his ideas would be a good way to see the arguments that may be appealing to me but that will probably end up being self-defeating.
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
Okay, so perhaps (to borrow a Sagan-ism), I'm being a little anthropocentric here, but if humans (and animals) don't exist, then what's the point of anything?
Does there even need to be a point to make it worthwhile? Can't we come up with "the point" of our own lives regardless of what the universe might have prepared for us, if there is such a thing?
For all I care, and taking a theist stance for the argument's sake, whatever meaning God assigns to my life is no less arbitrary than anything I come up with myself.
EgosXII
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
'm not a humanist because I think humanity is awesome, I'm a humanist because I think life is already too awful an experience, so the least we can do is make it less unpleasant (remember that, in my early twenties, I supported Buddhism quite openly here on TA). Completing a quote from William Sommerset (from Se7en), "Ernest Hemingway once said that 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for', and I agree with the second part" under certain circumstances, because the first part is just utterly delusional and fighting for a better future is more often than not a very tragic idea (the good intentions notwithstanding).
However, like I said, my main goal is to find out how life can be less unpleasant (or more pleasant, if you will), so reading his ideas would be a good way to see the arguments that may be appealing to me but that will probably end up being self-defeating.
Does there even need to be a point to make it worthwhile? Can't we come up with "the point" of our own lives regardless of what the universe might have prepared for us, if there is such a thing?
You're confusing existentialism with nihilism though, Lira-
I absolutely hate nihilism because you can't make anything worthwhile: Life is and there is no meaning and can never be any meaning
existentialism: We start with no meaning, but make our own: Its extremely positive and good (despite people like sartre raping it)
what you're saying is pretty much just existentialism: We start in a horrible place, with no meaning (existentialism's 5 fears are great, and in line with what you're saying), BUT we have the ability to create and interpret our world... Nihilism stops where we start, suggesting we're incapable of anything
nihilism is a pet hate, as is determinism because they're both completely useless, self-defeating concepts; like domesticated was saying
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
Let me clarify by saying that this woman is very cheerful. She's fat and jolly, like a female santa. She doesn't keep poisons on her nightstand. I think her problem is that she has unrealistic expectations of what actually constitutes happiness. She probably thinks it's like a lifelong orgasm or something.
What concerns me is your pre-existing knowledge of this movement. You just happened to stumble across it one day, huh?
haha this is awesome, I used to think a lot like this, though i've gotten over it a bit these days :)
I'm nearly always in the middle ground, never happy or sad, because what I think those things are are really extreme :haha:
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
You're confusing existentialism with nihilism though, Lira-
I absolutely hate nihilism because you can't make anything worthwhile: Life is and there is no meaning and can never be any meaning
existentialism: We start with no meaning, but make our own: Its extremely positive and good (despite people like sartre raping it)
what you're saying is pretty much just existentialism: We start in a horrible place, with no meaning (existentialism's 5 fears are great, and in line with what you're saying), BUT we have the ability to create and interpret our world... Nihilism stops where we start, suggesting we're incapable of anything
nihilism is a pet hate, as is determinism because they're both completely useless, self-defeating concepts; like domesticated was saying
Wait, why are you saying I'm confusing the two? Indeed, I can't say I've been immune to existentialism (or its critics), and it's influenced me considerably... however, I still don't think we should wipe humanity out (unlike this guy), though I can see why he'd come to such conclusion.
And that's why I want to read this book - has he not seen something we overlooked?
Edit: And my sourness peaks during the holidays, I can't help it :D
ModernNosferatu
A Humans three ways to live according to Absurdism.
1. Suicide (or, "escaping existence"): a solution in which a person simply ends one's own life. Both Kierkegaard and Camus dismiss the viability of this option. Camus states that it does not counter the Absurd, but only becomes more absurd, to end one's own existence.
2. Religious, spiritual, or abstract belief in a transcendent realm, being, or idea: a solution in which one believes in the existence of a reality that is beyond the Absurd, and, as such, has meaning. Kierkegaard stated that a belief in anything beyond the Absurd requires a non-rational but perhaps necessary religious acceptance in such an intangible and empirically unprovable thing (now commonly referred to as a "leap of faith"). However, Camus regarded this solution, and others, as "philosophical suicide".
3. Acceptance of the Absurd: a solution in which one accepts the Absurd and continues to live in spite of it. Camus endorsed this solution, believing that by accepting the Absurd, one can achieve absolute freedom, and that by recognizing no religious or other moral constraints and by revolting against the Absurd while simultaneously accepting it as unstoppable, one could possibly be content from the personal meaning constructed in the process. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, regarded this solution as "demoniac madness": "He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him!"
Similar to Buddhism, Krishna Consciousness states life is about ups and downs in this material world, it is as if our heads are being pushed down in a river unable to breathe and thus suffering but before we drown we are pulled up for a few short breathes only to be pushed back into the river of suffering again, but in these short breathes that are in fact suffering as well is similar to the enjoyment we feel in the material world.
No surprises with this trend of happiness, IMO. It's called 'having to work' :p
Lira
:stongue:
Good call :D
quote:
Originally posted by ModernNosferatu
Humans three ways to live according to Absurdism.
Actually, I posted an article a couple of posts back completely refuting the idea of "The Absurd", and I find Nagel's arguments quite compelling, so I don't think I'm exactly worried about anything absurd other than this:
Big bird spreads the word: "Anybody with a heart votes love!"
Sushipunk
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
:stongue:
Good call :D
There are other factors, of course. Let's examine the graph:
From 18+ most people (western, anyway) have left the nest. is no longer provided for them, they've got to sort things out for themselves. This, coupled with either stupid amounts of study or stupid amounts of (perhaps) non-specific work, kind of sucks.
At 26, things are looking up a bit. The study/work has paid off, and lots of people now have a stable partner. Perhaps even a wedding thrown in for good measure. Life is good.
Oh, but then the inevitable happens. Around 34 is when many people either a) have kids, or b) buy a house. Or both. Suddenly, all of your spare time and spare cash have been taken up. As the next couple of decades pass, the kids get needier and needier, and are less and less rewarding (because most teenagers are little pricks, let's face it).
At around 50 though, the kids off to university, or they're sick of living with their lame parents, and go out and get a job. Happiness again! , around this time, the house might even be paid off, so you have some cash again! Basically, it's party time, until you die :gsmile:
