I disagree. In Schopenhauer's early manuscripts prior to writing the WWP, he takes Plato's Forms to be the Kantian things-in-themselves (plural, as Kant spoke of them) and/or the essences of phenomena, not the will. If you think about what Schopenhauer says of the Ideas in the WWP, you can see why he thought this, for he says of them that they are outside of time, space, and causality, retaining only the form of being-an-object-for-a-subject. This lines up almost exactly with how Kant conceives of things-in-themselves, whereas the will is shackled by two forms of knowledge (one more than the Ideas), time and being-an-object-for-a-subject. If the shedding of these "veils" (time, space, causality, etc) gets us closer to the thing-in-itself, to ultimate reality, then the Ideas get us closer to it than the will. So the reverse of what you suggest is true: if anything, he shoehorned the will as thing-in-itself into his burgeoning philosophy, despite his strong Platonic leanings. I tend to think he may have been onto something with his original idea and that he bit off more than he could chew in switching to the will. The will may still be an inner aspect of all things - that much I think he has conclusively proven - but the essences of things cannot fully be explained by it. This is where Plato comes in. — Thorongil

Either way, even if I'm willing to concede that it is based on a Kantian prior stage, it doesn't change my criticism of it. In fact, he might as well have ditched it with his burgeoning Will philosophy, if your history is correct there. The Forms as he used them in WWR were used in various ways, and one of them were the "essences" of species, which seems like a poor version of what is going on in terms of biological mechanism, especially if the mechanism of evolution via natural selection is taking place. There are no essences, but rather differential populations based on variations that adapt to environmental conditions while others go extinct. If anything, Schop could have brought evolution, entropy, and other (future) scientific concepts into the idea of Will more clearly. Though this would definitely be within the confines of the phenomenal world (time/space/causality) perhaps the Will and its direct flipside world of appearances would be more suitably tied rather than this awkward mediation through the Platonic forms.

Structural and contingent suffering are two reasons.

Schopenhauer himself seems to have done this, once he recognized that there is something other than the will. — Thorongil

Well, I think there is an inherent contradiction in the ascetic where can somehow achieve Enlightenment (or perhaps die of suicide due to complete starvation and denial of bodily maintenance?). What then is this state of Enlightenment, if all is Will? Hence he does leave the crack for something more than Will, which naturally backs him away from a strong definition of Will as simply striving, as there then must be this other thing going on where one can not be striving. That though can simply be a lack of Will, an absence of Will which is what is going on.. Something close to metaphysical nothingness.

I myself vaguely drift in the latter direction and toward Platonism as the solution. Schopenhauer himself, of course, incorporates many Platonic elements into his system already, which I think might provide the key to completing his system Platonistically, as it were. — Thorongil

I personally think the Platonism is shoehorned into Schop's metaphysics. It was a way to make his aesthetics work- like an inverted Plato (art is shadows of thew world now is the world is shadows of the artist's genius vision). I also think that Schop did not have a chance to incorporate Darwin's natural selection into his metaphysics. This may have changed things actually as Schop did try to incorporate some of the latest theories that were going on at his time. Schop died in 1860, Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859- little time, if any to digest the work and its implications. He had Lamarkian evolution to work with, but it was so prone to criticism, that I can see him not really using it too much in his epistemology or metaphysics.

These are the relationships that are maintained not out of selfish desire but for a genuine concern for another person's well-being, their projects, their feelings, etc.

For the most part, though, relationships are dispensable and replaceable. This, of course, is a relevant factor in our decision-making. If a relationship is not very solid, there isn't going to be overriding reasons that privilege the maintenance of it. — darthbarracuda

I have rarely seen much of this. A lot of relationships that look like that are how the person aligns with one's own well-being, projects, feelings. Toleration and hollow head-nodding might be a gesture to cement the bond, but by-and-large, much of what looks like altruism may just be a sort of gesture to maintain a bond, but not to know the person as they are in their own well-being, projects, feelings. Though, I will admit there are probably cases of this. Perhaps truly Platonic friends or romantic partners can get to this level that is beyond the needs of simply wanting a social bond with something that averts loneliness and boredom.

