And I haven't even TOUCHED the idea of contingent harm. This is all so far about the inherent necessary harm of simply being at all (the survival-dissatisfaction thing). Now put on top of that the contingent ways which people suffer as they play this game-in-real-time.. and fogettaboutit.. It totally disqualifies as moral. Suffering all around and then there are the gaslighting pimp salesmen who try every way they can to sell it as your fault/problem/deficit with not embracing it. Not denying what they see well enough. Not willing to take it as "win some/lose some".. "no pain, no gain" and all the rest. You see, YOU are not a person.. YOU aren't getting screwed.. Keep looking at the watch going back and forth.. that's right.. you are getting very sleepy...

They ignore or belittle anyone who proposes an alternative, and they take great pride in pointing out how every opportunity to change just appears to be more of the same. It’s a crab in the bucket scenario. — Possibility

Yet, you have offered no real solution other than words like "connection, collaboration, and awareness". Funny how easy that part is. Vague notions are a dime-a-dozen.

There is not "time out" in this game. There is no pause. There is only game over. It can ever and only be played in real time. That disqualifies it as moral.

But for Deleuze difference , as the irreducible basis of reality, is not a problem to be solved, a lack to be compensated, but an endlessly repeated fecundity (productivity). — Joshs

And so the whole project of putting a positive spin on things. Deleuze difference ad nauseum the same as Whitehead's creativity ad nauseum?

We are all blind until the moment we attain enlightenment, at which point we are no longer in a position to lead. This is the dilemma we face. — Possibility

It is funny how people confuse leading out of a bad situation to putting people in the situation in the first place so that they can lead them out. I'm not saying you are doing that, but surely that is and has gone on trillions of times over. I'm trying to prevent the latter situation. I don't want people to even have to lead people from X to Y, or from ignorance to enlightenment, or whathaveyou. I certainly don't want people to follow Wonka's "loving" agenda of which way to survive, get more comfortable, and overcome dissatisfaction.

The problem is akin to being in a sleep and then getting woken up, but never being able to sleep again. Don't wake the person up in the first place. Don't create the burdens so that they now have to be lead out of it. That's part of what I am getting at.

Hence my other recommendations:

1) Try burdening people with less. Just as we were burdened with the dissatisfaction-overcoming of being born at all, perhaps we can try to not put too many burdens on others.. Too many demands. Too many ultimatums.. Too many musts.. Of course this is never unavoidable with the Game (lest death) so it is only to lessen, it can never be to make go away completely all demands on others, obviously.

2) Try using humor, especially shared cynical humor when doing tasks that are unpleasant.. Like making the unpleasant task known as a shared hatred amongst peers that must deal with the task.

3) Try to tread lightly.. don't be aggressive with others, dominant, etc. This is what got us here in the first place.. people aggressively pursuing their agenda.

4) Shared consolation of suffering.. complain and listen to others complaints. Be sympathetic to them and perhaps feel a sense of community in sharing the burdens and the dissatisfaction-overcoming process. — schopenhauer1

You think I have been reading every post? No. — I like sushi

Probably should read a few..

Stop what? Trying to find somewhere we can have a discussion … no I won’t. We do not have to agree on one point to have a discussion about something else.

I’ll skip over the rest of the weird snipes at me and put it down to … you can fill in the blanks with whatever. — I like sushi

Because you came into the discussion saying, "I don't get this illusion business" when I am in the midst of telling other posters how I don't believe in this idea of illusion as any great way of trying to deny that there is a self.. So you were out of context of the other discussions taking place.

The other "snipes" were because when I give you my answer of antinatalism you say, "don't go there". Well then, don't ask..

Here is where I see the problem. Life as a ‘positive value’? What does that even mean. If we didn’t have ‘dissatisfaction’ we would not be living beings. So what? How does stating that if we didn’t have anything to do, nothing to work for, no need to try and survive, then we would be dead make any kind of sense as either a ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ value? — I like sushi

Because he didn't say that. He posed a counterfactual.. if existence did not entail dissatisfaction. It is an impossibility, but doesn't mean it isn't something that one can't conceptually pose as a question. The point is to inform not what that looks like (because we can't even really understand that), but simply to point to how this existence is not that, but is indeed characterized by the opposite.. that is, dissatisfaction.

This literally makes no sense whatsoever to me. Life contains value. That is how we are able to attribute ‘value’ - by being alive. No life means no value whatsoever as there is no evaluation of anything by anything. The fact that we can value things means we attribute both positive and negative value to items. Not existing means absence of value NOT something either ‘positive’ or ‘negative’. — I like sushi

He didn't say "non-existing" but giving a counter-case of what is the current state of affairs.. A different kind of existence.. at least from a conceptual standpoint, even if we can't really "understand" it being that it's not in our reality.

However, one of my themes is to not create dissatisfaction for more people. Don't put more people in the situation of being dissatisfied.. and having to overcome it. Don't force an agenda onto another, because you think this that or the other about it yourself.

I a not straw manning you here at all. I am presenting, as best I can, my thoughts on this matter. So PLEASE take them as they are and quiz/correct where you feel you need to. I am not hear to learn from you I am here to learn full stop so drop the ego … it is depressing and tiresome if all you give are barbs on barbs. — I like sushi

It is straw manning when you take a position I actually oppose (that somehow it is all illusion so we don't "really" exist), and then claim it as what I am saying.. Don't confuse me, schopenhauer1 with Schopenhauer.

Or simply overpower others. Understanding what is going on is overrated, for the most part.

You'd need to show that understanding really does make a difference, a relevant difference. — baker

If we count it as living together without exploiting one by burdening them, perhaps it can. I am not optimistic about my project either. All I have is antinatalism as a post-facto action. The whole, "do something while we live part" is not something I am sure will be of much difference. I just proposed something for those who say, "what besides antinatalism as a result?". To be charitable to my own proposal though I can try to outline a few things that can "make a difference" if that really means much in this inescapable situation:

1) Try burdening people with less. Just as we were burdened with the dissatisfaction-overcoming of being born at all, perhaps we can try to not put too many burdens on others.. Too many demands. Too many ultimatums.. Too many musts.. Of course this is never unavoidable with the Game (lest death) so it is only to lessen, it can never be to make go away completely all demands on others, obviously.

2) Try using humor, especially shared cynical humor when doing tasks that are unpleasant.. Like making the unpleasant task known as a shared hatred amongst peers that must deal with the task.

3) Try to tread lightly.. don't be aggressive with others, dominant, etc. This is what got us here in the first place.. people aggressively pursuing their agenda.

4) Shared consolation of suffering.. complain and listen to others complaints. Be sympathetic to them and perhaps feel a sense of community in sharing the burdens and the dissatisfaction-overcoming process.

Life in this world is about dominance.
Antinatalists are simply losers, weaklings. — baker

I can't argue that dominance is a factor. People who are aggressive and assertive often do get their way.. The meek often don't inherit the earth. People, however, can be able to understand what is going on, even if just a few can really recognize it for what it is.

I agree with your prior statement that it is our usefulness that is really sought after. "What can you do for me".. Because we are, by way of being alive, put in a position where we have to be useful to ourselves and others to survive. It is part of the burdening of the "dealing with" that we are born into in the first place. It's part of the forced game.. the burdens to overcome.

I’m not going into the whole procreate business again. No point. We are not going to see eye-to-eye there not understand each other because the problem lies deeper in trying to understand each other at all. So … — I like sushi

Well you can stop commenting on my posts then.. Simple as that. I don't need you to police what I am saying. Or clutch at your pearls when I say them. I'm being very charitable even answering your non-question questions.

It is this underlying issue that seems entwined around buddhism and is why I am not exactly in favour of certain buddhist factions. It is too much like living can be viewed as living as a zombie or as if life itself is illusionary. The ‘illusionary’ part is okay to some degree because the life we perceive is mostly a human life not some intrinsic connection to ‘the things in themselves’ and we live in a culturally defined cooking pot … so even the Schopenhauer ideas are build upon the vast waste of nothingness … the pointlessness, but we never see the pointlessness directly or we wouldn’t move. — I like sushi

So you obviously don't pay attention to what I am saying, because I am arguing against this idea of "illusory" phenomenon. The self is intrinsic to being an enculturated human.. one with the capacities we have. And so you are arguing with a straw man and not me.. So stop.

We ‘live’. Why? No one knows. I think ‘why?’ as a serious question about this is quite meaningless if anything it meaningless. — I like sushi

Um, we live because we basically fear death and are prone to habituating to what we are used to (being alive). Unless in terrible pain, we basically run on the default of doing the same as we did. The routine. But, that aside, I am saying simply we must recognize, communally the dissatisfaction at the root of why we do anything at all. The motivation behind why we do the routines around survival, discomfort, and entertainment. We are lacking in something present that drives us to the goal/basic need. We lack a fulfillment, and what we relieve it with is temporary and unsustainable. And thus Schopenhauer's quote about if life was of positive value, we would want for nothing. We wouldn't have dissatisfaction. But of course it isn't like that.

Old habits die hard. — Agent Smith

It's part of the development of the human animal to develop a "self". Unless you are trying to pose some sort of evidence of extreme Sapir-Worff hypothesis whereby societies can or have existed which somehow have gotten rid of the self, this would be universally wrong.. It is part of the human animal.. We have language which allows for self-reference.. I am doing this.. you are doing that we are doing this and that and on and on. The way we function is having selves that make decisions an operate in a social and physical environment. The self-referential part, seems to entail this division whereby this body with this experience is "doing stuff" in the environment that is not this body and experience, but interacts with this body and experience in ways often predictable, unpredictable, wanted, unwanted, etc.

not to simply cope with the striving, but to understand it from a perspective beyond mere appearance, as we do with everything else. — Possibility

I mean I did call it a technique to help cope, so you are building straw men for things I didn't say in my OP...So in that regard, I can kind of see it as a coping mechanism- a technique for the mind, as I mentioned in the OP.

Exploring the effects of non-compliance and suffering on being is a learning process. Deliberately approaching the limits of being confirms our capacity for non-compliance, and with that the variability of the agenda as it stands. Likewise, recognising the variability of our being, our capacity to be affected simply by looking at or listening to something, points to information available in experience that isn’t accurately subsumed under concepts such as ‘awe’ or ‘amazement’, and awaits to be understood. — Possibility

Yeah but ya know what.. you still have to eat, get comfortable, and entertain the mind. It's not, "thus these experiences and everything else in life is negated as a result". Again, no escape hatches.. So you are just reaffirming what Schopenhauer already explained, and not adding much. Since I already explained my position, this pretty much puts the argument back to nothing new advanced.. so moving on.

Having excluded all positive affect (for no reason other than a preference for pessimism), your structure of potential appears binary, as arousal (comply) vs valence (die). But it’s literally only half the picture. Without positive valence, there is no attention to new information, and you really are stuck - in your intentional ignorance, isolation and exclusivity. — Possibility

Again, just because one beholds what one deems as beautiful or listens to something that moves them (all things that are complicated phenomenon requiring a combination of cognitive faculties and cultural-related things at play.. not just something that automatically "elicits" feelings from the Platonic aether), doesn't negate Willy Wonka's Forced Agenda we all have to play. It's not a matter of "because there is positive, thus the other is justified".

Pessimism would mean our worst fears would be realized. What's worse than finding out you (the self) are(is) but an illusion - the self doesn't exist (re Cotard's delusion)? If so, there's absolutely nothing that could ever gets bored!

Is boredom just another way of stating cogito ergo sum: In (broken) English, I bored, therefore I exist? — Agent Smith

Though it's addressed to Possibility.. I would like to reiterate again the fallacy of mixing the components of the phenomenon for the phenomenon itself. Even if "self" was an illusion, the reality of "self" in the construct of a human doesn't go away by simply "realizing" this (if that is even true in the first place that we are an illusion, whatever that means). Thus yes, the Cogito does make sense in this situation. There are certain realities that one can't, by fiat of argument, make go away, and thus try to push through as some proof of non-suffering (or "really suffering") for the sake of argument.

I think part of the problem is that we are now under the dictature of sameness, an absolute egalitarianism ("everyone is supposed to have the same basic goals in life, having children being one of them"), even though this is a historical novum. — baker

Yeah good point. I mentioned earlier the idea of minutia-mongering. When focused on the minutia, the big picture becomes negated. The minutia can get over more convoluted. The only thing that is acknowledged for "big picture" are various goal-posts people set which vary somewhat depending on society.. but can be roughly the same.. some sort of education goal or community enculturation goal (in the last remaining real tribal societies that exist), career goals (or full community participation goals in tribal societies), relationship goals (marriage, long-term relationships), and personal growth goals (mostly modern societies really but perhaps something similar going on in tribal). Then within these, are simply minutia.. For the modern societies it is where you are going for vacation, how you are going to clear out the weeds in your garden, mow the lawn, meet a friend for drinks at poker night, and all the rest. For the homeless man, sure it's going to be more immediate needs (and possibly illicit addictions in some cases). So yeah, we are fucked in terms of some sort of coming together, even in small communities to recognize the pessimistic context. The minutia dominates many people's thoughts.

Oddly enough, religion acted to reorient people to big picture stuff, but using the wrong methods and often for the wrong reasons.

No, it's about the limits. No matter what else you do, you're a lifeform that requires oxygen. There is no way around that. This is what living in this body is defined by, and it carries with it a number of other givens. — baker

Yes!

No, the agenda has always been the same, only its external manifestation varies according to circumstances. — baker

Exactly.

Riiight, the good old "no man, no problem" solution to all of life's problems! — baker

Exactly... You see, you're not suffering, cause "you" don't exist :roll:.

The antinatalist's particular socio-economic situatedness makes the antinatalist unfit to procreate, but it says nothing about the procreative fitness of other people or about procreation per se.

Once we introduce particular socio-economic situatedness, all notions of egalitarianism or universalism (things that would be true for all people) are off the table, and we are firmly in eugenics.

There are people who have procreated and who really do not have any compunctions about it. People who are fit to live, fit to procreate.

The kind of general antinatalism you're advocating is not compatible with the Theory of Evolution. — baker

Eugenics is people forcing certain groups not to procreate and forcing others to do so. Not quite the word to use. Antinatalts are not "eugenics"ing themselves. If this is about birth control, there are so many types and they are widely available all over the world. It may be more about education more than anything, as well as "traditional" values.

I brought this up in reference to your proposition that we should help others, even at the expense of our own lives. It's an absurd proposition that serves no other purpose but to bolster one's ego. — baker

:up:

Comparing Willy Wonker to the universe is kind of missing the mark. The universe does not appear to be moral. People don’t ask to come into existence - that would be contrary to suggest.

The context is people are here and more people will come. Eventually there will be no more people. None of this is ‘moral’.

