So I'm going to follow the logic where it leads and not where I want it to go, unlike you all. The Pessimism lens finds the intractable negative/immoral conundrums about life. Because its intractable, does not redeem it in any way..

It is intractable that by being born we are forced into complying into a situation lest death. That is a moral problem, not a "get out of jail free cause we can't help it". It is callous to make others choose between X, Y, Z activities or death by de facto the very fact that X, Y, Z leads to non-death.

So Angelo inadvertently (or advertantly?) hit the nail on the head.. That is to say forcing people do anything is bad or immoral".

Forcing people to anything is bad and immoral. We do it sometimes because we can’t escape doing it, — Angelo Cannata

Life de facto has forced productive events to live.

I said earlier:

With this said, what I am trying to get at is there's a callousness in having to produce at all. Even if we were a 10 person society, it would be the same. Someone not pulling their "weight" means the group will suffer. Our needs and wants (of survival and comfort and the like) ensure our enmeshed reliance on each other's work. It's intractable. The fact of it doesn't make it just, right, or moral. Just because it is a feature, doesn't mean it's a good feature. — schopenhauer1

You put someone in the boat and tell them to paddle or things will drag.. So you paddle.

The morality of paddling to help pull weight doesn't negate the meta-situation of putting people in the boat to paddle being callous to do to someone.

So, it seems to me the only philosophical alternative is the subjective perspective. — Angelo Cannata

Not sure what this means. Philosophy is about trying to figure out what is the case. Is it the case that forcing people to produce (or die) is callous? If so, is it moral?

We choose to work. We don't "survive" in the manner animals just "survive". — schopenhauer1

And this point above is key to understand Comply in our context. We choose to work, but we might not have wanted to otherwise.. We really can't do otherwise, but we also know this. It thus becomes a moral problem of whether it is okay to create this kind of compliance in others. If no one decided to pull their weight nothing would get done and you would be done.. If it was 10 people and several of them did nothing, not only are they jeopardizing themselves but the others.. To be "moral" you would pull your weight to not allow others to perish with you.. But then the meta-position from this is whether it was even good to put people in the position that they needed to pull their weight.

Not pulling their weight equates to self-imposed death and group demise. This epiphenomenon is wrong to impose, period.

I see your point in terms of conflict between objectivity and subjectivity. Objectivity forces us to a lot of unwanted things. Subjectivity is when we are able to freely express ourselves, like artists do. We can use creativity to change some objectivity aspects into positive resources working in favour of subjectivity, like artists do. — Angelo Cannata

Maybe... Rather if everyone didn't "pull their weight" with production, what would happen? Indeed there are strong social pressures and internal pressures to produce.

At bottom, it's not a social or economic issue. If you were alone on an island you would have to comply or die. — T Clark

So I brought up the idea of other animals because truly at least some other animals really can be isolated and live in the present. We do neither. We have selves that are created through social interaction, and though there is the occasional "Robinson Crusoe" scenario that is always in relation to the normal mode of human production which is to work as some sort of social group (usually hunting and gathering before agriculture and pastoralism). Robinson Crusoe dude had to have a social group to even know how to live alone or have the cognitive processes to figure it out. So that would be a straw man you are presenting to say we don't have to live in such a manner.. We are indeed social animals.

But we are animals. The constraints you're talking about are the constraints all animals face. You're just making them seem more highfalutin by giving them an existential twist. Metaphorically, you're complaining about gravity. It's not fair that it hurts when we fall down. — T Clark

I already saw this objection and even said here:

Holding off on what other animals can do (because people get caught up in the red herrings of animal psychology rather than my essential point at hand), individuals of our species must continually self-impose the regiment to do work, over and over to "get things done". This is interesting to note because it puts us squarely in the existential situation of doing something we might not want to do otherwise, but for survival purposes. It is not simply "doing" the job, but self-imposing ways to motivate ourselves to do the job and understanding things like consequences if we don't do the job. — schopenhauer1

It isn't trying to be "high falutin" but rather, it is describing our situation in opposition to other animals who live more in the present and have inbuilt instinctual mechanisms.. Whatever the case with other animals, WE don't operate like that. Rather, we operate via self-imposed plans, goals, and expectations.. We choose to work. We don't "survive" in the manner animals just "survive".

If people just comply there would be no political shifts ever. Clearly people do not always comply, do not commit suicide either, and make a rebellious change (via some form of paradigm shift or political revolution). — I like sushi

Paradigm shifts and revolutions don't really change the game.

because as you state:

Clearly we do not sit and wallow in our own filth whilst nature peels grapes and feeds them to us. — I like sushi

The constant quest for more stimulation is actually a base instinct we have. — I like sushi

Schopenhauer would say that this is equivalent to some dissatisfaction. It's not an instinct as much as a de facto of being born at all with a consciousness, and a self-reflective one at that.