Yes, precisely, although altruistic action is possible in the form of "welcoming" another person into your own space. — darthbarracuda

I am not sure, it may be mostly negotiating someone's stuff into your own for the benefit of social relations. But, much of the time people are not welcomed, simply tolerated as social relations any closer than cursory encounters are only with a small subset anyways.

I will bring this point up again when discussing both Levinas and Cabrera. Moral living requires one to get one’s hands dirty. It’s not clean, pure or easy. We feel compelled to hurt other people in order to spare others from similar or worse harm, neglect certain duties so we can honor more “important” ones. Sometimes we legitimately do not know what to do, and have to arbitrarily choose and simply hope we did the right thing. We may do the wrong thing unintentionally - well-intentioned acts may nevertheless be wrong. Pure moral existence is a rare and fleeting accident. — darthbarracuda

This rings true. There are several things I can add as examples:

1) Does anyone ever truly "get" anyone or do we tolerate their presence with jovial laughs for a bit until we retreat and regroup our own cherished thoughts?

2) Doesn't everyone have their own agendas that compete? In almost every waking action when exposed to others, there seems to be a competing for space, territory, action, goal, outcome, rights not to be impinged. Negotiation might be the answer, but the fact that there is always a need to negotiate also must be taken into account.

@Agustino

I think you especially would get a lot out of Whitehead.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/whitehed/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality

But isn't willing a pain, a suffering? When you're hungry, that is willing. The feeling of hunger is an aspect of Will. — Agustino

It is a manifestation of willing in the subject/object relationship.. one step down from Will, that mysterious force in-itself.

I don't see how it's mediated by appearances at all. The feeling of pain just is pain, there's nothing "mediating" it. There's no separation between experiencing it and itself. — Agustino

Man, you would debate a wall if it got in your way. Can you ever incorporate the other's ideas rather than pure me vs. you dialectic? Doesn't this way of debating wear you out and frustrate? Anyways, pain is pain, but if all were pure will, (or rather X), then there is no pain, no you, no nothing except Will. It is the world of appearance that this pain takes place as a "manifestation" of will. But keep arguing.

I would disagree with Schopenhauer that there is one Will. Rather the World is the summation of Wills, which are similar to Leibniz's monads - I think that is a better way to think of it, one that I have only started investigating recently. Or perhaps even better said - the Will is a fragmentary process. — Agustino

If that's the case, skip Leibniz and go right to Whitehead's process philosophy.

I think this is the most profound misunderstanding. Quite the contrary, the Will is seen DIRECTLY unlike the representation which is perceived through the principle of sufficient reason. When you will something, you feel it instantaneously, there is no separation, like there is temporal, spatial, etc. separation in the representation. So if anything, it is the representation that is not seen directly, but mediated through the categories. — Agustino

I was responding to what you said earlier here:

The Will is just the truth of the representation, but it is not truth in-itself, except perhaps in some partial and incomplete sense. — Agustino

So I thought you were saying that we cannot know Will in-itself which I was trying to refute. Now, yes Schopenhauer did say that we can feel the immediacy of Will in our very willing movements, but it is still will as mediated by appearance. To allude to something you yourself said earlier:

He started to shy away from this identification towards the end of his life, when he reverted more to the Kantian understanding of thing-in-itself as an unknown X. — Agustino

Thus, Will as thing-in-itself is not fully realized. It is through our mediated Will in the world as appearance dual-aspect going on. Thus, we can use our own introspection to glean at Will but the full picture may be only analyzed as it is rather an unknown being atemporal/aspatial/alogical etc. and fully monistic. We can glean it is a striving principle and that we are part of the striving itself in our own natures.

No, the claim was more radical than that - we cannot know the truth of the world as such - the truth of the world for us is will. — Agustino

I didn't hear much or anything about will in there, but I can have another listen. Indeed, the world for us could be equated with what he said about doing what is fittest not doing what is seeking truth. I'd still say the main gist of what he was saying is truth can be in conflict with fitness and a species that survives does what is fit not what is truthful.

It does have an aim. That's why it is willing. Willing is the aim. — Agustino

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. The process of aiming (with no avail) is the will process. We do not aim at willing, it is the underlying process that causes one to aim in the first place. I am guessing you are trying to do some unique reading of this, and thus the claim where I am supposedly misguided, but I don't see it when reading Schopenhauer, and logically it seems to be a little word play you're doing that doesn't make sense. Will does what it does. It is the ground of being in his philosophy. Will plays itself out in the world of appearance (i.e. time/space/causality) in its restless nature, but no goal ever achieves satisfaction.

