I don’t really care, but I wanted to give Titamonchia a real question to grapple with, instead of his pseudo-philosophical questions that he declares unanswerable based on the idea that “nothing matters”.
I really have no answer other than I like being alive. It feels good enough, most of the time that I want to maintain it. I can build any moral argument you want off of that.
Depends upon your point of view. Someone born in a rich neighborhood in Europe or America will probably have a different outlook than someone born on a farm in Ethiopia. We westerners can find many reasons to prefer existence (at least the mentally stable among us) but for many Ethiopians their situation is hopeless.
I’m guessing anyone wth internet access, running water, and other such amenities would say it is. But it is based on circumstance. It’s easy to say that when you win the lottery and are born to a stable family that can provide. Also not being born with a mental illness helps to. Depends how much the odds are stacked and what you can deal with. Obviously those who live in a area where hunger is about as abundant as air wouldn’t like living and would wish an end to their suffering.
You could say it’s pain punctuated by brief good moments, but even that wouldn’t be the truth. It’s on a case by case basis.
Is this supposed to be a “real question”?
I'm guessing anyone wth internet access, running water, and other such amenities would say it is. But it is based on circumstance. It's easy to say that when you win the lottery and are born to a stable family that can provide. Also not being born with a mental illness helps to. Depends how much the odds are stacked and what you can deal with. Obviously those who live in a area where hunger is about as abundant as air wouldn't like living and would wish an end to their suffering. You could say it's pain punctuated by brief good moments, but even that wouldn't be the truth. It's on a case by case basis. Is this supposed to be a "real question"?Yes it's real. It's a fundamental question of existence. It may seem "lame" to some, because it is so obvious on the surface. We have a survival instinct, otherwise we wouldn't be here. But the bigger questions have already been raised. At what point does a starving child realize who they are and decide to keep going? I'm sure some do despair and give up, but many don't. And how do we explain generations of subsistence farmers, serfs or slaves, fighting to stay alive one more day on the hopes that things will get better, or maybe hoping their children's lives with be better. I'm not sure I could have done it, but I'm glad someone did, or I wouldn't be here.
It’s only a lame question on the surface. Most of us have an easy time with this: we get to learn things about the universe; we have great music, art and literature; we have beautiful scenery, tequila and friends. Best of all, we have the mental ability and free time to think about these things. Life is good.
Not so much in other areas of the world. Much of Africa has suffered drought conditions for at least 30 years. Children starve to death every day. Throughout history many areas have seen far more war than peace. I have wondered what could possibly motivate someone born into abject poverty and famine to continue living. The only thing I can come up with are survival instinct and fear of death, and the second is quite likely a direct result of the first.
Hope is irrational though.
Existance is preferable to anyone who would like to express an opinion or know opinions should be expressed.The use of the term "preferable" applies only to *living* (existing) things. Non-existence has no properties of any kind and therefore the word preferable does not apply. The OP question poses a false dichotomy.
Existance is preferable to anyone who would like to express an opinion or know opinions should be expressed.The use of the term "preferable" applies only to *living* (existing) things. Non-existence has no properties of any kind and therefore the word preferable does not apply. The OP question poses a false dichotomy. How can it be a false dichotomy when so many people cling to mythologies that promise eternal life?
Existance is preferable to anyone who would like to express an opinion or know opinions should be expressed.The use of the term "preferable" applies only to *living* (existing) things. Non-existence has no properties of any kind and therefore the word preferable does not apply. The OP question poses a false dichotomy. Did not see that coming. I was trying to come up with something about a rock having desires to express itself, a purely mythical idea, although, I heard there is a new theory about the beginning of biological life. The theory is that if you just shine enough light on minerals, eventually they start to organize. Anyway, existing does not equal living. Something can exist without having what we call "life". "Preferring" does require consciousness of at least some rudimentary level, so the question is posed to something that can have a preference. I don't see how that makes it false though.
Existance is preferable to anyone who would like to express an opinion or know opinions should be expressed.The use of the term "preferable" applies only to *living* (existing) things. Non-existence has no properties of any kind and therefore the word preferable does not apply. The OP question poses a false dichotomy. How can it be a false dichotomy when so many people cling to mythologies that promise eternal life? But would that promise not involve an existence of some sort? It is only from an atheist POV that when you cease to exist physically, you cease to exist in toto, except perhaps as a memory.
I don't really care, but I wanted to give Titamonchia a real question to grapple with, instead of his pseudo-philosophical questions that he declares unanswerable based on the idea that "nothing matters". I really have no answer other than I like being alive. It feels good enough, most of the time that I want to maintain it. I can build any moral argument you want off of that.Thats my feeling as well, its legit.
Existance is preferable to anyone who would like to express an opinion or know opinions should be expressed.The use of the term "preferable" applies only to *living* (existing) things. Non-existence has no properties of any kind and therefore the word preferable does not apply. The OP question poses a false dichotomy. Did not see that coming. I was trying to come up with something about a rock having desires to express itself, a purely mythical idea, although, I heard there is a new theory about the beginning of biological life. The theory is that if you just shine enough light on minerals, eventually they start to organize. Anyway, existing does not equal living. Something can exist without having what we call "life". "Preferring" does require consciousness of at least some rudimentary level, so the question is posed to something that can have a preference. I don't see how that makes it false though. OK, I agree with that, but then "preference" does not apply, which implies choice.. But fundamentally all things move in the direction of greatest satisfaction, so that is not really a choice, it's an imperative.