I do not agree: I see capitalism as quite a patriarchal edifice, along with all the other major institutions. I shouldn't have to repeat that it's all been controlled almost exclusively by men, with very few exceptions. No one ever said that men have a problem exploiting other men. The fundamental power paradigm throughout history privileges male strength and aggression (duh!!) and subordinates the role of those who menstruate and carry babies for 9 months. Clearly menstruation and pregnancy are going to limit certain kinds of activities for limited periods of time, but what does that mean? That women can't reason? That they aren't as smart, if not more so? That they shouldn't be Pope or study Torah at a Yeshiva? No one ever talks about mens' moodiness like they do about women, but violent, aggressive men are extremely moody. Just a different kind of moodiness.

The question for me becomes, Would things have been any different had men and women shared equal power and voice throughout history? Can estrogen claim a place beside testosterone, or is that irrelevant? What about the dearth of estrogen in post-menopausal women?

I perceive many patriarchal characteristics in most public women: patriarchy is the master brain-washer. — uncanni

I see a lot of issues that have to be parsed out here:

1) How fundamentally different are women and men in terms of human thought-process and proneness to aggression? If it is fundamentally different, is it biological or social for most of it? Would a women's economy really be that much different than a man's? Is this binary division arbitrary or falsely correlated?

2) If women acted aggressively like a man, are they "patriarchal"? What if throughout history, all women acted like what is traditionally attributed to men when in power? Would that change things? Would that even be called patriarchy or would that just be called "an inclination for domination in power and control"?

Yes. They're lying to themselves. They'll come up with elaborate answers to avoid having to admit that life ain't that bad. It's all misdirection: smoke and mirrors. For example, he'll bring up that it's not easy to commit suicide. True, but then according to World Health Organisation statistics, approximately one million people commit suicide each year worldwide, which is about one death every 40 seconds or 3,000 per day. So lots of people can and do kill themselves. Every day. So even that is kind of misleading, given what he's arguing for. It would be alright to say that in an ordinary context, but not really when you're saying that life is so much worse than non-life. — S

Kind of an immoral way of trying to prove your point. I can see you standing there, waiting for the antinatalist to slit his wrists in front of you.. Then, turn to the crowd and say, "well that proves nothing really..just a blip of a statistic". Get the hell outta here.

Okay. That's fine. It just seems very counterintuitive to me when we're talking about something that tons of people don't even have a problem with. — Terrapin Station

This is actually why a lot of my posts are not straight-up arguments, but rather thought-pieces that invoke or conveys a certain understanding or feeling around the axioms at hand.. What we may be overlooking or not considering, etc.

So that's a statement. And I understand that you're making that statement. What I'm asking is the why. Why is that morally problematic? — Terrapin Station

It shouldn't be a surprise when I restate what I have stated before- ethics starts with axioms and sometimes you cannot go further back than that. Suffering is bad. Lacking is bad. Prevent and avoid suffering. Prevent and avoid lack. Preventing and avoiding suffering/lacking for a whole future life with no collateral damage to an actual person is good.

But, it has to be in some sense 'attainable' for anyone to even entertain it as being realistic? — Wallows

You never asked, is paradise unattainable. And no it isn't. Precisely the problem.

Causing someone to need something when they don't have to is morally problematic, even if the person is gracious or indifferent to the need they are being forced to need.

But, the difference here lays in stating a fact that stating life is inherently full of suffering and adversity, rather than pointing out that life without suffering would be preferable. Even the Buddhists would seemingly agree here to some extent. (Although, I've always treated the notion of pure bliss that is the cathartic state of being that is Nirvana as a sort of jump discontinuity in being itself)... A sort of metaphysical solipsism. — Wallows

What some posters also don't get is that a paradise is still a paradise, even if it is unobtainable. The question wasn't "Is paradise attainable', but "What is paradise?".

But, the difference here lays in stating a fact that stating life is inherently full of suffering and adversity, rather than pointing out that life without suffering would be preferable. — Wallows

Sure life without suffering is preferable but not actually the case, thus antinatalism. I disagree with those who want to promote "growth-through-adversity" (The Standard Model of Natalism) as good or necessary for another person to experience, when it is clear an alternative exists which is non-existence which has no harm and no one to be deprived of any good aspects.

But, would a life with suffering be worse-off than the idealistic notion of a life without suffering (Nirvana)?*

*Conversely also... — Wallows

What some posters don't see on here is that if it was a paradise, there wouldn't even be the harm of being bored "not suffering" :rofl:.

Isn't that put simply a gross overgeneralization? — Wallows

No. It is a gross generalization to assume that the Standard Model of growth-through-adversity is what is necessary to be experienced by anyone, period.

For most people, being hungry is not unpleasant, and it's nothing like a pain state. It's still unclear whether you're denying that, or whether you're saying that regardless, it's still a moral problem--in which case I'm still trying to figure out why it would be a moral problem when the people you're trying to white-knight aren't complaining/don't seem themselves as victims of any sort of moral transgression due to being hungry so that they eventually get off the couch and go to the refrigerator. — Terrapin Station

Again, as I've stated, Schopenhauer equates need with suffering as in one definition of it. Needing is not completion, and not being complete in this metaphysics is a state of suffering. This is structural in that it pervades all animal life. Not sure why you're not getting that part and keep going back to how one feels about it when it is definitional to suffering. However, it can be argued that attendant feelings of loss, pain, angst, frustration, and the like is very true when you DON'T fulfill certain needs and wants (hence why so many Eastern gurus emphasize being detached from achieving any particular desire or outcome). So there are two things going on related but not the same. However, you don't need the attendant feelings to have suffering be equated with an incomplete state of becoming. That is my take anyways.

But, life is fundamentally rife with disappointment and struggle, and if we assume that this is true regardless of fantastical or wishful thinking, then I suppose there is no other way to put it than state that the antinatalist simply demands too much from themselves or others in order to procreate. — Wallows

Maybe people don't demand enough when it comes to thinking about putting more people into the world.

If one were allowed to choose between a life with suffering (which can be called even a brute fact of existence), then I again suppose that most people would coffer a choice of no suffering. See the idealism here with respect to an existence in the "real" and "paradise" world? — Wallows

I would go one step further.. One can choose to have suffering but then turn it off at a whim. But people think that life is about growing through various experiences, even suffering. My argument against this is that to CREATE suffering for another, just so they can "feel good" about overcoming it, is more than odd, but perhaps not even moral. It certainly smacks of propaganda if we compare it to social pressures to do things you do not want to do.. If people keep saying to themselves, "No pain, no gain" and it comes from one's one's self even.. then little else needs to be done to ensure people can justify and even promote more suffering in order to overcome it and keep the whole thing going. Society has found its own slogans and patterns of thought for its own self-perpetuation, suffering and all. Thus, is it even the individual thinking this, or cues from a bigger institutional push to ensure people not only not avoid suffering, but enshrine it as an existential need.

How would a never-ending obtainment of wants as they are wanted not eventually lead to an excruciating boredom with existence - and, hence, to an extreme psychological pain? — javra

If it was paradise, then people would not get bored. Actually, if Schopenhauer was right, the fundamental existence of boredom is proof of (this non-paradise) life's inability to just "be". Hence he always states, "We are always becoming but never being). Pure just "being" would satisfy itself. Hence no desire for desire would even matter. Does this sound far-fetched? Because it is. Hence a fantasy.

It seems to me that the overcoming of strife is part and parcel of what makes life pleasurable. This includes everything from states of fun to the obtainment of a personal dignity that is of intrinsic value (iow, rather than the winning of popularity contests, type of thing, whose value to me is extrinsic). And strife devoid of some form and degree of suffering - at minimum, an uncertainty about suffering's future occurrence - is not something I find possible. — javra

So I call this idea of "growth-through-adversity" a Nietzschean one. It is almost the "Standard Model" for what many people want out of life, or want for their progeny. They want them to struggle to grow. My stock response to this is that it is a circular reasoning. Prior to birth, no one needed harm, yet somehow, the parent deems that a child must be procreated into the world and post-facto deal with suffering in order to get the pleasure of overcoming it. I don't buy this Standard Model. I think it is rather cruel actually to create the conditions for someone else to suffer so they can overcome it because the progenitors of that person deem this is necessary to create into the universe. In other words, a universe devoid of people growing-through-adversity, in this view is deemed as a worse off world, when in fact, I see it as creating suffering to overcoming it (for someone else) as indeed the worse off world.

Isn't this deviating from Schopenhauer and entering into Eastern belief structures? Specifically, those of actualizing Nirvana or Moksha. But I take it that you do interpret this too to be fantasy. I'm primarily asking because in a forced choice between actualizing Nirvana and actualizing an absence of all suffering via the noneixstence of all future life, I so far view the first to be less fantastical. — javra

I am not sure what you mean by being less fantastical, but the idea of Nirvana is not deviating from Schopenhauer. In fact, it aligns well with him since he very much agreed with Hindu ideas of Moksha and Buddhist Nirvana as salvations of sorts for the Will to diminish its constant state of desire. So quite the opposite actually.

Adversity means unpleasant or difficult. I guess I wouldn't choose to have anything that was simply unpleasant - but I certainly want difficult. Not all the time. But I don't want to lounge on a perfect sofa being taken care of all the time. I want challenges, and frankly, even some drama. — Coben

In some more abstract versions of a "paradise" everything would be a completeness or a nothingness such that you would not have any needs or wants whatsoever.. thus even the need for need for need wouldn't matter.

Well, that's just silly. If one were to have the capacity to tolerate adversity, and yet choose to live a life full of comfort, then I don't see how anyone would willingly choose to tolerate adversity. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? — Wallows

You said paradise..

More fundamentalism, eh? :roll: — Wallows

You can assert fundamentalism..but besides being contrary to popular opinion, there is not much force behind what you're labeling it. Also, I did say paradise can be choosing as much adversity as you want..testing it out and leaving it when be :). Besides the obvious argument that we really don't know what the child will encounter or be like (for contingent harms) prior to birth, one can say it is still fundamentalism to think that prevention of suffering, and not having someone else live out an agenda is also a form of fundamentalism. Clearly "something" about birth "needs" to take place in the "right circumstances".

Well, I was concerned with the circumstances that would allow procreation? A communist utopia? No predetermined defects? — Wallows

Ah.. If the world was a guaranteed paradise and paradise meant that you can tune it into as much pain as you wanted at any given time to "grow from it", but then can stop whenever you wanted, and you can sleep for any amount of time and wake up any given time and had no needs or wants other than what you wanted to need or want at any given time? You can choose to live in a universe like ours with slogans like "growth-through-adversity" but then stop it at a whim when you find that it is relatively sucky, or then go back to it if you find it fascinating? Sure..But that is pure fantasy, as is the notion of a paradise.

I'm more concerned about the circumstances that would allow one to procreate without adherence to eugenics or such rubbish? — Wallows

I'm not sure what that means. Antinatalism is not about eugenics. It's an equal opportunity no birth movement :lol: .

Is there a moderate version of antinatalism that can be applied here? — Wallows

Well, a "moderate" form might be something like not having children because of overpopulation- it is only contingent on global conditions. Another form might be the idea that only certain people should procreate and not others. However, most sensible antinatalists aren't on a rampage against parents or anything; they are trying to convey a reasoning for why it is moral to prevent suffering and not force others at the procreational decision level.

But if you also mean that antinatalism is a sort of tip of the iceberg for existential thought in general, then yes. What do we want others to get out of life? You can answer that any which way, but what is it about that, that a life time should be created for that? If it is just because.. existence is just good in and of itself. Well, that has to be justified for why someone else needs to experience existence. Many people go to work on Monday, go home, find some hobby, active (and much passive) pastime, and repeat. What is it about that cycle? Technology building? Learning? We have to seek hard why this is worth it for someone else to be born into other than lifestyle decisions for the procreators, another past time, cultural expectations, some sort of ultimate set of goods.. or even worse, just an abstract "the human experience" which then swaths over any actual reasoning for a vague concept. Struggling to find self-actualized fulfillment seems to be just an odd reason too.

What's more revealing is any reason to bring more people into the world is AT THE LEAST just as suspect as an antinatalist's reasons to NOT bring someone into the world. So perhaps a moderate version is someone on the fence. But of course an actual antinatalist would convey reasonings for why the scale is tipped for not bringing someone into the world.

