Get your ads out of here.

Why did you post this shit on a philosophy sub? It is completely irrelevant.

and?

you act like theres any actual alternative, 'needs of the many' is how we have done pretty much all of civilised history.

the hitler example above is perfect, the nazis believed the needs of the many would be served by genocide and we decided the needs of the many were served by destroying the nazis (luckily we won)

https://youtu.be/wgsBtYDHcaU

https://youtu.be/wgsBtYDHcaU

>Maybe we need a philosophy that could accept this unchanging fact of existence and somehow still able to justify the existence of the lucky majority at the expense of the few, statistically speaking.

we already do.

look at the dialogue surrounding the poor and unemployed, or even more relevant that attitudes of people from America in regards to climate change and China. or the West vs the 3rd world, funny how the ones most suited to change the climate routinely do the least.

majority of humanity is perfectly happy to stack piles of corpses as long as they dont have to do it or see it directly (see: every single person on reddit. if you live a middle class lifestyle you are living on the backs of 10,000s, all the things we own are only cheap because the people making it are borderline slaves).

Biggest BS of all time: Reddit blaming corporations for producing 80% of global pollution without a fucking hint of irony. its the same as addicts putting all the blame of the dealer ''oh i buy drugs all the time but its the dealers fault i keep coming back!''

>Personally, I have yet found a philosophy that could speak for both the majority and the minority with regard to suffering.

is that an issue?

i would argue its not possible to find an all encompassing ideology. there will always be exceptions, bad faith actors, corruption by the wealthy and threat/influence by outside forces.

no, both sides do not need to be willing to listen.

one side makes claims that have no evidence or proof, the other supposedly bases beliefs off of evidence. as such there is no 'both sides' as the premise of each sides beliefs are contradictory.

there are no rational, tangible reasons to be religious other than wanting to be (its a story, do you put equal weight to the greek pantheon and Zeus as you do an afterlife or major religion?)

>If you have seen such suffering up close, you'd understand why some people would rather we dont exist than to keep making these victims for the sake of the "many".

and still wouldnt agree.

those people have enough arrogance and cowardice to decide that no one should be brought in to existence due to the mere possibility of suffering, such 'philosophy' is just depression projected into a world view (and isnt worth serious consideration by anyone)

the vast majority of humanity does not wish they never existed, indeed the vast majority are happy to be alive (anti-natalists use extremely flawed and worthless reasoning by Benatar to justify their position ie Benatar baselessly assumes everyone lies about life quality)

“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.”

• Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

That's the problem, we dont all agree on this one for all philosophy, which is why we have Schopenhauer, Antinatalism, Efilism and Pro mortalism, nihilism and other "better end it soonest" philosophies that argue for the minority.

Its easy for you and I to say its worth it when we are not the ones with the shortest of the short straws ever, almost no straw even, lol.

If you have seen such suffering up close, you'd understand why some people would rather we dont exist than to keep making these victims for the sake of the "many".

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Apply it at a species level- if humanity suffers some overall, but considers it worthwhile overall, it is worth humanity continuing, regardless if some people draw the short straw.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

That's still fairly trivial.

Life isn't theoretical. It's just about the least theoretical, abstract, disinterested thing a person could possibly be involved with.

I think it follows pretty simply that a philosophy that isn't about living isn't going to be useful in informing us how to live.

> both Western and Eastern philosophies acknowledge the harsh reality of life and give prescription on how to live in harmony with that fact, while building a better life than at present.

Better in what sense? According to what standard? Do we mean improving our material conditions, or pursuing some notion of the good life?

My point is that admitting that it makes sense to speak of "better" and "worse" lives, then you already admit to the use of an ideal to guide action.

The thing that makes a better life better is exactly the fact that it more closely approximates some notion of an ideal life.

> Even then the notion is debatable because someone else has their own different definition and understanding on how to live life.

This is basically straight solipsism. Yes, people differ. Yes, people even differ reasonably.

But whether or not we agree on what the good life is, the fact of the matter is that both of us have some idea of the good which we are advocating for. If it's a disagreement over different definitions on what the ideal life is, then again, we are agreed: the ideal life is the one most with living.

I bet we also disagree on what to do about the economy. That doesn't cause me to doubt that the economy as a concept has any valid substance.

The fact that a notion is debatable only shows that the notion is suitable for contemplation and conversation, not that it doesn't exist, isn't worth our time, inherently contradictory etc. etc, or whatever you meant to perjoratively imply.

It's debatable? So what? I wasn't aware philosophy was a debate free zone... so I really don't know what to do with this criticism. I would be far more worried about the substance of an idea if it weren't debatable and open to rational discourse regarding differing definitions.

If the primary use of philosophy (even this is assuming that philosophy is for its uses, rather than an end in itself) is to deal with suffering, then by golly, I think we have to admit the ideal life is one with a minimum of suffering

Which 1) again shows that philosophy cannot even do this without focusing on what the ideal is and 2) presents a fairly low bar. This is a very thin, attenuated kind of philosophy if that is all it achieves.

I disagree

I think it helps us deal with both the highs and the lows.

In Sikh philosophy. It says contentment is better than happiness and sorrow. To consider them the same.

errrr, ok.

But it's not really "bad luck" at all, is it? Accepting a philosophy that "makes it ok [...]" is a choice, both individually and collectively. Practically speaking, there are some major pitfalls to such, amongst them: people will compete to be immune to such "sacrifice", people will fight for control of the power to decide, and any group which is consistent immune by such means will tend to start viewing itself as superior to the rest.

Accepting bad luck is not justifying genocide, what the eff are you talking about? lol

Wonderful reply. Thank you. And you're right about the false dichotomy. And clever rebuttal.

Yup--your brain!

Currently our only manufacturing process involves sexual intercourse, but hey, it's early days