I don't think Marx had a solution, or viewed any one social movement or intervention as sufficient for the removal of capitalism. — fdrake

So what do you think was his goal in his works? What does a better society for Marx look like? Also, this doesn't get rid of the actual problem which is that work itself might not be a good, but rather something we must deal with to survive. Our demands will always force there to be more supplies, and people are enslaved to their own needs and wants.

The 'perspective' of capital sees commodities as opportunities for profit already, so this reduction to values alone has 'always-already' occurred. It's an a-priori structure of value which is reproduced socially through the production of items for their values rather than their use values. Society already sacrifices utility on the altar of profit. — fdrake

So Marx' solution is to have the state own property so that values return to use value rather than profit value?

I am not inherently against or for an economic system, as I fear all work is bad in the first place- whether for an abstract "state" or for a company. But I do find it prima facie kinda scary that in a capitalist system, workers must reenact a sort of medieval structure whereby they must find a lord to dispense a wage/salary and work their "land" (i.e. perform labor for them). Employers have tremendous power over the peasants' lives. Interestingly, there was a podcast episode with Elisabeth Anderson on The Partially Examined Life who claims that owners represent a private government and essentially should have the same restrictions as governments.

The bigger question of how work should be distributed and organized will probably never really be solved being that the demand forces the supply, and thus work. Marx already makes the fatal flaw that "some" form of work is good- that being "unalienated work", which I do not subscribe to. No work is necessarily good in and of itself, it is simply necessary to survive. Exploitation of worker value is no good, but it's not like the work itself, unhindered from this is some sort of salvation from the problem of work itself. It is still work after all.

Is this a brute fact of Ciceronianus’ judgement? Why don’t you accept the argument? All things being equal, no “one” loses out on existence. Do you think experiencing existence is its own good? Is this just sophisticated “people need to exist for this ethic to be valid in the first place” reasoning? In other words, is your defense, the tree falling argument?

I don't know of any reasonable support for such a contention. — Ciceronianus the White

Structural suffering If part of life is lacking something, and we are almost always lacking something. Life is about satiating that lack. If lacking something is considered a form of metaphysical suffering, which I believe it to be, then this is a problem from existing at the start. Metaphysically speaking, sleep-state would be most complete. No need for need.

Long story short, it is wrong to create a state of affairs where you would be creating the burdens of existence for a new person. The consolation of "life has good things in it" does not compensate for creating the burdens.

Strategies:
Embrace the tormentor: Nietzsche, Stoics, Sisyphus smiling, "well-adjusted" citizen, Golden Mean, Aristotle, etc.

Rebel/Turn Away: Schopenhauer, Ascetics, Philosophical Pessimists, antinatalists, etc.

Would you have movie nights, pot luck meals, board game and card parties, sing-alongs, dances...? What anti-fertility holidays would you celebrate--Artemis, Athena, and Hestia? Mary was ever virgin but she did reproduce -- though with suspiciously unorthodox methods. Christmas? Jesus didn't reproduce, as far as we know. Dionysius would be a good male god -- I don't think he reproduced, but he did like a wild party (he is also know under the name of Bacchus, he with wine and grapes.) He had a rather unorthodox birth, too -- his mother Semele was zapped while he was in utero, so Zeus sewed up the baby Dionysius in his thigh to finish developing. (Don't try it at home.) — Bitter Crank

Those are all good ideas :D. Bake sales would be included. Philosophical pessimism can be sexy, ironically. I bet you are imagining a pp meeting to be like an old school Quaker service. There would be a sparsely furnished simple wooden hall, with two rows of chairs facing each other. Everyone would be silent and sullen. When someone gets moved by the "spirit of pessimism", they can stand up and voice their negative thought about life. This goes on for as long as it takes. Then, chanting in the style of groans and moans takes place regarding the cruel existential absurdity.

Or, as you say, there are movie nights regarding pessimistic themes, book discussions, therapy-type sessions, sharing of views, and outreach events :D. Like socialism, we would get organized. We would make a platform for what we stand for.

