1 2 > 
 
   
 

Answer to Philosophical Antinatalists

 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
26 August 2020 09:01
 

Practical Antinatalism Needn’t Imply Philosophical Antinatalism:

I wanted to reply to an Antinatallist thread, but I couldn’t find it from the forums & threads screen after logging on, so I hope I can be forgiven for answering in a new topic.
—————————
.
BTW, the “How Do You Identify” options-list didn’t include:
.
Non-Advaitist Theist Vedantist
.
or
.
Non-Fundamentalist Non-Literalist Christian
.
...both of which I identify as.
.
Contrary to the usual organizational, denominational meaning, I regard the Christian message as simply:
.
What is, overall, is good. Reality is benevolent. We have a lot to be grateful for, and should act like it, as regards how we treat other living-things.
—————————————————-
.
(Forgive the typos—Wordpad doesn’t seem to have spellcheck. I wanted to say this in “comments”, but that required me to give my gmail password)
——————————————
..
Aboui Antinatalism:
.
Yes, don’t add to the destructive excessive population. Don’t bring kids into this abominable societal-world.
.
Parents should have to be psychologically-evaluated & licensed, and should have to support their offspring for life (...then how many would have kids?).
.
For whose benefit is the raising of a child, and the juvie-jungle propaganda-prisons that call themselves “schools”?
.
Easy, comforable euthanasia should be freely available to anyone who feels that their disability, pain, illness, injury, damage, etc. justifies it.  ...to be decided solely by the individual himself/herself. 
.
(...maybe after brief compulsory counseling if there’s no visible physical disability, pain, illness, injury or damage.)
.
Those things I agree with. But you’re taking it philosophical, and assuming a metaphyisical belief (Materialism).
.
Yes, this societal world is abominable.  But you want to generalize that to life itself in general.
,
Philosophical Antinatalists make a valid and good point:  Life has suffering.  How and why did this life start?
.
What the Antinatalists, including the Philosophical-Antinatalists, say is refreshing. Their conversation should be heard and listened-to.  I thank them for bringing the subject up, because they’re expressing feelings that we all have sometimes had, and are discussing matters that must be examined.
.
And I’d like to answer their valid concerns. Though I don’t agree with the concusions of the Philosophical-Antinatalists, that shouldn’t give offense. Disagreement is the basis of discussion. In philosophy, discussion nearly always turns ugly, because 1) there’s so much disagreement; and 2) people are reluctant to consider differing-positions.
.
I’m answering with good intentions, while expressing gratitude to the Phllosophical-Antinatalists for bringing these matters up.
.
Things are much better than you think they are.
.
Philosophcially, your parents were only the proximal cog in the mechanism of your birth. You might as well blame the Big-Bang for your birth. Whom do you blame for their reproducive instinct and the fact that, when young, tthey didn’t know any better than to express their feelings of affection as they did?
.
Take my word for it (at least provisionally) that, other than in your Materialist metaphysical belief, things are a LOT better than you think.  Life, the lives, and what broadly overall is, is good.
.
Reality is benevolent.
.
The misery of Philosophcial-Antinatalists, Absurdists, Nihilists and Existentialists is only in their Materialist metaphysical belief.
.
The ancient philosophical Problem of Suffering is too lengthy to go into here, but I’ll just say that there are good answers to it. Yes there are bad-parts—The frequent nuisances are temporary inevitable accompaniment. The rarer horrors in some lives, the really-bad-times, are temporary, unreal, and part of dangerous-life,  voluntarily (if unwisely) insisted-on.
.
No point asking if it’s worth it (as if the comparison could even meaningfully be reckoned). It’s a moot-point, because now you’re already in life.
.
Physicist Michael Faraday, in 1844, pointed out that there’s no reason to believe that this physical universe is other than a complex system of mathematical and logical relation.  A complex system of inter-referring abstract logical if-then facts.  The objectively-existent “stuff” of Materialism is only the stuff of metaphysical theorizing.
.
Objective existence and objective real-ness (whatrever that would mean) aren’t even metaphysically-defined for the logically-interdependent things.
.
i.e. You’re in a life because you’re the protagonist of one of the infinitely-many hypotheticcal life-experience stories, one of the inevitable infinity of abstract logical-systems mentioned above.  Why is that? It’s because that infinity of hypothetical experience-stories, among an infinity of abstract logical-systems,  is a logical inevitability. It’s not because of your parents. As I said, they;re just the proximal cog in the mechanism, in the physical-story.
.
But, whether you agree with that or not…
.
Whatever the reason why this life started, that reason will likely still obtain at the end of this life (Things haven’t changed that much).  And a similar cause brings a similar result.
.
There’s a meaningful sense in which that life-experience-story protagonist wanted or needed that life (with its inherent downside).  ...else there wouldn’t have been that life-experience-story.  ...for which an essential part is its interested and involved protagonist, who has the Will To Life.
.
Your Will To Life, was the core and seed that generated your life. That story wouldn’t be an expeerience-story without having, as its esssential-part, a willing protagonist who wanted it &/or felt that they needed it—in spite of its downside.
.
The angry rejection of life is a form of intense involvement in and relationship with life—though in an unproductive form.
.
For a biological-organism, rejecting life is nonsense, and is entirely unproductive (given that you’re already in life).  As such an organism, you’re made for life, whether you like it or not (...and you would if you’d allow yourself to).
.
There’s no such a thing as “oblivion” at the end of a life.  For you, there will never come a time when you aren’t. Only for your survivors will there come a time when you aren’t.  So don’t expect to get away from yourself or your life at the end of this life.
.
It’s been truly said that your death won’t be better than your life. If you’re living an attitude of life-rejection and discontent right up to your death, then when what do you really expect at the end??
.
The nothingness of the unconceived isn’t available to you now that you’re in life. You chose otherwise when you wanted life.  It’s said that eventually, for everyone (after many lives), there will come something like that—ultimate final rest & peace.  But it won’t come from life-rejection, suicide, or longing for the end of a life, or a disconternted-attitude (those thing will only make things short-term-worse). It’s said to eventually come after life-fulfillment, life-completion, and lifestyle-perfection.

