Monday, May 12, 2008
David Benatar's 'Better Never to Have Been'...Chapter 4
Scattered on chance's wind are we,
as from creation's spreading tree
we fall, like children of an indifferent god
too busy keeping ledgers to note
the directions in which we fly,
or where, at last, we land.
We dance in tiny whirlwinds, and are lifted
up again; some dull, few gifted,
but none soar high enough to escape the lure
of the ever-siren's call:
a song of earth for feet of clay,
on which we make our stands.
Thus, we await our ends in careworn years,
behind the veils that mask our fears
of abandonment, as memory serves too well.
We wonder from whence comes our sustenance
at the final nod, when soil is turned,
and life cuts the last strand.
Chapter 4, ‘Having Children: The Anti-Natal View, begins with a wonderful quote from Flaubert...
“The idea of bringing someone into this world fills me with horror...May my flesh perish utterly! May I never transmit to anyone the boredom and ignominies of existence!”
Well, his feelings certainly come across clearly, don’t they? Hehehe! Anyhow, chapter 4 is largely a study of the pros and cons of procreation, and speaks to the ethical questions. What are our duties, and from what pre-suppostional frameworks are these duties derived? What are our rights, and where are these rights grounded? Personal autonomy? Entitlements from certain powers-that-be? Reasonable disagreement with the conclusion that life is ultimately harmful? Argumentation. Justification. Dissent. The intricacies involved preclude any succinct summing up on my part, I’m afraid (BUY THE BOOK), but I’d like to take a whack at the last little section of the chapter, which sports this header...
TREATING FUTURE PEOPLE AS MERE MEANS
Here, the author cites the hypothetical case of the parents of a child with leukemia, having a second child in order to provide a bone marrow transplant to the first child. Certainly a tough call (I’m thinking an ESPECIALLY tough call for a parent who’s become an antinatalist after the birth of the first child!). He then goes on to talk a little bit about cloning, and the ramifications implied (and who hasn’t seen one of those bad sci-fi movies, i.e. ‘The Clonus Horror’ or ‘The Island’, which was actually a clone of ‘The Clonus Horror’...I’m an MST3K dweeb, and know this stuff). But there’s one particular section I’d like to zone in on, and discuss. I quote...
“Clones and those children who are produced to save the life of a sibling are not brought into existence for their own sakes. This, however, is no different from any children. Children are brought into existence not in acts of great altruism, designed to bring the benefit of life to some pitiful non-being suspended in the metaphysical void and thereby denied the joys of life. In so far as children are ever brought into existence for anybody’s sake it is never for their own sake.”
NEVER for their OWN SAKE! In a perfect world, this would be tatooed across the foreheads of every person who ever called a non-breeder ‘selfish’. For procreation is THE most selfish act ever accomplished in a person’s lifetime. Children are brought into existence to be UTILIZED, in one way or another. Children as cuddly dollies. Children as signs of virility. Children as glue for bad marriages. Children as farm tools. Children as future income earners. Children as future caregivers. Children as offerings to the grandparents. Children as taxpayers. Children as soldiers. Children as a means to acheiving social and/or political power and/or prestige. Children as icons for sundry vicarious attainments. Children for proxy immortality. Children as offerings to God (sacrificial lambs ring a bell?). And the fact that we sincerely love them along the way doesn’t speak squat to the primal, selfish act of bringing them into an existence that will hurt them in many, many ways...and eventually kill them.
“You may look upon life as an unprofitable episode, disturbing the blessed calm of non-existence.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
If having a child as a means to an end seems wrong to the reader, try to realize that procreation is ALWAYS a means to an end, even if that end is to purchase the good feelings of being a parent. And of course, there are usually other, egoistic motives involved...otherwise, why not simply adopt? Remember, every new child brought into existence is ultimately a vessel for suffering, and for death. Always. Your children will suffer, and die. So will mine. Nobody gets left out. Well, except for those who never get ‘brought in’ in the first place. Get it?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
David Benatar's "Better Never to Have Been'...Chapter 3
Pain and sorrow, toil and trouble;
perturbations on the skin of a big bang bubble
that came out of nowhere, and is headed towards same-
we've no place to turn to, and no one to blame.
So, just how bad is coming into existence? Very bad, according to David Benatar. Then why is it that most people, when asked, tend to assess their own lives as good...to VERY good? The answer, says Mr. Benatar, is that there are various psychological mechanisms running in the background of our awareness which serve to mitigate, and even distort, our valuations of the world, as well as the true estimation of our own happiness. He categorizes these self-deceptive phenomena as...
1. The Pollyanna Priniciple- whereby we tend to use selective recall and projection to overestimate, or exaggerate, the postive aspects of a given situation, while downplaying or ignoring the negative.
2. Adaptation, accomodation, or habituation- where we change the dimensions of our hopes and expectations, as well as the actual interpretations of our subjective experience, in order to conform to changing, and often diminished, circumstances.