Politics are also about making existential statements. Conservatives and libertarians might consider voting for a conservative legislator or executive because they see unfettered free markets and minimal government intervention as existentially good for the community and for its own sake as being part of what it means to be a “free” society. Liberals might consider voting for a liberal legislator or executive because they see government programs as fundamental to a flourishing community and that possibly, as social animals the community must intervene we are private sectors can’t. They might think government intervention as existentially good for the community and for its own sake as being part of what it means to be a flourishing human. In other words, politics is hand-in-hand with existential statements about life, the community, and human destiny, even if people don’t recognize it as such.

Is eating a political act? When I eat food to nourish my body and end my hunger, am I voting YES! for my continued embodiment? — Inyenzi

Not comparable, eating and reproduction. Eating is a necessity, reproduction is voluntary. @Bitter Crank should know that too. It is not a default. Not since the time we knew how reproduction works.

I think it's more mindless than that (i.e. I'm hungry, I eat, and by consequence my embodiment sustains), and it's the same mindlessness with reproduction. This type of rational, deliberate sort of reproduction you describe where people sit down with their partners and decide to bring a child into the world would be very rare if not non-existent. For the vast majority of the planet, (to put it very crudely), people fuck and then babies happen, and by consequence the human species and it's suffering proliferates itself. — Inyenzi

Granted that may be the case. Knowing the consequence, accepting it, and allowing the child to term is a political stance then. Pro-life in more than one way.

Is rabbit reproduction a political act? — Inyenzi

Again, not comparable. We do things by way of cultural institutions, things that require society and volitional acts of individuals making decisions.

But even in the case of the rational, deliberate parents to be, their motivations for having the child are far more likely to be related to some sort of end or aim of their own, than for the sake of the non-existent yet-to-be (can you even do something for the sake of a nothing?). For example: because of pressure from parents, because it's what's expected of you once you cohabit or marry, because you think it will strengthen your marriage, because you think babies are cute and want one, because you want something to depend on you, because you have a drive to nurture and want to satisfy that drive, because all your friends are having children and you feel left out, because you don't want to be old and alone with nobody to care for you, because you feel it's an essential part of being a woman, etc. Ends and aims like these are what hide in the background, being the true motivators for the 'rational parents' reproduction, who then retrospectively claim he/she brought the child into the world for it's own sake, to share in the "gift of life", or some other nonsense. — Inyenzi

Agreed to an extent. This just means people have to be more thoughtful in decisions they make that effect, quite literally, future people. However, even if it is for the self, it is still an affirmation, a statement that, "yes, I agree there should be something in the future that should live life" and is assenting to the community. It need not be knowingly, but they are making a statement that life is something that should be carried out and that the society should continue. An analogy might be someone who wants health care provided by the state because he can't afford it. He may not be saying directly, "I affirm the idea of government healthcare", but his actions de facto agree with the idea, lest it be a contradiction.

So reproduction is necessary to take care of the elderly? It seems that would just increase the cycle and make a bad thing worse. You increase the problem as you try to solve it. Also, wouldn't this be a primary example of using people for the ends of others?

Our being born wasn't our acts -- it was much more our mothers' acts. Had you been in charge, you would have started out by holding your breath, thus sparing yourself this whole dreary business. We had absolutely nothing to do with our conceptions, either. Nor did we have anything to do with the long line of predecessors, going back 3 or 4 billion years. — Bitter Crank

It is a political act for the parent, not us. That was my point. It is the ultimate "yay" to life/society. It is saying this is good to have another being live it through to their death.

Yes, but how ought are community ought look like? — Posty McPostface

It would be a local contingent, like that of community activists, meetup groups, online groups, things like that.

Please start a thread on how to cope with this lack and structural suffering you speak of. — Posty McPostface

Start a community that sees life in this way. You see, one really interesting bit about the political aspect of this is that, de facto, you are a small minority in the political sphere of actions towards society. The first act was you being born. The next is you being swept along in it. You cannot complain too much, you cannot explain the structural suffering too long to common folk. This will arouse ire. You cannot exist in a vacuum, yelling into the void. But perhaps there can be a counter coup of sorts. A cadre of people willing to listen and understand the problems at hand. A community of philosophical pessimists that see this view. Buddhism is a close cousin with its first two Noble Truths. However, this is still metaphysically-rooted in ideas of karma and reincarnation.

