But that is where the pessimist would have hesitation with life's premise. Overcome shit, or live a less than "good" life. Not that I believe that slogan, but apparently some stoics do. — schopenhauer1

It's very strange because it is certainly not possible to have any alternative in non-existence. The fact of existence forces you to cope with it. If you don't, you will suffer, and then you will cease to exist. If you do, and do so well, then you will profit temporarily while alive. Are you mad that you are forced to make this choice? Well not being forced simply isn't in the cards. Why be upset about it? Birth may be an insult, but take it gracefully and make the best of it

I just don't think people are naturally inclined to think that overcoming obstacles is great or desirable- it is simply something one does after the fact because one is forced into it. — schopenhauer1

You are probably right about most people. So what? Does it follow that people should do only what they are naturally inclined to do? Stoicism isn't meant to be easy. It's very very difficult, but then, everything excellent is as difficult as it is rare.

I just don't think people will think like that. — schopenhauer1

Evidently not everyone does. But at least some people do.

If you look calm, you at least seem unphased, and are given more respect. — schopenhauer1

Well only looking calm isn't something commendable according to the Stoics. You'd have to actually be calm, something that only you can see within yourself.

@schopenhauer1

It seems to me that you are trying to judge stoicism by the criteria that whatever is painful is bad, and whatever is pleasurable is good. But stoicism doesn't operate by this criteria. Its practitioners do not try to avoid what is painful. Many times they actually go towards the painful as opposed to the pleasurable. Instead, stoicism guides itself by the criteria of what is virtuous. For a stoic, peace of mind is attained by the pursuit of virtue, which is the only thing which is under one's control. As such, a stoic "prides" him/herself over their character, as opposed to their outward circumstances, which they recognise to be contingent.

For the stoic, suffering is not equivalent with pain. Instead, suffering is the absence of virtue, which manifests itself in multiple forms. In the example with losing the phone that you gave, it manifests itself as self-blame, continued, out of control thinking about the phone, what if scenarios, etc. However, stoic practice leads one to the elimination of suffering. The stoic sage, much like a sports champion, is not hurt by obstacles, but rather profited. When an obstacle comes their way, they are happy, because there's yet another chance to overcome an obstacle. They are indifferent to pain; they do not care if it's painful or not to overcome the obstacle. The joy of the stoic lies in their character - in being able to pursue overcoming the obstacle that lies in their path - in their degree of self-control. As Epictetus said, death (or defeat) may be unavoidable, but it's certainly avoidable not to go out crying and begging like a slave, but instead keep your head up like an emperor.

As such, your claim that Stoicism doesn't prevent pain is besides the point. It never sought to. It sought to transform your experience of pain into something positive.

Insulting someone is the last refuge of a person with no argument. It's worth reflecting on why, when upset that your position is challenged, you have no tools to defend that position, rather than attacking the one who makes those criticisms on grounds besides the argument they've made.

Of course, it's arrogant to claim a position is wrong, but not to claim that it's right (which is, in effect, to claim that another one is wrong). 'Intelligent' people believe whatever you please: it's beneath a philosopher to appeal to authority and/or popularity. I think everyone upset in this thread knows that, but on the other hand has literally no better defense. — The Great Whatever

Except that it is impossible to argue with you. You do not make any claims which can be falsified by reasonable argument, you merely claim some things as facts, you never explain why they are facts to everyone else. You claim it's a fact that stoicism cannot decrease one's suffering. What's there to argue with that? You have retreated in an unassailable fortress, but you cannot touch any of us, simply because you do not have any arguments; you have no troops to allow you to move out of your fortress. You merely make claims that certain things are facts. I tell you that stoicism does help people (which is a reasonable explanation of the fact that millions claim to have been helped by stoicism), to which you respond that they are deluding themselves. Well how the fuck do you know? And who has more evidence? You have absolutely 0 evidence for your position, except a theoretical construct. There is no empirical evidence of what you say being true. And there is tons upon tons of evidence for stoicism being true: cognitive behaviour therapy, rational emotive behavior therapy, etc. Really TGW, if you claim stoicism is useless, you have no fucking clue what planet you're living on. It's not even worth arguing with you. There's nothing to argue in that. All that I can say is what Avicenna said: "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned". There is insurmountable evidence for the claim that people have at least been helped (even if not completely saved). How can I argue with you, if you do not even admit this basic fact? It's like we are five people and we all look out the window, and we say there's a tree there, and you look and say "I'm looking, there actually is no tree there. You guys need to look harder". The only thing we can do is hit you over the head and tell you to stop fucking around.

Yeah, Chekhov has some very nice books as well! After Tolstoy/Dostoyevsky he's my favourite Russian author.

Yes, I agree with you @WhiskeyWhiskers. TGW's attitude in this thread has been abysmal, and he is clearly wrong on all counts. I think it's more useful to consider the views expressed in Chekhov's Ward 6 against Stoicism by Ivan, rather than TGW's literarily non-existent "arguments".

"There is no real difference between a warm, snug study and this ward," said Andrey Yefimitch. "A man's peace and contentment do not lie outside a man, but in himself."

"What do you mean?"

"The ordinary man looks for good and evil in external things-- that is, in carriages, in studies--but a thinking man looks for it in himself."

"You should go and preach that philosophy in Greece, where it's warm and fragrant with the scent of pomegranates, but here it is not suited to the climate. With whom was it I was talking of Diogenes? Was it with you?"

