Hallmark belief of a religious cult. — Lionino

Like the Cult of the Grinning Martyrs?

For this reason I don’t think Utopia is possible as life is about opposites ying and yang otherwise it would just be all yang and without ying. All black or all white. But what do you think ? — kindred

As long as suffering exists, life itself is a questionable endeavor- hence the Pessimists (and antinatalists) position. You will find no other philosophy so reviled, misunderstood, and scorned, yet still true.

What is questionable is wanting to continue suffering and calling it good and most perplexingly, necessary. All the ethical talk after this claim is just excuses. What are the implications if this world cannot in theory, be a utopia, let alone in practice? The best people got is variations of “no pain, no gain”. Knowing how it works doesn’t confer any more goodness to it. It’s simply coping, sometimes by excusing, but it shouldn’t be confused with having a legitimate justification. Shit still smells bad even if it’s put in the context of the necessary part of eating. The fact that shit helps grow food, doesn’t dismiss that it causes other problems like disease, etc. Knowing context doesn’t change the facts on the ground. It just reminds me of the aliens trying to convince you that everything is ok, and that they are trying to cook FOR you, not actually cook you. As long as you get tricked just enough for long enough to continue and even procreate, it’s working just enough for long enough for its continuation.

That we're wrong. That's baked into the description, really. If God's morals differ from ours, we are necessarily wrong. — AmadeusD

So I guess it’s the supposition. What if a god likes seeing his subjects navigate various forms if suffering like a game? From the human pov, that could be questionable. Is something good because the gods will it or the gods will it because it’s good? If X is not X then something is off perhaps.

f course god is capable of creating a universe (or at least a planet) without suffering yet how could you appreciate the beauty of it. If all you tasted is milk and honey how could you truly appreciate that compared to starvation? — kindred

Then back to my points earlier about a god that can’t create a universe where joy and no suffering exist. God wants this universe to have suffering. And he could make a universe without it. That’s all the info you need.

Utopian society is possible. I don’t know, it may be but I bet it would be boring. — kindred

Not in a universe that was perfectly attuned such that being happy and not suffering wasn’t boring. Seems odd to trade boredom for suffering and not reconcile the two :chin:

Every citizen in such a utopia would be happy, there would be no suffering, no death, no injustice, no disease, no poverty, perfectly possible given God’s omnipotence. — kindred

Uh oh, then not all loving and all good :sad:

Yet such a society would be impoverished in other aspects for if they did not know what the opposites of happiness or what suffering or disease were such citizens would be ungrateful and they would lack the experience of ever having experienced sorrow or unhappiness. These are all palettes of human emotion: happiness sadness pain joy etc, without them the palette would be small indeed and unable to paint a human being in all aspects of existence.

Therefore whilst suffering is not necessary it’s needed for happiness to be appreciated. — kindred

Ah yes, but then we are back to two things:
1) god CANT create a universe where humans can have this knowledge without suffer

2) god is a sadist who wants to see his victims learn a lesson, very humanlike this god is :brow:

Think of this analogy, rain (a bad thing) is required for plants to grow. Without rain the plants would wither and die.

Joy then would not really be joy without pain and suffering because it would not be appreciated for what it is. — kindred

Right, that's how it works in this universe, let's say. But I am not arguing that this universe (at least for the sake of this argument) doesn't work like that. Rather, I am arguing why an a loving/perfect/powerful/knowing god would not create a universe that doesn't need suffering in order to "feel" the relief from suffering, or joy.

Arguably, even this conception of joy needs suffering is off. Schopenhauer proposed that joy/satisfaction/happiness is actually negative in nature. That is to say, it always works as simply a relief from the normal suffering of dissatisfaction. But this brings us far afield.

How would you know the concept of joy without suffering. How would you know what sunshine is without the rain, justice without injustice. These things don’t point to a sadistic god but to a creature that is simply beyond our discernment. — kindred

But if God was all loving and all knowing and all powerful, could he not create a universe whereby pure joy and satisfaction does not require his subjects to suffer? It seems a kind of weak tea to only have a universe work whereby suffering is necessary for joy. In fact, this is one of my main arguments against most forms of anti-pessimistic philosophy, but that's another thread..

An altogether unlimited God presents problems. We ask, "Well, why didn't God create a world without suffering? — BC

I think, BC, that this question reveals an even more disturbing question- what kind of god wants his creations to suffer?

This is where the Lovecraftian notion comes into play.. God's morals would have to be so far removed from what humans deem as moral, OR God would have to be so CLOSE to the whims of human sadistic glee, that it would be a disturbingly amoral God (from the perspective of anything considered normative ethics). If "Higher Morality" (God's morality) is so sadistically bad for its creatures, what does this say?

