Then your best action would have been to ignore what I wrote, but you wanted to be all snooty and stuff. Just as your best response now will be to ignore this post. I'm curious whether you can do that. — T Clark

My best action is determined by me, not you. I doubt you have a clear understanding of what is best for you and what isn't, let alone someone else.. However, i take you up on your offer and will let you carry on with others. Something i had already offered you in my very first response, but you insisted on your amateurish baits, like you are doing now. So again,carry on.

Again, my comment was sincere and responsive. I believe the things I wrote and they contradict some of what you put in your OP. I don't see how you can consider that baiting. You set out some assumptions for the discussion. I commented that I don't think some of them are valid. — T Clark

I base my responses (to you) on the history of your conduct, with me as well as with others. I base it on observations.

So, what you're saying is that you don't have a good response to my respectful and responsive comment so you'll ignore it. — T Clark

That bait may work on amateurs, but people better than you have tired to glean from me.So far they have been unsuccessful. An absence of deception, is a pre-requisite for any genuine, sincere, and serious inquiry, all of which NA in your case.

I'm looking forward to finding out if I am doing it correctly. — T Clark

During my initial days in this forum, when you had come to me with your baits, i had told you, it is not my job to educate you or anyone else.Nothing has changed in that sentiment.

There are a lot of people here on the forum who think it is self-evident that everyone lives a life as described by Thoreau - full of quiet desperation. I keep having to tell them that it isn't true for all of us. It's not true of me and others here and in the world in general. Some of the things you have listed as ways of forgetting - sex, knowledge, and friendship (what you call affiliations) in particular - are not that at all. They can be a necessary part of a full satisfying life. Appreciation of music, visual art, literature, movies, and television can also belong in that group. And philosophy. Aesthetics is not some special, wonderful way of escaping our despair. It is, as are the other members of the group I've described, a way of increasing our self-awareness. — T Clark

As for the silliness of the first paragraph in your post, my attitude towards the usage of my time and energy, in responding to objections (provided it stems from genuine inquiry, NA in your case), is pretty well documented. So you won't get any rebuttals. All i will say is, carry on.

In my previous post I was simply making of note of what true pessimism postulates.Not arguing about its benefits or shortcomings. Nor giving any advice or prescriptions.

Maybe i will take the liberty of making a short note on the things you have said to @Possibility

Its good you are questioning and doubting everything, but hopefully you are also questioning and doubting yourself. Especially, the value/meaning/ "status" you give to everything and yourself. Both the values, and the e-valuer. Therein is the repository of tricks as well as the trickster.

Since Op has titled this thread as "pessimism's ultimate insight" ,yet, only focuses on Schop's thoughts about boredom i think maybe a short note on pessimism might contribute to the thread:

Pessimism in its purest form, stated simply, is, the real neither is nor can ever become perfect, and that the ideal is always bound to remain unreal. It thus postulates a complete lack of harmony between the world of facts and the world of ideals.

Sounds like our present mainstream narrative, doesn't it. As an exercise, one can apply the above, to the views they hold (whether they are atheist, theist, materialist, scientist, or whatever labeled box they have boxed themselves in), to find out if they are, or not, a pessimist.

The question came up because of what you said. There was no intent to make you work. Thanks.

;-)

If my last post to you was uncalled for, hopefully you will attribute it to my uncertainty of our very first interaction, and take into account the history of my interactions with some "......." here. And perhaps posting a video during an exchange didn't help. In any case..that's that.

What does he mean by "gives up tracing"? He says it in the 2nd line of your quote.

Thanks. I will be coming back to this

.

Works of great art (he describes his idea of great art in detail), — schopenhauer1

What are his ideas of great art?

Now run along. Kindergarten is right there--------->

The original question to ( OUR Schopenhauer) also included a request for verbatim quotes. If i feel the need to interpret his words, i can do it myself. Thank you for the response. Let's see what (our Schopenhauer) has to say.

is usually the answer to this — I like sushi

The question.....was asking about Schopenhauer's views on the aesthetic experience. It was also asking, how does he distinguish between an aesthetic experience and mere entertainment. He seems to have spoken and written on both. This was the question.

The reason for asking @schopenhauer1 : he seems to have studied Schopenhauer.

