The system itself will inevitably use humans because our dissatisfaction brings about the demands of others, and we will once again bring about functional roles which will become the goals of the society to maintain and perpetuate in habits and in producing more people to enact these habits. — schopenhauer1

You are taking your usual course. :monkey:

I think antinatalism is one of those dead-end philosophies (and I am saying this being an antinatalist) which can counter almost all other arguments and bring their end. But, I am with @unenlightened in this thread, to push his POV a little further. You just do what is needed of you. A flower blooms and gives out fragrance not to appease anybody. It has no personal stake in it. The moon moves round and round. The birds, animals are perpetuating their routine without complaints. The human which took millions of years to evolve to what it is now, is suffering. So, certainly, it is a mis-step towards evolution. Either that, or he is not living up to his potential. What if the very acknowledgement of our condition is what is needed? What if we just need to realise that we are not anymore special than the cat or insect or bird? What if our very thinking ability, which is unique to only us, is making us the biggest sufferers? It does sometimes seem like a cruel joke. What if man's ability to come up with a theory such as antinatalism is what is flawed in our brains? What does this evolution amount to if all it has brought is more suffering? No matter how "successful" a man becomes I can say with certainty that he's suffering more than the chimpanzee.

That isn't to say that on very few occasions we can't just sit there and "be" without needing anything, but I was saying that it is rarer than what you seemed to imply in your post. — schopenhauer1

But, "be-ing" doesn't mean just sitting there and doing nothing. You see, you can "be" at all times. Doesn't it make perfect sense? If one is not "be-ing", isn't one, simply, lost?

Believe it or not, sometimes my mere presence suffices me. — unenlightened

I couldn't help but comment here. There is so much significance in this statement and yet it is so often overlooked and misinterpreted. And for good reasons as well.

It is for most people absolutely counter-intuitive to think that they can live without "goals". For most people, life is a means to an end. We get so caught in this pattern and why wouldn't we. We are born into a society and are expected to be a part of the circus or get ousted. Couldn't help but quote William Berrett from Irrational Man:

"Man's feeling of homelessness, of alienation has been intensified in the midst of a bureaucratized, impersonal mass society. He has come to feel himself an outsider even within his own human society. He is terribly alienated: a stranger to God, to nature, and to the gigantic social apparatus that supplies his material wants.But the worst and final form of alienation, toward which indeed the others tend, is man's alienation from his own self. In a society that requires of man only that he perform competently his own particular social function, man becomes identified with this function, and the rest of his being is allowed to subsist as best it can - usually to be dropped below the surface of consciousness and forgotten."

Let's say you get a sublime feeling of aesthetic pleasure from a view from a mountain or creating a painting of some tragedy and meaning, or reading a great piece of literature, or composing or just listening to a great piece of music...then what? It's over, you try to get that feeling back. — schopenhauer1

https://youtu.be/OeOS5seSl_I

Do listen to this dialog.

I never said you had to deny pleasure in the moment to go all contemplative if you didn't want to. Rather, it is just an overall understanding. I understand that we are still here and we still have to make it through however way gets us by with the least suffering. Pursuing goods is also not frowned upon. It is more of of an aesthetic understanding. It is about the need for need and what this entails. — schopenhauer1

I am interested in knowing, holding such a world-view, where is one emotion-wise? I think, if one is really honest with oneself and if one's (even if he himself is leading a relatively comfortable life) opinions encompass a big enough sample space of human beings, then he would be deceiving himself if he calls himself anything other than a pessimist. So, then where is one then emotionally? Can this question be answered objectively?

Secondly, to further your point on the apparent routine of everyday life, is there something, anything, in this world that doesn't follow a routine? I think there is one thing, and it's art. In expression there is tremendous possibility. Kafka gave so much to the world but, he too was plagued by repetitiveness. But, his works suggest anything but. L. S. Lowry, the great English artist, found through his art a respite from the routine. Krishnamurti said, whatever we can think about, is mechanical. Everyday life is routine because it is a by-product of thought. Art frees one to go beyond this plane. Also, there is beauty. The beauty of the river, the sea, the meadows, the sky. It might be a cliche but we don't really LOOK. Would you agree?

I am completely for your pessimism argument. But, don't you think there is something beyond earthly pleasures? Something beyond the routine?

As often as language helps us understand, it is a distraction from the truth. — neonspectraltoast

Very true. And yet language is all we have. Anything that is beyond the realm of thought can't be articulated with thought (language) yet people have since ages tried to do just that. Why do think that is?

It would be hard to explore this in some important ways without actually trying to experience what the thread is focused on. — Coben

The OP concerns multiple layers of dreams (or realities). The argument you've posed focuses on dreams in a literal sense. What the OP concerns, I guess, is the fact that people are living life in a dream state unaware of a so-called higher awareness or consciousness. This higher awareness has a lot of literature written about it but I am unaware of any which concerns with multiple layers of realities except for a Linklater movie.

