Existence VS Non-Existence

[XTimeRemains]

Is non-existence preferable to existence?

Related posts, but that do not answer my question:

• Is Not Non-Existence Preferable To Existence
• Is Habitat Destruction Merciful?
• Should I kill myself? a Schopenhauer perspective

To join in on this conversation, please use the assumption that there's nothing supernatural, and that we are physical beings which exist temporarily from our conception to our death. I do not wish to evaluate or discuss this assumption.

Here's my reasoning, and what troubles me in its essence:

• If there is no being, this nothing cannot feel pain about its non-existence. It cannot be jealous of the joys of life, because there is nothing which can experience jealousy.
• If there is a being, lets say a human, this human can feel pain about its existence. At times, it can desire to not exist.

Existence is no better/more desirable than non-existence. Non-existence cannot desire to exist.

Non-existence, from time to time, can seem more desirable than existence (I'm sure you can imagine a very painful situation which seems hopeless until the relief of death).

This question is not about whether or not to kill oneself, or suicide. This question is more about whether or not to bring new life into the world. I would rather not be directly responsible for bringing a child into existence which may likely wish to die at some point in her/his life.

In my perspective, at existence's best, non-existence and existence are on par, existence cannot be preferable to non-existence. However non-existence can be preferable to existence.

Yes life can be wonderful, but it can also be tragic. The wonders of life don't make life better than non-existence, but the tragedies of life make non-existence, the extinguishing of pain, appeal more than life.

My open ended question(s) for all of you:
Is this logic flawed? Is there a poor assumption somewhere that I'm missing?

[Ormond]

Great screen name SexyBachelor, bravo. Happy hunting.

Is this logic flawed? Is there a poor assumption somewhere that I'm missing?

You might want to question whether the paradigm "existence vs. non-existence" is a property of the real world, or a property of the dualistic division based human minds observing the real world. More on this if you want it.

Throw a rock in to a pond. Observe the ripples spreading out across the surface of the pond. Do they exist, or not? Think about that for a bit.

Consider space. There's something between the Earth and the Moon or these two bodies would be one. But that "something" is an empty void, a nothing. Does space exist, or not?

Consider yourself. I've heard that every cell in our body is replaced within seven years. Moment to moment cells come and go. You are physically not the same thing from moment to moment. Are you, like the ripples on the pond, only an ever changing pattern in matter with no separate existence of your own?

BTW, it's most likely impossible to give life to any human being who won't at some point in their life wish they weren't here.

[Sy Borg]

Is non-existence preferable to existence?

... Here's my reasoning, and what troubles me in its essence:

• If there is no being, this nothing cannot feel pain about its non-existence. It cannot be jealous of the joys of life, because there is nothing which can experience jealousy.
• If there is a being, lets say a human, this human can feel pain about its existence. At times, it can desire to not exist.

Existence is no better/more desirable than non-existence. Non-existence cannot desire to exist.

Non-existence, from time to time, can seem more desirable than existence (I'm sure you can imagine a very painful situation which seems hopeless until the relief of death).

This question is not about whether or not to kill oneself, or suicide. This question is more about whether or not to bring new life into the world. I would rather not be directly responsible for bringing a child into existence which may likely wish to die at some point in her/his life.

In my perspective, at existence's best, non-existence and existence are on par, existence cannot be preferable to non-existence. However non-existence can be preferable to existence.

Yes life can be wonderful, but it can also be tragic. The wonders of life don't make life better than non-existence, but the tragedies of life make non-existence, the extinguishing of pain, appeal more than life.

My open ended question(s) for all of you:
Is this logic flawed? Is there a poor assumption somewhere that I'm missing?

Seems like you're starting to embrace antinatalism. The question of bringing a child into the world depends on circumstances. Everything is a risk in life, and that includes having a child. Many people, especially men, are ambivalent about the prospect of children, so that's no drama, but if one has serious misgivings - a genuine distaste for the concept - it may be best to hold off, especially if you're not usually much interested in nurturing (not everyone is, or needs to be).

BTW, even though non-existence can't desire to exist, it was never given a choice :)

[Present awareness]

It seems to me that we came from non- existence and we will return to non-existence, whether we prefer it or not. Sure, it's possible to end ones life sooner, but it will end later, regardless. Preference is the root cause of suffering, according to the zen masters, and they call setting up what one likes against what one dislikes, a disease of the mind.

If it is possible to imagine living in the present moment, responding to situations as the arise, without preference, one may be very close to how other animals live in the wild, with present awareness, alertness and no concept of time.

[LuckyR]

It seems to me that we came from non- existence and we will return to non-existence, whether we prefer it or not. Sure, it's possible to end ones life sooner, but it will end later, regardless. Preference is the root cause of suffering, according to the zen masters, and they call setting up what one likes against what one dislikes, a disease of the mind.

If it is possible to imagine living in the present moment, responding to situations as the arise, without preference, one may be very close to how other animals live in the wild, with present awareness, alertness and no concept of time.

Considering the amount of total nonexistence, the few of us who exist should consider it as a gift to be cherished and protected, though everyone will become non-existent soon enough, no need to hasten the inevitable.

[Sy Borg]

It seems to me that we came from non- existence and we will return to non-existence, whether we prefer it or not. Sure, it's possible to end ones life sooner, but it will end later, regardless. Preference is the root cause of suffering, according to the zen masters, and they call setting up what one likes against what one dislikes, a disease of the mind.