"Yes, with me yesterday."

"Diogenes did not need a study or a warm habitation; it's hot there without. You can lie in your tub and eat oranges and olives. But bring him to Russia to live: he'd be begging to be let indoors in May, let alone December. He'd be doubled up with the cold."

"No. One can be insensible to cold as to every other pain. Marcus Aurelius says: 'A pain is a vivid idea of pain; make an effort of will to change that idea, dismiss it, cease to complain, and the pain will disappear.' That is true. The wise man, or simply the reflecting, thoughtful man, is distinguished precisely by his contempt for suffering; he is always contented and surprised at nothing."

"Then I am an idiot, since I suffer and am discontented and surprised at the baseness of mankind."

"You are wrong in that; if you will reflect more on the subject you will understand how insignificant is all that external world that agitates us. One must strive for the comprehension of life, and in that is true happiness."

"Comprehension . . ." repeated Ivan Dmitritch frowning. "External, internal. . . . Excuse me, but I don t understand it. I only know," he said, getting up and looking angrily at the doctor--"I only know that God has created me of warm blood and nerves, yes, indeed! If organic tissue is capable of life it must react to every stimulus. And I do! To pain I respond with tears and outcries, to baseness with indignation, to filth with loathing. To my mind, that is just what is called life. The lower the organism, the less sensitive it is, and the more feebly it reacts to stimulus; and the higher it is, the more responsively and vigorously it reacts to reality. How is it you don't know that? A doctor, and not know such trifles! To despise suffering, to be always contented, and to be surprised at nothing, one must reach this condition"--and Ivan Dmitritch pointed to the peasant who was a mass of fat--"or to harden oneself by suffering to such a point that one loses all sensibility to it-- that is, in other words, to cease to live. You must excuse me, I am not a sage or a philosopher," Ivan Dmitritch continued with irritation, "and I don't understand anything about it. I am not capable of reasoning."

"On the contrary, your reasoning is excellent."

"The Stoics, whom you are parodying, were remarkable people, but their doctrine crystallized two thousand years ago and has not advanced, and will not advance, an inch forward, since it is not practical or living. It had a success only with the minority which spends its life in savouring all sorts of theories and ruminating over them; the majority did not understand it. A doctrine which advocates indifference to wealth and to the comforts of life, and a contempt for suffering and death, is quite unintelligible to the vast majority of men, since that majority has never known wealth or the comforts of life; and to despise suffering would mean to it despising life itself, since the whole existence of man is made up of the sensations of hunger, cold, injury, and a Hamlet-like dread of death. The whole of life lies in these sensations; one may be oppressed by it, one may hate it, but one cannot despise it. Yes, so, I repeat, the doctrine of the Stoics can never have a future; from the beginning of time up to to-day you see continually increasing the struggle, the sensibility to pain, the capacity of responding to stimulus."

Ivan Dmitritch suddenly lost the thread of his thoughts, stopped, and rubbed his forehead with vexation.

"I meant to say something important, but I have lost it," he said. "What was I saying? Oh, yes! This is what I mean: one of the Stoics sold himself into slavery to redeem his neighbour, so, you see, even a Stoic did react to stimulus, since, for such a generous act as the destruction of oneself for the sake of one's neighbour, he must have had a soul capable of pity and indignation. Here in prison I have forgotten everything I have learned, or else I could have recalled something else. Take Christ, for instance: Christ responded to reality by weeping, smiling, being sorrowful and moved to wrath, even overcome by misery. He did not go to meet His sufferings with a smile, He did not despise death, but prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane that this cup might pass Him by."

Ivan Dmitritch laughed and sat down.

"Granted that a man's peace and contentment lie not outside but in himself," he said, "granted that one must despise suffering and not be surprised at anything, yet on what ground do you preach the theory? Are you a sage? A philosopher?"

"No, I am not a philosopher, but everyone ought to preach it because it is reasonable."

"No, I want to know how it is that you consider yourself competent to judge of 'comprehension,' contempt for suffering, and so on. Have you ever suffered? Have you any idea of suffering? Allow me to ask you, were you ever thrashed in your childhood?"

"No, my parents had an aversion for corporal punishment."

"My father used to flog me cruelly; my father was a harsh, sickly Government clerk with a long nose and a yellow neck. But let us talk of you. No one has laid a finger on you all your life, no one has scared you nor beaten you; you are as strong as a bull. You grew up under your father's wing and studied at his expense, and then you dropped at once into a sinecure. For more than twenty years you have lived rent free with heating, lighting, and service all provided, and had the right to work how you pleased and as much as you pleased, even to do nothing. You were naturally a flabby, lazy man, and so you have tried to arrange your life so that nothing should disturb you or make you move. You have handed over your work to the assistant and the rest of the rabble while you sit in peace and warmth, save money, read, amuse yourself with reflections, with all sorts of lofty nonsense, and" (Ivan Dmitritch looked at the doctor's red nose) "with boozing; in fact, you have seen nothing of life, you know absolutely nothing of it, and are only theoretically acquainted with reality; you despise suffering and are surprised at nothing for a very simple reason: vanity of vanities, the external and the internal, contempt for life, for suffering and for death, comprehension, true happiness--that's the philosophy that suits the Russian sluggard best. You see a peasant beating his wife, for instance. Why interfere? Let him beat her, they will both die sooner or later, anyway; and, besides, he who beats injures by his blows, not the person he is beating, but himself. To get drunk is stupid and unseemly, but if you drink you die, and if you don't drink you die. A peasant woman comes with toothache . . . well, what of it? Pain is the idea of pain, and besides 'there is no living in this world without illness; we shall all die, and so, go away, woman, don't hinder me from thinking and drinking vodka.' A young man asks advice, what he is to do, how he is to live; anyone else would think before answering, but you have got the answer ready: strive for 'comprehension' or for true happiness. And what is that fantastic 'true happiness'? There's no answer, of course. We are kept here behind barred windows, tortured, left to rot; but that is very good and reasonable, because there is no difference at all between this ward and a warm, snug study. A convenient philosophy. You can do nothing, and your conscience is clear, and you feel you are wise . . . . No, sir, it is not philosophy, it's not thinking, it's not breadth of vision, but laziness, fakirism, drowsy stupefaction. Yes," cried Ivan Dmitritch, getting angry again, "you despise suffering, but I'll be bound if you pinch your finger in the door you will howl at the top of your voice."