Overall, there can be more open discussions on the dissatisfaction of the human condition. In the West, and especially America, there is a need to try to cover it up or deny it. Rather, it can be more discussed, talked about on a social level. Individual acts of procreation, are not just personal events- it is societal. Collectively it literally makes and reproduces society. What is it we as a society are doing that the dissatisfactions that are structural are necessary to continue it? These things need to be discussed more openly, as a society, and without the knee-jerk contempt for those who bring these questions up.

What is morality when you factor in the ethical ramifications of reproduction? How does the meaning of life relate to being thrown into existence by our parents and governed by their motives? — Andrew4Handel

Here are some thoughts:

Being "thrown into existence" is a political act, whether it is overtly stated that way or not by the parent. That is to say, a certain stance is made about existence, and more specifically human existence, which is one couched in a social sphere- a society.

A society is comprised of a community of people in a geographical area, interacting with each other, following similar rules and guidelines, and broadly-speaking, sharing some similarity in values. One of the values that all societies seem to share is that a "flourishing" should take place for the family/individual/whole community. What that flourishing looks like, and the methodology to get there can vary widely, but it seems to be the case that some sort of homeostatic "living well" is a part of this. This definition does not have to be tied strictly to Eudaimonia, but simply the idea of surviving (usually comfortably), and in a sort of continual and consistent lifestyle.

The parents of a child, if they bring their child to term (taking away discussions of abortion for now), usually believe that a new person should be enculturated into a society- that is to say, they should learn the lifestyle and methodology of surviving within a certain community. This enculturation and methodology is deemed as good. There is something, they think, a new person should experience about that community. For example, they can experience personal accomplishment through projects/work. They can experience joy in laughter with friends. They can experience being cared for and caring for a significant other. They can experience the psychological state of "flow"- being super focused in an activity that matches a person's interests and abilities. Also they can experience the pleasures of learning a skill or area of knowledge, and becoming an expert. They can experience being a citizen in a broader community by participating in a number of roles and events. The person can experience the various avenues of physical and more abstract mental pleasures that a community can provide. This hope for a well-adjusted human that "thrives" in a community is probably the kind of thing a thoughtful parent is aiming for. They like these aspects of the community/life and want a new person to also experience a community/life. It is very much sociologically-based reasoning. Even religious-based reasons are sociological-based. A new person needs to be born to experience the glories of serving that god. There is believed to be a goodness to the community serving the god, usually. Even scientific-oriented parents can have a similar idea about their progeny. The progeny can contribute to the technology/science, and overall knowledge of mankind through their community, thus being perceived as "enhancing" their community.

Not only is it sociological in aims, but the act of reproduction is by definition a communal affair. Two people have to have enjoyed life or thought life good enough to get together within their respective communities, had sex, and carried a child out to term. This is again, a sociological act. There is an affirmation in all of this- by the act of two people coming together, and by the aims of thoughtful parents for how they want their potential child to live.

So to conclude this section, and circle back to my original statement, parents are consenting that, yes, they like society and feel it is their right to continue it forward with a new person to experience that society and continue the existence of that society. Hence, it is a political act, if not overtly. Actually, it may be the political act. Without procreation, there is no community/lifestyle/experience of said lifestyle to be had by anyone. Thus, the ultimate political "yay" or "in favor of" is procreation.

However, what is not usually recognized is the structural suffering inherent in existence- built into the human affair. Structural means that it is not based on contingent circumstances like genetics, place of birth, circumstances in time/place, or fortune. Structural suffering can be seen in things like the inherent "lack" that pervades the animal/human psyche. We are lacking at almost all times. The need for food and shelter, the need for mates, the need for friends, the need for interesting projects, the need for flow states, the need for comfortable environments. These "goods" represents things WE DO NOT HAVE (aka lack). We are constantly STRIVING for what is hoped to be fulfilling, but at the end, only temporarily fills the lack state, and for short duration. Structural suffering can also be seen in the psychological state of boredom. I don't see boredom as just another state, I see it as an almost baseline- state. It is a "proof" of existence's own unfulfilled state. This leads again, striving for what we lack. There is a certain burden of being- the burdens of making do- of getting by, of surviving, of filling the lack, of dealing with existence. That we have to deal in the first place is suspect. That not everyone is committing suicide is not a "pro" for the "post facto, people being born is justified" stance. Rather, suicide and being born in the first place are incommensurable.