3. Comparison- instead of judging the quality of our lives against any kind of objective, idealized scale, we resort to measuring ourselves relative to other peoples’ happiness, or misery (as we perceive them).
He then goes on to outline three views about the quality of life...
1. Hedonistic theories- life judged according to positive or negative mental states.
2. Desire fulfilment theories- life judged according to the extent to which desires are fulfilled.
3. Objective list theories- life quality judged in relation to an ‘objective list’ of good and bads.
Obviously, there is some overlapping here...human conciousness is a pretty sophisitcated matrix, against which this rather stark outline seems awfully simplistic. However, the author does his best within the constraints of a chapter section, and establishes his case commendably, all things considered (BUY THE BOOK). His conclusion, of course, is that by whatever set or sub-set of theories we ultimately choose to gauge the quality of existence, life comes up short. The human species is running a race on a treadmill, knows it’s doing so, and so invents an illusory world of attainments to belie the fact. Thus the great and varied ‘life lies’, of which religion is probably THE prime example, as well as all the daily lies we tell ourselves and our children in order to cope (I just noticed how close ‘cope’ and ‘hope’ are...funny).
A WORLD OF SUFFERING
THIS is the part of the book I’ve been waiting for! For while the author’s arguments thus far have been excrutiatingly detailed, as well as acutely cogent, I’m afraid the flavor of his message has been a wee bit too sophisticated for the palates of his critics, if I’m reading them correctly. And so, dear readers... the LIST!
NATURAL DISASTERS
FAMINE
DISEASE
MURDER
TORTURE
ACCIDENTS
WARFARE
RAPE
ASSAULT
GENITAL MUTILATION
ENSLAVEMENT
INCARCERATION
SHUNNING
BETRAYAL
HUMILIATION
INTIMIDATION
This list, with all the sub-categories it implies, MUST give even the brightest optimist pause to reconsider, before he allows that most misleading of all axioms, “life is good”, to fall off his tongue, and into the metaphorical (and literal) blood that all of God’s green earth is saturated with. Life is a killing and eating machine, folks, and Mr. Benatar takes up a few pages in rubbing our noses into this almost universally pooh-poohed fact. All of us will suffer at the hands of at least SOME of the items on this list, either directly or vicariously. And then, of course, each and every one of us will die, inflicting even more suffering on the ones we leave behind. Seeing that THIS is the reality that we choose to bring our children into, is it any wonder the author ends this chapter by pointing out that we “...play Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun- aimed, of course, not at our(sic) own heads, but at those of our(sic) future offspring.”?
One other thing I failed to mention, that the author briefly touches upon, is the subject of suicide. It is estimated that around a million people take their own lives every year, with perhaps twenty to thirty times as many failing in the attempt, for various reasons. Recognizing the many psychological barriers against killing one’s self (fear of pain, fear of failure, shame to one’s self and to loved ones, familial duty, societal duty, etc.), it must be acknowledged that, at least for some, life is a horror beyond the capacity to cope. Of course, the knee-jerk response is to label these unfortunates as ‘mentally ill’, but I’m wondering...is there a context in which suicide can be seen simply as a failure to adopt the ‘life lie’ of the prevailing culture? I also question the capacity of people to be truly happy in the midst of universal (not to mention animal) suffering, without the dulling of the empathetic sensibility required to ‘shut out’ the unattractive elements of existence. If this is the case, and taken to its logical extreme, it might just be that the egotistic sociopath is the happiest of us all. Just a thought.
perturbations on the skin of a big bang bubble
that came out of nowhere, and is headed towards same-
we've no place to turn to, and no one to blame.
So, just how bad is coming into existence? Very bad, according to David Benatar. Then why is it that most people, when asked, tend to assess their own lives as good...to VERY good? The answer, says Mr. Benatar, is that there are various psychological mechanisms running in the background of our awareness which serve to mitigate, and even distort, our valuations of the world, as well as the true estimation of our own happiness. He categorizes these self-deceptive phenomena as...
1. The Pollyanna Priniciple- whereby we tend to use selective recall and projection to overestimate, or exaggerate, the postive aspects of a given situation, while downplaying or ignoring the negative.
2. Adaptation, accomodation, or habituation- where we change the dimensions of our hopes and expectations, as well as the actual interpretations of our subjective experience, in order to conform to changing, and often diminished, circumstances.
3. Comparison- instead of judging the quality of our lives against any kind of objective, idealized scale, we resort to measuring ourselves relative to other peoples’ happiness, or misery (as we perceive them).
He then goes on to outline three views about the quality of life...
