Based on your explanations, I would say the latter world is the more frightening and absurd. The will qua will possesses the seeds of its own destruction and thus salvation. But the world conceived as a groundless end-in-itself would truly be a nightmare, for it would mean that no salvation is possible and that such a vicious, grotesque phantasmagoria can spring into existence from nothing at all. Thankfully, this is manifestly self-contradictory, but if it were true it would constitute a full blooded form of absurdism, not pessimism. Pessimism is true because the world is tragic rather than absurd.

Incidentally, I think the manga Berserk sketches an absurdist world admirably well.

That sounds disgusting.

Shh. We don't have to have that argument here. I just couldn't resist that quip, as a vegetarian myself.

Well, several pigs certainly died for such a dish. :-}

Which is more pessimistic: a metaphysical force that is ultimately pessimistic in its nature (a striving Will that goes nowhere), or a metaphysical nihilism that is grounded on nothing (radical contingency)? — schopenhauer1

I like this question, but I'm not too sure about what the latter position entails. Could expand on what you mean by it?

I feel the following quote from the end of Schopenhauer's life is relevant, made while he was in the company of sculptor Elisabet Ney:

"I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself from above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man."

Whatever qualms one has about the notorious essay On Women, one ought to realize that if one compiled an essay containing all the disparaging things said about men found across his writings, then it would dwarf the size of the former essay by quite a large degree. Schopenhauer primarily takes issue with the masses, the great herd of humanity, which includes the majority of men and women, for they represent a vast cauldron of ignorance, superstition, violence, gullibility, and incivility.

They probably don't count as a serious medical issue. I've always been very fit and healthy, though I could be much younger than many of you, so the ravages of time will catch up to me sooner or later.

Now there's a proper witticism! :D

Hmm, I don't really get it, but I suppose he's right!

Occasional hemorrhoids for me. Nothing else (though they are hella annoying).

Well, I don't see the irony, then. And I get the feeling that he stumbled upon these authors as a way to market his show's originality, which bellies any genuine, real acquaintance with and understanding of them. This is shown in the fact that he lifted almost line by line certain passages from Ligotti and others. If he needs to paraphrase almost verbatim the words of these authors, and hence is incapable of using their arguments by, say, having internalized them from frequent exposure, then I fail to see how it amounts to anything more than a gimmick; something he uses once to establish a name for himself but then abandons. Are these themes present in the second season? So far as I know, they are not.

who here went out on the streets to protest Iraq and Afghanistan? — Benkei

It certainly wouldn't have been me, since I support both wars. But as a single individual, there's very little I can do, or for you to do on the other side, to affect any real change, so it's pointless trying to pin guilt on one for inaction.

For instance when I point out their "universal" values, Western values, because, you know, that's what they are. — Benkei

I would say they're both.

But throughout time violent ideologies, even these particular wahhabist/salafist's ones, existed without having a meaningful following and therefore impact on others. — Benkei

Other ideologies whose results are the same existed just as much in the past. They just had different names. Islamic terrorism and militarism is nothing new, despite the names we put on it.

Abstract
1. Western foreign policy (to the extent it is unfair or immoral)
2. Racial inequality / discrimination
3. poverty

Personal/motivational
4. Personal experience (relates to 2 and 3)
5. sense of belonging (relates to 2)
6. Lack of education (not a rule of thumb but sufficiently correlated to take seriously)
7. Above may lead to wanting revenge or status — Benkei

All agreed.

I don't put stock in repeating what we've been saying for 30 years because the reality is that we're not living up to those promises. — Benkei

This is where my suspicion kicks in. We may not live up to the ideals we espouse in the West, which is trivially true, but that doesn't therefore mean we don't live in a safer, freer, and culturally superior region of the world compared to those regions ISIS controls (or any number of other brutal theocratic polities). It's the implication that you are attempting to assert the moral equivalence of the West and Islamic theocracy, merely on account of the former having committed some bad deeds as well, that I take it raises jr's ire, and mine as well.

Call it what you want but it has little if anything in common with European Fascism, unless we expand this concept to the point of vacuity. — Erik

Then you ignored what I said about the Catholic Church's involvement with fascism in Europe. Some critics have even gone so far as to call fascism the direct and logical offspring of right wing (ultramontane) Catholic political thought. Religion is inherently tied up with conceptions of fascism, more so I would argue, than nationalism.

I have been aware of this book for some time and haven't read it. I have very high standards when it comes to fiction, partly owing to the fact that my non-fiction list of books to read is so obscenely large. But judging from what you say here, it sounds like I am better off not reading it. I also haven't seen True Detective, for it too seems to be the same sort of popularizing of Schopenhauer that repudiates him in the end; in other words, shallow, gimmicky tripe that merely uses Schopenhauerian themes to invoke a gritty and rebellious atmosphere. I have no patience or time for fairy tale endings unless they are expected from the start.

Schopenhauer is said to have been laughed at by his contemporaries, to have failed to enjoy the pleasures of life, to have failed to explore the beauty of human relationships, and to have failed to appreciate other "bipeds". — Agustino

I think this is false, as anyone who has read his biography ought to know. But statements like this infuriate me to no end. On the one hand, Schopenhauer is criticized by people like Yalom for being an apparently uncaring, detached, and bitter old man. On the other hand, Schopenhauer is often criticized by Nietzsche and others for being too decadent and worldly, a hypocrite who failed to live up to his own ascetic ideals. In other words, he can't win. He's damned for being too much like a sinner or not enough like a saint. No one ever seems capable of objecting to his arguments. The critics have found that the best way to dismiss his arguments, which they either do not understand or find unpalatable in some way, is by hurling these ad hominems.

It could be argued that Schopenhauer's misanthropy was justified if we are to judge by his standard - why should a man of his superior stature seek relationships with bipeds? — Agustino

Well, the ironic thing here is that Schopenhauer was not a misanthrope, though he sympathized with the sentiment. He rather emphasized philanthropy, which stands to reason, given that he declares compassion as the basis of morals.

Being a Stoic is bland, being a pessimist is cool, hip, attention-grabbing and contrarian. — darthbarracuda

The latter are unintended but welcome side effects of our position. ;)

In all seriousness, the day pessimists are considered anything but unwanted cranks interrupting The Glorious Progress of the Human Race™ is the day I buy a hat in order to eat it.

Animals feel pain, animals have needs that can go unsatisfied. They don't know it though. It is not a concept. It may be a vague feeling, and I don't know what it is like to have cow pain, but certainly by empirical evidence they have some version of it. — schopenhauer1

I've been reading through the comments in this thread and felt like making one in response to this. I would say that you do know what it is like for the cow to feel pain, for any sentient animal is going to feel physical pain in generally the same way, owing to their neurological makeup. Consider also that thought often disappears in the moment of great pain. One operates on basic instincts and muscle memory when this occurs, not on any cold syllogisms of reason.

Ultimately, I think Fascism can only be understood in the context of when and where it originates. Post-WWI Europe — darthbarracuda

Keep in mind that it is alive and well (and has always existed in some form) in the Islamic world. Unlike the nationalistic forms of European fascism, the greatest threat to liberty and security today is Islamo-fascism, which could care less about the nation state (except of course the theocratic one it wishes to create). One must therefore add to your definition: extremist interpretations of religion. Even in the case of European fascism, the Catholic Church was in collusion with it, as much as it tries not to admit this now.

States don't need to be our friends. In fact, their whole purpose is to be the opposite: the bitter enemies of our baser natures. It would never occur to human beings to create something like a state if they could settle disputes and live in harmony with one another on their own. As such, the state is an evil, but a necessary one for civil society to survive, however much it may seem to oppose it at times.

Sure, what you say is all general enough that I cannot but agree.

His chapter in the second volume (and also the longest in that volume) of the WWP called "On Death and Its Relationship to the Indestructibility of Our Inner Nature" is excellent and profound. Keen observations come thick and fast in that chapter, so it's hard to point out just one or a few that have alleviated my fear of death. I would highly recommend reading it.

This thread has ballooned considerably since my last visit. Many posts are tempting to reply to, but as an adumbration of what I would want to say, I shall merely add here that the resistance to Islamic terrorism is not the cause of Islamic terrorism (or any kind of terrorism). This fallacy, still so rife in these kinds of discussions, needs to die post haste.

that there are objective qualities possessed by certain art works such that they must lead all (presumably suitably open) viewers to an experience of timeless Ideas? — John

No, not "must;" I have never been that forceful. Here is what I said earlier, ironically in reply to you:

"The Ideas are not represented in art, but rather experienced by means of art. Art is, as it were, a reliable catalyst for experiencing them. As I said in an earlier post, literally anything can inspire contemplation of the Ideas, but art rather uniquely does this better than most things. The primary way it does this, I would submit, is because, as a representation of the world, a piece of art is one step removed from our ordinary experience of the world. In this way, we do not react the same way to a painting of a man as we do to an actual man. The latter involves all kinds of subtle, instinctual, and emotive responses, whereas the former does not or need not. The painting allows one to intellectually contemplate the man free from the constraints of embodied interaction, and in this way, uncover the Idea behind him."

I don't have much to say on this topic. It's been a while since I have seriously familiarized myself with Stoicism, but I remember the Roman Stoics, such as Marcus Aurelius and Seneca in particular, to be full of wisdom on how to wade through the travails of life. The Stoic metaphysic ought not to be maintained any longer, but Stoicism as a system of prudence I think still has practical application.

I forget the exact passages, but I have often mumbled to myself, as if they were a Buddhist mantra, some variation of the forceful insights Aurelius has on death, who, excepting Schopenhauer, has done more than any other philosopher to destroy the fear of death in me. Whenever I am caught up in a blaze of agitation, I force myself, as it were, to think of death and my own demise, and suddenly things are put in their right perspective and my agitation becalmed.

As for Stoicism's relation to pessimism, I would say they are perfectly compatible, though only the latter seriously understands the metaphysical significance of suffering, whereas the former merely provides helpful remedies for it.

Well, I did try to make that very case earlier....

I see my point was lost on you then. So be it.

That might have been true centuries ago, but not any more.

Well, the problem with your thinking is that you are basically attacking both sides in a conflict. Add the Al Nusfra front and basically bomb everybody! — ssu

There's no need to exaggerate. We have the Syrian rebels as our allies, as well as the Kurds and Iraqis. Turkey might also change their stance and aid efforts at combating ISIS more directly.

I agree that policy concerning Egypt has been ridiculous.

What point are you trying to make?

The problem here is that the fight in Syria isn't so much about democracy, but religion. — ssu

This plays into my point in my first post about the need for an Enlightenment in the Islamic world. The problem indeed stems primarily from religion, not from Western imperialism.

I believe you brought up bin Laden a while ago. Well, one of the principal reasons why he hated the US (as opposed to Sweden), was because we backed the East Timorese resistance to Indonesian occupation with military aid. He and like-minded Islamic terrorists could care less about Western imperialism or its history, so long as it doesn't thwart their plans for instituting Islamic theocracy, their real aim. That many liberals in the West seem to take these terrorists' word for it that they're really just miffed about the legacy of Western colonialism is hilarious to me.

So Thorongil, will you want to go to WW3 because of Syria? That could affect even your own life, you know. — ssu

Sure, I suppose it could happen, but I very much doubt that it would. In any event, I'm neither a utilitarian nor a pacifist, so yes, I would take out Assad, the Russians be damned. The West sat idly by when genocide occurred in Rwanda and in Sudan, which I find unconscionable, and it infuriates me that we're now doing the very same thing in the case of Syria. Well, now we know the consequences of inaction: large scale attacks in Europe and a truly massive influx of refugees (not to mention endless carnage in the Middle East itself).

