Procreation: Reasons for?

@William,

William;78876 wrote:

It is not my intent to anger you or quarrel with you; only offer my thoughts and feelings in hopes that we will find a common ground as it should be in all discourse free of argument. I hoped this helped you understand me a little better as I hope to understand you. Then we can both benefit. IMMHO.

William

Hi William,

I have a different take on the question posed in this thread. I think it is great that extremes are presented, addressed, discussed, reshaped so that new views can be formed. I think it is fine to put ideas to the test and see what comes of it. I personally adore creativity in all forms, and I view this thread as very creative and challenging.

I am comfortable with the notion that birth/death are part of the cycle of life as is everything that happens in between. And that we all (in my view our souls) participate in this game of life for our own development and amusement. :bigsmile: If someone wishes to present a challenge, then let the games begin!

Rich

0 Replies

@William,

For what it's worth, I subscribe to the lemon/lemonade theory, such as it is. Now that we exist, we ought to make the most of our lot. However, my contention is that nobody and nothing can throw lemons at a non-existant being, so they are never faced with that situation.

A couple of replies now have mentioned difficulty in understanding the concept of non-existence; I fail on all levels to see the difficulty in this. We exist, non-existant people do not exist. It really is that simple. If something doesn't exist, it is, by definition, non-existant.

One or two other replies have either stated or at least implied that it is always better to have existed than not. I addressed that by asking whether anyone would rather be born and experience constant pain, or never be born, but was ignored.

4 Replies

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78852 wrote:

If a person thinks that the world was "evil", but still chooses to cast a child into that maelstrom, how can we conclude anything other than that they don't give a toss about the welfare of said child?

How can one give any welfare to a child if that child isn't born yet?

I prefer opportunity. Perhaps an opportunity for change? If you're saying we shouldn't bring life into this world, then the world becomes lifeless (obviously) and meaningless.

Is the maelstrom invincible? No.

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

The problem here is not that we cannot comprehend and abstracted dichotomy, it is that we cannot relate to the abstraction of not-being, having never not been before. Reference this thread on void and nothingness.
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/3828-total-empty-infinitely-huge-void-could-one-move.html

The nature of cognition is relation and reference, say some of the leading cog sci's Lakoff/Bickerton/pinker etc... we cannot refer nor relate to nothing, even nothing is something by the simple matter of applying a label to it so that one might abstractly understand what nothing would be could we relate to it. So as simple as the dichotomy might seem it is not applied simply, it takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics to relate on a human level to not-being, and a sentient entity being created ex nihlio.

Because of this the default is that ebing is better than not being because we cannot, nor do we have the capability to relate to it or refernce it in our cognitive space, because were we not extant we would have no cognitive state. One could argue fiction as a counterexample except that all fiction no matter how far fetched has experiential referents. Unicorns, Aliens, Ghosts, have facets that were they real allow for the referent, however not-being or nothingness doesn't.

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78881 wrote:

For what it's worth, I subscribe to the lemon/lemonade theory, such as it is. Now that we exist, we ought to make the most of our lot. However, my contention is that nobody and nothing can throw lemons at a non-existant being, so they are never faced with that situation.

A couple of replies now have mentioned difficulty in understanding the concept of non-existence; I fail on all levels to see the difficulty in this. We exist, non-existant people do not exist. It really is that simple. If something doesn't exist, it is, by definition, non-existant.

One or two other replies have either stated or at least implied that it is always better to have existed than not. I addressed that by asking whether anyone would rather be born and experience constant pain, or never be born, but was ignored.

Gojo, pain is relative. Some get hysterical if they can't find the remote to their beloved boob tubes! Still there are others who experience joy amid the chaos and effort to sharet that joy. Your presumption that life is pain and offering such a decision as if they had a choice in which they had some control in the matter is IMO impossibe to imagine though I have heard the expression "I wish I was never born". My, God what dispair!

So, gojo, what are we to do? Allow them to anguish in their dispair or offer a ray of hope? I personally vote for the latter. I will personally sacrifice what I have to bring a smile to those so discouraged. In a heartbeat; rather that espouse the helpless "I know how you feel" sentiment of which is totally disingenious.

I don't think you were ignored, it's just IMO others not being able to relate to such a comment. At least in a way that would make any sense as most offered what they did get out of life amid the pain. To me that is what is most rewarding. MY God, I have had lemons thrown at me the size of watermelons and learn those lessons they were meant to inspire to help others evade their sour impact. As far as throwing my hands up and wishing I didn't exist, what earthly good would that do except allow me to wallow in my own self pity. Not on your life and it saddens me to witness such behavior. So get prepared to do battle o'forebearers of doom, I will become a formidable adversary armed with wisdom and a smile something they do not have in their arsenal and I mean to armed them with mine calling a truce to the battle and a stalemate allowing us to join sides thus increasing our numbers in our endless journey.

