To Be or Not to Be; That is the Question.

[peter]

Or additionally, once being is thrust upon one, how best to approach it.

When one goes out for a nice meal with friends, one is aware that it will end. This doesn't cause any particular problem - one just takes the maximum pleasure from the event that one can. Similarly with life it seems to me, I can see little more sense in approaching it any other way. You are not here by choice [or at least were not placed here by such] and it will end. It will all end. The Earth, the planets, life - entropy will have it's day. In the face of this ultimate pointlessness there is little other thal makes sense other than to go for maximum pleasure during your time here. [Happiness you may pursue and you may be lucky, but pleasure is a safer bet].

Clearly whether you feel that 'being' is a gift or a curse will depend on how things are going for you, but to bring it out of a purely selfish level, there have been many philosophers and thinkers over the ages who have voiced or written the opinion that it would be better not to be born at all, and that having been so, best to get it over with as quickly as possible. This is not a view I subscribe to, but neither am I insensetive to the mass of suffering that most 'being' entails, to the point where I can not see where it is coming from. The clever money down the ages has been to accept that life is going to be by and large a pretty beastly business, and that you have to enjoy happiness when it occurs for the short while you have it, but not expect it to stay or indeed be the 'default' state of being. Is this position just sour-grapes pessimism or is it pragmatic realism. Is it better to try to work out a position on this, or just let the chips fall where they will.

So what do we think overall. Is 'being' a blessing; a curse; neither. Would we all have been better if it had never happened, or do we take the 'I'm alright Jack' stance and say well, it's been ok for me so the mass of suffering upon which the pinacle of non-suffering is balanced is of not much consequence. Or can we [as Hawking believes] outwit even entropy and shift sideways into another Universe where we will defeat suffering - all suffering - and balance up the scales at last.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Pragmatic realism. None of us were given a choice as to whether or not we are alive, that decision being made by our parents. Once we find ourselves here the only we can do is make the best of it, primarily for ourselves but also for others (within reason, of course). Those other people are stumbling around, trying to make the best of their lives, and are just as lost and have the same lack of answers that you do so try not to rain on their parade by making their life more miserable.

Being alive is definitely not inherently a curse, unless the burden of your own poor choices has become more than you can bear. It is a blessing because the alternative--non-existence--is worse. Ultimately, it is a blank canvas and you are the painter--make of it what you will.

[wayfriend]

Enjoy life.

Ignore the checklist that they say comes with it.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

peter you sound kind of jaded. Maybe you should go on an adventure of one kind or another.

[Avatar]

Being alive is definitely not inherently a curse, unless the burden of your own poor choices has become more than you can bear.

Doesn't that ignore the fact that many people suffer for things unrelated to their own choices?

Peter, I don't think we can ever completely avoid or do away with suffering. But doesn't that just make the joy or pleasure all the more...well...enjoyable?

I enjoy living. There's shit I would have done differently, but nothing I really regret. Life just is. You get to make of it whatever you will, good or ill, it's up to you.

Not what happens, but how you react to it.

So I say enjoy it while it lasts, and don't take it too seriously. This too will pass. Everything will. Whether it's good or bad, it will pass.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Doesn't that ignore the fact that many people suffer for things unrelated to their own choices?

Not really because we all know that person A's poor choices can negatively impact, sometimes severely, person B's life. That is why I said that each of us needs to make certain that our choices do not negatively impact other people's lives, within reason. Don't go out of your way to try and avoid negative fallout because you can't; however, don't do things that you know will cause negative impact in other people's lives, either.

[Rau Le Creuset]

to do or not to do.. that is the question.

will you choose to make the most of your existence or will you simply let things walk all over you ruining what could very well be your only life. your actions determine who you are. Living is a very special thing and we don't get to do it for very long, so go be who you want to be and do what you want to do. nobody can ask more of you. life is a gift and everyone should make the most of it in the way they see fit.