"And perhaps I shouldn't howl," said Andrey Yefimitch, with a gentle smile.

"Oh, I dare say! Well, if you had a stroke of paralysis, or supposing some fool or bully took advantage of his position and rank to insult you in public, and if you knew he could do it with impunity, then you would understand what it means to put people off with comprehension and true happiness."

"That's original," said Andrey Yefimitch, laughing with pleasure and rubbing his hands. "I am agreeably struck by your inclination for drawing generalizations, and the sketch of my character you have just drawn is simply brilliant. I must confess that talking to you gives me great pleasure. Well, I've listened to you, and now you must graciously listen to me." — Chekhov

Will's puppets sub specie durations, but the Will itself sub specie aeternitatius. So there is some relief to be found in the denial of the will - which effectively destroys the part sub specie durationis.

This is nonsense, I don't follow. The fact that they are unnecessarily grieving does not depend on what claims they make.

I may be wrong, but in fact, I think no one else reading this thread follows. If anyone does, please clarify for me, or for anyone else who doesn't understand, what TGW means.

Ok, but you seem to think that the person in the example above is not committing an error. If they are, how would you go about criticising their error?

I think that would be an entirely understandable reaction, and it's not necessarily my place to tell them how they should react to the death of a loved one. — The Great Whatever

Well it certainly doesn't make them feel good to act that way. Neither does it help them in anyway. So how does it follow that it's not your place, as an ethicist, to tell them how to manage the situation better so that they can move on with their lives and start feeling better?

Again, you are refusing to tell me what that person should do to feel better (assuming the stoic answer isn't the right one)... You are refusing to tell me how he can make his life better.

"O Stoic, misfortune has befallen me. What shall I do?" "Not this, not that." "What then?" "..." — The Great Whatever

Well I think it's not so... rather the stoic would advise one to stop focusing on the misfortune, and instead switch one's focus to something more productive.

But it doesn't provide you with an attitude in the first place, it just pettily moralizes about how grieving is stupid. "Suck it up" literally means nothing -- search it round and round, and you will find there is literally nothing you can actually do that corresponds to what the Stoic tells you to do. The Stoic essentially says, just be such that whatever bothers you, doesn't, or doesn't as much. There's no advice. — The Great Whatever

Well suck it up can be an advice. What if someone sits in their room and laments the death of their sister day after day? You go to them, you tell them to suck it up, and go outside to do something else. Focus on something they can do something about, which, for example, may be helping their younger sibling who is still alive. If they don't suck it up, they'll remain stuck doing nothing as you say, and it will exacerbate their suffering even more.

I doubt it. — The Great Whatever

Well I am telling you, I am interested if you do have something valuable. But so far it seems to be you are merely saying the stoic solution is untenable, you don't explain in any clear detail why this is so, and you fail to provide an alternative which deals with the same problem that the stoic fails to deal with in a better manner.

Nevertheless, the Stoic solution is, as I said, not to do anything. — The Great Whatever

Depends how you define "not doing anything". If whatever you're doing takes effort, then it's not "not doing anything" in my books. Simple as that.

No, but you are asking the wrong questions. I think the question of what to do with pain is misguided – there isn't a way to put band-aids on it, but it can to a limited extent be prevented. — The Great Whatever

*facepalm* What does the prevention of pain have to do with what attitude we should adopt when we can't or fail to prevent it? Don't you see the blindingly obvious: that the stoic attitude doesn't tell you not to do anything in your power to prevent pain, BUT RATHER provides you with an attitude to have against the pain that you can't - or fail to - prevent? Sorry to be so upfront, but what you're saying is so asinine and puerile that it's almost not even worth addressing. You leave questions that I asked before unanswered, and you don't seem to be looking for a discussion. If you are right, then please show us where we're going wrong, because I'm sure all of us want to learn and make our lives better. But right now, you're pissing me off because you don't address things completely, and it seems I have to work to get any information out of you. It seems you feign your lack of understanding about what I or Sapientia mean.

one has to buckle down and accept one's lot (which includes its suffering) rather than take seriously the possibility it might change. — The Great Whatever

Well, sometimes one really has to buckle down... I fail to see how this wouldn't be the case, unless we became Gods.