Wow! I just read what I wrote. Damn! Ha. Never fails.:perplexed:

Thanks gojo for your courteous response,

William

PS; I am not a subscriber of "Murphy's Law" that says: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong!" illustrated in this limerick:

I never had a slice of bread,
Particularly large and wide,
That did not fall upon the floor,
And always on the buttered side.

Not by a long shot. Ha.:a-ok:

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;78884 wrote:

The problem here is not that we cannot comprehend and abstracted dichotomy, it is that we cannot relate to the abstraction of not-being, having never not been before.

You've "never not been before"?

So you're god then, I presume?

Right, what's this all about, then?

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78881 wrote:

However, my contention is that nobody and nothing can throw lemons at a non-existant being, so they are never faced with that situation.

Why not kill yourself? (this is a rhetorical question, not a suggestion)

This is Camus' central philosophical problem -- how do we even live at all?

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78881 wrote:

For what it's worth, I subscribe to the lemon/lemonade theory, such as it is. Now that we exist, we ought to make the most of our lot.

Why? Why try to make the most of your lot? Why not make the least of it, if existence is just poof!?

Quote:

One or two other replies have either stated or at least implied that it is always better to have existed than not. I addressed that by asking whether anyone would rather be born and experience constant pain, or never be born, but was ignored.

Well, pain is the prime mover for change (evolution) so I guess I have to learn to live with it. If everything was honky dory, then why change? A little bit of pain will get you going! Smile

In Chinese medicine, pain is an indicator of stagnation in the body and it is an indicator that something has to be changed to get things moving again. Massage (Tuina) is a big part of Chinese Medicine. So pain,as I view it, is an integral part of learning and life. Gotta learn to live with it.

Rich

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78899 wrote:

You've "never not been before"?

So you're god then, I presume?

Right, what's this all about, then?

LOL that should have read I've never expereinced not being before.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;78902 wrote:

Why not kill yourself? (this is a rhetorical question, not a suggestion)

This is Camus' central philosophical problem -- how do we even live at all?

Killing yourself requires pro-active action, action which goes against the most powerful instinct lifeforms have, the survival instinct. Pondering the nature of existence and whether you would prefer to have never have experienced it does not. Indeed, those with a philosophical mind probably can't even help themselves.

To simplify the issue to this degree would be to insult sufferers of depression.

2 Replies

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78966 wrote:

Killing yourself requires pro-active action, action which goes against the most powerful instinct lifeforms have, the survival instinct. Pondering the nature of existence and whether you would prefer to have never have experienced it does not. Indeed, those with a philosophical mind probably can't even help themselves.

Hi,

Maybe you are being to hasty in your analysis and choice of words.

You suggest that killing yourself goes against the most powerful instinct - the survival instinct. Did you ever ponder what is an instinct? Where did it come from? What is the purpose, if any? If you didn't, then this is a good place to start in the inquiry of the nature of life.

You suggest that pondering the nature of existence, which you were doing at the very moment you wrote the question that started this thread and are doing throughout this thread, and whether you you would prefer to have ever experience it, is not a powerful instinct. How did you arrive at this conclusion? How certain are you of this? Did you ever consider that maybe it is as powerful as survival? Maybe everyone does it in their lives?

I feel there are clues to why we are here and why we continue to be here, but a good detective has to examine everything that is around him and her and is very careful about making too many assumptions. I am where you are at, but I am reaching entirely different conclusions because I am examining all evidence. Not just the obvious.

Rich

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78966 wrote:

Killing yourself requires pro-active action, action which goes against the most powerful instinct lifeforms have, the survival instinct.

There is no survival instinct at all. None. You have reflexes that cause you to duck when a rock is headed for your face. You have reasons why you might not kill yourself. But it's not an instinct if it's conscious, and the instincts we DO have do not consider the abstract notion of survival.

gojo1978;78966 wrote:

Pondering the nature of existence and whether you would prefer to have never have experienced it does not. Indeed, those with a philosophical mind probably can't even help themselves.

If existence is WORSE than nonexistence, then you can CHOOSE to not exist if you want. If you know that that choice lies in your power, and yet you do not choose to give up existence, then life is apparently not that bad to you. And it also nullifies your argument that procreation is selfish, because it's perfectly rational for ANY prospective parents to think that life may be worth living. (Not to mention that the behaviors that produce children ARE instinctual)

gojo1978;78966 wrote:

To simplify the issue to this degree would be to insult sufferers of depression.

