This is my favourite episode of one of the best radio programs on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio National. It's great that Benatar says his arguments also apply to non-human sentient animals. Thanks for sharing this!
The title of this video is highly misleading. This discussion was not about animals. In fact, animals were barely mentioned. I listen to this video to discern whether David Benatar thinks that auntie nailists are required to become vegan and that was not discussed. This was a complete waste of time.
As much as I agree with Benatar in many ways, I think he makes rather gross fundamental mistakes: 1. He assumes as obvious that procreation brings new beings into _existence_ when that isn't obvious at all since this might only bring a _new form_ to pre-existent beings, thus paving their way into _this particular form_ of existence. One doesn't have to assume the latter in order to be certain that his opposite assumption isn't obvious. 2. He assumes that there is obviously no potential purpose to this, in itself admittedly disadvantageous, existence beyond physical death which might justify the suffering involved in retrospect. Again, one doesn't have to assume the latter in order to be certain that his opposite assumption isn't obvious. If he could correct his theory in this regard, I'd be all for it, but it would just end up being a footnote to buddhism. As it is, he is mostly helping build the malthusian, trans- _(and therefore anti-)_ humanist edifice on a pretty much materialist basis. _P.S.: I had to repost the above almost three weeks after I first posted it in order to drop pretty dense trolls._
You call that refutation? He's just trying to apease the majority. Only good and justifiable reason to continue living is the execution of antinatalism/efilist philosophy. We need to live in order spread this philosophy, and get organised.
@@miroslavblagojevic2402 Efilism is made just as pointless, because there's no peaceful state after death. Plus, GSC still applies -- eventually life will come to exist somewhere in the universe.
At 22 minutes, he talks about Epicureans being wrong about death. I ask: what if atheists are wrong? That's an immense cost. I reverted to Catholicism back in 2016. :)
_"what if atheists are wrong? That's an immense cost."_ This obvious possibility escapes these fools, regardless of a catholic or any other commitment in world view. To consider this logical possibility would be necessary for any even remotely intelligent agnostic. See my own OP.
@@brianw.5230 It was only ghosted because I can still see it. I will try to repost it below in a modified way which isn't going to be easy once the algos have an eye on a deleted post.
You rightly remark ... _"what if atheists are wrong? That's an immense cost."_ ... and the mere existence of this obviously logically possible alternative escapes these geniuses. It also has nothing to do with a catholic or any other ideological commitment, because to see it would be necessary for any even remotely intelligent agnostic. As regards that, please also refer to my own original posting in this comment section.
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8kldrPPsDZs/mqdefault.jpg)
![ไปอยู่ไสมา - ช๊อปเปอร์ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sWuVNbRTJbc/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for uploading! I'm always in search of new Benatar related content.
always a pleasure to listen to any small interview that i can find with David Benatar! 😊
This is my favourite episode of one of the best radio programs on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio National. It's great that Benatar says his arguments also apply to non-human sentient animals. Thanks for sharing this!
Really enjoyed this one! He said certain things in a new way (to my ears anyway) that helped solidify it for me.
glad this is being addressed explicitly, thanks for the upload!
The title of this video is highly misleading. This discussion was not about animals. In fact, animals were barely mentioned. I listen to this video to discern whether David Benatar thinks that auntie nailists are required to become vegan and that was not discussed. This was a complete waste of time.
As much as I agree with Benatar in many ways, I think he makes rather gross fundamental mistakes:
1. He assumes as obvious that procreation brings new beings into _existence_ when that isn't obvious at all since this might only bring a _new form_ to pre-existent beings, thus paving their way into _this particular form_ of existence. One doesn't have to assume the latter in order to be certain that his opposite assumption isn't obvious.
2. He assumes that there is obviously no potential purpose to this, in itself admittedly disadvantageous, existence beyond physical death which might justify the suffering involved in retrospect. Again, one doesn't have to assume the latter in order to be certain that his opposite assumption isn't obvious.
If he could correct his theory in this regard, I'd be all for it, but it would just end up being a footnote to buddhism. As it is, he is mostly helping build the malthusian, trans- _(and therefore anti-)_ humanist edifice on a pretty much materialist basis.
_P.S.: I had to repost the above almost three weeks after I first posted it in order to drop pretty dense trolls._
Very, very interesting.
The part on animals: 23:29
I love his refutation of suicide at 18:30 minutes!
You call that refutation? He's just trying to apease the majority. Only good and justifiable reason to continue living is the execution of antinatalism/efilist philosophy. We need to live in order spread this philosophy, and get organised.
Happiness is a chance. Suffering is a certainty. Get it? We are all born condemned to die. We live on death row. Get it?
Generic Subjective Continuity makes Benatar's Antinatalism pointless.
That's why efilism exist.
@@miroslavblagojevic2402 Efilism is made just as pointless, because there's no peaceful state after death. Plus, GSC still applies -- eventually life will come to exist somewhere in the universe.
At 22 minutes, he talks about Epicureans being wrong about death. I ask: what if atheists are wrong? That's an immense cost.
I reverted to Catholicism back in 2016. :)
_"what if atheists are wrong? That's an immense cost."_ This obvious possibility escapes these fools, regardless of a catholic or any other commitment in world view. To consider this logical possibility would be necessary for any even remotely intelligent agnostic. See my own OP.
Can you read my first reply to you ? Because in my other identities I can't.
@@TheSoteriologist I read it and it was deleted
@@brianw.5230 It was only ghosted because I can still see it. I will try to repost it below in a modified way which isn't going to be easy once the algos have an eye on a deleted post.
You rightly remark ...
_"what if atheists are wrong? That's an immense cost."_
... and the mere existence of this obviously logically possible alternative escapes these geniuses. It also has nothing to do with a catholic or any other ideological commitment, because to see it would be necessary for any even remotely intelligent agnostic. As regards that, please also refer to my own original posting in this comment section.