Ok TGW, so you think we can ALWAYS prevent getting hit by tornadoes and all tragedies in our life? If not, then what are we to do when we can't prevent it?

So not doing something is doing something? Wild... — The Great Whatever

Yes, because in many cases not doing something is harder than doing something. Hence it also counts as a doing merely because it takes active effort.

How is that not doing nothing? The response is 'not to...' — The Great Whatever

Yes, not obsessing is doing something when you take into account that most people would obssess in that situation.

I disagree with the framing of the question. It should be, how should we prevent getting hit by tornadoes? What really minimizes suffering is of course anti-natalism. Barring that, I think a reasonable Cyrenacism is the way to go, though that doesn't entail any specific life advice (that I don't think philosophy should endeavor to give). — The Great Whatever

But we can't prevent getting hit by tornados or any other potential tragedy. At least we can't prevent it in many circumstances. So what are we supposed to do in those cases? Despair?

And how is "reasonable Cyrenacism" helpful in any way? If there is no specific life advice, then how does it improve any situation?

TGW, you say the stoic response is to do nothing, but this is just false. Say a tornado comes and kills your family. The stoic response is to avoid becoming obsessed about the tragedy, and instead attempt to move on with your life and make the best of what is left behind (and this is not doing nothing). Of course you'll still be hurt by the tragedy itself, but at least you won't continue being hurt years and years afterwards by your obsession about it (replaying the events in your mind, etc.). If you disagree with this response, then I am asking you: what should your response be? What is the response that minimises suffering if not this stoic one?

I know both essays, it was jamalrob here who a year or two ago encouraged me to read Schopenhauer because of Sch's great feeling for music, and I'm glad I followed his advice. It seems to me that for its time 'Metaphysics of love' is trail-blazing and interesting. I'm amazed you think you can endorse 'On women', though, which I find extremely misogynistic. it argues, for example, that married women should be entirely deprived of property, as well as its various ill-founded remarks about people's 'nature'. If you think the present-day evidence supports as a 'fact' the notion that 'women generally do not have as developed faculties of reason as men do' then you are looking at different evidence from what I see. — mcdoodle

I don't agree with everything in "On women". For example I disagree about property ownership. But I do agree with Schopenhauer regarding the faculty of reason. And again, I think both Schopenhauer and I mean to speak more about genius in that phrase then the common folk. The difference is small in the common folk, it only becomes visible in people of genius. That's why you can easily have women who are scientists, engineers, philosophers, etc, but you find it really really difficult to have women who are geniuses in these fields.

Kant did not just pop out of the womb and write his Critique. He had access to education, something females did not at the time. Darwin didn't just "write" the Origin. He had access to education, money, ships for exploration of the Galapagos, etc. What were the females given? Very little in comparison. Can you imagine the contributions that would have come from female intellectuals had they been given access to education and resources? — darthbarracuda

Lol... women also had access to education, especially when they came from the upper classes. Most of philosophers and scientists were quite well off as well; the common folk didn't have access to education, both men and women. The field was leveled at the top.

I want a scientific source that says testosterone has a role in perseverance. — darthbarracuda

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/josephs/pdf_documents/EdwardsComment_MehtaJosephs.pdf

Just as a quick example.

Google "female scientists". Hypatia, Lovelace, Carson, Curie, etc. Plus I happen to personally know five successful female scientists and engineers. — darthbarracuda

I didn't say scientists or engineers. I said geniuses. The likes of Albert Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, etc. From the list you have provided none count with the exception of Marie Curie, who comes closest to genius.

What justification do you have for the position that women do not have as well developed rational capabilities? — darthbarracuda

Historical lack of evidence for as great a number of geniuses amongst women as amongst men. Take the number of great scientists who were men, great philosophers, etc. It doesn't compare. Which woman is as great a scientist as an Einstein, Darwin, or Newton etc.? Which is as great a philosopher as a Plato, Socrates, Kant, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, etc.? Probably none.

Source? — darthbarracuda

For the role of testosterone? Because the remaining bit is a direct conclusion from knowing the role testosterone plays.

So what is he saying? — darthbarracuda

In relation to this discussion, that women generally do not have as developed faculties of reason as men do. This isn't an insult, it's just a fact. If you want more details, just read the two texts I suggested.

I believe females have the potential to be just as good as males at many things, and even surpass in some areas that are even dominated by males today. — darthbarracuda

What justification do you have for this when it comes specifically to rational capabilities? (I've already agreed there are quite a few things women are generally better at than men)

But they have been systematically oppressed in the past simply because they did not have the physical strength and brutish testosterone that males do — darthbarracuda

Keep in mind that testosterone is essential to developing traits of perseverence (along with aggression) as well, so biologically, women aren't as perseverent as men simply because they lack quantities of this hormone that men have. In fact, women have about 7 to 8 times as less testosterone as men. This may possibly be one of the reasons why we don't see many philosophical/scientific achievements from women.

What he was saying is that because this is the way he thought women were, he felt women could not do anything outside of that. He was criticizing females without understanding why they are that way to begin with. — darthbarracuda

No, this doesn't follow. He's not criticizing at all. You read it as criticism, he's just stating how things are, without judging that this is good or bad. You read what he says, and immediately judge that he's saying something bad about women, which he is not.

