But at least we could still hear your voice. I liked the quick roundup of this week’s videos at the end - a great way to keep us up to date. Hope you’re feeling better!
I, too, watched this live and was disappointed not to see the pretty face. 😅 Excellent analyses, once again, congratulations! 🎯 A question to us all: Why is antinatalism discussed in The Festival of Dangerous Ideas? And: Why is Elon Musk not? 🚀
Another excellent listing of AN presentations around the world. I listened to Cabrera's critique of Benetar, the first part, and I found it well done and useful. When I read Benetar's "Better Never to Have Been' I had a mixed reaction. Parts of it spoke to me and parts of it seemed constructed but not convincing. Cabrera addressed some of my own hesitations regarding Benetar. // My overall sense of Benetar is that his antinatalism is based on what I would call a 'metaphysical intuition' but because he seems to be rooted in analytic philosophy he can't acknowledge the intuitive nature of at least some of his insights. By 'intuition' I mean something like an axiom rather than just an emotional feeling. // In any case, thanks for all your work,
Yes. That video is in Arabic. But the accent was a bit confusing to me. When he started with the word معاناة (suffering) I realized it's in Arabic. But the subtitle was الإنقراض الطوعي للبشر which means voluntary human extinction. It seems he has combined these two philosophies in the video.
It is actually a FACT that one (male or female) can do without children just fine in today's modern, industrualised society ... So yeah, that's that. The things making one feel that it's not ok to be childfree is mainly tied to tradition and societal expectations.
Tejas, at 10:30-ish, you tell us how David Benatar self-reportedly assesses his students’ work. Some critics of his views get high marks because their arguments are good. Some champions of his views get low marks because their arguments are bad. My question to you (and to anyone listening) is: Does this not show that Julio Cabrera is right? Even in these cases, Benatar maintains the right to set the criteria for evaluation. These arguments are good, those are bad, according to his rules. Or am I somehow completely messing this up? 😊
As I understand, in the example that I gave, Benatar is evaluating his students; so his role as a teacher grants the right(at least to some degree) to set the criteria for evaluation. The example is appropriate and misplaced at the same time. Appropriate because even if he has the right to set the criteria the way he wants, he does so carefully and rationally. Secondly, it demonstrates his willingness to change his position whether in the classroom or otherwise. Misplaced because it does not directly address the situation Cabrera is criticizing in; which is the situation outside of the classroom, where Benatar does not necessarily have the rights to set the criteria. Note: I have never been in academics and have been educated in technical engineering background where most of the evaluation criteria is a priori and mathematical, so my analysis above might be completely wrong.
@@thecosmicantinatalist Sounds reasonable to me. Cabrera might be more adamant even about the classroom situation but would certainly agree with you about the outside-the-classroom one. I think. 🙂
Full disclosure: I sent this piece to Tejas and convinced him to add it as a commentary. I think Benatar would argue that these are not “his criteria” but (universally accepted) rules of proper argumentation (the ones whose validity Cabrera explicitly questions). So (in a classroom setting) you can argue for anything (even silly things) but if you do it well (and in accordance with said rules), you get high marks. I understand how somebody might think that this proves Cabrera’s point: that if you are clever/skilful enough, you can argue your way out of anything (which is, in practical terms, what his argumentative pessimism boils down to). And in this respect this final sentence (as much as I like it for other reasons) maybe is somewhat misplaced here (or not the strongest compared to the rest of the paragraph). But I think the point still stands: that Benatar is clearly interested (both in his own work and in the work of others, be it students or philosophers) in the quality of the argument first and in the conclusions second. So he defends his views because he believes not in them per se but in the (objective) argumentative process that led him to them. This might be argumentative optimism but if we discard this (as Cabrera seems to want) we are left with a collection of philosophical stories (some absolutely ridiculous and very well/convincingly written at the same time) which cannot be defended or attacked. In other words - with literature (think Borges). Not that I have anything against literature, but there is a very good reason it is not philosophy. In fact, it seems to me that Cabrera would like to subsume philosophy under literature (which would inevitably destroy the former).