We are alive. Life necessarily contains some degree of suffering/discomfort. To negate all suffering means to negate all life. I don’t view reality as ‘moral’ anymore than a view a rock as ‘moral’. — I like sushi

No I'm not comparing Willy Wonka to the universe, but procreating the agenda of what human affairs generally outlined consists of, onto another person. That is to say, don't force your agenda (to follow Willy Wonka's Forced Game) onto another person, because you deem it good or permissible. That is a forced agenda that others (the child born) must pay the consequences for. If you want to enact an agenda, do it on yourself.

And yes, to negate all suffering, negate all life.. But we can work at the margins.. To negate suffering for at least something we can prevent, we can prevent procreating another person.

What does this have to do with ‘boredom’ anyway? We exist. You asked what we should do in the face of the existential crisis in the OP. What do you think we should do and why? — I like sushi

This came out of what to do.. Part of the recommendation was preventing future suffering. The other half was building collective realization of our suffering.. Like non-religious communities of realization of the pessimism... It should be talked about all over.. and communities of consolation created post haste.. Instead of (tacitly) optimistic ones of X, Y, Z "project" we should have communities recognizing our existential position. As I was explaining to Possibility, it is about understanding our context and realizing it.

potentially support — Wayfarer

What about life needs supporting anyways? We haven’t even figured that out and you rush to the assumption we should. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness? Mowing the lawn? Brushing your teeth? Shoving food in mouth? Reading about philosophy? Support all the sum activities of the circular logic of what we do?

I will die, whether I comply with the dictates or not - that’s the reality of being. Compliance/non-compliance changes the overall arrangement or relational structures of being, not the limits. — Possibility

No this is taking the point out of context. Rather the compliance is how we live when we are not dead. There can’t be non-compliance, lest death. Because we die eventually doesn’t negate how living works when still alive. Willy Wonkas Forced Game is also invariable to social relations…it is the same general thing…communism, capitalism, hunting gathering whatever.

Let's say I am Willy Wonka..
I have created this world and will force others to enter it... My only rule is people have the options of either working at various occupations which I have lovingly created many varieties of, free-riding (which can only be done by a few and has to be done selectively lest one get caught, it is also considered no good in this world), or living day-to-day homelessly. The last option is a suicide pill if people don't like the arrangement. Is Willy Wonka moral? I mean he is giving many options for work, and even allowing you to test your luck at homelessness and free riding. Also, hey if you don't want to be in his arrangement, you can always kill yourself! See how beneficial and good I am to all my contestants? — schopenhauer1

Whatever social contingency you are brought into, that is the agenda you are dealt. The agenda, no matter the current social arrangement is the same for the individual who has to survive within it.

Besides being a bunch of word salad this is just ridiculous. You are making a whole bunch of logical errors. You conflate what something might be composed of for what it is. For example, we may be just strings or subatomic particles and forces, that doesn’t mean that this, I’m not a body and mind because the “real bits” are “really” these smaller components. Same with the idea of social learning and cultural change. Just because “we” are part of a changing social arrangement or dynamic or that we learn by social means largely, doesn’t mean there is no individual whereby no one actually is doing the thinking, decision-making, who feels, who is the person writing this right now.

Don’t confuse the mechanisms for the phenomenon itself. That is something akin to or a kind of genetic fallacy.

But it does go together. Lack - as an awareness of feeling I don’t have something - entails EITHER an expectation that I should have it - that there is a wholeness to be had as an ‘individual’ existence, OR an awareness that this feeling is false, and that ‘individuality’ as a whole concept is an illusion. So, which is it? — Possibility

This is a false dichotomy.. so I don't buy the straw man you are knocking down.

I’m not denying the situatedness, only your claim of our incapacity in relation to it. — Possibility

Is this a justification for birthing more people? No. Because the agenda is real.

When we understand how to counteract its effects, we’re no longer ‘slaves’ to it - it only appears that we are. Once we understand how to simulate the effects of gravity in situations where it’s lacking, then we won’t be bound by it. — Possibility

So I think you are missing my point completely. Did. you. read. the. Willy. Wonka. discussion? The reason I ask, is that is basically my start with this particular argument we are having. There are options, but on closer inspection, those options are much more limited.. For example, I can't not comply with the dictates of life because I will die.. We are bound to a certain extent to the realities we are born into. The capacity for change or variety doesn't negate the boundaries that we are born into as humans. Don't sugar coat the picture. Don't romanticize it. Don't try to sublimate it. Certainly don't try to obfuscate it.

Schopenhauer recognised the egoistic ‘individual’ as illusion, and saw interconnectedness or compassion, aesthetic contemplation and asceticism as ways to relate this world as representation (what appears to be) with the world as will (how to be). It is in these temporary, will-less states, free from striving and suffering, that we can perceive the potential of this world as will, and the way to be laid out before us. We then simply need the courage and understanding to choose that way despite the striving and suffering of what life appears to be. Easier said than done, granted. Still, the way isn’t hidden from us, and we’re not entirely incapable of following it. — Possibility

Right right, be an ascetic monk/saint whatever. I admire Schopenhauer and agree with him on his general evaluation, but I said right in the OP this:

So what is one to do? If suicide isn't a real option, there is only the perpetual cycle. The illusion is that it can be broken. Schopenhauer deigned freedom by asceticism. That was a nice consolation-hope to provide, but it's simply training the mind to live with the existential striving-after more easily. That is all- a mental technique. It is not a metaphysical escape hatch. We are stuck until we are not. — schopenhauer1

So no, there is no where to go, nothing to do, nothing to see, nothing to be. But ironically, that includes the achievement of "no-thingness" of the whole ascetic enterprise, which I question as anything that is real or achievable or even necessary. Schopenhauer was an ardent platonist (infused with Kantian concepts). That is, there are some "grades" of "being" beyond the material. That brings up a whole other discussion on what "gnosis" is in ancient Platonic thinking, etc. He had ideas of "Ideas" that are somehow existent "beyond" material reality.. in the realm of pure Idea/form.. and that one can "access" this in some way through acts of will-lessness like "art", "compassion", and "ascetic practice". Yet, the whole scheme of "higher reality" I question.. As much an admirer I am oh Schopenhauer, it doesn't mean I think he is beyond questioning. He thought long and hard about the most important things (human condition, existential stuff, etc.) but this doesn't mean he is absolutely correct in all his conclusions.

In this case, I think he was too optimistic, oddly enough.. That Plato for him allowed an "escape hatch" whereby we can get "true glimpses" of some other "sublime reality".. if only temporary.. and that meditation and asceticism somehow will bring about even more "sublime glimpses" and for the ascetic who goes all the way (suicide via starvation?) they have achieved the ultimate escape.. Buddhist-parallels for sure. But this does not mean that this conception of "true glimpses" are correct. They seem to me to be romanticized ideas of feelings we get when we encounter certain things.. We might feel awe or a sense of amazement looking at something, or listening to something.. We might feel a sense of sincere compassion with someone's suffering, and we might have a sense of our own constant desires by meditation techniques.. But these I believe are not somehow connected through a higher gnosis of "will-lessness". They are just discrete feelings that are part of our reactions to various concepts and stimuli.. I don't give them any more divine status beyond that.

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

While these are good points, I think that the dissatisfactory nature of being is providing the why as to why the realities don't met the ideals. Rather, it was never going to be ideal. It was always set up for dissatisfaction from the start. In fact, our very being born itself was a result of dissatisfaction of a human not born previously, or perhaps a night of passion, again, drives of dissatisfaction pleasure not had now leads to a whole lifetime of dissatisfaction, and it continues.