Then of course, there is the contingent suffering (what is commonly what is thought of as suffering). This is the circumstantial suffering of physical/psychological pains that pervade an individual's life. This may be any form of physical or more emotional pain that befalls a person.

The parents' perspective are that the goods of life, the encultration into society for which these goods are to be had, is something to be experienced and carried forward. Structural suffering is not even seen in the picture. You only go with the information you have at hand, and you deem most important. Structural suffering is not a concept most parents think about, even if it is the main governing principle of animal/human existence. As far as contingent suffering, it has been well-documented the optimism bias that we have in underestimating the harms for past and future events.

The fact that language can sometimes work is what instead demands explanation. — StreetlightX

What is the criteria for “works” though? Could an output of transcendental stupidity be said to “work”?

What are minutia mongerers? Sorry, I saw this in one of your posts, but still didn't quite absorb it. — Caldwell

It is the ability to specialize in extremely minute points of math/science/engineering. Further, I claimed those who are most valued and de facto "needed" are ones that have mastery over minutia in these fields. As they increase the basis for how our society works- that is the technological foundation.

You got it backwards. In my opinion, you do not need a phenomenological method to make a claim about something that could be measured sociologically and psychologically -- and yes (!), with all their interpretive instruments. You are, in fact, if you haven't noticed, performing hermeneutical analysis of what you yourself see around you. You are interpreting the condition of our society as — Caldwell

Fair enough. I can change it to the hemeneutics of technological expertise. For my own learning's sake, How would it have to look in order to hit the threshold of a phenomenological thread? I know of Husserl and his bracketing approach, but I was using the term loosely, not strictly Husselerian. How would the methodology look to be officially phenomenological?

Why not use sociological analysis instead? Of course, a cynical observer could reduce any human action to technology. But is this reasonable? — Caldwell

Well, it is about the amount of expertise in the minutia.. the type of concentration on a very narrow set of understandings to increase technology. The kind of knowledge we need to know to increase, maintain, and reproduce technology. That was when I brought up minutia mongering. It would be what Bitter Crank called "close-up" thinkers.

There are "big picture" and "close-up" thinkers. You are a big picture thinker. I am a big picture thinker. Big picture thinkers are "a" (not "the") critical part of society. We concern ourselves with trends, patterns, contradictions, long-term consequences, and such like. "and such like" is a big picture generalization. — Bitter Crank

I like this framework.. makes sense.

Classic big picture project. Is it a positive or a negative picture? — Bitter Crank

Interesting point. And I tend to agree with your analysis here about those who tend towards the big-thinking and those who tend towards the close-up thinking. I have to think more about this and get back to you.

Yes all problems come from being born in the first place- including whether to commit suicide. There is no off switch, sleep being the closest thing. The burdens of survival, the lack inherent in existence is all a part of it. As I said in a previous thread: "The goods of life represent what we have not now." Energy is needed by the new human. To contribute to the whole, somehow, to be a minutia monger being the highest form of contribution.

People have goals, and wants, and such, and if enculturated well, these goals keep technology going, and people find satisfaction in contributing to this. Those not well-adjusted are said to need therapy as their outlook is not contributing to the whole.

Projects and relationships will be the closest you get to personal reasons.. Master that ski jump, master that piece of code on a program, master being a furniture-builder.. get involved in your community.. etc. etc. These things happen to also contribute to the whole, as it is producing and maintaining the community, and finding meaning in creating outputs for the community.

Both the ascetic and the engineer are extremely dedicated to the work and discipline. They both are probably somewhat indifferent about social niceties. Of course, their goals are as different as can possibly be. One is attempting to tunnel away from the world, the other is digging a tunnel into the heart of the commercial world. The number of meditators in the world, compared to the number of people screwing around with printed circuits and codes would resoundingly validate the life of the nerd over the life of the monk. — Bitter Crank

Yes, this turning away from the world is valueless for society though, no? They are navel-gazers. Their very existence is due to someone else's intricate understanding of technologies. The minutia mongers allow the meditators to tunnel away from the world. Or so the narrative might go. Look at the thread of Marx Theory of Value.. It is about highly modelled mathematical frameworks to understand the quantitative measure of value from a commodity through labor and resources. I am not knocking it.. I rather like the rigor that that thread exemplifies.. but I am just giving examples of the minutia we deem necessary to really understand the world. Is more "minutia-knowledge" better? Are people who gravitate to more minutia-knowledge (experts?) better? If you say "NO, that's absurd".. you de facto rely on their expertise for your technology (or output as you rather call it). The mintutia-experts are the ones who give you your things, allows society to run.

I guess a bigger point I am trying to uncover here is the tediousness of living in general. I can't help but think the surface of "Yahooo!!!" skiers, extreme sportsers, vacationers, leisurely readers, tv watchers, world travellers, and especially consumers are just skimming on a shallow sheet of ice that is undergirded and bolstered by an immense amount of minutia and tediousness. Thoughts?

Here's a more concrete question for you, BC:

What would incline one person to be a monkish ascetic and meditate for 12 hours a day, focusing on "nothing" and "everything" (or their breath, or a mantra, or a paradox, etc.) and what would incline another person to learn about the intricacies involved in creating better electronic components and programming languages and maths that support it all?

The meditator represents a sort of detachment and removal from the world of minutia..trying to achieve the most generalized state of mind. The engineer, on the other hand represents the other side of the spectrum- someone involved heavily in the intricacies and minutia of the world. This seems the opposite of generalized; it is someone mired in the details. What are the similarities of these types? What are the differences? Which is called for? When is it called for?

Surely even you wouldn't tell a kid that life is pointless and futile... — Posty McPostface

Learn to be content meditating 12 hour a day since the goods of life represent what we have not now.

But that's my point, what is the aim of life in general? We survive in a cultural setting, get bored, and find ways to entertain ourselves. You can criticize it all you want, but de facto that's what we do.

So, according to what you're saying we should promote individualization and not socialization at all? I tend to agree with this due to the fact that individualization is an activity rather than the passive aspect of socialization that one just picks up as they go by living. — Posty McPostface

Well, I am saying there is no need to procreate more people. Any scheme is bad for the person who is born in the first place.

Therefore, how does one promote individualization as early an age as possible, to have happy and grateful people populate our society, rather than unhappy workers? — Posty McPostface

Just don't have people that need to be socialized. What's the point? It is self-refuting to try to devise a mechanism/scheme for happiness for more new people, just because that's somehow desirable for the people making the mechanism/scheme.

First off, what causes the no-choice world? — Caldwell

No choice- we need minutia mongerers.

Second, according to the State Department of Thread Title, you should remove the word "Phenomonology" from your title. It doesn't fit your topic. A socio-ecopolitical observation of our civilization does not need such word to be understood. — Caldwell

Besides the bad spelling, the phenomenology is fine in the title I think. It is there to indicate the POV of the technologist. What is it like to be the person who needs to be an expert in the necessary minutia to originate and further technology? I am willing to have an example of a how a phenomenological account might go- the kind that is lacking to be worthy of the title.. If you think my more general commentary is not sufficient, please provide an example of how a proper phenomenological account would go to make the title worthy.

Third, have you ever considered, I mean stopping even for a brief moment to ponder, whether humans actually enjoy conforming to the same thing? Have you ever thought that doing similar things and following similar path are actually happiness-inducing endeavour? — Caldwell

Can you explain this? Do you mean that engineers/mathematicians like what they are doing, ergo I am wrong for bringing up the minutia-mongering of technological expertise?

