Is nonexistence preferable to living?

[knownothing]

What follows assumes that no life after death exists and that a dead person returns to the state of pre-birth. This is not necessarily my opinion, but it seems to be the most logical conclusion.

 

It is commonly said that life is a gift, or at least that you are lucky to have it. Being born means beating astronomical odds, so even the scientifically-inclined tend to characterize it as something that one should be happy about having. But is it really more fortunate to be born than to die in utero? Leaving all sentimentality aside, let us consider what life is like.

 

1. After birth, humans begins to have desires. Now, a desire is a form of discomfort. It drives us to do whatever it is that we end up doing. It could be a desire for pleasure or a desire to avoid pain.

2. Some humans have "good" lives. A good life is when a human generally succeeds at meeting his or her goals, avoiding pain and feeling pleasure.

3. Others will have "bad" lives. A bad life is when a human generally fails at meeting his or her goals, avoiding pain and feeling pleasure.

4. Those who have "bad" lives will either die quickly (in a primitive society) or suffer through their life in shame, frustration, depression or chronic pain. No compensation will ever be given.

5. Those who have "good" lives will still have to experience the death of loved ones and the dying of themselves.

6. The quest to find meaning or acquire knowledge is well within the arena of "avoiding pain" or "feeling pleasure" and is no different than having sex or moving up the corporate ladder.

 

I know that in reality, there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" life, but I am speaking roughly about a life where someone either suffers more than feels pleasure, or feels pleasure more than suffering.

 

My conclusion is that being born means that you are astronomically unlucky rather that the opposite. You are free to dispute anything I have said up to this point. Other than that, I have two questions:

 

1. Is it more desirable for an individual human to be stillborn than to live?

2. Would it be better for all of humanity to go extinct?

Edited May 4, 2013 by knownothing

[lightburst]

When you are alive, you have the 'potentiality' to experience good things/pleasures whereas being dead is the 100% chance of feeling/having/being nothing.

 

Also, this assumes, I think, that your consciousness actually lives on so that you can tell the difference. In an infinitely void existence that is death, having a short moment of happiness wouldn't matter is there is an infinite void that follows must like infinity plus/minus a constant is still infinity. There is no consciousness to remember the good times you had, so why would it matter. On the other hand, I wouldn't be willing to give up my life-card just yet. Maybe I'm a hypocrite.

 

But yea, I think that the potentiality of living a good life is more than enough to justify living. I guess it's a matter of deciding which odds do you consider to be 'good enough reason' to live.

[Bill Angel]

would it be better for all of humanity to go extinct?

Was it better for the Earth that all the dominant dinosaurs went extinct?

It would be ironic I think if the Earth suffered another mass extinction event like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs, and 65 million years after THAT event the non human sentient beings that subsequently evolved asked that same question.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Bill Angel

[knownothing]

I think that any species that became aware of itself would eventually ponder whether living is a good thing. Even before industrial society (which is the cause of much suffering due to how unnatural it is) came to be, there were people thinking of this. Perhaps you have heard of Hegesias, the Greek who convinced multiple people to commit suicide with his philosophies?

 

But yea, I think that the potentiality of living a good life is more
than enough to justify living. I guess it's a matter of deciding which
odds do you consider to be 'good enough reason' to live.

 

I still don't think that an unborn embryo is missing out on anything since it has no desire to see its potential fulfilled. An unborn embryo (or a dead person for that matter) are perfectly content and want for nothing. They are no worse off for not experiencing pleasure.

 

I suppose that I would agree with you if we are talking about someone who has already been born and has a decent amount of potential, since suicide might be even more problematic for that person.

[SomethingToPonder]

What follows assumes that no life after death exists and that a dead person returns to the state of pre-birth. This is not necessarily my opinion, but it seems to be the most logical conclusion.

 

It is commonly said that life is a gift, or at least that you are lucky to have it. Being born means beating astronomical odds, so even the scientifically-inclined tend to characterize it as something that one should be happy about having. But is it really more fortunate to be born than to die in utero? Leaving all sentimentality aside, let us consider what life is like.

 

1. After birth, humans begins to have desires. Now, a desire is a form of discomfort. It drives us to do whatever it is that we end up doing. It could be a desire for pleasure or a desire to avoid pain.