Life is not a game. All games are representations of life. They are our imagined dreams of what life can be in the face of the eternal failure to meet ‘perfection’ yet we can glimpse it through others (or in nature) and that guides our course if embraced with optimistic pessimism … they are the same thing after all. — I like sushi

So you are not grasping here the moral problem.. If I create for you a situation where you are forced into a game (lest suicide), that is callous at best. Whatever outcomes produced from it don't matter to the moral problem. We all have a proverbial gun to our head.. so yay Beethoven but all points related to magnificent productions are besides the point.

Sorry, but I am disagree with you in this specific point. You express it as a failure, a defeat, an act of giving up by someone. It looks like a scape from the rules they are forced to play in the game. I think you are not appreciating suicide in his most beautiful aspect: freedom. — javi2541997

Fair point. I didn't mean to imply that it is a failure, simply not wanting to play the game. Though, most times it is about being disappointed in or suffering from some aspect of the game rather than about not wanting to play the game as a whole.

What is the institution that has the jurisdiction over this issue, so that one can file a complaint to it properly? — baker

The institution of philosophical discourse.

Who should stop them? — NOS4A2

In a laissez fare system, the land, the resources, etc belongs to private entities and not a group. It’s not all shared like the HG arrangement. Private property prevents the sharing. In that model, economic freedom is only had through working as a community. State-enforced private property or anarcho-capitalist militias would use unjustified force to allow individuals to accumulate resources and not allow it to be open for everyone to use as see fit by the community. It would be state sponsored theft. Notice all the same language is used but with a different value system.

What happens if people wanted to ban together to form hunting-gathering societies that are not based on private property but on shared property, like humans did for thousands of years before agriculture? What of the tyranny then? Whence the origination of private property? That sounds like a tyranny to me.

in the absence ofstate (private property)a majority of free people will not resort tyranny, theft, murder, and they should have the means and ability to defend themselves against those who would (take away their communal rights to live as free citizens in hunting gathering lifestyles). They will be free, at least. — Bizarro NOS

Even on an entirely mundane level, it's clear where they go wrong: the quietist whines and complains and is miserable, while other people are having fun. He gets nothing for all his misery, apart from a little ego satisfaction. — baker

Pessimists can have fun. It's not mutually exclusive. Rather, it is recognizing the situation for what it is, that we are put in the agenda in the first place, and not to force it as much as possible onto others. And thus, not to demand so much either because of this. Compassion due to knowledge of the shitty situation. If we are all filling in the holes of the leaky boat that we didn't ask to be on, we can commiserate on it. If everything was fun all the time with no downsides, I guess there wouldn't be a need for this conversation. But the whole point of the OP is that "fun" comes at a cost.. At least Buddhism had some truths about things like becoming and change. Things are temporary etc. There is boredom as a phenomenon of experience, as much as with physical pain, annoyances of the survival and being conditioned by the pressures of others in a socioeconomic system. In that regard Buddhism is right on the target with dependent origination. We are all enmeshed in each others wants and needs, which gives rise to ever more complex versions of suffering.

I'm not a Buddhist nor do I advocate Buddhism. I do have some knowledge of and interest in Buddhism. When someone boldly declares that the Buddha was wrong or implies as much, I am curious as to what this person has to say. I use my knowledge of Early Buddhism to inquire of them what they have to say and test their knowledge of Buddhism.

You keep saying things like "we're in an inescapable situation" and such. I wonder where you get your certainty. I find it bewildering how a person could have such certainty. — baker

So you refused to tell me what to study from the Pali Canon. If you can't at least give me a few concepts without telling me to read the whole thing, that is at the least uncharitable in the context of this dialogue. As clearly you have "something" in mind from it..

But Buddhism in general has ideas of reincarnation and liberation from the birth cycle. So let's start there. Do you believe this to be the case? Now, if you want to secularize it, maybe you see this as a "metaphor" for paṭicca-samuppāda, (“dependent origination”). That is to say the 12 links which produce the cycle of samsara and that the adherent is trying to reverse through 8 fold path.

Here's the thing though:
1) I don't see any evidence that certain people have transcended suffering. This has to be taken on faith.
2) I don't even know what "enlightenment" would mean other than non-existence, which as far as the mind is concerned is death.
3) Enlightenment is ill-defined and seems to be self-referential because of its vagueness.

Ten characteristics of a Buddha
Some Buddhists meditate on (or contemplate) the Buddha as having ten characteristics (Ch./Jp. 十號). These characteristics are frequently mentioned in the Pāli Canon as well as Mahayana teachings, and are chanted daily in many Buddhist monasteries:[12]

Thus gone, thus come (Skt: tathāgata)
Worthy one (Skt: arhat)
Perfectly self-enlightened (Skt: samyak-saṃbuddha)
Perfected in knowledge and conduct (Skt: vidyā-caraṇa-saṃpanna )
Well gone (Skt: sugata)
Knower of the world (Skt: lokavida)
Unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed (Skt: anuttara-puruṣa-damya-sārathi)
Teacher of the gods and humans (Skt: śāsta deva-manuṣyāṇaṃ)
The Enlightened One (Skt: buddha)
The Blessed One or fortunate one (Skt: bhagavat)[13] — Wikipedia on Buddhahood

And then there's duties of the Buddhas.. etc. etc. Both the goal and the metaphysics, epistemology, and the phenomenology don't seem either coherent or accurate. I have a right to disagree with Buddhism as a metaphysics as with any Western tradition I disagree with. What I don't appreciate is when because something is Eastern it must mean it bypasses ones own judgement of its logic, truth, and the like.

Forget it - I’m done with this merry-go-round. — Possibility

Hey, that is the gist of the game of life too! But there's no getting off of this merry-go-round.

I think first you must get a handle on what I mean by “comply” before you fit your scheme within its structure.

Someone who walks onto a battlefield without a weapon and carries wounded soldiers to safety is neither striving for survival nor seeking to avoid discomfort. — Possibility

This doesn’t evade comply or die. It simply makes the choice starker. No middle man.

How you feel about it or what you do with it is entirely up to you. — Possibility

You can comply or die. It’s up to you. That’s all I’m seeing. Just better tools to comply.

and we’re back to doubling down on the illusion. Never mind. — Possibility

Yet you say stuff like this:

The more information we already have about this type of situation, and the more attention, effort and time we’re able to devote to it, the less prediction error. The more mistakes we make, the more accurate our brain gets at predicting. — Possibility

Mine as well come from an HR seminar of how to be a better worker. And this truly would be doubling down on the game. Not only accepting it, but trying to get better at it over time so as to learn and grow. And now we are back at very common notions of self-actualization like Maslow or any of the others. I got some minutia to monger.

Everything is connected to Wonka's "loving game". Communes, monasteries, rose-tinted ideas of collaboration, etc. There is no escape. You're in for good (until you are not).

Discomfort and dissatisfaction are variable conditions in which we come to understand human capacity - they’re not necessarily hardships to be avoided. — Possibility

So a "Yay" for comply. Got it.

them is no longer for themselves but to give freely to others as they see fit within the context. — Possibility

Funny you mention "context" and provide none of it, thus making the statement hollow and meaningless unless contextualized.

They can attack their enemies or make peace with them, they can save, improve or destroy the lives of those around them. — Possibility

Comply with a nicer look.

These apparent ‘goals and hardships related to survival, discomfort and dissatisfaction’ stripped away at this point, their lives are no longer forced into a particular way of being. — Possibility

There is no stripping away, lest death. Give me one example of someone "stripping away" and not being dead.

I think interacting with others is its own form of tyranny.. There will always be fights, hatreds, dislikes, distastes, value differences, no matter who is on top of the hierarchy.

The problem with most economic talk and liberation (whether Libertarian or Communist), is that it doesn't get at the root of the problem. It sets up a proxy and then thinks this is going to fix it.

Tao does not refer to a ‘best way’ of being at all - that, I believe, is wrong thinking. The Tao refers to a logical and qualitative relational structure to reality, which we distort according to this affected ‘self-knowledge of the will’ that we believe is better... — Possibility

I honestly hate how Eastern ways of thinking has bled into New Age Western thinking.. It's always about not saying something correctly, and then when the New Ager explains it, it becomes exactly what you said but stated in a slightly different way.. Here is an example:

Tao does not refer to a ‘best way’ of being at all - that, I believe, is wrong thinking. — Possibility

Premise: Tao does not refer to a "best way of being at all".. Then right after...
Premise contradicted:

The Tao refers to a logical and qualitative relational structure to reality, which we distort according to this affected ‘self-knowledge of the will’ that we believe is better... for ourselves, at least, regardless of its accuracy — Possibility

So instead of just admitting "the better way" in the positive form, you simply state that not living in the Tao is the distorted way. It's the same thing but stated in its negative form!

Concepts help us to share our distorted self-knowledge of the will through language, and our faculties of reason help us to develop a logical and qualitative relational structure of reality without these affected distortions, which improves the accuracy with which we distribute what attention and effort we have available in our limited being (affect), thereby reducing prediction error, ie. suffering. There is no ruling or leading to be done from the TTC, unlike religious texts or doctrine - the structure is all there in the text; attention, effort and time are your own. — Possibility

Sure, but if you are let's say suffocating, your affect is immediately about your physical suffocation.. Enlightened or not! Then all the mental techniques to keep mind off.. maybe.

You keep trying to shoehorn what I say into the agenda of ‘having to survive’ - a product of this misguided self-knowledge of the will. You can’t seem to even bring yourself to think beyond this, even as a possibility. It’s not about ignoring what appears to be the case (from a human perspective), but about trying to understand it in a broader context of reason, of which the human condition is a limited and affected structure. I get that what I’m proposing is not a set of goals or things to do that will somehow make life easier to survive. I never claimed this was the case, and I’m surprised you still hold to the irrational belief that there should be something to this effect, simply because that’s what you’d prefer. — Possibility

Well, once we learn that we are just here to be useful workers being de facto the situation, and survival for ourselves de facto.. It is comply or die all around.. You can't go against it.. You can only say word salads about structures and collaborating. This a) Isn't seeing anything of the socioeconomic superstructure, historical contingency of our situation, b) It isn't doing anything about it.. It's all better ways to comply.. changing your "attitude" or as you like to complicate it "affect".. and it's all ways to better cope with complying. More HR spin.

This sounds like a modernized Western rendition of Jainism. Or Quietism. Both are pernicious. — baker

What is pernicious about it?

Ok, so I know you would like me to imbibe from the "TRUTH" of Buddhism en totale, because (like hipsters say), "I just won't get it" otherwise.. but what is the most important parts of the Pali Canon would you like me to research. I know I know, in order to really "KNOW" Buddhism, I am to become a scholar... but we are on an internet forum. I cannot expect for example, to debate someone on here by saying, "Just read WWR and all Scholarship on Schopenhauer" because that is not feasible and unfair in this platform. As a meta-analysis of this dialogue, how do you want me to proceed?

In other words, if there were a few most important concepts, what would you like me to understand from it?

So instead of playing this game, why don't you give me some references, and we can see if it is the conception I have from what I know already, and we can reconvene.

Nice. :up:

When asceticism is presented in such an ascetic (eh!) manner, it's no wonder it doesn't come across as promising.

Why not inform oneself about it some more, as opposed to sticking to some vague, superficial notions of it? — baker

I have read it, and I am not convinced of such a state. I just don't buy it. I've read about ego-death, etc. It entails a certain metaphysics as well, that I also don't buy.

Do I believe that meditation can "calm the mind" and "clear the mind", "calm the body" etc. I can understand this notion of trying to be "still" and not letting the "monkey brain" go in different directions, or try to assign "self" to thought. But I just see it as a bunch of mental exercises at that point.

Because it's usually not an alternative. Like they say, "Different packaging, same shit." — baker

Yep.

You exude that "Let them eat cake!" attitude. — baker

Yep. I compare it to Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In".

Quantum mechanics demonstrates that abolishing the apparently fundamental form of subject and object does not abolish the world, as Schopenhauer assumes. — Possibility

This is the problem with mixing scientific concepts.. So let's say there is a concept of relativism in physics or chance in quantum mechanics... This does not entail anything about a broader philosophical principle by necessity. One has to bolster this idea with several steps tying that concept with a metaphysical point, which is trickier than making up neologisms. Rather, Kant's "Copernican Revolution", however you think it, can be applied to modern physics as well. That is to say, whatever it is "out there", it can be considered simply the cognitive apparatus of the mind making it seem that way. The thing-in-itself being as it were, a speculative claim of the "out there", which as in Schopenhauer, can be gradations of this "something" all the way down (Will in Schopenhauer's case).

This, in my view, is equivalent to death. — Possibility

So far, so good.

I think that these notions of nirvana, heaven, even enlightenment and sainthood are romanticised attempts to reify or concretise a preferred fantasy, much like ‘individual will’. — Possibility

Except for "much like 'individual will' I agree with this".

I don’t believe there comes a point in ascetic practise when no further effort or attention is required, except in death. In my view, ascetic practise is a process that forces one to align our world as representation with the world as will, abandoning the assumption that this ‘self-knowledge of the will’ is accurate. I believe this can also be achieved by combining ascetic practises such as meditation and self-discipline with honest self-reflection and reasoning. I don’t think it helps to deny EITHER the illusion (which Schop nevertheless prefers) or the will in itself (which Schop fears is essentially an unknowable nothingness), but to recognise that these relations to the world each reflect an inaccuracy that needs addressing. And I think quantum physics is addressing it, in its own way - we just need to find a way to discuss it without confusion or complex mathematics.

There’s a lot more here I find worth discussing, but my available time has been limited. Hopefully that’s enough to start, and not too disjointed. Thanks for sourcing this quote, by the way... — Possibility

This seems very Tao, as I believe @baker has also picked up on. There is some "way" (the Will), and we are to align to it through attitude towards how we get on in the world. This approach is simply another attempt at Natural Reason (pace the Stoics). There is a "best way" about things that we tap into and align with using our Reason. This, of course, I believe to wrong thinking. There is nothing to align to in the universe. Even if there were, we simply have a transcendental form of something that we must comply or die to. Instead of socio-economic realities, its something else. And as @baker brought up, by ignoring the realities of having to survive, in some socioeconomic way, it is ignoring what is really the case, and so falls short of much at all, except for a ruling class who can afford to tune in, turn on, and drop out..(of course "leading people" in whatever way as well in this alternative way of being somehow).

I see population control as just a happy outcome from antinatalism, not as the reason. But I see it was a good segue to show that video.

The baseline of the human condition can be described as ‘dissatisfaction’ by those for whom ‘individual will’ is considered the ultimate goal of being. The resulting conclusion that deliberately creating any such being is ‘immoral’ makes sense only in the context of ‘individual will’ as ABSOLUTE. Except that this ‘individual will’ is an illusion. There is no ‘will’ that we can call our own, no satisfaction or perfection to be attained as a self-sustaining identity in relation to the world. — Possibility

So this is just a follow up to my lengthy Schopenhauer quote..
What I think I disagree with most in your approach is that you are championing Schopenhauer while not really championing what he actually believed. Yes, the world of appearance is an illusion, and for some very small minority of people (saints), will may become annihilated. However, just us sitting here "realizing this is an illusion" does nothing more than intellectualize this understanding. Just "knowing" we are all Will and this this is an illusion doesn't have any or much force in Schopenhauer's conception. Actually being an ascetic of some saintly variety does. You cannot skip to the end by fiat of some understanding of the oneness of things. That is not how Schopenhauer's idea on ascetic denial of will works.

That beings said, I explicitly showed all my cards as it were in the OP by saying that whilst admiring Schopenhauer's system, I do not particularly agree with his assessment that we can even get out of this suffering situation by even ascetic contemplation. In other words, I don't think a state of peaceful "nothingness" is a thing. "Serenity now" permanently doesn't seem like a thing to me. Rather, it is a nice romanticized idea of what people would like. A permanent state of rest, but not quite dead. Platonic peace, without the becoming of the changing flux of this world. It's a nice notion, I just don't buy it.

Besides not buying the notion of this "escape hatch" of asceticism (or even aesthetic contemplation for that matter), I think there is the very real of having to survive at all. I am not doubling down on the illusion, but rather acknowldging the realities of how the human condition works.. That is to say, we are willful beings for sure, but that we are also situated in a socioeconomic context, and inextricably tied to our individual selves with this society. HOWEVER, this does not signify anything more than precisely that.. We are individual SELVES that INTERACT in a historically-contingent, socioeconomic-political SETTING. That is it... There is no higher way-of-being of "connection, collaboration, and awareness" one must do for a better of way of life.. Rather, one must be involved in the things described by Schopenhauer (the goals and hardships related to survival, discomfort, and dissatisfaction in general), to or turn against it and die. He added an extra category of "turn against it and be an ascetic", and that is the part I deny is a thing.

So, what to do? There is nothing to do except, as you state, "vocal pessimism". To me, that can mean communally recognizing the situation we are all in, and easing the suffering as a group in the context of this recognition. Like a soldier going on a suicide mission, who knows their fate, we the living, should understand what is going on here, and cope with it through cynical/existential humor, lowering of aggression and expectations, resignation in our fate, and the rest. It is understanding that we simply have to play this game out until we are dead.

Again, you’re assuming that the world as will must be denied, but Schopenhauer is talking about individual will as the illusion - the world as will is reality as it exists in itself, the world as representation exists relative to the notion of an individual. — Possibility

This actually gets tricky. Schopenhauer was an idealist, so the world as appearance is just internal, not "out there". In fact, Schop is a true Idealist in that there is no "out there", just grades of will-objectified. He is no Materialist.

On this I must first remark, that the conception of nothing is essentially relative, and always refers to a definite something which it negatives. This quality has been attributed (by Kant) merely to the nihil privativum, which is indicated by - as opposed to +, which -, from an opposite point of view, might become +, and in opposition to this nihil privativum the nihil negativum has been set up, which would in every reference be nothing, and as an example of this the logical contradiction which does away with itself has been given. But more closely considered, no absolute nothing, no proper nihil negativum is even thinkable; but everything of this kind, when considered from a higher standpoint or subsumed under a wider concept, is always merely a nihil privativum. Every nothing is thought as such only in relation to something, and presupposes this relation, and thus also this something. Even a logical contradiction is only a relative nothing. It is no thought of the reason, but it is not on that account an absolute nothing; for it is a combination of words; it is an example of the unthinkable, which is necessary in logic in order to prove the laws of thought. Therefore if for this end such an example is sought, we will stick to the nonsense as the positive which we are in search of, and pass over the sense as the negative. Thus every nihil negativum, if subordinated to a higher concept, will appear as a mere nihil privativum or relative nothing, which can, moreover, always exchange signs with what it negatives, so that that would then be thought as negation, and it itself as assertion. This also agrees with the result of the difficult dialectical investigation of the meaning of nothing which Plato gives in the “Sophist” (pp. 277-287): Την του ἑτερου φυσιν αποδειξαντες ουσαν τε, και κατακεκερματισμενην επι παντα τα οντα προς αλληλα, το προς το ον ἑκαστου μοριου αυτης αντιτιθεμενον, ετολμησαμεν ειπειν, ὡς αυτο τουτο εστιν οντως το μη ον (Cum enim ostenderemus, alterius ipsius naturam esse perque omnia entia divisam atque dispersam in vicem; tunc partem ejus oppositam ei, quod cujusque ens est, esse ipsum revera non ens asseruimus).

That which is generally received as positive, which we call the real, and the negation of which the concept nothing in its most general significance expresses, is just the world as idea, which I have shown to be the objectivity and mirror of the will. Moreover, we ourselves are just this will and this world, and to them belongs the idea in general, as one aspect of them. The form of the idea is space and time, therefore for this point of view all that is real must be in some place and at some time.Denial, abolition, conversion of the will, is also the abolition and the vanishing of the world, its mirror. If we no longer perceive it in this mirror, we ask in vain where it has gone, and then, because it has no longer any where and when, complain that it has vanished into nothing.

A reversed point of view, if it were possible for us, would reverse the signs and show the real for us as nothing, and that nothing as the real. But as long as we ourselves are the will to live, this last—nothing as the real—can only be known and signified by us negatively, because the old saying of Empedocles, that like can only be known by like, deprives us here of all knowledge, as, conversely, upon it finally rests the possibility of all our actual knowledge, i.e., the world as idea; for the world is the self-knowledge of the will.

If, however, it should be absolutely insisted upon that in some way or other a positive knowledge should be attained of that which philosophy can only express negatively as the denial of the will, there would be nothing for it but to refer to that state which all those who have attained to complete denial of the will have experienced, and which has been variously denoted by the names ecstasy, rapture, illumination, union with God, and so forth; a state, however, which cannot properly be called knowledge, because it has not the form of subject and object, and is, moreover, only attainable in one's own experience and cannot be further communicated.

We, however, who consistently occupy the standpoint of philosophy, must be satisfied here with negative knowledge, content to have reached the utmost limit of the positive. We have recognised the inmost nature of the world as will, and all its phenomena as only the objectivity of will; and we have followed this objectivity from the unconscious working of obscure forces of Nature up to the completely conscious action of man. Therefore we shall by no means evade the consequence, that with the free denial, the surrender of the will, all those phenomena are also abolished; that constant strain and effort without end and without rest at all the grades of objectivity, in which and through which the world consists; the multifarious forms succeeding each other in gradation; the whole manifestation of the will; and, finally, also the universal forms of this manifestation, time and space, and also its last fundamental form, subject and object; all are abolished. No will: no idea, no world.

Before us there is certainly only nothingness. But that which resists this passing into nothing, our nature, is indeed just the will to live, which we ourselves are as it is our world. That we abhor annihilation so greatly, is simply another expression of the fact that we so strenuously will life, and are nothing but this will, and know nothing besides it. But if we turn our glance from our own needy and embarrassed condition to those who have overcome the world, in whom the will, having attained to perfect self-knowledge, found itself again in all, and then freely denied itself, and who then merely wait to see the last trace of it vanish with the body which it animates; then, instead of the restless striving and effort, instead of the constant transition from wish to fruition, and from joy to sorrow, instead of the never-satisfied and never-dying hope which constitutes the life of the man who wills, we shall see that peace which is above all reason, that perfect calm of the spirit, that deep rest, that inviolable confidence and serenity, the mere reflection of which in the countenance, as Raphael and Correggio have represented it, is an entire and certain gospel; only knowledge remains, the will has vanished. We look with deep and painful longing upon this state, beside which the misery and wretchedness of our own is brought out clearly by the contrast. Yet this is the only consideration which can afford us lasting consolation, when, on the one hand, we have recognised incurable suffering and endless misery as essential to the manifestation of will, the world; and, on the other hand, see the world pass away with the abolition of will, and retain before us only empty nothingness.Thus, in this way, by contemplation of the life and conduct of saints, whom it is certainly rarely granted us to meet with in our own experience, but who are brought before our eyes by their written history, and, with the stamp of inner truth, by art, we must banish the dark impression of that nothingness which we discern behind all virtue and holiness as their final goal, and which we fear as children fear the dark; we must not even evade it like the Indians, through myths and meaningless words, such as reabsorption in Brahma or the Nirvana of the Buddhists. Rather do we freely acknowledge that what remains after the entire abolition of will is for all those who are still full of will certainly nothing; but, conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and has denied itself, this our world, which is so real, with all its suns and milky-ways—is nothing.[28] — WWR Book 4

So in that passage Schop seems to be contrasting Will with nothingness, while at the same time trying to overcome objections at getting at "nothing" that has been a topic of discussion since the pre-Socratics. Barring a lengthy discussion of the sticky subject of "nothingness" as an absolute term (rather than what is not), he seems to say that once one lets go of will completely, there is something of what it is like to be absolute nothingness.. And we should not romanticize it with myths of union with God, or even states of Nirvana. He seems to like the idea of bare nothingness as a better, less obfuscating understanding of what is opposed to the will to live which is the regular course of things.

Are all the folks engaged in cancer research under some kind of duress? :chin: — Agent Smith

Metaphorically, death, discomfort, and boredom are the gun to the head. That is part of my OP about dissatisfaction. That is part of complying with the game.

Don’t complain, just kill yourself is the message. — schopenhauer1

Better? Wasn’t saying it as a directive but a description in it’s context as in this is what is going on, not what you should do.

“Don’t complain, just kill yourself” is the message that people are seeming to say. Comply or die. There is no peace even in trying to vocalize the pessimism. That’s all I’m getting. Double disrespect to the player of the game that doesn’t want to be played. It’s all fucked.

Stop being a childish red herring ad hom

Antinatalist was replying what he thought about Agent Smiths reply. Don’t start picking fights for no reason.

That means that those possible future children will be treated as a means, not as an end itself. That is wrong. — Antinatalist

Exactly.

No, the appearance is the ‘individual dealing with these things’. For you, it seems, the world as representation is the reality, being oppressed by the world as will, in the form of an ‘agenda’. This seems to directly contradict Schopenhauer...? — Possibility

Because you are making that genetic (or something akin) fallacy again. Even if the world was really a big illusion as an appearance (the devils playground), the appearance persists. It doesn’t go away because one knows the situation; the “feels like” ingrained aspect remains despite its “illusory” origins. And yes, that is assuming I even buy into that metaphysics, which I don’t. But even if I did, he would never say that “knowing” that the world is illusion (or ideas of connection, collaboration, or awareness for that mater) somehow brings an end to the illusion.

If anything, the dichotomy would between illusion of the appearance and denying of the will. Complete "annihilation" of the will is near impossible except for the saintly ascetic (representing a fraction of a fraction of people who can actually attain this. And he believed only certain characters can achieve this anyways).

Also understand that appearance and will in his conception are one and the same. Appearance does not give way to bare will or is in some sort of opposition to it. Rather, the appearance is the double-aspect of Will. It is its flip side. If one extirpates the appearance, one extirpates will and vice versa.

To reduce the suffering, it helps to be aware of what’s going on inside the body, how these systems connect to the suffocation, as well as how that affects both the quantitative and qualitative potential of the world as will. In other words, recognise that the individual is just one minor aspect of a far more complex situation, and find ways we can collaborate with the many aspects that contribute to the situation. — Possibility

No, studying the mechanisms of sleep apnea does not make the the actual suffering to the sufferer go away. Let's go further, scientists writing papers on the systems involved in sleep apnea, will not stop a person with an extreme case from possibly getting a heart attack due to the breathing problems. That's just obviously wrong and not even worth me writing to say this.

But I’m not proposing ‘a solution’, and if you were paying any attention to what I’ve been writing here (apart from how it appears to contradict your position), you might see that. I’m not saying ‘we have to work together to solve problems’, either - that’s only a narrow perspective of collaboration. Situations appear as ‘problems’ relative to a perspective. The human mind is capable of understanding the reality of a situation from a number of different perspectives and at various different levels of awareness, and prioritising one of these over another is merely a preference on our part, not a necessity. — Possibility

But you did just say this.. and you are contradicting yourself.. At least as I interpret your obfuscating writing here:

To reduce the suffering, it helps to be aware of what’s going on inside the body, how these systems connect to the suffocation, as well as how that affects both the quantitative and qualitative potential of the world as will. In other words, recognise that the individual is just one minor aspect of a far more complex situation, and find ways we can collaborate with the many aspects that contribute to the situation. — Possibility

But this quote so vague that it can mean anything and nothing, so feel free to correct me with more vague language.

let alone construct a definable (concrete) position so you can orientate yourself in opposition. — Possibility

It is true, I cannot take a position or even evaluate vague language that contains neologisms or words used in novel ways. If you are going to say things like "complex structure" and "find ways to collaborate" and then deny that you are talking about "working together to solve problems" which I interpreted it as, and took a position against (as a solution to the problem of suffering itself)... then you have to be very precise on how you are using language like "complex structure" and "find ways to collaborate" cause that's how it sounds prima facie.

