Even if this is the best of all worlds, is it still better than no world at all?

[rousseau]

I disagree on this larger point, that pessimism and optimism come down to individual attitudes and subjective preferences. Whether or not philosophical pessimism is true does not depend on whether or not "it's worth it", but merely on the fact that "everybody struggles, everybody will feel pain". If not for that reality, you would certainly place optimism as the most rational choice, and not a matter of individual preference; subjectivity about the topic is therefore a position of consolation. The placement of this truth outside the realm of subjective acceptance, at the level of a universal aspect of life, renders life perfectly intelligible to rational evaluation. Pessimism (the philosophical/structural variety, not common-sense pessimism) can't be refuted by a retreat to subjectivity when the arguments that favor it are objective. I don't want to derail this thread too much, so I might start up a new one if you're interested in discussing this further.

I think I see what you're saying. Essentially I think that for ~ most people ~ life isn't a problem. This whole conversation would be incoherent to most human beings.

The philosopher poses his/her questions about his existence, while his/her neighbor is having a good time at the bar with a pitcher of beer and wings.

For many life doesn't exist in the abstract, and rationalizations do not always ring true to their experience. Even for the philosopher, most of the time they're so caught up in the act of physically living that their thoughts don't really matter that much.

 

[bilby]

Most people recognize that life is not always the best option. Even those who oppose euthanasia or suicide in most cases, often allow that there are (rare) situations where it is the best option - a spy who takes a cyanide tablet rather than be tortured, or risk revealing some vital secret, for example.

Most people seem to prefer life most of the time. But the idea that life is always something good, and worthy of preservation, is deeply flawed. A dog who is suffering severe pain is euthanased by a caring owner. Why we should not extend the same courtesy to suffering humans (if they wish to take that option) is beyond me.

 

[Lion IRC]

A thing can't be the best possible if it doesn't "be".

There is a difference between asking if a stab to the throat is better than a stab to the gut, versus whether either is better than not being stabbed at all. All things considered, I would rather be stabbed in the gut if the only other option was the throat. But I would wonder why I had to be stabbed at all, why not being stabbed was never available to me.

Not being stabbed at all is NOT one of the available menu options of ways to get stabbed.

 

[PyramidHead]

A thing can't be the best possible if it doesn't "be".

There is a difference between asking if a stab to the throat is better than a stab to the gut, versus whether either is better than not being stabbed at all. All things considered, I would rather be stabbed in the gut if the only other option was the throat. But I would wonder why I had to be stabbed at all, why not being stabbed was never available to me.

Not being stabbed at all is NOT one of the available menu options of ways to get stabbed.

That's... my point.

So, applying this logic to the creation of the world, why did God choose the better way of stabbing us, rather than not stabbing anyone?

Okay, that was some loaded phrasing. Let's try this: if the best way to create the universe was to create this one, why did God create any universe at all?

 

[PyramidHead]

I disagree on this larger point, that pessimism and optimism come down to individual attitudes and subjective preferences. Whether or not philosophical pessimism is true does not depend on whether or not "it's worth it", but merely on the fact that "everybody struggles, everybody will feel pain". If not for that reality, you would certainly place optimism as the most rational choice, and not a matter of individual preference; subjectivity about the topic is therefore a position of consolation. The placement of this truth outside the realm of subjective acceptance, at the level of a universal aspect of life, renders life perfectly intelligible to rational evaluation. Pessimism (the philosophical/structural variety, not common-sense pessimism) can't be refuted by a retreat to subjectivity when the arguments that favor it are objective. I don't want to derail this thread too much, so I might start up a new one if you're interested in discussing this further.

I think I see what you're saying. Essentially I think that for ~ most people ~ life isn't a problem. This whole conversation would be incoherent to most human beings.

The philosopher poses his/her questions about his existence, while his/her neighbor is having a good time at the bar with a pitcher of beer and wings.

For many life doesn't exist in the abstract, and rationalizations do not always ring true to their experience. Even for the philosopher, most of the time they're so caught up in the act of physically living that their thoughts don't really matter that much.

True, and this is what the pessimist has always maintained: that optimism is an emotional stance that cannot be justified rationally, and can only be supported by a temporary or permanent suspension of reason. Pessimism has all the arguments in favor of it, but humans are free to say "you can have your arguments; I'll have my happiness." All I want to point out is that this is not a refutation of pessimism, but a concession to it, a way of situating it in a place that allows life to be enjoyed in spite of what is rationally true about it. After all, something valuable should not need to be sequestered from scrutiny, pushed into a dark corner, enclosed by experiences.