I would disagree with Schopenhauer at this point. In the process of denial of the will I think compassion, rather than renunciation and asceticism, is the driving engine and most important factor. It is love if anything that opens the gate beyond willing. — Agustino

I'm sure you are aware, compassion is part of Schopenhauer's ethical system. Indeed there is a conflict between other-oriented ethics and seemingly self-oriented denial of will. I tend to synthesize both tendencies with antinatalism. Dialogue with others about the conditions of existence (i.e. instrumentality) can include the other, and compassion and consolation of will can be included in one as it becomes discussion in the public forum.

I agree about the concomitance of representation and will - except that I disagree with the identification between Will and thing-in-itself, and old Schopenhauer would very likely have disagreed too. — Agustino

I'm not sure what you mean here. Schopenhauer identified Will with thing-in-itself constantly.

I don't think so, since the Will is atemporal, temporality only exists in the objectification of the Will qua representation. Will projects time. — Agustino

The representation is the objectification of the Will - the Will projects an external world, in time, etc. for itself. By projecting its own striving, it projects the world, including the structures of representation. For example, by projecting the failure of its striving to attain, it projects an external world in which it is a suffering victim and unable to control what happens to itself. — Agustino

See this is where I find Schopenhauer in a contradiction. If all is monistic, then Will is all there is. There is no projection. In fact, there is no-thing that even remotely can be an analogue to a predicate (project, objectify, manifest, etc.). Will either "is" alone or it is a multiplicity and really not the ground behind being. Rather, instead of being the "true" ground, it has to be concommitant. In other words, even though time is only in appearance, somehow it has to be atemporal as well because it has always been there as flipside of Will. This is a contradiction there as time cannot be temporal and atemporal.

I think your reading misses precisely the point I'm trying to put my finger on. Schopenhauer never does metaphysics. The illusion isn't representation and Will is truth - rather they are both illusions. The Will is just the truth of the representation, but it is not truth in-itself, except perhaps in some partial and incomplete sense. — Agustino

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. In so far as Will itself is only seen to us through the representation, it is never seen in and of itself, only gleaned at through introspection and logical analysis. However, as a general understanding of what is going on, Schopenhauer obviously believed we can understand this and even do something about it. He was not skeptical of his own insight. If anything, Schopenhauer was pretty confident in his thoughts.

Good topic. I watched the video and liked it. Not that this was necessarily what he was getting at, but certainly if the we claimed that the truth of the world is its instrumentality (its need to strive forward for no reason without much end in sight), and people are wont to viscerally deny this through whatever means necessary to keep their own organism (and their offspring) moving forward, then indeed fitness for survival will always outcompete truth. Truth would die out in a few generations and explains most people's vigorous defense in this matter. Cultural traditions (for lack of a better term "memes") for defending life itself gets passed down in the culture as it is a survival strategy to keep self-reflective beings (who do have the ability to deny life's goodness) to keep going and embrace life for the next generation.

Schopenhauer's metaphysics is most unique and beautiful. The world is really will- a striving force that has no aim or purpose. The world of appearance makes us think that there is time/space/causality and creates for us a little umwelt where we think that attaining goals will give peace, but are maniacally designed to trick us into continuing the goal-seeking process. At bottom all is aimless striving of will, and thus nothing in the world of appearance will ever truly satisfy. The goal then of the enlightened individual is to turn the will against itself, live an ascetic life where will becomes gradually diminished, until it loses its grip completely thus somehow diminishing the reign of will's supremacy in some fashion.

However, though I admire the philosopher and his descriptive elaborations on the striving nature of man and reality, I have some criticisms of his metaphysics.

1) If it is will that is thing-in-itself, and there is no causitive nature to the thing-in-itself (logically or temporally), then there cannot be a before or after. There cannot be a will and then something else. Thus, representation being secondary to will, cannot come after but be concomitant all the way down. Thus the thing-in-itself must logically be will AND representation and not just will.

