SvetlanaButosky t1_j63l2j0 wrote
hmmm, I think people are more concerned with actual physical and mental suffering than obsessing over the meaning of life.
This is why we have antinatalism vs pro natalism and absurdism vs pro mortalism.
Most people dont really care about the meaning of life, they just want the positive experience while they are here, as little suffering as possible before they become fertilizer. lol
HammieBs t1_j64dr27 wrote
>Most people dont really care about the meaning of life, they just want the positive experience while they are here, as little suffering as possible before they become fertilizer. lol
I would argue that's why the meaning of life is important. People want purpose to feel fulfilled in their life. The meaning of life isn't a blanket term everyone should strive for but is unique to the individual. If your meaning of life is to chase good experiences then sure, it would line up, but not for everyone. If people truly only wanted experience the feel good while minimizing the bad, we'd all be doing heroin
Apollocreed3000 t1_j65bxp9 wrote
Positive experience for everyone is different. I think both of you are saying the same thing in different ways.
A positive experience for someone may just be a heroin filled couple weeks. Others may be knowing that their name will be on a building after they are gone. Others yet may feel positive knowing their interactions with their community have direct effects on those people.
You could call that someone’s view on the meaning of life or you could call that their positive experience. Seems like two sides to the same coin.
BilliamTheGreat t1_j67bz39 wrote
But we can at least agree on the existence of a positive good and a negative bad, correct?
rattatally t1_j67ynez wrote
What would be a negative good and a positive bad?
ShalmaneserIII t1_j66ayuc wrote
Yes, but once someone's learned how to handle their suffering and can reliably obtain pleasures, what do they do then?
BilliamTheGreat t1_j67bvb4 wrote
Ideally, try to spread pleasure and/or minimize suffering for others. At the risk of sipping hippy-ish; love.
ShalmaneserIII t1_j67ri91 wrote
Okay, so why are others important to you, such that you'd want to do so?
Basically, why is this something you would choose to do, rather than do something else instead?
Or, what does the act of loving mean? Why does it matter?
magnFLOR t1_j6j7q62 wrote
That's what I've been wondering for a while. Recommending altruism just feels like a cop out, a last ditch effort argument that holds moral high ground. I don't quite get it.
SvetlanaButosky t1_j67q8u4 wrote
lol, there will always be something to fix, godhood is impossible.
ShalmaneserIII t1_j67qzgi wrote
So you don't think you'd get bored spending more and more tome fixing smaller and smaller problems?
__draupnir t1_j682pin wrote
> This is why we have antinatalism vs pro natalism and absurdism vs pro mortalism. > >
Do we though? Antinatalism and pro mortalism are barely a thing we "have" and barely any philosopher takes these positions. There is barely any "vs" there.
SvetlanaButosky t1_j68c8zx wrote
They belong under the umbrella of existentialism, friend.
Suffering VS pleasure
__draupnir t1_j68g41l wrote
> They belong under the umbrella of existentialism
Do they though? They are not positions philosophers take seriously.
SvetlanaButosky t1_j6cez46 wrote
Lol Schopenhauer not serious?
Do you even philosophy friend?
__draupnir t1_j6cj4ag wrote
Schopenhaur was a pessimist, not pro mortalist or antinatalist.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments