An additional question to provoke discussion: how convincing do you find the argument that a supposed "holy man's" (such as Jesus or Mohammad) philosophical beliefs prove their divinity? For example, Jesus was a pretty radical person back in the days of 1st century BCE Roman Judea, and reading the Bible, I have to admit that many of the things he does and says are quiet altruistic, such as buying only two swords so that he will be caught as an enemy of the state. It makes me wonder sometimes how a man could possibly have come up with that many progressive morals while living in a time of crucifixion and stoning.

Tanha can be mitigated, though. So why wouldn't you try to lower the amount of discomfort one feels?

When I meant nirvana, I meant the achievement of Buddha-hood, of stopping rebirth, or becoming that sage-like master, so to speak. I don't think this is possible. Also I don't think reincarnation is plausible. It is useful as a concept, though, like you said.

I was drawn to Buddhism because of the "Middle Path" it advocated between extreme sensual pleasures and extreme asceticism. I like it as a philosophy because I can live my life in a much more peaceful, calm, and happy way without actually changing much in terms of actual lifestyle; i.e. I don't have to join a temple, live on a mountain, reject all sensual pleasures (asceticism), etc. I would characterize Buddhism as a philosophy of balance and understanding, one that stems from compassion and a desire for the end of suffering.

Buddhism, and all forms of yogic spirituality, understand mind as citta, which has certain innate qualities and attributes. These are generally obscured by vritti or by vikalpa which are habituated mental patterns and constructions; basically, just the continual play of thoughts. And those thoughts go a long way to constituting our day to day existence. So sitting meditation is simply learning to be aware of those - that is all. Just to see them as they are. In some ways it's simple, but it's not that easy, because our habituated attitudes have a life of their own and they don't appreciate having anyone notice them. They're 'hiding in plain sight' and they want to stay that way. — Wayfarer

It seems like every day or so I learn some new wisdom from Buddhism. This is one of them it seems. One doesn't even have to actually accept citta, vritti or vikalkpa as actual entities for them to be usual as concepts to understand how we operate.

The "why" is contained within, as far as I am concerned.

I said "viva la vida" until it goes to shit, and you replied "why?". I was simply responding to that.

No offense, but I don't see any arguments here. You've merely restated your original claim in more words. Correct me if I missed something. — Thorongil

You asked for why. So I replied. I don't think there really was an argument per se.

I think I agree with you that meaning is ultimately what gives the a person's life value. No (reasonable) amount of pain or pleasure can make or break a life, it's up to the individual to make it worth its while.

However, I disagree with your assessment that pain is not suffering. If physical or psychological pain was not uncomfortable to us, than we would not have a problem with it. Each day we deal with a lot of things; life is a kind of burden that requires meaning to keep going. So it is worthwhile to look into mitigating these kinds of experiences.

I don't care about the value of it either. I care about whether it's true or not. — Thorongil

Does Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will have any explanatory power over anything that isn't already covered by evolutionary biology? Occam's Razor seems to apply here.

Hey, man, you asserted the affirmative first. — Thorongil

Okay, fine, touche. You and I and everyone else here are alive and unless we have the guts to kill ourselves we might as well make the most of it and mitigate as much suffering as we can. Viva la vida.

The unexamined life is a literal waste of time, kicking the can down the road, hopscotching from one desire to the next while suffering the aches and pains and burdens of existence. To examine life, understand the dilemma of it, and actually know what kind of circus it actually is, and still consciously decide to keep living (i.e. living authetically; not-committing-suicide-every-day is a choice, not the null position), is rebellious and enough to fill a man's heart. Anybody can live...but it takes a certain kind of person to live absurdly, and that is worth some merit.

So Schopenhauer would agree with you that suffering is not a distinct feature of much of the universe, at least in terms of degree, but it is still an intrinsic part of reality, since all reality is merely the manifestation of the will. — Thorongil

I don't see the value of hypothesizing the existence of a metaphysical Will. Is it not enough to just say that sentient organism on planet Earth have the neural capacity to suffer?

No, not necessarily. I think it's quite clear that boredom and angst are present in all sentient organisms. Perhaps you want to argue in terms of the degree they are present, but to reject their presence outside of those living in affluence is absurd. — Thorongil

Which is why I said that I don't deny that they are problems. Existential problems do exist, I'm not denying that. The magnitude of the problems is what changes depending on the circumstances a person is in. Circumstances, that, for the most part, can be changed by the person themselves.