The motive for asking the question: an interest to hear Schopenhauer's views. Nothing more, nothing less.

Seems like the forum is replete with users who now want black as their profile color. There were none when I used it. *cough*. Interesting to note. Perhaps the couple of yellow bellies have changed theirs too?

@schopenhauer1

After a while i decided to take a peek and saw this thread. Read the first couple of pages and saw the usual (funny) shenanigans by certain *..*. Things don't change much, do they.

The avoidance, and consequently the attempt to fill the perceived intrinsic emptiness or call it meaninglessness, that is at the base of human existence, is at the base of all human activity. This is a simple observation, unless the person is in denial and lacks the intestinal fortitude to face facts. Indeed, schopeanhoauer has offered some good things to ponder. My question to you is: I understand he has also talked about the aesthetic experience. If you were to explain it according to your own understanding perhaps supported by some verbatim quotes from him, what's your take? Aesthetic appreciation definitely isn't "entertainment", right? What and where is the distinction?

nuf said/proved. carry on.

[reply="skyblack;569147"
If only you knew what a joke you've been!

Shoo, joke. — hypericin

Your hands are shaking (seen from the way you are quoting above), central committee sock/stooge. But hey, if that belief helps you feel better, go for it!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Calm down tough guy! — hypericin

This one is kool as kool-aid. Not sure about you though. From the "emotions" you have displayed, it seems as if you are enjoying being the joke huh. Glad to be of help.

There is an open offer on the table with couple of options, for anyone that wishes to test this further and would like to take me up on it. Until then..... carry on with your silliness

Regarding baiting:

Yours truly plays the game at his whim and wish, because his buttons/emotions cannot be pushed (at least not this easily), as can be evidenced. Unlike the buttons of pussy cats and weasels, who fall for the bait each time, from the very first time.

Sorry, you aren't big enough to push his buttons.

If that makes you feel better, carry on.

Great work editors!
:up:

I am at a loss of words for whoever inserted/edited that false attribution......

except to......bwahaha

I know you are but what am I?
— skyblack

Well played, sir! — hypericin

Since you have been able to attribute something to me that i have never said (not even typed once), a phrase i have never known to use and can be verified in my posting history, it's now clear you/your account has post editing capacitiess in this forum, or had the help of someone that has these editing capacities.

Regarding "well played": Not sure what you are trying to say but yes, one can play along and entertain themselves if they wish. Especially if the other party is so entertainingly obvious and thus easy, like y'all.

Good riddance, Dunning Kruger! — hypericin

Glad you had that insight about yourself. Always happy to help. Don't hesitate to go over the evidence given to you.

But then, your post doesn't really state any reasoning or argument
— skyblack

It does, if you weren't so wrapped up in your own variety of idiocy you might see it.

I'll try once more:

You claim:
"Emotions are involuntary since they are under the jurisdiction of biology."

Your argument seems to be:
If X is "under the jurisdiction of biology" (whatever this means), X is involuntary.
Emotions are "under the jurisdiction of biology"
Therefore emotions are involuntary.

I presented three bodily functions, all of which presumably fall under "the jurisdiction of biology":

Motion of the hand: High degree of volitional control.
Blood pressure, or to use a more obvious example, breathing: patrial and limited volitional control
Secretion of the spleen: no volitional control.

Demonstrating that the relationship you propose is false. There is no apparent relation at all between "the jurisdiction of biology" and degree of volition.

BTW I read the post where you
"perhaps proved"
— skyblack
this claim. — hypericin

If you are so wrapped up in your “X’s” and “Y’s” like the rest of the educated idiots, oblivious to facts (our own bodies and how our emotions function) which even a janitor can tell you, or, lack even the most minimum observation to see the obvious, then I suggest you educate yourself in some basic biology in order to understand “whatever it means”, if interested. In the link I have provided above, you will find I have also provided some resources where you can do so. The resources come from Stanford University which I suppose will appeal to your habit of following authority, and are simple to understand for the wannabe’s. The educator is one the finest. You may then understand why one said “under the jurisdiction of biology”, which once again means, emotions are under the body's control, not yours.

That said. you know what they say about arguing with idiots? “They will beat you down by their experience”. As I have no wish to educate idiots I think I will heed to that wise counsel and get me outta here.

My hand is under the "jurisdiction of biology" and I have control of it. So is my spleen, and I have no control. And so is my heart rate and.blood pressure, and I have a degree of control.

"Jurisdiction of biology" does not seem to be the relevant distinction here — hypericin

One does not need "distinctions", bookish idiocy, or word play to see obvious facts. The fact being pointed out, emotions are not under your control. They are under the body's control. A very revealnt point to OP.

My hand is under the "jurisdiction of biology" and I have control of it.

You have some degree of control to move it, under ideal circumstances. In fact that's the only control you have over the body, to move your arms and legs, only under ideal conditions. But you do not have the control to heal your hands, if they get infected or afflicted in some way.

And so is my heart rate and.blood pressure, and I have a degree of control.

Yeah right. say that to those that have chronic heart and blood pressure problems. Ask them to exercise "some degree" of control. It's not the same as playing with biofeedback toys.

But then, your post doesn't really state any reasoning or argument, but seems to be a silly strawman attempt to say something, when you know you can't really say anything. Are you saying emotions are voluntary?

See the response above.

There is no one in this forum that can claim they are the body. IN order to make that claim they will have to show their absolute ownership/control of the body.

Pfft, you need some sort of medication like Advil to cure something as simple as your headache....and the audacity to claim you are the body?!.

Are you not your body? So be it. You can always pretend and say you are not your body, but you will forever be unable to reveal your true self, in any case. — NOS4A2

Don't be silly. Come back and talk to me when you are able to demonstrate control over the body's autonomous processes. Until then feel free to live under the delusions and pretend you are the body.

Note: Nobody said anything about any "true self". You seem to be hearing voices of your own prejudice.

I am my body. — NOS4A2

No you are not. If you were, these processes would be under your control. They won't be "autonomous".

If you identify with the biology, though, you would be under your own jurisdiction. Self-tyranny is a paradox. — NOS4A2

Nonsense. You have no choice in autonomous bodily actions/reactions. Your body doesn't depend on your word games.

Emotions are involuntary since they are under the jurisdiction of biology. I had said so, and perhaps proved here . By the time the psyche is aware of them the body has already processed them.

In order to be free of the tyrannies of this mostly autonomous activity, a different approach is needed.

In general, all one can ever be certain of is , I AM.

I think therefore I am. Isn't that all we can know? — Down The Rabbit Hole

That idiot had it backwards and the effects of his idiocy continues till today.

I AM, therefore i think. I AM is antecedent to everything and to every experience, This is so simple to see.

Sounds like @180 Proof has patched the imaginary "hole". :up:

Without getting too much into it, reason points us to couple of facts: Either we are always going to live by superficial and convenient interpretations of reality/facts (ethics, in this case,) or, we may have to jump into the deeper end. The former is a comforting, compromised, conformity, that holds on to our existence, the latter is an acceptance of non-existence. In the former the person can never have what it takes to accept non-existence and will therefore always live within conformity, compromise (compromised ethics), and fear. In the latter there will be an un-compromising ethics as there is no fear of non-existence. Needless to say the ratio between the two will probably be something like like 1 Billion-to-2 people.

If one can really understand the problem, the answer will come out of it, because the answer is not separate from the problem.

To OP:

Course a deeper investigation into ethics has to eventually get into other facets such as the non-ethical, the half-ethical, the infra-ethical, and the supra-ethical.

To OP:
Ethics has always been the concern of a few (persecuted and ostracized) . Often marginalized and on the fringes of society.It has to be that way, since they won't be a a part of the unethical exploitation of each other, which is at the core of society and it''s arrangements.

Like the OP mentions, ethics is supposed to be lived, not theorized about and then forgotten.

Antisocial, free-riders are outnumbered over 8-to-1 by eusocial, cooperators; otherwise, h sapiens would not have achieved any viable social arrangements larger than hunter-gather familial clans. Easily understood and lived by most – just not all – of us for at least a hundred millennia. — 180 Proof

The social arrangements based on the unethical exploitation and profiteering of the many by the few, right. The proof is in the pudding. Like the OP says, there is no need to be an intellectual idiot. One doesn’t have to look outside. A quick honest look at oneself will confirm the lip service.