For anyone who has ever had a genuine existential crisis then David Benatar is an unlikely 'God send ' . When I heard David for the first time on YT a couple of years ago the thing that touched me were the comments. Thousands and thousands of people sharing basic anti natalist views . Some of the subjects he covers are the last taboos . I say Bless you Professor Benatar - which reminds me , I must send him a thank you letter 🙂.
Not agreeing with Benatar means not understanding the asymmetry. Joy is meaningless when compared to the amount of suffering others are paying for that joy.
Contemplating a world without human presence raises profound ethical and existential questions. If humans collectively stopped procreating and eventually vanished, the natural world would continue its inherent cycles of predation and survival. In such a world, animals would persist in their natural behaviors, including predation, leading to suffering among animal species. This observation prompts reflections on the nature of suffering independent of human involvement. Further contemplation reveals complexities in the ethics of interacting with the natural world. Although seemingly less morally contentious, some believe that killing plants for sustenance still carries ramifications. This perspective is rooted in the belief that plants possess a level of sentience, albeit different from animal sentience. The consequential impact on other species that rely on these plants for survival adds another layer to the ethical dilemma. Expanding the concept of sentience to the Earth suggests that the planet may exhibit a form of awareness beyond human comprehension. This idea aligns with holistic views of nature that perceive the Earth as a living, interconnected entity. In the context of such philosophical musings, a particular form of nihilism may emerge, particularly among those who do not believe in any existence beyond the physical life. For these individuals, the relentless cycle of suffering and the apparent inevitability of causing harm, regardless of actions, might lead to feelings of existential futility. This situation creates a paradox for those who, despite recognizing the widespread nature of suffering in all life forms, choose a vegan lifestyle to reduce harm and suffering to sentient beings. However, one could question why, in the face of overwhelming and unavoidable suffering, these individuals do not pursue more radical means to cease their contribution to suffering, such as ending their own lives. Even in a nihilistic framework, there exists an inherent contradiction or a hint of hope or belief in the potential for positive impact through personal choices. This line of thought highlights the complex interplay between ethical choices, beliefs about the nature of existence and sentience, and the broader philosophical implications of how one engages with the world. It underscores the nuanced and often contradictory ways humans grapple with suffering, their role, and the search for ethical coherence in their actions.
Even if you believe that a cosmic mind underlies the natural world, it's more likely that this mind is not intentional in nature given the amount of suffering that permeates the natural world. And Bernardo Kastrup himself feels this way. He stated that this mind is likely not intentional in nature, i.e., it didn't mean for the world to be the way it is, it is spontaneous. For if the contrary is true, then in all likelihood this mind is sadistic. So, idealism doesn't give the perspective needed to justify suffering. On the contrary, it shows that beings are better off in whatever cosmic state that lies beyond birth and death. In conclusion, the antinatalist argument remains intact.
@@massinirev2283 Thank you for your comment. I am rather unusual because I walk a razor's edge between anti natalism and religion in its highest form which I take to be advaita Vedanta . As a child I had some deep existential crises when I was faced with the harsh realities of existence and the strange fact of existence itself . When I was in my late teens I got involved with eastern philosophy because at least they had a concept that life was full of suffering. Plus if you look at Vedanta it is largely about consciousness. So I found some relief in advaita Vedanta and in particular in the ' person ' of Sri Ramana Maharshi. I only fairly came to know about David and Bernardo just a couple of years ago when I was reviewing Schopenhauer. I was thrilled to read Bernardo because even with my limited knowledge of quantum physics I recognized many similarities to it and advaita Vedanta . He is a bridge between a new science and a very old philosophy. I was also intrigued at that time to find David and discover that anti natalism is a ' thing ' . When I looked at the comments under the first presentation if his I watched I was in tears seeing the hundreds / thousands of people basically saying ' I have always felt like that - I thought it was just me ' . Although Bernardo knows that his outlook does chime with advaita , there is one area of Advaita that I don't think he knows yet . The highest teaching of Advaita is ' no creation ' . When you dream - no matter how vivid - when you awaken you know the dream is false . Sri Ramana Maharshi used to say ' to discuss the nature of the world is like discussing the characteristics of the child of a barren woman !' . If you take advaita out of my life then I would say that I am a whole hearted anti natalist . Once when people tried to celebrate Sri Ramana's birthday He tried to prevent it ( as he was all humility), but He also added ' People should mourn their birthday rather than celebrate it , as it marks their entry into this world of suffering ' . So there is a point where religion and anti natalism meet . I might add that I think Bernardo is quite brilliant . Giving a scientific basis to Idealism will prove to be even more important than Heliocentrism. Best wishes and Peace to you 🕊️
Isn’t it crazy how of all the people who have lived, Benatar is the only one who figured out the ultimate ethic? I find that fact alone highly suspicious.
@@bw2020 well, antinatalistic views can be found even in Ancient Greece. Take as an example, the title of Benatar's book "Better not to have been". It was taken from Sophocles's poem " Oedipus Rex", which was probably written in 5th century BC. I don't exclude that there could be other written works containing antinatalistic views. In any case, following from the said poem there whole bunch of other philosophers and writers reflecting or even supporting those views. I can give some other examples if you want me to
such a breath of fresh air listening to prof Benatar. please have him on again!
For anyone who has ever had a genuine existential crisis then David Benatar is an unlikely 'God send ' . When I heard David for the first time on YT a couple of years ago the thing that touched me were the comments. Thousands and thousands of people sharing basic anti natalist views . Some of the subjects he covers are the last taboos . I say Bless you Professor Benatar - which reminds me , I must send him a thank you letter 🙂.
Not agreeing with Benatar means not understanding the asymmetry. Joy is meaningless when compared to the amount of suffering others are paying for that joy.