I would legitimately love to meet this dog who never feels boredom or anxiety. It would be a rare specimen for scientific study! — Thorongil

It was meant as a joke. My dog is abnormally happy though.

Why? — Thorongil

Why not?

I assume you're speaking of the illusoriness of the empirical ego, in which case, I fail to see how realizing this could cause angst. Are you and Ligotti disappointed there's no such thing as an immortal soul? If so, that is nothing more than petulance and egoism, not angst. Hence, you affirm and expand your ego by realizing that it doesn't exist, which is most ironic. — Thorongil

This was merely an example. I don't feel angst about the lack of an ego anymore. But this is not the only existential realization.

What would it mean to say that suffering is the structure of reality? — Thorongil

Meaning, for example, Schopenhauer's "Will"; the personification of striving, suffering, boredom, etc. These are qualities of existence. I might even say that they constitute a rather "natural" state of man. But suffering itself is not an intrinsic part of the universe. The cosmos isn't strung together by suffering.

This is ad hominem attack, though I very much doubt Schopenhauer would disagree with you on this point. In fact, I think he makes it himself when speaking of civilization and genius. — Thorongil

It was not meant to be an ad hominem. It was meant to show that Schopenhauer wouldn't be able to write his philosophy without having all that extra time and money. If you are struggling to survive, you don't have time to think about boredom or angst. These are problems that arise due to decadence.

One could say that this is to romanticize reality far more than the pessimist does. Life does not have to cause angst? Find me a sentient organism where this is the case. — Thorongil

My dog. LOL.

But really, there is no correlation between the facts of life and the attitude of the individual. Camus' Absurd Man is an example of this; i.e. just because there is no meaning does not mean everything is hopeless.

When I look at myself in the mirror, I realize that I am not a "self". I am an organism but I never was an never will have a concrete ego. For many people this will cause great angst, and in the past this has caused me great angst. Thomas Ligotti, pessimist/nihilist writer, thinks this way, when he writes that the lack of having a self is the worst thing that could happen to us. The only reason it causes him pain, though, would be because he desires having a self.

A bourgeois sentiment, this. Life will catch up to you, rest assured. — Thorongil

Aye, but until then, viva la vida.

Cool, then we are on the same page.

But you didn't answer the main question. Why post it if it only pertains to three people? I'm one of them so yeah I do feel this is more directly aimed at me more than say a poster who only posts on wit metaphysics and politics or what not. It's not so martyrish to suspect this based on the evidence of there being very few pessimists, albeit ones that post a lot on pessimism. — schopenhauer1

I posted this question because I wanted to discuss it. Even if only one person participated I would have posted it.

As it stands, though, more than three people have been participating in the pessimism-related threads.

1) some temperaments are simply prone not to focus on the bigger picture (most actually) and some are. This isn't attitude mind you but constitution. — schopenhauer1

Agreed. I think most of us here on PF would fall into the camp of focusing on the little details.

2) the struggles of life are present no matter what. It just becomes acute, more refined, and nuanced as the person focused their attention on this or that. — schopenhauer1

Sure.

3) eventually almost everyone will confront existential issues at some point. — schopenhauer1

Agreed.

4) the cat is already out of the bag. The justification for doing anything becomes more troublesome as one is faced with the prospect of the absurdity of survival and desires and goals — schopenhauer1

What are you saying here? I don't understand.

5) the environmental pain (which I refer to as contingent pain) will always be there. — schopenhauer1

...in various amounts of intensity. It's not as if we are going through hellfire on a daily basis. The potential for hellfire is there, though. But so is the potential for really great experiences.

Is that not agnostic atheism? Withholding judgement?

True. I suppose I hadn't considered that. Although most gods in our history haven't been that type.

Say you can pledge allegiance to ten kings who are all at war against each other. If you do not pledge allegiance to a king, the victorious king will chop your head off. If you pledge allegiance to a defeated king, the victorious king will chop your head off. Either way, your head gets chopped off unless you proved your allegiance to the victorious king. So it's better, ultimately, to take your chances with at least any king than to just sit back and do nothing. That's Pascal's Wager today.

Using examples of the "working class", "third world", and "hunter-gatherers", as some sort of ideal model of the un-existential man, simply "living his life" is inaccurate and a cliche of itself. In fact, in its attempt to undercut the "existential" thinker, it becomes its own cliche. — schopenhauer1

I don't think so, actually. And I wasn't limiting it to the "working class" "third world" "hunter gatherers"; anyone who has anything to do, whether that be washing the dishes or running a marathon, is using more energy doing that activity than they are thinking about existential problems.

Certainly, these problems still exist, I'm not denying that. And they are worth discussing. But they do not pose the same threat of harm as, say, a stab wound or a car crash.

Also, why even care about this post if you don't like pessimism? Do you want to be the resident anti-pessimist? If pessimism is absurd and insignificant as a philosophical model, why not just ignore it? I would say there are only three people that your railing against pessimism would matter to on this forum. — schopenhauer1

Curiously, when Thorongil posted his argument against the existence of the Christian god, you didn't seem to get all up in arms.

Just curious if this is trolling for a flame war. — schopenhauer1

No, this is not trolling nor a flame war. Why do you keep asking that?

it's just odd to me the fervent need to be anti-pessimism. — schopenhauer1

No, rather, it's just the fervent need to discuss philosophical topics. May I recall to you that you also made some threads regarding pessimism.

Also, to be pro-pessimist makes sense to me in terms of being a bit of the gadfly to the majority who usually don't consider it. However, to be the gadfly to the gadfly seems to me to be in trolling territory as it is specifically seeking out only one or two people who this really pertains to. — schopenhauer1

This is the some real martyrdom going on right here. (oh, you're the outcast!, the gadfly!) If I have a problem with pessimism (which I don't inherently, I have a problem with the attitudes of pessimists), then I post a thread about it. If I have a problem with realism, than I post a thread about realism. There's no discrimination here between what is okay to discuss and what is not.

And what attitude might that be?

Metaphysics - Third Edition: A Contemporary Introduction by Michael J. Loux.

You don't have to, but it'd be nice.

Keep in mind that I have read though this thread several times.

What issues do you have with Stoicism that make it a problematic philosophy to follow? I don't want to see your replies to other people to try to understand what your issue is with it. I need to know what your position is exactly so I know what I am arguing against.

Isn't it better to be right than respected? — The Great Whatever

To which I would reply that you are currently neither.

tgw, you don't need to use fancy words like "cogently" and "interlocutors" to make a case. That's just pretentious sophistry...aka, bullshit. Say what you need to say, don't dress it up without any reason to.

Here's some examples taken from the previous pages that I feel exemplify how I feel you have been treating this thread:

I doubt it. — The Great Whatever

...with nothing else to say.

But this just isn't true. That would impute extraordinary powers of control over me. — The Great Whatever

Which is like the greatest non-answer. Dismissive handwaving.

I don't see any reason to believe this. Sounds like New Age crap. — The Great Whatever

Like I said previously, dismissive handwaving.

I really don't think the position that all psychological pain is self-inflicted deserves serious response. So no, I think a handwave is fine. — The Great Whatever

Like I said previously, a dismissive handwave to excuse a dismissive handwave.

Sure it can be criticized -- if the problems in fact don't get solved where they claim to be. And let's be real, Stoicism has never solved any of these problems for anyone. Anyone espousing its virtues in this very thread can reflect on that honestly and see for themselves. 'Yes, but--' no, no buts, just be honest. — The Great Whatever

wtf does this even mean. Non-answer. Once again, you are asserting without explaining that Stoicism has never solved these problems.

You can have an opinion about whatever you want, but that doesn't mean your opinion is right or even worth taking seriously. Your opinions do not have any magical powers or authority, and people's espoused beliefs most often have little or nothing to do with their lives, since the sphere of opinion is free to circulate without any grounding or credit whatsoever precisely for the reason that you say, that it permits itself ultimate authority regardless of any inconsistencies or possible evidence to the contrary. — The Great Whatever

It's this kind of pretentious bullshit that gets spread around the internet simply because of anonymity. Do you really act like this in real life? Sorry, mate, but honestly do you expect people to respect you when you are implying that their position is outrageously silly, especially when it concerns the evaluation of the value of someone else's own life?!

This thread started out alright. It went to shit pretty quickly.

And not backing any of it up, might I add.

I have attacked no one's feelings; I have attacked publicly espoused positions. — The Great Whatever

Positions that nobody is forcing you to accept. If Stoicism does not work for you, then it does not work for you. Discussing why this is is perfectly fine, but beating everyone over the head repeatedly with the same vague denying drivel is not argument.

Sorry, Question. Your avatar is similar to the avatar of M-Theory over at the old PF.

:D

Have you tried it? Honestly?

You're beating around the bush here. What specific part of Stoicism do you find does not work to solve these problems? Can you explain why Stoicism is not the answer to these problems? Can you even identify these problems to begin with? And can you identify the problems that Stoicism is even concerned with so that you make sure you aren't constructing a straw man?

If you can't answer these questions without appealing to vagueness or attacks on the personal, subjective feelings of others, kindly step off the stage.

And maybe that's why I don't subscribe to Stoicism. But I don't criticize people who are Stoics, because for them, it might work just fine. Buddhism works better than Stoicism for me, and certainly far better than sitting around bitching about everything.

Maybe it might be too long, but I'm currently reading the free, online version of Metaphysics by Michael J. Loux. You can access it here. I have been thoroughly enjoying it thus far and would recommend it to anyone with a passing interest in an introduction to contemporary metaphysics.

I had a headache last night. I took some ibuprofen and went to bed. And hour later the headache was gone. Are you going to tell me that the ibuprofen did not work because it's simply "masking the pain" and "deep down" I still feel the headache? Bullshit.

Then this shows that you fundamentally misunderstand what Stoicism is all about.

Don't tell me how to live my life.

But seriously, what's more likely: that the Stoic is wrong in their assessment of their own life (and is somehow actually suffering profoundly from these problems), or you are either misunderstanding their position or blowing these problems out of proportion?

I think that the pessimist is right in that these problems do exist, but where they may go wrong is the magnitude and how terminal the problems are. I certainly do experience existential boredom on a daily basis. I see the Absurd every day, and it punches me in the gut sometimes. And, of course, I suffer and bear the burden of life, but sometimes the burden is lighter than other times.

The problem I see with this thread is that the offensive position advocates against Stoicism, remarking that it is foolish and deceptive, while simultaneously proselytizing pessimistic themes. If Stoicism did not solve these problems for Stoics, then they would not be Stoics, because why would they? It seems to me that pessimistic, existential problems (such as death, suffering, the strangle of time, boredom, anxiety, etc) is something that has to be solved by the person in their own way that suits them, and that manner cannot be criticized. Whether or not it works for anyone else, you can't expect that person to wallow in defeat simply because you are wallowing in defeat. You can't criticize someone for not feeling the feelings you do.

M-Theory, you haven't replied yet. Just reminding you.

Wayfarer, I am interested in the Buddhist forum. Is this it?

Sorry for the poor quality (five year old iPod touch camera), but I made some Broccoli Salad.

4 cups raw broccoli
2 cups halved, seedless grapes
2 cups chopped celery
1 cup chopped green onion

Dressing:

1 cup mayonnaise
1 tbsp vinegar
0.25 cup sugar

Serve cold, add sliced almonds before consuming. It is very good and fairly easy to make!

I mean, you've never met someone who wallows in their own bullshit to the point of hurting themselves far beyond the original stimulus? — Pneumenon

No, no, you got it all wrong, man. This is deep-shit philosophy; it's obviously apparent that there is a direct relationship between how profound and enlightening your philosophy is and the magnitude of your personal suffering!

I really don't think the position that all psychological pain is self-inflicted deserves serious response. So no, I think a handwave is fine. — The Great Whatever

So, a strawman handwave to excuse your handwaving. Pardon me but do you actually have an argument here?

tgw, if your standard of argument is going to be a dismissive handwave, then I don't see any reason to continue to discussion.

Psychological pain is not like physical pain. Physical pain is like being cut, bruised, burned, or injured in any other way that results in nociceptors firing and the individual experiencing discomfort of varying degrees.

Psychological pain, especially the pain focused on by pessimistic and existential philosophers, is certainly influenced by the environment, but ultimately is perpetuated by the person.

Obviously a physical phenomenon of pain is not, currently, under the conscious control of the individual. I cannot control whether or not I feel pain after cutting my finger. But psychological pain (that is not sourced from a syndrome such as depression), that can be helped by the individual. Boredom is not an experience that manifests itself and continues to exist as if it were a parasite. Tanha does not stick around like a cut to the finger does. These mental phenomena are perpetuated by the individual, and it is the epitome of defeatism and laziness (or a symptom of mental illness such as depression) to say a person has no control over them.

Do you care to actually argue against this, or handwave it away?