Vegetarian Discussion: "Life" Is Not Good; It Is The *content* Of Life That Is, Or Isn't, Good

"Life" Is Not Good; It Is The *content* Of Life That Is, Or Isn't, Good
Posts: 92

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2007-10-02 01:30:01 EST
Life per se isn't "good", because that implies that if
you never had been born, you'd be in a "bad" state, but
clearly you wouldn't be in any state at all.

Life per se isn't good. It is the *content* of a life
that is good, or at least better than a life with an
imaginable different content. Some guy working at a
steady buy low-wage job, who struggles to provide his
family with a little more than the basic necessities of
life, can think that his life is good compared with
someone who is homeless and can't keep his family
together for whatever reason. A rich person can think
his life is terrific compared to both of those other
two. But it is the *content* that is being compared,
not life per se.

Life per se isn't good; it's either the content, or the
prospect that the content will improve, that people
think of as good.

Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother
2007-10-02 15:07:03 EST
On Oct 1, 10:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> Life per se isn't "good", because that implies that if
> you never had been born, you'd be in a "bad" state, but
> clearly you wouldn't be in any state at all.


How do you know that? Please EXPLAIN your reasoning.


>
> Life per se isn't good. It is the *content* of a life
> that is good, or at least better than a life with an
> imaginable different content. Some guy working at a
> steady buy low-wage job, who struggles to provide his
> family with a little more than the basic necessities of
> life, can think that his life is good compared with
> someone who is homeless and can't keep his family
> together for whatever reason. A rich person can think
> his life is terrific compared to both of those other
> two. But it is the *content* that is being compared,
> not life per se.


Your "content" I wouldn't wish on anyone.




>
> Life per se isn't good; it's either the content, or the
> prospect that the content will improve, that people
> think of as good.


You surveyed *how* many people to arrive at what 'people' think?





Dutch
2007-10-02 15:18:27 EST
Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother wrote:
> On Oct 1, 10:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Life per se isn't "good", because that implies that if
>> you never had been born, you'd be in a "bad" state, but
>> clearly you wouldn't be in any state at all.
>
>
> How do you know that? Please EXPLAIN your reasoning.

He knows it because there is no evidence or coherent reasoning
that can show otherwise.

Things that don't exist:

Rocking chairs floating in the rings of Saturn.
Entities that were never conceived.
Your common sense.

Ron
2007-10-02 15:27:13 EST
On Oct 2, 12:18 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother wrote:
>
> > On Oct 1, 10:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> Life per se isn't "good", because that implies that if
> >> you never had been born, you'd be in a "bad" state, but
> >> clearly you wouldn't be in any state at all.
>
> > How do you know that? Please EXPLAIN your reasoning.
>
> He knows it because there is no evidence or coherent reasoning
> that can show otherwise.


The evidence that there is "something else" is all around us.

The earth, everything on it and in it and the entire universe are
witness and evidence of Intelligent Creation.(Rudy/Dutch being the
exception)




>
> Things that don't exist:
>
> Rocking chairs floating in the rings of Saturn.
> Entities that were never conceived.
> Your common sense.



Dutch
2007-10-02 15:31:20 EST
Ron wrote:
> On Oct 2, 12:18 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 1, 10:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>> Life per se isn't "good", because that implies that if
>>>> you never had been born, you'd be in a "bad" state, but
>>>> clearly you wouldn't be in any state at all.
>>> How do you know that? Please EXPLAIN your reasoning.
>> He knows it because there is no evidence or coherent reasoning
>> that can show otherwise.
>
>
> The evidence that there is "something else" is all around us.

Don't change the subject, we're talking about life being a
"benefit" or not.

> The earth, everything on it and in it and the entire universe are
> witness and evidence of Intelligent Creation.(Rudy/Dutch being the
> exception)

Meaningless emotional twaddle, address the actual question.


>> Things that don't exist:
>>
>> Rocking chairs floating in the rings of Saturn.
>> Entities that were never conceived.
>> Your common sense.
>
>

Malrassic Park
2007-10-02 18:26:16 EST
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:30:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote:

>Life per se isn't "good", because that implies that if
>you never had been born, you'd be in a "bad" state, but
>clearly you wouldn't be in any state at all.
>
>Life per se isn't good. It is the *content* of a life
>that is good, or at least better than a life with an
>imaginable different content. Some guy working at a
>steady buy low-wage job, who struggles to provide his
>family with a little more than the basic necessities of
>life, can think that his life is good compared with
>someone who is homeless and can't keep his family
>together for whatever reason. A rich person can think
>his life is terrific compared to both of those other
>two. But it is the *content* that is being compared,
>not life per se.
>
>Life per se isn't good; it's either the content, or the
>prospect that the content will improve, that people
>think of as good.

If life isn't good per se, then how do you know if the content of life
is good? By what means do you judge the good?

--
Yes, we speak English!

