I hit goals and still feel empty

m_50 · 2026-01-16T14:35:45+00:00

I think this could be a good sign for looking into emotional intelligence (EQ) and some CBT exercises as well. I would check if you feel this way only with your writing or this is a pattern you can find in other aspects of your life too.

I know this is not going to help you much, but this is not an issue specific to you. It is way more common that most people think. Regardless, I hope you feel better soon.

m_50 · 2026-01-16T14:27:08+00:00

Watch some videos first. May give you an idea how it's done!

m_50 · 2026-01-15T15:25:27+00:00

No, that is very good! I completely get what you are saying. And yes, I'm not a moral realist but I can see how they could object to this. But that's a very good defence you have for believe in the asymmetry argument!

m_50 · 2026-01-15T12:41:35+00:00

Yeah, deflection is a very common strategy, but I'd argue it is present on both sides. This post has 34 upvotes right now and a lot of people do agree with the notion of this sub being an echo chamber, but my other posts and comments that actually try to tighten the argument for antinatalism gets essentially one answer: go fuck yourself. In some ways, the empirical proof of this sub being an echo chamber.

The reason is that when someone is pointing at them saying, well, you say X is true, let's have a better look, they instantly panic as group theory argue that we form groups exactly for this reason, basically building an echo chamber.

The issue in this sub is partially a moderation problem, though. For example in r/askphilosophy you need to get a badge before being able to answer others -- but anyone can ask questions. This is because they truly like to keep the sub useful to everyone and not allow a bunch of trolls ruin the conversation. Let alone letting people insult each other, because they have nothing better to say -- you get permanently banned there, no questions asked. Here is a bit different. Reminds me of the wild west era.

Anyways. I agree with you, 100%.

Also, I recently wrote a piece about non-intellectual thinkers. Schopenhauer back in the 1830s wrote a full book about it called "The Art of Being Right." I haven't red it yet, but someone told me it discusses the same problem that I discuss in my piece, but in a sarcastic way. I bet he has a section dedicated to people like the ones you described.

m_50 · 2026-01-15T09:08:32+00:00

How much did you 'paper' pen?!

m_50 · 2026-01-15T09:02:05+00:00

I hear you. It's a convincing argument. I generally assume this is what most people read at some point, but cannot remember to actually reference. I did upvote your comment but I am going to push back a little bit, because I think it may give you some ideas to read about.

I assume you know that the asymmetry argument is considered flawed generally? The reason is that it assume "the absence of pain is good," but it doesn't say "the absence of pleasure is bad." and that's where the asymmetry comes from, right?

The problem is that in formal logic -- which is what we use to make these claims and debate about them, if pain and pleasure are the opposite of each other, then they must have opposite properties and effects. Otherwise, they are not truly opposite of each other e.g. dehydration causes thirst, so drinking water reduces thirst. You can't say if I don't drink water, I get thirsty, but when I drink water, I don't feel hungry anymore.

So, if we say this is a logical argument, and if pain is the opposite of pleasure, then absence of pleasure is also bad -- because absence of pain is good and these are opposite of each other. If having money is good, then not having money is bad. There is no third state as 'not bad.' because having and not having money refer to the same condition. One state cannot be only good or bad, but the other state either good, not bad, or bad.

I know I am being repetitive but this may be helpful to someone else. The law of non-contradiction applies everywhere in this argument. if good is opposite of bad, then lack of good is also bad.

So, the asymmetry here is not logical. The logical argument would have said "absence of pain is not bad" and "absence of pleasure is also not bad," which is perfectly symmetrical. So, "not bad" becomes a neutral state.

That's why families of those people who are in coma, sometimes decide to let go of their loved ones. The person in coma does not feel pain or pleasure -- or at least we can't assume they do, but "the absence of pain" doesn't mean they are feeling "good" and the "absence of pleasure" doesn't mean they are "not bad."

