@Drew2OOO They don't account for all of the features of the NDE, the centerpiece of which is remote, verified perception. I don't really know what might be going on with the NDE. There are many non-survivalist explanations that are possible. What I'm convinced of is the need to make this life count, Drew. Please, swing for the fence!!!!!
Very well said. InMendham is a great showman, and I tend to agree with him on many topics. I do see the obvious flaws in his rhetoric. He claims that the world is shit, yet he worries about the suffering of other sentients, and that is senseless. He speaks of life as "the experiment", as if it were God's experiment (which he doesn't belief in), man's experiment (which we have no free will to deny the experiment), or DNA's experiment (again, the DNA has no free will in his philosophy).
This video is a moronic load of bullshit. This cretinous assholes knows nothing about the immense level of suffering that takes place in this world. If you agree with this guy open your fucking eyes!
@EnglishGoethe Fine that's a good point. I call you cretinous because it seems you're only seeing things from your own rose tinted perspective EG, and I call you an asshole because there are many many people like you in this world, who seem to think that human life for the most represents what is good in humanity, it doesnt. You seem like a very nice guy so I apologize for my insult. I did it recklessly.
@hanson666999 No worries, mate. It's all in good fun. I don't contest that life is limited, poor, painful, and bleak for a very great number of people. Look around you in London, Hanson. Every single person--if they live long enough--is going to wind up on an IV, being given morphine and other compounds, to ease them into death. Including you and me. Your fellow countryman, Bowie, wrote, "We live for just these 20 years, still we have to die for the 50 more." He was right. I'm well-aware that
@EnglishGoethe human procreation is analogous to bacterial conjugation. It's largely blind, and the result gives the wheel of suffering another--sometimes muscular--turn. Natural selection isn't a happy merry-go-round of a system. It's brutal and violent, and everyone dies in the end. I don't know about a heaven, but I'm quite sure that there is a hell, because we're thrashing in it. The question is: Now, what? Assuming we choose to go on, what's the best way forward? We're in this together. The
@EnglishGoethe world is what we make it--given the constraints of the raw materials--and only what we make it. I'm glad that I wasn't born in Ethiopia. I'm not so glad that I'm not part of the 1% (wealthy) in the States. But I suppose this life is better than what it would have been like to live in 1348 in London when the plague came through. When you look around, under the circumstances, it seems shocking that we've got anything at all worth having. I say, let's keep it going in hopes of making
@EnglishGoethe things actually good one day--if humanity gets lucky. And if not, our species is eventually going to go extinct, anyway, so we might as well give it a shot. If it means anything, I'm glad that you're around, and I really want you to thrive. Please don't sell yourself short.
2a. ...oportunity to experience the relationship a life has with existence doesn't mean we don't experience joy if it doesn't fit within the "normal" range. At least, my opinion. I wanted to die around the age of 10. But it wasn't till I actively engaged with the thought of it, and was examining it with intent, that I noticed, or became aware of, beauty. I think worthiness is also in the sensory receptors and interpretation of the beholder, however "short" the duration.
1a. Funny thing is that screaming is debate to Gary. There's nothing more gratifying to him than to inflict the suffering he complains about on everyone he meets. I guess he figures, if you're not agreeing with him, you're enjoying life too much, and need to have some suffering in your life. You come to a point of agreeing with him in the issue of stopping suffering if it isn't the same as the "norm". But would someone like a Steven Hawking, or a Temple Grandin been aborted? Having the...
When I was younger - I had a number of so called "OOBE's" (Out of body Experiences) produced via specific meditation techniques via experimentation (I owned just about every book on astral travel at one point). Never drugs. I actually experienced seeing my exact body and bedroom, with all items in the appropriate place.
I experienced all of the "signed" explained in these books, from my ears making a popping sound on "extraction", to the sensation of "lifting" to seeing my body, to being pulled back in (cord) and experiencing the room and feeling awake, but not being able to move my body, etc etc. I even got stuck trying to get through my bedroom door, which scared me and pulled me back in.