The heart of the topic was stated to Bitter Crank here:
What does this mean as a lived human? Where does that put the person who DOESN'T do these complex, focused, processes based in the minute understanding of the expert? What is the VALUE of the mind of a person who CAN do these things..that MOVE technology and that the cultural-economic fabric relies upon. What implication does this mean in terms of taxonomy of USEFULNESS.. What does this mean for consumers vs. producers.. What does this mean as a theory of value? What does this mean as a theory metaphysically in terms of WHAT the phenomenon is?

But, that's not coping. That's wallowing in one's misery and asking others to hold hands with you. — Posty McPostface

Again, it is not about wallowing. There is a lack at the root of things. We need homeostasis, we need entertainment (which I define broadly). Yes everyone has to deal in the first place. Yes it is worth exploring the "unfairness" as you characterize it. Acceptance, though the popular self-help approach is also a way to keep you from looking too much into it.

One lives in a made up world of one's own making and wallows contently in it. I don't complain about the world; but, my own world of my own making, not the other way around... — Posty McPostface

I don't really know what you're trying to say. I characterize it more as rebellion rather than mere acceptance. This is perhaps why I thought your criticism of complaining tout court needed to be addressed. There are legitimate grievances and a rebellion can be justified against it.

What's wrong with sleep with dreams? At least pleasant dreams? — Posty McPostface

I have no problems with it.

So, let me just recount. We are imperfect, due to the nature of the world or ourselves in relation to it. Do we cope with this deficit by trying to achieve eudaimonia? But, coping is an activity. — Posty McPostface

I don't know if PP has an active stance against or for the achievement of eudaimonia. It might fit in a pessimistic metaphysical framework actually. My main gripe with it is that it ignores the metaphysical lack behind the scenes.

But, PP encourages passivity and inaction or withdrawal from the world, no? I mean, since the world is such a mean place then why expose yourself to criticism, complaints, toil, struggle? It would simply be inconsistent to state otherwise. So, is this how you cope with a situation? I don't think anyone would define that a winning strategy or effective coping. — Posty McPostface

A Schopenhaurean pessimist might recommend withdrawing into ascetic practice or aesthetic practice or acts of compassion.. anything to not focus on your own willing nature. If the individual will is supreme then the diminishing of it would be the strategy against its grip. I don't know if I really prescribe to that recommendation. Rather, understanding the restlessness, discussing it with others, and finding consolation is about as good as we can do. Eudaimonia and other virtue theory concepts remind me a little too much of the average middle class agenda.. it is amenable for social institutions and people in power to use to keep things going the way they are.. if the natives buy into the very values that keep things going as they are, then all the better.

So, a PP does derive joy or pleasure or happiness from the aesthetic view of humankind. Is that what a true PP would say? — Posty McPostface

I don't know. There may be a sense of consolation in pessimism. Sometimes, I get a bit giddy reading an author explain the situation that is life in a particularly powerful turn of phrase. However, I think the pleasure or happiness is tangential to the actual picture that is being perceived.

Not so. I equate psychological wellbeing or eudaimonia with "results" here. — Posty McPostface

Psychological wellbeing has to be defined. But using the idea of eudaimonia, it is an idea that is almost besides the point for the aesthetics of PP. You can attempt to achieve eudaimonia- this doesn't override the metaphysical understanding of PP. However, the metaphysical understanding of PP would most likely turn away from such a notion. Rather, projects, relationships, and such are the products of a metaphysical lack and then coping with this lack. Baden actually made a point once about PP which was prescient. He said that PP's idea of a most ideal state would be one akin to death or sleep with no dreams. It is dissatisfaction that brings about the desire for eudaimonia. It is a method to cope with the world, but that we have to cope and deal with the world is what the PP is after.

Namely, that what virtue (of such supreme importance) can be found in philosophical pessimism? The negation of life itself? Normatively we know that isn't true. — Posty McPostface

Again, you make the error of looking for some sort of results. This is the very intraworldly affairs that a PP would most likely not consider to be in the same category as that of the aesthetic view of life itself. This is equivalent to asking a painter to quantify his artistic values with a bottom line of profits.