2) If representation started with the first organism to represent its world (he used an analogy of the eye of a fish), then this makes the tricky situation of time itself starting with the first representational animal. This gets into problem that this organism then becomes extremely important in his ontology, as if the representation is always the flip side of will, then the organism would have to be a being in time, yet timeless, as if we look at my first argument, there was no before and after prior to representation, thus representation would have to be there from the beginning, or the animal that represents would have to be there from the beginning, which is an odd conclusion.

3) What is the nature of this representation? Even if we were to say that representation is an "illusion", then this has to be explained. Clearly the illusion exists, so can it really be called an illusion? This is the problem that other philosophies suffer that use illusion for the internal experiences of the individual organism. If all is will, then how can this illusion of time/space/causality be its flip side? Where did this time/space/causality come from? Will tricked itself into have these physical structures? Again, if will is not temporal, then these structures were not created as a secondary thing, but were concomitant with will all along. Thus Schopenhauer seems to waiver between this "will is primary, appearance is secondary" notion with a neutral monism of "will and appearance are always together one being the flip side of the other".

This may be the case for some, but in terms of philosophical pessimism, this gets the cart before the horse. If the world is seen as bad because people are depressed, we have to ask why people are depressed. Sometimes they have philosophical reasons that entail a depressive outlook, and pumping them with SSRIs and attempting to negotiate their return to the capitalistic death train doesn't address these reasons. It just ignores them. — darthbarracuda

There is a definite dichotomy here. It usually falls somewhere like this:

Instrumentality vs. Net Positive Experiences or Subjective/objective Goods
Instrumentality vs. Some sort of Eastern Zen-like Way of Being
Instrumentality vs. Progress

Philosophical pessimism is a consequence of depression/anhedonia, and not the other way around. People don't get depressed because the world is bad, the world is seen as bad because people are depressed. — antinatalautist

This sounds kind of like something you went through and are projecting it here. But, even if that is not the case, my answer is that instrumentality as an aeshthetic concept is there. Respond to it how you will. Sometimes the hope-cycle means you can avoid this understanding. Some people get glimpses of it when they are depressed, bored/restless, etc. To have a full blown understanding of the nature of this, and live with it, is hard, but it's not like thus you have to mope around. Even the pessimist swings from hope vine to hope vine. It just just they are more clearly articulating the big aesthetic picture.

But, you naturally lose that hope when you are presently enjoying yourself. There's no need to imagine a better future when the present is good. — antinatalautist

But then it is over and time moves forward. What is at the end of this? What brings you to this forum? Shouldn't you be blissed out on the highest high?

I think hope is inherent in our cultural bias towards the future, towards the open possibilities that lie ahead. But our desires, what we hope for are not our desires. The house, the wife, the kids, the job... is the dream of a society, a collective dream, which many take as their own, which even when it is satisfied, can't satisfy. The things we hope for are not ours, and because of this we are not satisfied even when we achieve what we have hoped for. So yes it is like an opium dream, good as long as it lasts. but always depressing, always on a run, and we don't even have to put a spike in our veins, but many do. — Cavacava

Well put (Y) . Instrumentality is the always restless need for something that is not in the present.

Cioran notes how in order for us to voluntarily do action we have to believe we are important and the things we do are meaningful and have worth. Really, it's all desire, and hope is the desire for a desire to be fulfilled. — darthbarracuda

Agreed. Hope is the motivator behind the goal. Sure, there are some tedious goals that probably have minimal hope involved. Perhaps we can zone out all future projections and stay right in the present, but eventually the hope is going to come back and make us swing from goal to goal like jungle gym bars or a series of vines. The hopes may not even be large. As you said, intoxicants, perhaps tinkering with some toy or project. Still, it is the hope of the goals to come, of getting to another stage. It is the mirage.

The point you're refusing to acknowledge is that what you put your finger on isn't a universal way of experiencing reality, or even the objective way. It's the diseased way of the modern world. — Agustino

I presume the only hope you condone is one with a capital "H", right? In other words, the hope of salvation, or the hope of following the Good as it relates to god's telos as set down in post Nicene Christian interpretations of this Idea?

Hope isn't the same thing as having a goal. Someone can have a goal and even pursue it without any hope. — Agustino

Perhaps, but those aren't the ones that motivate.

Actually, if one believes the traditional account (Laozi may not have existed), then he was forced to write down his philosophy, otherwise the gatekeeper wouldn't have let him leave the city and create his hermitage in Western China. — Thorongil

Nice little story. I guess he was truly the only person who lacked hope :-} and was an enlightened being that had no need for such humanly things !