The belief in such things and the desire to want those things gave me the illusion that they were real.
I made it my goal to find a person while having these experiences, verify exactly what they were doing, wake up, and then call them immediately to verify the experience. I was never able to succeed in such verification, and for good reason.
These were not really astral projections but rather very lucid dreams. I can see why those who do not care about proper verification could think them real, but again, the mind has the ability to think many things real.
As I developed a more skeptical mind, I found out that these feelings of OOBE's were reproducible in the laboratory.
NDE's (near death experiences) have horrible verification results. They never verify anything outside of the room in which they can hear, etc. They are not any more reliable that alien abduction experiences and so on.
Also, as an analytic philosopher you really need to think harder on the mechanics of such systems if they really did happen. If a part of consciousness was able to exist outside of the body. What would be this "spiritual" mechanism? How could such a think possibly work, play through, etc. What of sensory perception.
What feeds information in and out? How does such a thing hold it's structure. And what causes the structure to play through and allow for conscious thought without an electro-chemical reaction?
These are things that, as a philosopher, you need to address. And you also have to address the point of propagating such mechanisms on even if they were possible, which I would suggest they are not very likely.
Again, this is meant for more food for thought, not as an attack. The reason I say this is because I know how the desire for these things can affect ones ability to be critical of them...or to see things that are not really there.
LOL, and I must add, pointing out "imagine how much worse it would have been to be born into the Middle Ages" is kind of lame. That's like saying imagine how much worse it would have been to play Russian Roulette with three bullets instead of one. And you saying yourself "chances are they will be ok" they key word being chance. Should we stop wearing condoms when we have sex, because chances are she won't get pregnant. Let's all go jaywalking too, cause chances are we won't get run over.
My guess would be Inmendham is saying that no one has the right to impose the potential risk of great suffering (like being roasted alive in a car crash) on new sentient life. In other words, when you make the decision to procreate you are subjecting that new life to a game of Russian Roulette. Should people really be doing that so flippantly? You are creating a need machine for what reason.... beyond satisfying your own ego-driven desire?
The "imposition" argument. InvincibleNumanist also explained how to talk of an "imposition" in the context of procreation doesn't make sense.
watch?v=tNRwjuQMsPA
The gambling analogy is also flawed.
Of course there is always a 'risk' in life, but this is risk is for the most part the result of the general unpredictability of life and not the result of careless gambling with someone else's welfare for own personal gain.
I agree that the imposition argument fails (I've stated this in the past also); and should probably be re-named to something more coherent like... the argument from collateral damage. I don't see how the analogy of gambling is flawed.
Life is unpredictable, but this is also a result of the freedom of choice that should be offered to a child as a free, self-determined agent. In fact it is desirable. Imagine parents that plan the whole life for their child and control every single aspect of the child's life with the goal of minimizing the risk of anything bad happening to the child. Then the life would be completely predictable, but the life quality would be diminished due to lack of freedom.
@xknowledgeisfreex They do actively work to minimize risk - it's just within what is defined as a reasonable spectrum.
Bringing individuals into a world where there is a substantiated likelihood that they will suffer a nuclear catastrophe in early years, say; is fairly described as gambling... or if not, what word or phrase would you use to describe this action? Instigating risk with substantiated potential for horrific outcome..?
@xknowledgeisfreex If you're referencing the risk argument then you haven't de-bunked it. Driving cars is an almost infinitesimal fraction of the wider risks associated with the "life system".
Driving cars is okay therefore planet earth is safe to play on = fail.
@JonPaulPrime " You say, "no one has the right to impose the potential risk." I fail to understand. Do people have the ability to make such decisions? Do they really have the requisite agency and freedom of choice to be responsible? Gary seems to want it both ways: 1: (he claims people are not free and all), AND, 2: (he claims they have no right to impose...) If I have no freedom, then I don't need any "right," right? Or no? Is this not inconsistent or incoherent?