A pessimist can have just as good of a time at the bar as the optimist, and even a better time. The difference between them is that the optimist does not recognize that his cheerful evening is part of a strategy (successful though it may be) to keep the gradual erosion that accompanies life at a safe distance. It works, and alcohol is nice for that. There is a deep divide between having happy or sad experiences, being enthused or depressed, on the one hand, and having a philosophical stance of optimism or pessimism on the other. One can be miserable all the time while still maintaining that life is good and valuable, or one can be contented while holding that life itself is not good or valuable.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I disagree on this larger point, that pessimism and optimism come down to individual attitudes and subjective preferences. Whether or not philosophical pessimism is true does not depend on whether or not "it's worth it", but merely on the fact that "everybody struggles, everybody will feel pain". If not for that reality, you would certainly place optimism as the most rational choice, and not a matter of individual preference; subjectivity about the topic is therefore a position of consolation. The placement of this truth outside the realm of subjective acceptance, at the level of a universal aspect of life, renders life perfectly intelligible to rational evaluation. Pessimism (the philosophical/structural variety, not common-sense pessimism) can't be refuted by a retreat to subjectivity when the arguments that favor it are objective. I don't want to derail this thread too much, so I might start up a new one if you're interested in discussing this further.

I think I see what you're saying. Essentially I think that for ~ most people ~ life isn't a problem. This whole conversation would be incoherent to most human beings.

The philosopher poses his/her questions about his existence, while his/her neighbor is having a good time at the bar with a pitcher of beer and wings.

For many life doesn't exist in the abstract, and rationalizations do not always ring true to their experience. Even for the philosopher, most of the time they're so caught up in the act of physically living that their thoughts don't really matter that much.

True, and this is what the pessimist has always maintained: that optimism is an emotional stance that cannot be justified rationally, and can only be supported by a temporary or permanent suspension of reason. Pessimism has all the arguments in favor of it, but humans are free to say "you can have your arguments; I'll have my happiness." All I want to point out is that this is not a refutation of pessimism, but a concession to it, a way of situating it in a place that allows life to be enjoyed in spite of what is rationally true about it. After all, something valuable should not need to be sequestered from scrutiny, pushed into a dark corner, enclosed by experiences.

A pessimist can have just as good of a time at the bar as the optimist, and even a better time. The difference between them is that the optimist does not recognize that his cheerful evening is part of a strategy (successful though it may be) to keep the gradual erosion that accompanies life at a safe distance. It works, and alcohol is nice for that. There is a deep divide between having happy or sad experiences, being enthused or depressed, on the one hand, and having a philosophical stance of optimism or pessimism on the other. One can be miserable all the time while still maintaining that life is good and valuable, or one can be contented while holding that life itself is not good or valuable.

Isn't the argument that life is enjoyable in face of rational pessimism an argument for optimism?

 

[rousseau]

I disagree on this larger point, that pessimism and optimism come down to individual attitudes and subjective preferences. Whether or not philosophical pessimism is true does not depend on whether or not "it's worth it", but merely on the fact that "everybody struggles, everybody will feel pain". If not for that reality, you would certainly place optimism as the most rational choice, and not a matter of individual preference; subjectivity about the topic is therefore a position of consolation. The placement of this truth outside the realm of subjective acceptance, at the level of a universal aspect of life, renders life perfectly intelligible to rational evaluation. Pessimism (the philosophical/structural variety, not common-sense pessimism) can't be refuted by a retreat to subjectivity when the arguments that favor it are objective. I don't want to derail this thread too much, so I might start up a new one if you're interested in discussing this further.

I think I see what you're saying. Essentially I think that for ~ most people ~ life isn't a problem. This whole conversation would be incoherent to most human beings.

The philosopher poses his/her questions about his existence, while his/her neighbor is having a good time at the bar with a pitcher of beer and wings.

For many life doesn't exist in the abstract, and rationalizations do not always ring true to their experience. Even for the philosopher, most of the time they're so caught up in the act of physically living that their thoughts don't really matter that much.

True, and this is what the pessimist has always maintained: that optimism is an emotional stance that cannot be justified rationally, and can only be supported by a temporary or permanent suspension of reason. Pessimism has all the arguments in favor of it, but humans are free to say "you can have your arguments; I'll have my happiness." All I want to point out is that this is not a refutation of pessimism, but a concession to it, a way of situating it in a place that allows life to be enjoyed in spite of what is rationally true about it. After all, something valuable should not need to be sequestered from scrutiny, pushed into a dark corner, enclosed by experiences.

