Not a good reply. You don't know me, nor what I do in order to improve things. — Banno

I mentioned nothing about you improving things so you’re hurt over your own red herring reaction. What I said was against the idea that a person being contented means there aren’t structural problems with life.

For the rest, I'm content, and hence content not to address your proposals. Pessimism is an outlook, after all, and hence chosen. I choose otherwise. — Banno

That's fine. Germans living under Nazi Germany felt more content in the 30s. Colonizers killing aborigines in Australia felt more content. Southern US Jim Crow society felt content (for those it benefited). So that doesn't do much philosophically for pointing structural problems. Pessimists simply point out what these structural problems are and explain why they are indeed structural problems and not simply a matter of contented feelings of an individual at a point in time.

It's apparent that you have actually read, perhaps studied, some philosophy, unlike Bart. — Banno

Many of Bart's ultra-ad homs and trolling are really not much worse than things you and others tend to do and say to taunt others rather than engage with them. Granted he can get very unnecessarily pernicious, it's just an exaggerated clown mirror of the tendency of many other posters on here that also argue unproductively. If he is doing anything, it is simply being an exaggerated jester of the bad faith arguing others tend to do.

As to his philosophy, I usually also don't get the theistic approach he often takes, so I don't comment on it much because it's not what I would argue.

I simply do not share in your conviction that life is unpleasant. I'm content that I am here. From that foundation your arguments for antinatalism gain no traction, and your arguments that one ought feel that life is not worthwhile are superfluous. — Banno

But even if we were to drop all other arguments, what does that say that a system must steamroll the individual? Is your basis simply, majority is always right? But also, part of the debate is what counts as negative/not right/unjust.

Amongst my first replies to you was a recommendation that you engage with the broken and the bent, the elderly, disabled, and ill. One might expect them to side with you, but I've found them cheerful enough. Something to do with outlook, I suppose. And with a strong eye on improvement, undermining the OP. — Banno

I don't put stock in archetypes such as "broken, bent, elderly, disabled, and ill". Rather, I try to see what are the pervasive harms that are necessary for being at all, and consider the pervasive contingent harms that are also pernicious. It is deciding what these are that a good Pessimist explores. Deciding what counts as an negative, is also in question.

In this case, I was questioning the idea that one needs to develop capacities in the first place. Why is it our job to bring others to comply with this agenda of capacity building in the first place? It's as if you are implying that this is some necessary thing. Rather, no that is not how this works. Rather, people are born, and must comply in a fashion that isn't too disturbing. Otherwise, the habitual response from those who have been thus enculturated (perhaps yourself) will respond that "you should just die so the herd is not disturbed".

When you are born into a society, from the minute you are born, you are going to be judged as to how useful you will be to the society you are born into. In a modern context, you will be judged by how much valuable labor you can provide. Your only usefulness to broader society is your ability to both produce and consume. If we do not value these things (in the modern context at least), the system collapses.

If you don't value work, you are considered lazy. Lazy people are of no use to society. You are free riding, according to the elders and other workers. If you are not lazy, you must be one-off genius. You have to produce something of value.

"You better be lazing around re-thinking the next engineering marvel or physics theory! Otherwise, hopefully you get what you deserve by living in poverty or offing yourself" is the mentality.

If everyone didn't work hard or think of intricate minutia of physics/engineering problems, we would live in poverty and ghettos. We would be living in ignorance and privation, no motivation to "produce" and simply be passive consumers..

On the other hand, if we don't consume, the producers can't produce. Crime begets a whole business of keeping crime at bay. Pain keeps people needing to alleviate it. Our wants and needs need solutions.

All of this.. being useful items for society, and its opposite.. being passive ignorant lazing types, is bad. None of it is good. It is using people for their labor and consumption. Yet not doing so collapses the system. Being that it is a conundrum that is pernicious, intractable and pervasive to human life (as we know it)- heap it on the pile of evidence for the pessimism of life.

Here's a hint to know when you’re hitting on bedrock pessimistic points.. If it is intractable negative aspects that are so pervasive we say, "That's just the way it is. And there is no other way", you've hit upon something. — schopenhauer1

But looking at it, just more of the same from you.. A small sentence that has little weight behind it except that you "don't like bad ole antinatalism".

And by little weight I mean, there is no explanation.. just indignity as argument.

You are better company for Bart than I had perhaps supposed. Have a nice day. — Banno

To be fair, I didn't read what you were replying to, but that got my spidey-sense going with the phrase "capabilities.."

As is your philosophy. — Banno

Good one :roll:. But indeed it is managerial speak to make more work for others.

