What's going awry with this kind of thinking is not that it's wrong, but rather that the lack of experienced payoff is being universalized. For some people, life really is this way. There is no experience of joy or pleasure in their lives. You eat to deal with hunger pains, and it seems for no other reason than that you may continue to experience hunger tomorrow. The issue is projecting this lack of payoff in your personal life onto everybody elses - universalizing it. I used to do the very same thing. At times I have been quite deeply depressed and suicidal, eating was nothing but a chore for me, food was unenjoyable. It seemed the world was just a blind process of suffering perpetuating itself, using human embodiment and all the misery that entails to further it's own existence. Suicide became a very serious consideration. But since I have become better, hunger doesn't seem like such a monumentally raw deal to experience the pleasures of eating, and the novelty of trying new foods. Neither view is wrong per se, the issue is when you project the very personal character of your own experience (are you experiencing a payoff? aren't you?) out onto the rest of the world. It's as if because you personally are not feeling joy from eating, and therefore all eating, for everybody in the world, is nothing but a chore to quell the pangs. There's two issues here. The fundamental unchangeable character of the world - the dissatisfaction that pervades everything, and the varied amounts of payoff each human gets from dealing with their needs and wants - the degree to which you can feel genuine pleasure and joy. The latter is what can be managed. You can't change the fundamental character of the world, but you can get alter and work on how much payoff you can get from dealing with it. At least in my own experience you can start experiencing the payoff again, and life isn't so bleak. — Inyenzi

So the Schopenhuaer metaphysical system brings up the point of what it is to be. According to his theory, to be is to will (to want, to desire). This is deemed as negative as there is lack and lacking is deemed as a deficiency in the system. This raises the question. What would a metaphysics of being be that is not will (desire or want)? It is almost unfathomable.

Oh screw it. I’ll delete this post.

It’s simply about entertaining the mind. The mind concentrating on purely existing with no distractios can’t maintain its state for long. The mind latched onto a creative endeavor looks for a flow state or at the least some activity to distract for the moment. This goes for young and old alike. The older tend to learn how to distract with less dramatic activity. The crossword puzzle, a good book...perhaps a couple cold beers, or scotch on the rocks. A nice movie night. Go to the theater, travel to less physically demanding destinations..unless you are the cool one who does mountain climbing in your 80s...

I guess @BlueBanana, what makes a life of full living? There are limits to behavior. We all have to sleep. We all need to have a means to goods and services or a way to survive. That usually means work. Work also depends a lot on luck. Job market, location, sometimes having to settle to make do with availability and location.

I don't see how one could find something satisfying other than from the position of having been unsatisfied? They seem to go together. We are restless, or we are resting, lively or lifeless, hungry or sated; comfortable or discomforted, etc. Call it all suffering, why? — unenlightened

The world is not what you make it.,both in terms of basic drives and in social-survival realities. To accept is to keep living. To deny is to suicide. Very interesting choice we are given.

You're, of course, free to adopt Schopenhauer's definition of suffering and equate a lot of things with suffering that have nothing to do with any common sense idea of what suffering means (e.g. pain, distress or hardship). Boredom doesn't come close. Striving for better things, reaching goals aren't suffering. The possible resulting search for something new after great achievements isn't hardship. Only an emotional pessimist will lower the bar for suffering to a level where taking a crap is an existential problem.

All willing springs from imagination. — Benkei

It still stands that this definition is a characterization of what is the case. We will because we cannot help it. It is in our nature as restless animals. The counterpoint to this would be that existence would be satisfying in and of itself without any needs- but that is not our world.

You still avoided the question, though I do appreciate the humor. However, the question of why new people need to exist in the first place to do projects is not really answered. What about doing more projects in the universe makes that something to value in and of itself? Why have it in the first place?

There is such a thing as human nature, and any political system that intends to succeed by dismissing the inherent characteristics of human beings is doomed to failure. We are somewhat plastic, somewhat malleable, somewhat educable, and so on. But we also have characteristic needs, without which we fail to flourish. — Bitter Crank

What is the need for more new humans to have more projects? Your premise is presumably that humans are inherently project-based. We like to achieve mid to long-term goals and continuously work towards X, Y, and Z. Also, presumably, you feel society should set up structures to influence and nurture these projects and engineer them towards productive goals and achievements. Productive here meaning, oh I don't know- more empirical research in the hard and social sciences, new products, increased art production, and more technology, let's say.

But the 10,000 foot view question is, why even make more people and thus more projects in the first place. Clearly you put an assumption that people need to be around to have projects to work towards? Why? It's just nifty?

There's no problem. All Schopenhauer did was lower the bar for what entails suffering to such an extent that everyday life is suddenly filled with it. In other words, Schopenhauer was a pussy. — Benkei

Or conversely.. we are suffering but accept it as a rite of passage of the human experience?

Perhaps you could clarify Schop's definition for us in simpler clearer words, if you feel that we are somehow obligated to limit discussion to his definitions. — Jake

"Us" "We"? Royal we? :razz:. So his definition was essentially laid out in the quote I used above when I provided the three Schop internet sources. That is to say desire comes from a lack of something- an already-at-hand deficiency that is in the equation and does not/cannot be extricated as animals who need to survive and find mind-engaging stimulation from the environment. Put more elegantly here
:

When Schopenhauer says that all life is suffering he means that all life, that is, everything that lives and strives, is filled with suffering. Life wants, and because its wants are mostly unfulfilled, it exists largely in a state of unfulfilled striving and deprivation. Schopenhauer says it thus:

All willing springs from lack, from deficiency, and thus from suffering. Fulfillment brings this to an end; yet for one wish that is fulfilled there remain at least ten that are denied. Further, desiring lasts a long time, demands and requests go on to infinity, fulfillment is short and meted out sparingly. But even the final satisfaction itself is only apparent; the wish fulfilled at once makes way for a new one; the former is a known delusion, the latter a delusion not as yet known. No attained object of willing can give a satisfaction that lasts and no longer declines; but it is always like the alms thrown to a beggar, which reprieves him today so that his misery may be prolonged till tomorrow. Therefore, so long as our consciousness is filled by our will [which is as long as we are will-filled living beings], so long as we are given up to the throng of desires with its constant hopes and fears, so long as we are the subject of willing, we never obtain lasting happiness or peace. Essentially, it is all the same whether we pursue or flee, fear harm or aspire to enjoyment; care for the constantly demanding will, no matter in what form, continually fills and moves consciousness; but without peace and calm, true well-being is absolutely impossible. (Die Welt, vol I, p 196)

It is in our nature to be physically hungry. The physical hunger arises again and again, over and over, day after day, all throughout our lives, until we die. Observe how we don't turn this reality in to fuel for cynicism, despair and grand philosophy. Instead, we make peace with the necessity of managing this chronic need, and address the need in a practical manner. — Jake

We make due yes. What choice other than physical suicide do we have? Life is about living this out.

It is also in our nature to suffer from chronic psychic hunger, that's true, agreed. But again there is no need cynicism, despair and grand philosophy. Just as with physical hunger we have the option to address psychic hunger in a straightforward practical manner. And just as is true with physical hunger, there is no permanent solution. Just as is true with physical hunger it's a case of ongoing management. — Jake

Well yes, ongoing management, correct.

What unites physical hunger and psychic hunger is that they are both inevitable by products of mechanical processes, digestion and thinking — Jake

The dissatisfaction is a product of thought. Thought can be managed to some degree. It is possible to experience reality as being sufficient in and of itself. I'm guessing that Schop knew nothing about any of this given the time and place where he lived. Just a guess, could be wrong, not a Schop expert here obviously. — Jake

No nothing human is straightforward. You know that toilet you shit on? That was created out of immense complexities of distribution and manufacturing. Schopenhauer had a passage about how there are these seemingly basic needs like hunger, and that out of these basic drives, the human mind needs to make a kaleidoscope of needs and wants that are ceaseless and myriad in their complexity. Sure, you can throw words like straightforward and practical to make a rhetorical point. This doesn't change the facts on the ground- which is that the human mind is not straightforward and very complex. Even tribal societies have millennia of trial and error in cultural practices to maintain their small hunting-gathering or pastoralist economies and lifestyles, which again are anything but straightforward.

Anyways, the point is that the dissatisfaction is in the equation. What Schop means by reality not being sufficient in itself is that we would not ever get bored, we would not ever be restless, we would have no need for anything if mere existence was itself satisfying. Need and want are the ruler of our lives. Cause and effect in a physical sense, but dissatisfaction in terms of the human psyche/mind. The root of the animal experience, and MORE so for the human animal is the needs of survival (and in the case of the human animal) distraction and entertainments to fill the void. So yes, the animal does suffer IF suffering is defined as Schop (and to an extent Buddhism) is defining suffering. So your idea about straightforward, practical, and just the mere assertion that we are experiencing reality being sufficient does not, to me, counter that argument.

So I agree that we often don't experience existence as being satisfying in and of itself.

That's different than a suggestion that dissatisfaction is somehow a property of existence, and there's nothing that can be done about that etc, as your quote seems to imply. — Jake

But I too disagree with the notion that dissatisfaction is somehow a property of existence. However, as human animals, it is in our nature to be dissatisfied, IF it is defined as Schop is defining it, which I think you are missing. If you want to call the human animal nature "Experience" of existence rather than the nature of the human animal- so be it. Then we are just playing word-games but agreeing on the fact of the matter. However, if you think we are not dissatisfied at almost all times, then as Schop explains, why do we need goals in the first place? Why do we need to do anything at all? The problem is not that his philosophy is too narrow, but that it is so expansive, that you are missing his point.

Existence can be satisfying in and of itself. Very useful information, but the price tag will be it might spoil your Schopenshour hobby. Your call of course. — Jake

If we are basing satisfaction on Schop's definition- satisfaction stands in for a temporary reprieve from the usual game of goal-getting and dissatisfaction with a current state (think of any "need" or "want" here), then that can't be right. You can disagree with the premise, but based on that definition you will need more than an assertion and a joke.

What would you mean by "emergent", and is this an appropriate adjective for "mind"? — Metaphysician Undercover

I actually agree. What is emergent? I'm not sure its an appropriate adjective, because I don't really understand what/how this emerging process is, to create a whole new ontological category called "mind". Thus there are these word-games going on here with "information", "representation", and "emerging" being thrown around. All it is is tautological (i.e. mind = emerging properties of symbolic modelling, etc. etc.). It really doesn't say much about mind itself.

Sorry, but I'm not accustomed to your use of "instantiated". Could you explain? — Metaphysician Undercover

Representations are made by minds. What is the thing that is an emergent mind? What is the emerging itself?

I don't see the issue you're trying to point out, perhaps you could elaborate. Of course there must be some sort of "self", we're talking about intention, and intention is a property of something, it's not self-subsistent. But even "self-subsistent" implies self, intention would itself be a self.. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is the mind instantiated in? Does calling it symbolic modeling somehow solve this self-arising of mind?

If you speak of a conscious being as an observer, then the specified act which the being is involved in, observing, is an act of representation. That is the being's function, as identified, observing, and observing requires noting and representing. Therefore to speak of the conscious being as an observer is to imply that the being is doing some symbolic modeling. — Metaphysician Undercover

But I am taking a step back to its ontology. WHAT is "doing some symbolic modeling" without being self-referential? What is this "symbolic modelling" in and of itself? It turns into just word-games on the concept of mind.

Looking through the mechanical lens....

We have to eat and drink regularly to survive. We typically don't turn this never ending life long requirement in to a big complex problem. We calmly accept the fact that a price tag for living is eating and drinking, and we do the regular maintenance which is required. Simple. — Jake

Not really. You downplay greatly, the complexity of the human mind, which Schopenhauer explicated so well. Eat and drink? How do we obtain such things? On one end we created civilization- and passed the industrial revolution, a highly complex technological one. This is an immense network of thought, anxiety, time management, and effort to maintain. Food is not just the consumption. It is everything that goes into obtaining it. Even on the individual level- it's not just "ready at hand" when you need it.

Well ok, if one wishes to turn this fundamentally simple situation in to a huge complex issue for entertainment purposes there's no law against that. But shouldn't the clear minded honest philosopher disclose that this is what they're doing? — Jake

If only our minds went into sleep modes. Sitting isn't just sitting. It is a mind thinking a myriad of things. Even sleep can be a torture for the insomniac and uncomfortable. Then there is the effort to achieve this seemingly simple phenomenon. The human mind is immensely complex. To describe it as just cooling off, is to downplay the thoughts upon thoughts it creates for itself to entertain itself. Boredom is a serious limit to the human animal. We must amuse ourselves- even if that means putting in effort to meditate or other type mental exercise- which is itself an act of will.

Let me explain a little more on will. According to Schopenhauer- Will (capital W because of its metaphysical importance) is the lord of all worlds. He was an idealist in the sense that all physical phenomena were simply a manifestation of this unified principle of Will. Now, do I believe there is some underlying noumenal force of will- not really. But his conclusion was sound nonetheless. Each act of movement is in a way will-personified. A mind needs to focus its attention. It needs an aboutness. It needs a to do. It is deprived of "something". The needs of hunger and taste, the wants of a goal to work towards- a project. It cannot be still. And here is probably the most important takeaway- if existence was satisfying IN AND OF ITSELF there would be no need for need. There would be no boredom at the end, there would be no need to move towards ANYTHING. Mere existence would be its own satisfaction. But it is not.

What is the limit of a representation? If a clock is a representation of time passing, is the conscious observer a representation of some symbolic modelling? That doesn't seem to jive though. A clock is a representation of time passing for an observer- it is instantiated in the observer. What then, does the observer of the clock instantiate in? Or is it self-instantiated? If so, what is that nature of the instantiating?

if you attempt to blend them, you inevitably lose them in what is not union, but confusion" (62). — tim wood

But in his case, as is the the case with many medieval philosophers and modern theologians, reason will always lead to theologically compliant conclusions. The deck is stacked, and thus any claims to free-thinking inquiry are already negated from the start.

Imho, suffering is built in to the nature of thought, which explains why suffering is a universal property of the human condition, whatever the time and place etc. Does Schopensour have anything to say along those lines? — Jake

If suffering arises from thought itself, then it seems such schemes would be addressing the heart of the issue. Your, um, thoughts? — Jake

Yes, Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation Books 2 and 4 would be very much about the suffering as a structural/universal property of the human condition.

Here are some of his quotes that might help you from various internet sources if you want a really summarized view:

Here is a secondary source with some basic commentary of his essay "On the Sufferings of the World".

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) was a German philosopher known for his atheism and pessimism—in fact he is the most prominent pessimist in the entire western philosophical tradition. Schopenhauer’s most influential work, The World As Will and Representation, examines the role of humanity’s main motivation, which Schopenhauer called will. His analysis led him to the conclusion that emotional, physical, and sexual desires cause suffering and can never be fulfilled; consequently, he favored a lifestyle of negating desires, similar to the teachings of Buddhism and Vedanta. Schopenhauer influenced many thinkers including Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Einstein, and Freud.

In “On the Sufferings of the World” (1851), Schopenhauer boldly claims: “Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim.” In other words, suffering and misfortune are the general rule in life, not the exception. Contradicting what many philosophers had stated previously, Schopenhauer argued that evil is a real thing, with good being the lack of evil. We can see this by considering that happiness or satisfaction always imply some state of pain or unhappiness being brought to an end; and by the fact that pleasure is not generally as pleasant as we expect, while pain much worse than imagined. To those who claim that pleasure outweighs pain or that the two balance out, he asks us “to compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other.”[ii] And he quickly follows with another powerful image: “We are like lambs in the field, disporting themselves under the eye of the butcher, who choose out first one and then another for his prey. So it is that in our good days we are all unconscious of the evil Fate may have in store for us—sickness, poverty, mutilation, loss of sight or reason.”[iii]

Schopenhauer continues by offering multiple ideas and images meant to bring the reality of human suffering to the fore: a) that time marches on and we cannot stop it—it stops only when we are bored; b) that we spend most of life working, worrying, suffering, and yet even if all our wishes were fulfilled, we would then either be bored or desire suicide; c) in youth we have high hopes, but that is because we don’t consider what is really in store for us—life, aging, and death; (Of aging Schopenhauer says: “It is bad today, and it will be worse tomorrow; and so on till the worst of all.”[iv]); d) it would be much better if the earth was lifeless like the moon; life interrupts the “blessed calm” of non-existence; f) if two persons who were friends in youth met in old age, they would feel disappointed in life merely by the sight of each other; they will remember when life promised so much, in youth, and yet delivered so little; g) “If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist?”[v] Schopenhauer argues that we should not impose the burden of existence on children. Of his pessimism he says:

I shall be told … that my philosophy is comfortless—because I speak the truth; and people preferred to be assured that everything the Lord has made is good. Go to the priests, then, and leave the philosophers in peace … do not ask us to accommodate our doctrines to the lessons you have been taught. That is what those rascals of sham philosophers will do for you. Ask them for any doctrine you please, and you will get it.[vi]

Schopenhauer also argues that non-human animals are happier than human beings since happiness is basically freedom from pain. The essence of this argument is that the bottom line for both human and non-human animals is pleasure and pain which has as it basis the desire for food, shelter, sex, and the like. We are more sensitive to both pleasure and pain than non-human animals, but we also have much greater passion and emotion regarding their desires. This passion results from our ability to reflect upon the past and future, leaving us susceptible to both ecstasy and despair. We try to increase our happiness with various forms of luxury as well as desiring honor, other persons praise, and intellectual pleasures. But all of these pleasures are accompanied by the constant increased desire and the threat of boredom, a pain unknown to the brutes. Thought, in particular, creates a vast amount of passion, but in the end, all of our struggles are for the same things that non-human animals try to attain—pleasure and pain. But humans, unlike animals, are haunted by the constant specter of death, a realization which ultimately tips the scale in favor of being a brute. Furthermore, non-human animals are more content with mere existence, with the present moment, than are we who constantly anticipate future joys and sorrows.

And yet animals suffer. What is the point of all their suffering? You cannot claim that it builds their souls or results from their free will. The only justified conclusion is “that the will to live, which underlies the whole world of phenomena, must, in their case satisfy its cravings by feeding upon itself.”[vii] Schopenhauer argues that this state of affairs—pointless evil—is consistent with the Hindu notion that Brahma created the world by a mistake, or with the Buddhist idea that the world resulted from a disturbance of the calm of nirvana, or even with the Greek notion of the world and gods resulting from fate. But the Christian idea that a god was happy with the creation of all this misery is unacceptable. Two things make it impossible for any rational person to believe the world was created by an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being: 1) the pervasiveness of evil; and 2) imperfection of human beings. Evil is an indictment of such a creator, but since there is no creator it is really an indictment of reality and of ourselves.

Schopenhauer continues: “If you want a safe compass to guide you through life, and to banish all doubt as to the right way of looking at it, you cannot do better than accustom yourself to regard this world as a penitentiary, a sort of penal colony.”[viii] He claims this is the view of Origen, Empedocles, Pythagoras, Cicero, as well as Brahmanism and Buddhism. Human life is so full of misery that if there are invisible spirits they must have become human to atone for their crimes.

If you accustom yourself to this view of life you will regulate your expectations accordingly, and cease to look upon all its disagreeable incidents … as anything unusual or irregular; nay, you will find everything is as it should be, in a world where each of us pays the penalty of existence in [their] own particular way.[ix]

Ironically there is a benefit to this view of life; we no longer need to look upon the foibles of our fellow men with surprise or indignation. Instead, we ought to realize that these are our faults too, the faults of all humanity and reality. This should lead to pity for our fellow sufferers in life. Thinking of the world as a place of suffering where we all suffer together reminds us of “the tolerance, patience, regard, and love of neighbor, of which everyone stands in need, and which, therefore, every [person] owes to [their] fellows.”[x]

Summary – Schopenhauer thinks life, both individually and as a whole, is meaningless, primarily because of the fact of suffering. It would be better if there was nothing. Given this situation, the best we can do is to extend mercy to our fellow sufferers. — https://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/11/17/arthur-schopenhauer-on-the-sufferings-of-the-world/

Here is a direct Schop quote I always refer to as the essence of his idea of the human condition:

Then again, how insatiable a creature is man! Every satisfaction he attains lays the seeds of some new desire, so that there is no end to the wishes of each individual will. And why is this? The real reason is simply that, taken in itself, Will is the lord of all worlds: everything belongs to it, and therefore no one single thing can ever give it satisfaction, but only the whole, which is endless. For all that, it must rouse our sympathy to think how very little the Will, this lord of the world, really gets when it takes the form of an individual; usually only just enough to keep the body together. This is why man is so very miserable.