I'm not quite clear on why, in such a world, anyone would choose to not be a "US stooge", given that they all seem to be doing fine, while the alternative seems to be being targeted by coups and embroiled in wars. — Echarmion

Well, Nazism and Communism led to American hegemony. When Communism fell in the Soviet Union, you had Yugoslavian breakup, ethnic wars in Africa, communist or narco-capitalist nations in Latin America, the Middle Eastern mess, and the rise of China. What became of the Soviet Union became an oligopoly that then coalesced into neo-tzarism under the character of Vladimir Putin. So, if you want to call it being a "stooge" to be the better option out of Tzarism, Chinese Communism, or Political Islam, then go right ahead, but your case just strengthens why it's best to ally with the US over the rest.

But with Russia, this is totally natural and actually insignificant for those that want to see absolutely everything in the World just happening because of the evil US. But that's the repeated arguments for hundreds of pages now. — ssu

I mean I agree with all of this. I am not sure why a poster's hatred for the US and its inevitable hegemony after the Cold War would lead to rooting for Russian aggression. What's the end game for such a person? They want to see the rise of Russian hegemony to counter it? But why? What good would authoritarianism do, even if one disagreed with policies from the US. At some point, one must account that even if there are no "good guys", there are certainly "better guys", and Russia ain't that.

It is a fallacy to think that because the US made bad decisions like overthrowing Mosaddeq in the Cold War, THUS the current Iranian regime is fine and dandy because it represents anti-US interests. Only when the US makes the "right" decision (like freeing Western Europe from the Nazis) one can like them, but any bad decision makes them irreconcilably no good any more, and thus one must align with far worse actors on the world stage? Sounds like slightly sociopathic thinking, at the least schizophrenic. Certainly, it's not realistic if you are from a country that barely spends on military. In that case, put in or shut up, might be the most appropriate thing to say.

How could God NOT be anthropomorphic, anthropocentric, anthropic in all ways, since God is OUR creation? Even if we ditch the hairy thunderer in the sky and go for the elevated omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent all-loving God (which is some sort of wishful thinking on our part) God is still ours.

Even if a divinity actually exists. we evolved apes don't have anything remotely close to direct access to this divinity. We have to "make it up", which we have done several times over. — BC

Well you said the point I am making much more clearly, you keep doing that :D. :up: But yep, I hope is paying attention!

It is not about being happy or satisfied. It is about performing the duty. And it is not about humans, since animals, plants, and other species matter. — MoK

Why would God, all knowing, powerful, perfect being care about duty of his creation to himself? Seems again like a petty human trait :chin:. Odd, how God seems so human- almost like humans would invent something like this...

That is not God's duty to make the world the right place for living. It is our main duty. — MoK

Just curious, why would an all powerful god outsource that? And if the answer is he wants to see some puddly apes play out some vision, why would an all knowing god care to see this? Isn’t planning and carrying out one’s vision a very human like trait? Seems like the most powerful and all knowing thing would have no need for plans or need to be “happy or satisfied” that they are carried out or not. It all seems conveniently anthropocentric :chin:.

I think today's loss of independence started with end of the Cold War. That's when NATO and Europe's position with regards to the US fundamentally changed and Europe failed to notice (or noticed too late). — Tzeentch

I guess my point regarding the moves made in the 20th century is that sometimes being neutral or doing very little to increase spending, resources, and troops is the wrong policy. For example, not putting enough into defense prior to WW2 created a very weak and easily defeated Netherlands that was either going to remain under Nazi control or be saved by the Allied countries. Luckily it was the latter. But the position of low military spending relative to other European countries has remained, and thus it's only position is to be integrationist, not independent. It relies on the military support of others, and has no standing in regards to its hard power other than small support roles like it did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Granted, it’s a much smaller nation than other European countries, but then, there’s part of your answer. Whether it’s an excuse or just the reality, you can interpret in different ways.

Ooh this feels very much in the discussions of the Speculative Realists like Graham Harmon’s Object-Oriented Ontology:

Object-oriented ontology holds that objects are independent not only of other objects but also from the qualities they animate at any specific spatiotemporal location. Accordingly, objects cannot be exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects in theory or practice, meaning that the reality of objects is always ready-to-hand.[10] The retention by an object of reality in excess of any relation is known as withdrawal.[25] And since all objects are, in their fullness, partially withdrawn from one another, every relation is said to be an act of translation, meaning that no object can perfectly translate another object into its own nomenclature; Harman has referred to this as the "problem with paraphrase". — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology

I live in Europe/a NATO country. We're literally a vassal of the US, with our politcians being literal stooges for the US. There's nothing independent about my country. — Tzeentch

It would seem the Netherlands’ whole history would have had to be radically different in the 20th century for it to have a more powerful/independent position. Its neutrality in WW1 and it’s not increasing its military defense in the lead up to WW2 made it an easy target for the Nazis to take over and thus have the Americans and Allies liberate and thus be subordinate to to some extent in relying in its independence and defense, even more so after WW2 and the Soviet desire to increase its influence. Its path towards integration with Belgium, France, and Germany in the European Union has made it an integrationist nation. Being that it is surrounded by bigger nations, this makes sense. It also makes economic sense to combine forces on trade. Brexit for example, seems to have hurt the UK’s economy.