It's a "learning opportunity" is another one.

What? — Banno

given the opportunity of fulfilling one's capabilities — Banno

This is an excuse a manager uses to justify giving subordinates more work. It's shining a turd.

Good management is about recognising talent in the pool of employees and rewarding/promoting them accordingly.. If not even to hand the torch over happily if they are even better management material. — Benj96

A manager would say that yes. But this is the kind of manipulation slogan a manager might use to justify their subordinates to do more work.

The pessimistic fact is we have to do any of this and we are self aware of this. We can think of other ways but we are entrenched in a managerial system whereby it gets perpetuated. Group think reinforces it. We aren’t very creative except within our self defined ways.

given the opportunity of fulfilling one's capabilities — Banno

Ever the quote if managers giving more work to their subordinates. You can quit a job but not life itself though, lest death. Cold comfort. Paternalistic thinking. Another person’s suffering started for them and here’s why I’m so justified. But I’m not.

Therefore if one is to exist it must be subject to both creative and destructive forces. As you cannot have one without the other. If one wishes not to exist then it is removed from competition to do so. — Benj96

How is this alone not reason to not willingly produce more beings into that situation? The inevitability of X suffering, doesn't mean that one thus has to willingly allow to continue X suffering because X suffering already exists in some form or another. Lions kill, therefore humans can kill for example is a really simplistic form of this argument. It is the naturalistic fallacy of course.

Here in lies the contention. You're calling it a fact. But for others, it's a point of view. — L'éléphant

A point of view has real consequences when it affects/effects others. Affirming life (and then having a life) will affect others.

The engineering mind tinkers whether it is funded by financial backers or not, — Vera Mont

Ford, Edison, Tesla, it was all with money. And the list goes on and on.. In fact, some technology absolutely needed government backing first.. usually from wartime.. then university money, then private sector.

Work is healthy and doesn't have to be hard. — Cobra

You have to do it. If not, free riding SOB, born into wealth, or they want you to kill yourself so you aren't a hardship on those that do work. Pessimism.

Maybe I could offer another tip. Try looking at other societies and their histories before making sweeping, generalized statements about how society came to be. — Sir2u

They are all subsumed. Look at my text in parenthesis closely.

Wow, nice contribution. Really making strides. Glad you shared your precious thoughts. Glad you made time to respond.

Nor do I. It is merely the most recent dysfunction of civilization. (Organized/state religion and monarchy were two of the previous manifestations.) The last and fatal one, IMO, because it compels the afflicted society to propagate it - much as a virus replicates itself by taking over the reproductive function of the cell it's killing - and the only end-point is the death of the host. No vaccine is coming from outer space. — Vera Mont

I see the problem rather that there is a system that always has to be in place when someone is born. It is a system that gets entrenched and thus we become habituated beings. X hours for employer. X hours for self is our current system. Perhaps it cannot be any other way if we are to have this kind of system. Afterall, technology came about through this system. Is technology and this way of being necessarily linked (it cannot be any other way), or is it contingently linked? I don't see how it can be contingently linked and went a different way really. Engineers think of stuff, funded by financial backers. Distributors and laborers market, distribute, sell, support, fix, all the rest of it. Little communes only exist in the wider system, so that's out as a "real" alternative. You are laborer. That is your value. If you deviate, you are a free rider (or you better be either independently wealthy or a one-off genius). This is how it is and will be and will continue with each new generation. All the change is window dressing.

I would be interested to learn about other schools of ‘pessimism’ if you can give an account of some of them rather than sticking to the one in the OP.

I feel showing the distinctions between different views in this area would help in the understanding of a particular ‘pessimism’. — I like sushi

I think it is so loosely defined, that there aren't really "schools" of pessimists, but just individual pessimists with similar themes. However, I can sum up some basic differences:

Metaphysical Pessimists (Schopenhauer, Hartmann, Mainlander, etc):
These thinkers thought there was an inherent source of suffering. For Schopenhauer it was Will. Will represents a striving-for-nothing. Will's playground is the illusion of individuation. This individuation creates the appearance of separate objects. These objects are objectifications and individuations of the Will, but are not primary ("less real") than the unified Will. Animals, and especially humans, suffer due to a profound sense of metaphysical "lack". Satisfaction is temporary because we are go from pursuits of survival and entertainment to boredom and back. Satisfaction can only truly happen by transcending one's nature of willing. According to him, this requires denying the Will and becoming an ascetic along the lines of a Jainist or something of that nature. The ultimate fate would be to starve oneself to death peacefully. He didn't expect anyone except a few to live up to that kind of lifestyle. He did think there were other things that can invoke will-lessness. He thought compassion and art brought us temporarily into a state of will-lessness. It goes on obviously. He has four really large books on the matter in The World as Will and Representation.

I'll just paste from the Wikipedia article on Mainlander:

Working in the metaphysical framework of Schopenhauer, Mainländer sees the "will" as the innermost core of being, the ontological arche. However, he deviates from Schopenhauer in important respects. With Schopenhauer the will is singular, unified and beyond time and space. Schopenhauer's transcendental idealism leads him to conclude that we only have access to a certain aspect of the thing-in-itself by introspective observation of our own bodies. What we observe as will is all there is to observe, nothing more. There are no hidden aspects. Furthermore, via introspection we can only observe our individual will. This also leads Mainländer to the philosophical position of pluralism.[2]: 202  The goals he set for himself and for his system are reminiscent of ancient Greek philosophy: what is the relation between the undivided existence of the "One" and the everchanging world of becoming that we experience.

Additionally, Mainländer accentuates on the idea of salvation for all of creation. This is yet another respect in which he differentiates his philosophy from that of Schopenhauer. With Schopenhauer, the silencing of the will is a rare event. The artistic genius can achieve this state temporarily, while only a few saints have achieved total cessation throughout history. For Mainländer, the entirety of the cosmos is slowly but surely moving towards the silencing of the will to live and to (as he calls it) "redemption".

Mainländer theorized that an initial singularity dispersed and expanded into the known universe. This dispersion from a singular unity to a multitude of things offered a smooth transition between monism and pluralism. Mainländer thought that with the regression of time, all kinds of pluralism and multiplicity would revert to monism and he believed that, with his philosophy, he had managed to explain this transition from oneness to multiplicity and becoming.[16]

Death of God
Main article: God is dead
Despite his scientific means of explanation, Mainländer was not afraid to philosophize in allegorical terms. Formulating his own "myth of creation", Mainländer equated this initial singularity with God.

Mainländer reinterprets Schopenhauer's metaphysics in two important aspects. Primarily, in Mainländer's system there is no "singular will". The basic unity has broken apart into individual wills and each subject in existence possesses an individual will of his own. Because of this, Mainländer can claim that once an "individual will" is silenced and dies, it achieves absolute nothingness and not the relative nothingness we find in Schopenhauer. By recognizing death as salvation and by giving nothingness an absolute quality, Mainländer's system manages to offer "wider" means for redemption. Secondarily, Mainländer reinterprets the Schopenhauerian will-to-live as an underlying will-to-die, i.e. the will-to-live is the means towards the will-to-die.[17]

From the Wiki article on Hartmann:

The essential feature of the morality built upon the basis of Von Hartmann's philosophy is the realization that all is one and that, while every attempt to gain happiness is illusory, yet before deliverance is possible, all forms of the illusion must appear and be tried to the utmost. Even he who recognizes the vanity of life best serves the highest aims by giving himself up to the illusion, and living as eagerly as if he thought life good. It is only through the constant attempt to gain happiness that people can learn the desirability of nothingness; and when this knowledge has become universal, or at least general, deliverance will come and the world will cease. No better proof of the rational nature of the universe is needed than that afforded by the different ways in which men have hoped to find happiness and so have been led unconsciously to work for the final goal. The first of these is the hope of good in the present, the confidence in the pleasures of this world, such as was felt by the Greeks. This is followed by the Christian transference of happiness to another and better life, to which in turn succeeds the illusion that looks for happiness in progress, and dreams of a future made worth while by the achievements of science. All alike are empty promises, and known as such in the final stage, which sees all human desires as equally vain and the only good in the peace of Nirvana.[9]

Existential Pessimists (E.M. Cioran, Nietzsche, Camus, etc.)
These people tend to not focus on metaphysics but purely the phenomenological human.

E.M Cioran for example, wrote in essays and aphorisms. One of his main themes was the idea of inertia (that is my take anyway). It's the idea that there is our situation is grim, but there is nowhere to go and nothing to do. Here are some quotes:

My mission is to kill time, and time's to kill me in its turn. How comfortable one is among murderers.


Man starts over again everyday, in spite of all he knows, against all he knows.

To Live signifies to believe and hope - to lie and to lie to oneself.


Ennui is the echo in us of time tearing itself apart.


Life inspires more dread than death - it is life which is the great unknown.

When people come to me saying they want to kill themselves, I tell them, "What's your rush? You can kill yourself any time you like. So calm down. Suicide is a positive act." And they do calm down.

Better to be an animal than a man, an insect than an animal, a plant than an insect, and so on. Salvation? Whatever diminishes the kingdom of consciousness and compromises its supremacy.

There was a time when time did not yet exist. ... The rejection of birth is nothing but the nostalgia for this time before time.

Not one moment when I have not been conscious of being outside Paradise.

Just read any of his quotes here:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emil_Cioran

Again, there is not so much a coherent movement as much as similarity in themes. 19th century Germany might be the most prominent time/place of this philosophy. Schopenhauer was the progenitor for much of the ideas that came after. Even if not directly, movements like existentialism were influenced from him.

For more reading go here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_pessimism

or read these books:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1677700.Pessimism
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28192377-weltschmerz?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=CASfH7rSIL&rank=1

From Goodreads on Weltschmerz:

Weltschmerz is a study of the pessimism that dominated German philosophy in the second half of the nineteenth century. Pessimism was essentially the theory that life is not worth living. This theory was introduced into German philosophy by Schopenhauer, whose philosophy became very fashionable in the 1860s. Frederick C. Beiser examines the intense and long controversy that arose from Schopenhauer's pessimism, which changed the agenda of philosophy in Germany away from the logic of the sciences and toward an examination of the value of life. He examines the major defenders of pessimism (Philipp Mainlander, Eduard von Hartmann and Julius Bahnsen) and its chief critics, especially Eugen Duhring and the neo-Kantians. The pessimism dispute of the second half of the century has been largely ignored in secondary literature and this book is a first attempt since the 1880s to re-examine it and to analyze the important philosophical issues raised by it. The dispute concerned the most
fundamental philosophical issue of them all: whether life is worth living.

I now know what you really are. You're not a pessimist. You are a cynic. Know the difference. I think you have disdain, not despair, of things humans. Which give me hope -- pessimists annoy me. But cynics bring to life a different flavor of humanity. They're a funny lot, but truthful. Which is what's important. They tell it like it is. — L'éléphant

Fair enough. I think it important to point out these pervasive negatives that we cannot escape. It's like being taken advantage of but not knowing it, but trying to wake people up to the fact that they are being taken advantage of. Perhaps they don't want you to wake them up to this fact. Perhaps they liked their ignorance. It's always the same theme.. Plato telling those in the cave. The people in the cave telling him to leave them the fuck alone, and probably adds.. "You raving lunatic".

I'll back up. I said in a reply that I am diagnosing more than prognosing. I am giving the landscape.

Pessimism is necessary in life. Suffering is necessary in life. That is not exactly anything anyone did not know is it? Even if it is so what? — I like sushi

What can be done about it?

Do to so would mean you are a walking talking zombie person shuffling through life like you are already dead. This is actually something quite common to many humans but the vast majority get over it. — I like sushi

Much of life we are zombies repeating same behaviors over and over. You can fast forward most of peoples day and nothing of meaningful experiences or significance would be lost.

Everyone gets ‘angry’ at life though at some point. Then we usually grow up … albeit slowly and with instances of regression! :D — I like sushi

Dumb trope. That’s not how it necessarily goes. I can commit suicide or accept that I can’t change things. I want to be in neither position. But I can’t. Just saying “suck it up buttercup” is saying nothing but the default with the added “don’t complain”. But that is simply restating the status quo and telling people to not question the situation itself because YOU particularly don’t want to hear it. Then don’t worry, go somewhere else. Carry on and read nothing that challenges the status quo.

The ‘rules’ of life are unknown. Games are what make up life so it is possibly a little presumptuous to assume life is a ‘game’. — I like sushi

Really? Survival in a social context seems pretty accurate to me.

What defines something as inherently negative for example...? — Nickolasgaspar

For Schopenhauer for example, suffering is a constant lack we are always overcoming but never reaching. Human existence can’t help but be this and this is inherent, not just contingent to it.

How can this be possible without our subjective criteria and preferences? What defines something as inherently negative for example...? — Nickolasgaspar

Of course with anything values, it must had agreement on terms and go from there.

Yes which is why I mentioned

philosophical pessimism is an evaluation of the state of animal/human existence — schopenhauer1

It’s about human/animal condition.

So in my opinion this request returns back to our psychological condition. — Nickolasgaspar

You can be a non-depressive antinatalist. You are confusing a cause with the evaluation. We may project meaning, but we cannot help but being a we. You can’t take that meaning out of the equation.

dealing with a psychological condition. — Nickolasgaspar

So this is exactly what philosophical pessimism isn’t. Rather, philosophical pessimism is an evaluation of the state of animal/human existence and not about expected outcomes. What you imply is common day usage of pessimism. “He’s a pessimist about how the economy will turn out” is not the same as “He believes the world is inherently negative in value due to X, Y, Z”.