 

 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  5168
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
26 August 2020 09:29
 

Hello 8262014, I’m Martin.

What’s your sign and where you from?

 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
26 August 2020 09:34
 

Sign: Taurus

Residence: U.S. Pacific Northwest Mountains (Land of short summers and long, cold winters)

Birthplace: California

Glad to meet you.

 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  5168
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
26 August 2020 09:37
 

Good to meet you too, Welcome to the forum.

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9752
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
26 August 2020 13:13
 

Hello 8262014.  I lived for several years in the mountains of the Pacific Northwest - short summers, snowy winters.  No utilities or running water.  No phone or radio.  Before computers.  No 4-wheel drive so we were often snowed in.  One fog-shrouded day we heard a small plane go over too low.  An hour later a knock at the door.  It was the pilot.  He had run low on gas and was lost.  He saw our chimney smoke coming up through the fog and thought it might mean there was a clearing.  99% of the land was covered with forest but by luck he came down on the clearing of the neighboring abandoned homestead.  He nosed into a hill and upended.  Cuts and bruises - asked if he could use our phone.  We drove him down to the nearest phone. 

On your other theme:  You have probably read the story about someone asking Buddha if there is life after death.  He replied, “If you blow out a candle then light it again, is it the same flame or a different flame?”  Do you think there’s a reason why he didn’t answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’?

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  10611
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
26 August 2020 14:02
 

Thanks for the broad view of existence.  I’ll enjoy mine while it lasts; the enjoyment of it, that is.

Life has no inherent meaning, so make up whatever meaning you want to give it.  Just don’t hurt anyone.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6647
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
26 August 2020 14:05
 

Brainwash elsewhere, with all your super sound and strong logic lol

 
 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1798
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
26 August 2020 15:24
 

Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is a philosophical position and social movement that assigns a negative value to birth. Antinatalists argue that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally bad (some also recognize the procreation of other sentient beings as morally bad). In scholarly and in literary writings, various ethical foundations have been presented for antinatalism.[1] Some of the earliest surviving formulations of the idea that it would be better not to have been born come from ancient Greece.[2] The term antinatalism is in opposition to the term natalism or pro-natalism, and was used probably for the first time as the name of the position by Théophile de Giraud in his book L’art de guillotiner les procréateurs: Manifeste anti-nataliste.

— Wikipedia


“The best thing is not to be born. But who is as lucky as that? To whom does it happen? Not to one among millions and millions of people.”
— Brother Theodore

 
 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
26 August 2020 23:47
 
unsmoked - 26 August 2020 01:13 PM

On your other theme:  You have probably read the story about someone asking Buddha if there is life after death.  He replied, “If you blow out a candle then light it again, is it the same flame or a different flame?”  Do you think there’s a reason why he didn’t answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’?