Well, if I were to say, "God, any child can see how ridiculous and stupid that statement was. You are not even in the realm of sensible understanding." is that productive? I could say, "That doesn't seem to make sense if we take into account X, Y, Z". That second style seems more productive and is focusing on the issue at hand, not just trying to provoke and incite. That can go a long way in making things more pleasant all around.

I think you meant to write: "To pretend that there are not posters that are being demeaning and purposely antagonistic and not arguing in good faith is to overlook a lot of what is the case." so I will answer that. — Janus

:lol: Yes that was what I meant.

I'm not saying there are not posters of the kind you describe, but that they are a small minority and not characteristic of the forum. — Janus

I've seen some productive stuff and not so much.. The jury is out maybe... But as far as my experience, there's a lot of vitriol. The problem is people don't know how to regulate their message.

There are several levels of vitriol and venom going on...

Let's say you think you're a philosophy hot-shot. You've read the latest on Concepts, and Objects, and know a lot about statistical this, or biological that, language games this, or logical puzzle that, and symbolic logic this, mathematical axiom that...then a poster comes who is not speaking your style (level of grammar.. in the mind of the OP) of academese.. the amount of vitriol spurned on the intruder is unnecessarily venomous, to the point of hubris. It just doesn't warrant that. The best way to handle this for a conscientious person who encourages learning, is to present the poster in a private message some articles to read up on, if you don't think they are at the level YOU are at on that particular topic and to even elucidate a bit more on the general topics at hand that you want to focus on.. Of course, that would take patience and compassion- things lacking for most in an internet forum meant for quick posts. We are only in a "PHILOSOPHY FORUM" who needs to think about other people and ethical behavior in posting, right? But anyways, this is rarely done, even by the most "well-read". Yeah, am I "asking too much?" maybe.. but then again, it IS a philosophy forum where ethics is something that is relevant.

Then you have your everyday pisher/antogonistic poster who is trying to get a rise out of others. This is your basic troll that just wants to see their "opponent" or "interlocutor" pissed off at all costs. They are not arguing in good faith, but rather out of meanness and seeing the other person burn to the ground.

So, from the top down, I see a lot of both of these kinds of nasty behaviors. I am just telling it how I see it a lot of times.

People on these forums are on many different levels of philosophical understanding and competence in critical thinking, so there will be many threads which the more philosophically adept will not be interested in, as well as specialized threads which the generalists will not be interested in. — Janus

Sure, I'm fine with that.

Surely the purpose of participating is to learn, and to try to overcome our biases and humility dictates that we should learn from those who are more adept, if we can understand them. I welcome my ideas being challenged, and I hope I can find the humility to admit it when I am wrong. — Janus

Nothing wrong with that. My critique is the style mainly. To pretend that there are posters that are not being demeaning and purposely antagonistic and not arguing in good faith and basic decency is to overlook a lot of what is the case. If you think simply because someone argues a point you disagree with requires a vitriolic style of response, than I don't know what to say. The only thing I would think that warrants any sort of vitriol is straight up racism, bigotry, and personal attacks.

So I honestly haven't read any of uncannis previous posts, so I dint know you could be right about a few things but just from what i responded to, it makes sense. Perhaps thus protests too much.

The moderators, in allowing the tone to be set in such a way, perpetuate the kind of academic cruelty that never should be allowed. — uncanni

My guess is some mods do see this but dont have time to really teach people healthier discourse styles. My guess is only the egregious ones are simply banned or warned. Hard to make that distinction of when to step in.

I'm an academician and I've seen more than my share of pathetic ph.ds try to compensate for their sense of worthlessness or low self esteem by acting sadistically towards others. — uncanni

That rings very true as what could be or is happening here sadly.

This means that I am conscious of how others are employing the same word (or concept); I ask myself, Am I capable of hearing the different “intonations” that different people give to the same word/concept? This is the fundamental question Bakhtin asks, in the most fundamental philosophical sense: Can I listen to difference with tolerance?

schopenhauer1 Do you know Bakhtin? — uncanni

I haven't heard of him but from what you wrote, I can agree. A dialogue has to consider many aspects- how someone uses a concept, anticipation of counterargument, known issues and their rebuttals, etc. I actually dont mind people digging in and finding ways to defend and rebutt, though I see the benefit of free flowing dialectic as well, where the stance is completely neutral. What I do mind is ad homs, antagonisms, and the like that dont inform, just incite. The conversation always devolves unless the non antagonizer can keep the boat from completely capsizing. By the way, to quote someone, simply click and drag the posts text and then click the quote button which will ensure the quoted poster sees the text as a mention.

