What I hear is some people saying that life is bad (because it's suffering) so, let's live our lives such that there will be less (or no) life in the future. And that will be good, because the absence of suffering (the absence of life) is good in and of itself. — anonymous66

I have noted earlier that accepting something as inherently bad is different from accepting something as inherently good because answering the question of purpose is critical in the latter but not so much in the former.

Pessimism is claiming that suffering is bad/undesirable because it serves no particular purpose other than for it to be overcome. This relates to the question of cosmic meaning of suffering where the pessimist views that there is no cosmic meaning to the inevitability of suffering in human life. Since it serves no particular local and cosmic significance and inflicts unnecessary pain/discomfort, it is undesirable.

Note that not-procreating is not a 'good' in itself. There is a narrative behind this assertion and that is, it derives its 'goodness' from acknowledging the fact that suffering is bad and must be minimized.

This narrative behind 'why something is good' is claimed to have been lacking in traditional stoic philosophies in that there is no explanation why virtues are good in themselves and why one ought to pursue virtues in the cosmic sense of things.

I agree that it is about connecting with something "higher", but then the question becomes whether this is your transcendent spirit or my immanent nature... — apokrisis

If the higher principle that would give our lives a meaningful context is immanent nature, then that embodies the principle one would aim to ultimately respect. — apokrisis

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

What I'm getting is that for you, the inevitability of causes-of-suffering in collective human existence is a signal that there is something higher than the self. The 'meaning' you give to suffering is that it serves as a motivation to connecting with this higher-than-the-self which is some sort of Nature (big N). I'm sensing a parallel with Taoism, in the sense of living in harmony or in connection with the "natural flow or cosmic structural order of the universe" (Wikipidia).

I'm good with this narrative in the sense that, maybe questions of cosmic meaning will inevitably have to lead to some sort of discussions outside the self and outside the realm of what is empirical and knowable. Of course, the apparent nihilistic perspective still remains a possibility. I think it is perfectly understandable to have an 'egocentric' view of the cosmic meaning of suffering. It can really be all what there is to existence; there can also be something more.

No one knows for sure. But despite this uncertainty, in the end, I think one has to settle for some sort of interpretation to justify all the suffering one experiences.

That is not a philosophy so much as fatalism. — Wayfarer

I may have been too dramatic there. :)

But what I simply mean is that life will always have the causes-of-suffering but this doesn't mean that one's attitudes toward it can't be changed.

That is worded strangely. — Wayfarer

Now that you mention it... Hmm...

The Buddhist view is that the whole point of their practice is indeed 'the cessation of suffering'. — Wayfarer

All this time, I only had the impression of cessation of personal/local suffering in Buddhism, that is suffering in the here and now and within one's 'immediate' vicinity. Is there possibly some aspects of Buddhism about the cessation of suffering in the wider context of space and time and for all humanity?

The question sounds weird though. I'm just thinking out loud since we are already talking about transcendental phenomena...

I think the crisis of meaninglessness in the modern world is that we all go through the drama and angst of existence, for no real meaning. That is what 'the pessimists' seem to be saying, anyway. — Wayfarer

True. It's difficult to have pessimistic inclinations...

But then you say you want to distinguish between the mental state and the worldly causes? I don't really get that. — apokrisis

The basic difference is that you can do something about the suffering-as-a-mental-state but you have limited to no control over its causes. For example, we can't have a life that is ever free of diseases, death, stress-inducing events, etc. but we can somehow control how we react to these situations.

I think it's important to make the distinction because we are trying to explore what is the meaning/purpose why humans are subjected to such causes-of-suffering.

My naturalistic answer - from a biological understanding - is that suffering, like pleasure, is a sign of something for us. It is useful information. — apokrisis

Nice, suffering-as-a-signal is a useful framework to work with. But what does it signify? Maybe this is where one of the points where the differences in philosophy lie. We can see it from a short-term and from a long-term perspective:

(1) From a day-to-day perspective, it makes sense to deal with daily suffering if one decides to continue living. If a part of your body aches, it's a signal that maybe something's wrong and you can opt to get some medication. If you're stressed at work, maybe it's a signal that you are overworked and you can opt to get some rest. If you feel empty and feel a sense of meaninglessness, you can opt to subscribe to religion/philosophy/etc.

It does not make sense to dwell on these on a prolonged basis even for philosophical pessimists. I imagine that they too can develop a sense of equanimity and manage to move on with daily life.

(2) On the other hand, from a long-term perspective, in a span of a lifetime or even the span of human existence since antiquity, what does the presence of the causes-of-suffering in human life signify? Taking a suffering-as-a-signal framework at this level, from a pessimist's perspective, maybe this signifies that there's something wrong about the human condition? From a Buddhist perspective, maybe this signifies that there's something transcendental about the human condition?

I think that it is the pessimist's stand that try as we might, we can't change the fabric of human condition, that is, the causes of suffering will never cease to exist. We can't do anything to decouple the causes of suffering from human existence and pessimists claim that this condition is undesirable. While we can't change the nature of existence, pessimism proposes that we can at least ensure that no additional people will have to suffer needlessly in the future (not procreating).

Would you still claim that at this long-term perspective, suffering is a signal for us as a species to try to change something? And what change ought to be done and why?

----

So my point is, maybe the framework that suffering-as-a-signal is a useful framework.

On a daily/practical perspective, it may signal that we might need to do something with the causes of suffering on a daily basis if we decide to continue living. Pessimists do not necessarily relish on these moments of suffering and can also develop a sense of equanimity in dealing with these.

On the larger/metaphysical perspective, maybe the presence of causes-of-suffering and the fact that we are forced to experience them, is also a signal that there's something transcendental/wrong about the very nature of human life itself.

One can say that life is just the way it is and be content with that, but as humans, I personally think that it is a fundamental issue to evaluate the value of one's existence or human existence as a whole.

Wouldn't Buddhism generally be a form of equilbrium thinking in being a practice of ceasing to care in terms of a personal reaction and instead taking on a cosmic indifference. Stoicism would be similar. — apokrisis

While both Stoicism and Buddhism seems to advocate for some sort of equanimity, there is something more in Buddhism. It tries to explore the nature of suffering (Four Noble Truths) and builds from this to propose a generally positive worldview despite this suffering. In contrast, Stoicism does not touch the question of why there is suffering (why as in cause of and meaning behind suffering), and simply views this as something to be overcome or dealt with. In Stoicism, virtues are to be pursued for the simple reason that it is inherently good in itself; it lacks a narrative of purpose -- why should one ought to pursue virtues?

So where I would criticise that is we shouldn't want to simply "rise above" the world in some transcendentally dispassionate fashion. Instead we should aim instead to equilbrate our feelings with the world through our actions. So we should stay part of life, and then work to negotiate towards outcomes that feel balanced - in terms of us and our cultures, us and our ecosystems. — apokrisis

These are nice to hear but these are all "ought" statements. Promoting equanimity is one thing, advocating for something more is another. While it may be difficult (or even possible) to connect "is" to "ought" statements, people wouldn't be convinced by simply telling them what one ought to do. At the very least, some sort of purpose or value must be provided to justify this undertaking.

---------

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, sure we can devise ways to achieve equanimity despite the suffering. But this does not answer the question: "what is the purpose behind the inevitability of suffering?".

Pessimism says there's probably no meaning behind this suffering.
Buddhism says there's probably something more behind this suffering.
Stoicism doesn't touch on this issue.

If it helps, I'd like to distinguish that suffering in this context is not the 'mental state of suffering' but instead refers to the 'causes of the mental state of suffering' like bodily pain, work-related stress, feelings of meaninglessness, angst, dread, existential boredom, etc. The mental state can be altered but the causes remain regardless of one's philosophy.

I'm getting a feeling that there is a confusion/conflation of the two in the discussions.

As usual, one doesn't claim to "know things" in some sceptic-proof absolute way. One simply has made the pragmatic effort to minimise one's uncertainty about a claim. — apokrisis

I like this and I agree as applied to one's worldview: once faced with the question of existence, one opt to adapt a worldview in the end if one decides to continue living in the face of uncertainty.

