Prev: Review of "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Safran Foer
Next: semiOT--- Poodle issue with plumbing
From: Rupert on 4 Mar 2010 16:35
You define a "life of positive value" to be one that is on the whole
better than experiencing nothing, right? How am I supposed to go about
working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing? It is
not as though I can imagine what it is like to experience nothing.
From: dh on 7 Mar 2010 12:30
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
<rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>You define a "life of positive value" to be one that is on the whole
>better than experiencing nothing, right?

No. If the experience itself is worth having. If it's not,
then it's of negative value.

>How am I supposed to go about
>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?

The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.

>It is
>not as though I can imagine what it is like to experience nothing.

You can imagine what it's like to experience what you do. The
value of life can and does change frequently in our lives too.
Say for example you don't have a broken rib, so you're not living
a life of agony with extra stabs every time you cough, or
laugh...and sneezing it hell. Then you do get one, and all the
pain that goes with it. During the time before you heal, life may
very well be of negative value, and if you would have to be that
way for the rest of your life you might want it to end fairly
soon.
There are countless examples. One more thing to think about
though, if you're actually trying....and something else to reject
if you're not....is the fact that animals raised for food don't
usually ever come in contact with death until it's their time, so
they don't have the mental burden of knowing they will die as
humans do. Also they die swiftly and unless it's a terrible
situation with little or no real agony. Humans on the other hand
often suffer for years, knowing the only end to the suffering is
death.

All of it needs to be taken into consideration. The bad as
well as the good. The good as well as the bad.
From: Dutch on 7 Mar 2010 13:52
<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>>How am I supposed to go about
>>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?
>
> The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
> especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
> would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.

That comparison is between two states where *something* is experienced, How
does that tell him what "experiencing nothing" is like?

The answer, and the fact that you seem unable to grasp, is that there is no
such thing as "experiencing nothing", therefore any statement that claims
that something is better than "experiencing nothing" is meaningless. I am
specifically referring to the statement, "A life of positive value is better
than no life."

Of course I understand that cognitive interference makes this sound like
gibberish to you, but it is true

From: dh on 8 Mar 2010 16:06
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:52:27 -0800, "Dutch" <no(a)email.com> wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>> <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>How am I supposed to go about
>>>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?
>>
>> The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
>> especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
>> would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.
>
>That comparison is between two states where *something* is experienced, How
>does that tell him what "experiencing nothing" is like?

It doesn't have to. If what he's experiencing is of negative
value then it is, regardless of anything to do with your
obsession with nonexistence. And if what livestock experience is
of negative value then it is, regardless of anything to do with
your obsession with nonexistence.

>The answer, and the fact that you seem unable to grasp, is that there is no
>such thing as "experiencing nothing", therefore any statement that claims
>that something is better than "experiencing nothing" is meaningless. I am
>specifically referring to the statement, "A life of positive value is better
>than no life."
>
>Of course I understand that cognitive interference makes this sound like
>gibberish to you, but it is true

The fact that you can't explain what you want people to think
nonexistence has to do with the value of life to existing beings,
is what makes your insistence that something does sound like
gibberish to me.
From: Rupert on 8 Mar 2010 16:15
On Mar 9, 8:06 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:52:27 -0800, "Dutch" <n...(a)email.com> wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> >> <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>How am I supposed to go about
> >>>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?
>
> >>    The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
> >> especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
> >> would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.
>
> >That comparison is between two states where *something* is experienced, How
> >does that tell him what "experiencing nothing" is like?
>
>     It doesn't have to. If what he's experiencing is of negative
> value then it is, regardless of anything to do with your
> obsession with nonexistence. And if what livestock experience is
> of negative value then it is, regardless of anything to do with
> your obsession with nonexistence.
>

How do I figure out whether what I am experiencing right now is of
positive or negative value?

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Review of "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Safran Foer
Next: semiOT--- Poodle issue with plumbing