Yep this forum, even in it's original incarnation was never one that promoted healthy exchange. It's as if people here equate dbaggery with superior argumentation. There are exceptions but mainly demeaning antagonism is the norm sadly. People haven't grown from their college or grad pretentions perhaps. Dont know. That being said, this forums format and varying topics, along with some very good posts makes this better than others in the realm of philosophy.

I would say that scales are comparisons of properties. The comparison exists in our mind, but the propeties we compare are independent of our minds. With a perspective the world appears located relative to our eyes, but the world is not located relative to the eyes. This is because the senses provide information about the world relative to our bodies. — Harry Hindu

Right, so what scale do these properties subsist in-itself? Properties subsist, but not scale of these properties, you say. Then what does it mean to say the properties subsist without scale? Just, "it is what it is" sort of thing? That's not really satisfying. Properties aren't minds, so they don't subsist in their "own" scale. We always just "put" the scale in the equation, even when we say it is only something "relative" to a perceiver.

Trolling has become the rule rather than the exception for many people online. — uncanni

This should just be the slogan of all forums and comment sections. Instead of engaging in a respectful way, it is easy to simply antagonize and patronize for a lot of people who use these forums. People haven't learned how to disagree in a thoughtful manner. Thoughtful to them equates to patronizing. When I engage in it, it is usually because patronizing and antagonizing language is the only one they speak, so apparently that is how they listen.

I think this is relevant, because with regard to the question of future births, we then wouldn't be asking about the future well-being of nonexistent persons (no such thing as persons in this sense), but rather the experience of the always-already-existing universal Self. It then isn't much different in principle from considering your own personal future experience.

Supposing I am on the right track, how would this change how we consider arguments like Benatar's? It seems it would mean that it does make sense to say that we are possibly talking about the prevention of future joy for someone now living. — petrichor

It can be argued that Schopenhauer himself wasn't an antinatalist in the Benatar fashion. Rather, his was more of a lament than an ethical guideline. Being that existence is all Will, and is ceaseless, it can never be squelched in physiological terms, for similar reasons you bring up. There is a sort of panpsychism or monopsychism. Everything would be manifestations of Will. But at the same time, he did have a notion of individual salvation. If the Appearance was the manifestation of Will in its Fourfold Rooted objectification, all it would take is an Enlightened individual to extinguish this Appearance for some sort of calming of the Will. So there seems to be a bit of both in there.

As far as my own take, I can only postulate that individual selves exist along with animal beingness. Thus "coming into being" is a process of conception, gestation, awareness, and self-awareness- all aided through biological and social mechanisms and cues. Preventing a selfhood is preventing the "coming into being", which of course is preventing suffering.

At the least, antinatalism is providing a template to understand why we are continuing existence. Just stop to think about it. WHY are we perpetuating more people? I am not talking the dull, brute way nature fools us into it (sex feels good and this leads to procreation), but in a philosophically-informed way. What are we trying to do here perpetuating more people? People just don't consider this at all. It is even more existentially relevant than why continue living. It is rooted in the very questioning of ANY human existence, not just your own and thus implies much more about life itself.

@Coben @S @Wallows @Banno

There most definitely is deception from you. Otherwise you wouldn't say the incredibly misleading things that you do, in spite of the misleading nature of the statements being brought to your attention, like that it's all about the prevention of suffering. Again, that's like saying that the Disneyland proposition is all about going to Disneyland, and how much fun Disneyland is. Kids love Disneyland. That's like saying that the atomic bomb is like watching fireworks. "Ooooh... Ahhhhhh... Wooooh...". That's like saying that terminal cancer means time off work. "Woo hoo! Go cancer!". That's like saying being punched really hard in the nose will get rid of that itch. "Thanks, mate! That did the trick!". That's like saying that being stabbed to death means that you'll have a good excuse not to see your mother-in-law. That's like saying that it's alright that you broke your favourite pair of glasses (because I'm about to decapitate your head from your body, so you won't really need them).