But what I'm currently thinking is that it is possible to have achieved equanimity, in the sense of having accepted the human condition for what it is and not too bothered by the trivialities of life, but still have the following outlooks:

(1) an optimistic outlook where one thinks that there is probably some meaning behind the suffering
(2) a pessimistic outlook where one thinks that there is probably no meaning behind the suffering
(3) neither (1) or (2) where the question of meaning behind the suffering may not be binary in nature, much like the non-binary logic behind some Buddhist stands on metaphysical questions but I haven't explored this much yet

In relation to this thread, I'm seeing Buddhism as falling under (1) and Pessimism under (2). I'm not sure though where to place Stoicism because as I infer from this thread, Stoicism doesn't even ask the question of meaning behind the suffering in the first place.

Not 'something more' in some tantalising way ('hey, what do you have in that box?) Simply 'something more' than the apparent hopelessness of the human situation. Finding out what that is, is the task of philosophy - but it is a task, or an undertaking, and there are no short-cuts or easy answers. — Wayfarer

But that sense of there being a hidden or higher knowledge is alien [in] the current culture - heretical, actually. — Wayfarer

I see. So in the end, I think that we're left to our own devices to make sense out of human life -- sounds really difficult.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts as always. :)

Nope. I don't believe Buddha achieved some ego-death/Nirvana. I don't believe any Sage achieved some eternal equanimity. Pain sucks for everyone. The pressures of cultro-survival sucks for everyone. The instrumentality of our restless nature goes on for everyone... No matter what, instrumentality is the law, unwanted pain exists, and we all deal with our culturo-survival demands. — schopenhauer1

I also have this feeling that maybe stories of sages and buddhahood, while they may contain some truth, may also be overly romanticized. Over time, some sort of supra-human ideal 'teacher' has been projected to a person who is probably not too unlike many of us; who time and time again experience pain, stress, and boredom. The difference is that, they have a positive outlook even after realizing this. Maybe history and politics played a role, the unsavory aspects of their being are filtered out and their internal struggles a mystery -- what is palatable gets retained and the remainder gets forgotten.

It's an interesting realization how having a negative outlook doesn't get the same attention as having a positive one. There are no Buddhas or Stoic sages who profess a negative outlook in life who gets the same degree of admiration. Majority of us don't have a clue what this all means and yet pessimism is, most of the time, automatically met with apprehension and pre-judged to be an incorrect way of seeing things. Makes you wonder what kinds of works do pessimists of Buddha's and Jesus' time were then available but is now forever lost in history.

I have two grown sons. I will acknowledge that I have socially conservative views on marriage and family life — Wayfarer

OK. So I guess,, with other considerations aside, you wouldn't mind having another offspring from a philosophical standpoint. Would you mind sharing the rationale behind this inclination?

So going back to your statement: 'a feeling of acceptance of the suffering in life and a feeling of compassion to others who are also suffering' - I said that this is certainly part of it, but I think there is something more. But what that 'something more' is, might be a very hard thing to grasp: something that the sages know, that us ordinary people do not. Which is why, presumably, we go along and sit outside the porch (stoa) and listen to their discourses! — Wayfarer

I see, thanks. Would you claim to have understood this 'something more'? Or at least partly? Share? :)

If I'm reading Schopenhauer1's responses right, pessimism asks the question: "What is the value to this suffering?" or "Why do we need to be subjected to suffering in the first place?". The context of the "why" here is not that of 'what is the origin/cause of suffering' but more of 'what is the purpose served by suffering in human life'. Does Stoicism or Buddhism provide a narrative to answer these? — OglopTo

Would you mind sharing your thoughts on this?

I was editing my earlier response but found the number of edits too much so I just decided to place it here as a separate post:

----

To be specific, I can't connect your response above on philosophy-limited-by-experience with the 'source or ground for serenity' you mentioned before. So I guess you're saying that you have an answer but I won't be able to appreciate/understand in its entirety because we have different experiences/nature? But would you mind sharing it nonetheless?

----

With regards to procreation, I'm getting that celibacy is an option and Stoicism and Buddhism has no one-answer-fits-all solution. But if this is the case, what is the rationale behind allowing other practitioners to procreate knowing full well of the inevitability of suffering?

I have a feeling that it relates to the philosophy-limited-by-experience you mentioned earlier. If the practitioners don't understand the rationale, it basically boils down to a sort of dictatorship. The decision must come from within and not from without.

Am I following your line of thought? Would you mind sharing your current personal stand on procreation?

----

I have also edited one comment above and am highlighting it here for your easy reference:

1. If I'm reading Schopenhauer1's responses right, pessimism asks the question: "What is the value to this suffering?" or "Why do we need to be subjected to suffering in the first place?". The context of the "why" here is not that of 'what is the origin/cause of suffering' but more of 'what is the purpose served by suffering in human life'. Does Stoicism or Buddhism provide a narrative to answer these? — OglopTo

Thanks for the responses. I was expecting a straighforward answer but I think you want me to do my homework. ;)

I'm not much for pipe dreams. Sisyphus is like the instrumentality of existence. We do to do to do. Our restless nature- keeping ourselves going. The outside motivating us through our culturo-survival needs and through presenting our being with unwanted pain. The inside motivating us through our restless nature turning restless dissatisfaction to pleasure and goal-seeking. That is our lives. — schopenhauer1

I think realizing this is a feat in itself and it sure is unpleasant to have to have this view for the rest of one's life. But is there really no way out?

If there is no source or ground for serenity, detachment can only be a kind of emotional indifference, — Wayfarer

I have yet to read the pdf in the link but would you mind elaborating on this "source or ground for serenity"?

As I currently imagine it, this ground is a feeling of acceptance of the suffering in life and a feeling of compassion to others who are also suffering.

But in any case, when Buddhism talks of the end of suffering, that's what is meant: no more suffering, suffering is 'blown out'. — Wayfarer

Thanks Wayfarer.

But as I understand, what is ceased is the "suffering as a mental attitude" or how one feel's about the causes of suffering. The causes of suffering such as bodily pains, work/stress, and boredom still occur to the buddha every now and then, but his attitude towards these does not bother him much (equanimity). He understands that these causes of suffering is a fact of life to all people and is very much compassionate especially to those who have not yet realized buddhahood. For the living, suffering is inevitable and can only be overcome.

[EDIT] I have the following questions if you wouldn't mind answering:

1. If I'm reading Schopenhauer1's responses right, pessimism asks the question: "What is the value to this suffering?" or "Why do we need to be subjected to suffering in the first place?". The context of the "why" here is not that of 'what is the origin of suffering' but more of 'what is the purpose served by suffering in human life'. Does Stoicism or Buddhism provide a narrative to these?

2. For the yet-to-live, do you know the traditional Buddhist or Stoic stand on anti-natalism in terms of the prevention of future suffering? If it is OK to procreate, what is the reason behind procreating, knowing pretty well that this new soon-to-be-human has to undergo yet another cycle of suffering?

so you're proposing that Philosophical Pessimism is a competing philosophy, while admitting it doesn't solve the problem of suffering. — anonymous66

Sort of, if you want to view this as a competition. ;)

Unfortunately, suffering can only be managed or minimized for the living. If one is alive, one is sure to experience pains, stress, and boredom. And I guess both stoicism and pessimism offer solutions to manage/minimize these.

However, the critique is that Stoicism doesn't concern itself with the prevention of suffering of the next generation of (currently non-existent) people. On the other hand, as I infer from this thread, pessimism takes the anti-natalist stand to prevent additional human beings to be born and experience suffering in the first place.

Perhaps the "right" answer is that the Stoic sage would not suffer. — anonymous66

May be true, but before being a sage, I find it hard to imagine a life devoid of suffering. The question is, is there a Stoic proposal at all to prevent this suffering from occurring in the first place?

What are you proposing is the nature of suffering? — anonymous66

Hmm. I mean it in the general sense of the word. There is the physical suffering brought about by bodily pain. There is mental suffering in terms of stress and anxiety. And there is also the more burdensome suffering brought about by angst, dread, and existential boredom.

You can argue that suffering is only a mental construct and hence can be eliminated by a strong mental will. You can also interpret it this way but I don't think the other items I enumerated above cannot be eliminated by sheer mental will -- will/meditate all one might but he cannot will away bodily pains, stress, and boredom.

Are you proposing an alternate solution — anonymous66

Yes, I get from this thread that pessimism does propose a solution to prevent suffering from happening in the first place. I'm copying Critique #1 again for the proposed Pessimist solutions I got from this thread:

1. Stoicism fails to provide a solution to the prevention of future suffering.

Sure, stoicism works for some but only in the context of suffering-management and not suffering-prevention. It can work in the context of overcoming ongoing suffering but provides limited to no answer to prevent future suffering from occurring in the first place. "Future" in this context means (a) suffering of existing people and (b) suffering of the next generation of (currently non-existent) people.

Both Stoicism and Pessimism recognize the inevitability of suffering of existing beings. Stoicism's answer to (a) is to endure/overcome suffering when it comes. Pessimism's answer is similar but attempts to also minimize suffering via asceticism or repression of one's desires.

Stoicism doesn't answer (b), at least that's what I get from this thread. Pessimism's proposed answer to (b) is the anti-natalist stand. — OglopTo

while Stoicism does promise a path to Eudaimonia, many of you are doubtful that Stoicism will actually lead to Eudaimonia. — anonymous66

Is this the one you are referring to?

No, this is not the object of inquiry. I am not doubting whether the Stoic way can lead to Eudaimonia or not.

The object of inquiry goes something like this:

Before you achieve eudaimonia, you suffered in one way or another. Does Stoicism provide a solution to prevent the experiencing of suffering in the first place?

Eudaimonia is not compatible with suffering. — anonymous66

But before one achieves eudaimonia, one experienced suffering. The question is, does Stoicism provide a solution to prevent the experiencing of suffering in the first place?

Can you elaborate?

How does the concept of Eudaimonia relate to the prevention of suffering in the future for (a) existing people and (b) the next generation of (currently non-existent) people.

Stoicism is one proposed solution to the reality of human suffering — anonymous66

There's no denying that Stoic principles help some people in dealing with life's difficulties.

The issue being raised is on the scope of the solution proposed. See Critique #1 in this post.

1. Stoicism fails to provide a solution to the prevention of future suffering.

Sure, stoicism works for some but only in the context of suffering-management and not suffering-prevention. It can work in the context of overcoming ongoing suffering but provides limited to no answer to prevent future suffering from occurring in the first place. "Future" in this context means (a) suffering of existing people and (b) suffering of the next generation of (currently non-existent) people.

Both Stoicism and Pessimism recognize the inevitability of suffering of existing beings. Stoicism's answer to (a) is to endure/overcome suffering when it comes. Pessimism's answer is similar but attempts to also minimize suffering via asceticism or repression of one's desires.

Stoicism doesn't answer (b), at least that's what I get from this thread. Pessimism's proposed answer to (b) is the anti-natalist stand. — OglopTo

The proposed Stoic solution is limited to managing present suffering, after the fact that we are already alive and is bound to suffer some time in the future. Suffering is taken as a fact of life, deemed out of one's control, and dealt with after the fact, i.e. once you're already suffering.

It's not that suffering-management is bad but Stoicism's response ends here. It stops short of proposing ways to prevent suffering to occur in the first place.

That's because the listed benefits of the Internet derive from social activity, not from bytes and bits flowing along wires or through the air. — Bitter Crank

I like this.

And I guess, by extension, everything that mankind gets its hold of and how it's used, reflects the condition that he is in -- there's a lot of potential for something great but at the same time lost, alone, and without any particular direction.

I don't know that they had any issues with emotions, as we generally think of them. — anonymous66

As I understand, the issue is not with the misconception that stoics practice the suppression of emotions.

The issue is where they derive motivation for the actions they do in everyday life. As I see it, in traditional stoicism, stoic actions are motivated by the pursuit of virtues/reason -- virtue/reason which is taken as good in themselves so no further justification needed. This idea that something is a good in itself does not sit well with me. For me, there should be purpose why this good ought to be pursued and this lack of narrative of purpose is what is being critiqued.

The following idea sits better with me: Life has suffering, suffering is undesirable and inherently bad, and we have to sympathize with another with their suffering. For me, it is easier to accept something as inherently bad versus accepting something as inherently good. Discussing purpose is not critical in the former while I think it is critical for the latter.

How about, all of mankind are brothers, and it is to our advantage to work together and to look out for each other? — anonymous66

This sounds nice but what is the Stoic motivation behind this? Is it because brotherhood as a virtue is simply inherently good in itself?

-----

I know that it's unrealistic to ask to not take this personally given that something at your core is critiqued, but please don't as much as you can.

I like the easy access to (most) information provided for by the Internet.

What I think is causing a lot of disappointment is, sorry for the lack of a better term, the horde of ignorant people doing their thing. Their presence would destroy any pre-conceived romantic setup. I'm not blaming them entirely for being so; there sure are systemic problems. But it doesn't change the fact that while their activities help one to learn more about the human condition, it can also get really really annoying.

I'm not really familiar with traditional stoicism or its evolution throughout history. I just tried to summarize what I understood from this thread; of course filtered though my own biases and preconceptions.

I quoted the specific clause you quoted from @Wayfarer in the "Is Stoicism fatalistic?" thread. Maybe we can invite them to elaborate. :-)

Hello everyone, it's nice to see your posts again.

I'm nine months late so I'll just leave my notes here to organize my thoughts. Most are critiques of Stoicism -- these are heavily biased against stoicism (relative to pessimism) and reflects my current inclinations on this topic that I all gathered from reading this thread.

1. Stoicism fails to provide a solution to the prevention of future suffering.

Sure, stoicism works for some but only in the context of suffering-management and not suffering-prevention. It can work in the context of overcoming ongoing suffering but provides limited to no answer to prevent future suffering from occurring in the first place. "Future" in this context means (a) suffering of existing people and (b) suffering of the next generation of (currently non-existent) people.

Both Stoicism and Pessimism recognize the inevitability of suffering of existing beings. Stoicism's answer to (a) is to endure/overcome suffering when it comes. Pessimism's answer is similar but attempts to also minimize suffering via asceticism or repression of one's desires.

Stoicism doesn't answer (b), at least that's what I get from this thread. Pessimism's proposed answer to (b) is the anti-natalist stand.

2. Stoicism fails to establish a convincing rationale for how to behave/live.

Stoicism takes the stoic values as inherently good or desirable. One's actions take into account these values.

Pessimism views suffering as inherently bad or undesirable. One's actions take into account the (reduction of) suffering of others.

There is a comment in the "Is Stoicism fatalistic" thread that stoicism "needs to be animated by compassion" and "it's hard to see what the source of that compassion is in the traditional stoic accounts".

3. Stoicism downplays the gravity of the problem of human suffering.

There is one post reading along the lines of "if it works, then what's wrong with believing/practicing it"? If it works, then good for you but it is also good to point out that it works with a caveat. And I think that the caveat is downplaying the severity of the problem of human suffering.

While stoicism acknowledges that suffering is part of human life, it viewed as just something to be overcome or maybe even ignored, e.g. "just move on" from death of a loved one, physical pain, angst, dread, boredom, etc. and "don't bother" with these problems because these are natural phenomena and "out of one's control". It is placed on the sidelines, which is useful in coping/dealing with suffering, but in doing so, fails to see suffering for what it is -- something undesirable. It also blinds one to potential solutions to prevent future suffering simply because it is out of one's control.

Pessimism acknowledges the gravity of the problem of human suffering, sees it as something undesirable, and proposes ways to minimize suffering for existent people and prevent suffering of currently non-existent people.

NOTE: I might update this post later after I re-read the thread.

Generally speaking, and I'm speaking for myself...

It feels wrong to perform abortion. I don't know though where I got this feeling -- it could have arisen from social conditioning or maybe from sympathizing with the suffering of fellow living beings.

However...

I also think that motives do matter in distinguishing right from wrong. If abortion is performed out of the awareness of the consequences of performing otherwise, I feel it is justified.

An easy example to consider is aborting fetuses diagnosed with physical or mental disabilities. Another example, though not as easy to evaluate, is abortion of fetuses in poverty-ridden or war-torn environments. And finally, I'm not sure if anti-natalists will argue, abortion is a good compromise to prevent another soul from experiencing the trappings of human life.

Bottomline...

Both general considerations and exemptions to abortion that I described take into account sympathy/empathy/compassion for the suffering of others as criteria for judging abortion's rightness or wrongness.

Segue...

What I'm trying to understand, but still haven't, is why would society/parents/strangers want the fetus to develop to become a human being? I can only think of selfish reasons. Is it right to force the responsibilities of life to a new human being for any such reason?

But then again, this is an issue in anti-natalism debates. I just thought you might also want to consider this.