Thank you
Sophie
,
, Michael, Angela and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join me for my next live video in the app and full access to our courses and the 5000+ page compendium on human courtship, Romantipedia.com, by becoming an Upgraded Member:SHOW NOTES:
Dr. Paul and Jeremy Fox start with the Natalism/Anti-natalism debate between Jordan Peterson and philosopher David Benatar. They observe that “meaning” in human life is of a far higher order, transcendent to Benatar's “pleasure/pain” grid of “asymmetry.”
From there, they explore the notion of a “Romantic Lifespan” at which everywhere along the way, an individual is impeded in progress by the “Dark Triad" traits in oneself and others. Thus, in cultural commentary, it appears the such stances as being anti-natalist, pessimistic about dating, and seeing narcissism everywhere, in everyone except one’s self, appear to be a rationalization or justification for remaining unconscious in the “reptilian brain” (of Tinder and other impulsive, “hookup” modes), where the principle is not character virtue or growth, but instinctual, inherently self-serving living.
The talk revolves around the ongoing debate between natalism and anti-natalism, initiated by a discussion among the participants, including references to insights from figures like Jordan Peterson and David Benatar. Key points from the discussion include:
1. Overview of the Debate: The speakers express confusion over the prevailing arguments regarding whether it is good or bad to have children. Despite numerous fiery debates, they note a lack of substantial academic research on the topic.
2. Personal Experiences: Dr. Paul shares personal experiences with anti-natalist friends and admits difficulty in understanding their perspectives. Emphasizing the contentious nature of the debate, they recall Benatar's arguments against having children while contrasting them with supportive views on procreation from figures like Peterson.
3. Romantic Lifespan: The conversation delves into the concept of a "romantic lifespan," discussing the complexities of dating and relationships, particularly for those who are re-entering the dating scene. The speakers reflect on how challenging it has become to navigate dating as they age, with one participant sharing anecdotes about family members struggling in the current dating environment.
4. Having Children: The discussion touches on the contemplative nature surrounding the decision to have children, noting that many people feel grateful for the opportunity to have children instead of harboring a negative view about it.
5. Timeliness of the Topic: The participants conclude that the topic of natalism and anti-natalism is timely and significant, calling attention to the emotions tied to dating and parenting decisions in today’s context.
Overall, the transcript highlights the complexity of the natalism versus anti-natalism debate while integrating personal reflections on relationships, the dating landscape, and considerations of parenthood.
Natalism Vs. Anti-natalism
The debate between natalism and anti-natalism has garnered significant attention in philosophical circles, particularly through the contrasting views of prominent figures such as Jordan Peterson and David Benatar. This discourse revolves around the ethics of bringing new life into the world, with natalists advocating for procreation as a positive, enriching experience, while anti-natalists argue that it is morally preferable to refrain from having children due to the inherent suffering and challenges of existence.
Natalism: The Perspective of Jordan Peterson
Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and cultural critic, is often associated with a natalist stance. He emphasizes the importance of responsibility, meaning, and the potential for personal growth that comes from life's challenges, including parenthood. Peterson argues that raising children is one of the most profound ways to create meaning and contribute to society. He sees the act of procreation not merely as a biological imperative but as an opportunity for individuals to cultivate virtues such as responsibility, empathy, and resilience.
In Peterson's view, life is filled with opportunities for joy, achievement, and connection despite its inherent suffering and challenges. He often highlights the need for societal structures supporting families and parenting, advocating for policies encouraging family formation. For Peterson, the transformative experience of raising children fosters personal development. It engages individuals with the grand narratives of human existence, allowing them to connect with traditions and build the future.
Anti-natalism: The Philosophy of David Benatar
In stark contrast, David Benatar, a professor of philosophy, advocates for anti-natalism, encapsulated in his book "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence." Benatar's philosophical stance is rooted in the belief that existence is fraught with suffering and that bringing new individuals into the world is an ethical mistake. He famously posits the asymmetry between pleasure and pain, arguing that while the absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not necessarily bad because it is only experienced by those who exist.
Benatar elucidates that unavoidable hardships, such as illness, loss, and existential dread mark life. He suggests that even the happiest moments do not outweigh the suffering experienced throughout life. In his view, procreation perpetuates the cycle of suffering, and thus, it is more compassionate to refrain from bringing new lives into a world that is, to a significant extent, characterized by pain and struggle. Furthermore, Benatar argues that anti-natalism promotes a more profound understanding of suffering, encouraging individuals to adopt a compassionate perspective towards existing beings rather than emphasizing continuation through procreation.
The Intersection of Their Views
While both Peterson and Benatar address fundamental aspects of human existence, their views diverge sharply regarding the implications of these challenges. Peterson's natalism celebrates the potential for growth and the creation of meaning through challenges, advocating for a proactive approach to life's difficulties. In contrast, Benatar’s anti-natalism underscores the moral imperative to prevent suffering by avoiding the act of procreation altogether.
The debate between these two perspectives can also reflect broader societal attitudes toward parenthood, happiness, and responsibility. Peterson's view can be interpreted as part of a tradition that values the family structure and sees child-rearing as integral to the continuity of culture and society. Conversely, Benatar's perspective speaks to a more modern, existential contemplation of life that questions traditional values and highlights the ethical implications of choice and causality.
Conclusion
The natalist vs. anti-natalist debate embodied by Jordan Peterson and David Benatar invites a rich exploration of existential questions. While Peterson encourages embracing the responsibilities and joys of parenthood, Benatar challenges the ethical justification for bringing new lives into a world characterized by suffering. Their respective views force us to confront the core of human experience—its joys and sorrows—providing valuable frameworks for thinking about life, suffering, and the responsibilities of existence in an increasingly complex world. Whether one leans toward natalism or anti-natalism, the dialogue between these two philosophies enriches our understanding of what it means to be human and the choices we make regarding life and death.
Share this post