You wrote:
On your other theme:  You have probably read the story about someone asking Buddha if there is life after death.  He replied, “If you blow out a candle then light it again, is it the same flame or a different flame?”  Do you think there’s a reason why he didn’t answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’?
—————————————
It’s difficult for me to post anything brief on these subjects, because there always seems to be a lot to say.
.
That’s why it’s so late and I still haven’t posted.  So let me post brief preliminary summaries of things I mean to say, and then fill it out better tomorrow.
.
Sure,  it’s true that our everyday language that applies to and was designed for ordinary matters within a life aren’t really adequate to describe matters outside that context.
.
Strictly-speaking, I dont believe in reincarnation, because I don’t believe in the objective-reality of incarnation at all.  Whether a next-life, or this one.
.
I guess I can understand the Buddha’s reticence, because I’m not completely comfortable to speak concretely about a next life when I don’t regard lives or universes as objectively-real. I claim that all of the hypothetical lives are as real as this one, but I don’t call any of them objectively-real.
.
I agree with Lewis’s definition of “actual” as:
.
In, of, consisting of or part of the world inhabited by the speaker.  I think they call that an “indexical” definition of “actual”.  This physical universe is actual for us only because, among all of them, this is the one that we inhabit.
.
So I prefer to just say that there are an infinity of lives (as abstract logical-systems), including ones whose beginning matches another life’s ending   ....and that our reality is much more open, light and non-final than the grim accounting of Materialism would suggest.
.
That open-ness, lightness and nonfinality is a reason why I say that Reality is benevolent.
.
If there is or isn’t a next life, we won’t know about this one, though there’d be continuity of experience. The fact that we won’t know about one life leading to another is another reason to not speak too concretely about it.
.
It’s late, so I’ll finish this summary now, and will fill it in better tomorrow.
.
Michael Ossipoff

 

 

 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
26 August 2020 23:49
 
Skipshot - 26 August 2020 02:02 PM

Life has no inherent meaning, so make up whatever meaning you want to give it.  Just don’t hurt anyone.

Yes, life neither has nor needs meaning. It’s, at basis, just for play, or “Lila”.

Michael Ossipoff

 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
27 August 2020 11:59
 
Cheshire Cat - 26 August 2020 03:24 PM

“The best thing is not to be born. But who is as lucky as that?

Are you sure it’s luck?

To whom does it happen?

It happens to or for those who are predisposed to it.

The essence of who you are was such that you, in your very nature, were the protagonist of a life.

You wanted it, so you might as well let yourself enjoy it.

The only way out of it is through it.

 

 

 

 

 

 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
27 August 2020 13:23
 

Unsmoked—

Let me answer in a bit more detail:

unsmoked - 26 August 2020 01:13 PM

Do you think there’s a reason why he didn’t answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’?