Life presents itself chiefly as a task — the task, I mean, of subsisting at all, gagner sa vie. If this is accomplished, life is a burden, and then there comes the second task of doing something with that which has been won — of warding off boredom, which, like a bird of prey, hovers over us, ready to fall wherever it sees a life secure from need. The first task is to win something; the second, to banish the feeling that it has been won; otherwise it is a burden.

Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life — the craving for which is the very essence of our being — were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us — an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest — when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon — an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature — shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious. — https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimism/chapter2.html

And finally, one of the better commentaries of the meaning of Schop's philosophy for the layman:

When Schopenhauer says that all life is suffering he means that all life, that is, everything that lives and strives, is filled with suffering. Life wants, and because its wants are mostly unfulfilled, it exists largely in a state of unfulfilled striving and deprivation. Schopenhauer says it thus:

All willing springs from lack, from deficiency, and thus from suffering. Fulfillment brings this to an end; yet for one wish that is fulfilled there remain at least ten that are denied. Further, desiring lasts a long time, demands and requests go on to infinity, fulfillment is short and meted out sparingly. But even the final satisfaction itself is only apparent; the wish fulfilled at once makes way for a new one; the former is a known delusion, the latter a delusion not as yet known. No attained object of willing can give a satisfaction that lasts and no longer declines; but it is always like the alms thrown to a beggar, which reprieves him today so that his misery may be prolonged till tomorrow. Therefore, so long as our consciousness is filled by our will [which is as long as we are will-filled living beings], so long as we are given up to the throng of desires with its constant hopes and fears, so long as we are the subject of willing, we never obtain lasting happiness or peace. Essentially, it is all the same whether we pursue or flee, fear harm or aspire to enjoyment; care for the constantly demanding will, no matter in what form, continually fills and moves consciousness; but without peace and calm, true well-being is absolutely impossible. (Die Welt, vol I, p 196)

We have seen this theme in The Book of Ecclesiastes and we could have seen it as well in Leo Tolstoy's A Confession, as well as in Blaise Pascal's Pensées, so it should not really be new to us.

Pascal tells us in his Pensées, for example, that we all do actually realize life to be so full of suffering, emptiness, and unsatisfaction that the only way we can tolerate it is by filling our lives with a whole variety of diversions and entertainments.

Misery.--The only thing which consoles us for our miseries is diversion, and yet this is the greatest of our miseries. For it is this which principally hinders us from reflecting upon ourselves and which makes us insensibly ruin ourselves. Without this [diversions] we should be in a state of weariness, and this weariness would spur us to seek a more solid means of escaping from it. But diversion amuses us, and leads us unconsciously to death. (Pensées # 171)

Diversion.--As men are not able to fight against death, misery, ignorance, they have taken it into their heads, in order to be happy, not to think of them at all. (Pensées # 168)

And Pascal reminds us also about Ecclesiastes and Job.

Misery.--Solomon and Job have best known and best spoken of the misery of man; the former the most fortunate, and the latter most unfortunate of men; the former knowing the vanity of pleasures from experience, the latter the reality of evils. (Pensées # 174)

What Schopenhauer adds to this awareness of universal suffering is, as we saw above, that the root of all life's suffering lies in wanting, desiring and fearing, i.e., in willing

You will see much of Schopenhauer's thinking on this theme in pp 311-26 of Die Welt, so you might want to pay particular attention to those pages.

For example, on p 315 he tells us

The ceaseless efforts to banish suffering achieve nothing more than a change in its form. This is essentially want, lack, care for the maintenance of life. If, which is very difficult, we have succeeded in removing pain in this form, it at once appears on the scene in a thousand others, varying according to age and circumstances, such as sexual impulse, passionate love, jealousy, envy, hatred, anxiety, ambition, avarice, sickness, and so on. Finally, if it cannot find entry in any other shape, it comes in the sad, grey garment of weariness, satiety, and boredom, against which many different attempts are made. Even if we ultimately succeed in driving these away, it will hardly be done without letting pain in again in one of the previous forms, and thus starting the dance once more at the beginning; for every human life is tossed backwards and forwards between pain and boredom.

