> Worth noting that I trained formally in Buddhism under a teacher for a few years. I’m not unaware of all this
You trained personally for a few years and yet you make such sweeping statements/strokes that a neophyte is prompted to point out basic facts about this practice (apparently an adequate retelling since you don’t bother to correct me)? You might think this bolsters something (?) but I think the case is the opposite.
It helps to point out exactly what part that you are talking about (apparently not the Vedic gang). In fact this initial reply (just the above paragraph before the edit) seemed so out of place. Okay, so what are they talking about?
> And the Vedic version of suffering is all full of love for reality, not wanting to delete it by smashing a button
Oh, so it’s about the small wish to commit biocide.
It’s a clear category error to talk about love/want/hate when it comes to that statement. Because that’s beside the point. The point is clearly the wrongheaded, materialistic assumption that suffering will end if all life would end by the press of a button. And if you think that life on the whole is suffering? Then pressing the button is morally permissible.
It’s got nothing to do with hate.
It seemed interesting to me that someone would have such a “Schopenhauer” (not that I have read him) view of existence. You don’t see that every day.
My comment was saying that this part was about ending suffering, not about wishing ill-will. I don’t understand what’s unclear.
> > Reality is actually bad, and it should be far more intuitive to folks. The fact that positive experience is felt "quickly" and negative experience is felt "slowly" was all the evidence I needed that I wouldn't just press the "instantly and painlessly and without warning destroy reality" (benevolent world-exploder) button, I'd smash it!
> This is coming off as incoherent rambling to me
You do like to gesture vaguely and tell me that "I don’t know what this is". Meanwhile I have pointed out at least one instance where you flat out just contradicted yourself on psychoanalysis. Or "incoherent rambling" (on psychoanalysis) if you will
I've read this whole thread twice and I'm struggling to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if all life is suffering then ending all life is morally permissible? In that case, what do you do with the life of someone who says they're not suffering?
> I've read this whole thread twice and I'm struggling to understand what you're saying.
Join the club apparently. How nice.
> Are you saying that if all life is suffering then ending all life is morally permissible?
Yes. To demonstrate that the original, maligned comment wasn’t about ending all life because they hate life and existence. But in order to minimize suffering.
The premise is wrong from a Vedic perspective because it denies Moksha. But if you believe that Moksha doesn’t exist? Then it’s rational.
And the push-button argument will depend on what your stance on utilitarianism is. Specifically how you can make the choice for every life in existence (instead of them making it). Which addresses your question.
I’m not gonna answer that because that goes beyond the point I was making.
> In that case, what do you do with the life of someone who says they're not suffering?
You trained personally for a few years and yet you make such sweeping statements/strokes that a neophyte is prompted to point out basic facts about this practice (apparently an adequate retelling since you don’t bother to correct me)? You might think this bolsters something (?) but I think the case is the opposite.
It helps to point out exactly what part that you are talking about (apparently not the Vedic gang). In fact this initial reply (just the above paragraph before the edit) seemed so out of place. Okay, so what are they talking about?
> And the Vedic version of suffering is all full of love for reality, not wanting to delete it by smashing a button
Oh, so it’s about the small wish to commit biocide.
It’s a clear category error to talk about love/want/hate when it comes to that statement. Because that’s beside the point. The point is clearly the wrongheaded, materialistic assumption that suffering will end if all life would end by the press of a button. And if you think that life on the whole is suffering? Then pressing the button is morally permissible.
It’s got nothing to do with hate.
It seemed interesting to me that someone would have such a “Schopenhauer” (not that I have read him) view of existence. You don’t see that every day.