I admit that I don’t know why the Buddha answered as he did.
.
(...though, as I said, I understand his reticence.)
.
Well, first of all, maybe we have to be skeptical about early sciptures. They say that Christ was misquoted a lot in the Bible.  It’s said that the Bible is full of forgery. Someone (St. Paul?) is said to have (as quoted) outright contradicted himself, said mutually-opposite things in different parts of the Bible (...depending on who’s quoting him?). And don’t they say that some of the different chroniclers of Christ use exactly the same wording in their accounts—suggesting that some of them copied the others, or were later revised to match? And don’t they say that Lao Tzu might just be a name given to a tradition of writers? So might someone have written things and attributed them to the Buddha?
———————————————-
.As I mentioned in my initial post, I claim that (consistent with what Michael Faraday pointed-out) there’s no reason to believe that this life is other than one of infinitely many hypothetical life-experience-stories, among an infinity of complex systems of inter-referring abstract logical if-then facts.
.
Among that infinity of complex abstract logical-systems,of course there’s inevitably one that, with the right namings, consists of a life-experience-story with the same events and things as your life-experience.
.
As Faraday said, all that physics-experiments can measure and detect are the logical & mathematical relations. They can’t and don’t establish the reality of the “stuff” that the relations are about.
.
If the objectively-existent “stuff” is there, it’s superfluous and irrelevant. It’s alleged objective-existence is an unfalsifiable, unverifiable proposition. 
.
That’s why I said that Materialism’s “stuff” is the stuff of metaphysical theorizing.
———————————————————
An if-then fact is called an “implication”.  It relates two propositions. ...one called its “antecedant”, and the other called its “consequence”.
.
A proved and true mathematical theorem is an implication whose antecedent includes a system of mathematical-axioms.
.
A physics theory or hypothesis is a tentative or putative implication. 
.
A tentative or putative fact (e.g. implication) is also called a “proposition”.
————————————————————
An implication can be true even if both its antecedent and its consequent are false:
.
“If all Slitheytoves were brillig, and all Jaberwockeys were Slitheytoves, then all Jaberwockeys would be brillig.”
.
That statement is true even if there are no Slitheytoves or Jaberwovkeys.
.
I don’t claim that the antecedents of any of the implications that I speak of are true.
———————————————————-
Any statement about this physical-world can be expressed as an if-then statement:
.
“There’s a traffic-roundabout at 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, you’ll encounter, there, a traffic-roundabout.”
.
Conditional-grammar can describe our world.  So:  Is declarative, indicative grammar necessary?
.
Conditional grammer needn’t be about things that are objectively existent or objectively real.
.
Sure, declarative grammar is briefer and more convenient, but maybe we believe in our grammar too much.
.
Infinitely-many worlds of “If”.  ...rather than one world of “Is”.
———————————————
So, regarding the matter of lives:
.
Among that infinity of hypothetical life-experience-stories, there’s one whose protagonist and experience, at a the very berginning of that hypothetical life, is the same as a dying person and his/her experience at the end of his/her life, with the same subcounscious attributes that remain to that dying person when waking-consciousness and detailed memory of their recent life have faded-out.
.
But I can understand the Budfha’s reticence, because I don’t feel comfortable laying it out as something that will happen.  ...especially when I don’t claim that it’s objectively-real.
——————————————————-
Another thing:
.
Of course if two people argue about whrether there’s reincarnation, neither of them will ever know which one was right, because whether there is or isn’t, we won’t remember that we ever discussed it.
————————————————————
Someone, in a different thread, suggested that maybe the reincarnation discussed by Buddhists is Tegmark’s 3rd-level multiverse.  Yes.
.
But Faraday said it about 140 years before Tegmark did.
.
It’s what I’ve been proposing here.
.
Three physicists have said it:  Faraday, Tippler, and Tegmark.
.
But I should emphasize some big differences between what Tegmark & Tippler said and what I say:
.
1. Tegmark proposes an objective world-story.  I speak of each person’s subjective experience-story.  ...because that’s what we experience. 
.
2. Tegmark calls it a “hypothesis”.  I speak of uncontoversial, undisputed facts, not hypothesis or theory.
.
3. Tegmark calls it a mathematical system. Sure it’s part mathematical, but I emphasize it as an abstract logical-system.  Mathematics is a subset of logic.
.
I agree with Tegmark & Tippler when they say that the system gets its (semblence of) real-ness from the experiencers in the hypothetical physical-world.  In fact, as I said, what I speak of is a hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Michael Ossipoff

 

 

 

 

 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
28 August 2020 15:39
 

Correction:

The Tegmark multiverse that’s similar to what I describe is level IV, not level III.

...similar, but not the same, due to the several differences that I specified at the end of my most recent post.

Michael Ossipoff

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9752
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
30 August 2020 11:44
 
8262014 - 26 August 2020 11:47 PM
unsmoked - 26 August 2020 01:13 PM

On your other theme:  You have probably read the story about someone asking Buddha if there is life after death.  He replied, “If you blow out a candle then light it again, is it the same flame or a different flame?”  Do you think there’s a reason why he didn’t answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’?

