3 ms·

You can't see why oblivion would be preferable to anything other than, say, extreme chronic pain? I can't imagine that anyone could be so blind. The yardstick

by Ntrails 12y ago

You can't see why oblivion would be preferable to anything other than, say, extreme chronic pain? I can't imagine that anyone could be so blind. The yardstick is simple, does continuing to exist seem like something of higher net value than oblivion. The reality of daily existence barely meets that criteria for me, and I can only imagine I have far fewer troubles than most of the world's population. I often wonder if the majority of people only continue to exist because of social obligations and cultural attitudes. Or maybe they just enjoy more things (such as the exploration you mention) :)

imgabe 12y ago
That's a circular definition. It's "worth" it because it has "value". Value for what? To whom? Why does it need to have a value? Does a tree or a mountain or a zebra or anything else need a value to justify its existence?
- Ntrails 12y ago
  To the person making the decision on whether to continue to exist. Trees may or may not be making such a decision, same with zebras, I neither know nor care. However, I do make that decision every day. So do you, whether you recognise it or not. Existence is not imposed on me, I have both the ability to know I exist and the means to change that.
  - imgabe 12y ago
    In order to obtain value from anything, you have to exist. So, the value of nonexistence is always going to be zero. Unless your current existence has a negative value (i.e. constant pain, severe depression) existence is always preferable. Nonexistence also has the opportunity cost of all the things you can do if you continue to exist.
    - kaoD 12y ago
      As I said in other comment, it can be boiled down to the term value/effort (which cannot go negative). Not existing is 0/0 i.e. indeterminate. Existing can be >= 1 (worth living) or < 1 (not worth living, regardless of how much value you get out of life). Some people prefer indeterminate to < 1. Is it that unreasonable? Furthermore, some people assign value to not doing something, even if it's a priori. Not being in constant pain (whether physical or psychical) definitely has some value. In that case, not being alive approaches infinity!
      - imgabe 12y ago
        Assuming the value of a life can be assigned a simple scalar quantity seems like an unjustified assumption. Regardless, I don't think I'm explaining this well. "Value" and "worth" imply that you have some expectation that life has to meet in order to be satisfied with it, that it has to be doing something or accomplishing something. That's not really necessary. Your life, all life, simply is. There's no greater purpose necessary.
        kaoD 12y ago
        > Assuming the value of a life can be assigned a simple scalar quantity seems like an unjustified assumption. It's not a scalar quantity but a fuzzy one. My point is still valid. > "Value" and "worth" imply that you have some expectation that life has to meet in order to be satisfied with it, that it has to be doing something or accomplishing something. Definitely. Why would I live then? It should be doing something: be enjoyable. At the bare minimum. > Your life, all life, simply is. So...? I don't follow your point here. Just like it simply is, I can simply terminate it. > There's no greater purpose necessary. You're the one who brought a greater purpose here. I don't particularly care about my life's purpose. In fact, if it had a purpose, it could be wrong to terminate it.
        imgabe 12y ago
        > Why would I live then? That's my point. There is no why. You don't need a why. You do live.

by Ntrails 12y ago

imgabe 12y ago

That's a circular definition. It's "worth" it because it has "value". Value for what? To whom? Why does it need to have a value? Does a tree or a mountain or a zebra or anything else need a value to justify its existence?

Ntrails 12y ago
To the person making the decision on whether to continue to exist. Trees may or may not be making such a decision, same with zebras, I neither know nor care. However, I do make that decision every day. So do you, whether you recognise it or not. Existence is not imposed on me, I have both the ability to know I exist and the means to change that.
- imgabe 12y ago
  In order to obtain value from anything, you have to exist. So, the value of nonexistence is always going to be zero. Unless your current existence has a negative value (i.e. constant pain, severe depression) existence is always preferable. Nonexistence also has the opportunity cost of all the things you can do if you continue to exist.
  - kaoD 12y ago
    As I said in other comment, it can be boiled down to the term value/effort (which cannot go negative). Not existing is 0/0 i.e. indeterminate. Existing can be >= 1 (worth living) or < 1 (not worth living, regardless of how much value you get out of life). Some people prefer indeterminate to < 1. Is it that unreasonable? Furthermore, some people assign value to not doing something, even if it's a priori. Not being in constant pain (whether physical or psychical) definitely has some value. In that case, not being alive approaches infinity!
    - imgabe 12y ago
      Assuming the value of a life can be assigned a simple scalar quantity seems like an unjustified assumption. Regardless, I don't think I'm explaining this well. "Value" and "worth" imply that you have some expectation that life has to meet in order to be satisfied with it, that it has to be doing something or accomplishing something. That's not really necessary. Your life, all life, simply is. There's no greater purpose necessary.
      - kaoD 12y ago
        > Assuming the value of a life can be assigned a simple scalar quantity seems like an unjustified assumption. It's not a scalar quantity but a fuzzy one. My point is still valid. > "Value" and "worth" imply that you have some expectation that life has to meet in order to be satisfied with it, that it has to be doing something or accomplishing something. Definitely. Why would I live then? It should be doing something: be enjoyable. At the bare minimum. > Your life, all life, simply is. So...? I don't follow your point here. Just like it simply is, I can simply terminate it. > There's no greater purpose necessary. You're the one who brought a greater purpose here. I don't particularly care about my life's purpose. In fact, if it had a purpose, it could be wrong to terminate it.
        imgabe 12y ago
        > Why would I live then? That's my point. There is no why. You don't need a why. You do live.