1. Hedonistic theories- life judged according to positive or negative mental states.
2. Desire fulfilment theories- life judged according to the extent to which desires are fulfilled.
3. Objective list theories- life quality judged in relation to an ‘objective list’ of good and bads.
Obviously, there is some overlapping here...human conciousness is a pretty sophisitcated matrix, against which this rather stark outline seems awfully simplistic. However, the author does his best within the constraints of a chapter section, and establishes his case commendably, all things considered (BUY THE BOOK). His conclusion, of course, is that by whatever set or sub-set of theories we ultimately choose to gauge the quality of existence, life comes up short. The human species is running a race on a treadmill, knows it’s doing so, and so invents an illusory world of attainments to belie the fact. Thus the great and varied ‘life lies’, of which religion is probably THE prime example, as well as all the daily lies we tell ourselves and our children in order to cope (I just noticed how close ‘cope’ and ‘hope’ are...funny).
A WORLD OF SUFFERING
THIS is the part of the book I’ve been waiting for! For while the author’s arguments thus far have been excrutiatingly detailed, as well as acutely cogent, I’m afraid the flavor of his message has been a wee bit too sophisticated for the palates of his critics, if I’m reading them correctly. And so, dear readers... the LIST!
NATURAL DISASTERS
FAMINE
DISEASE
MURDER
TORTURE
ACCIDENTS
WARFARE
RAPE
ASSAULT
GENITAL MUTILATION
ENSLAVEMENT
INCARCERATION
SHUNNING
BETRAYAL
HUMILIATION
INTIMIDATION
This list, with all the sub-categories it implies, MUST give even the brightest optimist pause to reconsider, before he allows that most misleading of all axioms, “life is good”, to fall off his tongue, and into the metaphorical (and literal) blood that all of God’s green earth is saturated with. Life is a killing and eating machine, folks, and Mr. Benatar takes up a few pages in rubbing our noses into this almost universally pooh-poohed fact. All of us will suffer at the hands of at least SOME of the items on this list, either directly or vicariously. And then, of course, each and every one of us will die, inflicting even more suffering on the ones we leave behind. Seeing that THIS is the reality that we choose to bring our children into, is it any wonder the author ends this chapter by pointing out that we “...play Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun- aimed, of course, not at our(sic) own heads, but at those of our(sic) future offspring.”?
One other thing I failed to mention, that the author briefly touches upon, is the subject of suicide. It is estimated that around a million people take their own lives every year, with perhaps twenty to thirty times as many failing in the attempt, for various reasons. Recognizing the many psychological barriers against killing one’s self (fear of pain, fear of failure, shame to one’s self and to loved ones, familial duty, societal duty, etc.), it must be acknowledged that, at least for some, life is a horror beyond the capacity to cope. Of course, the knee-jerk response is to label these unfortunates as ‘mentally ill’, but I’m wondering...is there a context in which suicide can be seen simply as a failure to adopt the ‘life lie’ of the prevailing culture? I also question the capacity of people to be truly happy in the midst of universal (not to mention animal) suffering, without the dulling of the empathetic sensibility required to ‘shut out’ the unattractive elements of existence. If this is the case, and taken to its logical extreme, it might just be that the egotistic sociopath is the happiest of us all. Just a thought.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
David Benatar's 'Better Never to Have Been'...Chapter 2
To my readers:
David Benatar’s book, ‘Better Never to Have Been’, is an exhaustive treatise, and I have no intention of taking the scalpel to every philosophical fine-point, lest this review become longer than the book itself (tempting as the thought is!). My intention is to give you a little taste of the cream, and leave you to procure your own pudding. In other words: BUY THE BOOK (get used to seeing this little dictum). Preamble done...on with the review...
The scales are tuned, the portions weighed;
no order found, nor balance struck.
The jury finds we’re out of luck-
by sheer measure, all are betrayed!
To ease us into his argument that existence is always a harm, Mr. Benatar opens with the question, ‘is coming into existence EVER a harm?’ In other words, is there ever an agglomeration of disadvantageous life conditions under which it can be reasonably said “it would have been better if such-and-such a life had never begun?” Concrete examples are cited to flesh out this question. He then goes on to address the ‘non-identity problem’, whose proponents would assert renders the question meaningless, since comparing an existent entity to a fictitious, non-existent entity is invalid. This premise is refuted through some rather nifty argumentation (BUY THE BOOK). He then goes on to outline the differences between ‘starting lives’ as opposed to ‘continuing lives’; which, on the surface, might seem unnecessary, but it’s been my experience that a lot of folks often seem to get these ideas mixed up, i.e. “If you’re against bringing life into existence, why don’t you just kill yourself?”
THE ASYMMETRIES...
On to the meat of the chapter, and about the only idea that most of the critic’s I’ve read actually address (one is forced to wonder if they got much beyond chapter 2). The fundamental asymmetry is thusly stated:
1. The presence of pain is bad.
2. The presence of pleasure is good.
vs.
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.
From this basic asymmetry flow several sub-asymmetries, as well as many pages of charts divided into quadrants, with much accompanying analysis (BUY THE BOOK). Refutations and alternate analyses are also addressed. Being a formally philosophical approach, parts of the argument might feel a bit redundant to the average reader, not less so because Mr. Benatar takes pains to consider and address the possible disagreements with his position. A necessity, to be sure, but he lays himself open to critics who might prefer to interpret diligence as convolution; or, at best, emotionally unpersuasive. However, keep in mind that this is just groundwork being laid...it’s only chapter 2, after all!
