Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The argument that our attitude about future life should match our attitude about past life does not straightforwardly apply to us.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Our attitude about future life should match our attitude about past life only if our interests and attitudes are limited in certain ways.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.But our attitude is not that of the life- or pleasure-gourmand.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Humans exhibit asymmetric temporal concern: we are relieved when past suffering ends but distressed by future suffering (Parfit, 'Reasons and Persons').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This asymmetry reflects a deep structural difference in how we relate to past versus future events, not mere preference intensity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the symmetry argument fails because it ignores built-in temporal directionality in human psychological orientation toward time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epicurus's symmetry argument assumes desires are purely quantitative and interchangeable across time, but Nagel argues desires have irreducibly forward-looking intentional structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A non-gourmand has projects, relationships, and narrative commitments that are prospective in nature and cannot be satisfied posthumously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Because our interests are constitutively future-oriented rather than merely additive, prenatal non-existence provides no genuine symmetrical counterweight to death.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.