XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
XPost: alt.philosophy.zen
From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
> On 5/30/2010 1:27 PM, halfawake wrote:
>
>> 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 have disputed the assertion that existence is *not* better than
> never existing - not "non existence" - without ever offering a basis for
> your disagreement. If you're disputing the assertion that existence is
> not better than never existing, than you're pretty damned close to
> asserting, implicitly, that it *is* better.
a/ no
b/ "pretty damned close" - a subjective assessment on your part - is the
same thing as "has not" as I did not actually say that. I said it was
possible to make that comparison. I never made it myself, nor implied
that I would. I gave no opinion about whether existence might or might
not be preferable to non-existence, as that is not the subject at hand.
The fact that you want to blur that difference says a lot. All you
care about is your argument, not about what is actually asserted, nor why.
>> You haven't been reading very carefully - maybe that's
>> why you don't understand my point of view.
>
>
> Your point of view is incoherent. You've never given a coherent reason
> for your disagreement.
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> You must exist in order to hold that preference. Once you exist, "never
> existing" is an absurdity. You can try to imagine what life would have
> been like for others had you never existed, but you can't imagine
> anything about "never existing" pertaining to yourself.
>
>
>> And one *can* desire that if they wish, despite your objection.
>
>
> One can desire no longer to exist; one cannot rationally wish never to
> have existed.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Bullshit. What they're expressing is a deep unhappiness with what is
> going on in the moment, or in the very recent past.
That's your interpretation. As I have said, this discussion is
fruitless. You just enjoy barking. Please bark at someone else.
Robert
= = = = = = =
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