A pessimist can have just as good of a time at the bar as the optimist, and even a better time. The difference between them is that the optimist does not recognize that his cheerful evening is part of a strategy (successful though it may be) to keep the gradual erosion that accompanies life at a safe distance. It works, and alcohol is nice for that. There is a deep divide between having happy or sad experiences, being enthused or depressed, on the one hand, and having a philosophical stance of optimism or pessimism on the other. One can be miserable all the time while still maintaining that life is good and valuable, or one can be contented while holding that life itself is not good or valuable.

I guess this is where we reach the limits of reason. What seems pure and rational to you, is not necessarily pure and rational to someone else. The parameters and the outcomes of the problem are different for individual people, which I keep repeating.

My fiancée loves her life. She wakes up every day happy and ready to go. She's terrified of dying. I don't know how someone convinced that 'pessimism is rational' holds any water for a person like her. She's not just deluded into thinking life is bearable, she genuinely enjoys being alive.

This reminds me of Heidegger trying to find meaning in nothingness, by writing a huge book of complicated prose. While your neighbourhood, high-school drop out is more intuitively rational about life. He walks to the bar and says 'welp, might as well have a beer', and gets on with it.

 

[abaddon]

I disagree on this larger point, that pessimism and optimism come down to individual attitudes and subjective preferences. Whether or not philosophical pessimism is true does not depend on whether or not "it's worth it", but merely on the fact that "everybody struggles, everybody will feel pain". If not for that reality, you would certainly place optimism as the most rational choice, and not a matter of individual preference; subjectivity about the topic is therefore a position of consolation. The placement of this truth outside the realm of subjective acceptance, at the level of a universal aspect of life, renders life perfectly intelligible to rational evaluation. Pessimism (the philosophical/structural variety, not common-sense pessimism) can't be refuted by a retreat to subjectivity when the arguments that favor it are objective. I don't want to derail this thread too much, so I might start up a new one if you're interested in discussing this further.

Many atheists see the problem of suffering as a knock-down blow to the existence of a perfect, all-knowing, infinitely loving God. In countless threads on this forum and others, they will respond to Christian apologists who insist that this world is the best one God could have invented by asking why God decided to invent the world to begin with. If he couldn't make this glorious creation without (to borrow Stephen Fry's example) bone cancer in children, how about just leaving everything as it was and not making such a dubious exchange? It's a common reply to Christian theology about God's motives. I'm curious as to why this same reasoning is never applied to the terrestrial variety of creationism, namely the creation of a new human. Of course, I'd also like to hear an answer to the religious angle, but so far none has been forthcoming.

Everyone will feel pain is a bare fact. Granted this is true.

You said pessimism cannot "be refuted by a retreat to subjectivity when the arguments that favor it are objective". But I saw one argument and it's just a single bare fact talked about as if it's "a universal aspect" when it's an occasional aspect.

And it's an aspect that comes in degrees. There are degrees of pain or struggle or suffering, and this is one of the other facts that should not be dismissed.

The "problem of suffering" that many atheists go on about irt an omni-god is actually a problem of evil. Not of suffering. Evil's a problem because it's A DEGREE of suffering from which no good can come. It's not a burning sensation that signals the organism "remove hand now!" It's not a state of melancholy that motivates a grand piece of art. It's not a falling out with a friend that tells you how to relate with others better. Good can come from suffering ("the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship" according to my dictionary).

In theism there's a metaphysical reason to expect that there would not be torturous suffering. The primary example of it is that no one returns, more mature or wise, from hell. That, and some lesser (for not being eternal) degrees of grievous suffering, can justifiably cause moral revulsion -- if and only if there were a god.

I don't see a problem with justifying suffering. "Consolation" connotes a fakiness to it, but that's not true. I couldn't create my art without the distress of puzzling about life; wonder feeds it but largely due to the contrast with some occasional dismay. I'm working out the contrasts. Also I can't attain the satisfaction of greater skills without hardship.

Should I have to learn from hardship? Yes, in the absence of a god and given how being a sentient organism just factually is. There's no moral quandary to it whatsoever without some unreal ideal introduced by the human imagination into it.

Even with a god, it's justifiable inside that story as a test. Where the story breaks down is suffering doesn't always result in something good. Sometimes it's excessive in degree, and if there were a god that could stop that excess then he's vicious to not do so.