@JonPaulPrime I'd like to point out a specific refutation of anti-natalism. At some point, a new baby will be born that will become a biological researcher, and invent a cure for HIV. This result will spare millions of humans living at that time a horrific death, and it will prevent untold future suffering by as yet unborn children. In such a case, anti-natalism seems highly immoral. Anti-natalism makes sense only where significant suffering seems likely to ensue from procreation, e.g.
@EnglishGoethe in the case of Huntington's disease. If there are reasonable odds that the baby will be healthy and live in a good environment, then there is no legitimate moral argument to be made against anti-natalism, in view of my refutation, above. Also, it would seem very strange to privilege the well-being of a non-existent being over the well-being of existent beings. Progress demands procreation. Progress isn't guaranteed, but it does seem likely. And who is to say that the consequences
@EnglishGoethe of anti-natalism wouldn't be just as bad on existent humans as the alleged harm of coming into existence that anti-natalists posit as a moral evil (because it would lead to new beings suffering)? No matter what people do, suffering is built in. Therefore, let's do things in spite of suffering, rather than giving up. I preach optimism over pessimism, and that is a choice. It is something to strive for. It isn't easy. It's rarely a given resulting from one's disposition. It takes
@EnglishGoethe faith in yourself, society, and the possibility of an ever better future, despite the risk of setbacks. And, after all of this, if a few very determined researchers are right, our efforts here will be worth it, for we're immortal beings who will continue on after the demise of our bodies. But whether or not that's the case, my refutation of anti-natalism stands, and David Benatar is thus vanquished by another philosopher. Thank you for writing an interesting book, David. Onward.
@Professoranton I'm not an antinatalist, but my guess would be the case for it is less philosophical and more about pragmatic risk assessment. The analogy that immediately occurs to me is unprotected sex, which doesn't require much elaboration. Finding a way to justify it is ultimately always a cop out, is it not? Isn't it morally questionable to refuse to acknowledge or accept responsibility for the potential negative consequences?
I no longer suffer through any of Gary's videos as I prefer to avoid unnecessary anger. His rants are just that, anger fuelled rants that seem akin to The Jerry Springer Show. Do you think Gary would ever be a part of a civilised debate? I wish you the best and caution you to guard your sanity.
2. Your main concerns appear to be ego based, and I think you really think we're fooled by your aggressive attacks because they are in the passive category. No, you're an attacker. I said your main concern is ego because you're focused on Inmendham "passing judgment" and not the argument. That is an argument from ego. I take issue with the title of this video as I live in a third world country and YOU are the one being a privileged ego driven attacker here. His observations are dead on realism.
And I'm going to permit myself the rare indulgence of an ad hom and note here that the colour coordination of your clothes is offensive to my eyes (subjective value judgement) ;)
"Can we trust InMendham to decide what's best for us?" You're STILL at this? How is this statement based in reality at all? What obligates anyone to "trust" mendy and how is he deciding? By the way, you're extremely passive aggressive. Your videos are constant personal attacks on him, what is your obsession? There are lots of other ANs on this site, and you have been told over and over that some found him after finding the philosophy, or even writing a book on the topic.
Why would you speak so defeatist about the real world. The cosmos is, all that is or ever was or ever will be. Only Kantians think there is anything more than that.
@outsidemendham "Only Kantians"? Schopenhauer was a Kantian. He once said that "he who hasn't read and understood Kant is a mere child." And yet he is the very pillar of antinatalism. But at least he wasn't just some misanthropic philistine.
The material world is not "there", it"s not the "real world", it's the world of phenomena; it's a representation.