2. Some humans have "good" lives. A good life is when a human generally succeeds at meeting his or her goals, avoiding pain and feeling pleasure.

3. Others will have "bad" lives. A bad life is when a human generally fails at meeting his or her goals, avoiding pain and feeling pleasure.

4. Those who have "bad" lives will either die quickly (in a primitive society) or suffer through their life in shame, frustration, depression or chronic pain. No compensation will ever be given.

5. Those who have "good" lives will still have to experience the death of loved ones and the dying of themselves.

6. The quest to find meaning or acquire knowledge is well within the arena of "avoiding pain" or "feeling pleasure" and is no different than having sex or moving up the corporate ladder.

 

I know that in reality, there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" life, but I am speaking roughly about a life where someone either suffers more than feels pleasure, or feels pleasure more than suffering.

 

My conclusion is that being born means that you are astronomically unlucky rather that the opposite. You are free to dispute anything I have said up to this point. Other than that, I have two questions:

 

1. Is it more desirable for an individual human to be stillborn than to live?

2. Would it be better for all of humanity to go extinct?

at first when i read your title, I dismissed it and thought of course it is better to live than to never have lived because who knows what contributions you as a person could have made to society,science etc . maybe there is a reason we cant choose whether or not to live as an embryo. Now that i read your post it is a lot more thought out than i expected and i see what your getting at.

 

Whether we have "good" or "bad" lives is you are right dependent on where we grow up who we are raised by , environmental factors, cultural factors and many many more things, However it is also down to you as a person to try and alter your existence. Some of the greatest minds that ever lived have come from poverty so you could say that it was either a one in a million chance that they made something of themselves, or because of the choices they made. I choose to believe it's down to the choices we make , Maybe because it gives me hope that no matter how bad things get you can always change it somehow.

 

There are many more factors that drive us to do things instead of desires as well remember so it's sort of like a tug of war between your feelings , reality and other factors. People that have "bad" lives could change that and vice versa.

 

better for who or what if humanity were to go extinct?

 

And a stillborn could have no desires and has no knowledge of anything yet so it certainly would not be desirable for them to be dead rather than get a shot at life. Think about it, How could they desire not to live when they have had no experiences yet. some people are suicidal, They have no desire to live, Yet they can overcome that. And if every person died in utero then we would have no existence as humans and nothing would be as it is hence a massive game changer to whether or not people would want to live.

 

interesting topic. But i have to say overall no it is not more desirable to be stillborn than to have lived. At least if your life goes bad you gave it a shot.You never know you could have started some butterfly effect that will take shape long after you die. So while your existence may seem pointless, it may have a much greater bearing on humanity than we know.

 

[Prometheus]

So the basic idea is: I want existence to be like X. Existence is not like X. Therefore I will kill myself.

 

I think there might be other options.

[knownothing]

So the basic idea is: I want existence to be like X. Existence is not like X. Therefore I will kill myself.

 

This has nothing to do with what we "want." I am merely asking whether life can truly be considered a good thing when it usually causes more problems than it does delights. You seem to think that I have idealistic expectations for life, but this isn't true at all. In my view, the potential quantity and intensity of pain outweighs that of pleasure (far past the threshhold of ideal and into the realm of woefully inadequate), so life cannot be considered preferable to nonexistence since there was never a problem that being born fixed for you. I also find it strange how I laid out several points, and you didn't bother to address any of them and reduced my argument to killing oneself based on unmet expectations. Dissapointment was not a factor (as a human is not necessarily aware that they have not met a desire).

 

What do you mean when you say "other options?"

 

better for who or what if humanity were to go extinct?

 

Humanity would not benefit from being extinct but they would not suffer either. On the other hand, they would suffer more than they would benefit if they did exist. So, while it is impossible for humanity to benefit from going extinct, it would still be preferable to survivng and thriving.

 

And a stillborn could have no desires and has no knowledge of anything

yet so it certainly would not be desirable for them to be dead rather

than get a shot at life. Think about it, How could they desire not to

live when they have had no experiences yet. some people are suicidal,

They have no desire to live, Yet they can overcome that. And if every

person died in utero then we would have no existence as humans and

nothing would be as it is hence a massive game changer to whether or not

people would want to live.