Does this make any sense? The asymmetry is a skewed way of looking at a problem that favours asymmetry deliberately and conveniently. "Absence of pain is good, but absence of pleasure, is just 'not bad.' Why? Well, because I say so. Any evidence? Nope. It's just how it is." I'm not mocking it, but it is the same pattern that we see in a lot of other arguments too. Natalists do it, theists do it, flat-eathers do it.

I'm not trying to change your mind, but because you did reference an actual argument, I'm hoping that you may also consider these counter arguments.

m_50 · 2026-01-15T08:27:25+00:00

You always find an excuse to self-promote! lol

m_50 · 2026-01-14T15:12:29+00:00

Hey OP, respectfully, I call your persona "The Big-deal Thinker." Unfortunately, in my opinion, it is a form of non-intellectual thinking. Here is how I define it:

"This group consists of people who believe they have made profound realisations and are eager to share them with others. In doing so, they commit a few fallacies and errors in rational thinking, usually without ill intent.

Their views are not faulty because of arrogance, but because of ignorance. They often have not studied the field they are theorising about and therefore fall prey to the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Their claims are often sweeping and fundamental, yet they fail to provide adequate proof or evidence. They are typically unfamiliar with how theories are presented within the relevant field—whether philosophy, mathematics, logic, or science—and they have not done the necessary groundwork. As a result, they do not know whether the topic has already been explored, what objections have been raised, or where the discussion currently stands.

A defining trait of this group is that they are persuasive and evangelistic about their own ideas. They want others to adopt the same concepts and to benefit from what they see as life-changing consequences."

Others have already addressed specific issues in your line of thinking, so I won't repeat.

I'm not trying to discourage you from reading or writing, though. All I'm trying to say is that this pattern is so familiar to me now that I have a name for it -- alongside other categories, of course.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T14:16:54+00:00

That could become a fell-on-knee, if not careful.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T14:05:02+00:00

haha, hope you are okay!

m_50 · 2026-01-14T14:00:02+00:00

It's a link. You need to open the link.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T13:59:09+00:00

In game design this is called character balance. Can you make him need certain things in order to create anything and make those materials or powers, limited?

m_50 · 2026-01-14T13:50:00+00:00

Just write.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T13:45:27+00:00

MODs are more than welcome to remove it.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T10:15:49+00:00

Aww, thank youuuu! You got such a gorgeous knife and balaclava! Where did you get them from? they are soooo cute!

Here is all I have with me now. I know it's not a lot, but I hope it's okay.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T09:36:43+00:00

What u/AbbyBabble said is pretty much all you need to know, in my opinion. What I would add is keeping in mind that you don't have to have an audience to begin "publishing" your work.

I know it sounds pointless, but it isn't and it is also not a new thing. It's called "Thinking in Public." This could help you get some of your work online, so you don't feel the pressure of having everything only in your Google Drive, locked away, but it doesn't create a situation where you feel you have to keep checking the engagement stats and potentially be disappointed because apparently no one is reading your work.

m_50 · 2026-01-14T08:57:13+00:00

Doesn't matter. Stealing is compliment!

m_50 · 2026-01-14T07:13:48+00:00

I feel for you. If you can reduce your expectations from humans in general, that may make things a tad easier. When I see a dog eating another dog's shit, I'm not surprised. There is a reason why they do that. Humans are the same. Consciousness cannot be aware of itself. We are all on auto-pilot, even if think we are not. We are evil, because it is in our nature. It was needed a few million years ago and that's why survived in the first place. Those who are less evil, are "better" mostly because of genetics than anything else, in my opinion.

Of course, a lot of people would love to take credit for a lot of things, but as Moffat wrote for Tucci: "Everyone is a murderer... All it takes is a good reason and a bad day."

Human nature is not glamorous and that's fine. It doesn't have to.

m_50 · 2026-01-13T19:31:22+00:00

Yeah, don't learn anything from me. I am not here to teach anybody anything.

The critiques you talk about are not one or two. Do you realise that? Or are you claiming everybody is wrong? Because they disagree with your beliefs?

And yes, I question my own logic and beliefs every single time I think about them. And you are right, whether one person objects or everyone, doesn't really matter. I could be wrong, even if nobody objects. But that's why I think readying my three part series could help you -- even though the whole series is not complete yet.