You wrote:
On your other theme:  You have probably read the story about someone asking Buddha if there is life after death.  He replied, “If you blow out a candle then light it again, is it the same flame or a different flame?”  Do you think there’s a reason why he didn’t answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’?
—————————————
It’s difficult for me to post anything brief on these subjects, because there always seems to be a lot to say.
.
That’s why it’s so late and I still haven’t posted.  So let me post brief preliminary summaries of things I mean to say, and then fill it out better tomorrow.
.
Sure,  it’s true that our everyday language that applies to and was designed for ordinary matters within a life aren’t really adequate to describe matters outside that context.
.
Strictly-speaking, I dont believe in reincarnation, because I don’t believe in the objective-reality of incarnation at all.  Whether a next-life, or this one.
.
I guess I can understand the Buddha’s reticence, because I’m not completely comfortable to speak concretely about a next life when I don’t regard lives or universes as objectively-real. I claim that all of the hypothetical lives are as real as this one, but I don’t call any of them objectively-real.
.
I agree with Lewis’s definition of “actual” as:
.
In, of, consisting of or part of the world inhabited by the speaker.  I think they call that an “indexical” definition of “actual”.  This physical universe is actual for us only because, among all of them, this is the one that we inhabit.
.
So I prefer to just say that there are an infinity of lives (as abstract logical-systems), including ones whose beginning matches another life’s ending   ....and that our reality is much more open, light and non-final than the grim accounting of Materialism would suggest.
.
That open-ness, lightness and nonfinality is a reason why I say that Reality is benevolent.
.
If there is or isn’t a next life, we won’t know about this one, though there’d be continuity of experience. The fact that we won’t know about one life leading to another is another reason to not speak too concretely about it.
.
It’s late, so I’ll finish this summary now, and will fill it in better tomorrow.
.
Michael Ossipoff

About a thousand years ago Zen master Mian suggested a clue to the meaning of Buddha’s answer about the candle flame - he said, “The shortcut of Zen is to leave the present and directly experience the state before birth, before the division of wholeness.”

Maybe he meant, ‘Before the candle is lit again, experience the world as a universal being, instead of experiencing it as a separate self.  Does a meditation like that help us understand if there is life after death?’  (as if dementia or memory loss wasn’t lesson enough)

 

 
 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
31 August 2020 20:17
 

Unsmokded:
.
You wrote:
.

About a thousand years ago Zen master Mian suggested a clue to the meaning of Buddha’s answer about the candle flame - he said, “The shortcut of Zen is to leave the present and directly experience the state before birth, before the division of wholeness.”

.
There’s a lot of validity to the advice of living in the present.  ....not being overcome by worry about things that you can’t do anything about yet, or about which you’ve already done all you can for now; and not being overcome by regret.
.
And not letting an evaluative or verbal-descriptive narrative dominate.
.
Of course I’m not saying anything new, but i just want to emphasize the importance.
.
The metaphysical arguments I’ve made here, about the logically-interdependent things, are about mechanics.
.
And my suggestion that Reality is benevolent, and my justifications for saying that—though encouraging about life, and overall what-is—don’t answer about the matter of our attitude toward life, and the how & what of our pursuit of life. That’s because…
.
Even given the benevolence of Reality, tht’s a big place, and there remains the question of how we feel about the Life part of it.  (...the part that the Philosophical Antinatalists misguidedly reject.)
.
My “Answer to Philosophical Antinatallists” addresses that more difficult question.  ...because we’ve all had the feelings that the Philosophical Antinatalists express (but we needn’t believe the conclusions that they reach).
.
My answer can be summarized by pointing out that, as biological organisms, we’re in life, involved in life, and rejection of life wouldn’t make any sense for us, and would be completely counterproductive.
.
You’re in a life because you’re the protagonist in one of the infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience stories. You were born into it. 
.
...the conclusion is the same from the biological or metaphysical standpoint.
.
But yes, as you mentioned: 
.
How and why did this life start? 
.
A metaphysical argument and explanation—a mechanics explanation—doesn’t make it any less amazing that this life started, and the question still remains: How and why did this life start?  ...because a mechanics explanation isn’t a complete answer. It isn’t experiential. It’s an “about it” discussion, which has nothing to do with our experience.  We shouldn’t settle for an “about it” mechanics explanation.  ...which is what a metaphysical explanation is.
.
You wrote:
.

Maybe he meant, ‘Before the candle is lit again, experience the world as a universal being, instead of experiencing it as a separate self.  Does a meditation like that help us understand if there is life after death?’  (as if dementia or memory loss wasn’t lesson enough)

.
Yes, and, at the end-of-lives, individuality, and identity fade out.  And, even during this life, don’t you sometimes get the feeling that it isn’t about aquisition? ...that things that we don’t “have” are just as good really? That, too, agrees with Advaita.
.
I said that i’m not an Advaitist.  I’m convinced thata we ARE the body, contrary to what Advaitists say.  But that doesn’t mean that we mightn’t, after this life, be a different body.  ...and, at the end of lives, we won’t know that there ever was, or even could be, such things as a body, a worldly-life, time, events, menace, strife, lack or incompletion.
.
So maybe it’s just that I don’t say things as the Advaiists do. I’m not saying they’re wrong, though they say things that I don’t say.  I’ve been called “pedantic”. I like to only asserrt things that I an support. But the abovementioned considerations agree with Advaitists about a lot. ...though I’m not an Advaitist because I don’t say what they say.
————————————————
I didn’t understand exactly what you meant by the passage that I’ve re-copied below:
.