The human mind is capable of understanding the reality of a situation from a number of different perspectives and at various different levels of awareness, and prioritising one of these over another is merely a preference on our part, not a necessity. — Possibility

That is gaslighting BS. Telling someone who is suffering, that you are looking at it wrong, you are part of a big system, doesn't negate the suffering for the individual. You think consoling language that you are part of a bigger universe magically makes things go away? Nope. You are trivializing people's experience by trying to hijack it with this "we are part of a bigger picture" crap. It is all part of contingent suffering that is part of existing at all.

We tend to think that the value of humanity derives from this capacity to act individually and collectively against the ‘natural’ process of existence, but if there is value in humanity at all, then it is in our capacity to be aware of and participate in it, rather than try to survive it, dominate it, or ‘overcome’ it through procreation, as if it’s a ‘problem’. — Possibility

Huh? Yeah this is woo Tao talk.. You are trying to take the pessimism out of Schopenhauer. You are trying to make Schopenhauer fit into your sanitized version. Schop thought that Will, and its appearance were negative- causing/entailed suffering. There was no working with it for any good. Existence was fundamentally not a good thing to exist at all. So "value in participating.." is misrepresenting anything he is saying. Denying will would be more like it. And again, because you choose to be vague, you aren't saying much at all when you say "participate" either. I and reminds me again of HR Sheryl saying to Lean In.



So far, your big takeaway is "participate"..

Going back to my point. The human condition is dissatisfaction. We are constantly overcoming dissatisfaction. It is misguided/immoral to create for people a lifetime's worth of dissatisfaction-overcoming. It is immoral to give a game to someone that cannot be paused, that is de facto a play in real time or game over. We cannot retreat to the Platonic realm of a Mt. Olympus when we get tired or frustrated with the dissatisfaction. It is constant. This inescapability makes it disqualifying as moral to force onto others. None of what you said refutes that. There is nothing "there" in what you are saying. And it sounds like rhetorical tricks to hijack language and purposely be too vague so that you can't be wrong.

vocal pessimism — Possibility

That’s right. Better than tacit whatever else it is that’s going on when not examining life (aka not understanding what’s actually going on).

Sleep apnea is a microcosm of the gaslighting situation. You see here is a problem that one’s esophageal tissue is in the business of actively suffocating yourself at night. But eh, now we have a “solution”, the CPAP machine to shove up your face to allow proper breathing. So to get this, you go to the sleep doctor and have electrodes put on you while you sleep in a monitored hospital bed for 8 hours. They see all the lack of sleep and pauses in breathing, and you are prescribed an expensive machine to wear over your mouth and nose every night to help you breathe.

You might say, “Look at that! We can find solutions to so many problems!”.

But the problem is having the problem to overcome in the first place. It is this moral disqualification of being presented with problems to overcome in the first place, that I will never let go. You can play pretend all you want that self is an illusion. Pretend at being some Eastern sage. But the reality is it is the individual dealing with these things. You can try to twist the logic in wordplay but that’s it. Whether you say it is an illusion matters not because there is still the first person protagonist getting suffocated. The obvious fact that we have to work together to solve problems doesn’t make the individual self disappear either, nor does it negate the fact that the problem existed the first place to be overcome. This misguided notion is that overcoming itself means is good when in fact it’s just the opposite. It’s people being forced to face overcoming dissatisfaction.

using cynical humour — Possibility

See here for good example of cynical humor ;).

We have both gotten used to being voices howling in the wilderness. We wilderness howlers are dismissed out of hand, even if our howled message is right on the money. Dressed in rags, eating locusts, (roasted. salted, nutty, crunchy, nutritious), howling, of course; and harshing the mellow of the bourgeoisie just doesn't make one popular,

"Blessed are the shat upon." Simon and Garfunkel — Bitter Crank

:lol: Haha. The picture you paint is right on the money, but I won't ignore it. All on point. Ignored locust eating wilderness howlers. And correct, dismissed out of hand, even if the howled message is right on the money. Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss.

The rhetoric doesn't work (here and now) because the working class has changed. First, most workers don't think of themselves as working class. They think they are middle class. "Workers" are the unskilled louts who clean the offices in which they labor. They and their boss both think that the boss creates wealth by his brilliance (or profound crookedness) or maybe by magic. That they themselves, the workers--even office workers--create all wealth is an idea that has not occurred to them, — Bitter Crank

I see my own struggles promoting antinatalism in this.. They will say that it is you who have it wrong... No amount of showing wealth inequalities is going to make people then say, "Oh I guess I better start the revolution".

I mean, I think the conditions of life itself puts us in chains from the get-go. Yet we don't revolt against this either. Don't worry, both fighting the good fight, but no one will listen.