@@imaginaryunit-i Yes, if I understand you correctly, you are right. This boils down to two different takes on what philosophy can and cannot do, one stating that it can rely on universally accepted substantive as well as formal rules in forging moral judgments, the other suggesting that it can only tell convincing stories which can and will, in time, be replaced by new ones. Looking at my own work, I realize that I have for a long time been, for reason or reasons unknown, pretty allergic to the first take. Hence, seeing something like the second in Cabrera warmed my heart and aligned with my intuitions, such as they are. 😊
@@mattihayry5060 Just want to add that I generally admire Cabrera’s work (he is a brilliant writer) and I am personally very receptive to this sort of literary persuasion (read a lot of pessimistic literature before finding Benatar). But I do not think it is possible to deny that it is precisely thanks to Benatar’s rigorous (and, Cabrera would say, needlessly aggressive) argumentative “packaging” of antinatalism (in BNTHB) and later existential pessimism (in THP) that they now enjoy at least a modicum of respectability in philosophical circles. Imagine trying to argue for antinatalism on the basis of Cioran (who I agree was a literary giant). “So you want me to not have kids because an old depressed fogey had a couple of sleepless nights and jotted down stuff? Anyway, that’s just his perspective.” Which is why I think Cabrera’s “perspectivism” (which seems to me relativism with a better-sounding name) is not at all conducive to philosophical debate.
You didn't exist yet a life was still imposed. Therefore not existing is incapable of stopping a life from being imposed. Therefore, not existing cannot be better.
@@naturalisted1714 P1 if you can not exist, you can not impose life, P2 so It is a fact that not existing is preventing you to impose life, as a result of this, it is Good. Was really easy to refute actually.
![[FULL EP.73] เปิดบ้าน 70 ล้าน "แป้ง Zbing" ยกมาทั้งญี่ปุ่น l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YBnJhTt07Pg/mqdefault.jpg)
I am with two other antinatalists, including Nimrod, watching this premiere live! We miss your pretty face 😂
Haahaa! Thanks for watching.
Cabrera is adding unnecessary confusion.
But at least we could still hear your voice. I liked the quick roundup of this week’s videos at the end - a great way to keep us up to date. Hope you’re feeling better!
I, too, watched this live and was disappointed not to see the pretty face. 😅 Excellent analyses, once again, congratulations! 🎯 A question to us all: Why is antinatalism discussed in The Festival of Dangerous Ideas? And: Why is Elon Musk not? 🚀
Thats a very good question really, i did not think of that
Thank you for collecting this together! It reminded me that these questions of childfree living are global and gaining traction.
Another excellent listing of AN presentations around the world. I listened to Cabrera's critique of Benetar, the first part, and I found it well done and useful. When I read Benetar's "Better Never to Have Been' I had a mixed reaction. Parts of it spoke to me and parts of it seemed constructed but not convincing. Cabrera addressed some of my own hesitations regarding Benetar. // My overall sense of Benetar is that his antinatalism is based on what I would call a 'metaphysical intuition' but because he seems to be rooted in analytic philosophy he can't acknowledge the intuitive nature of at least some of his insights. By 'intuition' I mean something like an axiom rather than just an emotional feeling. // In any case, thanks for all your work,
Nice video sir ! as always
Yes. That video is in Arabic. But the accent was a bit confusing to me. When he started with the word معاناة (suffering) I realized it's in Arabic. But the subtitle was الإنقراض الطوعي للبشر which means voluntary human extinction. It seems he has combined these two philosophies in the video.
It is actually a FACT that one (male or female) can do without children just fine in today's modern, industrualised society ... So yeah, that's that. The things making one feel that it's not ok to be childfree is mainly tied to tradition and societal expectations.
👋
Tejas, at 10:30-ish, you tell us how David Benatar self-reportedly assesses his students’ work. Some critics of his views get high marks because their arguments are good. Some champions of his views get low marks because their arguments are bad. My question to you (and to anyone listening) is: Does this not show that Julio Cabrera is right? Even in these cases, Benatar maintains the right to set the criteria for evaluation. These arguments are good, those are bad, according to his rules. Or am I somehow completely messing this up? 😊
As I understand, in the example that I gave, Benatar is evaluating his students; so his role as a teacher grants the right(at least to some degree) to set the criteria for evaluation. The example is appropriate and misplaced at the same time.