Get the point yet, or should I keep going? — S

Ah, well as long as you know what's "best" for everyone, and being born and generally going along with it, I guess we can all agree, because clearly people stop to reflect about this issue enough to give any consideration to it. No sarcasm at all here.

I already stated that in order to know what scale the universe is, you'd have to compare it to something else. Scales are comparisons with other things.

Is the question you are asking more like, "Do comparisons (similarities and differences) exist independent of minds?" — Harry Hindu

Ok, in this context, scale is related with a point of view. The point of view of a human has a certain scale to it. We do not observe strings, we do not observe the universe as a whole. We have a human perspective which has its own scalar perception. Step outside of the human perception, what is the scale? Well, we probably just project our own scale onto this non-human world. What is the actual scale of something without the human perceiver?

The emergent scales are not primary. — PoeticUniverse

Why is this scale preferred over the other scales though? I'm not getting the necessary connection between primary and ultimate scale the universe subsists in.

That's all that's left, according to Rovelli, below all that's emergent. — PoeticUniverse

Ah I see what you mean now. But why is that the scale at which the universe subsists and not just a scale that we discovered or theorized as humans?

Convince through the deliberate deception involved in mis-selling a product. Yes, your agenda is much more noble and praiseworthy. — S

And there isn't deception and agendas being crammed down people to procreate and then get people through life to procreate some more.. No pain, no gain, strength-through-adversity, life is not worth living unless you suffer a little.. all part of what now? Not an agenda? Not propaganda to not rebel against that which keeps one suffering? Please.

Covariant quantum fields in no space and no time. That was easy! — PoeticUniverse

And why?

The asymmetry between the good of there being lots of people living worthwhile lives on the one hand, and the neutrality or badness of a planet devoid of life on the other. Got it. — S

Here is where you are off the mark. Neutrality (no badness here) of a devoid life matters not to no one. No eternal being is crying, no ghost babies are lamenting. Only you projecting.

Yes, to someone insanely removed from reality, that's all that matters. To everyone else, lots of other things matter. So much so that what you're saying will sound outrageous to them. — S

Yes, and this is about right ideas on the matter. Other things matter = agendas for people to follow. I don't doubt people who don't reflect much on it, just accept, identify, and cope with the agendas that are the given.

We've been over this and you failed to produce a valid response. You're guilty of what you accuse others of doing. You're guilty of forcing your agenda by only considering the prevention of suffering, rather than the prevention of joy and everything else. So it doesn't work. It's the fallacy of special pleading, also known as applying a double standard. — S

But we also went over how if no one is actually alive, preventing joy is neither good nor bad.

What are you talking about then? You've lost me. Forced to do what? No one is forced to do anything once born. Are you forgetting that life isn't a "game" that people are forced to "play"? People stop "playing" all the time, and no, that isn't a cue for you to go off on one about suicide. I'm only raising it as a refutation of your point about being forced, I'm not suggesting anything beyond that, and I don't want to hear all about your vaguely related thoughts on the matter yet again. — S

Forced to do all the things life entails when one is a functioning human in an enculturated setting. And yes, you know I will say that forcing someone to play and then saying that your only way out is violently ending your physical being is not right. I would also mention the starting and continuing comparison.

I think this has been true by more than one troller.. I mean poster today.

It's there in #5 - Messiah complex leads to martyrdom. — Banno

And having kids isn't a messiah complex? Oh, the "mission" to bring happy people into the world following the agendas of this or that. Procreation is force recruiting. At least antinatalists just try to convince.