 

The very fact that an embryo or a fetus has no desires is why there is no point in being born. Being born is like playing Russian Roulette. It isn't necessary. It does not fix a problem that a fetus has, it only creates many. If everyone died in utero, would it really be a game changer? As I said before, a nonexistent entity wants for nothing. What would be the point in existing?

 

I think that the bottom line about mass extinction is that it would solve all of our problems of suffering and all of our problems of desire. It would not satisfy our desires, it would just erase them. I am not delusional, I am not saying that we should commit mass suicide or abstain from ever having children. I am just philosophizing. I think that this is a bit of a taboo topic so I wanted to see what you guys thought.

[Prometheus]

 

1. After birth, humans begins to have desires...

 

...I think that the bottom line about mass extinction is that it would solve all of our problems of suffering and all of our problems of desire.

 

 

This has nothing to do with what we "want."

 

You speak of desires quite a lot. But then you say this is not about what we want. Is a desire not something we want?

 

Maybe there are 2 separate ideas here? Something about desires which i don't understand. And then that if one measures all the 'good' experiences in one's life against all the 'bad' experiences, then if the bad outweigh the good, one would have been better off not born.

 

I haven't commented on anything else because there is no point going on to a second point until i understand the first point.

[knownothing]

You speak of desires quite a lot. But then you say this is not about what we want. Is a desire not something we want?

The "desires" that I speak of are the psychological driving force behind every action that someone does, either to gain pleasure or avoid pain.

 

Were I talked of how many will

suffer through their life in shame, frustration, depression or chronic pain

you somehow interpreted this as me saying that "I want existence to be like X." I never said what I "want" existence to be like. I spoke of the objective nature of existence. And the desires that people have are indeed part of the objective nature of existence (even if they are just chemical and electrical events inside a brain).

 

This is the point I am trying to make about desires: Before we are born, we have no desires, so we are less unhappy than the most happy man on earth, who will eventually grow old and die in physical and mental pain and be forced to lose his beloved memories and wisdom.

 

And then that if one measures all the 'good' experiences in one's life

against all the 'bad' experiences, then if the bad outweigh the good,

one would have been better off not born.

I am saying that it is better not to be born even if you live the best life possible. As I said, there is no problem that being born fixes for you, but it creates many.

Edited May 5, 2013 by knownothing

[MonDie]

4. Those who have "bad" lives will either die quickly (in a primitive society) or suffer through their life in shame, frustration, depression or chronic pain. No compensation will ever be given.

 

The first two are easily avoidable.

Shame - Think positive thoughts.

Frustration - Don't pine over things you will not get.

 

I am saying that it is better not to be born even if you live the best life possible. As I said, there is no problem that being born fixes for you, but it creates many.

 

What you are saying is basically what the Buddha said. Life is suffering because desire leads to suffering, extinction (nirvana) is better.

The Buddha was wrong.

[Prometheus]

The "desires" that I speak of are the psychological driving force behind every action that someone does, either to gain pleasure or avoid pain.

 

Were I talked of how many will

you somehow interpreted this as me saying that "I want existence to be like X." I never said what I "want" existence to be like. I spoke of the objective nature of existence. And the desires that people have are indeed part of the objective nature of existence (even if they are just chemical and electrical events inside a brain).

 

This is the point I am trying to make about desires: Before we are born, we have no desires, so we are less unhappy than the most happy man on earth, who will eventually grow old and die in physical and mental pain and be forced to lose his beloved memories and wisdom.

 

I am saying that it is better not to be born even if you live the best life possible. As I said, there is no problem that being born fixes for you, but it creates many.

 

So are you saying that it is our desires that lead us to an unsatisfactory life - regardless how many of those desires may be realised? And are you saying a state of desirelessness, achieved through not existing, is preferable to living?

 

What you are saying is basically what the Buddha said. Life is suffering because desire leads to suffering, extinction (nirvana) is better.

The Buddha was wrong.

 

Um, could you point out where the Buddha said this?

[MonDie]

Um, could you point out where the Buddha said this?

 

 

Here you go. Read the article's discription of the first three noble truths.

