Posts by ruggedbadger2

I had the same expectation for The Seventh Seal based on how you described it. That’s exactly why it let me down. I think the movie might have actually worked better if those two were just constantly talking and playing around; those kinds of setups can be pretty great if they're executed right, I guess.

steeleagle77 makes a fair point, and I guess even Nietzsche touched on how much pain actually matters... It’s probably not all just black and white.

I’ll give you a more detailed answer once I’ve had a chance to dig through the website. In the meantime, where on earth did you find that stuff about the cats? I'm asking because Google isn't giving me anything useful when I search for "david Quincy cats." 😁

Are you claiming you read the entire website or just the manifesto? Because there’s actually a massive amount of material to dig through in there.

I'm not going to weigh in on the rest of your post since I don't have enough background to determine what's technically possible and what isn't, but generally speaking, I agree with the analysis by Quincy that you linked.

Sam Martinez9 said:Hope is the belief that things will change for the better. For instance, hope is believing a child will recover and return to being healthy, happy, and playful... and that life will simply carry on from there.

Comfort, however, steps in when hope has run dry. It’s what happens when the child won't get better, won't live a healthy, joyful life anymore, and we won't get to experience that happiness with them.

But we find comfort in the thought that we'll meet again somewhere else—heaven, perhaps—or that we will join our child in whatever comes next, whether that's a divine realm or the vast, dark nothingness that atheists believe follows death.

Then you could argue that believing things will just magically improve is its own kind of comfort... but whatever, we're getting off track.

Honestly, I don't know anyone who actually believes in a "great black void" after death. There isn't anything after death because there’s nobody left to experience it (another tangent, I guess).

ruggedraven36 said:Look, regardless of how we're "hardwired," you aren't really a person unless you're making conscious, free choices about what's best. We can't pull a peek inside her brain to see her programming, but one thing is certain—what she did was noble.

Nobody is questioning whether she was noble or if her actions were ethical.

I agree, it’s not about being cynical. It’s just a fact that killing yourself is incredibly difficult; the body is hardwired to stay alive at all costs. But once those mental loops take hold, I guess it becomes hard to pin down why someone did or didn't go through with it, or why they feel like they didn't.

Of course, both sides could be right here—maybe she kept going for her daughter, or maybe she just kept going because survival is an instinct we can't really turn off. We're just guessing from the outside, so it's impossible to know for sure. These are just my assumptions.

hiddeneagle98 said:@wand if you're reading this, would the bolded part be interpreted as the half-truth version of the story? I'm just sitting here thinking—would she actually take her own life if the daughter wasn't there? But since she has her, it sounds much more "noble" to say she isn't choosing to live for the kid, but rather because she still finds her own life worth living despite the agony.

That's also an easy way to spin it.

Sam Martinez9 said:Quote:>

ruggedbadger2 says: @Sam Martinez9 One can still hold onto hope even after losing a child—perhaps the hope of a reunion in heaven, for instance. Without that kind of hope in such a dark situation, people often lose their grip on reality or end up taking their own lives. >

That’s a consolation, not really hope.

It is rare for a parent to kill their own child, but we much more frequently see cases where parents lose a child to a car accident or an illness. Even then, it's rare for those individuals to seek an exit through suicide.

I have a friend who lost her son about three years ago, and she tells me the pain feels just as sharp as it did on day one. She doesn't find any real solace in anything. However, she has a daughter who needs her, and so she keeps going, enduring the grief of her lost son just to be there for her.

I guess there isn't much of a difference between consolation and hope anyway. Think about a parent trying to find comfort by hoping their kid will recover from an incurable disease, versus a parent finding solace in the belief they'll see that child again in heaven after they pass. In both scenarios, you have a parent clinging to something unprovable just to reach a positive outcome.

If a parent loves their child more than themselves—under any definition, including the idea that everyone is ultimately self-interested—then wanting the best for that child or less suffering for them is pretty much a given. I don't really see why this would be considered an action that results in neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, pleasure is subjective. Personally? I’d never sign up for permanent bliss if the fine print required me to lose my mind or inflict suffering on someone else. Life isn't just about chasing abstractions like "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction."

I wouldn't either, though I guess losing your sanity or hurting people would just be considered a form of dissatisfaction in my book.

@Sam Martinez9

People can still hold onto hope even after losing a child—like the hope of seeing them again in heaven, for instance. Without that kind of hope, people in those situations usually just lose their minds or end up taking their own lives. And honestly, someone who kills a child isn't looking for the worst outcome for themselves either. If they were, there’d be no reason for them to go on beating or torturing the kid afterward; nobody wins from that, and the whole thing is just unthinkable.