What you (and Schopenhauer) are doing here is not making scientific observation (e.g. most prominent philosophers are men), but rather misusing a scientific observation to proclaim people with specific traits (men and women) are "naturally" something irrespective of there existence, such that all we need to "know" a person of that group is this "logically necessary" nature — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is patently false. Schopenhauer is in fact stating that the Platonic idea of women is as he describes it. It doesn't follow that every women is, by logical necessity, like that. However, it does follow, that there will be a tendency for women to be like that. But this does not enable one to "know" a priori what a particular representation of the Platonic idea of women (a particular woman) is like. Why? Because representations fail to match the Platonic idea - they are merely distorted shadows of it.

It is not only anti-scientific, but also a deep-seated understanding about what men and women are "meant to be." The intelligent women is considered "abnormal," a failure of human nature, because she doesn't fit (supposedly) what human women are mean to be. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, this isn't considered a failure from any particular individual point of view. Remember that the interests of Nature and the interests of individuals are different, that is precisely why Nature uses deceptions in the form of irrational instincts to control a large share of our behavior. As per Schopenhauer, women who are intelligent would only be "failures" in comparison to the Platonic ideas (meaning merely that they do not represent this idea in its complete form). Hence the fact that they do not represent the Platonic idea as faithfully as other women do isn't a reason for considering themselves "failures". There is no prize in representing the Platonic idea faithfully; from the individual's point of view, it doesn't matter. It's only from the species point of view that it matters: and even there, it only matters that most women aren't like this, not that all aren't.

As such, intelligent women are no more failures than I am a failure for displaying a very sensitive (and hence weak, unmanly) nature. Moreover, I may even greatly admire intelligent women: my interest is not the same as Nature's.

Historical evidence that is written by man simply because man has bigger, stronger muscles. You may also recall that practically every single war was waged by a man who wanted to show the world how big his penis was. — darthbarracuda

No, historical evidence written by the facts. The scientific/philosophical developments have, historically, been driven mostly by men. This is undisputable. It's not only historical accounts which justify this, but also the utter lack of evidence of a similar number of scientific inventions/discoveries or philosophical systems developed by women.

You're bordering the naturalistic fallacy here. Just because women are suitable for giving birth and raising children doesn't mean that's all they can or ought to do. — darthbarracuda

I never said that that's all they ought to do, and neither did Schopenhauer as a matter of fact...

No it's not. And it's scientifically false. — Marchesk

Sorry my friend. Historical evidence strongly disagrees with you. Your "scientific proof" must agree and be capable to explain other empirical facts as well.

You want to know something else? Women live longer than men on average, despite those difficult nine months of labor. — Marchesk

Ok, I never disagreed, this may be true :)

In my experience, really smart guys can have a lot of trouble with women. This is not always the case, but very often is. — Pneumenon

Often those people aren't simply smart, they are also shy or timid. This wasn't the case for Schopenhauer. Many of the others who are smart and are "bad" with women are simply unwilling to humiliate themselves or lose their dignity in their pursuit of women. Hence, they are unwilling to do many of the things others are.

@mcdoodle... This is pathetic. You should be aware that Schopenhauer is doing metaphysics, and as such he's talking about the position that Nature has allotted to women. His talk is not meant to be seductive at all; an entirely different form of discourse.

Secondly, do you have any objections to what Schopenhauer is stating there? Or are you just mocking him? In philosophy one ought to think, instead of merely vomiting out the commonly accepted opinions of a particular age. In fact, I see nothing insulting in what Schopenhauer is stating. It's no more insulting than saying that men don't have to carry a child and be weakened for 9 months of their lives. It's a historical fact that, in general, women were not gifted by Nature with the capacities for reason that man has. Check out the number of geniuses who were men. Compare this with the number of geniuses who were female. Now you'll tell me it's because females were oppressed through history... okay then, compare the number of geniuses who are female vs geniuses who are male today. Richard Feynmann, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, etc. It's no competition. There never was. But this is not to say that women are sub-human or anything like that. It's merely to recognise a biological fact, which is what Schopenhauer is doing. Schopenhauer also recognises advantages of women over men: such that women have a much more developed faculty of dissimulation and deception than men. Such that women are better educators and teachers. Such that women often display greater affection and compassion than men. But you, in a trance with temporarily accepted values of women being entirely equal to men, fail to see this.

Now the fact that your average woman in Western society today would feel insulted by those sentences says nothing of their truth, but merely proves Schopenhauer's point. Schopenhauer does not mean to say that no woman can have a more developed faculty of reason than most men. He merely means to say that such would be an abnormality in Nature, not the general trend. He has justified his points, if you actually spent your time reading the two texts, by explaining how they fit in with our biological evolution. Women evolved to fulfill different roles than men: therefore they are better at some things, and inferior at others.

I much prefer this place as well. Everything looks much nicer, is more clear, and the community seems more friendly and closer! :)

I think Schopenhauer was a genius - and he had all the right in the world to mock mere mortals. The fact that the masses of people could not understand him, and could not perceive his superiority isn't to say that it didn't exist. Schopenhauer was not ashamed to be who he was; neither should a man of great capability ever be. As for getting dates, lectures, etc; if Schopenhauer really wanted those, he could easily have got them: his insights in sex, relationships and love are in many regards unparalleled even by today's standards. Check out, for example, his essay "On Women" and his chapter "On The Metaphysics of Sexual Love". You think a genius of his stature couldn't manipulate a woman to sleep with him? Someone with such insight into what moves others would easily be able to do this. It's more like Schopenhauer was unable to find company which matched his; and therefore he preferred none.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention those... I get them too sometimes!