I quite clearly did. Not self congratulatory. If you want to readdress it, go ahead. But I’m
Not repeating my argument as it still stands.

Yes, I think he has taken an unnecessarily adversarial tack. The trouble with that as I see it is that you no longer end up debating an issue but simply responding to an endless series of slight variations on a theme. — Graeme M

Yeah that happens with him, unfortunately.

What now? We wait until we die, persuade others not to reproduce, and thats it. Do I have that right? — Moliere

I'm more diagnosing right now rather than a prognosis. But yes, certainly antinatalism would be an appropriate response. Can society be ordered differently? Probably not. Another pessimistic point.

a) is it possible to save x wild animals?
b) if saved, will there be habitat for them
c) humans come first; if the choice is between saving an eagle or antelope vs. saving a human, save the human first. Then if it's possible, address the animals' survival. — Bitter Crank

Yep, I'd agree. That would be a good answer for @Isaac's red herring.

He was trying to make an argument whereby "If schop1 can't be bothered to save wild animals in a disaster, he therefore shouldn't worry about eating animals". My point was, the most basic obligation is to not cause unnecessary harm as a basis for morals in general. I stated earlier:

Animals need not be treated EQUALLY to humans, when it comes to moral reasoning. It simply stands that we have an obligation towards them, as sentient beings, to not cause unnecessarily harmful behavior towards them. And that is the key part. — schopenhauer1

As well as...

Humans CAN be considered more important than animals and it would STILL be correct to not cause them unnecessary suffering. — schopenhauer1

But for positive moral motivations, you have to consider things..

There are levels of care based on proximity, relation, care, and capacity. — schopenhauer1

That is basically what you are getting at...
Proximity: I can't necessarily save someone not in my vacinity.
Relation: I will care more about people closer to me than who are not. To NOT consider this would be a violation of sorts. A mother, father, friend, neighbor.. etc. Not recognizing relations in values is borderline sociopathic.
Care: Are there people who are directly under your care that could not use their own agency? These might be the people to consider most as they can't do anything whatsoever (babies, elderly, your own pets, etc.)
Capacity: Do you have any means of actually helping? Whom and how much money shall you give if at all without going poor yourself? How are you to stop a war you have no way of stopping across the world?

That is to say all of the above is for positive factors of helping.. The basic moral stance I would argue is more basic than that. It is simply refraining from causing unnecessary suffering, which in a way is a negative stance, of not violating (rather than going out of your to help or other "positive" act).

Gee, here you are so keen to counter my proposition that you want to start dismantling human rights. — Graeme M

Good faith debating isn't necessarily in Isaac's toolbox. It's funny, I've had a back-and-forth with him several times and I've also used the term "not in good faith" towards his style, so there may be a pattern here...

I don't think this issue is relevant to my post. — Graeme M

I didn't pose it. Isaac-dude did.

Wild animals will not. I think it would be different if every human we tried to save from disaster did their best to resist us, hurt us and even kill us. We'd be far less disposed to act this way. — Graeme M

Interesting take.

That's a question, not a proposition. — Isaac

Do you think we have an obligation to protect other humans in a natural disaster?

It does make one wonder about who's running the show, who's calling the shots, who's in charge, if you catch me drift. — Agent Smith

:up:

Technology seems to transform our lives drastically and one way it does that is by making us so dependent on it that a rollback would be catastrophic to civilization as we know it. We're, to that extent, on invalids. — Agent Smith

Yes, and not just that but hapless users/consumers.. Not co-creators in. Which again, goes back to your first point.

How easy is it to leave a game compared to life? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Exactly.

So that's settled. Fill your bird feeder with big earthworms so the northern forest survives. — Bitter Crank

Is it true though? Do you think that we have an obligation to save wild animals in a natural disaster? The same way as humans? Because that's what the argument was about.

Where have I said any such thing? — Isaac

You asked if we have obligation to save wild animals from natural disasters...@Bitter Crank seems to be implying we do. Ok.

I can't improve on Bitter Crank's answer. It would be outrageous hubris. — Isaac

Cool, then he thus refuted your idea that we have no obligation to the natural world, cause that is what he is saying.

But I am saying humans have obligations to them, because their survival is largely in our hands. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps you are right. That would still make @Isaac not right.