Lack of what? — Posty McPostface

So one main theme in pessimism is that at root, in either human nature, animal nature, or the nature of existence itself, we are in a constant state of a deprivation/lack of something/ desire, etc. Satisfaction is always only temporary. Boredom, in the human animal, is an almost "proof" of the dissatisfaction of mere being. Thus, we can adjust certain expectations, goals, and thought-processes to try to achieve an equanimity in a mental health issue, or anxiety about an aspect of life, but this does not necessarily get rid of the underlying, metaphysical lack that is baked into the human experience (or existence itself pace Schopenhauer).

I believe that it's something of the sort of being more rational rather than emotional or maybe both. Perhaps, this is the lack you're speaking of? Of being more rational? — Posty McPostface

That is fine. Rational is kind of bandied about in too many ways to be fully useful a word, but in this case you seem to mean a sort of psychological state where a person's decisions do not get overcome by anxious thoughts, depressing thoughts, etc. That is fine. If someone has what they consider a dysfunction and believes certain strategies to work in order to "break" a cycle of emotionally distressing thoughts, then that is what therapists try to do (if they do it well). However, no matter how "well-adjusted" someone is, they can still hold a metaphysical view that the world or that human nature has a state of dissatisfaction, that something is always lacking (whether that be in surviving, entertaining, or maintenance related goals).

Well, it's one and the same, don't you think? — Posty McPostface

I don't think so. A metaphysical view and psychological techniques to cope with various perceived (or real) mental distress can be considered two different and mutually exclusive realms. One can make psychological techniques perhaps into some metaphysical view, but that is not a necessity.

To borrow from CBT, there's also a gross overgeneralization being performed in that the world is completely devoid of anything good that someone can experience. Not to mention painting with a large brush, or black and white thinking. — Posty McPostface

No one denies there is good someone can experience. That is not the point of pessimism. The point is the suffering of the lack that is always in the equation. Good is not seen as the carrot and the stick. Rather, the process itself, is considered either absurd or based on a basis of a foundational lack. CBT is not a philosophy. The goal of psychology is to ensure the person is well-integrated to function well in modern life. They are techniques for a patient who has mental functions that are not processing at a level deemed efficient by that same patient. It doesn't provide a metaphysical understanding of life. Also, being that CBT, and psychology in general is to help integrate into society, of course acceptance of the structural suffering, or psychological techniques will be employed to cope, overcome, and deal with life are going to be part of the strategy. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive though.

Engage? Meaningful conversation? I guess that's what you call your oblivious interminable repetition of your same old assertions.

It's more of a never-ending monologue than a meaningful conversation — Michael Ossipoff

Again, scornful characterizations of my arguments are not going to get you anywhere in this debate. Do you think of it as some sort of call to arms.. that I must defend my honor? What's your objective? Is this just you venting about my posts?

In the ongoing context of your long failure to support your comments — Michael Ossipoff

Again incredibly obnoxious...Why would engage someone that just provokes..even to make a point? Are you trying to troll me into having a drawn out name throwing fight with someone who has no respect..even on internet forum terms?

or to answer or listen to others' comments, eventual blunt language is inevitable. — Michael Ossipoff

I answer and listen to comments to respectful debators who debate in good faith without trolling or abusing from the get go.

But, in this thread, I didn't say anything about existential-angst as fashion. I didn't criticize you. It's you who are making it personal, ad-hominem, by changing the subject to my allegedly bad manners. — Michael Ossipoff

I'm confronting you on the tone and tenor of your comments.. The etiquette and protocol you use in debating me in particular. It automatically makes me not want to engage in conversation.

I wasn't rude to you in this thread. — Michael Ossipoff

Dismissive pragmatism, dismissive, scornful attitude in general.. why would I want to deal with that? It wouldn't be a meaningful conversation. Look, you may bring up some interesting points of debate, but until the scornful trolling stops, I don't want to engage with it.

The basis to start the conversation would be charity. You don't have that, no use even engaging. Take lessons from Bitter Crank.. Get better at disagreeing without being disagreeable.

No sh*t. — Michael Ossipoff

Your way of provoking through dismissive pragmatism is not very philosophical. Look in thine own mirror.

Philosophical discussion should consist of more than assertions. — Michael Ossipoff

Ironic

The technologists who analyze consumer behavior are also very valuable people. More valuable than we band of brother-philosophers, certainly. — Bitter Crank

:grin: I like that reference.