In my opinion, the real weight of the fundamental asymmetry lies in the term ‘deprivation’. From the moment life begins, we are deprived in one form or another; continuing, to one degree or another, throughout a lifetime, until the very moment of death. This fact cannot reasonably be denied; and, in fact, most of the human condition resides in the temporary patching of holes in this ubiquitous continuum of deprivation- whether it be in the constant devouring of food to temporarily satiate hunger, in the seeking of transient ‘highs’ to escape ever-encroaching tedium, or sadness, or despair, or in the grasping at tangibles as substitutes for emotional fulfillment (everybody knows the feeling of ‘buyer’s remorse’). The list goes on. Of course, in answer to this accusation against existence, one might simply posit the question, “Oh well, that’s life...what did you expect?” However, this is just a re-stating of the problem, as if offhand rhetoricizing somehow does away with the issue.
On the other hand, someone who never exists is NEVER deprived. Want me to prove it? Close your eyes, and conjure up an imaginary friend. Give him/her the physical attributes of your own choosing, as well as the emotional makeup you’d prefer. Really try and flesh him/her out to your heart’s content...make him/her as real as you possibly can. I’ll wait...
Now, open your eyes (of course, this is a bit of rhetoric on MY part...I didn’t REALLY want you to close your eyes, but you get my point). Stop thinking about your imaginary friend, and instead continue reading this. Is he/she gone?
Ok, now tell me...has your imaginary friend been deprived in any way, in any real sense at all? Of course not! And there’s my point...a non-existent person can only be deprived as much as your imaginary friend was, i.e. not at all. Perhaps YOU’VE been deprived, if you somehow became emotionally attached to your imaginary friend; but then, that’s just another case of the difference between the already existent, who live in a constant state of deprivation, and the non-existent, who by definition can never be deprived at all. No pain. No hunger. No fear. No death. And also, no missing out on the good stuff, such as it is, by the very fact that there’s nobody around to miss it. Contrary to the old adage, life is NOT a gift, since there is no one before the creation of a particular life to receive that particular gift. In reality, life is the bringing into existence a vessel of deprivation, a vessel that will eventually be shattered against the cold, hard wall of temporality...back to where it came from. Ashes to ashes, etc. Mr. Benatar’s question is...why start the process in the first place? That is also my question.
David Benatar’s book, ‘Better Never to Have Been’, is an exhaustive treatise, and I have no intention of taking the scalpel to every philosophical fine-point, lest this review become longer than the book itself (tempting as the thought is!). My intention is to give you a little taste of the cream, and leave you to procure your own pudding. In other words: BUY THE BOOK (get used to seeing this little dictum). Preamble done...on with the review...
The scales are tuned, the portions weighed;
no order found, nor balance struck.
The jury finds we’re out of luck-
by sheer measure, all are betrayed!
To ease us into his argument that existence is always a harm, Mr. Benatar opens with the question, ‘is coming into existence EVER a harm?’ In other words, is there ever an agglomeration of disadvantageous life conditions under which it can be reasonably said “it would have been better if such-and-such a life had never begun?” Concrete examples are cited to flesh out this question. He then goes on to address the ‘non-identity problem’, whose proponents would assert renders the question meaningless, since comparing an existent entity to a fictitious, non-existent entity is invalid. This premise is refuted through some rather nifty argumentation (BUY THE BOOK). He then goes on to outline the differences between ‘starting lives’ as opposed to ‘continuing lives’; which, on the surface, might seem unnecessary, but it’s been my experience that a lot of folks often seem to get these ideas mixed up, i.e. “If you’re against bringing life into existence, why don’t you just kill yourself?”
THE ASYMMETRIES...
On to the meat of the chapter, and about the only idea that most of the critic’s I’ve read actually address (one is forced to wonder if they got much beyond chapter 2). The fundamental asymmetry is thusly stated:
1. The presence of pain is bad.
2. The presence of pleasure is good.
vs.
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.
From this basic asymmetry flow several sub-asymmetries, as well as many pages of charts divided into quadrants, with much accompanying analysis (BUY THE BOOK). Refutations and alternate analyses are also addressed. Being a formally philosophical approach, parts of the argument might feel a bit redundant to the average reader, not less so because Mr. Benatar takes pains to consider and address the possible disagreements with his position. A necessity, to be sure, but he lays himself open to critics who might prefer to interpret diligence as convolution; or, at best, emotionally unpersuasive. However, keep in mind that this is just groundwork being laid...it’s only chapter 2, after all!