I guess pleasure, or even just the absence of pain, doesn't necessarily have to be directed at the person themselves. It could be focused on someone they love more than their own life—in this case, that child.

That’s true, but that’s not really the point. We can’t predict where any given goal will actually lead us, but I guess we aren't exactly setting targets that are designed to end in misery—unless, of course, there's some sort of payoff involved. If Jesus had said, "Follow me and you'll burn in hell," he obviously wouldn't have had any followers.

The child is going to suffer regardless, even if they stay alive. No matter how you look at it, there isn’t a way to spin this into something beneficial for them. It really just comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils. I guess that depends entirely on how much a parent prioritizes their kid's safety and what that means to them personally. It's an individual thing. Obviously, not everyone in that situation is going to kill their child.

Either way, every single option leads to some kind of end to the suffering. Unless someone is an extreme sadist, nobody is going to start targeting that kid just to make things worse—and even then, a sadist would only do it for their own twisted pleasure.

That would fall under category B, which is essentially eliminating dissatisfaction. People tend to be happy when their kids are happy, but this is one of those scenarios where both choices—killing the child or letting them live—are pretty much equally horrific for a parent. I guess you could say a parent who chooses to kill is basically deciding to end their child's suffering.

ruggedraven36 said:Look, there are plenty of different goals. Half the time we don't even know if they’ll actually make us feel good—if we even bother to think about it. Satisfaction is usually just a side effect—it's rarely the main event itself.

Can you actually give me an example of a goal that doesn't lead to satisfaction? I guess I can't think of any human activity that isn't either chasing pleasure or trying to eliminate discomfort (like nirvana, euthanasia, or suicide).

Have you ever read Michel Onfray? From what I gather, he’s basically the most prominent Epicurean alive right now. I haven't actually sat down with his work yet, but based on that description, I guess he sounds pretty interesting.

The folks over at that monastery definitely believe in an afterlife. Because of that, they dedicate their lives on Earth to religion just to boost their odds of making it into heaven and hitting that ultimate bliss. So, at the end of the day, it’s still just a pursuit of pleasure, even if it has nothing to do with individual or species survival. As for those people with their hands in the air—honestly, I'm not sure who you mean—they probably don't actually want enlightenment. If they did, it would be a negative thing for them. Enlightenment means eliminating desire, and since they see their current state of craving or dukkha as something negative, trying to get rid of it becomes a positive, maybe even hedonistic, goal for them.

I mean, I'm sure the reality is way more complicated than my summary here, but this is the only way I can make sense of these behaviors through the lens of seeking satisfaction. It's a good question, though.

Sure, there’s always that risk of someone showing up obsessed with protecting "precious bodily fluids." 😁

For what it's worth, I don't agree with Jeffrey Ramos4 either. Back in high school, I remember hearing about this study where they put a male butterfly in front of one real female and one paper cutout of a female that was twice the size. Naturally, the butterfly went straight for the fake one. I guess it's a similar deal with people. I think the boost you get from pleasure and positive emotions actually improves survival chances, so those things are just universally desirable to humans. I don't buy the idea that hedonism isn't part of our nature or that people aren't fundamentally driven to seek out satisfaction...

hiddeneagle98 said:I’m going to drop the link to this absolutely brilliant website once again.

This site is pretty fascinating. I’m planning on sitting down and reading through the whole thing eventually. I stumbled upon it a few weeks ago, and I find myself thinking about it whenever there's news about CRISPR or similar tech.

steeleagle77 said:Who fuckin' cares? It was stated that one only experiences "the final sensation of pleasure and nothing else."
If you don't feel the limitation, who cares if it exists?

Now, the scenario doesn't specify if you're stuck in that pod (lol) forever or just for a stint before walking back out to face the consequences. If it's temporary, I see the point. If it's for life... then I don't.
Nozick could have easily used "drugs" instead of a "machine" for his example.

People are already drowning in cognitive biases, believing whatever suits them. There's no fixing that today. Any optimistic view of "humanity" or "progress" seems incredibly naive to me. Everything will eventually burn out anyway...

If I recall correctly, according to Nozick, the person stays in the pod for their whole life.

That last paragraph is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. I'm not sure how you pulled some optimistic or transhumanist stance from this experiment? The guy was trying to debunk hedonism by explaining why most people wouldn't step into the pod in the first place.