Which is fitting, because the child will have to navigate all of its adult life in a social environment that's different from the one in which their parents operate. — Vera Mont

Why the operation though? There is a book Conspiracy Against the Human Race. Humans are operatives in something else’s operation. It is a bit like how immigrants are encouraged to immigrate, even illegally, due to low birthrates by native born citizens. People are used to fulfill roles of standard followers- parents, government/economies, perhaps God in the theological Western sense of a powerful entity that needs people to follow his vision. Of course WHY any of these entities need standard-followers IN THE FIRST PLACE is circular logic. Standard bearers are needed to bear standards, you see. How can we have any standards if we don’t have their bearers!

I fear that your distinction might be missing the point. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I don't think I missed the point with the distinction. Rather, you are simplifying my point. It isn't JUST effort (like the Jersey Shore sweating it out for vanity), but for a connection to an aesthetic or mental union or understanding. Generally, this does take more effort (mentally, aesthetically), but it also aims at some view of reality that aims above and beyond that of mere physical pleasure or self-interest.

Of course, I don't believe that Platonic spin on things myself, but I am indulging the point of view of the Platonic Realist. You might get a sense of sublime, I don't think it means you are reaching any instantiated Form. In this sense, I don't agree with Schopenhauer's very Platonist view of Forms as laid out in The WWR. However, his notion of Will does have enormous cache. That is to say, there is something to the idea that engaging in certain activities "attunes" ones will by focusing it acutely, or its opposite, of "clearing" the mind, or even "filling it up" (experience of the sublime, letting the object take ahold of your view over and above the internal chatter).

As far as self-determination and its more goal-oriented form of "self-actualization", I see this as its own vanity. In that sense, can the saint, or the Ubermensch be vain in their attempts at such?

Also, in a Platonic idea of "Higher" and "Lower" if Goodness comes in various forms, then you can see this in gradations...

sex for fun < sex with lover | < love for lover (Eros) < love for friend (Philia) or family (Stroge) < saintly, love of Good itself, or God (agape)

Even in the sciences you can make a Platonic gradation...
Practical Science (applied physics, engineering, chemistry etc.), theoretical science (theoretical physics, etc.) > mathematics and logic > gnosis of the Form itself

Mind you (no pun intended), I don't believe in that shit, but I will indulge the notion for philosophical argument's sake.

I think that's partly the critique, but it can go in a number of directions. Partly the critique is that people are made unfree by hedonism, they are essentially chained to their appetites and conditioned passions à la A Brave New World. They never develop a capacity for self-determination. Huxley is a good example here, or for a (slightly) more religious angle you might consider C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man, particularly just the last, rather short chapter, which can be found here: here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed, there is a Platonic or even just Aristotlean notion to this. Anytime there is an idea of "Higher" and "Lower" pleasures, it seems to allude to a sort of "realist" notion of Good or at least one who has cultivated a virtuous life.

So in this view, clearly Einstein's insights into theoretical physics would be Higher.
Passively watching TV for 10 hours is Lower.

Masturbating to images of a lewd nature is Lower.
Sexual union with a significant other is Higher.

Figuring out the complexities of the human biochemical system to develop new drugs Higher.
Figuring out the best bet on a gambling app is Lower.

Reading Medieval philosophers on the notion of the Good is Higher.
Reading trashy romance or thrillers is Lower.

And we can think of various things here. But the point is that "Lower" seems to indicate something like purely physical, or low effort. They are too easy. Higher takes effort, is more aesthetic than physical, takes mental effort, and uses more than physical sensory systems.

Anyhow, the OP seems to dismiss any real belief in "goodness as such," as opposed to some sort of operationalization like "promoting pleasure," as the realm of religious fanatics. I don't think this is particularly accurate. And the common critique from this direction of existentialism and hedonism would tend to be:

A. That it ignores the risk of being ruled over by appetites, passions, and circumstance—that it ignores the freedom of the self over the self, and the unification of the self (as opposed to Plato and St. Paul's "civil war within the soul"); and

B. That it ends up being ultimately arbitrary. Value is "created" based on what? Why is becoming free to create one's values "good?" Why is authenticity "good?" What if someone is authentically a sadist, or thinks they are? Why shouldn't they deprive others of their freedom? The pragmatism of "live and let live," would of course only apply if one were not strong enough to overcome all rivals, and so it really can't be an answer to these questions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Good questions, but as you might have noticed, I did not embrace Existentialism either. Hedonism, Humanism, Economics as Religion (I made that up, but it's essentially hedonism without knowing it), and Existentialism are all critiqued, and instead Pessimism is what is proposed.

I do find it interesting that these are all veiled forms of superssessionism.. Let's look at some:

This isn't really "New Age." It's in First John: "ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν," generally rendered as "God is love." (God is also being itself, that "in which we live and move and have our being"—Book of Acts 17:28—and truly subsistent being, being where essence entails existence—Exodus 3:7-14.) — Count Timothy von Icarus

God is love from Book of John.. Arguably, John can be viewed in light of Marcion's notion that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, the creator god, was a demiurge of sorts who had a host of negative traits. It was Jesus and his more universal message from the Higher God that came to set the story straight and save from the material realm.

It was probably more popular that "infernalism," the doctrine of eternal punishment for sinners, in the first 300 years (this did not mean it was a majority opinion; majority opinion was that unrepentant sinners would simply cease to exist, or that all people would endure purgation and some would cease to exist to the extent they did not repent). In the Oriental Orthodox churches one finds matter of fact references to universal salvation until the 14th century. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Concepts of Hell are mainly from notions of Hades/Tartarus. The old notion of Sheol has little to do with purgation or sins.

Questions like the authorship of some Epistles are as old as Christian theology, showing up in Origen. In fact, because the Jewish and Christian Canon were still open people were particularly aware of how man's decisions effected tradition. — Count Timothy von Icarus

For sure, you can see these types of questions of authorship and authority in Dead Sea Scroll Sect, Josephus, and Philo.. And certainly people have questioned gospel authorship since their inception.

Likewise, visions of tradition as unfolding in history according to Divine Providence, but also shaped by the free volitions of creatures (man but also angels, and corrupt archons/principalities)—the idea that Plato was were he was, when he was to help with understanding revelation, or that Rome helped to bring Athens and Jerusalem together, and the general idea of historical synthesis driving on progress, all go back long before Hegel (Eusebius, St. Jerome, etc.). A big innovation of Christianity was to extend the cyclical philosophy of history dominant in antiquity into a spiral pattern progressing towards a teleological horizon. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a sort of supercessionism.. It can't be pure Jerusalem. Needs help from Plato to make sense of Judaic literature. Philo, for example spearheaded this. Paul took it in some directions, and Church Fathers completed the mixture. If we are going to throw out the native Judaic interpretations, let's go full hog and go with Marcion and the Gnostics, none of this middle ground stuff (The Israelite/Judaic stuff was legitimate but no longer, so fuck em). For the originators of the materials surrounding "Yahweh and his people", it was better to be ignored or chastised than superseded, hence the Gnostics were the least fatal. Paul and Church Fathers were deadly folks (Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus. Eusebius etc.). Supercessionism is deadly.

Arguably angels came into being either as a relic of the old Canaanite pantheon that got subsumed into lower beings, and/or influence from Persia during the Babylonian Exile. The Books of Daniel and Ezekiel for example, seem to be something relatively innovative, and there was a time between 200 BCE- 500 CE that angels predominated Jewish non-canonical literature, especially the characters of Enoch and Metatron, but "archangels" like Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael.

No, not at all. You can only reread my post until you stop seeing statements that are not there, it is clearly written, but I know it is not gonna happen. — Lionino

Dude bro, you said the most dismissive trivialized version of Pessimism I've seen in a while right here and I countered it. You said:

In fact, it is the people who actually went through great hardships and actual suffering that seem to have the most positive outlook on life. The "always kinda-depressed but not really" type seems to be an existence that occurs almost exclusively in upper middle-class urban settings. There is almost a role-play element to it:
"Oh no, my crush is sleeping with another guy! There are children in Africa starving! Time to read another Dostoyevsky novel."

Perhaps there is a neurological element to it. For someone who went through a great crisis, everyday life will often be a high. For those however who have dwelt forever in mundane mediocrity, life is like a constant barely-worse-than-average experience. — Lionino

Go F off then if you say you didn't say what I responded to in kind.

You are arguing as if you are in the Lounge. This thread should be merged into the antinatalism containment thread, because that is what it is. — Lionino

And there should be a thread for Nietzsche answers.. All answers that implicitly refer to NIetzschean "pain is gain" straight to that thread. Can we parse out your replies to those?

And are those moral standards higher (i.e. more stringent, more exacting, more rigorous) than the ones you set for yourself? — Vera Mont

Standards (aka ethics) are binding because of their rightness, not because the person espousing them follows them or not.

If practically, it sucks to teach someone whilst you yourself are a hypocrite, then yeah that indeed is pretty bad in a practical sense. It takes a sense of self-understanding on the child's part that might not be there to transcend the actions of the parent's actions and only listen to their ideals.

However, THAT this whole thing needs to be passed on, I question anyways. AS IF the torch has to be passed.

One doesn't need to remain dissatisfied with the prevalence of dissatisfaction; reducing dissatisfaction, however much or temporarily, cultivates degrees of 'satisfaction'. Schopenhaurean pessimism merely amounts to self-fulfilling immiseration (even though it aptly reflects an inescapable fact of (human) existence). — 180 Proof

Yes we've been over the notion of the philosophies of acceptance and denial. I don't see satisfaction-attaining as a matter of hypothetical imperatives cooked up by aphoristic wisdom. Even Schop had these in his Maxims. One can train before a game to get better at the game. It's the game I am looking at. Unlike an actual game, the contingencies involved and ability not to escape. And if you discuss suicide like Mainlander.. Again I quote a philosopher you also seem to like, Cioran:
The rejection of birth is nothing but the nostalgia for this time before time.
Only optimists commit suicide, optimists who no longer succeed at being optimists.

If you don't raise kids, you have no values to impart.
If you don't generate offspring but bring some up that were generated by other people, you do have to set standards of behaviour for them. For a parent, that's unavoidable. And to some extent, the standards are pre-set by the society in which they live, because nobody wants to nurture a child until puberty, just to watch them fall prey to a regime or neighbourhood inimical to differentness.
However, whether those standard are higher or lower than the parents hold themselves to depend on several variables.... possibly including the origin and early life of the children in question. — Vera Mont

So I guess what I am getting at is there is an implicit assumption in the idea of standard setting. Surely, children need standards. What are standards but practical ethics by which to live by in order to function well. This would be akin to Aristotle's Golden Mean perhaps if taken to an extremely abstract level. "Don't pollute the body so you can be healthy and happy." "Share when possible, but don't necessarily do so much you go poor". "Help the old lady across the street, but you don't have to help every person you meet", etc. Cool cool. Even if YOU don't do that, you want that for others. But THERE is the point- WANTING OTHERS.. There belies the inherent tension. What is it that we WANT OTHERS to carry out anything, standards, work, etc.?

I have no need for people to follow standards, but I create people and now they follow standards. But why do you create people that follow standards? Because people need to be here TO follow standards? Because people need to be here.. for what? It's a built in pyramid scheme.. I create standards for my participants to meet because I WANT THEM TO!!

I think the responses were already in hand before the objections were read. — Leontiskos

If you are referring to how Linino responded, it seems so yes.

I think you have an established conclusion that you want to achieve no matter what. — Lionino

We are all established conclusions because we had no say in it brotha ;). The choice to not even have to exit is not a choice. As Cioran put it:

The rejection of birth is nothing but the nostalgia for this time before time. — E.M. Cioran

I never said suffering is confined to the middle-class. First you imply that I believe the suffering of the middle class is role-play, now that I think only the middle-class suffers. You are inputting two contradictory positions to me. — Lionino

By this I mean, that the middle class "faux suffers". Sorry I should be more specific on how you are misguided.

I never said that either. — Lionino

You imply that the non-upper...blah blah class suffers a certain way implying other classes don't (not even that they are incapable, just "don't" suffer exisitential ways, and that suffering is needed in the Nietzschean doesn't kill me make me stronger way and that other classes "really" suffer. :down:

Schopenhauer's pessimism teaches us to accept the reality of suffering in life — one can think of Buddhism's magga. We can take the acceptance of suffering in life one step further and use suffering instead as a weapon. — Lionino

It's actually the opposite of acceptance. It is not TOAISM or NIETZSCHEANISM or STOICISM which are philosophy of acceptance. It is, similar to Buddhism (so you got that right at least), a philosophy of DENIAL (of the Will). I have many posts on that distinction actually if you want me to direct you to better thinking on the matter.

Not at al. You are arguing against a strawman. A struggle may be completely private and yet empower the individual immensely. — Lionino

Or sometimes struggle is just a struggle, and is negative. It's not the outcome even, but that we struggle. But SADISM is saying that suffering is necessary for happiness, and you should LIKE IT because ACCEPTANCE. Coping mechanisms. Have your stories.. See Zapffe.

Good job simply restating your position. Naturally, I think you are wrong, and I think that those people should go lift heavy weights. — Lionino

Right. Glad to know you solved the problems of suffering with the gym, brah. Talk about middle class solutions.

Overall, your counterargument (starting from the second paragraph) seems to be that suffering exists across all social classes. Well, obviously. However my post is not about social class, it just used one as an example. Beyond that, there is no counterargument but a restatement of your position by "No, those people are actually sad because life really really sucks" and "Schopenhauer refutes that" — and perhaps he does, but you didn't. — Lionino

I defer to someone who thought about suffering. I explained the dissatisfaction inherent that is his main point. I don't need much more than that. I can explain other things but that is the core point- we are dissatisfied creatures, humans all the more for our self-reflective/deliberative capacities that compound the dissatisfaction.

but I don't think that most people lead lives that justify that. — Lionino

Ah yes, YOU are the arbiter of what people should be feeling about life.

The thing is, in reality life is hard and it can get worse -- like, nasty, brutish, and short. That's ground level reality. Over this reality we have endeavored to overlay various schemes to make it seem more meaningful; to keep people in line and at work; to justify the rule of whichever elite happens to be running things; to insure that enough of the right people reproduce abundantly, and so on and so forth.

We expend a great deal of scholarly labor on studying these overlays which cover the bare naked reality, from the ancient ones to yesterday's pronouncements. There is clear evidence that many people are ceasing to find some of the overlays, like religion, as compelling as they once did. Peak religiosity in the United States occurred in 1960, give or take. The hemorrhaging of church membership ensued as millions of members left the churches and never returned.

I just find a lot of what the more intellectual nattering classes chatter on about to be kind of beside the point. Maybe some of them should "get a life" as the saying goes.

But not you, schopenhauer1: you have to keep doing what you are doing! — BC

Excellent observations :D. Add to the nattering classes the Nietazscheans. There is a strand of optimism that thinks like this:

This reminds me of Aristophanes The Clouds where after attending Socrates "thinkery" a son argues with his father, who sent him there in order to learn how to argue his way out of his father's having to pay his gambling debts, that if it is right for a father to beat his son then it is right for a son to beat his father. The father's response is to burn the thinkery down. — Fooloso4

In this example I would question infinitum, the circular thinking in why a person needs to be taught to not smoke in the first place, taking the example from the OP. Why do people need to go through the rigamarole at all? You only need to teach the next generation if you think there needs to be a next generation to be taught. This of course isn't a given. You choose to have the next generation, so you cannot just say, "Because it happens". It is not the photosynthesis, or gravity we are discussing, but decisions, and values, and wants and "wanting to see a certain outcome". It is that outcome I am questioning.

I think this is correct and well put. :up: — Leontiskos

:down:

Nah, I actually answered that line of thinking quite handily. ;).

In fact, it is the people who actually went through great hardships and actual suffering that seem to have the most positive outlook on life. The "always kinda-depressed but not really" type seems to be an existence that occurs almost exclusively in upper middle-class urban settings. There is almost a role-play element to it:
"Oh no, my crush is sleeping with another guy! There are children in Africa starving! Time to read another Dostoyevsky novel."

Perhaps there is a neurological element to it. For someone who went through a great crisis, everyday life will often be a high. For those however who have dwelt forever in mundane mediocrity, life is like a constant barely-worse-than-average experience.

To those types: have you guys ever tried lifting heavy weights regularly? — Lionino

This argument fails on multiple levels, not only in its understanding of suffering but also in its attempt to trivialize the profound and universal nature of human dissatisfaction. The claim that real suffering leads to a more positive outlook, while the so-called "mundane" sufferings of the middle class are mere role-play, is a gross misrepresentation of the human condition.

To begin with, the notion that suffering is somehow confined to the middle class or that it’s a "middle class thing" is absurd and dangerously misleading. Suffering, in all its forms—whether it's the daily grind of a workday, the relentless dissatisfaction that Schopenhauer so accurately described, or the contingent miseries of life such as disasters, illness, or the loss of loved ones—is universal. It transcends class, culture, and background. Schopenhauer’s philosophy of pessimism lays bare the reality that life is a series of unfulfilled desires, where satisfaction is always fleeting, and suffering is inherent in existence itself. This dissatisfaction, this perpetual striving that leads to nothing but more striving, is not a middle-class affliction—it is the essence of human existence.

The idea that the working class doesn’t suffer, or suffers less than those in more privileged positions, is not only false but also a harmful stereotype. It perpetuates the myth that only those with the luxury of introspection or relative comfort experience existential angst. This is not the case. The working class faces its own unique forms of suffering—often harsh, relentless, and unforgiving. The daily struggle to make ends meet, the physical toll of labor, the anxiety of job insecurity, and the constant threat of financial ruin are all forms of suffering that are every bit as real and pervasive as any other. To suggest that these are not "real" forms of suffering, or that they somehow lead to a more positive outlook, is to ignore the reality of the human condition and the universality of dissatisfaction.

Moreover, the pseudo-Nietzschean rhetoric that underpins this argument—a misguided celebration of hardship as something that strengthens and elevates—is a superficial and ultimately flawed understanding of suffering. While Nietzsche’s ideas about the will to power and the overcoming of obstacles can be inspiring, they often get twisted into a macho, tough-guy narrative that ignores the deeper, more pervasive suffering that Schopenhauer so brilliantly articulated. Schopenhauer understood that suffering is not something that can be simply overcome or transformed into strength; it is the fundamental condition of life. The dissatisfaction that arises from unfulfilled desires, the endless cycle of wanting and never truly being satisfied—these are not challenges to be overcome but the very fabric of existence.

The argument also makes the mistake of trivializing the struggles of those who suffer in less dramatic or visible ways. Just because someone’s suffering doesn’t fit the conventional narrative of hardship doesn’t mean it’s any less real. The "always kinda-depressed" individual, the person who feels a constant sense of unease or dissatisfaction—these experiences are not mere role-play. They are manifestations of the very same universal dissatisfaction that Schopenhauer described. They are evidence of the inherent suffering that comes with being human, regardless of one’s class or circumstances.

This argument also falls into the trap of anecdotal evidence, using isolated examples to make sweeping generalizations about the nature of suffering. Just because some individuals may emerge from hardship with a positive outlook does not mean this is the universal outcome. In reality, suffering often leaves people scarred, disillusioned, and deeply affected. The idea that suffering is a test to be passed, rather than a fundamental part of existence, is a misunderstanding that Schopenhauer’s philosophy of pessimism powerfully refutes.

None of these motives determine the ethical upbringing of the resultant progeny. — Vera Mont

My point was that the very act of "upbringing" is a sort of ethic itself. No one existed beforehand to need to be brought up. Wants and desires lead to consequences for OTHERS. The birthrate is declining (luckily), not necessarily because people don't want to "force" lives unto others, but perhaps there is some of this couched in terms of "economics" (no resources to properly raise a child), and climate change (they don't want to bring another person who will suffer from or contribute to it). But perhaps it will finally just be because it is wrong to force others to simply "go through it", when it doesn't need to happen in the first place! That is, they don't want to force the various negatives of life unto another (moral reason, not lifestyle, or lack of resources).

That is to also say that, "bring up" a child is a (de facto) political act. One is to say, YOU deem that a child NEEDS to be brought up into this world. Somehow this is waved away as "natural" even though humans are not purely instinctual like other animals, and can deliberate on most things, including raising children in this world.

it seems to me that the flaws inherent in human beings will also be reflected in anything they chose to value. — Tom Storm

:up:

Some of the most hedonistic and violent criminals I have worked with were devoutly religious - Muslim and Christian. No value system, no matter how drenched in piety or virtue will necessarily support the common good or bring out the best in folks. — Tom Storm

Indeed, they see themselves perhaps in the very things they deem to keep "at bay". It's their own demons they are projecting, perhaps. There's a reason these preachers and politicians are caught with their pants down so many times... And of course nothing more needs to be said about suicide bombers, Jihadis, and AK-47 mystics, cult leaders, and influencers.

Everyone seems to want to distract themselves from the fact that life is hard and punctuated by suffering. Amongst all this pain, social cohesion and mutual support is only possible if large swathes of society share the same values. In this era of pluralism and tribalism, stability is increasingly tenuous as the era of big, shared stories (fictions) which used to bond us are going, going, gone.

Do you see a version of pessimism which can assist us in supporting human beings to promote a more positive culture? — Tom Storm

Good question. Yes, that's what I am presenting here. If we all SEE "what is the case", then we can perhaps be on the same page as to how to proceed.

1) We must see "what is the case" first:
a) This means, seeing the inherent and contingent forms of suffering of life.. The dissatisfied nature of the animal psyche, and the more magnified version of the human psyche with its degrees of freedom, choice, and self-reflection.
b) This means recognizing that the human is metaphorically "exiled" from the Garden of Eden. Unlike other animals, our degrees of freedom mean that we know we have choices, and deliberation, and we know that we know. Technically, we don't have to do anything, including life itself (suicide) or procreation. And this "seemingness" (at the least) of choice, means we don't necessarily move about unthinkingly by instinct, reflex, but by largely deliberative means. An extra burden.

2) We must proceed in the world with the recognition of "what is the case".
a) That means seeing other humans as fellow-sufferers. Imagine the power dynamics of survival. How would this look played out in various institutions of business management for example? In government? In homelife? For friends? For strangers? Follow it through...
b) Communities of catharsis. It would be easier to vent, complain, as a community. Instead of pretending that the next mountain hike, or the puttering in the garden, or House of God Worship session, or Netflix show is the answer, we understand what is going on here with each dissatisfied response and inherent lack.
c) Antinatalism.. The ultimate recognition that no one else should go through this, that it is not just/right to unnecessarily harm others, put them through the existence of suffering/harm/what is the case. That you enjoying a mountain hike or Netflix or gardening, or academic journal reading, or going over a paper on symbolic logic, thermodynamics, theoretical physics (this is for the PF crowd of course :)) or going to work and doing that project means someone else is forced into life. Follow the logic of the illogic of procreation and projecting one's own positive projects, whilst creating negative consequences for ANOTHER.

EDIT: You must understand, if you find the Pessimist framework I lay out as "Wrong", it doesn't matter, because you are ALREADY in the (de facto) optimist framework of the situatedness of the society your were PROCREATED into and are now following, and moving about in. The Pessimist is just saying that we should question THIS framework- the one we are de facto buying into, and to STOP the perpetuation of this framework. So if you are AGAINST the Pessimist framework, you are then for "anti-anti-current framework", which means YOU are advocating FOR something yourself (this framework, and its goodness/rightness/perpetuation, even unto others). So YOU have a position too, even if anti-anti-framework position... Game YES or Game NO, you still have a position, no matter what, about the game.

All I can say is you represent the common religionists view of things. What about this theory is compelling for you?

When I use compelling here, it is in two ways:
1) How is it personally compelling (easier answer)
2) How is it compelling based on the facts brought about by academia that religion was the slow evolution of ideas and the splicing together and reworking of various ideas into novel ones, playing out as "tradition" and "innovation" based on the tastes, cultures, and personalities that had a hand in creating these ideas.

And this leads to 3...