Can I make a suggestion EG? You are clearly intelligent and well spoken, but by deliberately ignoring the points Gary raised in his various rebuttals I'm afraid your only going to invite further rebuke. Why not take on one specific point and argue that? For example, what is the net value add of humanity to the earth and to the universe. I'd love to hear such an argument from the pro natalist defense but to date it has been notably lacking. So far the ANs are mopping the floor with the natalists.
@DoNotCiv ''but by deliberately ignoring the points Gary raised in his various rebuttals I'm afraid your only going to invite further rebuke.''
Here, here! Quote him Goethe. I dare you. I double dare you. We all shrivel and die and organisms have been doing it for hundreds of millions of years.
@Drew2OOO They don't account for all of the features of the NDE, the centerpiece of which is remote, verified perception. I don't really know what might be going on with the NDE. There are many non-survivalist explanations that are possible. What I'm convinced of is the need to make this life count, Drew. Please, swing for the fence!!!!!
EnglishGoethe 2 weeks ago
What do you think about the theory of Dimethyltryptamine being responsible for NDE's and OBE's?
drew2OOO 2 weeks ago
Very well said. InMendham is a great showman, and I tend to agree with him on many topics. I do see the obvious flaws in his rhetoric. He claims that the world is shit, yet he worries about the suffering of other sentients, and that is senseless. He speaks of life as "the experiment", as if it were God's experiment (which he doesn't belief in), man's experiment (which we have no free will to deny the experiment), or DNA's experiment (again, the DNA has no free will in his philosophy).
Qntkka 1 month ago
Ha ha, the world's just sunshine and rainbows. Whaaat could go wrong?
RadicalAwesomeness 1 month ago
This video is a moronic load of bullshit. This cretinous assholes knows nothing about the immense level of suffering that takes place in this world. If you agree with this guy open your fucking eyes!
hanson666999 1 month ago
@hanson666999 From your profile, "Long gone are my days of bothering to argue about shit on Youtube." Except for the occasional recrudescence. :-)
EnglishGoethe 1 month ago
@EnglishGoethe Fine that's a good point. I call you cretinous because it seems you're only seeing things from your own rose tinted perspective EG, and I call you an asshole because there are many many people like you in this world, who seem to think that human life for the most represents what is good in humanity, it doesnt. You seem like a very nice guy so I apologize for my insult. I did it recklessly.
hanson666999 1 month ago
@hanson666999 No worries, mate. It's all in good fun. I don't contest that life is limited, poor, painful, and bleak for a very great number of people. Look around you in London, Hanson. Every single person--if they live long enough--is going to wind up on an IV, being given morphine and other compounds, to ease them into death. Including you and me. Your fellow countryman, Bowie, wrote, "We live for just these 20 years, still we have to die for the 50 more." He was right. I'm well-aware that
EnglishGoethe 1 month ago
@EnglishGoethe human procreation is analogous to bacterial conjugation. It's largely blind, and the result gives the wheel of suffering another--sometimes muscular--turn. Natural selection isn't a happy merry-go-round of a system. It's brutal and violent, and everyone dies in the end. I don't know about a heaven, but I'm quite sure that there is a hell, because we're thrashing in it. The question is: Now, what? Assuming we choose to go on, what's the best way forward? We're in this together. The
EnglishGoethe 1 month ago
@EnglishGoethe world is what we make it--given the constraints of the raw materials--and only what we make it. I'm glad that I wasn't born in Ethiopia. I'm not so glad that I'm not part of the 1% (wealthy) in the States. But I suppose this life is better than what it would have been like to live in 1348 in London when the plague came through. When you look around, under the circumstances, it seems shocking that we've got anything at all worth having. I say, let's keep it going in hopes of making
EnglishGoethe 1 month ago
@EnglishGoethe things actually good one day--if humanity gets lucky. And if not, our species is eventually going to go extinct, anyway, so we might as well give it a shot. If it means anything, I'm glad that you're around, and I really want you to thrive. Please don't sell yourself short.
EnglishGoethe 1 month ago
Let me guess. You're a grossly undereducated "therapist" pretending to be a doctor.
