[ExI] To be or not to be, that is the question

[Stefano Vaj]

On Nov 12, 2007 3:58 AM, Stefan Pernar <stefan.pernar at gmail.com> wrote:
> The result was very interesting. Soon I realized that the listed beliefs
> started to contradict each other so I had to think deeper and rewrite some
> of them. That lead to new insights and resulted in a set of 40 beliefs. Some
> of them are trivial and some of them are interesting. Most axiomatic however
> is the following belief:
>
>  1.2.3.2 To exist is preferable over not to exist

I think this is an interesting effort, because so much of the axiology
behind different options is left implicit, and while I do not believe
for a moment that such proceedings may lead to universal consensus, at
least they clarify what is implied by different positions, logical
consistency being a hardly disputable value in most conceivable
systems.

Concerning the axiom 1.2.3.2, I think however that it should be
dissected further. Should it be qualified by adding "all other things
being equal"? (In fact, Hamlet chooses *not* to exist, or at least to
face substantial existential risks, because he cannot bear the current
status of things). And existence of *whom*? The subject speaking? How
can this subject be understood? As his or her genes whispering? At an
individual level? At a political level? At a "universal" level? And
"universal" what would refer to what exactly? Currently living human
beings? The mankind as a species? The mankind, including possibly
speciated successors thereto? A species leaving a radically different
progeny behind should be considered as "extinct" or as "evolved"?Would
successors here mean only biological successors of "children of the
mind" would qualify as well? And I could continue with regard to
possible different meanings of "existence"...

All that is not a purely theoretical game, because it involves
different and sometimes diverging strategies and concerns...

Stefano Vaj