I'm not taking on either suicidality or depression, so we need not go there.

I'm taking on the issue of how can we live if life is painful and meaningless. It's not a question I have in particular, but it was the question Camus felt was the ONLY important philosophical question.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;78988 wrote:

There is no survival instinct at all. None.

I like the finality of the italics. But I think differently. So, let's leave this question open, OK? When my child was born and began crying for food, it sure seemed like a survival instinct to me. But maybe he just wanted to make a lot of noise for the heck of it. I don't know. I don't think he knew. Or maybe he did?

Quote:

You have reflexes that cause you to duck when a rock is headed for your face. You have reasons why you might not kill yourself. But it's not an instinct if it's conscious,

n

st

ngkt

)n.1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
2. A powerful motivation or impulse.
3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.

Nothing about conscious or not conscious here.

Quote:

and the instincts we DO have do not consider the abstract notion of survival.

Mine sure do. It appears that the desire to survive is the strongest motivator. Without it, and the fear of losing it, people simply would not go to the doctor as often as they do. Something called Pain, makes people want to survive.

Quote:

If existence is WORSE than nonexistence, then you can CHOOSE to not exist if you want.

But most people choose to stay alive. Ever wonder why?

Quote:

If you know that that choice lies in your power, and yet you do not choose to give up existence, then life is apparently not that bad to you.

Unfortunately, for many people, life is plenty rough (relatively speaking) and they still choose to survive. Ever wonder why?

Rich

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;78988 wrote:

There is no survival instinct at all. None. You have reflexes that cause you to duck when a rock is headed for your face. You have reasons why you might not kill yourself. But it's not an instinct if it's conscious, and the instincts we DO have do not consider the abstract notion of survival.

If existence is WORSE than nonexistence, then you can CHOOSE to not exist if you want. If you know that that choice lies in your power, and yet you do not choose to give up existence, then life is apparently not that bad to you. And it also nullifies your argument that procreation is selfish, because it's perfectly rational for ANY prospective parents to think that life may be worth living. (Not to mention that the behaviors that produce children ARE instinctual)

So you reckon surviving/avoiding harm is a choice as opposed to an instinct, but having sex is an instinct? That conjures some fairly disturbing imagery; I'm not sure if I'd like to go out to a nightclub with you! You, it seems, have NO control over who you have sex with? It just happens, automatically? How are you not in jail right now?

No survival instinct? That's a preposterous claim.

Aedes;78988 wrote:

If existence is WORSE than nonexistence, then you can CHOOSE to not exist if you want.

Yes, but I cannot choose to have never existed in the first place.

The two are completely different things.

If I never exist, I am free of that choice and that responsibility, and indeed, all other responsibility.

I thought this was covered in a previous post?

Aedes;78988 wrote:

I'm taking on the issue of how can we live if life is painful and meaningless. It's not a question I have in particular, but it was the question Camus felt was the ONLY important philosophical question.

Think I need to check me out some Camus, never read him. So much philosophy, so little time.

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78990 wrote:

Yes, but I cannot choose to have never existed in the first place.

Are you sure about this? :detective:

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;78991 wrote:

Are you sure about this? :detective:

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;78989 wrote:

When my child was born and began crying for food, it sure seemed like a survival instinct to me.

That was a hunger instinct. The absence of a hunger instinct will impair survival, the presence of one is necessary for survival. But a baby doesn't cry in order to survive.

richrf;78989 wrote:

nstngkt)n.1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.

Yes, and "survival" is not an environmental stimulus. Various sensory THREATS will induce various responsive BEHAVIORS, which functionally effect survival. But the instinct is to put out your hands when you're falling, or to eat when you're hungry, not to "survive".

richrf;78989 wrote:

2. A powerful motivation or impulse.

I submit that there is no non-human animal that is aware of the abstract concept of survival. You'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

richrf;78989 wrote:

3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

richrf;78989 wrote:

people want to survive

yes -- in people who are capable of thinking abstractly about life, about obligations, about relationships, and about the significance of their death, most people judge life to be worth living.

richrf;78989 wrote:

But most people choose to stay alive. Ever wonder why?

No -- I totally agree with you. Gojo seems to be wondering why, though -- after all, he considers it to be selfish for us to have children and I don't. Why don't you argue against him -- you and I mostly agree here? :nonooo:

---------- Post added 07-23-2009 at 11:30 AM ----------

gojo1978;78990 wrote:

So you reckon surviving/avoiding harm is a choice as opposed to an instinct

Dodging a rock is an instinct. Quitting smoking is a choice.

gojo1978;78990 wrote:

...but having sex is an instinct?

