XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
XPost: alt.philosophy.zen
From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com
Dutch wrote:
>
> "halfawake" wrote in message
> news:htso9c$f51$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Rupert" wrote in message
>>> news:9efed576-2e25-43ab-8652-b3a8be37ed8b@y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
>>>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>>>> welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to suggest a
>>>> person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
>>>> than never existing, because the flip side is that the person would be
>>>> "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
>>>> experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>>>>
>>>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence, because
>>>> again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
>>>> still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to want to
>>>> die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
>>> what exactly you achieve by posting this.
>>>
>>> There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
>>> made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
>>> matter what you say.
>>>
>>> Does that not cover everyone?
>>> -->
>>>
>>> No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic
>>> in your argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their
>>> minds. I realize this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it
>>> is worth seeking out. Dare to dream.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So critical thinking consists of hearing what *you* have to say and
>> agreeing with you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're a fucking moron.
>
>
> No, my comments apply to me too, but you haven't offered an argument to
> support your point of view yet, there's not much chance of you
> convincing me to change my mind until you do. So far you have asserted
> that you think existence is better than non-existence and you think lots
> of other people think it too. You have completely ignored sound
> arguments which show that it is impossible to say that, rationally.
This is sort of interesting. I never said that existence is better
than non-existence. You haven't been reading very carefully - maybe
that's why you don't understand my point of view.
> I could say that I am better off than I was when I lived in Siberia, but
> since I never lived in Siberia my statement doesn't mean much. The same
> goes for your statement.
People make judgments like that all the time, except they don't say
"when I lived" which would be a fiction, but "if I lived." And they
imagine what it might be like.
No one can "imagine" non-existence since it would be a nullity, but they
can understand that it would be the absence of all their current
experiences, and they might prefer a state of nothingness over their
existence. And one *can* desire that if they wish, despite your objection.
When people say "I wish I'd never been born," they express a desire to
have "never experienced" all that they have, including their own
experience of being a living being. One *can* wish this, even though
they cannot either perform or fully imagine it.
Robert
= = = = = = = = =
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