Maybe he meant, ‘Before the candle is lit again, experience the world as a universal being, instead of experiencing it as a separate self.  Does a meditation like that help us understand if there is life after death?’

.
It seems to me that, from your previous posts, you assert that there isn’t. 

(as if dementia or memory loss wasn’t lesson enough)

What does it show? No one claims that detailed memories remain. At the end of every life, that fades out, and there comes a time when there’s no waking consciousness at all, and only subconscious sleep remains, with the predispositions & inclinations that go with it.

(In an ever-deepening sleep, when a sufficiently deep sleep is arrived at, of course those wouldn’t remain either. But are you sure that you’re sufficiently at-peace that you’ll go into that ever-deepening sleep?  As Shakespeare said, “...perchance to dream—Aye, there’s the rub.”)

Well yes, as you might be suggesting at the end of the above quote, someone who has achieved life-fulfillment, life-completion and lifestyile-perfection won’t have, at the end of their current life, the subconscious inclinations & predispositions that lead to a next life.  So yes, I agree with other Vedantists that, for some, there won’t be another life.
.
There are some people, called “Neo-Advaitists” who believe that merely knowing some metaphysics will free them from the wheel of births. ...that they won’t experience any such thing, because it isn’t real.
.
Traditional Buddhism and Vedanta don’t agree with them, and neither do I. Its not being real doesn’t mean that they won’t experience it again if that’s their subconscious predisposition & inclination.  ...which is why they’re experiencing it now.
.
Materialism doesn’t permit of another life.  I don’t believe in “reincarnation”, because, not being a Materialist, I don’t believe in the objective-reality of incarnation in the first place…including the one that we’re currently in. I agree with Lewis’s definition of “actual”  (I stated it in my first post here, or maybe it was in my 2nd long postf to this thread.)
.
If this life isn’t somehow more real or existent than the other hypothetical lives, then the limits imposed by Materialism no longer apply.
.
As I’ve said in another post here: 
.
Whatever the reason why this life started, that reason will likely still obtain at the end of this life (Things haven’t changed that much during this life.)
..
A similar cause brings a similiar result.
.
I’m not arguing for other lives. I’m just telling of some considerations regarding the matter, and pointing out that the matter of belief in the insupportable metaphysics of Materialism has a lot to do with what a person says about the matter.
.
Michael Ossipoff
September 1st, 2020
0229 UTC

 

 

 

 

 

 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
01 September 2020 00:15
 

Unsmoked—

I should add that,when someone speaks of subseqeunt lives, it’s often claimed that they’re speaking from a hope to evade death.
.
No, the Eastern philosophers who have been speaking and writing for millennia about the sequence of lives, regard the goal as getting off of the wheel of births. 
.
And there’s nothing wrong with ever-deepening sleep.  What could you object to about it?

Barbara Ehrenreich pointed out that death doesn’t interrupt life. Life, temporarily and briefly, interrupts sleep.
.
(The word “briefly” is meant, here, in a relative sense.  One life seems like a very long time, as I’m sure that you know.  Thousands of lives of course won’t seem longer, because only the last one is remembered. Anyway, even if you count the thousands of lives, it’s still brief compared to the final ever-deepening sleep at the end of lives.  Unlike that, a sequence of thousands of lives will nevertheless eventually end.)
.
When the ever-deepening sleep reaches the point at which you don’t know that there was, or even could be, time or events…Then, by definition, you’ll be in timelessness.
————————————
Anyway,it’s just that the Eastern philosophers say—and I agree with them—that very, very few people are sufficiently at peace, uninvolved with life, unattched to and unaddicted to life, to reach, at the end of this life, the ever-deepening sleep at the end of lives.
——————————-
Mark Twain said:
.
“Before I was born, I was dead for millions of years, and it didn’t inconvenience me a bit.”
.
Michael Ossipoff
September 1st, 2020

[ Edited: 01 September 2020 00:18 by 8262014]
 
 1 2 >