Strong military intervention should have occurred a long time ago. And do not forget that ISIS, Assad, and even Russia (in light of the annexation of Crimea) are the aggressors here. There is no good reason not to stamp out ISIS and Assad except for the fear that it will turn into another Iraq/Afghan quagmire. That's a legitimate fear, but not good enough to convince me that no serious military action should be taken.

I am open to whatever causes the minimum loss of innocent life both in the short and long term. That will require a combination of alliance-making, diplomacy and possibly some form of military action. I am against any knee-jerk military response. — Baden

Well, I'm glad to hear you say that. I'm against any knee-jerk military response too, but I also feel serious military intervention must happen very soon. At any rate, perhaps this is a satisfactory close to our conversation here.

Yeah, but it's really rich coming from some of those countries, especially Saudi Arabia. Of course they're going to condemn the attacks. The question is whether the condemnation is genuine and will result in real efforts to combat them. At the moment, they're fighting the Houthis in Yemen whilst turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda which is also present there and fighting them.

I. Marched. Against. The. War. Before it started. In London. Can I make it any clearer? — Baden

It is clear now, but it wasn't prior to this helpful statement.

You would have supported it and yet you have audacity to call me callous and uncaring — Baden

So anyone who supports a war at all is callous and uncaring? By the way, I never called you such things. You would be if you, or anyone, only supports doing nothing as the best option. You seem to have implied that you would be open to military action were proper planning in place. Is that correct?

- Who are you talking about when you refer to "we"? The US? The US+France+UK? NATO?
- What international coalition are you talking about? — ssu

Yeah, more or less.

- Isn't the West actually trying to do that, actually? — ssu

Yeah, but it hasn't adopted a strategy any more robust than simply flying drones and doing a few airstrikes.

- Who are the "Secular Syrian rebels"? — ssu

Well, to my knowledge, there are primarily four groups in Syria: ISIS, Assad's forces, an al-Qaeda like terrorist group (I forget their name), and the Syrian opposition. I call them secular since they are the allies of the secular Western powers and would presumably want to establish democratic rule in Syria when the fighting is over.

- You totally forget Russia here. If you start attacking Assad, you likely start attacking Russians too. — ssu

No, I haven't forgotten them, but I very much doubt Russia would do something drastic. What do you have in mind? Do you honestly think Putin would declare war on Western Europe and the US merely on account of the latter's invasion of ISIS and Assad? The Russian economy is garbage, remember.

It's not being a callous defeatist to demand an intelligent strategy in the Middle East for a change. — Baden

Good, and I advocate the same. I just think that the intelligent strategy can only involve the use of military force in one way or another. Diplomacy by definition will not work with a group like ISIS, which you surely ought to know. So again, the longer we wait, the more bodies will pile up. For the most militarily advanced nations on earth to just sit on their hands while this happens is both ironic and tragic - not to mention in violation of the genocide convention and other international laws.

by the likes of you — Baden

It would be wise not to assume much about me on account of my support for military intervention in the Middle East.

I marched against the Iraq war. — Baden

I doubt you marched against the war. In all probability, you marched against the handling of the post-war occupation.

I don't consider myself responsible for the murder and mayhem that has occurred since. — Baden

I'm not saying you, personally, are. The use of first person singular or plural is meant to refer to the US and the West in general, which should have been obvious.

Were you out marching against the war in Iraq or were you one of those who supported it? — Baden

In all honesty, I was too young to have any coherent, reasoned position on it. But now in retrospect, I do support, or would have supported, the war itself, which, as I have stressed several times now, is distinct from the post-war occupation. The latter I vehemently disagree with.

I don't know and neither do you. The difference between us seems to be that I am suggesting we wait until we do know. — Baden

Meanwhile, sovereign states are threatened and enveloped, innocent civilians massacred, and one of the most brutal regimes in history will solidify power in one of richest oil producing regions on earth, and will work to plot terrorist attacks all over the world, which it is already doing. Yeah, "waiting it out" sounds like a fantastic option - for the callous defeatist who cares nothing for the troubles of others so long as his own livelihood is not threatened.

And as a matter of fact, I do know how we defeat ISIS: we put together an international military coalition and with the help of the Kurds, Iraqis, and the remnants of the secular Syrian rebels, invade the Islamic State and destroy it, along with Assad, who should then be tried for genocide and the use of chemical weapons. The air campaign is not enough; we need trained Western armies and armaments to bolster the paltry efforts of the Kurds and Iraqis. If you don't think a country like the US, which spends more on its military than many other countries' GDPs combined, doesn't have the tools to exact a military defeat on ISIS, then you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Consider that the war in Iraq, for example, really only last about 3 weeks. That's all the time it took to defeat Saddam Hussein's army and topple his regime. What you and most other people object to is the handling of the post-war occupation of the country. This is when the massive corruption, abuse, and mismanagement occurred. The war itself was a piece of cake, and so will it be against ISIS. The problem is what to do in the aftermath.

It seems to me that you are advocating we repeat the same mistake. — Baden

No I'm not. I'm advocating the opposite: that we don't repeat the same mistake. The US military and her allies could not have not learned anything from the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's analogous to the extent that my point is that not all wars create brutal insurgencies by the losers. There are many other wars one could point to as well. I just used a well known one to make it clear.

What we need in Iraq is a sophisticated and intelligent response to the threat ISIS pose — Baden

Like?

And there is more nuance to simply advocating "bombing them." You can't merely assert that this is all we have been doing in Afghanistan and that the "bombing" solution therefore hasn't worked. I can quite easily make the case that we need to "bomb them" better rather than not at all. There were really stupid military mistakes made in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The management in general of both wars was truly inept.

The more we kill, the more we create. That's the lesson of the Iraq war. — Baden

No it isn't. You're cherry picking one war. If you were alive on the eve of the second world war, you might have said similar things: "the ethos of Prussian militarism and aggression is ineradicable; the more German soldiers we kill, the more we create radical groups like the Nazis. That's the lesson of the first world war." And yet you would have been wrong. There was no insurgency or pockets of Nazi resistance at the end of the war, to the surprise of Allied commanders. No such thing as "Nazi terrorism" arose at all. The Germans were thoroughly finished with war.

ISIS is an organized military force, and indeed even claims to be a state, as their name makes clear. As such, it is perfectly within the Western powers' rights to declare war against this rogue state and destroy it militarily. To think this can only be done by killing every last human being in the region is monumental hyperbole and doesn't even really deserve comment.

Whatever we think of the Arab world, we still need to look at ourselves. — Baden

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't.

the US bombed a hospital in Kunduz in Afghanistan and mowed down doctors and patients as they tried to escape the burning building. — Baden

An appalling tragedy to be sure, but then only a select group of people in the Pentagon are to blame, not the US, or the West, or secularism as a whole. Attaching blame to the latter for Islamic terrorism is the tired crock I am objecting to. The West and its values are superior to those of ISIS and like-minded groups. Period.

Hollande's comments about being "merciless" and Sarkozy's call for "total war", the results of which will inevitably involve more deaths of innocents on both sides, suggest it will be a long time before we learn that lesson. — Baden

Innocents will die, true, but ISIS needs to be obliterated. I fail to understand the reasoning that we ought not to destroy ISIS militarily merely because, only in part, they arose in the aftermath of the bungled Iraq War. Even if we are entirely to blame for their appearance, I see no justification for not pursuing their destruction.

Yes, unfortunately there actually is: like not to bomb ISIS in the first place. Simple and as logical as that. — ssu

It may be simple, but it's certainly not logical.