[peter]

peter you sound kind of jaded. Maybe you should go on an adventure of one kind or another.

Not as bad as it sounds Don - Just trying to make sense of the following:-

Man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble [Job; The Bible]

Not to be born is past all prizing, best [Oedipus Colonius: Sophocles}

and again,

Human life is everywhere a state in which much is to be endured and little to be enjoyed. [Rasselas: Samuel Johnson].

Never to have lived is best, ancient writers say
Never to have drawn the breath of life, Never to have looked into the eye of day
The second best's a gay goodnight and quicklt turn away. [Oedipus at Colonus: W.B.Yeats]



Now having read a hundred or so plus, in a similar vein, all composed by better heads than mine [and ruminating in the bath at 5.30 am prior to going off for a days work] it seemed to me that at least some attempt at answer was required. I accept the ultimate futility of life [it's not leading anywhere and has no discernable purpose] but still [perhaps like the fool I am] I refuse to despair. I came up with the notion of the thread but alas the thoughts that seemed like diamonds at that time in the morning turned into the lumpen rocks of text you see before you. ( ). Jung felt that if there was a purpose to human existance at all it was to "kindle a light in the darkness of mere being". I'll go with that.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It all boils down to the old "is the glass half empty or half full?" question.

I am a realist, though, so the glass is always completely full--half filled by water and half filled by air.

[peter]

It all boils down to the old "is the glass half empty or half full?" question.

I am a realist, though, so the glass is always completely full--half filled by water and half filled by air.

Now that is both having your cake and eating it.

[Aside: Read the other day about a group of purist grammaticians who insist the previous aphorism(?) should more correctly be 'you can't eat your cake and have it']

[Vraith]

I am a realist, though, so the glass is always completely full--half filled by water and half filled by air.

Heh...I have a friend who thinks/has said much like that...he loves that cliche...but somehow he's never done it as directly and to the point as you did there. Bravo.

And my "arguments" with him concerning it and viewpoint...well you've just inspired me to a succinctness [and a metaphorically consistent extension] that never occurred to me before:

"It's meaningless until you understand the glass."
[not that that's brilliant or anything, but it was fun for me.]

To the thread title and some of the issues, without really solving them...just messing about:
Being...well, there is really no choice. Not much of one for not being, either...you can't change the facts. All you can do is change the tense. You didn't decide to "be," and in an ultimate sense you don't get to decide not to be, either...you can only alter the timing.
But at LEAST you can do that...those that say "better to have never been,"...well, they're just making shit up. Not only do they have no basis to make that judgement, they have no possible, even theoretical, or even imaginable basis to make it.
I think I can imagine [I think I've even said somewhere before], to some extent, ending...not being...projected forward. But never having been? A different kind of thing altogether.
Dying/ becoming then being dead is one thing...living is something else, though related...using either or both of those to illuminate/study/know/judge "Never was, never been born" is a non sequitur

[Hashi Lebwohl]

[Aside: Read the other day about a group of purist grammaticians who insist the previous aphorism(?) should more correctly be 'you can't eat your cake and have it']

They are correct. The saying comes from a Shakespearean play (I forget exactly which one but that is why we have the Internet) in which a character states (approximately) "you cannot eat your cake and also have it", as you note.

hrm.....no, I am incorrect. There is a Wikipedia article about the phrase, which notes its historical uses and similar phrases in other languages.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

peter you sound kind of jaded. Maybe you should go on an adventure of one kind or another.

Not as bad as it sounds Don - Just trying to make sense of the following:-

Man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble [Job; The Bible]

Not to be born is past all prizing, best [Oedipus Colonius: Sophocles}

and again,

Human life is everywhere a state in which much is to be endured and little to be enjoyed. [Rasselas: Samuel Johnson].