I think people get along mostly from habit and not thinking about things too much. We live in such a way that consciousness is hardly necessary. Really, consciousness is the problem so it's not at all surprising that people try to minimize how much they have to deal with it by living habitually, ingesting intoxicants and sleeping in. — darthbarracuda

I think we are saying the same thing. Hope becomes the idea that activities will dull the pessimistic aesthetic image to a narrow focus. You bring up a good idea about habit. We do things habitually, but the habits need that underlying hope as well because habits done without hope become despair really quickly. The intoxicants are just one manifestation of the hope that gets someone through the day perhaps. They know after their habits of getting on with the day, they have something to look forward to. A focus, something that also dulls the brain, and helps narrow the focus. Thus the hope itself dulls the aesthetic image and in the case of intoxicants, the actual thing hoped for when obtained, dulls the aesthetic image. It is a self-strengthening cycle to prevent the instrumentality of being felt for too long.

@t0m @Bitter Crank @T Clark @celebritydiscodave

When I say hope here, it is practically inescapable. It is the expectation of a completion in a future state. It is not necessarily always on the forefront of your mind, but it becomes the carrot underlying the current activities. If you have goal-directed behavior, hope is there. Thus, any attempt by so-called "Eastern" attempts to be in the "present" do not minimize hope. There is the "hope" of being in the present, inherent in the very attempt to do so! Of course, we can use some verbal-gymnastics to try to get out of this "pin" of being in the "hope-cycle", but it would just be rhetorical word-play. Hope is still there. "Hope that the concept of "being in the present" will be understood by that nasty, misguided pessimist on that internet forum!" Hope is that feeling in the back of your mind for why you want to do something later in that day. Hope is that feeling that some large task you worked on is getting completed more and more each day.

Now let's change gears a bit. Let's say you are the Schopenhaurean pessimist. You get out of bed (or hut, dirt floor, or wherever you are laying at the time you awake or attempt to sleep for the insomniac). You know that you are doing this because you would either be bored in bed all day, it would make you uncomfortable, or you feel you "need" to out of the encultured belief that there is something that needs to be "done" to survive (like work or not getting fired from it, or the habit of just going to a workplace). All of this is done in full awareness. You are even aware of your own nascent hopes springing forth. The hope of something happening at work, the hope of getting home from work, the hope of being with friends, the hope of making that really intricate theory. The hope of working on that project.

But the pessimist is fully aware that the hope-cycle is wrapped up in the boredom, discomfort, (enculturated/socially learned) survival and understands how It gets everyone through the day and unto the next to be repeated. However, the pessimist holds the aesthetic understanding as well. All is instrumental. It is being to be to be. It is surviving to survive to survive. It is entertaining to entertain to entertain. It is the never-ending goal-seeking that hope lubricates and gives us motivation for getting (even the depressed). The pessimist knows that the narrow goals are simply part of the instrumental nature of existence. Always becoming, never being. Our restless natures, need to stave off entropy by enculturated survival activities and keep our restless minds entertained.

There is always something lacking. But this aesthetic image, does not become overwhelming as long as the focus of goals dulls the mind into thinking that the goals themselves are something to hope for. Hope turns one away from the stark aesthetic picture of pessimism and onto a NEW task to be done. Maybe this or that, and then other, then the thing after that!! The pessimist always keeps in the back of his mind, the hope-cycle is just the carrot. The pessimist aesthetic image- that of the instrumental nature of being- the cycle of filling a cup to be emptied and filled and emptied is the nature of the human condition. It is the self-reflecting animal not losing site of the transcendental picture.

Lao Tsu WROTE something. He hoped to get his thoughts out poetically. If he didn't write it he TOLD someone.. he had a goal- hope of his words meaning something to someone. If he didn't you would not be quoting from him. It is inescapable.

I know from personal experience that you are incorrect. Giving up hope is not that difficult for me, although I'm far from perfect. Now, giving up fear, for me that's the hard part — T Clark

Do you hope to do that? :P

I'm not entirely convinced of that. Schopenhauer is invariably referenced in these discussions, but he would maintain that salvation is possible, and I agree with him. He may have been confused or mistaken about the mechanism and precise character of salvation, but that it is possible he demonstrates to my satisfaction. If salvation is possible, then it is rational to hope for. Thus, a hopeless world is not one your namesake and inspiration proposes, at the very least. If you have moved beyond him in this regard, it is apparently in the direction of nihilism. — Thorongil

I sympathize with his idea that we must turn away from our own will and diminish its hold. However, I have always maintained skepticism of its possibility. By skepticism, I mean pretty 0% chance. If we are alive, we are willing. At best, it is similar to a therapeutic technique.

The point was the expectation is a driving force that prevents despair, even from seeing the very human condition of instrumentality.

This is world-weariness - the feeling of impossibility, of being stuck. Just imagining for a second - the horror of so many years spent in school - so much work, and one is still just at the bottom of the mountain. The horror of having to spend again so much time, and so little progress. Being at the bottom of the mountain and looking up is depressing - it makes one feel that it is impossible to climb, and so one never climbs. And inversely - once at the top, the entire climb looks to have been impossible, unimaginable - a miracle! — Agustino

Reifying achievement through hard work. Just another example of yet another goal to hope for.

What is the problem here? Circularity, not the logical kind, is part of nature...the planets revolve around the sun, biochemistry is full of chemical cycles. In fact I think cycles, of any kind, are an ineluctable part of our reality. Why point a finger at a very fundamental characteristic of nature itself and rue over it? I think this type of thinking, pitting unrealistic expectations against ''brute facts'' of nature, can serve only as a well of pain and suffering. What we should do is seek the truth and adapt to it, which you're not doing(?)

I don't know which is more absurd, life itself or people who think its absurd because it doesn't match their expectations? — TheMadFool

We are part of nature, but the only ones who can see what is going on as well, so it is not as cut as dry. We live out the cycle, yet see that it is a cycle. And we can also see it is one of deprivation- the need for more need, and the hope that carries us along to the next need. It is viciously repetitious, even in its novelty (the repetition of trying novelty even). But I guess the main response here is that, unlike the rest of nature (and I agree we are fully a part of nature; a truism) is that we can self-reflect on it and see the instrumentality. We are not geese who just fly South every winter and scavenge for morsels of worms without reflecting on it. We can see our situation while we live it out- the only animal to do so on Earth.

There seems to be a typo in there; want to re-phrase? — Noble Dust

It is kind of like t0m's philosophy if you look at his responses. He is trying to out Schopenhauer Schopenhauer by embracing the instrumental nature of things. Pain is good because it is challenging, so the line of thinking goes. If you were to Eternally Return to life over and over and over, you would say a resounding YES. These themes of embracing pain as it makes you better, and the Eternal Recurrence are Nietzsche's ideas essentially. He is trying to meta the meta, if you will. As I responded to t0m, this philosophy seems abhorrent to me. That conception would mean we would live an Ever Vigilant Existence where we never get any (metaphysical) rest. Also, to say that the challenges of life makes one better, seems a coping mechanism. Why do people need to be born to face challenges in the first place? Again, the instrumental nature of things makes this line of thinking suspect. It is post facto rationalizing of a situation that is already set from circumstances of birth. It is the only thing to say in the face of this, even it is just a thing to say, as there is no alternative except seeing it in its truly negative light. So Nietzscheans go on trying toincorporate challenges, set-backs, and suffering into the hope-cycle. Nietzsche was the ultimate in doing this, thus his wide appeal. A philosophy for the manically life-affirming- like someone who had a lot of cocaine and wanders the mountainous Swiss countryside for a half day and then goes back to the realities that are life and lives out what is really going on- the instrumentality of doing to do to do- surviving, discomfort, boredom, hope-cycle repeat.

"Hopeful this or that" being more fake hope, or what? Again, where does suicide play in here? — Noble Dust

That is not going to be an option for most people. I also want to be delicate about this issue because I don't know your state of mind. I'd say there is some comfort in understanding the aesthetics in what is going on. t0m does have a point in terms that there is a dark sense of consolation in the knowledge of the instrumentality. The hard part is maintaining the vision without backing down, without letting the burn force you into a Nietzchean mania, or trying to ignore it and anchor yourself firmly in the goals.