AllianceOfJerkOffs 1 month ago
2a. ...oportunity to experience the relationship a life has with existence doesn't mean we don't experience joy if it doesn't fit within the "normal" range. At least, my opinion. I wanted to die around the age of 10. But it wasn't till I actively engaged with the thought of it, and was examining it with intent, that I noticed, or became aware of, beauty. I think worthiness is also in the sensory receptors and interpretation of the beholder, however "short" the duration.
RichardRoy2 2 months ago
1a. Funny thing is that screaming is debate to Gary. There's nothing more gratifying to him than to inflict the suffering he complains about on everyone he meets. I guess he figures, if you're not agreeing with him, you're enjoying life too much, and need to have some suffering in your life. You come to a point of agreeing with him in the issue of stopping suffering if it isn't the same as the "norm". But would someone like a Steven Hawking, or a Temple Grandin been aborted? Having the...
RichardRoy2 2 months ago
What your gonna argue with Inmendham with religious hokus pokus ?
chellelavelle 2 months ago
pervert.
sWeepingsAnd 2 months ago
Hiya EnglishGoethe,
When I was younger - I had a number of so called "OOBE's" (Out of body Experiences) produced via specific meditation techniques via experimentation (I owned just about every book on astral travel at one point). Never drugs. I actually experienced seeing my exact body and bedroom, with all items in the appropriate place.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 2 months ago
I experienced all of the "signed" explained in these books, from my ears making a popping sound on "extraction", to the sensation of "lifting" to seeing my body, to being pulled back in (cord) and experiencing the room and feeling awake, but not being able to move my body, etc etc. I even got stuck trying to get through my bedroom door, which scared me and pulled me back in.
(MORE 2)
trick0171 2 months ago
The belief in such things and the desire to want those things gave me the illusion that they were real.
I made it my goal to find a person while having these experiences, verify exactly what they were doing, wake up, and then call them immediately to verify the experience. I was never able to succeed in such verification, and for good reason.
(MORE 3)
trick0171 2 months ago
These were not really astral projections but rather very lucid dreams. I can see why those who do not care about proper verification could think them real, but again, the mind has the ability to think many things real.
As I developed a more skeptical mind, I found out that these feelings of OOBE's were reproducible in the laboratory.
(MORE 4)
trick0171 2 months ago
NDE's (near death experiences) have horrible verification results. They never verify anything outside of the room in which they can hear, etc. They are not any more reliable that alien abduction experiences and so on.
(MORE 5)
trick0171 2 months ago
Also, as an analytic philosopher you really need to think harder on the mechanics of such systems if they really did happen. If a part of consciousness was able to exist outside of the body. What would be this "spiritual" mechanism? How could such a think possibly work, play through, etc. What of sensory perception.
(MORE 6)
trick0171 2 months ago
What feeds information in and out? How does such a thing hold it's structure. And what causes the structure to play through and allow for conscious thought without an electro-chemical reaction?
(MORE 7)
trick0171 2 months ago
These are things that, as a philosopher, you need to address. And you also have to address the point of propagating such mechanisms on even if they were possible, which I would suggest they are not very likely.
(MORE 8)
trick0171 2 months ago
Again, this is meant for more food for thought, not as an attack. The reason I say this is because I know how the desire for these things can affect ones ability to be critical of them...or to see things that are not really there.
As always, take care.
Thanks,
Trick
(END 9)
trick0171 2 months ago
@trick0171 Hi Trick, thanks for asking your questions. I'll make a video soon to address them.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL, and I must add, pointing out "imagine how much worse it would have been to be born into the Middle Ages" is kind of lame. That's like saying imagine how much worse it would have been to play Russian Roulette with three bullets instead of one. And you saying yourself "chances are they will be ok" they key word being chance. Should we stop wearing condoms when we have sex, because chances are she won't get pregnant. Let's all go jaywalking too, cause chances are we won't get run over.
