‘There is a general belief (which I have never understood) that it is better to exist than not to exist; on this...

So? it's just a fact.

I meant both, I do acknowledge that after I made my post I realised I should have made that clearer. There's no reason to think an AI would necessarily have the bias created by the evolutionary process that makes it want to continue to live.

Lol, no. That is the edgy teenager opinion.

Fair enough, but I did reply to a post that accused OP of being mentally ill and depressed for not understanding Russell, so the first part of my point is only strengthened.

The fact that there is no life after death casts a pretty dark shadow over our lives

This.

>everyone who had some moments of apathy is mentally ill.

His entire life was darkness. Unlike user above, I do not believe money provides light. Only easier to obtain darkness.

Quoting out of context.
pls. stop your suffering right now and kill yourself.

I didn't quote anyone, let alone out of context, did you reply to the wrong post?

>lol it's just edgy babbling xD

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_and_mental_illness

huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/creativity-mental-illness-health_n_5695887.html

medicaldaily.com/why-smarter-people-are-more-likely-be-mentally-ill-270039

If take into account his biography, its was a very light shade of darkness.

>I'm sad becuz I'm smurt!

just stop, the highs are higher, the lows are lower, you're not some world-weary bodhisattva cause you watch Jordan Peterson videos

Only Redditeurs watch JP. Especially The_Donald intellectuals.

Didn't say i was smart faggot, i'm just pointing out the data that proves you wrong :^)

Higher IQ is correlated with higher satisfaction with life.

bbc.com/news/health-19659985

And sorry, but saying
>The more you understand about the world, the less it looks like on you would want to be born in.
Is not a sign of wisdom. It is a sign of being a moody teenager.

a holistic understanding of the world is more likely to make you appreciate the miracle of life more, especially the more you don't shy away from the harsh realities of death and suffering

only pussies take """"intelligence"""" as their cue to drop out

He's not being completely edgy about it but he correctly identifies normie pro-natalist attitudes as the bullshit that they are.

I'm not saying that high IQ per se makes you unhappy, but it certainly makes you more prone to certain disorders such as OCD or APD, which lower the quality of life

He is just argue that causing someone to exist cannot benefit the person whose existence is at stake. what is absolutely correct.

One can enjoy life but still realize that this world is not a good one and life is mostly suffering.

The point here was not about innate mental diseases.

Wisdom doesn't make you more miserable. Bad philosophies do.

>Bad philosophies

Who are you to determine what is good or bad?

I don't think someone can have true happiness and have this kind of superficial philosophy.

Hedonism is bad philosophy.

someone whose read a lot of philosophy and can tell the good from the bad

>BBC
got a better source?

Happiness has more to do with genetics and experiences in life than philosophy.

The most superficial and deluded philosophy here is that humans are special and play any meaningful role in the universe.

Go read Classical Philosophy, user. You couldn't be more wrong.

They didn't have a fucking clue about the nature of the universe and us.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998852

They didn't have good physics knowledge.
But they did have a clue on how to live life, which we don't.

pleb

No they didn't.
Ancient Greece was a monstrous society built on the work of slaves treated like animals or worse.

They just wrote down some retarded bullshit inbetween dropping some cummies in their male lovers buttocks and drinking wine.

Now you are just being edgy.

They were happier than you are.

I would be surprised if we grieve the non-existence of a potentially happy person with an intensity similar to that with which regret the suffering of actual persons. Since there are infinitely many possible persons who will never come into existence, grief on their part should also be infinite. The number of actually existing persons is necessarily finite, and any jubilation at their happiness must be moderated by the fact that their number could have been higher. This is absurd. If non-existence really is a harm, there would also exist a moral obligation to create as many people as possible whose lives are worth living. It's actually says that postponing pregnancy is a murder.

Stoicism had a direct influence on cognitive behavioral therapy. You're a memer

You did dare to compare the modern world, infinitely superior to the ancient evil world.

We've definitely grown as people and philosophers since then.

yes, of course, most of them were rich and successful free citizens fucking qt boys all day long.

It would be more fair to compare me to the 95% slave majority than some privileged philosopher whose cozy existence relied on the slave, even if indirectly.

Not the guy you have been in discussion but on what possible basis are you making the claim that on aggregate Ancient Greek society was happier than modern society. Your understanding of the small number of existent texts?

No, it's because they didn't have all these computers and porn.

Materially speaking, we are richer than the Greek philosophers were. Capitalism has its problems, but in terms of living standards we are not behind them. And those comments show ignorance of their points, since one thing emphasized is that material wealthy is not necessary for happiness.

No. There is no way to make this comparison one way or another. We are arguing about the Philosophers.

>No. There is no way to make this comparison one way or another. We are arguing about the Philosophers.

So you are arguing that the philosophy of a small number of elites is true because you personally perceive them to be happier than you?

