|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 30, 2018 14:26:36 GMT
Benatar argues that all sentient life should become extinct. it would be better if life never existed. It's important to understand the problem with this. It would be better for whom? |
|
|
|
Post by sugarbiscuits on Jan 30, 2018 20:42:28 GMT
Benatar argues that all sentient life should become extinct. it would be better if life never existed. It's important to understand the problem with this. It would be better for whom? he states any sentient life form would be better off never to have existed. I neither agree nor disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 30, 2018 20:50:47 GMT
It's important to understand the problem with this. It would be better for whom? he states any sentient life form would be better off never to have existed. I neither agree nor disagree.
Right. But think about the answer to this. Better off to whom? To the lifeform that doesn't exist? To whom? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 22, 2018 11:35:57 GMT
he states any sentient life form would be better off never to have existed. I neither agree nor disagree.
Right. But think about the answer to this. Better off to whom? To the lifeform that doesn't exist? To whom? It can't be answered, because there is no whom, because then that is thinking in terms of the "self" and that is limiting. If the physical whom is non-existent, then who's to know how better or worst off the "whom" is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 22, 2018 13:11:32 GMT
Right. But think about the answer to this. Better off to whom? To the lifeform that doesn't exist? To whom? It can't be answered, because there is no whom, because then that is thinking in terms of the "self" and that is limiting. If the physical whom is non-existent, then who's to know how better or worst off the "whom" is.
If there are no selves, there is no better/worse, so "It's better for x" is just nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 22, 2018 13:44:55 GMT
It can't be answered, because there is no whom, because then that is thinking in terms of the "self" and that is limiting. If the physical whom is non-existent, then who's to know how better or worst off the "whom" is.
If there are no selves, there is no better/worse, so "It's better for x" is just nonsense. Yes, it's neither better or worse, because "x" or whom is an abstract anyway and doesn't exist. Where are these whoms? |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 28, 2018 20:51:18 GMT
Interesting stuff.
|
|
