"If I can't have it all, I don't want any." That's what that sounds like to me. Now, life is a nightmare, in my opinion, but death is way way toward the bottom of the list of things that make it so. Just my opinion, though.
I am a little surprise on the professor’s take on suicide. There is no one objective barometer that decides how I perceive or feel, as he said, we can’t really mind-read. Maybe my thresholds are way lower than the normatively resilient folks! I have a rights-based perspective on suicide, anyone should have the right to do it. I’ll probably make a concession and include rational adults who do not have children under 25, but really anyone can go if they want and as a society we should allow than access to a swift, peaceful, happy death.
@@andrewwright1922 Pleasure. Good comment. I was going to say perhaps the title "The Meaning of Life" will be more appealing to people but I am not actually sure. I think many people feel, on some level, that life is meaningless and perhaps, on a subconscious level, they would be more attracted to a title that confirms this feeling. I don't know.
@NeverTethered That's just the point, both parties could argue until they are blue in the face, and they would both be right (so long as their arguments follow logic). I'm happy to claim it's a false dichotomy and my position lies on both extremes, kind of like an election in that it could potentially be in both positions simultaneously but it always appears in the position you look for it in.
@@andrewwright1922 I think I know what you mean but I think when one is looking at the bigger picture, and being intellectually honest, (this is critical) the evidence suggests no meaning. Of course, people can argue forever, subjectively, about anything. But there is an objective truth and there is an objective reality. We experience and live by objective truths everyday, such as gravity, aerodynamics etc. Yet somehow people still manage to believe there is no objective truth. This is why when people say things like "There is no objective truth" it always seems so delusional to me. Our own behaviour consistently testifies that there are objective truths and this also applies to the meaningfulness/meaninglessness of life. I would say the truth resides on just one side, always. Logic is like train tracks. Though there are lots of divergent junctions, infallible logic only runs on one track. The rest are dead ends amd will eventually require backtracking. As such, both sides cannot always have logic on their track. At some point one will have merge and continue with the reality that logic was built by. And in this case all the evidence points to the latter. The meaninglessness. The problem is, that the truth is often repugnant to people so they run from it. They usually still try to make the world a better place, which is commendable, but also useless and often destructive, if one is not operating from a foundation of truth. I liken it to trying to start a car, cleaning and eventually replacing all the components in the ignition system of a car, but never connecting the spark plugs, then wondering why all the changes made and actions taken haven't been effective. I appreciate my response may have become a little removed from the subject and meaning of yours but that was just the stream of consciousness it provoked. Hopefully, it made sense.
@@ericcotter1984 Don't envy me It would literally take 1 more bad thing to happen to me to make me kill myself. Life is horrible, and I don't wish this on anyone or anything.
Humanity isn't ready for such discussions yet. However, humans after 200 years will thank you all for this. Thanks Prof. David Benatar for existing in this meaningless universe.
thats the point he's trying to make , to stop having kids , stop making pointless consciousness's that will suffer for no reason, i wish this wasn't up for debate , cant have consent = dont do it, its that simple how do people not get it
This is why super intelligent aliens don’t exist. Any animal becoming as intelligent as humans or more would realize the meaninglessness of it all and allow themselves to die off.
It would be great if we see the absence of humans in 200 years or so, but looking back at the history, and how more than enough humans always managed to be a bunch of... humans, or robots (meaningless analogy if you know that animals are robots made of fresh), obedient and unquestioning to their most basic drives, I doubt it'll happen. I'd rather hope for a, idk, total annihilation nuclear war or something. That suits humanity better
By then euthanasia clinics will be as common as supermarkets, where anyone can step in and end their life, on the spot. This will be one of the ultimate by- products of the post modern project.
8:42 I feel like, or think (with more confidence), that this question about the 'meaning' (whatever this word refers to in each setence) of life is and can be dealt as a semantic one, given that participants in the discussion share the same informations about the world. I usually tell people that I'm an existential nihilist, in that I believe there is no absolute purpose (with some kind of "worth" or moral enforcibility of its realization) to anything, but I think, that and subjectivist view are not muturely exclusive, if each ideas were expressed in a way that reflect the reality as we assume it to be. 'Subjective meaning' for example, I think, can be (and I think should be) describe in a way that leaves no vagueness as to what it's referring to, and preferably without using the word "meaning," like, "thing X caused this mental effect to John, which causes this and that (which we generally describe as a "positive psychological effect") and that's what he's really thinking of when he says 'I think X is subjectively meaningful to me.'" Given that all things expressed in this sentence reflect the reality, I think there's nothing a rational person would disagree with. 20:32 Ambiguity was the word I was looking for (instead of vagueness--though I suspect they are mostly interchangeble). I think "Meaning" here can be replaced with "effect" or "amount of 'positive experience' (which also needs defining) it caused--in this case, to the space aliens" 22:14 That story (scifi novel) sounds fantastic! 31:56 I think this is one (or 'the') area where I disagree with David the most. I say, based on my moral preference that one should be able to decide whether to continue living or not, if someone sees no reason to continue living, for there is no "meaning" that is valuable to him, and if the life is causing suffering to him, he should be able to put an end to it immediately (peacefully)--I see no good reason as to why the person in this situation should, and should be forced or even encouraged, to keep living. 39:09 with a large overlap to the previous section that I mentioned, i think this is where David is sort of exploiting the ambiguity of the word "meaning" for the argument. 46:10 I strongly disagree with the idea that once you are dead "you can no longer experience good." There will be no "you" after your death to be deprived of those good things once you are dead, so it can't be a harm to you.