And even what we call "happiness," he says, is really only a temporary cessation of some particular suffering. Schopenhauer tells us that

All satisfaction, or what is commonly called happiness, is really and essentially always negative only, and never positive. It is not a gratification which comes to us originally and of itself, but it must always be the satisfaction of a wish. For desire, that is to say, want [or will], is the precedent condition of every pleasure; but with the satisfaction, the desire and therefore the pleasure cease; and so the satisfaction or gratification can never be more than deliverance from a pain, from a want. (p 319)

Furthermore, all this suffering is without any purpose or meaning (pp 161-65). It is all pointless and in vain. — http://philosophycourse.info/lecsite/lec-schop-suff.html

Genes, neurons, words, numbers. The basis of a symbolic modelling relation aren’t a secret. — apokrisis

No, not the basis for them. What is the final result besides being self-referential as symbolic modelling or information?

So what goal is served such that it “works”? In what sense is causality closed such that it is a “system”? — apokrisis

Usually it has to do with creating stability with surrounding atoms/chemicals. In terms of forces, like the strong nuclear force, they are fundamental parts of nature that naturally attract or repel matter based on on scale.

Yes aren't we satisfied after a hearty meal? We're not "always" lacking. — matt

Its usually short and fleeting...and on to the next goal. The needs are insatiable and hard to satisfy for the complex human animal compared to the time, effort, and struggle to achieve goals/stay in equilibrium with comfort levels/health levels/ not being bored.

The ameliorative efforts are always an ad hoc effort in Western culture.. try meditating more, simplicity/minimalist movement, mindfulness.. these are all bandaids on a bigger issue.

The limits of the given situation for the human mind are survival-related goals and boredom-fleeing goals. Contendness is a negative in that it is negating the always-present lack which again gushes forth once it has been satiated :D.

Is it really your experience that "we are always lacking"? This seems to be true only from an addictive mindset. — matt

Indeed, it is quite addictive. It is akin to Buddhist beliefs of suffering if you want a reference more well-known. As someone pointed out in another thread, there is a sense that any movement, any change made by a mind, is in a way mediated by some sort of need that is not fulfilled. Thus dissatisfaction drives us. Food/shelter/defecation etc. are obvious ones mediated by biological imperatives. Entertainment is the other end for beings such as ourselves with complex minds that need to focus attention on something. Boredom is a huge limit in this regard.

What is it about the physical interacting that meets a definition of working and a definition of system? — apokrisis

Sharing of valence electrons, attraction based on forces, sharing of chemical molecules, etc.

And when do you start talking about processes that are informational models and processes that are material flows? — apokrisis

And here is where the crux of our issue lies. Whence are these informational models? It is akin to "What is mind". What IS the information (processes of a kind)?

It seems more helpful to work on building a better relationship with our story, whatever it might be. You know, the meaning story in our lives might be thought of as a friend, whom we've learned to not take too seriously. — Jake

If you looked at my previous thread, I had a similar sentiment though presented differently. It was about motivation. We must trick ourselves in a way, because there is no set reason we should do anything. We decide based on cultural preferences perhaps, or habit that we create for ourselves to give structure- but we don't have to. The ideas of authenticity and radical freedom are not lost on me here. However, the landscape this choosing occurs in is pretty much set as far as what Schopenhauer described as the psychological pendulum swing between survival (in some cultural related form) and entertainment. We are always lacking, and this is the root of his philosophy, in my opinion. It is what I describe as the "structural suffering" that is different than the contingent ones we face in our daily lives based on situations and varies depending on time, place, and circumstances.

But you don't like it because it doesn't create a space for you to play the role of profound expert. Ok, you are not obligated to like it, no problem. — Jake

I don't get what you are getting at. We tell ourselves stories about life? Not really. Life presents itself in a pretty straightforward fashion as far as how we are socially integrated into a particular situated culture and we learn to survive and entertain ourselves within this cultural framework. Everything from how basic needs of food/shelter are met to meeting our wants for entertainment which I deem as things beyond the tasks at hand that allow for survival needs.

You bring it a good point that even things are going well, life seems to make sense.

That was simply self-referential. You didn’t say anything.

Indeed. Some people are good at that, and others not so much, like everything else. Huge brained profound philosopher grand thinker peeps like us often have problems with stories, because we tend to ask too much of them. Simpler folks tend to have simpler stories which are easier to manage. — Jake

Schop's story was pretty nuanced. You can downplay for rhetorical points, or you can get in the complex muck.