Never to have lived is best, ancient writers say
Never to have drawn the breath of life, Never to have looked into the eye of day
The second best's a gay goodnight and quicklt turn away. [Oedipus at Colonus: W.B.Yeats]



Now having read a hundred or so plus, in a similar vein, all composed by better heads than mine [and ruminating in the bath at 5.30 am prior to going off for a days work] it seemed to me that at least some attempt at answer was required. I accept the ultimate futility of life [it's not leading anywhere and has no discernable purpose] but still [perhaps like the fool I am] I refuse to despair. I came up with the notion of the thread but alas the thoughts that seemed like diamonds at that time in the morning turned into the lumpen rocks of text you see before you. ( ). Jung felt that if there was a purpose to human existance at all it was to "kindle a light in the darkness of mere being". I'll go with that.

It may be a bit of a cliche, but I have experienced it myself: life is never so sweet and savory as when you fear you may lose it. Melancholia can simply be the obverse of complacency and a frustrated need for adventure. Have you ever considered white water rafting for instance?

www.ukrafting.co.uk/

[Orlion]

Or additionally, once being is thrust upon one, how best to approach it.

When one goes out for a nice meal with friends, one is aware that it will end. This doesn't cause any particular problem - one just takes the maximum pleasure from the event that one can. Similarly with life it seems to me, I can see little more sense in approaching it any other way. You are not here by choice [or at least were not placed here by such] and it will end. It will all end. The Earth, the planets, life - entropy will have it's day. In the face of this ultimate pointlessness there is little other thal makes sense other than to go for maximum pleasure during your time here. [Happiness you may pursue and you may be lucky, but pleasure is a safer bet].

So close to nihilism. Once you follow that entropy rabbit down its hole, there is only one way to look at things: we simply are not. At least, as far as the universe is concerned, there will be no trace of us so it will be like we were never around. The question, of course, is if the one equates with the other.

Clearly whether you feel that 'being' is a gift or a curse will depend on how things are going for you, but to bring it out of a purely selfish level, there have been many philosophers and thinkers over the ages who have voiced or written the opinion that it would be better not to be born at all, and that having been so, best to get it over with as quickly as possible. This is not a view I subscribe to, but neither am I insensetive to the mass of suffering that most 'being' entails, to the point where I can not see where it is coming from. The clever money down the ages has been to accept that life is going to be by and large a pretty beastly business, and that you have to enjoy happiness when it occurs for the short while you have it, but not expect it to stay or indeed be the 'default' state of being. Is this position just sour-grapes pessimism or is it pragmatic realism. Is it better to try to work out a position on this, or just let the chips fall where they will.

I always thought sour-grapes pessimism WAS pragmatic realism I have a couple of Spanish language poems that relate to this, but one pretty much says what your later quotes point to: better to be a stone or a tree that can barely feel and not have to suffer through this life always fearing what is coming after and never knowing from whence we came...

But the other is a little more cheery, and I translate the beginning to be "a fragment of blue has more intensity then all the heavens." A happy moment is precious exactly because it makes up so little of a whole. In a paradise, I'd imagine happiness to be worth jack squat.

So what do we think overall. Is 'being' a blessing; a curse; neither. Would we all have been better if it had never happened, or do we take the 'I'm alright Jack' stance and say well, it's been ok for me so the mass of suffering upon which the pinacle of non-suffering is balanced is of not much consequence. Or can we [as Hawking believes] outwit even entropy and shift sideways into another Universe where we will defeat suffering - all suffering - and balance up the scales at last.

I can not call it a blessing or a curse, despite my gnostic leanings. As far as the mass sufferings...well, I think the best thing to do is remember that so many times it is none of our concern/business. There is so much outside our sphere of influence that worrying over it will accomplish nothing except produce another victim. And those within our sphere of influence? Many would suck you dry (guess I have cynical leanings also ). The key is to find out what is truly important to you and contribute your energies to that one (or several) fragments of blue, and minimize those things/people that suck your energy away from what you find important.

[Fist and Faith]

Is 'being' a blessing; a curse; neither.

