Another brilliant episode, congratulations! 💥🎯🎉 My personal favorite, of course, was my face taking over the Benatarian desert with the caption "Better Never to Have Been". 😄
Wow "Benatarian desert" ! That term can mean so many things :D ... But yeah that was actually by design, I wanted to separate you out since you will be the moderator and you fit in there quite elegantly :D
Incredible episode as always Tejas! Thank you so much for so generously covering the panel, and I'm sorry that it seems my comment from a few days ago didn't survive the YT meat grinder! You truly do some of the finest, most important work in all of AN, Tejas! I know better than most, just how much work goes into these news updates, and I am in awe of your efforts every week that goes by, truly! 🤩🤩🤩🚀
7:52 "a recognition that coming into sentient existence causes harm to the one who is coming into existence" - how is this different from philosophical pessimism?
I have viewed philosophical pessimism as broader than the concern about starting a new life and also slightly different albeit with a large overlap with antinatalism - if I get time I'll try to make a video separately - but thanks for the question
@@thecosmicantinatalist Yup, if you see some nuance that would differentiate "coming into existence is bad" from philosophical pessimism, that would be great. Just to add to it: philosophical pessimism may have a couple of main tenets/claims. So, what I'm asking is, whether "coming into existence is bad" is something that cannot be reduced to one of these main tenets.
I have never heard any plausible argument claiming animals have moral agency, regardless of the level of intelligence they may have. How any reasonable person only think animals are exempt from moral consideration, its unethical. Why consider it only for humans when it is clear the animals are suffering. Happy independence day!🎉
@@efilism I never said antinatalist or antinatalism. I said reasonable person. Also, animals are not exempt from consideration even if they are not suffering. Question of morality and ethics applies to animals. Antinatalists, religious, atheists, humanists, even efilists have moral consideration for animals.
7:48 "If you hold a view that antinatalism is actually a recognition that coming into sentient existence causes harm to the one who is coming into existence" you have the burden of demonstrating how you differentiate that view from philosophical pessimism. If you can't differentiate that view from philosophical pessimism, you're violating the three laws of logic. If you're violating the laws of logic, then you have to either concede you're in error or explain why you're exempt from those laws. Jordan Peterson holds the same view (7m12s & 21m33s in his debate with David Benatar). So, Peterson is an antinatalist according to Tejas and anyone who maintains that AN = "a recognition that coming into sentient existence causes harm to the one who is coming into existence".
Another excellent episode, looking forward to the panel!
Another brilliant episode, congratulations! 💥🎯🎉 My personal favorite, of course, was my face taking over the Benatarian desert with the caption "Better Never to Have Been". 😄
Wow "Benatarian desert" ! That term can mean so many things :D ... But yeah that was actually by design, I wanted to separate you out since you will be the moderator and you fit in there quite elegantly :D
@@thecosmicantinatalist Perfect! 😁
Incredible episode as always Tejas! Thank you so much for so generously covering the panel, and I'm sorry that it seems my comment from a few days ago didn't survive the YT meat grinder! You truly do some of the finest, most important work in all of AN, Tejas! I know better than most, just how much work goes into these news updates, and I am in awe of your efforts every week that goes by, truly! 🤩🤩🤩🚀
Thanks Amanda!
thanks as always for keeping us up to date, much appreciated 👍
7:52 "a recognition that coming into sentient existence causes harm to the one who is coming into existence" - how is this different from philosophical pessimism?
I have viewed philosophical pessimism as broader than the concern about starting a new life and also slightly different albeit with a large overlap with antinatalism - if I get time I'll try to make a video separately - but thanks for the question
@@thecosmicantinatalist Yup, if you see some nuance that would differentiate "coming into existence is bad" from philosophical pessimism, that would be great. Just to add to it: philosophical pessimism may have a couple of main tenets/claims. So, what I'm asking is, whether "coming into existence is bad" is something that cannot be reduced to one of these main tenets.
Thank you for your valuable work! That star-studded panel looks great! 🙂
I have never heard any plausible argument claiming animals have moral agency, regardless of the level of intelligence they may have. How any reasonable person only think animals are exempt from moral consideration, its unethical. Why consider it only for humans when it is clear the animals are suffering.
Happy independence day!🎉
Excluding animals from antinatalism doesn't mean excluding them from moral consideration. Antinatalism isn't synonymous with moral.
@@efilism I never said antinatalist or antinatalism. I said reasonable person. Also, animals are not exempt from consideration even if they are not suffering. Question of morality and ethics applies to animals. Antinatalists, religious, atheists, humanists, even efilists have moral consideration for animals.
@@NiaEsto Maybe I missed the point of what you said. Given the topic of t his video what was the point of your comment if you weren't referencing AN?
@@efilism only reasonable person was said.
@@NiaEsto Are you able to give a couple of examples of someone exempting animals from moral consideration, to understand what you said?
You are amazing Tejas :)
Aaap log achha kaaam krre h
Baki sab ... 🤯
🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤
7:48 "If you hold a view that antinatalism is actually a recognition that coming into sentient existence causes harm to the one who is coming into existence" you have the burden of demonstrating how you differentiate that view from philosophical pessimism.
If you can't differentiate that view from philosophical pessimism, you're violating the three laws of logic. If you're violating the laws of logic, then you have to either concede you're in error or explain why you're exempt from those laws.
Jordan Peterson holds the same view (7m12s & 21m33s in his debate with David Benatar). So, Peterson is an antinatalist according to Tejas and anyone who maintains that AN = "a recognition that coming into sentient existence causes harm to the one who is coming into existence".