How can you justify 1 based on 2? And if you cannot, but it becomes a personal thing, how is it just not a coping idea that justifies any number of negative aspects of life (Because GOD WANTS IT, because GOD ALLOWS IT, because GOD IS TEACHING HIS LITTLE SUBJECTS A LESSON, because GOD WANTS TO CONNECT WITH THE LOWER REALMS).. it all sounds like excuses for a divine narcissist/sadist, no? It went from "Worship me correctly and I will bless you with X, Y, Z" and for Christian/Muslims it went to "Worship me correctly and I will not castigate you to eternal torture". Then to the "softer/gentler" God presumed in more Enlightened times is either more remote and redundant (Deism), or pantheism (redefine the universe and consciousness and totality as GOD..Fuzzy Wuzzy WOOO) or "He", is made more Neoplatonic (Medieval/Renaissance Christian mysticism or for Judaism Kabbalah, or for Islam forms of Sufism). Or, he is a New Age God, and he is LOVE, and we are HIM, and rehashing and warmed over Schopenhauer to make his idea of the UNITY and INDIVIDUATION into a fuzzy wuzzy concept and obfuscating the author of such ideas.. An author that they would think is too pessimistic, dark , cynical, instead of thanking the dark philosophy for providing them the tools to rework to their optimistic coping mechanism.

You must first ask yourself what it is the parent wants out of the child by procreating them in the first place? If it is to instill values so that they are carried out by someone else, what is that? Seems unnecessary except as a social experiment: "What would it look like to instill X into someone"? Sounds like a strange social experiment to play on someone else's behalf! And we call that kind of thinking just "Plain ole traditional wantin' rootin and tootin' procreate and raise a family!". But it is never questioned. Question that desire of the parent first, before anything else. It all lies there as to what and why we are wanting other people born to get out of life. There is a cruelness to the scheme (You're it! Pass it On! :scream:)

I'm sorry but this 'contrast' doesn't make sense to me. There is nothing simple about secularism as a philosophy. Leaving it here, thanks. — schopenhauer1

Looks like you quoted something I did not say, and then left the room with no real contribution except, "It's complex". Well yes, indeed. And as I said earlier, we do fetishize complexity such that the more complex it is, the more important/significant/meaningful it is, so it makes sense to leave the conversation saying "It's complex!" and then have the sense that you have deemed the situation more meaningful than what I am providing but then not contributing. Demonstrating and not telling sometimes is the case.

Philosophical pessimism is just another name for rebelling and failing to overcome the absurd. It is in fact a victory for the absurd. The only way to find peace, while staying alive, even through moments of despair, is to fully allow spirituality to deal with the existential question. — Tarskian

You seem to have no justification for your last claim. Religion fails as well. I am not saying religion provides THE meaning. The humanist can claim that their daily grind of economic and consumption activity whilst reading about scientific innovations in Scientific American or the Journals of X, Y, Z, and puttering in the garden and doting on the grandkids, and having sex with the wifey, and participating in community things, provides the meaning for them. I of course would dismantle this along with religion. The first part is to see what is the case, and then the next is to see what to do about it. As far as I see, any optimistic philosophy whether secular ore religious-based is obfuscating what is the case, and therefore should be reevaluated in the light of philosophical pessimism.

Today these secular valued are challenged from multiple directions. On the one hand there is the internal challenge of increasingly polarised societies where the de-humanisation of opponents is increasingly normalised. On the other hand there is the external challenge by international actors who explicitly reject "western" values both on secular (e.g. China) and religious grounds.

Will the humanist values be strong enough to weather this challenge without the added resilience that a spiritual belief in their ultimate value offers? — Echarmion

Good observations and question. If the question is one of meaning, what is the humanist offering on the table? I can definitely tell you though, religion's cosmic schemes are also flawed and can be dismantled, but humanism (the acceptance of the daily technological economy and the hope of science) seems hollow as well. All is vanity. There is a reason I provided Pessimism as the clear-sighted answers to all of this.

Yes. The argument - or fear of deteriorating morality if there is no appeal to a higher Being or the Word of God - has been going on ad nauseam. Unfortunately, deeply affecting e.g. American politics.
It will be interesting to see how things might change. God seems to be as entrenched as guns. — Amity

Indeed, I like your idea of FEAR of deteriorating morality. I'd like to contrast the "appeal to a higher Being or Word of God" to the "appeal to the WORKPLACE and ECONOMY". As that is simply the secular political answer to meaning. Government and the economy are not in the game of MEANING, but nevertheless, secularists in the Humanist/Economics as Religion category might implicitly think this is simply what life's meaning involves. At its core is a glaring USELESS aspect of "all is vanity". That is to say, "doing to do to do to do". You do all the things to make the food to eat to make the food to eat.. Now multiply that by trillions of market interactions, but for the same USELESS (in terms of meaning) circularity. Maintenance, VCR repair guides, the universal gears of a transmission.. Minutia Mongering doesn't replace MEANING.