It's the fact that suffering comes in degrees that matters. Not just the fact of suffering.

So I'm not convinced philosophical pessimism is true.

 

[PyramidHead]

I have replies to all of these points in my new thread in Other Philosophical Discussions if you would like to check it out.

 

[Lion IRC]

Not being stabbed at all is NOT one of the available menu options of ways to get stabbed.

That's... my point.

So, applying this logic to the creation of the world, why did God choose the better way of stabbing us, rather than not stabbing anyone?

Okay, that was some loaded phrasing. Let's try this: if the best way to create the universe was to create this one, why did God create any universe at all?

You mean if there were no universe there would be no good, better, best to compare.
And nobody to care about the non-existence of any possible worlds in any case.

 

[PyramidHead]

Not being stabbed at all is NOT one of the available menu options of ways to get stabbed.

That's... my point.

So, applying this logic to the creation of the world, why did God choose the better way of stabbing us, rather than not stabbing anyone?

Okay, that was some loaded phrasing. Let's try this: if the best way to create the universe was to create this one, why did God create any universe at all?

You mean if there were no universe there would be no good, better, best to compare.
And nobody to care about the non-existence of any possible worlds in any case.

I agree with that, but you probably believe that God would still exist even without the universe. And you probably believe God has ideas about what is good, better, or best, and some interest in existence versus non-existence of possible worlds. So, you can't use the excuse of "nobody would be there" to dodge the issue, which is why I'm interested in your view.

 

[Lion IRC]

God saw all that He had made, and it was very good.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

God saw all that He had made, and it was very good.

If God is the guy who made everything, isn't he also the guy who made the final episode of Lost? How do you square that with your statement?

 

[James Brown]

God saw all that He had made, and it was very good.

Good according to whom?

 

[Lion IRC]

God saw all that He had made, and it was very good.

If God is the guy who made everything, isn't he also the guy who made the final episode of Lost? How do you square that with your statement?

God saw all that He had made, and it was very good.

Good according to whom?

Whoever wrote Genesis.
Note that it says "was".

 

[James Brown]

God saw all that He had made, and it was very good.

Good according to whom?

Whoever wrote Genesis.

So you're accepting the subjective opinion of an anonymous author who by necessity received his knowledge by hearsay?

Does that seem reasonable to you? If so, do you at least understand why someone else would not see that as reasonable?

 

[Lion IRC]

It's not Moses' (the writer of Genesis) opinion that the Earth was very good.
Neither is it his opinion that God held such a view.

And if you think stuff written by the courtroom stenographer is "hearsay" then I think you are the one being unreasonable.

 

[James Brown]

The claim for Moses' authorship of Genesis is based on very weak evidence, but that's for another thread.

Can you clarify, please? I asked you, according to whom was all creation good, and you replied the author of Genesis. Now you're saying that Moses did not make the subjective claim?

And I don't think anyone would confuse the book of Genesis with a courtroom transcript. A stenographer has to be present in the room in order to correctly transcribe the statements. Nor does the stenographer insert his or her own judgements into the narrative. He or she does not transcribe a witness's thoughts and feelings into the transcript. Nor does she make value judgements about what was said or done in a courtroom. All of those aspects are found in Genesis, written by Moses, a man who could not have possibly witnessed the events therein nor drawn from any written documents made during the appropriate era.

Some apologists claim that God just told Moses what happened and Moses wrote it all down. But this has problems, too. It's difficult to compare what God might have dictated to Moses and what countless other people claim that God is telling them. The words "God told me" has been used to justify the worst actions in human history, from child abuse to genocide. Unfortunately there's no objective way to determine if what God told Moses is accurate.

 

[Lion IRC]

The claim for Moses' authorship of Genesis is based on very weak evidence, but that's for another thread.

Agreed. (I mean the bit about debating it in another thread.)

Can you clarify, please? I asked you, according to whom was all creation good, and you replied the author of Genesis. Now you're saying that Moses did not make the subjective claim?

That's just a technicality.
Ok. To be clear...
According to the writer of Genesis God views His creation as very good.

Naturally, God isn't the only person who has a view on the matter of whether His creation is good, better, best or bad, worse, worst.

My own view is that this is NOT the best of all possible worlds. God didn't say it was the best He could do. Did anyone ask Him?

MIKE TV: Mr. Wonka, can you send other things? Not just chocolate, I mean.
WONKA: Anything you like.
MIKE TV: What about . . . people?
WONKA: People? Hmmm . . . I don't really know. I suppose I could. Yes, I'm sure I could.