Dutch
2007-10-02 19:03:48 EST
Malrassic Park wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:30:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> Life per se isn't "good", because that implies that if
>> you never had been born, you'd be in a "bad" state, but
>> clearly you wouldn't be in any state at all.
>>
>> Life per se isn't good. It is the *content* of a life
>> that is good, or at least better than a life with an
>> imaginable different content. Some guy working at a
>> steady buy low-wage job, who struggles to provide his
>> family with a little more than the basic necessities of
>> life, can think that his life is good compared with
>> someone who is homeless and can't keep his family
>> together for whatever reason. A rich person can think
>> his life is terrific compared to both of those other
>> two. But it is the *content* that is being compared,
>> not life per se.
>>
>> Life per se isn't good; it's either the content, or the
>> prospect that the content will improve, that people
>> think of as good.
>
> If life isn't good per se, then how do you know if the content of life
> is good? By what means do you judge the good?

By comparison with the bad.

Malrassic Park
2007-10-02 21:46:21 EST
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:03:48 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

>Malrassic Park wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:30:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Life per se isn't "good", because that implies that if
>>> you never had been born, you'd be in a "bad" state, but
>>> clearly you wouldn't be in any state at all.
>>>
>>> Life per se isn't good. It is the *content* of a life
>>> that is good, or at least better than a life with an
>>> imaginable different content. Some guy working at a
>>> steady buy low-wage job, who struggles to provide his
>>> family with a little more than the basic necessities of
>>> life, can think that his life is good compared with
>>> someone who is homeless and can't keep his family
>>> together for whatever reason. A rich person can think
>>> his life is terrific compared to both of those other
>>> two. But it is the *content* that is being compared,
>>> not life per se.
>>>
>>> Life per se isn't good; it's either the content, or the
>>> prospect that the content will improve, that people
>>> think of as good.
>>
>> If life isn't good per se, then how do you know if the content of life
>> is good? By what means do you judge the good?
>
>By comparison with the bad.

This is getting a bit circular, don't you think? And pessimistic.

--
Yes, we speak English!

-Phil Clemence
2007-10-02 23:39:40 EST

"Malrassic Park" <malenor@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u2t5g31k4856m4kj4er6pckbqha0n95lv0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:03:48 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>Malrassic Park wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:30:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Life per se isn't "good", because that implies that if
>>>> you never had been born, you'd be in a "bad" state, but
>>>> clearly you wouldn't be in any state at all.
>>>>
>>>> Life per se isn't good. It is the *content* of a life
>>>> that is good, or at least better than a life with an
>>>> imaginable different content. Some guy working at a
>>>> steady buy low-wage job, who struggles to provide his
>>>> family with a little more than the basic necessities of
>>>> life, can think that his life is good compared with
>>>> someone who is homeless and can't keep his family
>>>> together for whatever reason. A rich person can think
>>>> his life is terrific compared to both of those other
>>>> two. But it is the *content* that is being compared,
>>>> not life per se.
>>>>
>>>> Life per se isn't good; it's either the content, or the
>>>> prospect that the content will improve, that people
>>>> think of as good.
>>>
>>> If life isn't good per se, then how do you know if the content of life
>>> is good? By what means do you judge the good?
>>
>>By comparison with the bad.
>
> This is getting a bit circular, don't you think? And pessimistic.
>
> --
> Yes, we speak English!

"He does philosophy during the day, which is: discussing whether certain
sentences have meaning, and if so, what?" - Alan Watts

I think Rudy was talking in general terms and sometimes that is appropriate
for the thoughts and ideas he might be striving for.
Define what you know ... and so what? Try to define what you don't know, or
maybe even can't know ... what terms would you use?
With what do you compare life?
I thought there wasn't anything new in it to me, but I thought I would keep
the idea about "content" vs. "life" and as I read other things, maybe it
would have some effect. I don't know yet ...
-Phil Clemence



Dutch
2007-10-03 00:46:23 EST
Malrassic Park wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:03:48 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Malrassic Park wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:30:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Life per se isn't "good", because that implies that if
>>>> you never had been born, you'd be in a "bad" state, but
>>>> clearly you wouldn't be in any state at all.
>>>>
>>>> Life per se isn't good. It is the *content* of a life
>>>> that is good, or at least better than a life with an
>>>> imaginable different content. Some guy working at a
>>>> steady buy low-wage job, who struggles to provide his
>>>> family with a little more than the basic necessities of
>>>> life, can think that his life is good compared with
>>>> someone who is homeless and can't keep his family
>>>> together for whatever reason. A rich person can think
>>>> his life is terrific compared to both of those other
>>>> two. But it is the *content* that is being compared,
>>>> not life per se.
>>>>
>>>> Life per se isn't good; it's either the content, or the
>>>> prospect that the content will improve, that people
>>>> think of as good.
>>> If life isn't good per se, then how do you know if the content of life
>>> is good? By what means do you judge the good?
>> By comparison with the bad.
>
> This is getting a bit circular, don't you think? And pessimistic.

Not at all, comparisons are the only means we have of placing a
value on life experiences. If you have never been dirt poor you
can't appreciate money as much as much as someone who has. If
you have never experienced pain you can't appreciate comfort, if
you have never been enslaved or imprisoned you don't fully
appreciate the value of freedom.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron