If we're to take the Straussian interpretation seriously, it it that ancient Greek philosophy emerged from politics - those skilled and involved in politics found they had extra time on their hands to start wondering about apolitical stuff.

I'm with Augustine on this one. I don't particularly like Aristotle's, nor Aquinas', devotion to immanence. I prefer Augustine and Plato and their ideal Forms. Aristotle and Aquinas both deeply believed in a world filled with telos, and it was easy to feel at home in an environment teeming with purpose. The world is ripe for the taking, according to Aquinas and Aristotle.

It's clear to me that we have governments to maintain stability and control over the land: a government is an entity that has monopolized violence. It's a necessary evil, because anarchism is quite unrealistic.

How so?

One need not expect utopianism to realize that some things are entirely vestigial and ought to be removed from society.

Ethics is more general than morality. Morality is dependent upon an ethical structure. So any moral judgement (i.e. that we should live) depends on an ethical judgement (that living is even ethical).

I prefer to contribute to the mitigation of suffering, my own and other people's, as long as it doesn't put me out too much. — mcdoodle

Why not go all the way? Why is it permissible to not do your very best? Why is not-being-a-moral-saint permissible?

The construction would go a lot quicker if those darn conservatives would stop trying to enforce gender roles that no longer apply.

By being more harsh (i.e. calling bullshit), and not promoting global tolerance and P.C, they would inevitably constrain the possibilities of identity.

What the ontological status of gender is depends on who you ask. For some of the far-right, gender is practically synonymous to sex. You have a penis? Good, you'll be the muscles of the family, the one who goes to war, the one who votes, etc. You have a vagina? Good, you'll be the baby-maker of the family, the one who stays home taking care of the kids, the one who supports her husband, etc. For some of the far-left, gender is entirely different from sex. You wanna be a dude, or a chick, or neither, or both, or a tree, or a unicorn or a dolphin, you go right on ahead and be that!

The problem with the uber-conservatives is that they are trying to impose social expectations on sexes that are no longer needed, nor perhaps even moral. The female sex should be allowed to vote, the male sex should not be expected to volunteer for the military, etc. On the other hand, the problem with uber-liberals is that they are so focused on not offending anyone that they completely lose any legitimacy. If you think you're a unicorn, then we're going to need to start changing our definitions of unicorns to include those who look like a human but are unicorns in disguise. For these liberals, gender becomes something to experiment with, caused by an excessive amount of free time and comfort. I don't particularly have a "big" issue with calling yourself something silly like a unicorn, but as soon as you expect others to actually respect your new gender and give you all sorts of benefits for "being different", we're going to have a problem.

So gender is a set of personality traits and social expectations that traditionally depended on what sexual organs you possessed but now tends to be loosely associated with these organs.

What I would prefer, however, is if we just throw out the whole concept of gender. Does it really matter?! Some would argue it does - mostly because they're concerned about homosexual or bisexual relationships (girls need to act like girls, guys need to act like guys, it's all clean and pretty and a well-oiled machine...). They're concerned about keeping things the way they have been, despite there no longer being a need.

Instead, we should make it so that your personality and the way you act is motivated by who you wish to be associated with. Done deal.

Foals is much appreciated, thank you.

I tried Facebook, hated it. Too much drama.

Is there any way to contact those who never tried migrating over to this PF? It doesn't look like old PF is going to be up and running any time soon, maybe we should try to invite them over here so we can start discussion again.

Sure, but why is abstract thinking on the level that we have necessary for a human being's survival?

The capacity to hold knowledge is a complex biological system.

Usually a complex system in biology does not survive or even evolve unless there is a way this benefits the organism.

How is this not question-begging?

Modern human beings who shop at grocery stores have no such excuse, however. — Thorongil

And modern human beings who do not require children to help take care of them have no excuse for having children.

His hair had a "Will" of its own...a-hah!.... >:O

Schop. is religious, eternalistic, and salvific, the existentialists are atheistic, temporalistic, and revel in a lack of salvation. — The Great Whatever

I agree. Schopenhauer really shouldn't be associated with nihilism. Although he certainly was an atheist.

It would be immoral only so long as the agent is aware of said foolishness. Otherwise, no, it would not be an immoral decision. You're still confused about the role of intentionality and about the difference between instrumental and moral goodness. — Thorongil

I see little to no difference between the two, except for perhaps the guilt of the persons involved. What does it matter if a person procreated without understanding the implications of the procreation? Why do the person's intentions have any importance, except by means of assigning guilt?

Perhaps we shouldn't condemn those who have children, but we certainly shouldn't just allow it to happen, unless we're damn sure nothing will come of it if we try to get involved.

Many people eat meat without understanding the implications. Should we just allow them to continue to eat meat? They're participating in a global murder charade. If something's worth putting a label on, such as veganism or antinatalism, then I think the least you could do is try to change people's minds, unless of course you are absolutely certain nothing will change.

Hence why I think I need a new term. I'm not too bent out of shape regarding birth. Most people can deal with life. It's "whatever", shit happens, idgaf. Not exactly the most politically active position.

I agree somewhat that Schopenhauer was more accurate than anyone else. Part of me believes that he just had the guts to say what everyone else was secretly thinking.

At the same time, though, he missed a lot. He missed the human need for movement, action, rebellion, domination, ideas that came most significantly from Nietzsche and Camus. Schopenhauer comes across to myself as someone who rejects the world instead of at least trying to work with it. We need not be masochistic and embrace the world (as some readings of Nietzsche's amor fati may seem to recommend). But neither can we actually fully reject the world.

I've been reading a bit of Levinas recently, and some of what he has to say is really interesting. For example, Levinas thought that our ethical duties were solely to other people and not ourselves (altruism). He also thought that "life is joy" with the story of the condemned telling the hangman "just five more minutes, please" before being hung, remarking that the very act of breathing was joyous. He thought joy came before craving, as without joy there's nothing to crave. It seems that Levinas thought that if you weren't suffering, you were happy. Whereas Schopenhauer thought you were either suffering or dying of boredom, with the brief intermission of contentment.

That's not to say I completely agree with his ideas. They seem a bit too optimistic for my liking - the world largely is a sorry place. But Levinas' ideas are certainly a nice change from the doom-and-gloom of Schopenhauer, whom I believe accused everyone else of rose-tinted glasses while simultaneously wearing shit-tinted ones. More precisely I think that the intermission between boredom and suffering is not nearly as brief or episodic as Schopenhauer thought.

Levinas' idea of joy reminds me of the Buddhist concept of understanding and "inner peace". When suffering is removed, what remains? Peace and understanding. It was always there to begin with - just masked by tanha and other distractions and pains. It's not as if there's just an empty void when suffering is removed. There's always a silver lining underneath.

Provide a path to clarity for those who have low ambiguity tolerance. — Bitter Crank

I do like this quote. (Y)

The DIY approach using the means at hand leads to clear results. The goal of terrorism is NOT to attack our deepest, dearest values (like Liberté, égalité, fraternité). That's too big, too complex. Rather, it's to instill a sense of vulnerability, instability, insecurity. It's a way to "bring the war back home". "You too should suffer." It works. — Bitter Crank

It does this by being unpredictable and untraceable to any collective governing agency.

The easiest way of gaining notoriety without skill is martyrdom (paraphrasing Schopenhauer)

Ideas? — Bitter Crank

Tighten immigration and restrict the availability of firearms.

The definition online disagrees. — Thorongil

Someone can be a Hegelian without believing everything Hegel said. Someone can be a Buddhist without believing in karma. etc. These terms are more family resemblances - like the term philosophical pessimist. Someone could call Hinduism, Buddhism, and early Christianity philosophical pessimistic belief systems. They fall under a general category out of a family resemblance to each other.

If you're concerned about antinatalism being too narrow of a view, then perhaps we ought to make a new term, one that encompasses a lack of appreciation of birth but without the normative issues. In other words, an aesthetic outlook on birth.

Suicide for him is not immoral but foolish, for the reason that the suicide does not harm anyone else but is still deluded about the outcome of his action. Likewise, having children is not immoral but foolish. — Thorongil

How can an action be foolish but not immoral? Foolishness implies not rational, and rational decisions are based upon expected value outcomes. Therefore, a foolish decision can be an immoral decision.

EA? — Thorongil

Effective Altruism.

This is correct. — Thorongil

And certainly he would have thought that a person who lacks compassion is to be condemned, just as he condemned those who abuse animals.

True, that language comes close to a moral indictment, but in order to read him with any consistency, we are forced to admit, based on the great weight of evidence from his ethical writings, wherein he is at pains to very precisely define what he means by terms like "good," bad," right," "wrong," etc, that parents, on the whole, do no wrong in having children. One would have to throw out this great weight of careful analysis merely in order to accommodate an imprecise line of exuberant metaphor. Schopenhauer cannot mean, therefore, that parents or lovers in general commit wrongdoing. — Thorongil

Antinatalism does not have to be a moral condemnation of birth, just like being an anti-expansionist doesn't have to mean believing expansionist policies are immoral. Schopenhauer asks us whether or not giving birth is a rational action - there's no explicit normativity here, nor does antinatalist require it. However, Schop also visibly condemns lovers as those who keep the cog rolling. He clearly did not think we should have children, and since morality for him largely stems from compassion, he would have thought that if we had compassion for our children, then we wouldn't have them.

The difference between Schop and modern antinatalism is, again, whether or not they are supportive of political action. If you are concerned about the environment but don't do anything to help it, then why would you call yourself an environmentalist? Why call yourself a Christian if you don't actually participate in any of the rituals? Why consider yourself an antinatalist if you have children and aren't supportive of the political enforcement of it?

If belief is all that matters here (or "intentions"), then Schop would be an antinatalist. I hardly doubt that he would be against what modern antinatalists are advocating, even if he thought it was a hopeless dream.

I might seem aggressive, for which I apologize, because it seems like there's always someone who, when discussing Schopenhauer, brings up the alleged fact that he didn't practice what he preached. I think that charge overblown, yes, and I'm also tired of hearing it. Focus on the arguments rather than character assassination. — Thorongil

Then let's leave it at that.

Apologies for any past aggression as well, I've about had enough with online anonymous arguments that really end up just being dick comparisons which happens so often here and elsewhere. I'm sick of it, it disgusts me and wastes everyone's time. Most people I believe are more focused on arguing for the sake or arguing instead of actually pursuing any insight.

I think apathy is the wrong word, for it again implies some kind of failure on one's part. To wish for the impossible is foolish, as Schopenhauer notes above. In the present case, to wish for human beings to voluntarily stop procreating is to wish for the impossible and so foolish. The opposite of foolishness is not apathy but wisdom. Therefore, it is wise not to try to put one's anti-procreative stance into practice. — Thorongil

The trouble is finding the balance between a legitimate understanding of one's efficacy, and using this so-called lack of efficacy as an excuse. Coming from an EA advocate, there isn't much excuse to not get involved in the world's affairs in some way. Intentions easily reduce to action or lack thereof.

So Schop seemed to be both a philosophical pessimist and a psychological pessimist.

If anti-natalism is the position that claims that having children is not recommended, then I am an anti-natalist and Schopenhauer is too. But the definition online states that it is the philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth. — Thorongil

Antinatalism was coined by David Benatar, and Benatar makes connections back to Schopanhauer and co. Now originally AN was supposed to be about the negative value of birth, but it has since grown to include any and all pessimistic ideas about birth.

I just don't see what the big deal is. Who's who and what's what, it's just a semantic debate. Schopenhauer had a family resemblance and influenced future pessimists. Do we really need to go further? Is the legacy and portrait of Schopenhauer really at risk by calling him an antinatalist?

Good, so you admit it's a possibility. That it takes considerable sacrifices is obvious. There's a line from a web page I like which reads: "we so dislike the idea of asceticism - or rather, the will so dislikes the idea - that we have a hard time seeing the obvious-ness of the solution." And what is asceticism, for Schopenhauer? The deliberate breaking of the will by refusing the agreeable and looking for the disagreeable. So no, you will never attain to the denial of the will so long as you keep dismissing it as too hard or unpalatable. That's proof not of the impossibility of the denial of the will, but the grip the will still has on you. — Thorongil

Substitute in "suicide" for "asceticism" and you'll see why I find this to be an impossible pipe dream. Religion is the quest for the ideal hero, the journey from dirtiness to cleanliness. Asceticism has connections to religions and is exactly this: the attempt to isolate oneself from the dirty, the evil, the wicked. You don't even have to actually attain the goal, all you have to do is pretend you're making progress.

The idea that asceticism can relieve us of the Will and suffering for extended periods of time strikes me as an undocumented, optimistic pipe dream.

Determinism doesn't stop you from trying.

False. I really don't know why you and others wish to force Schopenhauer into being what he is not, that is to say, a utilitarian. Consequences of actions, so far as their moral worth is considered, do not concern him in the least. It is the motive of the action that counts, as I have already explained, and alas, must explain again below. — Thorongil

If it's the motive that counted, he wouldn't have called lovers monsters that continued the suffering, since parents don't usually wish to inflict harm upon their children. He clearly had some tendency to look at the big picture and realize that the consequence of birth is bad.

So if the motive is not to inflict harm upon the child, what is the motive? To create another life? Why is creating another life bad?....ah, the consequences of life!

Except that you never seem to tire of bringning it up even though no one asked you to! Why do you do that? — Thorongil

??? Why are you so aggressive? Calm down, jesus. Everywhere I go it seems like there's always someone getting overly defensive of their hero.

I was reacting to what you had previously stated about Schop's hypocrisy being over-blown...so it seems like you started this.

I haven't made any substantive claims about Nietzsche thus far, except to say that it would probably be a mistake to anachronistically label him a fascist, to which it appears you agree. So you would have no grounds for such a claim. — Thorongil

You said that Nietzsche got practically everything wrong and was a sickly and miserable propagandist. That's pretty damn substantial and an attack on the personality traits on Nietzsche.

What counts as being an expert to you? Having three special letters next to your name? I know you're not that patronizing. The simple fact is that Schopenhauer never intended to change the world. He had little to no interest in politics, remarking that he minded not the times but the eternities. He was appalled by the revolution of 1848 and disavowed all utopian projects, optimistic creeds, and historicist philosophies, such as those operant in that revolution, as well as thought that the notion of progress is a myth in light of human nature and that salvation did not result from affirming the will or attempting to change the material conditions of the world, but came from within, as an internal reorientation toward the world. For these and other reasons, which ought to become rather apparent after a mere cursory reading of his works and biography, it could not be more false to say he "failed to change anything significantly in society." One cannot fail at what one never intended to achieve, and put no stock in achieving, in the first place! — Thorongil

If you don't like patronizing people, then don't claim to have special insight into Schopenhauer's philosophy. I read his stuff too, you're not the only one who has experience with his work. Claiming I misinterpret his work without providing evidence is just a hand-wave.

THIS is why I don't think he would like being labeled an anti-natalist: He wasn't interested in going public, like you said. He wasn't interested in trying to change things, since trying to change things would be an optimism. He didn't fail, partly because he didn't really try. He was world-weary and lacked any faith in humanity or the world at large and so was content with simply observing the human condition and not trying to do anything about it.

Usually we hold a position when we wish to ease discussion. Schopenhauer wouldn't have called himself an antinatalist (and neither did he call himself a pessimist) because those kinds of terms are applied when someone wants things to change. I hold liberal values but I wouldn't really call myself a liberal because I'm not super involved in politics. So the practical and political realm is a key factor in many terms.

It means that all the resolve in the world won't budge the brick wall that is human nature. I'm saying you sound like a utopian when you chastise yourself for not doing more or not have the guts to put anti-natalism "into practice." It's best that remains a bitter taste in your mouth. — Thorongil

Perhaps I am idealistic. But perhaps you're apathetic.

In truth I don't believe we'll die out on our own accord. So like yourself I am apathetic. I just don't give a shit. I'm only an antinatalist in that I don't think having children is recommended, but keep me away from any riots or protests. Should I do more? Are my intentions in the right place simply by holding a theoretical belief? I don't know.

Wrong. "You" are the will. — Thorongil

I am a manifestation of the Will - controlled by the Will.

Based on this and your other comments on asceticism, you still seem to be under the impression that the denial of the will results in one being whisked away to some paradise and thus in one's disappearance from the world. No. It merely describes the will being calmed to such an extent that one no longer suffers from it. It's a change in perspective, not ontology. So it would be misleading to think that the denial of the will only occurs when in meditation or some such activity. On the contrary, if one has attained the denial of the will, it can remain denied even when eating, defecating, and paying the bills. Denying it means ceasing to be attached to these things, rather than the ceasing of these things altogether. — Thorongil

And I contend that nobody can calm the Will without considerable sacrifices. It's the dream that never attains, but for most people it's enough to play pretend and try to convince themselves that they're really actually making progress (progress...optimistic?). For the most part, trying to calm the Will ends up only reminding you of it. The calming of the Will usually is accidental and short-lived.

We need to be clear. Did he not think highly of 1) choosing to procreate or 2) the fetus exiting the mother's womb? My point was that, while he did not approve of the former, he had no strong opinions on the latter and so cannot be said to be "against birth" or some such facile formulation, which, again, is the formulation of anti-natalism. — Thorongil

The act of sex is not the only action or factor involved in the decision to procreate. Choosing to procreate entails a fetus exiting the mother's womb or by C-section or elsewhere. It's the decision to bring another life into the world, and the act of childbirth is merely one of the methods that this is done. So it's really not the "foundation" of antinatalism - the foundation of antinatalism is the act of creating another sentient being regardless of how the action plays out. Both Schopenhauer and the antinatalist would agree that since the fetus exiting the mother's womb is part of the process of creating a new sentient organism, and since both would agree that creating a new sentient organism is not to be advised, then the fetus exiting the mother's womb is by proxy also not advisable.

Would you say there is difference between murder and the exiting of a bullet from a gun aimed at a person's head? For the bullet, its exiting the gun barrel has a disvalue if it's oriented towards a person's head. A baby exiting the mother's womb has disvalue if it is a necessary cause to the baby becoming fully sentient - in which case, all birth is disvalue because birth, ceteris paribus, involves the creation of a sentient organism.

Would Schopenhauer be against test-tube babies? Would the antinatalist be against test-tube babies? I would think so. And yet test-tube babies aren't birthed out of the vagina or uterus. They are created in a laboratory and born from artificial equipment.

So the issue here isn't some semantic debate on what counts as birth and what doesn't. What matters is whether or not someone is brought into the world. Neither Schopenhauer nor the antinatalists view these kinds of acts as a good thing, and it's clear that antinatalism isn't limited to "natural" births - it composes all reproductive actions. Both Schopenhauer and the antinatalist would agree on this: "don't create children". No need to complicate things further.

And what does getting one's hands dirty look like? Becoming a professor? Schopenhauer did that. Climbing mountains in the alps? Schopenhauer did that. Feeling compassion toward animals, such as horses? Schopenhauer did that, though did not go mad when in close contact with them. Let's please not believe Nietzsche's own propaganda. He was just as much if not more of a miserable recluse as Schopenhauer was. That being said, I think allegations of Schopenhauer's supposed "decadence" and "hypocrisy" are rather overblown. — Thorongil

Nietzsche's own frail position made him feel as though he were allowed to take a step back and assess the human condition (not everyone could be an over-man, just as not everyone could attain the Aristotelian telos of man). He was passionate, encouraged others to disagree with him, and believed that greatness involved changing the world, because to change the world meant to have power. By no means is Nietzsche a propagandist, and by no means was he fascist or a Nazi (he was vehemently against any and all German hyper nationalism). He was a destroyer intent on a rebuilding of society based upon new values. Whether you agree with Nietzsche or not, he changed the world. His criticism of Christianity is poignant. His master-slave dichotomy touches on our inherent need for power. His contradictions, of which he was fully aware of, show how he expected and wished others to argue against him. He made explicit the need for humans to express themselves, particularly in revolution (the purest form of asserting power). Whereas Schopenhauer was content with analyzing the situation - meanwhile he went out and partied with friends and had a bastard child with a woman he later left, all the while claiming that asceticism was the path to enlightenment. These are not the actions of an ascetic.

Every person has their failings. For Schopenhauer it seemed to be disingenuous behavior. For Nietzsche it was arguably insanity and at times incoherent rambling. None of this matters in the philosophy room - what matters is what they had to say. It's why I don't really admire Schopenhauer at all, but agree with almost all he had to say. Schopenhauer was a hypocritical dick, but he was mostly right in my opinion. Doesn't change the fact that he was a dick.

This never was, nor would ever be, Schopenhauer's intention. If you think it is, then you simply haven't read him carefully or understood him. — Thorongil

No offense but this is basically just a hand-wave. I could easily just say that you clearly haven't read Nietzsche carefully or understood him, as if there's some obvious objective interpretation. You are not, to my knowledge, an expert on Schopenhauer, and I see no reason to believe your interpretation over my own unless you provide more justification.

If by "great" we mean "wise," this is most assuredly false. — Thorongil

By great I mean memorable and/or dominating. Schopenhauer resonates with me - he is great and I think his works are greater. Nietzsche resonated with many other people (and somewhat myself) - he was great. Hitler resonated with all of Germany - he was great and accomplished many great things despite being a horrible human being. To be great is to be immortal.

Being wise is one thing. Starting a movement that changes history based upon this wisdom is a totally different thing, because it asserts power. The works of Schopenhauer were great because they were powerful - they changed many people's minds including my own. Nietzsche's works were also powerful in the same sense. To have power means to have the ability to change and have influence over others. It's not just that there is a striving Will, but that there is a dominating Will - objects compete for spatio-temporal location, animals compete for resources, beliefs compete with each other for dominance in my mind. Even asceticism is a form of power - since the ascetic claims to try to transcend the muck, to hold the evil at bay. Those who try to avoid the Will are nevertheless instantiating it, just as the slave created a new morality different from the master.

It's not about guts or resolve. It's about recognizing human nature and as a result not wasting one's time chasing rainbows in the desert. — Thorongil

I don't get this quote.

Then you're going to have to delineate what "genuine asceticism" is. — Thorongil

A genuine ascetic is one who firmly believes that he can transcend the muck - that asceticism is a legitimate path that actually works - and is currently practicing as such.

I think this is an absurd comparison. — Thorongil

Great, but this is another hand-wave. The promise of escape from the muck is more immanent than the actual escape - it's a hopeful dream, one that we never seem to be able to attain but nevertheless try to by setting goals and pretending like we're actually making progress when we're still stuck in the muck. We can limit the Will, for sure. We can meditate and contemplate philosophy and works of art, no problem there. But these are temporary solutions to a permanent problem. But it's all that works.

If that's asceticism - the never-ending attempt to rid oneself of the Will but never quite managing to do so - then I agree that it's an option.

A clever but still wrong analogy. It's precisely by virtue of looking at both the stars and the ground and finding no great difference between the two in terms of their emptiness that the ascetic rejects them. — Thorongil

As the Buddha said, there is nothing wrong with sitting.

But sooner or later you're gonna have to get up and take a piss. And suddenly the magic is broken.

I see no reason to doubt. If the will is outside of time, space, and causality, and so is absolutely free to affirm or deny itself, which is also to say that it is groundless, then there is and can be no reason why it cannot deny itself. The will, therefore, would have to be other than it is to warrant doubt. Remember also that the denial of the will does not mean the annihilation or destruction of the will. It cannot be destroyed for the reason just given, that it is outside of the causal nexus. A synonym Schopenhauer frequently uses to describe said denial is "quieting." The will is calmed, such that one no longer suffers from it. Some degree of asceticism is inevitable in order to achieve this, but it need not take the form of a half-starved forest sadhu, unless one's character is such that starving oneself in a forest is the only way to break the will's grip. There is the general salvation of the denial of the will, and then the personal salvation of individuals according to their character. — Thorongil

Affirmation or denial is an act, and acts require time. You cannot control the Will (if it's too be taken seriously as a metaphysical concept today) - the Will controls you and you manage to escape its grasp every now and then by temporarily turning off the biological mechanism that it operates through (desire). But sooner or later you'll have to eat, sooner or later you'll have to take a shit, sooner or later you'll have to pay the bills.

And if the Will is outside of the causal nexus, then it cannot influence the world we live in, and thus we would not be able to know of or observe any Will of any kind.

Nothing will change unless that orientation with the world, innate though it may be at first, is cognitively problematized and practically overturned. What is the difference between an anti-natalist who engages in protected sex or consumes pornography and a natalist who engages in procreative sex? Nothing, so far as the will is concerned. Both are still firmly mired in the primordial delusion. — Thorongil

At least for myself, genuine asceticism just seems to be navel-gazing self-denial. It's nice to think that you and everyone else can achieve some kind of transcendence or escape from the will, but all it reminds me of are those soccer moms who are obsessed with detoxing their gut and getting acupuncture for their "spirit" or whatever.

What I mean to say is that asceticism is a reaction of disgust to a realization - an ideal escape from the muck. I do not believe asceticism and the denial of the will is practical nor achievable, but for some it seems to provide a fragile dream of cleanliness. The very idea of escaping the will is enough to keep the ascetic going. While the optimist looks to the stars and is blind to where he's walking, the ascetic looks to the stars to ignore and avoid looking at the ground. But both are stuck on the ground.

So I'm with you that we can and should view the will as something to be avoided and generally detested. But I doubt we can get rid of it except in short episodes of contemplation or sleep.

Schopenhauer would not have viewed birth as something to be celebrated (even though he had a bastard child himself...good job Schop). I cannot find the quote unfortunately, but Schop basically condemns lovers as "fuel for the fire", so to speak, because they inevitably have children. So he definitely did not think highly of birth.

Whether he advocated a positive thesis on the immorality of birth, that's certainly up for debate. Seems to me that his anachronistic antinatalism was more of a result of his pessimism - if you're a (Schopenhauerian) pessimist, you don't have children, just like if you're a devout Catholic, you don't have meat on Fridays. It's part of the system he advocated. Schopenhauer had this quote:

"Great men are like eagles, and build their nest on some lofty solitude."

Which leads me to believe that he was content on simply observing the human condition, similar to Nietzsche, but didn't really care about getting involved, unlike Nietzsche. He was content with simply making pressing observations and did not care to actually follow through and try to enforce his claims. Whether this was due to laziness, apathy (most likely case imo), or a genuine disinterest in getting involved, I'm not sure. I think this was one of the points Nietzsche brought up in his various critiques of Schopenhauer - he wasn't willing to get his hands dirty. He styled himself a great man and thus removed himself from society - when in reality he produced great works of philosophy but as a man failed to change anything significantly in society; and according to Nietzsche, the greatness of a man depends on the impact he has on history.

So the term "antinatalist" seems to come with the baggage that one is actively opposed to birth, particularly in the political realm - they are supportive of the elimination/banning of birth. Schopenhauer seems to not really be interested in applying his philosophy to the rest of society and so doesn't seem to fall under this term. I've never really liked the term anyway, either. To me, it conjures up images of riots, protests, steaming radicals and angsty teens, which at least to myself leave a bitter taste in my mouth. But maybe, like Schopenhauer, I just don't have the guts or resolve to get involved. I don't know.

The point is that we're annoyed when we're told (i.e. prescribed) a particular way we are to speak because no one has the right to tell us what we actually mean when we use certain words. I know that when I call Sally "she," I mean she has a vagina and nothing more. I don't mean that her struggles with her sexuality are unimportant or should be subject to ridicule. The fact that Sally is offended because I've not adopted Sally Speech is a Sally problem, not a Hanover problem. However, I will concede, at some point if Sally Speech becomes English, then I can either choose to confuse everyone (and likely offend everyone) with outdated Hanover Speech or I can get with the program and speak English.

At this point, Sally Speech is not English. It's just annoying. — Hanover

(Y) (Y) (Y)

There's definitely some semantic issues regarding what happiness is. For most people, especially in the West, happiness seems to be in line with having a purpose, accomplishing a goal, rising to the stars, feeling great pleasure, having the resources to spend on whatever you want, etc.

But, at least in Buddhism, this aforementioned experience of "happiness", although being pleasant, ends up being a form of suffering. Nothing is enough to satisfy the thirst. Fundamentally, all elements of this kind of happiness require some amount of effort or exertion.

Now, in the Buddhist sense, happiness is what you feel when you do not suffer. When a Buddhist talks about your "inner peace", they are talking about the experience that happens when one is not suffering or striving. According to Buddhism, when we aren't suffering, we aren't in a neutral state. We're in a positive state, a state of peace and understanding.

So we don't necessarily have to strive for pleasure or gains for happiness (according to Buddhism) - we just have to strive to eliminate suffering. If you eliminate suffering, everything else will fall into place naturally and easily, leading to peace.

God, I love Foals.

The meaninglessness of existence doesn't really bother me. It's the content of experience + the meaninglessness of existence that makes it troublesome. Those who moan about only the meaninglessness of existence are either just simply getting over the initial infantile dream and subsequent disillusionment of reality or a product of the times (such as post-world war), in which case the content of experience creeps back in.

I see philosophies like Stoicism as an idealistic "classroom" philosophy. According to Stoicism, the world is a rational place of order. We can deal with pain because we have a duty to obey. It's all very handy and intuitive, as if it can actually work on the large scale. But as soon as you get out of the air-conditioned classroom, you will see how Stoicism operates as a damage-control system. What I like about parts of Buddhist philosophy is that it doesn't really pretend that everything is alright - according to Buddhism, life is suffering. The surrounding metaphysics may be a bit dubious at times, but the overarching goal of Buddhism is to eliminate suffering. It's fully aware that it's a damage-control system.

And, of course, like already said, there's the philosophical pessimists that made their entire philosophical system on the denial that everyone else apparently shares.

So, yes, I agree that most, if not all, of us currently around find ways to deal with reality. Is it full-blown denialism? I wouldn't say it's denialism per se but most likely compartmentalization. At least I have an ever-present understanding of our predicament but manage to enjoy other aspects of reality. I don't deny it to be the case, I simply manage to live despite it. I typically have found that when I pursue other interests, particularly an academic understanding of some analytic ideas, I automatically assume the classroom-Stoic view. It's comfortable. It's reassuring. It's perfectly clean like a laboratory. And yet just as any scientist will tell you, it's better to do experiments in the field than in the laboratory, if not only to see how the experiment connects with the rest of the environment.

You might try this question over at the older PF.

Anyways, I just wanted to see if progress is just another thing we look at and hold as a "see existence is showing us some meaning" when really things are more instrumental than that. Life itself is instrumental. We do, we do things better, but what of it? We are doing things, but we simply do because we are striving forward. We cannot help but do otherwise. — schopenhauer1

We can understand that concentrated and sophisticated patterns emerge with a telos-like structure. We don't do things randomly, we do things because that's what we do. It may sound inane but it's accurate. We have constraints on our actions. Actualization is the process of limitation.

Before the existentialists and the 19th-20th century nihilism and fatigue, there was the metaphysical idea that man had an essence, and by having an essence meant having a purpose. That purpose might have been eudaimonia (Aristotle), union with God (Augustine), and finally death (Heidegger).

But I think Zapffe and Schopenhauer's greatest contribution was recognizing that the mind is like a parasite - it's able to think ahead, reflect on the past, lift its sights to the stars. It's just what it does. Whereas the body is not like this - it's a machine of tissue, bone, sinew and ~75% water. What makes the mind unique, in my opinion, is that it doesn't seem to belong in the world. I've struggled with this idea for a while now. For the world will always be disappointing to the active mind. Levinas said it well when he proclaimed fatigue as being a fundamental aspect of a human.

Nagel also was correct in that anything, anywhere, can be seen as absurd.

I agree that aesthetic properties are subjective, even though for some funky reason most professional philosophers believe in objective aesthetic properties. huh

I also agree that our view of the aesthetic changes, depending on what we need, what we want, what we expect, etc.

Hey that was supposed to be my line! ;)

I meant society as a whole, not as my personal social bubble. To a certain extent, I can leave the broader society and I do. But it's pervasive and I'm not able to escape it unless I go into complete isolation or asceticism, which are not practical.