No. I argued that the philosophy is good, so they were happier than me, or the other user or Hugh Hefner.

What makes it good?

Ignorance about the real world?

Your premise doesn't fit your conclusion i.e your argument is invalid and you don't have any evidence either your conclusion or premise is true.

No. Knowledge about how to deal with the circumstances of life and about what matters in life.

No. Material wealth is necessary but not sufficient.

Eh? Why not?

There are poor Catholic nuns, who have no wealthy, that are very happy.

Which point of your circular, evidence free, invalid argument were you referring to when you said "why not"?

Eh? I'm referring to your post. I'm asking you to explain why the argument is invalid. Also, why are you so angry? Take a deep breath.

But they have medical insurance, food and cozy rooms. You see this as "not wealth", but good food and warm comfy house was considered as wealth not long time ago. And also self-assessment of believers does not inspire confidence.

In some countries, they don't have many of those amenities.

If you want another example, Diogenes had no medical insurance, no good food and certainly no cozy room.

I'm not remotely angry, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of your thinking, since you claim it is based on Classical Greek philosophy.

Your argument is invalid because the premise"they were happier"(referring to specific philosophers) does not lead to the claim "their philosophy is good" if the whole of society was not on aggregate happier.

Your argument is also circular since the only argument you that "their philosophy is good" is based on the claim "they were happier" and the only argument you have that "they were happier is based on the claim "their philosophy is good".

Not only that but the only evidence you have that any of your claims or arguments or premises or conclusions is actually true as well as valid is your own interpretation of a resoundingly small number of extant texts, which are exceedingly unlikely to represent the bulk of work that was extent during the time period we are talking about.

Kind of, I still would prefer to have existed had I never existed.

Maybe if you are weak of mind. I'm as happy as I can be and I consider myself to be pretty intelligent.

I don't think you understood very well.

Philosophy, for the Greeks, was in large parts about how to best live life, how to achieve Eudaimonia (happiness/flourishing). So, a good philosophy would make its practioner happy.

And they worked. Maybe not in transforming all practioners into Buddhas or Sages but it improved their lives.

You mention about the rest of society, but a philosophy of life can't make the rest og society happy or unhappy, unless they adopt the philosophy. Which is impossible.

>Philosophy, for the Greeks, was in large parts about how to best live life, how to achieve Eudaimonia (happiness/flourishing). So, a good philosophy would make its practioner happy.

That's still circular and invalid for exactly the reasons I just spelled out for you.

>If non-existence really is a harm, there would also exist a moral obligation to create as many people as possible whose lives are worth living. It's actually says that postponing pregnancy is a murder.
>"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."- Genesis 1:28
What do you know...

Why?
It was designed for a certain aim. And it achieves its aim.

>It was designed for a certain aim. And it achieves its aim.

A circular, invalid argument without a shred of evidence either your mixed up confusion of a premise or conclusion is true. I struggle to believe you have ever read anything by a single Ancient Greek philosopher at this point and if you have you clearly didn't comprehend a single word they said.

Enough "yous" for you at this point, you are boring me death.

9 So, shepherds, hear the Lord’s word! 10 The Lord God proclaims: I’m against the shepherds! I will hold them accountable for my flock, and I will put an end to their tending the flock. The shepherds will no longer tend them, because I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and they will no longer be their food.

You are just trolling while throwing around accusations, aren't you? Ever heard of Telos?

Acquired knowledge and natural intellectual prowess are not synonymous.

Assuming that ancient Greek philosophers were capable of, or even actually did follow their own philosophy.

You seem to want to apply concepts of good and bad to an inherently abstract concept as philosophy. It's a set of beliefs or code of conduct. Different philosophies vary wildly and appeal to different people. You can't measure their quality. You can't measure individual's preference for them.

FUCK EVERY SINGLE ANGLO ON PLANET EARTH

"I may be a pacifist, but I think we should nuke the everliving shit out of the Soviet Union"

What did he mean by THIS?

user, you were considered a philosopher if you lived like one (or at least tried to), not if you only theorized about it. That's why Marcus Aurelius was considered a philosopher. He didn't come with new concepts and the Meditations were an exercise book. But since he lived like a philosopher he was considered one.

Not all philosophies of life are equally as good.

He thought killing millions of people was the lesser evil compared to letting Stalin get a hold of the atomic bomb. He and everyone else never expected Stalin to just keel over as early as '53.

Not that guy but i'd like to hear an agrument that good correlates to happy in this case.

pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/epicurus/

Thank you, this is better than what I assumed was meant when happiness was brought up.

You can also look at the section on Socrates.

pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/socrates/

I've got an idea on how socrates felt about the ultimate point for happiness (and how that factored into politics), but a lot of these need specifc kinds of social connections or states near unnobtainable in the human society.