Of course, everything the Buddha supposedly said is iffy.

 

The Buddha's first sermon after his Enlightenment centered on the

Four Noble Truths, which are the foundation of Buddhism. The truths are:

1. The truth of suffering (dukkha)
2. The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya)
3. The truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha)
4. The truth of the path that frees us from suffering (magga)

http://buddhism.about.com/od/thefournobletruths/a/fournobletruths.htm

 

---

 

I also happened upon this.

 

I've noticed that some translators are chucking out "suffering" and replacing it with "dissatisfaction" or "stress."

 

http://buddhism.about.com/od/thefournobletruths/a/dukkhaexplain.htm

 

That's more interesting. It has a better, less masochistic ring to it.

I spent over a year of my childhood studying Buddhism. Did I never learn this, or did I simply find it uninteresting?

Edited May 5, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Prometheus]

Of course, everything the Buddha supposedly said is iffy.

 

Thanks. You might like this site then.

 

That's more interesting. It has a better, less masochistic ring to it.

I spent over a year of my childhood studying Buddhism. Did I never learn this, or did I simply find it uninteresting?

 

It's a common misunderstanding. Buddhism is not nihilism, nor masochism: suicide is certainly not recommended. There is though the extinction of the illusion of a permenant self, a ghost in the machine, which is given as the source of dukkha - but i think that's largely uncontroversial here.

[Bill Angel]

The "desires" that I speak of are the psychological driving force behind every action that someone does, either to gain pleasure or avoid pain.

 

Were I talked of how many will

you somehow interpreted this as me saying that "I want existence to be like X." I never said what I "want" existence to be like. I spoke of the objective nature of existence. And the desires that people have are indeed part of the objective nature of existence (even if they are just chemical and electrical events inside a brain).

 

This is the point I am trying to make about desires: Before we are born, we have no desires, so we are less unhappy than the most happy man on earth, who will eventually grow old and die in physical and mental pain and be forced to lose his beloved memories and wisdom.

 

I am saying that it is better not to be born even if you live the best life possible. As I said, there is no problem that being born fixes for you, but it creates many.

I realize that the issue is whether we would be better off not being born, not why one should not commit suicide, but what Carl Jung had to say may still provide food for thought:

The idea of suicide, understandable as it is, does not seem commendable to me. We live in order to gain the greatest possible amount of spiritual development and self-awareness. As long as life is possible, even if only in a minimal degree, you should hang onto it, in order to scoop it up for the purpose of conscious development. To interrupt life before its time is to bring to a standstill an experiment which we have not set up. We have found ourselves in the midst of it and must carry it through to the end. (Jung, 1973, p. 434)

http://www.nautis.com/2006/04/jungs-statements-about-suicide/

[MonDie]

I never read Jung because everything he says looks like outlandish wishful thinking.

[knownothing]

Shame - Think positive thoughts.

Frustration - Don't pine over things you will not get.

 

I would not say that these are "easily" avoidable, but I understand that you are saying they are not hopeless. I think that dealing with shame is more complicated, because shame is when you cannot live up to your own standards (or usually the standards that everyone else has taught you to value). Rather than thinking positive thoughts, you would have to completely rewire the way you evaluate things.

 

As for frustration, all I can say is that it is easier said than done to stop wanting something, especially if you are a quadriplegic (or something similar) and are missing out on what most people take for granted. Of course, all matters of contentment are relative so I suppose a quad could be happy too.

 

Nevertheless, my point seems to remain that none of this would have been an issue if birth did not take place at all.

 

What you are saying is basically what the Buddha said. Life is

suffering because desire leads to suffering, extinction (nirvana) is

better.

The Buddha was wrong.

Would you care to explain why you think life is preferable and not just acceptable?

 

So are you saying that it is our desires that lead us to an

unsatisfactory life - regardless how many of those desires may be

realised? And are you saying a state of desirelessness, achieved through

not existing, is preferable to living?

 

Yes. The desire for pleasure and the desire to avoid pain both result in suffering if they are dissapointed.