We survive by manipulating tools and passing on these technologies through storage of this information through cultural means via language... Language itself applied with the general ape learning processes our ancestors inherited being the mechanism by which we can abstract concepts to make tools in the first place.. But somehow this confers that because of novel tricks (artistic genius, technological innovations, complexity itself in all our processes of social arrangements and how we interact with the environment), there is meaning in this beyond the dissatisfaction. Don't get tricked by the accidental and look at the essential nature.

How we can be is not bound by what life appears to be at any point in time, pessimistic or not. This applies to the moment we die as much as any other. — Possibility

Again, you either are not addressing or are failing to see how we are bound by the situatedness of historical contingency, physics, and socioeconomic realities. Unless or until you address that, we don't have much to talk about. I am not denying change happens in the context of these boundaries.. but that doesn't really mean much for my argument. Rather, it is the fact that our dissatisfaction-nature creates, manifested in the human animal as a historically-grounded, socioeconomic contextualized being, must do X, Y, Z, to survive (comply) or die.. Simple as that. You can pretend otherwise, you can speak soliloquies on whatever, but what you are doing now, after you get off this forum, and just about anything else you do is bound by these conditions.

What people are calling 'subjective' is an area of lived experience that is evaluative. It encompasses desire and desirability, preference, morality, and whatever is 'what one makes' of 'what is'. So in order to evaluate life, one needs life, and as your intuition seems to be telling you, in order to evaluate non-existence, one needs to experience non-existence. The latter is not possible, and to me, this makes the former also impossible. One can not unreasonably prefer pizza to cheese on toast if one has experienced both, but to prefer non-existence to existence... ??? Ask anyone who has died which they prefer, the living cannot know. Or just wait 'til you attain this status yourself, and then decide. — unenlightened

Not necessarily so..

Procreation gives us the unique perspective of someone living making a decision on behalf of someone else.. If we know suffering exists, we can prevent yet another person from suffering. From the perspective of the already living, this evaluation can take place.

If the universe had 0 sentient beings on it.. Nothing to no one.. No harm, no foul as a state of affairs in the universe.

If the universe had sentient beings that can evaluate that there are negatives of the world, and indeed can and are experiencing them, one can say harm and foul is part of the state of affairs in the universe. That is to say we assume that states of affairs persist without sentience knowing it.

Also one doesn't "experience" non-existence. That word doesn't go with that state. Non-existence is never "experienced".

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

Look at the quote again..

If, raised by the power of the mind, a man relinquishes the common way of looking at things, gives up tracing, under the guidance of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason, their relations to each other, the final goal of which is always a relation to his own will; if he thus ceases to consider the where, the when, the why, and the whither of things, and looks simply and solely at the what — schopenhauer1

So he is saying the contemplative of art is relinquishing the common way of looking at things, which he qualifies as giving up tracing the relations of the forms of principle of sufficient reason... Explaining this as ceasing to consider the "where, the when, the why, and the whither of things" and looks simply and solely at the what.

I think part of the problem is that you're simultaneously holding onto two theories/philosophies which are mutually exclusive. Namely, one the one hand, Schopenhauerian pessimism and on the other, the Theory of Evolution. The two together make for a supertoxic mix.

From an evolutionary perspective, antinatalism is a dead end; antinatalists are evolutionary detritus, they cull themselves out of the gene pool, while evolution, and life, march on, ever on. Antinatalists who adhere to the ToE have no right to complain (or rebel). — baker

I don't view evolution quite so cut-and-dry in humans regarding procreation. Procreation becomes a choice, unlike eating food or going to the bathroom. It's something we can choose to carry on. It is simply cultural reinforcement and personal preferences that perpetuate it.

What are his ideas of great art? — skyblack

Am I doing your homework or something? Haha, look it up on Book 3! But I'll give you some quotes, but there are just too many comments to give a summary.. Basically music is the most potent art in reflecting being a sort of mirror of Will. Painting/sculptures and such should reflect the form of an object, and not have to be contemplated via a set of synthetic knowledge such as mythical allegories etc. it should simply reflect what it is seeing. Poetry however, can use allegory if it gets to the heart of the tragedy of will human nature or things of this nature.. There's just too much commentary to summarize it. Just read Book 3 of WWR.

Inward disposition, the predominance of knowing over willing, can produce this state under any circumstances. This is shown by those admirable Dutch artists who directed this purely objective perception to the most insignificant objects, and established a lasting monument of their objectivity and spiritual peace in their pictures of still life, which the aesthetic beholder does not look on without emotion; for they present to him the peaceful, still, frame of mind of the artist, free from will, which was needed to contemplate such insignificant things so objectively, to observe them so attentively, and to repeat this perception so intelligently; and as the picture enables the onlooker to participate in this state, his emotion is often increased by the contrast between it and the unquiet frame of mind, disturbed by vehement willing, in which he finds himself. In the same spirit, landscape- painters, and particularly Ruisdael, have often painted very insignificant country scenes, which produce the same effect even more agreeably.

Human form and expression are the most important objects of plastic art, and human action the most important object of poetry. Yet each thing has its own peculiar beauty, not only every organism which expresses itself in the unity of an individual being, but also everything unorganised and formless, and even every manufactured article. For all these reveal the Ideas through which the will objectifies itself at it lowest grades, they give, as it were, the deepest resounding bass-notes of nature. Gravity, rigidity, fluidity, light, and so forth, are the Ideas which express themselves in rocks, in buildings, in waters. Landscape-gardening or architecture can do no more than assist them to unfold their qualities distinctly, fully, and variously; they can only give them the opportunity of expressing themselves purely, so that they lend themselves to aesthetic contemplation and make it easier. Inferior buildings or ill-favoured localities, on the contrary, which nature has neglected or art has spoiled, perform this task in a very slight degree or not at all; yet even from them these universal, fundamental Ideas of nature cannot altogether disappear. To the careful observer they present themselves here also, and even bar buildings and the like are capable of being aesthetically considered; the Ideas of the most universal properties of their materials are still recognisable in them, only the artificial form which has been given them does not assist but hinders aesthetic contemplation. Manufactured articles also serve to express Ideas, only it is not the Idea of the manufactured article which speaks in them, but the Idea of the material to which this artificial form has been given. This may be very conveniently expressed in two words, in the language of the schoolmen, thus,—the manufactured article expresses the Idea of its forma substantialis, but not that of its forma accidentalis; the latter leads to no Idea, but only to a human conception of which it is the result. It is needless to say that by manufactured article no work of plastic art is meant. The schoolmen understand, in fact, by forma substantialis that which I call the grade of the objectification of will in a thing. We shall return immediately, when we treat of architecture, to the Idea of the material.

What the two arts we have spoken of accomplish for these lowest grades of the objectivity of will, is performed for the higher grades of vegetable nature by artistic horticulture. The landscape beauty of a scene consists, for the most part, in the multiplicity of natural objects which are present in it, and then in the fact that they are clearly separated, appear distinctly, and yet exhibit a fitting connection and alternation. These two conditions are assisted and promoted by landscape-gardening, but it has by no means such a mastery over its material as architecture, and therefore its effect is limited. The beauty with which it is concerned belongs almost exclusively to nature; it has done little for it; and, on the other hand, it can do little against unfavourable nature, and when nature works, not for it, but against it, its achievements are small.