Out of curiosity, which parts of Schopenhauer have alleviated your fear of death?

@The Great Whatever

I think it's possible for bad things to happen to you regardless of what your response is to that happening.

Very well, but what does this have to do with how one ought to respond when bad things happen? Spinoza who schopenhauer1 mentioned along with the stoics would agree that bad things can happen even to a sage sub specie durationis. But this doesn't change the fact that when bad things happen it is better to have a stoic response than any other as it limits the suffering experienced; furthermore, a stoic response is necessarily couched in a view sub specie aeternitatis: we can only bring ourselves to respond stoically because we understand and feel that we are eternal

Maybe. Are you familiar with Hegel's comments on Stoicism? — The Great Whatever

@The Great Whatever
Somewhat. Hard to say as I am unfamiliar with many of Hegel's works other than Phenomenology of Mind, so I don't know if I'm missing something or what exactly you're referring to...

Sapentia Benkei @180 Proof @darthbarracuda @Thorongil @Agustino — schopenhauer1

I didn't receive any warnings regarding being mentioned in this thread, and I have been very busy recently, so haven't had time to reply. But I will reply to the point I find most interesting now :)

Agustino said: I have found pyrrhonism, epicureanism and stoicism in particular to be quite strong from a rational point of view. Epicureanism and stoicism, are for example, in practice, not even that far from each other; just different theoretical frameworks. — schopenhauer1

I am a pessimist at the time being, just not a metaphysical pessimist. That simply means that I believe that in the end, Nature will destroy any particular part from it; the death of the part is inevitable and necessary for the continuation of the whole. As such, every individual is doomed. But this isn't making any judgement on life itself, which would move into metaphysical pessimism.

They do think that life has suffering at the least, and their answer, if I was to boil it down to a slogan is "be indifferent to situations one cannot control". — schopenhauer1

What would the point of not being indifferent be? The situations are out of your control, whether you care about them or not, that doesn't change the fact that they are out of your control.

Stoicism tries to mitigate the fact that life presents itself as a problem (problems) to overcome, and pessimists are quick to point out that life has problems to overcome in the first place and this is not a good thing. Why should people have to cope with the problem? Why be given the problem? — schopenhauer1

It's hard to think about this when literarily all our experiences are framed in life. I'm not sure that a life without problems would be good in any sense of the term. Are you?

mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing — Schopenhauer

Well, cows seem to be quite satisfied merely existing on a green pasture. It's only humans that seem to have a problem. So we can't generalise for all life. There are clearly different ways of experiencing the world, and not all of them experience mere existence as a form of suffering.

No. I pretty much agree with Hegel that Stoicism ultimately is empty posturing. It gives itself a kind of ideal to reflect on that makes one think these things are answered, but when the rubber hits the road, it's ultimately impotent. — The Great Whatever

Can you justify this please?

In all seriousness, Stoicism works for me, at least, because its ideal state (that of the sage) is more or less impossible, which is good for me, because then I have something to strive for at all times. Additionally, I like Stoicism because it's anti-hedonistic. This is possibly because I'm rather anhedonic most of the time, but also because hedonistic philosophies just look like a recipe for slavishness and misery to me. I also like Buddhism a lot, if that tells you anything. — Pneumenon

Agreed.

It's just a core tenet of Stoicism. Pleasure and pain may be choice-worthy or avoidance-worthy in some respect, but they're not 'good' and 'bad.' Only living in accordance with a certain ideal is. So a person who's tortured, if he sticks to his Stoic guns, might endure extreme pains, but his life would be no worse on that score. Bad things cannot happen to good people. — The Great Whatever

What do you disagree with here?

a) It seems inaccessible in practice because there are some who have preconditions that might make it much harder to follow than others. People with mental disorders come to mind. These people might have an extreme uphill climb compared with someone who might not have these conditions in terms of accessing a state of equanimity in terms of emotional detachment or emotional purging. Taking this into consideration, luck and fortune has more to do with becoming a Sage than the Stoic-advocate might like to admit. — schopenhauer1

Just because climbing the mountain is harder for some than for others, doesn't mean luck is responsible for those who get to the top. People who have it easy, generally don't grow, because they have no incentive. It is those who suffer a lot who have a real potential for growth. Therefore it is most likely those more disadvantaged by nature who end up close to the sage ideal - they need the big guns.

It seems wrong to purge emotional response as emotions are the first responders to what is wrong with the world. — schopenhauer1

Stoicism isn't purging us of our emotions, but rather it is, at foundation, a therapy of the emotions, which puts each emotion in its right place.

Easier to conform your will to the world than the world to your will. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Excellent point!

I think Buddhism diagnosis and prescription usually works, and leads not only to non-suffering but flourishing. And Stoicism is simply how you deal with the remaining suffering, which, incidentally, is what I am now beginning to see as the only type of suffering that makes childbirth harmful. Ebola, for example, is reason enough for a woman to not have a child in Africa. The potential for nuclear war is reason enough to abstain from having children. But abstaining from having children because they might feel bored or feel unsatisfied with something seems very decadent. — darthbarracuda

A most excellent post as well! Entirely agree. So many good thoughts in this thread! :)

I'll call this Rebellious Pessimism. You know you can't actually do anything, and you are pretty much stuck, but you are not going to let delusions that it can be overcome or the idea that we must keep producing for producing's sake or the idea that we should try to forget what is pretty much an inevitable reality that pervades life from keeping us from recognizing this tragic aesthetic. You don't rebel by Nietzschean embrace. He had it all wrong. He increased the delusion more. He set a template for many other thinkers and followers to posture and fantasize about embracing (read overcoming) suffering. No, you rebel by recognizing that the suffering that is contained or is existence simply sucks, and that it is not good and recognizing it for what it is. No delusions of trying to twist it into rhetorical flourishes of "goodness" or by accepting it, or by embracing it. No, you have every right to dislike it and you should. The sooner we can rid ourselves of the delusions and recognize the existential dilemmas and contingent sufferings, put it on the table and see the pendulum of survival/goals and boredom, contingent painful experiences, annoyances as real- the instrumentality of all things of the world, then I think we can live with more verity. — schopenhauer1

Why dwell on what can't be changed? I prefer focusing my energy on doing at least the things that I can do.

Fighting life head-on with the attitude that focuses on the negative leads to negativity. Although everyone feels disappointment and anxiety, not everyone is beat down about it. — darthbarracuda

Yes.

This whole paragraph screams defeatism to me. Because what better way of amplifying suffering than by focusing on it and actively disliking every aspect of it that pervades your life? Nietzsche thought that the strong would be able to enjoy and relish life in a way that the weak could not. Call it delusional but at least they are enjoying it. — darthbarracuda

Indeed!

I'll provide further comments when I catch a bit more time! :) This looks like it will be a very interesting discussion, especially with Buddhism also rearing its head...

Questionable accuracy doesn't mean no accuracy. My argument is at least plausible - I didn't claim it to be undeniable proof - just reasonable.

Of course we distinguish ourselves from our individual parts - you know why? Because we are more than any single individual part. We are all our individual parts. If I were to ask you - do you distinguish yourself from your tendencies, desires, beliefs, body, thoughts, perceptions, etc.? - would you tell me that you do distinguish yourself from all those things? If so, then who are you? Because in that list, I think we have eliminated every thing that you could be. But the fact that we distinguish ourselves from our parts individually does NOT mean that we don't identify ourselves with our parts. It just means that we don't identify with any one part in particular.

The vast azure seascape sparkling under the sun’s roar,
Is the coming stage of howling thunders and hectic lightning
To shatter broken ships carelessly along its boundless shore
And prepare the beds for the millions who come whitening,
While the eye of heaven indifferently smiles.

Today one is born, and another viciously brought to his end
Man is Nature’s straw dog, a ragged plaything, disposable,
Oh, if I have learned a thing tis that Nature’s no man’s friend;
It goes along its unchanging course leaving the opposable
Crushed.

I cry, but what right have I to make demands of Nature
Merely cause there’s no suffering in my vain philosophy?
I curse her for her cruelty, but what right has a creature
In front of its Creator to spin a phantasmagorical story? -
Jerusalem is a fiction!

Oh Jerusalem, what need have I of you or you of me
For if you exist, then certainly you care not for flies
And neither can the fly with your perfect purity agree;
That which is imperfect I understand, all else are lies,
And salvation too is a terrible lie!

Like Sisyphus, I pick up my lovely rock, not my cross,
I follow not the Crucified, but the madness of Dionysus,
I ascend under the golden galleon to Olympus at a loss,
Regardless, “non serviam”, thus spake Prometheus,
For the struggle itself is the joy of the morning star! — Agustino

Wrote this poem a few weeks ago! In the Absurdist vein. Will post a few more soon! :)

PS: Btw, I don't have a title, so please feel free to suggest :p

Hi jamalrob,

Is it only articles you're looking to publish? How about philosophical poems, short stories, dialogues, etc? Would things like that also be acceptable?

For the articles, do you have any parameters in terms of length, structure, and so forth that you're looking for? Thanks!

And what have you got against urinals? — Bitter Crank

Nothing, just not a source of aesthetical experience. Sure, it may have a political message, but in my opinion, that is not art. The purpose of art is to provide me with an aesthetic experience.

I'm not sure when or if I experienced such a reaction to art, but... take yourself back to 1917 to the New York Armory show in which the urinal it's first and last appearance as a one-off shockeroo. it might very well have stopped any number of people in their tracks. — Bitter Crank

Well something can shock me in the sense that I'm like "WTF!". But that certainly is not the same thing as the reaction of awe I sometimes have when looking at art. The former isn't an aesthetic experience.

Like democratizing art. If I declare that something is art, then it is art. — Bitter Crank

Yes, and this is precisely what I disagree with. Not everyone is an artist, and not anything counts as art. This is, in Nietzsche's language, slave morality at its best.

But, given this, I think you would agree that there are not any ethical theorists in the ancient world who rely upon pure reason to justify their ethics. — Moliere

It seems to me we don't have the same definition of pure reason. Epicurean philosophy for me does rely on pure reason - it certainly doesn't rely on faith and/or the emotions. It uses those, but its determinations are based on reason. It seems to me that you think of "pure reason" as theoretical logic, abstracted from life. I think of it as the practical logic that we use in life.

I am not proving it necessarily follows necessarily. — schopenhauer1

So then what's your point? That some people feel so about the world? Sure.

Someone can be happy now making hand puppets and then break their leg walking down the street. They can feel miserable and hate their situation and then they can recover and feel the joy of friends at their bedside, but then get bored in the hospital room and have a moment of existential ennui, in which case they crack open a book and read about their favorite philosopher, by which time they get thirsty, and they can't get comfortable in their bed, but then they get used to it, but now something itches, then they worry about the work they are missing, some anxiety takes place and heartbeat quickens as they see in their minds the work piling up, then they think of that person they work with that really makes their day not so good, then they think of strategies to try to deal with it, oh wait the nurse came with a more comfortable pillow and some juice, great.. oh wait the juice is really watered down and kind of nasty, but wait, the nurse left.. come back, I still want more.. oh well, I can press the button but I don't want to be a nuisance, oh the philosopher book, I forgot about that. I'm going to read that. Oh crap, I have to go to the bathroom, I'll just get up myself.. oh crap my leg really hurts and I have a headache.. — schopenhauer1

There is something fake about this. And what is fake, is that the emotion/feelings generated by reading this are not the same as the emotions/feelings generated in living through, or having lived through the same thing. The experience that you are describing through the text just isn't the experience one would generally have in going through that.

Is it like a mission to create people who will deal with life? To be frutiful and multiply? No, it is not. — schopenhauer1

No it isn't. But this applies equally to the opposite. It's not a mission to cease creating offspring and become unfruitful until the species becomes extinct. That too isn't a mission.

So, all things being equal, just because someone likes dealing with burdens and responsibilities they should put this onto another person? — schopenhauer1

Neither should they put it, nor should they not put it. It's not a moral question.

Also, you didn't answer my question regarding Spinoza a few posts back. — schopenhauer1

I will answer it, just didn't have much time recently...

It doesn't necessarily follow that it is a fallacy of composition. For example, a brick wall, with no rendering, etc. just the bricks is made of red bricks. Therefore the wall is red. Have I committed a fallacy of composition there? No, because it is true that if the bricks are red, then the wall is also red. You have to prove that my attribution of causal powers to myself because a part of me (a belief) caused a change on another part of me is mistaken; only then will you have proved a fallacy of composition. And I don't think you can - just like if by a sudden jerk my hand hits a glass and makes it fall from the table, I say that "I'm sorry, I accidentally I hit the glass", not that "Oh, I'm really sorry, my hand hit the glass". The fact that one identifies oneself with one's parts seems to be true, at least to me.

The fact that we have to deal with life in the first place leads to philosophical pessimism. — schopenhauer1

I don't follow. It clearly doesn't for many people. Unless you can prove that this necessarily follows, then you are engaging in a hasty generalisation. Pessimism is an attitude, and as an attitude, it emerges from how one feels regarding life. But one doesn't necessarily have to feel repulsion when put face to face with life's inevitable difficulties. It may be a struggle to run, but that doesn't mean that one necessarily doesn't enjoy running, or doesn't look forward to it.

Notice that pessimism does play a psychologically defensive role, just like optimism - in order not to be disappointed, one must avoid the world, through a variety of mechanisms: not engaging in so and so actions because they can lead to sorrow; not believing so and so, because one may be disappointed; not forming relationships because it creates vulnerabilities, etc.

The idea that we don't want to make new individuals have to deal with life leads to antinatalist stances — schopenhauer1

There are logical problems with this. It presupposes that new individuals could possibly not deal with life. It is impossible, it's not in the set of possible propositions. As such, it's opposite, is a tautology, and thus has no explanatory value compared to a mere restatement of a personal dislike towards bringing other beings into existence. Perhaps a projection of one's insecurities as a parent onto the world.

There is nothing wrong with taking account of the situation and explicating about it. If you don't want to see it, then don't engage with it. However, saying "stop writing about it and deal with it" doesn't make the statements any less true. Trying to ignore it won't make it go away — schopenhauer1

Well some of us don't have to ignore it, simply because we don't feel this way about the world. Just because you feel so about the world, doesn't mean everyone ought to feel so. I understand that there is a large temptation for those who hold minority positions to attempt to enforce them as necessary on others, in an effort to convert others to their own faith, and thus have more people whom they can relate with, and whom they can feel good around. It happens to me too. I much rather prefer traditional societies to today's overly liberal societies - what that means is that I would like to live in a community of people following these values - but that is not to say that I ought to convince everyone else to follow me. In fact, even if I tried, I would never succeed. Arguments do not convince people. I'm much better off looking for those few people who are already convinced, and learning to live without them until I find them. This is integrity, and courage.

By definition, whether one acknowledges it in some cohesive theory or not, people must deal with life- its responsibilities, burdens, and suffering. — schopenhauer1

Yes, indeed. But some people like dealing with life's responsibilities, burdens, and struggles. Just because you don't, doesn't mean that everyone is like this. Personally, I much rather prefer a quiet life, as opposed to one with lots and lots of struggles. I don't like struggling, I'm lazy by nature, and I don't like getting a sense of fulfillment from overcoming challenges. It makes me feel as if I am lacking something, and I must struggle in order to obtain it. I don't like that. But it's something personal - I noticed that most people are not like me - for them, it's extremely meaningful to struggle - for them, this is the point of life.

Amor Dei Intellectualis is one way - our love for God, without the expectation of any love back, simply because God cannot love us back.

Nature doesn't care about its greatness. We do, because we love God. Remember God cannot love us back.