 

Perhaps a better word instead of "desire" would be "need." We need not to feel intense physical pain and we need to fulfill our psychological desires with reasonable consistency, or else we are unhappy. This kind of "need" I am talking about it not the kind that can be solved by saying "you can't always get what you want." I am talking about the minimum (and it is different for each individual) quality of life that a person can have to be satisfied.

Edited May 6, 2013 by knownothing

[MonDie]

Nevertheless, my point seems to remain that none of this would have been an issue if birth did not take place at all.

 

Would you care to explain why you think life is preferable and not just acceptable?

 

Why do you want my personal viewpoint? What use would it be to anyone else?

I like to communicate ideas. I feel proud when I live up to my ideals. I've felt two satisfying types of love. That's about it.

 

I can't compare existence to nonexistence. When I try to, I actually end up comparing exertion to rest. Maybe it's because I think sleep, a state of rest, is comparable to mental nonexistence. Anyway, I'm tired, so it sounds pretty good right about now. Good night. I'll reexist in the morning.

[knownothing]

Why do you want my personal viewpoint? What use would it be to anyone else?

I like to communicate ideas. I feel proud when I live up to my

ideals. I've felt two satisfying types of love. That's about it.

 

I can't compare existence to nonexistence. When I try to, I actually

end up comparing exertion to rest. Maybe it's because I think sleep, a

state of rest, is comparable to mental nonexistence. Anyway, I'm

tired, so it sounds pretty good right about now. Good night. I'll

reexist in the morning.

 

Yes, I tend to think of death as being a gentle, soothing sleep, but this is just my imagination We have a hard time processing nonexistence because we are really trying to process nothing.

 

I did not start this thread just to be depressing. I was actually hoping someone would come along and change my mind.

[Bill Angel]

 

Why do you want my personal viewpoint? What use would it be to anyone else?

I like to communicate ideas. I feel proud when I live up to my ideals. I've felt two satisfying types of love. That's about it.

 

I can't compare existence to nonexistence. When I try to, I actually end up comparing exertion to rest. Maybe it's because I think sleep, a state of rest, is comparable to mental nonexistence. Anyway, I'm tired, so it sounds pretty good right about now. Good night. I'll reexist in the morning.

I would disagree on that point. Sleep is not comparable to mental nonexistence, because we dream while we sleep. An interesting topic to investigate and consider is that of "lucid dreaming".

And as you may be aware, a well used method of torture is that of sleep deprivation, which works by depriving the brain of the opportunity of engaging in certain sleep related activity, and not by depriving the brain of the opportunity to simply shut down.

[PeterJ]

What you are saying is basically what the Buddha said. Life is suffering because desire leads to suffering, extinction (nirvana) is better.

The Buddha was wrong.

 

Wha? It's no good just saying someone is wrong. Some evidence is required. Do you know what he means by nirvana and extinction?

 

I wouldn't write off Jung so quickly either. Worth persevering.

Edited May 6, 2013 by PeterJ

[MonDie]

EDIT:

As for frustration, all I can say is that it is easier said than done to stop wanting something, especially if you are a quadriplegic (or something similar) and are missing out on what most people take for granted. Of course, all matters of contentment are relative so I suppose a quad could be happy too.

 

You are only thinking about the happiness of that one individual, but everyone affects other people too. Think about it this way.

The quadriplegic may not be able to reach maximal sexual fulfillment, but that just means he shouldn't focus on sexual fulfillment. He could put his effort elsewhere instead. If he is so restricted that no selfish pursuit is worth his time, he could try to help others instead. If he lives in an affluent nation, his potential to do good is massive. So, although his existence might not be preferable from a selfish perspective, it is preferable from a collective perspective. Plus, the realization that his existence is justified should relieve any depression.

 

---

 

Yes, I tend to think of death as being a gentle, soothing sleep, but this is just my imagination We have a hard time processing nonexistence because we are really trying to process nothing.

It might be hasty to think the mind becomes no-thing (or no-mind) when we die. Although certain mental processes (e.g. memory, sensory perception) are emergent properties of a working brain, there could be some fundamental aspect of mind that persists in the decomposed matter.

So it might be sufficient to think of nonexistence as an absense of mental capacities. If that's true, then sleep can be thought of as a semi-dead state because certain mental processes seem to stop when we sleep.