David's intelligence is razor sharp. Every time I listen or read something from him I always appreciate his ability to consider virtually all of the logically possible propositions of a state of affairs and he draws out their implications convincingly. Many times I am astonished by how he is able to consider and infer the implications of things which I usually am angry over, due the fact that other intellectuals gloss them over or completely miss them, leaving me wondering how I can notice these glaringly obvious implications and they can't. I think one thing that separates him from other intellectuals is that he is never defending a position, but rather demonstrating the logical conclusions of facts and assumptions that most rational agents hold. Typically, that is where many others end up disagreeing with him: on the foundational set of premises for their positions. Even then, many premises can still be examined for their consistency and coherency as a set, and David tends to do a decent job of examining that as well.
Not quite. His argument that it's better to not exist is illogical nonsense. This is proven by the fact that you didn't exist yet a life was still imposed. Therefore, had you never been born, you not existing wouldn't have been able to stop some _other_ life from being the one to do the imposition.
One thing about Dr Benatar and antinatalism is that I find it very reassuring . For most of my life I have shared Dr Benatar's sentiments but assumed I was in a majority of one in this matter . I did not get animated when someone got pregnant and on my first meeting with a new baby I pretended to be joyful , but inside I was thinking ' poor mite ' . I have found some solace in Bhuddism and Hinduism ( advaita Vedanta ) because at least they inherently teach that life in the world is inherently full of suffering ✌️🕊️
Yeah people find it scary and sad to accept the meaninglessness of life but then that fear and sadness are meaningless as well,so problem here is sadness and fear not the meaninglessness of life
Who wants to bring kids into this world? Climate change, looming civil war, looming WW3 with Russia, house prices and grocery prices rising and the evils of social media! I've never had the desire to have kids and never will. My refusal to procreate has cost me many relationships!
@@pavlovsdogman Even if many of those worst scenarios you have mentioned don't come to pass , still life can be pretty miserable . Either you get that or you don't. Many people don't. . I have more respect for people who have kids by ' accident ' rather than those who plan to have kids 😨. Best Wishes ✌️
@@michaeldillon3113 agreed! My family has a huge amount of people with depression or bi polar. I have it and wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy nevermind an innocent baby! I don't care if my lineage ends, people with big egos basically have kids as a type of flex almost? 😆
My take on this is what people view as Goals/Pleasure/Meaning in life is just Pain Mitigation/aka Coping Mechanisms pain,death,suffering encompasses our existence on this earth we struggle to survive daily we're forced to be "Wage Slaves" always having to take care of our needy bodies and always required to do things,we rather not do never free to be our true self,for fear of being scorned, ,rejected, condemned and ridicule by our world's societies standards. we're programmed from birth to believe that life is just about accumulating material things/wealth and our only reward for this drudgery is Death life is just a brutal joke. simply put Existence Was and Is Unnecessary.
Putting the content the content to one side I have to say that the level of debate here is very impressive . The presenters make their own contribution to a very high level debate . As an alien I can report back to my planet that there is after all intelligent life on earth. ✌️.
The point about "art" giving purpose / adding value is pretty mute. Basically, we aren't really bringing greater beauty / harmony into being, we are merely mirroring what already is. Human's just think they are special, & art, as engrossing as it can be, is ultimately just a form of plagiarism.
@Victoria Bergman @Eric Cotter do you think it would be neutral to bring life into existence where Suffering Pain, Misery is completely eliminated and you can choose to die or live eternally if you so choose
Hi! I'm curious about what you said at 17:06, that you don't believe in the existence of art. I haven't really studied philosophy, but I'm curious about this idea. Could you point me in the direction of some writers/books that are about this viewpoint? Thanks!
If you conclude that life is a pointless shitshow, it seems to me the most meaningful thing you can do is to end it. If you're sitting in a theater watching an unbearably bad film, the most meaningful thing you can do is walk out. Not to mention noble.