If it is possible to imagine living in the present moment, responding to situations as the arise, without preference, one may be very close to how other animals live in the wild, with present awareness, alertness and no concept of time.

Considering the amount of total nonexistence, the few of us who exist should consider it as a gift to be cherished and protected, though everyone will become non-existent soon enough, no need to hasten the inevitable.

It should be said that these ideas are, almost by definition, unproven since any person who has been clinically dead for a while and later wakes up to tell the tale is deemed to have not been dead after all. A more cynical person that me might way that it's a stitch-up based on unbending beliefs.

Meanwhile, the idea that consciousness itself is in some way a fundamental aspect of reality remains a more serious idea than is generally thought (link recently posted by Bohm2 in another thread): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqDP34a-epI. As regards Prof Hoffman's model, the next step would be mathematical testing to see if the model reliably derives physical phenomena.

Aside from obvious physical aspects, nothing is certain or inevitable post-mortem. I'd also like to parse the difference between existence and memory of existence. If not for other people's experiences and validation, most of us would consider our own existence to have started somewhere between two and ten years of age.

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)


Considering the amount of total nonexistence, the few of us who exist should consider it as a gift to be cherished and protected, though everyone will become non-existent soon enough, no need to hasten the inevitable.

It should be said that these ideas are, almost by definition, unproven since any person who has been clinically dead for a while and later wakes up to tell the tale is deemed to have not been dead after all. A more cynical person that me might way that it's a stitch-up based on unbending beliefs.

Meanwhile, the idea that consciousness itself is in some way a fundamental aspect of reality remains a more serious idea than is generally thought (link recently posted by Bohm2 in another thread): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqDP34a-epI. As regards Prof Hoffman's model, the next step would be mathematical testing to see if the model reliably derives physical phenomena.

Aside from obvious physical aspects, nothing is certain or inevitable post-mortem. I'd also like to parse the difference between existence and memory of existence. If not for other people's experiences and validation, most of us would consider our own existence to have started somewhere between two and ten years of age.

Your memory perspective is, of course accurate. Even on it's face you could call the time between birth (perhaps pre-birth even a bit...) until the onset of permanent memories as potential existence.

[Sy Borg]

I'd also like to parse the difference between existence and memory of existence. If not for other people's experiences and validation, most of us would consider our own existence to have started somewhere between two and ten years of age.

Your memory perspective is, of course accurate. Even on it's face you could call the time between birth (perhaps pre-birth even a bit...) until the onset of permanent memories as potential existence.

Then again, why not go back to your parents? In a sense, each of us was formerly two, our parents. After all, what is reproduction but a non-terminal form of mitosis - splitting off bits instead of your whole body? In a further sense, our great[exponential] grandparents were LUCA, the first life on Earth.

LUCA split, into two, four etc. It has continued splitting unabated. Sometimes the rate of splitting speeds up, sometimes it slows, and this has continued right up to this point where it can now feature a part of itself twerking on reality TV to display to other parts of itself. It can also safely a craft on a 4km piece of icy rock 520,000kms away that's travelling at 38 km/ps.

A fair question would be, what on Earth [sic] does LUCA think its doing? It's certainly changing form rapidly. The larger, relatively homogeneous global system of ecosystems that we call we call "nature" is seemingly breaking up into discrete, complex and increasingly autotrophic systems (biotechnology used to create novel foods).

My guess is that today's version of LUCA is metamorphosing into its reproductive form, but there's always the chance that it's fallen into a cul-de-sac.

I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who agrees with this biological perspective, but for some reason I persist. Possibly premature senility.

[Belinda]

Great screen name SexyBachelor, bravo. Happy hunting.

Ormond, I'm not objecting to the poster's pseudonym at all. I don't believe you really meant to imply that sexual partners are to be regarded as prey.

I'm sorry to nit pick, but I am duty bound not to let macho sexism pass unnoticed especially when it's implicated in a humorously friendly post, and I wish that you would retract.

[Ormond]

I'm sorry to nit pick, but I am duty bound not to let macho sexism pass unnoticed especially when it's implicated in a humorously friendly post, and I wish that you would retract.

I hereby formally retract all the things you may think I meant but that I didn't actually say.

I now I will ask you in turn to retract the kind of lose/lose feminist sexism formulations that tend to drive men crazy, and not in a good way.

If we chase you, that's wrong.

If we don't chase you, that's wrong too.

If we try to talk about this, that's wrong.

If we don't talk about this, that's wrong too.

So many of the political correctness tactics our culture is now obsessed with claim to be morally superior, but often they are just the same old power trips wearing new clothes. Put the other person on the defensive, establish fantasy superiority, exercise power and make them change, manipulation by guilt etc etc.

When this kind of thing gets too carried away guys start thinking things like, "Let's hunt them like prey and have sex with them before they have a chance to start talking."

NOTE: This post was approved by the Donald Trump Campaign Committee.

[Grunth]

We don't know if there is non-existence.

[Belinda]

Ormond, okay.

[Ormond]

Ormond, okay.

Okay? OKAY??? HOW DARE YOU!!! Or something....

[Felix]

This question is not about whether or not to kill oneself, or suicide. This question is more about whether or not to bring new life into the world. I would rather not be directly responsible for bringing a child into existence which may likely wish to die at some point in her/his life.

I think you're an imposter, a genuine sexy bachelor would not ask such a question.....

[Belinda]

Ormond whether or not you do your wordmanship professionally you know that people like me will have to tackle whatever nasty ism you might reveal through it