No, I don't mean this in a depressing "I-wanna-kill-myself" way.
If we didn't exist, there wouldn't be any pain or sorrow, there wouldn't be a desire to live(so there's no "Oh Life is good!" arguement) , we would be oblivious of the experiences of life.
2006-09-12 17:38:30 · 18 answers · asked by Coffee-Infused Insomniac 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Actually, now that we have a sense of what is "better", we would know if not existing would be better. So it makes sense.
2006-09-12 17:42:58 · update #1
Well for it to be "better" we'd have to exist to experience that so your question doesn't make any sense.
2006-09-12 17:42:00 · answer #1 · answered by flignar 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How would we know? Who would judge?
one might argue that pain and sorrow lie somewhere on the spectrum among perceptual states, emotional states, and rational states. The question arises: which of these could we change so that we experienced the event causing pain or sorrow (or whatever) so that it made a positive contribution to the invididual's world-view?
If it is possible, then, to adjust the perception so that the pain or sorrow does not exist, then is the "would it be better" question still relevant? If not, then the sole issue is not whether it would be better not to exist, but how to reduce or eliminate pain or sorrow, or whether there is a positive way to experience such emotions. Also, without negative mind-states for comparison, how could we appreciate positive ones?
Just some thoughts.
2006-09-13 00:43:36 · answer #2 · answered by Don M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Two thoughts:
1. Nope. I am happy for my existence. And I think everyone gets to speak for himself/ herself.
2. Your question is incomplete and ambiguous. You don't say better for who? There is no univesal betterment. Any outcome can be good as well as bad for different people. So, if we don't exist - who is better off? Or, on whom do you want us to evaluate the impact of our non-existence?
2006-09-13 03:09:20 · answer #3 · answered by Zak D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For those living in pain...in poverty in hunger, this is the best thing..atleast then it would seem we all are equals.
For those having a good life, settled in life, and less struggles..it wouldn't a good idea at all.
I can imagine no one agreeing an answer for this.
2006-09-13 00:47:54 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah...i think so too... but when i think i find it even interesting to know how world looks like...we say this caz we have no idea how it is like, not being in world and not experiencing how
world is... sorrow and pain is part of life and the world we live in...lets not forget beside sorrow and pain we do have happy times... :)
2006-09-13 02:47:18 · answer #5 · answered by zoha 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Something else would just take over. I can't be sure as to whether or not it would be better if dolphins, horses, or cats were in charge, but it probably wouldn't be TOO different. They would have just evolved faster than they have.
2006-09-13 00:40:15 · answer #6 · answered by Esma 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is true.But if we did not exist who will take care of the homeless animals, or to experience the greatness in feeling of the sadness, the happiness and angry. Or LOVING SOMEONE.
2006-09-13 00:52:49 · answer #7 · answered by rabbit 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This seems the extreme form of Mill's "pig happiness." He argued that we are unfortunate to have "higher intellect," because pigs are obviously so much happier... since they are easily satisfied.
Aloha
2006-09-13 00:43:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that we existed before on a different planet and ruined it and were reformed to this urantia and are messing it up too.
2006-09-13 01:37:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I have no recollection of my pre-existent state and can only go based on my existence in life.
2006-09-13 00:45:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