Arousal, courtship, desire, love, and the basic physical act of sex are all instincts. But one can choose with whom to have sex, and when, and where, etc.

Just like hunger is an instinct, but that doesn't mean you rip food from people's hands when you're hungry -- you have conscious modulation of some instinctual behaviors.

And this is why there are protective INSTINCTS, but it's only when you apply conscious consideration to them that survival becomes a factor.

gojo1978;78990 wrote:

You, it seems, have NO control over who you have sex with? It just happens, automatically? How are you not in jail right now?

GOJO: watch yourself.

gojo1978;78990 wrote:

No survival instinct? That's a preposterous claim.

Except for the fact that it's true. Behaviors that effect survival are demonstrable. But you will NEVER EVER be able to demonstrate that a dog survives in order to survive, or that survival is a motivation for any behavior of any kind in any creature other than a human who can talk on the subject.

gojo1978;78990 wrote:

Yes, but I cannot choose to have never existed in the first place.

The two are completely different things.

So what you're saying is that life is SOOOO bad that we should never have children, but it's not bad enough for you to choose death. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

gojo1978;78990 wrote:

Think I need to check me out some Camus, never read him. So much philosophy, so little time.

Myth of Sisyphus

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;78993 wrote:

I submit that there is no non-human animal that is aware of the abstract concept of survival.

Right, which shows that everything they do to propagate their survival is driven by instinct rather than thought.

Are you suggesting that our development of consciousness has rendered our instincts obsolete?

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;78992 wrote:

So, this is where our metaphysics differ. It illustrates that where you start from does affect the way one sees life.

Rich

---------- Post added 07-23-2009 at 11:26 AM ----------

Aedes;78993 wrote:

That was a hunger instinct. The absence of a hunger instinct will impair survival, the presence of one is necessary for survival. But a baby doesn't cry in order to survive.

Nice try, but people get hungry because the body wants to survive. But I do admire the way you can isolate one from the other. It takes great effort, I know.

Quote:

Yes, and "survival" is not an environmental stimulus. Various sensory THREATS will induce various responsive BEHAVIORS, which functionally effect survival. But the instinct is to put out your hands when you're falling, or to eat when you're hungry, not to "survive".
I submit that there is no non-human animal that is aware of the abstract concept of survival. You'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise.
Irrelevant to the discussion.

I think it is all about survival. Everything is set up to assist the body/soul's desire to survive. Totally relevant as the OP has pointed out.

Quote:

yes -- in people who are capable of thinking abstractly about life, about obligations, about relationships, and about the significance of their death, most people judge life to be worth living.

Good for most people. Did you ever wonder why the preponderance decide to survive, if it is a coin flip?

Quote:

No -- I totally agree with you. Gojo seems to be wondering why, though -- after all, he considers it to be selfish for us to have children and I don't. Why don't you argue against him -- you and I mostly agree here? :nonooo:

Yes, we agree on many things and disagree on others. I agree. Smile

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

gojo1978;79003 wrote:

Right, which shows that everything they do to propagate their survival is driven by instinct rather than thought.

No, just that the abstract concept of survival is not a motivator. Animals can make considered choices and solve problems, and it's not merely robotic.

gojo1978;79003 wrote:

Are you suggesting that our development of consciousness has rendered our instincts obsolete?

I suggest nothing of the sort. We are filled with instincts. In some cases it is within our voluntary control to modulate our behavioral response. In some cases not. Look back at my last post to see examples.

richrf;79005 wrote:

Nice try, but people get hungry because the body wants to survive.

No, people get hungry because of the direct feedback effects of hypoglycemia, decreased effective circulating volume, leptins, and decreased gastric distension on the brain. "The body wants to survive"? The body doesn't WANT anything.

richrf;79005 wrote:

Everything is set up to assist the body/soul's desire to survive.

Guess why that is? It's because the behaviors and processes that allow survival are the ones that evolution preserves.

Throw 100 cows and 100 tuna into the ocean, and the tuna will survive. It's not because the tuna or their bodies "want" to survive any more than the cows. It's because they can.

richrf;79005 wrote:

Did you ever wonder why the preponderance decide to survive, if it is a coin flip?

Ask the OP -- he's the one who is concerned about it. I think we love our lives and love other people -- that gives us meaning, that allows us to overcome pain and sorrow, and that is why we go on. There are some people who are not able to bear life's pain, or bear what they perceive as lack of meaning. Many of them die -- not necessarily from suicide, but from self-neglect (I KNOW you'll agree with this -- because you're very articulate about how people should care for themselves).

1 Reply

Procreation: Reasons for?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know