By the way, for anyone who is interested, maybe @Coben and @Terrapin Station, here is a rudimentary understanding of Schopenhauer's concepts from Medium (never heard of it, just a cursory search really):

Beyond the world as we know it
Schopenhauer’s philosophical system was built on the work of Immanuel Kant, the great German philosopher of the Enlightenment. Like Kant, Schopenhauer believed our world had two contrasting aspects to it: total reality can be separated into what we can and can’t experience of it.
Firstly there is the “phenomenal” world (phenomenal meaning “what is experienced”). This is the world as ordered by our sense and as we experience it in space and time and according to the law of cause and effect. In short, the phenomenal world is everything we can feel, hear, perceive etc.
But what if we somehow had access to the world as it really is? What is outside our perception of the world, outside our senses and even outside of space and time and cause and effect? Schopenhauer calls it the “noumenal” aspect of the world (noumenal meaning “what is outside of experience”).
In short there is the universe in-itself and the universe for human beings. This is why Schopenhauer’s named his book The World as Will and Representation.
Schopenhauer believed that since our intellect imposes difference on the universe, the universe outside of our intellect must be an undifferentiated oneness.
The “phenomenal” world is things in space and time: trees, dust, people, sky, water. If we could ever step outside of ourselves (which we of course can’t), the “noumenal” world would be pure undifferentiated energy. All those trees, dust, people, sky and water and so on as a state of pure being.
The Will
This “energy” is what Schopenhauer called the “Will”. The philosopher reasoned that stuff happens, and as such something must be making it happen. By using a process of intuition, he deduced that we are nothing in essence but a set of desires and drives. Drives being as simple as our heartbeat, or the need to reproduce, and desires being our desire to stay alive or have sex.
You can extrapolate this out to animals and plants, and ultimately to inert matter. Everything in the universe is changing. Everything has tendencies, from the inertia of a comet in deep space, to the libido of a rock star.
Since it is outside of time, the Will is eternal, and if it is eternal it is purposeless.
The Will manifests itself in us as desire: desire to live on, desire to eat, drink, have sex and buy the latest iPhone. In the context of living beings Schopenhauer called it the “Will to Life”.
In a world bereft of meaning only desire drives human beings onwards, to procreate, to consume, to conquer and to accumulate. The blind, senseless force of the Will that drives the universe and is also driving through us, it allows us no respite from desire.
We may get a momentary release from dissatisfaction when we acquire something, but soon another desire will get back in the driving seat of our consciousness. As the great writer put it:
“Life therefore oscillates like a pendulum from right to left, suffering from boredom”
We are never truly fulfilled, according to Schopenhauer. “Suffering is the substance of all life” (to a greater or lesser extent, I would add), only death is a true escape.
Besides death, Schopenhauer thought that renouncing earthly things — in effect to renounce desire as much as possible — was the best way to ease the suffering of our unquenchable cravings.
Compassion
An important aspect of renunciation is compassion. Care for people and animals was important to Schopenhauer since there is no ultimate distinction between things. Everything and everybody is part of the noumenal “oneness” of the being. The philosopher agreed with the Buddhist idea that to harm other creatures is to ultimately harm ourselves.

The ethical ideas of Schopenhauer and Buddhism have a lot in common. (Photo by dorota dylka on Unsplash)
The similarities between the ethical ideas that Schopenhauer arrived at independently and Buddhist beliefs are clear. Asceticism is a common virtue among religions, but particularly Buddhism. The philosopher wrote:
“If I wished to take the results of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I should have to concede to Buddhism pre-eminence over the others. In any case, it must be a pleasure to me to see my doctrine in such close agreement with a religion that the majority of men on earth hold as their own.”
The person who acts with kindness is the person who knows the truth deep down: that in the grand scheme of things the distinction between living creatures is an illusion. If we act with compassion, we feel less separate and isolated, we feel connected in a way that dissolves our ego. That’s why we describe kind acts as “selfless”.
Schopenhauer was also outspoken for animal rights, a very rare attitude in the nineteenth century:
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”
Beauty and the Arts
Another temporary escape from desire, is the way that we find enjoyment in the arts and beauty. Pleasure in art, for Schopenhauer, engrossed us in the world as representation, while momentarily being oblivious to the world as Will. Art can also give us an intuitive and therefore deeper connection to the world than science or reason could.
Music was the highest form of art for Schopenhauer. Because it’s not “mimetic”, or a copy of anything else as, say, painting is, music depicts the will itself. As such, music is pure expression, a “true universal language” understood everywhere. Listening to music we may appreciate the Will without feeling the pain (desire or boredom) of its workings. The philosopher wrote:
“The composer reveals the innermost nature of the world, and expresses the profoundest wisdom, in a language that his reasoning faculty does not understand.” — The Power of Schopenhauer from www.medium.com