Posted: Jul 27, 2016 3:06 am
by THWOTH
jamest wrote:The view that you're better off not being born is inspired by negative emotions which honour the materialistic philosophy of nihilism. Antinatalism cannot be deemed a rational view because reason is - or, should be - devoid of allegiance to the emotions. Indeed, the view betrays itself because of its association with nihilism, since if life is meaningless then so too are one's negative emotions which may honour that view.

Antinatalism makes no sense. A reaction consistent with the adoption of nihilism as a philosophy should be to rid oneself of one's emotions, certainly the negative ones [first].

The concern of antinatalists is suffering, to wit; the suffering of the unborn and/or unconceived (once conceived and born). Why decry concerns about suffering as mere emotionalism? If antinatalism is bound to a 'negative' emotional response why should we seek to expunge emotion and not just self-inculcate a rebalancing 'positive' emotional response or attitude to suffering; to render suffering a virtue as it were? No, I feel that's a little simplistic, or at least a little too comforting and tidy typification of antinatalism and antinatalists.

One of the main failures of antinatalism is that the possibility of suffering in those yet to be born seems to automatically outweigh the possibility of suffering's antipole, pleasure, once born - essentially, that an ounce of possible suffering is worth more than a ton of actual pleasure. Another main failure is that it aims to relieve suffering in those without existence: nominal non-existent entities without any substrate or capacity for experience of any sort. There's no meaning to be found in the non-existence of the non-extant, no insights to be gleaned, no understandings to be arrived at. No state can be ascribed to that which does not exist, beyond the nominal state of 'not existing' that is.

Basically, turtles all the way down stuff.