JonPaulPrime 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My guess would be Inmendham is saying that no one has the right to impose the potential risk of great suffering (like being roasted alive in a car crash) on new sentient life. In other words, when you make the decision to procreate you are subjecting that new life to a game of Russian Roulette. Should people really be doing that so flippantly? You are creating a need machine for what reason.... beyond satisfying your own ego-driven desire?
JonPaulPrime 2 months ago
@JonPaulPrime
That's the most idiotic, logically flawed argument ever and has been debunked already a few times.
xknowledgeisfreex 2 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex You've de-bunked the risk argument; or you de-bunked the Russian Roulette analogy...or..?
IdaMiaDot 2 months ago
@IdaMiaDot
The "imposition" argument. InvincibleNumanist also explained how to talk of an "imposition" in the context of procreation doesn't make sense.
watch?v=tNRwjuQMsPA
The gambling analogy is also flawed.
Of course there is always a 'risk' in life, but this is risk is for the most part the result of the general unpredictability of life and not the result of careless gambling with someone else's welfare for own personal gain.
xknowledgeisfreex 1 month ago
@xknowledgeisfreex Okay.
I agree that the imposition argument fails (I've stated this in the past also); and should probably be re-named to something more coherent like... the argument from collateral damage. I don't see how the analogy of gambling is flawed.
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
@IdaMiaDot
Life is unpredictable, but this is also a result of the freedom of choice that should be offered to a child as a free, self-determined agent. In fact it is desirable. Imagine parents that plan the whole life for their child and control every single aspect of the child's life with the goal of minimizing the risk of anything bad happening to the child. Then the life would be completely predictable, but the life quality would be diminished due to lack of freedom.
xknowledgeisfreex 1 month ago
@xknowledgeisfreex They do actively work to minimize risk - it's just within what is defined as a reasonable spectrum.
Bringing individuals into a world where there is a substantiated likelihood that they will suffer a nuclear catastrophe in early years, say; is fairly described as gambling... or if not, what word or phrase would you use to describe this action? Instigating risk with substantiated potential for horrific outcome..?
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
@xknowledgeisfreex If you're referencing the risk argument then you haven't de-bunked it. Driving cars is an almost infinitesimal fraction of the wider risks associated with the "life system".
Driving cars is okay therefore planet earth is safe to play on = fail.
IdaMiaDot 2 months ago
@JonPaulPrime " You say, "no one has the right to impose the potential risk." I fail to understand. Do people have the ability to make such decisions? Do they really have the requisite agency and freedom of choice to be responsible? Gary seems to want it both ways: 1: (he claims people are not free and all), AND, 2: (he claims they have no right to impose...) If I have no freedom, then I don't need any "right," right? Or no? Is this not inconsistent or incoherent?
Professoranton 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
JonPaulPrime 3 weeks ago
@JonPaulPrime I'd like to point out a specific refutation of anti-natalism. At some point, a new baby will be born that will become a biological researcher, and invent a cure for HIV. This result will spare millions of humans living at that time a horrific death, and it will prevent untold future suffering by as yet unborn children. In such a case, anti-natalism seems highly immoral. Anti-natalism makes sense only where significant suffering seems likely to ensue from procreation, e.g.