The vegetable world offers itself everywhere for aesthetic enjoyment without the medium of art; but so far as it is an object of art, it belongs principally to landscape-painting; to the province of which all the rest of unconscious nature also belongs. In paintings of still life, and of mere architecture, ruins, interiors of churches, etc., the subjective side of aesthetic pleasure is predominant, i.e., our satisfaction does not lie principally in the direct comprehension of the represented Ideas, but rather in the subjective correlative of this comprehension, pure, will-less knowing.

If then, in accordance with what has been said, allegory in plastic and pictorial art is a mistaken effort, serving an end which is entirely foreign to art, it becomes quite unbearable when it leads so far astray that the representation of forced and violently introduced subtilties degenerates into absurdity. Such, for example, is a tortoise, to represent feminine seclusion; the downward glance of Nemesis into the drapery of her bosom, signifying that she can see into what is hidden; the explanation of Bellori that Hannibal Caracci represents voluptuousness clothed in a yellow robe, because he wishes to indicate that her lovers soon fade and become yellow as straw. If there is absolutely no connection between the representation and the conception signified by it, founded on subsumption under the concept, or association of Ideas; but the signs and the things signified are combined in a purely conventional manner, by positive, accidentally introduced laws; then I call this degenerate kind of allegory Symbolism. Thus the rose is the symbol of secrecy, the laurel is the symbol of fame, the palm is the symbol of peace, the scallop-shell is the symbol of pilgrimage, the cross is the symbol of the Christian religion. To this class also belongs all significance of mere colour, as yellow is the colour of falseness, and blue is the colour of fidelity. Such symbols may often be of use in life, but their value is foreign to art.

Allegory has an entirely different relation to poetry from that which it has to plastic and pictorial art, and although it is to be rejected in the latter, it is not only permissible, but very serviceable to the former. For in plastic and pictorial art it leads away from what is perceptibly given, the proper object of all art, to abstract thoughts; but in poetry the relation is reversed; for here what is directly given in words is the concept, and the first aim is to lead from this to the object of perception, the representation of which must be undertaken by the imagination of the hearer. If in plastic and pictorial art we are led from what is immediately given to something else, this must always be a conception, because here only the abstract cannot be given directly; but a conception must never be the source, and its communication must never be the end of a work of art. In poetry,

When now, in the particular case, such a relation is actually given, that is to say, when the composer has been able to express in the universal language of music the emotions of will which constitute the heart of an event, then the melody of the song, the music of the opera, is expressive. But the analogy discovered by the composer between the two must have proceeded from the direct knowledge of the nature of the world unknown to his reason, and must not be an imitation produced with conscious intention by means of conceptions, otherwise the music does not express the inner nature of the will itself, but merely gives an inadequate imitation of its phenomenon. All specially imitative music does this; for example, "The Seasons", by Haydn; also many passages of his "Creation", in which phenomena of the external world are directly imitated; also all battle-pieces. Such music is entirely to be rejected. — WWR Book 3 Quotes

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

So there is a problem that there is too much to quote! All of Book 3 of The World as Will and Representation can be referenced. But as a start, look at this quote from WWR:

If, raised by the power of the mind, a man relinquishes the common way of looking at things, gives up tracing, under the guidance of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason, their relations to each other, the final goal of which is always a relation to his own will; if he thus ceases to consider the where, the when, the why, and the whither of things, and looks simply and solely at the what; if, further, he does not allow abstract thought, the concepts of the reason, to take possession of his consciousness, but, instead of all this, gives the whole power of his mind to perception, sinks himself entirely in this, and lets his whole consciousness be filled with the quiet contemplation of the natural object actually present, whether a landscape, a tree, a mountain, a building, or whatever it may be; inasmuch as he loses himself in this object (to use a pregnant German idiom), i.e., forgets even his individuality, his will, and only continues to exist as the pure subject, the clear mirror of the object, so that it is as if the object alone were there, without any one to perceive it, and he can no longer separate the perceiver from the perception, but both have become one, because the whole consciousness is filled and occupied with one single sensuous picture; if thus the object has to such an extent passed out of all relation to something outside it, and the subject out of all relation to the will, then that which is so known is no longer the particular thing as such; but it is the Idea, the eternal form, the immediate objectivity of the will at this grade; and, therefore, he who is sunk in this perception is no longer individual, for in such perception the individual has lost himself; but he is pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of knowledge. This, which in itself is so remarkable (which I well know confirms the saying that originated with Thomas Paine, Du sublime au ridicule il n'y a qu'un pas), will by degrees become clearer and less surprising from what follows. It was this that was running in Spinoza's mind when he wrote: Meus aeterna est, quatenus res sub aeternitatis specie concipit (Eth. V. pr. 31, Schol.)[4] In such contemplation the particular thing becomes at once the Idea of its species, and the perceiving individual becomes pure subject of knowledge. The individual, as such, knows only particular things; the pure subject of knowledge knows only Ideas.

So let's analyze this...
There is the "common way of looking at things" that is based on "principle of sufficient reason" (cause/effect/time/space),

and then there is

"Whole power of mind to perception/whole consciousness filled with quiet contemplation of the object". Clear mirror of the object.. no longer separation between perceived and perceiver pure perception of eternal form..

In context, Schop was a variant of platonist mixed with Kant. He believed that this realm of the principle of sufficient reason is akin to the bottom of Plato's divided line.. It is the "corrupt" material world of time/space/cause/effect which is the "representation" or "presentation" that one's subjective will is creating for the person. The will's playground is the world as perceived by us in time/space/cause/effect. But it's the devil's playground because the person caught up in the presentation basically suffers dissatisfaction of a ceaseless need, even it is just to get away from boredom itself.. The pendulum swing of goals/base desires on one end and boredom with existence itself on the other..

Works of great art (he describes his idea of great art in detail), as well as natural beauty can in a sense "elicit" the reality above the divided line.. the one of forms. In other words, it captures the essential nature of the object, what it "really is" outside of time/space/cause/effect.. It elicits the sense not of just perceiving the forms but "knowing it" in some pure way.

Now you might ask how it is a) that there are really forms? How does this fit into his Willing system? It seems shoe-horned and b) How is the feeling elicited by art/nature any different than other forms of feeling coming from the world of Will?

These are two legitimate criticisms of Schopenhauer and perhaps fatal to the his project of shoe-horning Plato.. However, to be charitable we can look to Plato himself...

In Plato there are grades of knowing.. Gnosis I believe was akin to "knowing" the forms not just understanding them in a partial way using our discursive/intellectualized usual manner. It is in some sense not just thinking about, but actually feeling/knowing/becoming one with the form.. It is more than mere appearance and playing around with the ideas and abstractions.. It is "feeling it" in some way beyond that. So where all other forms of thought seem to only get at the thing through intellectualization or through ones desires.. this is kind of a backdoor way of actually getting at the thing.. But it is not through the usual way one would expect of intellectualizing or working your way there.. It must come through acts of will-less contemplation of the object that only natural forms or the genius artist can elicit..

That is the gist of it at least.

rather it’s AND — Possibility

Not really. Yes, we die, but it's one or the other at the same time. You either comply or you die. You will die eventually, but at that point, you no longer will be or have to be complying.

So, you’re saying that it’s possible to BE ‘complete and whole’, wanting for nothing as an individual human animal? Do you really think that’s true? Lack is a basic quality inherent to EVERY existence. Any feeling in relation to this is based on expectations with regard to ‘individuality’. — Possibility

Read it again in context. I was saying that to what you said here, somehow entailing lack with "individuality is false".. huh?

Lack is just an awareness that ‘individuality’ is false at any level of existence. — Possibility

I’m not looking for a way out, just a more useful description of ‘the way’, because it’s obvious that ‘comply or die’ is NOT it... — Possibility

Bullshit. You live in the situatedness of history, physics, socioeconomic reality. You can deny it, but I can deny gravity and that wouldn't mean jack shit on its truth.

Sure, but no one has said this is a matter for society. The question is, what are an individual's philosophical beliefs. It is unlikely there will ever be enough advocates of this approach to change the fundamental dynamic of an entire culture. Do you know of a society that has 'normalized' suicide (by this I am assuming you mean have made it a part of the culture) and what the effects of this have been? Or are you making a guess here? — Tom Storm

One might argue Buddhism and forms of intellectualized Hinduism are religious versions of philosophical pessimism. Pessimism is not about necessarily committing suicide. Camus' philosophy is bringing attention to meaning in an absurd world, a long tradition of questioning why we do anything at all. Philosophical pessimism is about recognizing the suffering and negatives of the world, and sees its inherent nature either in the world itself or in the human condition, itself. In other words, there nothing that expiates it.. no utopia, no magical formula of right living and political philosophy or mental exercise. As a movement, it wants this view to not be overlooked by the general population, downplayed, and forgotten. It doesn't want you to assume that you should have the decision to bring about other people's "having to deal with" into the world. It is the communal recognition of the suffering as a society so as to not manipulate others and force burdens onto them. It is giving the other side of production, work, and dealings with overcoming burdens and encountering dissatisfactions is a good thing, a necessary thing, a holy thing, or the right thing. We are not self-proclaimed prophets proclaiming yet more humans who "Must" encounter "life" and its various trials and tribulations, in the name of some supposedly deemed "goodness". At the end of the day, it does not want to continue the collateral damage of negative whilst proclaiming "It's for the good!" nay, it's for your good. Who says? Yes we are forced to work to survive, we are forced to comply with social standards to work, we are forced at the end of the day if we don't want slow or immediate death to our individual selves.

They'd still procreate on a non-divine/theological level. Sex is fun and a bigger population is generally a good thing. — Moses

Is a bigger population a good thing, necessarily? I hold the views of a philosophical pessimist.. life presents itself as a burden to be overcome daily. We are always at root, dissatisfied and must contend with our own dissatisfaction and to overcome them in our situatedness at any given time in a socio-cultural-economic-political context. On top of this inherent dissatisfaction are contingent harms that befall us based on circumstances...Procreation causes all this for yet another person. But not procreating prevents suffering, burden-overcoming, dissatisfaction, and all harms unto another person.

If no one procreates, no one loses. "Who" is missing out? No one.

I meant "everyone stopped procreating" not "no one"

You likely know this but this belief is in an opposition to Genesis and God's pronouncement that life/creation is good. Even if one's life is full of suffering life is still good. If I were an atheist I might/would likely agree with you here though. I think your position is plausible if we remove God. — Moses

Let me ask you this.. what would happen if everyone stopped procreating on some divine theological level?

We don’t need to be a slave to lack - we feel it, sure, but it doesn’t own us unless we let it. — Possibility

This I believe is just not true unless death. Comply or die. Anything besides immobility would be acting on it so de facto X would be acting on it, and it "owning us".

Lack is just an awareness that ‘individuality’ is false at any level of existence. — Possibility

No that doesn't go together. Lack is an awareness of a feeling of what one doesn't have at the moment. The fact that we are a social animal in order to meet needs is not entailed in that point, though it's entailed in being a human animal.

feigning completion in ‘community’ through isolation or ‘teamwork’ through exclusion, with the false notion that we might ‘individually’ appear to suffer less. Rearrangement isn’t about making lack ‘go away’, but about rendering it as a tool, instead of being led around by our own needs and wants as if they have ‘individual’ value to anyone but our ‘selves’. — Possibility

No context or examples so can't say anything one way or another what you are trying to say.

This, to me, is the voice of the agenda, the very cultural illusion we keep arranging to protect ourselves in fear of non-existence. — Possibility

I'm protecting nothing from non-existence. How am I doing so?

But perhaps our positive vs negative evaluation - this process to render, criticise, redesign and redevelop - is precisely how we’ve been evolving conceptual reality all along, together. Some of us are focused on rendering and criticising, and some of us on redesigning and redeveloping...:smile: — Possibility

Into what?? It is all the same, no matter what form. Your words have the appearance of meaning, but no context to chew into.

Give me a glimpse of a vision of what your recommendation how to live looks like? Start there. You give me something, I'll show you where it breaks down into the same. That will be this dialogue over and over. You clearly haven't found some way out.. You too are living in the situatedness as much as I am.. You can write here like you are a sage that knows a different way but you don't have one.

heir sin here is really just weakness and disobedience. It's very much "beatings will continue until morale improves." In this sense I see God kind of analogous to evolutionary reality. There are other times where he's more of a stern law giver. — Moses

Interesting analogy. If you don't comply with the dictates of a given society.. indeed you do get "beat down" because you aren't playing nicely with the setup. Life itself has its dictates (you must survive, get comfort when you can, entertainment). Too much rebellion and you are cast out and death ensues. The hidden defense though is simply to not procreate and continue the situation for others.. But apparently people love sacrificing others on the alter of selfishness and they need to see others go through the same. Sad really. All are petty gods of sorts then.

Nice..
My latest posts with @Possibility (still waiting for a response in last post), is that our dissatisfactions create for each other the de facto forced situation of having to at all comply with the agenda of a society (going to work, paying bills, anythign we do for survival and comfort and entertainment within a broader socioeconomic framework..in our society's case), because if we don't, we will die (through slow starvation and depredation or outright suicide). This inextricable nature of life makes it inescapable. There is no end-goal we can achieve here.. Only collective understanding of the dissatisfaction we are all brought into. There is no way out of it. Best not to bring people into it to also be forced to comply or die. That is misguided and potentially immoral to create this situation unto yet another.. To give someone else burdens of life, should be examined and we should all recognize the tragedy of the situation. Instead, we couch birth in terms of "hopes" and "what they will accomplish", "memories they will cherish" and the like.. If life was only this, there would be no problem. But there is always inescapable and significant collateral damage. This, I contend is dangerous because it hides/downplays the costs of birth.. The burdens (the overall dissatisfaction), that will be started upon another person to contend with.. The dictates of life that they will deal with, the contingent harms that are circumstantial but inevitable at various degrees and times..It's a political agenda (of living out life in a certain society) that is being forced unto yet another.. Who either must comply with it, or die a slow death (or kill themselves). This to me is misguided, and callous and disregarding other people's dignity that one feels they should make others endure it.

I basically lay out the stakes of life and being-born-in-the-first place in my profile:
Life has necessary and contingent suffering. Necessary suffering is often considered "Eastern", similar to how Buddhism defines it. That is to say it is a general dissatisfaction stemming from a general lack in what is present. Relief is temporary and unstable. If life was fully positive without this lack, it would be satisfactory without any needs or wants.

Contingent harms are the classic ones people think of. It is the physical harms, the emotional anguish, the annoyances great and small. It is the pandemics, the disasters, the daily grind of a tedious work day. It is the hunger we feel, and the pain of a stubbed toe. It is any negative harm. It is contingent as it is contextual in time/place, and situation. It is based on historical trajectories and situatedness. It is based on the "throwness" (in Existentialism terminology). It varies in individuals in varying amounts and intensity, but happens to everyone nonetheless.