The "way things really are" is that nobody at that age really knows what they're talking about, for very understandable reasons. And it doesn't get a whole lot better as they proceed in to middle age and beyond either. — Jake

What is the criteria for "better"? What is the insight people are supposed to get over time? Something to do with balance and acceptance? You didn't add anything except dismissive derision. Give some substance to the picture then. Man up.. Dismissive sarcasm is the strategy of a sophomore in college sitting on a bean bag, holding an impressive beer can, using dad's money.

It's a form of realism that is self-serving and justifying. You have to reach a cognitive dissonance that these feelings are unwarranted by your situation in life. Once you reach that cognitive dissonance, you can escape from the depression. — Posty McPostface

It is this cognitive dissonance that I am suspicious of. Is it a mood or an evaluation on life? Why is that evaluation bad or wrong? Perhaps it is accurate.

Physically interacting in a way that they work together in a system. What is it like to be that integrated systen?

Maybe. If you can define "process". — apokrisis

Integrated interactions of a series of events. Say for example, chemical bonds are integrated interaction events.

I can only offer advice about coping with depression. Unfortunately, it never goes away, the thought patterns are deeply embedded. There are always alternatives though. Such as ketamine therapy or SSRI's. Some people are adamant about dealing with depression and try other venues like psilocybin or DMT, and can have breakthrough experiences. — Posty McPostface

But that's the point.. calling it depression, and then making it something that has to be dealt with. How about depressive realism? Perhaps it is seeing things how they are, but still coping with it.

My point was suicide is more than the act of suicide- it is about the ideation. It is about living despite not liking its premises. That is prolonged suicide. It is not something to be dropped- no "cure" must be had to get into the circle of mild life-affirmation (well-adjusted in psychological jargon?).

I believe you are trying to say what I am saying. See above.

The "mind". Whatever that is best understood to be.

(Remembering that there is no reason to think that it wouldn't feel like something to be in a modelling relation with the world - especially when that modelling relationship it is as complex and agential as the one instantiated by a socialised human brain.) — apokrisis

All these words/phrases bolded, can you please provide a definition of each and how they relate to a) the environment and b) the neural/biological substrates?

Instantiated is a tricky word for example. It provides a bit of the magical. We know sociological events exist- but that is ALREADY at the level of mind. We know environmental inputs exist- that is at the level of the physical events happening. We know agents exist- but that is already at the level of mind.

Even if you try to get to the level of precepts/concepts or primary/secondary consciousness... I take the primary/precepts to be still to be justified.. That is the starting place.

Can you explain what you mean by 'being' a process more? — Posty McPostface

Sure, there is me observing the computer and its results and there is the computer computing. What it like to be "computing"? That is a very basic idea. There are interactions of things in the world- what is it like on the "front lines" of these interactions as opposed to simply observing them? The implications have a lot to do with theory of mind of course.

It does not emerge as the result of some particular form of process we might hope to describe. — apokrisis

"What" is being emerged from the process? I just want you to see the slipperiness of this concept.

I'll be honest.. I am not up to speed on Heiddegarian terminology, but this may add a bit?

Martin Heidegger’s early and late philosophy also presents an analytic-interpretive contribution to process philosophy, without speculative formulations of metaphysical ‘laws of development,’ but with a view to the metaphilosophical and practical implications of process metaphysics. In Sein und Zeit (1927) Heidegger presents what could be called an ‘adverbial model’ of process metaphysics; based on an analysis of human existence (“Dasein”) Heidegger shows that what the metaphysical tradition understood as entities or factors standing in relational constellations—e.g., space, world, self, others, possibility, matter, function, meaning, time—can be viewed as ‘adverbial modifications’ of Dasein, as modes and ways in which Dasein occurs, while Dasein itself is the interactivity of “disclosure” or ‘taking as.’ Since Heidegger’s ‘taking as’ is an understanding that is ineradicably practical, his early philosophy bears certain affinities to the pragmatist tendency in twentieth century American process thought. In Heidegger’s later work, however, human understanding is no longer the dynamic ‘locus’ but more a dimension of the process of being (“clearing”). — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

What gives sentience to one process and not the other. You know what I meant.