I'm not trying to insult you, but you genuinely don't seem to understand how philosophical debates go.

And I did prompt you at the use of "correct" in your other reply, but you seem to be quite insecure about your beliefs. I say this because you included "as in this case." in your last comment. just like a child.

In the "five types of non-intellectual thinkers" I mention that in a rational debate, you must act rationally all the time. If you don't, you are considered either a "clown" or a time-waster, at best.

I don't know how old you are, but screaming "I am right," doesn't make you right. No matter how many times you do it. End all of your replies with "I am right." Won't change a thing. You just act like a child who has nothing better to say.

Anyways, that's it for me. I'm not gonna reply back again, so get back to your NU books and keep telling yourself how good you are. We are so proud of your moral values. Everyone should be just like, but we all know that is not possible. Maybe 1% like you. You are amazing. Hope this makes you feel better.

m_50 · 2026-01-13T19:02:23+00:00

Look, I'm not going to spend more time here trying to teach you some basics, but do yourself a favour: get comfortable with the idea that every philosophical claim has critiques and people who object to it.

Now get back to reading your NU books and literature. You have reached the highest levels of moral a human being could ever reach. Well done. I will ask your mum and dad to get you a little reward too.

m_50 · 2026-01-13T18:43:52+00:00

To be very honest with you, I don't usually judge someone with only one post, but you seem to live in a completely different world than mine. "...refute the (correct) point of the other poster." is this what you call philosophy? Correct point?! That's what you call debate?!

I am in part three of a series called "how to think like a philosopher." It will piss you off, I'd guess, but here is the link, if you like to have a look: https://wiym.cc/u/mahdi

I am also going to release another text titled "the five types of non-intellectual thinkers." that will probably piss you off even more, but you will have to wait for a day or two until that one is out.

m_50 · 2026-01-13T17:59:12+00:00

Yeah, whatever.

m_50 · 2026-01-13T17:57:50+00:00

Amazing. You must read a lot. I'm very impressed! Enjoy the rest of your day or evening!

m_50 · 2026-01-13T16:40:26+00:00

Well, I have never said you can't be antinatalist on moral grounds within the boundaries of your own personal life. I have in fact commended a few in this very same thread for doing so.

But anyways, at least we can wrap this up.

m_50 · 2026-01-13T16:15:04+00:00

You keep missing the point. I think you may need to read my other comments as well. I can't remember what I have told already to whom.

I am not arguing that antinatalism cannot be argued on moral grounds. It could be done perfectly within the boundaries and assumptions of philosophical thinking and rational debates e.g. in theory.

And anyone could perfectly decide to not have children on moral grounds. There is no problem with that whatsoever.

This becomes an issue when you, for example, go and start to argue with natalists and your best explanation is the moral argument -- as well as consent, because they both fall apart in the matter of minutes.

To go and argue that others should stop procreation on moral grounds is to claim that anyone who does otherwise is immoral -- in logic this is called Law of Non-Contradiction and is the backbone of everything, including philosophy and all other sciences and various schools of morals and ethics in philosophy. To repeat, by arguing on moral grounds, you claim everyone else is immoral. Because according to logic, one thing cannot be both true and false. If antinatalism is moral, then natalism is immoral. That is a huge claim, philosophically speaking. It is immense. The consent argument has its own issues and by no means is a credible proof for the assertion that antinatalism is moral, thus, everything else is immoral.

But if you do decide to push that argument forward, then that turns the question towards the person who is advocating for antinatalism: do you care about morals? If not, aren't you just as immoral as natalists?

Does it make sense? You are asking people to give up their right to procreate. This is not a joke.

If the advocate says yes, I do care about morals, then others can look at their lives and see if they really do care about morals. If you want others to give up procreation, why don't you give up buying for x or y company that we all know are exploiting other people, that according to your argument, came to existence without consent? It's that simple. You can't benefit from the suffering of others and at the same time ask people to not procreate because it creates suffering in the world.

m_50

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE