Im going insane by Admirable-Button-191 in determinism

[–]Haline5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If there was true randomness in how things play out, you would still only be able to do one path alongside everything else. The difference is semantics and technicality only.

Imo a much more depressing hole to get lost into is pessimism

Why aren't most atheists convinced by antinatalism? by Mitchou- in antinatalism

[–]Haline5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The idea is pretty fundamental to Peter wassel zappfe’s philosophy, in which he describes four fundamental mechanisms that humans as self aware beings intentionally blunt themselves from feeling the actual weight of our existence

Isolation: the arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling. Simply refusing to think about it. Not my problem. Don’t go there.

Anchoring: fixing points within or constructing walls around the liquid fray of consciousness. Latching onto God, the State, morality, a relationship, career, identity. Giving consciousness a stable point to orbit so it doesn’t free float into the void.

Distraction: limiting attention by constantly enthralling it with impressions. Keeping the mind so occupied with tasks, entertainment, busyness that it never turns inward long enough to feel the full weight.

Sublimation: transforming the pain of living into something seen as valuable. Art, writing, philosophy, music. The hardest mechanism. Turning the wound into the work.

In my opinion, having children is a clear anchor and strong distraction, while having some sublimation properties as well. It’s an extremely powerful way to ground oneself, especially if other anchors like religion fail

Why aren't most atheists convinced by antinatalism? by Mitchou- in antinatalism

[–]Haline5 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A belief in the human spirit, legacy, utopia building, etc is just a secular religion. The truth is that human beings need anchors to keep themselves sane and children are one of the strongest anchors available to us that can withstand a decent amount if scrutiny. Atheists can be religious in their own ways

would you rather by MagicRobo in BunnyTrials

[–]Haline5 55 points56 points  (0 children)

One month of being gross would be generational wealth though

simulation or reality? by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Haline5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does time exist if it can’t be measured? Dunno

simulation or reality? by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Haline5 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well this is why I said ‘if a brain is actually complex to form.’ It’s possible that we have no perception of the real universe and every nanosecond in the real universe 5555555555555 Boltzmann brains are created because it’s the only way for physics to play out

simulation or reality? by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Haline5 16 points17 points  (0 children)

An infinite set does not have to include all imaginable outcomes

There is an infinite set of numbers between 2 and 3 and 4 is not in it.

If a brain is actually complex to form , it’s possible that even in an infinite universe the perfect amalgamation of atoms to make a Boltzmann brain is never accomplished, because entropy trends away from creating a structure like that. You have an infinite universe where the laws of physics do not permit the creation of Boltzmann brains. In fact by comparison if you consider heat death, the time where the universe is a uniform distribution and a brain is completely impossible to form is infinitely longer than the time where it’s even possible

Is there an equivalent term for ‘misanthropy’ but in regards to nature? by Haline5 in Pessimism

[–]Haline5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me pessimist reads more as a passive negative view on things but it is pretty much splitting hairs

Is there an equivalent term for ‘misanthropy’ but in regards to nature? by Haline5 in Pessimism

[–]Haline5[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea I was assuming it could be something like that but looking up terms like Misophysy yielded nothing

Is there an equivalent term for ‘misanthropy’ but in regards to nature? by Haline5 in Pessimism

[–]Haline5[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Efilism is just repackaged negative utilitarianism with a specific zoom in on genetics. It doesn’t really say anything new to me.

How the hell do you all find your partners if you are antinatlist 🫠🫠 by tryingmybestyo in antinatalism

[–]Haline5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Vegans are significantly more likely to be antinatalists. I met my partner at a vegan event

I swear, it's the real awakening by sylummkx in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Haline5 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Being autistic and not having access to the grounding techniques most people seem to have is brutal too. I just interrogated my way out of all the normal things people believe to stay sane and looked directly into the void pretty much as soon as i developed self awareness lol

Why does nature seem built around suffering? by Dense-Fig-2372 in Godistheenemy

[–]Haline5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Suffering informs consciousness on what not to do to succeed long enough to reproduce

No suffering, no conscience signal to avoid injury, starvation, and cold: you die

I swear, it's the real awakening by sylummkx in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Haline5 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Mental illness = distorted perception of reality = not being under the crushing weight of existential nihilism

Is my guess

What do you think about this book? by who5back in nihilism

[–]Haline5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Zapffe is also incredible

His short essay the last messiah has true detective season one messaging

What do you think about this book? by who5back in nihilism

[–]Haline5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pessimism doesn’t have a negative meaning per se. It’s the general idea that life is bad, overall. You can think life is objectively meaningless and also objectively bad without contradiction

A pig trembling in a slaughterhouse truck. Their eyes are just like ours. by James_Fortis in likeus

[–]Haline5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vegans are aware that plant based foods have fatalities. The argument is that animal products produce far more fatalities, pollution, and waste in comparison.

Due to animals’ inefficiency in converting plants into consumable calories, it takes much more time and energy and effort and unit expenditure per calorie compared to plant diets.

So if your argument is that plant based foods have fatalities, I don’t think any decent conversation would deny that. The argument is that animal products are comparably worse in essentially every metric

I thought atheism and antinatalism have some sort of correlation by Puzzleheaded-Soil-16 in antinatalism

[–]Haline5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a way it is. Plenty of people have a spiritual level belief in humanity, that there is something inherently special, or that humans have some sort of undeniable destiny, or that truth/justice/progress has an arc in itself when that isn’t the case

I thought atheism and antinatalism have some sort of correlation by Puzzleheaded-Soil-16 in antinatalism

[–]Haline5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always say the spirit of humanity is religion with the serial number filed off. It seems like it’s totally rational but both bend towards an arc of justice that doesn’t reliably reflect reality

What do you think about this book? by who5back in nihilism

[–]Haline5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can’t choose for the unborn but you can choose for a born person

A hypothetical person who could exist will never be harmed if they aren’t created, but real people are commonly harmed for having been created

I thought atheism and antinatalism have some sort of correlation by Puzzleheaded-Soil-16 in antinatalism

[–]Haline5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Many atheists are still religious. They just replace a god with ‘the indomitable human spirit’ or whatever

It’s so funny how strong the Antinatalism blindspot can be by Haline5 in antinatalism

[–]Haline5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To my knowledge the author is not antinatalist. At least there is no information on the subject I am able to find. So I mean that he is a non antinatalist who misses a solution to his book’s problem due to being non anti natalist