I don’t think you understand the “asymmetry”. How can you calculate or quantify such a thing? Both in past and future.
Better never to have been 🙏
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@ReverendDr.Thomas
I don't appreciate being called slave.
But of course I am vegan
@@ellie698 Good Girl! 👌
In your own words, define “VEGANISM”. ☝️🤔☝️
very very very great
Thank you
Contemplating a world without human presence raises profound ethical and existential questions. If humans collectively stopped procreating and eventually vanished, the natural world would continue its inherent cycles of predation and survival. In such a world, animals would persist in their natural behaviors, including predation, leading to suffering among animal species. This observation prompts reflections on the nature of suffering independent of human involvement.
Further contemplation reveals complexities in the ethics of interacting with the natural world. Although seemingly less morally contentious, some believe that killing plants for sustenance still carries ramifications. This perspective is rooted in the belief that plants possess a level of sentience, albeit different from animal sentience. The consequential impact on other species that rely on these plants for survival adds another layer to the ethical dilemma.
Expanding the concept of sentience to the Earth suggests that the planet may exhibit a form of awareness beyond human comprehension. This idea aligns with holistic views of nature that perceive the Earth as a living, interconnected entity.
In the context of such philosophical musings, a particular form of nihilism may emerge, particularly among those who do not believe in any existence beyond the physical life. For these individuals, the relentless cycle of suffering and the apparent inevitability of causing harm, regardless of actions, might lead to feelings of existential futility.
This situation creates a paradox for those who, despite recognizing the widespread nature of suffering in all life forms, choose a vegan lifestyle to reduce harm and suffering to sentient beings. However, one could question why, in the face of overwhelming and unavoidable suffering, these individuals do not pursue more radical means to cease their contribution to suffering, such as ending their own lives. Even in a nihilistic framework, there exists an inherent contradiction or a hint of hope or belief in the potential for positive impact through personal choices.
This line of thought highlights the complex interplay between ethical choices, beliefs about the nature of existence and sentience, and the broader philosophical implications of how one engages with the world. It underscores the nuanced and often contradictory ways humans grapple with suffering, their role, and the search for ethical coherence in their actions.
Please provide time stamps.
I think that Idealism does give the Cosmos perspective and Bernardo Kastrup gives good evidence for that .
Even if you believe that a cosmic mind underlies the natural world, it's more likely that this mind is not intentional in nature given the amount of suffering that permeates the natural world. And Bernardo Kastrup himself feels this way. He stated that this mind is likely not intentional in nature, i.e., it didn't mean for the world to be the way it is, it is spontaneous. For if the contrary is true, then in all likelihood this mind is sadistic. So, idealism doesn't give the perspective needed to justify suffering. On the contrary, it shows that beings are better off in whatever cosmic state that lies beyond birth and death. In conclusion, the antinatalist argument remains intact.
@@massinirev2283 Thank you for your comment.
I am rather unusual because I walk a razor's edge between anti natalism and religion in its highest form which I take to be advaita Vedanta .
As a child I had some deep existential crises when I was faced with the harsh realities of existence and the strange fact of existence itself .
When I was in my late teens I got involved with eastern philosophy because at least they had a concept that life was full of suffering. Plus if you look at Vedanta it is largely about consciousness. So I found some relief in advaita Vedanta and in particular in the ' person ' of Sri Ramana Maharshi.
I only fairly came to know about David and Bernardo just a couple of years ago when I was reviewing Schopenhauer.
I was thrilled to read Bernardo because even with my limited knowledge of quantum physics I recognized many similarities to it and advaita Vedanta . He is a bridge between a new science and a very old philosophy.
I was also intrigued at that time to find David and discover that anti natalism is a ' thing ' . When I looked at the comments under the first presentation if his I watched I was in tears seeing the hundreds / thousands of people basically saying ' I have always felt like that - I thought it was just me ' .
Although Bernardo knows that his outlook does chime with advaita , there is one area of Advaita that I don't think he knows yet .
The highest teaching of Advaita is ' no creation ' . When you dream - no matter how vivid - when you awaken you know the dream is false .
Sri Ramana Maharshi used to say ' to discuss the nature of the world is like discussing the characteristics of the child of a barren woman !' .
If you take advaita out of my life then I would say that I am a whole hearted anti natalist .
Once when people tried to celebrate Sri Ramana's birthday He tried to prevent it ( as he was all humility), but He also added ' People should mourn their birthday rather than celebrate it , as it marks their entry into this world of suffering ' .
So there is a point where religion and anti natalism meet .
I might add that I think Bernardo is quite brilliant . Giving a scientific basis to Idealism will prove to be even more important than Heliocentrism.
Best wishes and Peace to you 🕊️
Why was it remastered?
David's audio in the original is pretty bad.
Isn’t it crazy how of all the people who have lived, Benatar is the only one who figured out the ultimate ethic? I find that fact alone highly suspicious.
What you mean by ultimate ethics?
What you mean by ultimate ethics?
@@QohelEt-qb7kw the “ultimate ethic” being not having children, in this case.
@@bw2020 well, antinatalistic views can be found even in Ancient Greece. Take as an example, the title of Benatar's book "Better not to have been". It was taken from Sophocles's poem " Oedipus Rex", which was probably written in 5th century BC. I don't exclude that there could be other written works containing antinatalistic views. In any case, following from the said poem there whole bunch of other philosophers and writers reflecting or even supporting those views. I can give some other examples if you want me to
42
Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
So many holes in Benatar’s antinatlism. It’s not a theory of ethics, it’s a thought experiment at best.
So many that you listed none yourself 😂 anti natalism is logically and ethically sound. Your just a moron
The word “meaningful” is not meaningful
Sorry, I don't know what you mean.