Where does 'meaning' fit into this. Hope seems like that dopamine release from the presynaptic channel to the postsynapses, while meaning is the response one gets from that 'hope'. Or is it the other way around?

Hope without meaning seems linked to such a degree that talking about one without the other what the elephant in the room is like to not be spoken of. — Posty McPostface

The meaning is in the hope. Hope is long-lasting as it never stops. Achieving a goal is fleeting as it simply leads to more goals, and more. We are never satisfied, always deprived.

If I may put this in more vulgar terms, we are fucking to fuck, as well. We are eating to eat. We are sleeping to sleep. Entertaining, by the way, is fun when it's done well. Who doesn't like making others laugh or dazzling them? We like these things. We want to repeat them. Those who don't fear hellfire (or death as eternal sleep) fear death as the loss of this opportunity to repeat the same old pleasures. They also fear the loss of the personal growth interrupted by death. Maybe this just means becoming a better philosopher, writing that great book one day. — t0m

Again, this just reiterates the point. I don't disagree this is what we do. You can't see the light for too long, as you implied, it will just burn. I think the whole personal growth thing is just part of the need for need of novelty. The constant satiation needs to be satisfied indeed.

You need to define beauty as something inherently hopeless, then. Or inherently futile, or whatever. And not on Shopee's terms; on your own. — Noble Dust

Well, there is the aesthetic of seeing the "what actually is going on here", which can be said to be the instrumentality of things. I don't mean aesthetic as beauty per se, just a kind of understanding that takes place based on envisioning the structure that is going on.

It may for you, but that's a form of escapism. — Noble Dust

Indeed it is. But there's not much more bottom you can go other than trying to manically make into something to embrace pace Nietzsche.

So, not deluding down someone else's hope-cycle? — Noble Dust

Eh, I mean there's only so "meta" you can get. Once you see the hope-cycle, it doesn't go further back. You either find comfort in it, or you don't and you move on to some hopeful this or that. But that would just be reiterating the point :D.

My problem here is that you're a soft-core pessimist. You can't have comfort and pessimism at the same time. — Noble Dust

It is just part of the ethical aspect I guess. Pessimism can provide consolation. We are all instrumental and we can recognize it, discuss it, understand it. I guess there's not much more than that to do with it. The whole point is, we usually have to move away from languishing in it, as there is nowhere else to go except to hope for some other things. What I don't think will happen is that we abandon and still play the game. If we are playing the game, there is probably some hope there. Perhaps there is something to be said about the self-awareness of this though.

The hope, though, is not to push more dope, but to do something about the wretched world. — Bitter Crank

But then, this just belies the instrumental nature of existence. If we cut the bullshit out of most ethical systems- it is based on helping others who are in need (materially, emotionally, mentally, etc.) without impinging on other's rights (as much as possible) in the process. But what is this then for? What if we are all at a state where we do not need to be helped or help others? Hope of something better provides the impetus. But really we are doing to do to do, entertaining to entertain, etc. Survival in a historocultural setting on one hand (navigate those institutions of culture to survive), maintain comfort levels, and we must be entertained. But we do not like to see the barebones churning of this striving but for nothing. We need hope so that we can move through it and narrow the focus.

So no, "hope of the hopeless futility" is not hope; just listen to yourself, man. "Hope of the hopeless futility?" — Noble Dust

True. This is in fact the insatiable will, Schopenhauer describes. There is an aesthetic beauty in understanding this. I've always claimed that there is a sort of aesthetic pessimism, when one keeps in the forefront the instrumental nature of things. Schop would say to then become an ascetic and turn away from the will- negating it. One might say that is its own form of hope (the escape from the hope-cycle). I think greater awareness of it through dialogue like this has a form of consolation involved. There is something said about coming to the same understanding of life as another person and not deluding it down because the insight does not fit with the very hope-cycle it wish's to explain. So yes, it is comforting, in a way it is. I never refuted that, and even said that was one thing pessimism can offer, a sobering but at least somewhat comforting idea that can be shared with those who are aware of the aesthetic vision it provides.

It's your business, but maybe your lifestyle isn't what it should be. My physical/economic lifestyle changed while my "metaphysics" stayed the same and I became much happier. The little details add up to making the endless cycle worth repeating -- at least for now, while I'm young-middle-aged. — t0m

Gotta have hope. Indeed. Upgrade the opium.