EnglishGoethe 3 weeks ago
@EnglishGoethe in the case of Huntington's disease. If there are reasonable odds that the baby will be healthy and live in a good environment, then there is no legitimate moral argument to be made against anti-natalism, in view of my refutation, above. Also, it would seem very strange to privilege the well-being of a non-existent being over the well-being of existent beings. Progress demands procreation. Progress isn't guaranteed, but it does seem likely. And who is to say that the consequences
EnglishGoethe 3 weeks ago
@EnglishGoethe of anti-natalism wouldn't be just as bad on existent humans as the alleged harm of coming into existence that anti-natalists posit as a moral evil (because it would lead to new beings suffering)? No matter what people do, suffering is built in. Therefore, let's do things in spite of suffering, rather than giving up. I preach optimism over pessimism, and that is a choice. It is something to strive for. It isn't easy. It's rarely a given resulting from one's disposition. It takes
EnglishGoethe 3 weeks ago
@EnglishGoethe faith in yourself, society, and the possibility of an ever better future, despite the risk of setbacks. And, after all of this, if a few very determined researchers are right, our efforts here will be worth it, for we're immortal beings who will continue on after the demise of our bodies. But whether or not that's the case, my refutation of anti-natalism stands, and David Benatar is thus vanquished by another philosopher. Thank you for writing an interesting book, David. Onward.
EnglishGoethe 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Professoranton I'm not an antinatalist, but my guess would be the case for it is less philosophical and more about pragmatic risk assessment. The analogy that immediately occurs to me is unprotected sex, which doesn't require much elaboration. Finding a way to justify it is ultimately always a cop out, is it not? Isn't it morally questionable to refuse to acknowledge or accept responsibility for the potential negative consequences?
JonPaulPrime 3 weeks ago
interesting video.
MensRifleAssociation 2 months ago
I no longer suffer through any of Gary's videos as I prefer to avoid unnecessary anger. His rants are just that, anger fuelled rants that seem akin to The Jerry Springer Show. Do you think Gary would ever be a part of a civilised debate? I wish you the best and caution you to guard your sanity.
BioLogicalTruce 2 months ago
Opinions and decisions: not quite the same, are they?
abutnotantisocial 2 months ago
2. Your main concerns appear to be ego based, and I think you really think we're fooled by your aggressive attacks because they are in the passive category. No, you're an attacker. I said your main concern is ego because you're focused on Inmendham "passing judgment" and not the argument. That is an argument from ego. I take issue with the title of this video as I live in a third world country and YOU are the one being a privileged ego driven attacker here. His observations are dead on realism.
IndifferentSky 2 months ago
And I'm going to permit myself the rare indulgence of an ad hom and note here that the colour coordination of your clothes is offensive to my eyes (subjective value judgement) ;)
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
"Can we trust InMendham to decide what's best for us?" You're STILL at this? How is this statement based in reality at all? What obligates anyone to "trust" mendy and how is he deciding? By the way, you're extremely passive aggressive. Your videos are constant personal attacks on him, what is your obsession? There are lots of other ANs on this site, and you have been told over and over that some found him after finding the philosophy, or even writing a book on the topic.
IndifferentSky 2 months ago
"so called "material" world"
Why would you speak so defeatist about the real world. The cosmos is, all that is or ever was or ever will be. Only Kantians think there is anything more than that.
outsidemendham 2 months ago
@outsidemendham "Only Kantians"? Schopenhauer was a Kantian. He once said that "he who hasn't read and understood Kant is a mere child." And yet he is the very pillar of antinatalism. But at least he wasn't just some misanthropic philistine.
The material world is not "there", it"s not the "real world", it's the world of phenomena; it's a representation.
tranquil87 2 months ago
Can I make a suggestion EG? You are clearly intelligent and well spoken, but by deliberately ignoring the points Gary raised in his various rebuttals I'm afraid your only going to invite further rebuke. Why not take on one specific point and argue that? For example, what is the net value add of humanity to the earth and to the universe. I'd love to hear such an argument from the pro natalist defense but to date it has been notably lacking. So far the ANs are mopping the floor with the natalists.
DoNotCiv 2 months ago 2
@DoNotCiv ''but by deliberately ignoring the points Gary raised in his various rebuttals I'm afraid your only going to invite further rebuke.''
Here, here! Quote him Goethe. I dare you. I double dare you. We all shrivel and die and organisms have been doing it for hundreds of millions of years.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago 2
The first 2:09 of this video is terrible. I didn't watch anymore after that.
FreeLongPig 2 months ago