Philosophical pessimism deals with the fact that life has negative value and thus examines the human condition understanding these features. It is similar to atheistic Gnosticism. We are exiled in a way. Antinatalism is often an ethical response to philosophical pessimism, but is not the same thing. Philosophical pessimism often goes with pessimistic dispositions but is also not the same thing. Technically, you can have an optimistic disposition hold claims of a philosophical pessimistic nature such that there is much suffering inherent in life, and can generally agree with such philosophers as Arthur Schopenhauer and their works regarding the striving of human existence and the struggles of negative experiences.

Philosophize This is a really nice series. Well presented and gives a nice overlay of different philosophical thoughts and works. — I like sushi

Yes I like that one and the The Partially Examined Life. Another good podcast. That one goes a little more in depth and tries to do a lot of deep dives in the primary sources.

I've never read his works in detail but can agree with the gist of some things.. For example this:

Immortality projects are one way that people manage death anxiety. Some people, however, will engage in hedonic pursuits like drugs, alcohol, and entertainment to escape their death anxiety—often to compensate for a lack of “heroism” or culturally-based self-esteem—a lack of contribution to the “immortality project”.[4] Others will try to manage the terror of death by “tranquilizing themselves with the trivial” i.e. strongly focusing on trivial matters and exaggerating their importance — often through busyness and frenetic activity. Becker describes the current prevalence of hedonism and triviality as a result of the downfall of religious worldviews such as Christianity that could take “slaves, cripples... imbeciles... the simple and the mighty” and allow them all to accept their animal nature in the context of a spiritual reality and an afterlife.[5] — The Denial of Death WIki

I'd have to read more to be convinced we are in a perpetual "denial of death". Rather, I still think Schop's idea of constant dissatisfaction is at the root of things mainly. But I really like Becker's phrasing "tranqualizing themselves with the trivial". Talk about most of modern workaday and home life!

But again, all stemming from dissatisfaction.. A basic feature of the sentient being. Lacking can be another word for it. Survival-habits can take basic drives (hunger), but then for humans it takes on the form of the enculturation process for sustaining one's metabolism (aka working in an economic system ranging from hunting-gathering to what we see in the "modern"). Comfort-habits.. Wanting to not feel discomfort.. pain in your toe, too hot, too cold, not soft enough pillow, not hard enough bed, not hot enough water to shower, not cold enough water to drink, not clean enough house, not clean enough clothes, not pleasant smelling enough, too much smell... etc. etc. And of course, Entertainment-habits.. I'm bored, I'm going to fiddle around in the garden.. I am going to weed, read, smoke weed, plead, bead, knead, lead, etc. etc. etc. keep mind focused, in flow state, off of bare nothingness.. Mediation is entertainment too.. All of it. Dissatisfaction.

but nor is it entirely avoidable. — Possibility

In a future orientation, yes it can be.

Life IS a case of sacrifice to change suffering, either way. But you orchestrate the overall direction and depth of focus. — Possibility

I don't though. You seem to be overlooking the superstructures already in place. The situatedness of the current political, economic, and social arrangement. We went over this. I cannot just will whatever arrangement I want. I am always working on something that is a system that is not what I would have wanted.

You’re trying to predict an endgame, but in the end you’ll always come face-to-face with a contradiction. Have another think about your prediction: ‘everyone and no one needs help now’. Regardless of whether or not it makes sense, how is this a bad thing? — Possibility

Because the endgame is the only one. It is what Schopenhauer's thesis is (and my OP) from the start. That is, it is all dissatisfaction all the way down. It is at the heart of why we are here, why we need help, why there cannot be a utopia. And in my conception, why we can't meditate our way out.

Because the problem is that there are serious logical and structural errors in the Big Picture that we’re afraid to dismantle, and it has to do with how WE structure politics, money, potential, value and significance in relation to our desires and demands and wants and needs. — Possibility

Again, dissatisfaction rules everything. There is no way out. Not in theory, nor in practice. Hence consolation through communal recognition of the situation. Here is a thought experiment:

Scene 1:
"I want bread. I don't want just any generic bread, but a special kind that this store has"..

You go to the store... There is no bread. In fact, the whole shelf is missing bread. You go up to the employee and ask, "Excuse me sir/mam, do you know where I can find the bread?". The employee says, "Hey lady, you seem really nice, so I will tell you.. The bread is in the a box in the warehouse somewhere. I just didn't want to do shit today".. You leave confused and pissed at not getting your bread.

Now one part of you (the rebellious free spirit) is like, "intellectually yeah.. fuck that job.. fuck life's boundaries". The other part of you is like, "Fuck that employee, he's gotta do his job.. if everyone did this, nothing would get done.. which is code for (in this instance).. "Wah wah, my needs and wants will not get met if no one pitches in.

Scene 2:
"I want a house, but I don't want to pay the mortgage"..
Months go by and a bank calls you:
"Excuse sir/mam, we are notifying you of your delinquency in paying the mortgage.."
You tell the bank.. "Hi sir/mam, you sound like a nice loan collector person, but with all due respect to your company.. FUCK OFF!!!"..
A couple more months go by and now they have a lean on your house and an officer enforcing it. You are essentially homeless.
One part of you is (the free spirited rebellious part) goes, "Yeah you tell em!!".
The other part goes, "That was stupid of you.. Now you are homeless and your needs and wants of shelter from the elements, and a place with comfortable surroundings is gone".

Scene 3:
The boss man and a few shitty coworkers harrass you for X, Y, Z..
You say, "You all can go fuck yourselves.. I quit!".
You have no money coming in.. You slowly lose any money you had. You are poor on the streets.
One part of you is, "Yeah free spirit and rebellion"..
The other part is, "That was stupid.. Now you can't pay for the goods and services you need and want".

In other words, all our needs and wants as a consumer, producer, are inextribly tied up in other people doing work. Work that you wouldn't do otherwise unless cohersion from your own needs and wants.. There is a "lack" at the bottom of things that we are all unfortunately a slave to. No rearrangement makes this go away..

Dissatisfaction is the rule.. It is the comply or die in one word. The social-economic-historical arrangement is simply how it is carried out. But the core is still there, putting a proverbial gun to our heads. Cultural mores, expectations, and are simply epiphenomenal social "memes" that simply make it easier to accept the situation. Nothing more.

All of this implicit and inherent forms of dissatisfaction aren’t even touching on the contingent suffering off all the harms that befall us while just contending with the inherent dissatisfaction.

which is all part of the human experience — Possibility

@baker@Possibility
How many times has this phrase been used to gloss over or justify human suffering? Repackage it so it is just inevitable. But it isn't.

And if we value a reduction in suffering overall more than the existence of any single being (which appears to be the essential argument of antinatalism), then we should be willing to endure a little more suffering ourselves, even risk our own death, rather than choose to ignore, isolate or exclude any longer. We just need to be honest with ourselves about this - that nothing we will ever do with our existence is worth more than what we do to reduce suffering for others. And if we’re still alive, then it means we haven’t done enough. — Possibility

So life should be a horror show of extreme sacrifice to reduce suffering.. Then we really really gotta double down on that prevention part...more antinatalism.