I submit that we have probably passed our capacity to monger all the minutia we have to manage. All the code that it takes is too voluminous, too complex, too inter-connected, for any individual or team to adequately oversee. The result is all sorts of failures (cleverly called bugs rather than mistakes) that are discovered only by putting the product into the hands of millions and letting them find all the errors by the brute force of daily use. EDIT: JUST NOW THE NEW VERSION OF iTUNES (which I didn't ask for) WOULDN'T LET ME QUIT; I COULD CLOSE THE WINDOW, BUT NOT TURN IT OFF. I HAD TO USE "FORCE QUIT" TO SHUT IT OFF. A small example. — Bitter Crank

Excellent point! This is really where I'm getting at. This is why I put "phenomenology" in the title. WHO is the person. What TYPE of person. Why that type of person? What are the THOUGHT PROCESSES of that person who needs to know the lines of code.. the testing of the code...the compiling of the language...the inventor of the language.. the mathematics behind all of this...the engineering behind all of that. And on and on it goes.

What does this mean as a lived human? Where does that put the person who DOESN'T do these complex, focused, processes based in the minute understanding of the expert? What is the VALUE of the mind of a person who CAN do these things..that MOVE technology and that the cultural-economic fabric relies upon. What implication does this mean in terms of taxonomy of USEFULNESS.. What does this mean for consumers vs. producers.. What does this mean as a theory of value? What does this mean as a theory metaphysically in terms of WHAT the phenomenon is?

I get that often technology is foisted from the top down through marketing, but we must admit that civilization relies on its substrate of technology. The technologists are the ones that carry these nuts and bolts processes and outputs to fruition. It is the phenomenon of the MINUTIA MONGERING technologist that I am trying to get at.

This can be answered in two ways:

The intraworldly approach might say it leads to antinatalism- don’t reproduce more suffering and that it leads to some basic metaphysical understanding which, if you are one to be inclined to like having that understanding, might be said to be “good” to have.

The holistic approach would find it an invalid question. The problem with question is that it implicitly asserts good to a) exist as an output and b) put production as some measuring stick. A problem in the first place is that we must produce. The idea of producing something itself is part of the problem, so why would philosophical pessimism be worried about it? It’s structurally suffering, so an intraworldly solution like X output doesn’t even make sense.

Yes, while I understand that. Complaining breeds complaining, hence the issue with the internet in general, I suppose. Instead, the logical progression, in my mind and in accord with reason, would be the utilization of constructive criticism to actually perform some change in the matter or complaint against some state of affairs. — Posty McPostface

The complaining comes first- the active change comes next. The second part is definitely the hardest. It's like someone who always thinks they have a great idea but can never quite manifest it in an actual business.

Bitter, one of the main reasons for this thread is to not only point to the supremacy of technology has a basis for which all society is organized, but rather to show its effects on the kind of people who can originate and maintain this technology. Its main effect is that those with the most MINUTIA MONGERING- the ability to specialize in extremely minute points of math/science/engineering are who are most valued and de facto "needed". This is interesting to me the precision of detail needed in modern times that our brains must focus on, and the kind of performances that we rely on as a society to maintain and increase technology.

Perhaps @fdrake can chime in on the phenomenon of technology and the necessary knowledge of minutia to push it forward.

What's the deal against complaining? Complaining is a way of showing disapproval at a state of affairs as @Baden stated. It can be said that the US got started by colonists complaining. In fact there is a whole sections in the Declaration of Independence called "Grievances" that are essentially just complaints. Complaints are the catalyst to try to get to a different state of affairs. Those who don't complain and perhaps simply comply with a bad state of affairs may be indirectly complicit in the bad state of affairs.

I bring up a lot of the negative aspects of the human experience, and the structural suffering of life. I guess this can be construed as complaining. But then, I am bringing up disapproval of a negative state of affairs. In this case, it is the negative state of affairs of life itself. It is perhaps to catalyze people to look at it for what is going on to us as a whole.

Not sure what you mean. That seems like an incomplete thought.