In my opinion, the real weight of the fundamental asymmetry lies in the term ‘deprivation’. From the moment life begins, we are deprived in one form or another; continuing, to one degree or another, throughout a lifetime, until the very moment of death. This fact cannot reasonably be denied; and, in fact, most of the human condition resides in the temporary patching of holes in this ubiquitous continuum of deprivation- whether it be in the constant devouring of food to temporarily satiate hunger, in the seeking of transient ‘highs’ to escape ever-encroaching tedium, or sadness, or despair, or in the grasping at tangibles as substitutes for emotional fulfillment (everybody knows the feeling of ‘buyer’s remorse’). The list goes on. Of course, in answer to this accusation against existence, one might simply posit the question, “Oh well, that’s life...what did you expect?” However, this is just a re-stating of the problem, as if offhand rhetoricizing somehow does away with the issue.
On the other hand, someone who never exists is NEVER deprived. Want me to prove it? Close your eyes, and conjure up an imaginary friend. Give him/her the physical attributes of your own choosing, as well as the emotional makeup you’d prefer. Really try and flesh him/her out to your heart’s content...make him/her as real as you possibly can. I’ll wait...
Now, open your eyes (of course, this is a bit of rhetoric on MY part...I didn’t REALLY want you to close your eyes, but you get my point). Stop thinking about your imaginary friend, and instead continue reading this. Is he/she gone?
Ok, now tell me...has your imaginary friend been deprived in any way, in any real sense at all? Of course not! And there’s my point...a non-existent person can only be deprived as much as your imaginary friend was, i.e. not at all. Perhaps YOU’VE been deprived, if you somehow became emotionally attached to your imaginary friend; but then, that’s just another case of the difference between the already existent, who live in a constant state of deprivation, and the non-existent, who by definition can never be deprived at all. No pain. No hunger. No fear. No death. And also, no missing out on the good stuff, such as it is, by the very fact that there’s nobody around to miss it. Contrary to the old adage, life is NOT a gift, since there is no one before the creation of a particular life to receive that particular gift. In reality, life is the bringing into existence a vessel of deprivation, a vessel that will eventually be shattered against the cold, hard wall of temporality...back to where it came from. Ashes to ashes, etc. Mr. Benatar’s question is...why start the process in the first place? That is also my question.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Potentiality vs. Actuality
I posted this over at the Lawnchair Philosopher, but the way it ended up going, I thought it would be appropriate in this forum, as well.
I woke up this morning with this gnawing at me, so here goes...
A while back, I posted this... http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-blindspot.html ... on my antinatalism blog. Included is a quote by Richard Dawkins, which includes the following section...
"The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here."
Now, I'm no statistician, so maybe somebody could enlighten me, but couldn't the same point be made about every grain of sand in Arabia? Or, for that matter, for each and every atom in the entire universe? Looked at in this way, doesn't Mr. Dawkin's argument make every single sub-atomic occurrence happening in a particular time and place seem incredibly unlikely, and thus, unbelievably remarkable? This 'stupefying odds' invocation smacks of mathematical hucksterism to me, being an attempt to breathe a sense of awe into an otherwise quite unremarkable fact: namely, that existence is exactly what it is, and that potentiality (when used as above) is nothing more than the lubrication required for a good mind fuck. Not much different than the sort of analysis creationists use to calculate God into existence, in my view. Same spirit behind the attempt as well, i.e. worship.
In Mr. Dawkin's case, of course, it's life worship instead of god worship, with many of the elements of argumentation being eerily similar-Play with numbers to make the utterly commonplace seem extraordinarily unique. Ignore or downplay the negative or questionable aspects of your 'deity'. Subtly displace hard reasoning with emotional biases...'God is good; feel Him within!' Or, 'Life is good; feel the gentle rain on your face.'
Of course, I might be countered by the argument that this particular confluence of forces which created this world, this life, and these immensely complicated human brains could reasonably be understood as being an especially unique occurrence. I'd concur, but with one overarching caveat, that being a big, fat 'so what?' Ever since the orginal broken symmetries of the primordial universe (if it can be said that there was EVER an utterly homogenous state...not sure about that one), existence has tended to 'clump' ; sometimes in interesting ways, of which we are one (does it strike anyone else that finding ourselves the most interesting structures in the universe is a bit...narcissistic?). Still not a reason to wax overly optimistic...overall, life is an ugly mess, and everything alive suffers and dies.
That's all, folks!
I woke up this morning with this gnawing at me, so here goes...
A while back, I posted this... http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-blindspot.html ... on my antinatalism blog. Included is a quote by Richard Dawkins, which includes the following section...
"The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here."
Now, I'm no statistician, so maybe somebody could enlighten me, but couldn't the same point be made about every grain of sand in Arabia? Or, for that matter, for each and every atom in the entire universe? Looked at in this way, doesn't Mr. Dawkin's argument make every single sub-atomic occurrence happening in a particular time and place seem incredibly unlikely, and thus, unbelievably remarkable? This 'stupefying odds' invocation smacks of mathematical hucksterism to me, being an attempt to breathe a sense of awe into an otherwise quite unremarkable fact: namely, that existence is exactly what it is, and that potentiality (when used as above) is nothing more than the lubrication required for a good mind fuck. Not much different than the sort of analysis creationists use to calculate God into existence, in my view. Same spirit behind the attempt as well, i.e. worship.