AFAIK, it's the only game in town.

Would we all have been better if it had never happened,

We wouldn't have been anything if it had never happened.

or do we take the 'I'm alright Jack' stance and say well, it's been ok for me so the mass of suffering upon which the pinacle of non-suffering is balanced is of not much consequence.

How about "I'm alright Jack", and the mass of suffering is of consequence. We could try to reduce it.

[Avatar]

The secret is to come to terms with the hugely liberating idea that it is all pointless, and none of it matters in the long run. If you can see how that frees you to make the world a better or a worse place as you and you alone choose, then you'll be fine.

Essentially, it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter.

--A

[peter]

No Don - I've never tried white-water rafting but I do think you have a point. It could well be time for a little 'comfort zone' cracking - I'm going to book a trip to Jordan in a day or two's time so perhaps that will at least give me something else to think about.

But seriousely though - for some reason I seem to have totally got the 'feel' of what I was trying to get across wrong. Perhaps you will allow me to start again.

I'm not a nihilist and neither do I wish I had never been ....well, yes, been is enough. But it is indisputable that it is only with the introduction of life into the Creation [bad word maybe - but lets stick with it] that suffering enters the picture. And further to this it is only with the introduction of self-aware life that suffering can achieve the particular 'piquancy' that only the thinking/feeling being can experience. Now is it so bad to look this fact square in the face. And having done so, is it then so bad to ask the question at least at the academic level 'Is the candle worth the wick'. Does 'life' and following on intelligent life, add so much to the universe that the concurrent creation of suffering is justified. Could it be that life is overated? Surely you don't have to be an abject pessimist to ask this question. That in the sphere of existence (life wise) suffering is more readily to be found than ease is surely a no brainer. The entirety of the Theory of Natural Selection is based upon no less than the 'struggle for existence' and as one of the philosophers said [paraphrased] 'Anyone who thinks there exists a balance between good and ill in the world should only consider the bennefit to the fox when eating a rabbit compared to the loss of the rabbit in being eaten'.

I wonder if anyone else here has seen the film 'Watchmen'. In it the suprahuman Dr Manhatten surveys the ever shifting surface of the red planet Mars over the aeons and questions whether life and particularly human life, could ever do anything to improve it's already indescribeble beauty, whether its "giant steps, ninety feet high, a constantly changing topological map, flowing and shifting" could be improved by the presence of a pipe-line or a McDonalds.

To try to answer these questions does not demand that one renounces all pleasure at being alive, all expectation of value and worth in ones futurity - but yes they are BIG questions, and yes, they are difficult. But that can never be a reason for not making the atempt. And neither does it have to follow that, once having decided that life is by and by, of little consequence, that one doesn't turn back to the convivial company of ones friends, and savour the sensual delights of the meal yet to come.

[Fist and Faith]

Gteat movie. The only flaw is skipping Rorschach's best moment. Here's from my previous posts.

Arguably, the best thing that the world of comic books has ever produced is a twelve-issue series called Watchmen. ("Now a major motion picture!" ) In it is a character named Rorschach. We learn his origin in issue #6. It started with a childhood of abuse. And Kitty Genovese's murder helped shape it. It all came together when he was trying to rescue a little girl who had been kidnapped. When he found the kidnapper’s house, he found out that the girl had been killed, butchered, and fed to the dogs. Rorschach handcuffed the man to a pipe, and set the house on fire. He left a saw with the man, but told him that he’d never be able to cut through the cuffs in time. Implying that, if he wanted to live, he’d have to cut his own hand off. Then he went outside to watch the scene. Here's how he describes that moment:

Stood in firelight, sweltering. Blood stain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion, bear children, hellbound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach.