I know...this all seems rather extreme - but this is the argument of Schopenhauer and antinatalism, FULLY applied to human existence. And interestingly, it has Buddha at one extreme, and Jesus at the other. It’s fucking scary to take it this far, but this is basically what it’s saying - we’re just too frightened to apply it to this extreme, if we’re honest. This is why ‘the agenda’ persists - it’s our excuse, our safety net, our illusion, nothing more. And we can’t quite bring ourselves to dismantle it, even though we know it’s harmful. It’s not forced, it’s preferred. — Possibility

Yes Schopenhauer was about compassion to the extent of sacrifice. Lessening other people's suffering to a "saintly" extent. The problem is, without proper context it is just doing to do.. I can volunteer at charities all my waking life and give away all my belongings.. Now let's extend this to everyone in existence doing this.. Oh wait.. everyone and no one needs help now.. It is rearranging the chairs on the Titanic as an ethical end.. That doesn't make sense.

Rather, the context is that we were all brought here and have to deal in the first place. Ironically, religion, with all its mythos and bullshit had the function of reorienting people to existential context. Most people in a post-modern mindset only know the context of the small... little screens of discrete information or simply work/home contexts. The whole Big Picture is lost and given perfunctory anything. Yet the Big Picture is what I am advocating we are constantly aware of (to use one of your lauded words). The picture is We are Fucked and to recognize it.. Dark/existential humor is one way to deal with it.. But that's not enough.. It has to be taken to the conference room, the board room, the political sphere and beyond. In other words... We all love to laugh at dark humor until it's time for work or "something X must get done or Y will happen" (getting fired, products being made, output getting outputted.. losing a house).. Banks, and customers, and investors, and consumers, and owners.. need their flesh and they don't give a fuck if you think life is a burdensome whatever.. Our Desires and Demands and Wants and Needs fuck each other over and over.. Humor is lost.. time to put the "nose to the grindstone" and "self-actualize" and "develop one's skills, talents, and usefulness". In other words comply... There is no getting around it.. No Ultimate Compassion Theory that will drowned the situatedness of existence and historical contingency of human life out.

I think Cabrera's understanding of how we are always unethical by our very nature should even be taken into account.. In other words, again, no getting around it.. In a way Possibility, it is similar to your altruistic suicide:

Cabrera develops an ethical theory, negative ethics, that is informed by this phenomenological analysis. He argues that there has been an unwarranted prejudice in ethics against non-being, a view he calls "affirmativity". Because affirmative views take being as good, they always view things that threaten this hegemony as bad; particularly things like abstention from procreation or suicide. Cabrera criticizes affirmative ethics for asking how people should live without asking the radical question of whether people should live tout court. He argues that, because of the structural negativity of being, there is a fundamental "moral disqualification" of human beings due to the impossibility of nonharming and nonmanipulating others. Nonharming and nonmanipulating others is called by him the "Minimal Ethical Articulation" ("MEA"; previously translated into English as "Fundamental Ethical Articulation" and "FEA"). The MEA is violated by our structural "moral impediment", by the worldly discomforts – notably pain and discouragement – imposed on us that prevent us from acting ethically. Cabrera argues that an affirmative morality is a self-contradiction because it accepts the MEA and conceives a human existence that precludes the possibility of not-harming or not-manipulating others. Thus he believes that affirmative societies, through their politics, require the common suspension of the MEA to even function.

Cabrera's negative ethics is supposed to be a response to the negative structure of being, acutely aware of the morally disqualifying nature of being. Cabrera believes children are usually considered as mere aesthetic objects, are not created for their own sake but for the sake of their parents, and are thrown into a structurally negative life by the act of procreation. Procreation is, Cabrera argues, a harm and a supreme act of manipulation. He believes that the consistent application of normal moral concepts – like duty, virtue or respect – present in most affirmative moralities entails antinatalism. Cabrera also argues that a human being adopting negative ethics should not only abstain from procreation, but also should have a complete willingness for an ethical death, by immediate suspension of all personal projects in benefit of a political fight[5] or an altruistic suicide, when it becomes the least immoral course of action. — Julio Cabrera Wiki Article

Sufferings are not only natural, but also social: because human beings are put in a situation of scarce time and space to conduce their lives, they are constantly compelled to hurt the other’s projects with their own and to apart the others from attaining their own objectives. (Sartre’s phenomenological descriptions of human conflicts can be of benefit at this point). This I called “moral impediment": instead of saying that all human beings are "immoral", within a naturalized ontology it is more correct to say that they are all "morally impeded". The narrow space full of pain occupied by human beings has morally disqualifying effects, independently from the calculi of goods and harms presented by utilitarian thinkers.

Concerning the issue of procreation, the main reason for not to make people coming into being is not that, in the balance, "pain prevails over pleasure" (something that cannot be asserted in absolute terms given the usual uncertainty of the results in the Utilitarian calculus), but that coming into being means to put someone in the terminal structure of being, to give him or her a being which is in process of termination from the very beginning, independently of the contents of life, a process monotonously characterized by friction, decadence and conflict.

Procreation is morally problematic in the strict measure that we know perfectly well, before birth, that all these natural and social sufferings will inevitably happen to our sons or daughters, even when we do not know if they will like to study English or live in Brazil or eat chocolates or play chess.

To come into being is to be ontologically impoverished, sensibly affected and ethically blocked: to be alive is a fight against everything and everybody, trying all the time to escape from suffering, failure and injustice. This strongly suggests that the true reason for making someone to come into being is never for the person’s own sake, but always for the interest of his/her progenitors, in a clear attitude of manipulation. “Although the ontological manipulation of the offspring is absolutely inevitable, it is perfectly evitable not to bring him or her into being, and this is precisely which indicates the way for a morality of abstention…” (Critique of affirmative morality, page 61). — https://philosopherjuliocabrera.blogspot.com/2011/05/negative-ethics.html

I do know @_db had a whole blog article devoted to Cabrera I think. Maybe he can shed some light?

Leisure time is present for most animals, but the difference with humans seems to be our cosmological view (our ability to understand our physical space as ‘finite’). Maybe our recognition of our limitations is what causes an attitude of ‘striving’ (beyond basic biological functions including mating and reproduction)? — I like sushi

Humans can self-reflect.. We know we are bored. Animals seem to have a more "be in the present" that we can almost never have due to the nature of our self-reflection and ability to at will look to the past, plan for the future, and knowingly do this.

Then there is the relation of ‘mindfulness’ and ‘boredom’. The act of ‘mindfulness’ as a meditative technique is interesting here as it is not about ‘striving’ for a goal, nor is it really ‘boredom’. This technique is more or less like boredom in that it is a place where a new perspective appears from the unconscious. — I like sushi

Again, isn't it interesting we are in a position where we feel we have to do things like "mindfulness"? There must be an existential problem if we have to do something like mindfulness to fix it. Again, going back to the Schopenhauerian idea of not able to "be", at least in this case, naturally without a bunch of techniques we must try (or try without trying.. don't get caught up Eastern semantics please :roll:).

The main issue I have personally with how you word our position is with the terms ‘existence’ and ‘living’ perhaps? As I said previously, what you seem to frame as ‘boredom’ I call mere ‘existence’ - a disconnection from ‘living a life’. This is one reason I am not a big fan of buddhism as it seems more or less like an easy ‘escape’ from life ironically. — I like sushi

No, existential boredom in this case means the motivation for why we need to do anything and can't just exist qua existing. We can't just be, but must adjust. Survival, comfort, entertainment.

Anyway, it is complex topic so pick through what you can and offer up any of your views if you wish. — I like sushi

Okie dokie. Hopefully some of those answers help.