In Mr. Dawkin's case, of course, it's life worship instead of god worship, with many of the elements of argumentation being eerily similar-Play with numbers to make the utterly commonplace seem extraordinarily unique. Ignore or downplay the negative or questionable aspects of your 'deity'. Subtly displace hard reasoning with emotional biases...'God is good; feel Him within!' Or, 'Life is good; feel the gentle rain on your face.'
Of course, I might be countered by the argument that this particular confluence of forces which created this world, this life, and these immensely complicated human brains could reasonably be understood as being an especially unique occurrence. I'd concur, but with one overarching caveat, that being a big, fat 'so what?' Ever since the orginal broken symmetries of the primordial universe (if it can be said that there was EVER an utterly homogenous state...not sure about that one), existence has tended to 'clump' ; sometimes in interesting ways, of which we are one (does it strike anyone else that finding ourselves the most interesting structures in the universe is a bit...narcissistic?). Still not a reason to wax overly optimistic...overall, life is an ugly mess, and everything alive suffers and dies.
That's all, folks!
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Better Never to Have Been- David Benatar
FINALLY! I've got the book in my grubby little hands, and I'm of a mind to discuss it here, on this very blog! I think I'll do a chapter by chapter thing; if nothing else, it'll keep me from zipping through it and perhaps missing some salient points, as is my wont.
So, I've read the introduction, and as that really doesn't seem to be much more than a chapter outline, I think I'll skip over it, except to say this:
A week or so ago, Chip Smith of the Hoover Hog and myself were part of an extended blog-chat concerning antinatalism. At some point midway in the discussion, we were rather obliquely accused of somehow working in concert in a 'collusion to convert'... so to speak. Our conversation, we were told, seemed 'tinned' (Britspeak for 'canned'?); and at one point we were censured, much to my amused bemusement, for being 'overly polite' *chuckle*.
Two things I noticed in Benatar's intro; the first being that his approach to the subject seems not so very different from my own (overlooking the vast chasm in scholarship between us, of course). Even our phraseology seemed to almost suspiciously coincide at times; for example, he uses the expression 'cannon fodder' to describe children being bred for the primary purposes of the breeders' vested interests, or for the larger interests of a culture or society (see my essay here http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/bad-news_31.html , 4th paragraph down).
Of course, and as Chip attempted to explain over at http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/bad-news_31.html , and I quote, "If our arguments sound similar, it’s because our reasoning proceeds after similar premises. There aren’t many of us antinatalists around, so it should be no surprise that we make similar noises." And as antinatalism is a somewhat narrowly defined issue, i.e. STOP BREEDING!, I think all us antinatalists might be forgiven if we tend to overlap from time to time. 'Nuff said about that.
As for my second point-Now, admittedly it may be too soon to justify my suspicions; however, so far Mr. Benatar's writing style seems just a bit too conveniently...dare I say it?...polite! Is there conspiracy in the works? To find THAT out, you'll just have to tune back in to this ongoing review, dear reader. Time will tell...
So, I've read the introduction, and as that really doesn't seem to be much more than a chapter outline, I think I'll skip over it, except to say this:
A week or so ago, Chip Smith of the Hoover Hog and myself were part of an extended blog-chat concerning antinatalism. At some point midway in the discussion, we were rather obliquely accused of somehow working in concert in a 'collusion to convert'... so to speak. Our conversation, we were told, seemed 'tinned' (Britspeak for 'canned'?); and at one point we were censured, much to my amused bemusement, for being 'overly polite' *chuckle*.
Two things I noticed in Benatar's intro; the first being that his approach to the subject seems not so very different from my own (overlooking the vast chasm in scholarship between us, of course). Even our phraseology seemed to almost suspiciously coincide at times; for example, he uses the expression 'cannon fodder' to describe children being bred for the primary purposes of the breeders' vested interests, or for the larger interests of a culture or society (see my essay here http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/bad-news_31.html , 4th paragraph down).
Of course, and as Chip attempted to explain over at http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/bad-news_31.html , and I quote, "If our arguments sound similar, it’s because our reasoning proceeds after similar premises. There aren’t many of us antinatalists around, so it should be no surprise that we make similar noises." And as antinatalism is a somewhat narrowly defined issue, i.e. STOP BREEDING!, I think all us antinatalists might be forgiven if we tend to overlap from time to time. 'Nuff said about that.
As for my second point-Now, admittedly it may be too soon to justify my suspicions; however, so far Mr. Benatar's writing style seems just a bit too conveniently...dare I say it?...polite! Is there conspiracy in the works? To find THAT out, you'll just have to tune back in to this ongoing review, dear reader. Time will tell...
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Dialogue With a Bear
I've been having a mostly cordial discussion over at http://sleepyoldbear.com , and wanted to post this recent comment of mine to this blog; so, here goes...