Appropriate because even if he has the right to set the criteria the way he wants, he does so carefully and rationally. Secondly, it demonstrates his willingness to change his position whether in the classroom or otherwise.
Misplaced because it does not directly address the situation Cabrera is criticizing in; which is the situation outside of the classroom, where Benatar does not necessarily have the rights to set the criteria.
Note: I have never been in academics and have been educated in technical engineering background where most of the evaluation criteria is a priori and mathematical, so my analysis above might be completely wrong.
@@thecosmicantinatalist Sounds reasonable to me. Cabrera might be more adamant even about the classroom situation but would certainly agree with you about the outside-the-classroom one. I think. 🙂
Full disclosure: I sent this piece to Tejas and convinced him to add it as a commentary.
I think Benatar would argue that these are not “his criteria” but (universally accepted) rules of proper argumentation (the ones whose validity Cabrera explicitly questions). So (in a classroom setting) you can argue for anything (even silly things) but if you do it well (and in accordance with said rules), you get high marks. I understand how somebody might think that this proves Cabrera’s point: that if you are clever/skilful enough, you can argue your way out of anything (which is, in practical terms, what his argumentative pessimism boils down to). And in this respect this final sentence (as much as I like it for other reasons) maybe is somewhat misplaced here (or not the strongest compared to the rest of the paragraph).
But I think the point still stands: that Benatar is clearly interested (both in his own work and in the work of others, be it students or philosophers) in the quality of the argument first and in the conclusions second. So he defends his views because he believes not in them per se but in the (objective) argumentative process that led him to them. This might be argumentative optimism but if we discard this (as Cabrera seems to want) we are left with a collection of philosophical stories (some absolutely ridiculous and very well/convincingly written at the same time) which cannot be defended or attacked. In other words - with literature (think Borges). Not that I have anything against literature, but there is a very good reason it is not philosophy. In fact, it seems to me that Cabrera would like to subsume philosophy under literature (which would inevitably destroy the former).
@@imaginaryunit-i Yes, if I understand you correctly, you are right. This boils down to two different takes on what philosophy can and cannot do, one stating that it can rely on universally accepted substantive as well as formal rules in forging moral judgments, the other suggesting that it can only tell convincing stories which can and will, in time, be replaced by new ones. Looking at my own work, I realize that I have for a long time been, for reason or reasons unknown, pretty allergic to the first take. Hence, seeing something like the second in Cabrera warmed my heart and aligned with my intuitions, such as they are. 😊
@@mattihayry5060 Just want to add that I generally admire Cabrera’s work (he is a brilliant writer) and I am personally very receptive to this sort of literary persuasion (read a lot of pessimistic literature before finding Benatar). But I do not think it is possible to deny that it is precisely thanks to Benatar’s rigorous (and, Cabrera would say, needlessly aggressive) argumentative “packaging” of antinatalism (in BNTHB) and later existential pessimism (in THP) that they now enjoy at least a modicum of respectability in philosophical circles.
Imagine trying to argue for antinatalism on the basis of Cioran (who I agree was a literary giant). “So you want me to not have kids because an old depressed fogey had a couple of sleepless nights and jotted down stuff? Anyway, that’s just his perspective.” Which is why I think Cabrera’s “perspectivism” (which seems to me relativism with a better-sounding name) is not at all conducive to philosophical debate.
thanks as always 😊👍♥ and hope you're feeling better soon.
Boosting
Wo elon ek aur kid
😮😮😮😮😮
12 children
🤯🤯🤯🤯
Lots of news, by the way.
What is your caste? If I had to guess, it would be Brahmin
Finally I saw how benatar looks like ...even though the picture is not clear ..
What? if you are referring to my video, I have not used any of Benatar's photos.
You didn't exist yet a life was still imposed. Therefore not existing is incapable of stopping a life from being imposed. Therefore, not existing cannot be better.
you keep putting that garbage argument even when people already corrected you. You never addressed the refutations ,what is wrong with you?
@@elCamaradaR No one has refuted my debunking of the Asymmetry Argument. All "refutations" have been addressed several times.
@@naturalisted1714 P1 if you can not exist, you can not impose life,
P2 so It is a fact that not existing is preventing you to impose life, as a result of this, it is Good.
Was really easy to refute actually.