Uses this example in one of his books, but compares it to life. Possibly finishing a bad movie is better than leaving midway through but worse than never going. In other words, finishing a life in the pursuit of pleasure is better than ending it, but worse than starting a life which will undoubtedly suffer, which is every life. It have to be an exceptionally terrible move (life) to justify walking out. Cioran has a similar take, " It is not worth the bother if killing yourself since you always kill yourself too late."
Yes, to not believe that the universe would not exist if no being was there to perceive is pure narcissism and egoism. A forest exists even if there are no humans , or others to be there .
Life has no meaning and if it scares you, the problem here is fear and not the meaninglessness of life. If it makes you sad that life has no meaning then let me tell you that sadness also has no meaning!
Moronic words. The entire reason of someone being sad is because of his understanding that life has no meaning and we were forced to be born and continue existing. How does this sadness have no meaning. The root cause i.e existence gave birth to the sadness. Hence it has a meaning coz it will eventually leads you to take an action to end your existence.
There is a reason for why we are here, obviously. This existence isn't existing just arbitrarily. However, it is of course nearly impossible for a human mind to grasp. This isn't a "cosmic accident." The fact that the conditions even existed for reality to come into being is enough to know that there is a reason. This is probably some type of a "hell," actually.
I regret having children for their sake. It was selfish. I hope they enjoy life with little suffering and feel like they prefer existing even though we die. I hope they feel that way as adults rather than how I feel thinking we got the worst situation existing & dying. I prefer non existence or eternal existing if forced in.
There is a lot of biological/human chauvinism going on. The quest for knowledge is only incidentally a human thing, since Homo sapiens were (likely) one of the first animals to be people and it is people that are significant to the creation of and discovery of knowledge. Any being that has the capacity to create knowledge is significant even in some little way and those that do are a person.
Finally a video actually discussing suicide thank god ... I'm contemplating taking my own life, and I'm happy to do it - Except there's few videos to properly talk it out in this manner at least like this as such
Then why deny others the opportunity to attempt to achieve meaning or to fulfill a meaning if it is such a good thing that one should not deny oneself the potential for achieving something that is good. All you've said really is that you do not know whether or not meaning is a good thing there for how can you assert that perpetuating life and existence of our specific species is inherently good or bad? Once you answer that question then you can begin to consider whether or not this species should exist based on what it contributes versus what it consumes
What has pride got to do with it? Knowledge is a good thing in itself, I do not care who produces it. It gives life meaning to have that knowledge, it is the content of the knowledge that gives meaning, not to know that we have produced it (although it is a good thing that it has been produced).
Not inconsistent. Continuing to live for an already existent person does not make the status quo any worse (there are exceptional circumstances like cancer and mental illness, sure) as your fate is set pretty much from the moment you are born (Kings and Sages go through old age, illness and death like everyone else). It can even prevent the emotional hurt of a friend or loved one finding out your suicide. However, by procreating, you're imposing life in a currently non-existent being that is GUARANTEED suffering and death once he/she arrives in this world.
There is undeniably reason to be optimistic about our existence, and there is undeniably cause for pessimism, but due to the continuous nature of the former, and the discrete nature of the latter, there is necessarily more cause for faith than there is that of fear, and that’s precisely why our world does exists. The whys outweigh the why nots, and the inequality between them is the essence of existence-the Self-being fuelled by the inescapable reality that itself should exist. I discuss a similar topic on my channel.
Please bring Prof. Benatar to the podcast again. It would be amazing to see you guys challenge Prof. Benatar's antinatalist worldview. Great conversation btw.
I think there is a slight confusion going on. They are asking how much have you contributed to your own meaning in life. The fact is I am okay with Mozart being considered more significant than me, and this is because Mozart has given my life more meaning through listening to his works. My contribution to my own happiness pales in comparison to how much other people have contributed to that, but I don’t feel bad about that, I don’t feel disappointed by that or like my life has less meaning, it has more meaning, but less significance. Are we looking to have a significant life or a meaningful life. Both contribute to happiness.
For meaning to be real and it has to be objective and outside of the cosmic perspective - otherwise it’s relative to the individual, group or race. The bottom line is unless God exists, meaning, value and purpose cannot objectively exist. If it doesn’t objectively exist, it doesn’t exist.
Jason here: I think it's extremely difficult to define what art is. And yet, we take art to be very important. Those two facts clash. And one of the best ways to sort out that clash is to eliminate art.
@@BraininaVat Ohh I see, I thought you were eliminating aesthetic contemplation, or how well some things make us feel, then art and aesthetics are two different concepts for you? I try to understand Cool Direct! With great quality content!
@@brianw.5230 "I don't want any of you to go to hell," that's the type of shit that makes people hate christians. Stop acting like your shit don't stink