Unfortunately, when we procreate, we aren’t the ones taking the risks. Our children will be the ones to bear the new generation’s fill of pain through disease, starvation, mental illness, murder, war, the sundry accidents that maim and kill, etc. etc. Of course, since I’m an atheist, and don’t believe in an afterlife, it’s all for nought, since we wind up in the same place we started from i.e. non-existence, though our friends and loved ones will add our loss to their own personal lists of suffering.
But for those who believe in an afterlife, the stakes are even greater, and the situation more dire. According to the bible, most of us will enter a metaphysical torture chamber the likes of which makes this earthly existence seem like a heaven in comparison, with absolutely no hope of escape, forever and ever, amen. If your religious beliefs are of an eastern fare, we’ll all enter the circle of re-incarnation, experiencing lives of pain and loss over and over again.
Imagine you’re standing in front of a panel with a red button in the center of it. You are told that, if you push the button, there’s a five percent chance that someone’s child will be taken and tortured for the rest of its life. And the kicker is that you’re not forced to push the button; you can simply walk away, refusing to play the game. No harm done. Would any sane person push the button?
Now consider Jesus’ words:
Matthew 7:13. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat
:14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
Let’s be generous and say that, oh, 25% of humanity passes the test. That leaves 75% of the earth’s population destined for eternal damnation. That’s more than 4.5 billion souls headed for hellfire, with another 3/4 of a billion on their way, for every billion new people added. Now, if the raw numbers don’t give you at least some pause, consider that a few of those just might wind up being people you care about. Perhaps your children, or grandchildren. Of course, you can niggle over the percentages if you like, but my point won’t change one bit. Just pick the child you love the most, and imagine that they’ve gotten their theology wrong, and are destined for a date with eternal torment. Can you honestly say that it wouldn’t have been better if they had never been born?
Here’s what Jesus had to say:
“The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”
Of course, Judas Iscariot is being referred to here, but doesn’t the same apply to anybody who happens to miss the Heavenland Express? As a Christian, your position is much more horrible than mine, because you are forced to affirm a system in which the preponderance of eternal human souls will experience unimaginable sufferings…forever! Being an ex-Christian myself, I understand the mental hoops one has to jump through in order to justify; nay, praise such a state of affairs. But I don’t appreciate them…they force one to turn a blind eye to many fundamental realities about existence.
Is this the ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ you speak of that gives life value? If so, I think your premises deserve a little more examination. Whether metaphysical or secular, the price of admission to this ride is just too steep. It’s all about the risks, Bear, and the insult to human sensibilities in taking them.
Unfortunately, when we procreate, we aren’t the ones taking the risks. Our children will be the ones to bear the new generation’s fill of pain through disease, starvation, mental illness, murder, war, the sundry accidents that maim and kill, etc. etc. Of course, since I’m an atheist, and don’t believe in an afterlife, it’s all for nought, since we wind up in the same place we started from i.e. non-existence, though our friends and loved ones will add our loss to their own personal lists of suffering.
But for those who believe in an afterlife, the stakes are even greater, and the situation more dire. According to the bible, most of us will enter a metaphysical torture chamber the likes of which makes this earthly existence seem like a heaven in comparison, with absolutely no hope of escape, forever and ever, amen. If your religious beliefs are of an eastern fare, we’ll all enter the circle of re-incarnation, experiencing lives of pain and loss over and over again.
Imagine you’re standing in front of a panel with a red button in the center of it. You are told that, if you push the button, there’s a five percent chance that someone’s child will be taken and tortured for the rest of its life. And the kicker is that you’re not forced to push the button; you can simply walk away, refusing to play the game. No harm done. Would any sane person push the button?
Now consider Jesus’ words:
Matthew 7:13. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat
:14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
Let’s be generous and say that, oh, 25% of humanity passes the test. That leaves 75% of the earth’s population destined for eternal damnation. That’s more than 4.5 billion souls headed for hellfire, with another 3/4 of a billion on their way, for every billion new people added. Now, if the raw numbers don’t give you at least some pause, consider that a few of those just might wind up being people you care about. Perhaps your children, or grandchildren. Of course, you can niggle over the percentages if you like, but my point won’t change one bit. Just pick the child you love the most, and imagine that they’ve gotten their theology wrong, and are destined for a date with eternal torment. Can you honestly say that it wouldn’t have been better if they had never been born?
Here’s what Jesus had to say:
“The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”
Of course, Judas Iscariot is being referred to here, but doesn’t the same apply to anybody who happens to miss the Heavenland Express? As a Christian, your position is much more horrible than mine, because you are forced to affirm a system in which the preponderance of eternal human souls will experience unimaginable sufferings…forever! Being an ex-Christian myself, I understand the mental hoops one has to jump through in order to justify; nay, praise such a state of affairs. But I don’t appreciate them…they force one to turn a blind eye to many fundamental realities about existence.
Is this the ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ you speak of that gives life value? If so, I think your premises deserve a little more examination. Whether metaphysical or secular, the price of admission to this ride is just too steep. It’s all about the risks, Bear, and the insult to human sensibilities in taking them.
Friday, April 11, 2008
On Reflection
I've been posting to this blog for a few months now. Thinking back, I guess antinatalism has been my default philosophical position for probably 20 years or so (ironic, perhaps even hypocritical, since my younger child is only 17). Still, with my focus much sharpened on the issue due to the writing, I feel myself shifting into a new and rather interesting headspace.
I spent most of my twenties as a fundamentalist Christian; yes, the bible believing, heaven vs. hellfire sort. I eventually abandoned that worldview, and after an interim period of feeling like I was living in some sort of intellectual vacuum, a new sense of self emerged. A more informed, thoughtful one, I hope. I'm feeling that way again, like I'm pushing against some sort of membrane of understanding; or maybe, of feeling. Not sure where the dividing line is between those two, sometimes.
Anyway, I'd like to express to the reader what I'm feeling right now, and as succinctly as possible. In a nutshell, here it is...I believe I'm losing my capacity to worship life. In fact, and in retrospect, I think it's already gone, and I'm just living on the echoes of its ghosts. This is quite interesting to me, because before this recent change, I never realized I WAS worshipping life. It's taken this 'stepping away' by means of objective examination of all those pre-suppositional euphemisms that we take for granted. You know the kind...'life is basically good', or 'things ultimately work out for the best', or even 'hope for the best', as if that solves anything. All the little life affirming attitudes we hang onto, in order to avoid that abyss of existential depression in the face of 'tough, bare facts'.
It's the same thing I felt when I stepped back from the god I worshipped, finally facing my doubts, and my distaste. In one sense the act was almost instantaneous; and indeed, there has been some of that in my disillusionment regarding life. But it's also been a process, and some definite thresholds to cross in my journey away from 'faith' of all kinds. Some might call my new attitude 'nihilism'; and, if so...so be it. Although, I'm not really renouncing life itself, I don't think. But I've taken it off its pedestal, and am no longer in awe of it; awe being the attitude that the religious mindset seeks to inculcate in its followers. I don't feel arrogant about any of this, but neither do I feel humbled anymore. Interested at times, curious, confounded, angry, joyful, intrigued...but no longer humbled in that 'Wow, it's all so incomprehensibly glorious!' kind of way. Because in the end, it's all just stuff hurting other stuff, killing other stuff, and eating other stuff. My life is a flagpole planted on a mountain of countless murders, and soon enough I'll be supplanted, and become part of that ever growing mountain, as will my children, and theirs (god forbid!).
Sorry, it's a 'hard truths' sort of afternoon. Peace.
I spent most of my twenties as a fundamentalist Christian; yes, the bible believing, heaven vs. hellfire sort. I eventually abandoned that worldview, and after an interim period of feeling like I was living in some sort of intellectual vacuum, a new sense of self emerged. A more informed, thoughtful one, I hope. I'm feeling that way again, like I'm pushing against some sort of membrane of understanding; or maybe, of feeling. Not sure where the dividing line is between those two, sometimes.
Anyway, I'd like to express to the reader what I'm feeling right now, and as succinctly as possible. In a nutshell, here it is...I believe I'm losing my capacity to worship life. In fact, and in retrospect, I think it's already gone, and I'm just living on the echoes of its ghosts. This is quite interesting to me, because before this recent change, I never realized I WAS worshipping life. It's taken this 'stepping away' by means of objective examination of all those pre-suppositional euphemisms that we take for granted. You know the kind...'life is basically good', or 'things ultimately work out for the best', or even 'hope for the best', as if that solves anything. All the little life affirming attitudes we hang onto, in order to avoid that abyss of existential depression in the face of 'tough, bare facts'.
It's the same thing I felt when I stepped back from the god I worshipped, finally facing my doubts, and my distaste. In one sense the act was almost instantaneous; and indeed, there has been some of that in my disillusionment regarding life. But it's also been a process, and some definite thresholds to cross in my journey away from 'faith' of all kinds. Some might call my new attitude 'nihilism'; and, if so...so be it. Although, I'm not really renouncing life itself, I don't think. But I've taken it off its pedestal, and am no longer in awe of it; awe being the attitude that the religious mindset seeks to inculcate in its followers. I don't feel arrogant about any of this, but neither do I feel humbled anymore. Interested at times, curious, confounded, angry, joyful, intrigued...but no longer humbled in that 'Wow, it's all so incomprehensibly glorious!' kind of way. Because in the end, it's all just stuff hurting other stuff, killing other stuff, and eating other stuff. My life is a flagpole planted on a mountain of countless murders, and soon enough I'll be supplanted, and become part of that ever growing mountain, as will my children, and theirs (god forbid!).
Sorry, it's a 'hard truths' sort of afternoon. Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)