I would disagree on that point. Sleep is not comparable to mental nonexistence, because we dream while we sleep. An interesting topic to investigate and consider is that of "lucid dreaming".
And as you may be aware, a well used method of torture is that of sleep deprivation, which works by depriving the brain of the opportunity of engaging in certain sleep related activity, and not by depriving the brain of the opportunity to simply shut down.

Yes, sleep involves biologically important brain functioning. However, it all seems to take place outside of the conscious mind. 99% of people go to sleep not anticipating dreams and wake up not remembering them.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[knownothing]

You are only thinking about the happiness of that one individual, but

everyone affects other people too. Think about it this way.

The

quadriplegic may not be able to reach maximal sexual fulfillment, but

that just means he shouldn't focus on sexual fulfillment. He could put

his effort elsewhere instead. If he is so restricted that no selfish

pursuit is worth his time, he could try to help others instead. If he

lives in an affluent nation, his potential to do good is massive.

So, although his existence might not be preferable from a selfish

perspective, it is preferable from a collective perspective. Plus, the

realization that his existence is justified should relieve any

depression.

I do not believe that anyone can actually stop being selfish. Any attempt at justifying existence falls under my category of avoiding pain (in this case, existential depression) and doing good is only ever done to prevent or assuage guilt or to experience the pleasurable feeling of being a decent human being.

 

I have given to the homeless before, and I know that in actuality it was all about me. Sure, I didn't want the guy to be hungry or cold. I wanted him to have a nice meal, but underneath it all it was so that I could affirm that I was a good person and so that I wouldn't be burdened by any further thoughts of the homless man. Giving to him was a way to satisfy a psychological need for me. This "giving" action is justified even more if you are doing it in return for pleasure (such as buying flowers for a special lady in return for the psychological feeling of love and physical intercourse) but in my case I was just doing it to avoid psychological distress.

 

To me, the case of the quadriplegic seems to be that he must strive to be as happy as everyone else without any reason to be. This is true for all people, of course (excluding the few most happiest who live in ecstasy for this reason or that). It is true that happiness is largely determined by attitude, but the degree to which each person needs to adjust their attitude has a very large range. I realize that very wealthy and attractive people can be miserable. I am talking about self-actualization and not simply hedonism, although hedonism if it is thoroughly uninterrupted can make quite a happy life (Brave New World).

 

Of course, I understand that feeling trumps thinking. I can sit around and think about how the man's life is pointless and lousy but if he feels satisfied then who am I to say that he ought to be dead? Those people in ecstasy that I mentioned earlier are not sitting around philosphizing and overcomplicating things.

Edited May 6, 2013 by knownothing

[MonDie]

His motivations do not make his deeds any less good. Plus, if the good deeds give him self-respect, that's a good thing too. I don't see the problem.

 

If the gift is one that keeps on giving, that's even better. There is no law of conservation of happiness.

[PeterJ]

Selfishness and altruism need not be at odds with each other. For Schopenhauer the distinction is sublated in the metaphysical truth that we all share a common identity. Hence we can feel selfish when we perform a noble deed for someone else, for it pleases us, and altruistic also, since it also pleases us in the form of them.

 

This is what biologists have not considered much in their pursuit of an explanation for altruism, that altruism is not the opposite of selfishness but a form of it, and explicable as both action and motive by reference to identity.

 

Thus 'knownothing' can see he is performing both an altruistic and a selfish act at the same time.

 

On this view all altruistic acts are performed for what could be judged selfish reasons, or at least benefit the actor, but seem not to be so when the metaphysics of our situation is not grasped.

[MonDie]

we can feel selfish when we perform a noble deed for someone else, for it pleases us, and altruistic also, since it also pleases us in the form of them.

 

It looks like you committed the equivocation fallacy with the word "us," but I cannot say because I don't know Schopenhauer's metaphysics.

 

 

On this view all altruistic acts are performed for what could be judged selfish reasons, or at least benefit the actor, but seem not to be so when the metaphysics of our situation is not grasped.

 

I have a different view. Unlike more primitive impulses, altruistic impulses aren't persistent. Thus wisely spent altruism is used to structure the life around ethical behavior such that ethical behavior is in accordance with the otherwise ignoble impulses.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die