What an incredibly powerful paragraph!! (Leaving that quote out of the movie was among the greatest sins in movie history! ) Technically, he's right. Alas, his feeling for the state of existence is unfortunate. My glass is half-full, compared to his being half-empty, but the general idea is accurate.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I wonder if anyone else here has seen the film 'Watchmen'. In it the suprahuman Dr Manhatten surveys the ever shifting surface of the red planet Mars over the aeons and questions whether life and particularly human life, could ever do anything to improve it's already indescribeble beauty, whether its "giant steps, ninety feet high, a constantly changing topological map, flowing and shifting" could be improved by the presence of a pipe-line or a McDonalds.

To try to answer these questions does not demand that one renounces all pleasure at being alive, all expectation of value and worth in ones futurity - but yes they are BIG questions, and yes, they are difficult. But that can never be a reason for not making the atempt. And neither does it have to follow that, once having decided that life is by and by, of little consequence, that one doesn't turn back to the convivial company of ones friends, and savour the sensual delights of the meal yet to come.

Contrary to what many critics on the Internet might think, Mr. Snyder's presentation of Watchmen was well-done and stayed almost completely true to the graphic novel series. What Jon failed to realize, despite his elevated cosmic perspective, is that pipelines and shopping malls are not the sum total of human existence. That being said, Michaelangelo's Pieta wouldn't improve a natrual scene, either, so he isn't incorrect.

All rationalists must accept the fact that life, ultimately, has no consequence. When--not if, but when--a catastrophic event occurs that results in the end of the human race,whether due to plague, war, asteroid impact, or overthrown by cats, our only record of existence will be a few objects on the Moon, the stuff floating around the planet, the handful of satellites we have sent out, and the ephemeral remnants of our broadcast presence (even though it will be too weak to detect outside the solar system). We will have changed nothing and it will be as if we never existed at all.
Note, though, that "having no consequence" is vastly different from "having no meaning", and this is what separates realists from nihilists. Life and the choices we make during it still have meaning to realists.

What an incredibly powerful paragraph!! (Leaving that quote out of the movie was among the greatest sins in movie history! ) Technically, he's right. Alas, his feeling for the state of existence is unfortunate. My glass is half-full, compared to his being half-empty, but the general idea is accurate.

I concur. Rorschach isn't quite a true nihilist, though, because he still believes that his actions and his view of right/wrong still have meaning.

[Vraith]

I wonder if anyone else here has seen the film 'Watchmen'. In it the suprahuman Dr Manhatten surveys the ever shifting surface of the red planet Mars over the aeons and questions whether life and particularly human life, could ever do anything to improve it's already indescribeble beauty, whether its "giant steps, ninety feet high, a constantly changing topological map, flowing and shifting" could be improved by the presence of a pipe-line or a McDonalds.

To try to answer these questions does not demand that one renounces all pleasure at being alive, all expectation of value and worth in ones futurity - but yes they are BIG questions, and yes, they are difficult. But that can never be a reason for not making the atempt. And neither does it have to follow that, once having decided that life is by and by, of little consequence, that one doesn't turn back to the convivial company of ones friends, and savour the sensual delights of the meal yet to come.

Contrary to what many critics on the Internet might think, Mr. Snyder's presentation of Watchmen was well-done and stayed almost completely true to the graphic novel series. What Jon failed to realize, despite his elevated cosmic perspective, is that pipelines and shopping malls are not the sum total of human existence. That being said, Michaelangelo's Pieta wouldn't improve a natrual scene, either, so he isn't incorrect.

He failed to realize that...and more.
Perhaps the most important being that the purpose of M's Pieta isn't to improve a natural scene, it is to improve our souls [whether our souls literally exist or no.]
And whether we can or can't enhance the beauty of Mars [and similar] is debatable on a number of fronts/levels...what we CAN do is create beauty that is IN ADDITION to that which simply is. And much of that beauty is impossible without somethings/ones to create it.
The flip side being we can create horrors in addition and impossible for nature alone.
[[all that assuming/accepting, to some extent, the debatable dichotomy that something is unnatural simply because WE made it and physics didn't/couldn't unaided]].