When we look back at philosophy in the 1300s, we chuckle most about preposterous questions such as "can multiple angels be in the same place". When people in 2700 look back at us, they will probably chuckle most about antinatalism.
-
-
I certainly don't want to give the impression of demanding attention from you, but I am interested in criticisms of the above linked essay. I don't care if private or public. If you, or anyone reading this, wants to critique it I'm very open to having that kind of dialogue.
-
Your argument is long and I don't have the time to read it right now, but back in 2013 I did debate similar arguments. In short, I think there is much more to the issue than dukkha. The old debate can be found here (I am the interlocutor called "Kramdar") http://www.ligotti.net/showthread.php?t=6900&page=2 …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Iirc consent isn't part of Benatar's argument. I think he only refers to it in reference to others' works, eg Seana Shiffrin It's been a while since I read Ligotti's CATHR so I'll trust you on that. I don't claim the consent argument as my creation. I just tried to lay it out.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.