Yes, I agree with the basic structure. But "seeing it for what it is" is also part of the structure. This vision of instrumentality is itself instrumentality. It is itself wishful thinking, even if it hurts, perhaps especially because it hurts. I don't know about you, but I was raised beneath a crucified God. So these dark visions remind me of the self-crucifixion of the spirit. Nietzsche is apt. This is festival of cruelty. Society can't do much to stop us from self-cruelty. It's erotic. — t0m

Yeah, even worse than Schopenhauer's negation of Will is Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. That truly is a horror. One is quiescence, the other is manic life sentence. The eternal vigilance of being.

Assuming that this is the THE TERRIBLE TRUTH, where does that put us? Or you in particular? You are the one who sees the face of God, and it is death to look upon the face of God. It may hurt. You may be terribly unhappy. But such suffering is ennobled by possession of this Truth, God's (or Reality's) actual, terrible face.

I'm not saying that this isn't the truth, but it's just a truth among others. If we are as humans fundamentally the desire for recognition or status (Kojeve's notion), then there's just more than one strategy. And to me this "status lust" is prior to instrumentality, or includes it. The theory of instrumentality is itself an instrument for status. That's my theory. But that theory too is a questionable instrument of status, which my anti-faith bids me to not completely identify with. — t0m

The point again, is hope gives us the narrow focus we need to not constantly bear the world in its full instrumental nature. It provides the ship its ballast. Status may be something that we do in a society, but that is more an epiphenomenon of being a social creature and is a secondary effect, and not an underlying factor in why we continue at a fundamental level. Status is not only getting caught up in goals, but taking them seriously.

That's an interesting idea; do you think driving through that has a telos? Or any kind of meaning you'd like to assign it?

Also, I noticed your edit about paralyzing depression. I have it, and am currently wrestling it. I'm responding here, emotionally, because I'm with you, not because I think your ideas are inherently wrong. — Noble Dust

If by telos you mean purpose, I'd have to know what more you mean. It's a way we get through the day. There is some goal, outcome, event, that will take place. It is extremely hard to function when there is not this. As you and others have pointed out, even Sisyphus smiling at his own futility is hope. It is hope in the living out of the futility. Hope of the hopeless futility. But usually don't live in that realm, they live in the realm of smaller goals as, once they hit the wall of futility, more goals fill its place. Restlessness churning.

So what do you think that means?

But "trapped" implies an unpleasant situation. I don't think your description is incorrect. I just think you are adding a value judgment to an otherwise accurate description. — t0m

By trapped, I mean, it narrows the focus- like opium.

I agree with what you imply, that we "slap on terms" in order to cope with reality. But I radicalize this theory. Even the grim "truth" of futility can function as an erotic object or power play. Pessimism is sexy.

Occasionally I feel world-weary. Occasionally (especially if I get sick), I get disgusted with life. So these modes appear, and it's easy to abstract assent to my death in such modes. But for the most part the game is too absorbing. I have projects to bring to fruition. We can call the projects an illusion or the sense of futility of illusion. We'd just be privileging one mode over the other. — t0m

So you are just reiterating what I said. Hope moves us along through the instrumental nature of reality. Sometimes you see it for what it is, but probably not very long. You get swept in some other hope, perhaps some Nietzschean notion of the erotic object or power play. As you indicate, the premise stands, and you are simply supplying some good examples in your own hopefulness in Nietzchean (or whatever you want to call it) philosophy.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. — Bitter Crank

Indeed, Marx was pedelling a new opiate of hope in Communism. Same bullshit, different name. A better state will come.

So what do you find hope in? Since you're still here. — Noble Dust

How is that relevant to the claim that hope is the opiate of the masses? You assume I have a way out of it or something. This is not meant to fully mimic Marx, in that he had a purported solution to the opiate (religion) which was Communism. I am just saying that this is how we operate. We can see the situation, but despite it, hope is what drives us through what otherwise would be unbearable instrumentality.

Is this a response to me? If so, just your ideas. You seem to find hope in hopelessness. — Noble Dust

As I said, no one escapes hope. That's also part of the theory. Those who do are are probably no longer here or in paralyzing depression. Also, Schopenhauer was considered THE pessimist philosopher.

Haha, was it that or schopenhauer1 that tipped you off ;).