In Linklater's Waking Life, Poet David Jewell, in conversation with Zahedi, points out the various layers of awareness when attempting to engage in the “holy moment” such as the holy moment itself, and one’s efforts at achieving this moment. Some people claim that they can strip away all the extraneous layers and experience the pure holy moment itself.

I guess the implication of what I wrote is that knowledge of true reality, though possible, can never be known to be as that. There never will be a time when one could be 100% confident that the reality to which one has "awakened" to is the true reality. — TheMadFool

What are these various levels of reality you are talking about? Would be great if you could please refer me to some texts.

What bothers me at this point is whether any amount of "awakening" is sufficient to permit us to make the claim this, for sure, is true reality? — TheMadFool

I read the whole thing very intently and think this can be a very interesting thread if pursued.

A lot of "enlightened" people have claimed that in the "waking state" you don't bother anymore about false realities, true realities, etc. It so humbles you that all your seeking dissapears. You find yourself not asking for anything else. Now, this has been the popular notion.

So, can we explore this and see if there is any truth in this? If I somehow slide into an altered state one fine morning but, still find myself conflicted and asking if there is more, then I think, there certainly is more, if the archaic wisdom is to be heeded to. Also, seeking in itself, according to the old lores, is what serves as an anchor keeping you dreaming.

I think your argument is to the point.

Your mind is always, already, and forever coloured. — Banno

@schopenhauer1

Firstly, one major flaw of discussing on an online forum is, I think, a lot of things get lost in translation. I will again run the risk of being misinterpreted, unless my post entails further counter-arguments. Also, I'll try, as much as I can, to stay relevant to the topic at hand, which is:

Does my mood determine what philosophical stance I hold or in other words does my psychological state of being at any given time distort my perception of that which is actual (I think, these two are the same questions because my philosophical view of the world at any given point should ideally correlate directly with my perception of what actually is)?

The mind is coloured, yes. Which is to say, the mind is conditioned. It has, since the day it was born, taken in very keenly everything that it has been fed. That constitutes the image a person assumes. I am what I associate myself with. I am a doctor, professor, scientist. I am a pessimist, optimist, nihilist. I am a communist, socialist, capitalist. I am smart, dull.

Now, what triggers mood change? My mood changes when there is conflict, when there is an attack on my image, my ego. I consider myself smart, someone calls me dumb, my mood changes. I have a world view, someone comes along and says your world view is full of holes, my mood changes.

So, anything that challenges our ego changes our moods. Now, as long as there is an ego it will get hurt. In the same way, if there is no ego, there is nothing left to get hurt. Is it possible to get rid of my ego, my self? Practically, no.

Now, for the sake of arguement let's consider a person, A, who has no ego i.e, no sense of self and another person, B, whose ego or self is very active. A can never get hurt. Can A be a pessimist? Sure, by definition of pessimism, he can be a pessimist. But, he's not a pessimist because he was hurt or traumatized or bullied; he's incapable of being hurt or traumatized or bullied. He's a pessimist because his mind is not conditioned and hence allowing him to see things as they really are. His pessimism doesn't defend his ego, his pessimism is universal. He sees that the world is full of suffering, pain and hardship but, is not in any way moved by that. He sees that there is death, disease and degradation but he accepts those things as normal, as the law.

Person B on the other hand is hurt. He is traumatized, he has suffered enough. He has been rendered depressed by all that is ugly in this world. His ego is hurt. He didn't expect the world to be like this. His image of the world was flowery and that has been hurt. Out of that he's a pessimist. His pessimism will continue to haunt him thoroughout his life, because, there will always be this conflict with his image of himself and his ideal world and how the world actually is.

So, in conclusion, yes pessimisim may be a product of one's mood. But, that shouldn't always be the case.

I'm sorry, both you and Shawn I believe wrong on this one. There are a bunch of weasle words in here "reason adequately" and "derived from feeling" and "path towards the 'good'". This is all subjective evaluations on what people "should" pursue or not pursue.. So what you are accusing pessimists of is exactly what you yourselves are doing.. promoting a sort of view and hoping other follow it (i.e. pessimists shut their traps, and people promote whatever YOU deem as rational topics). Give me a frean break :roll: — schopenhauer1

The 'good' certainly is subjective which is why it was within quotes. A man chooses his own 'good'. Also, I didn't speak for nor against pessimism. I have read few of your other threads and you have certainly made your point quite ardently. What I felt was that this was a thread which discussed not about pessimism per se but about whether or not one's psychological state can distort reality for someone.

Do forgive me if it seemed like it was an attack on your point of view. That was never the intention. In fact, I feel, that would what constitute an unfruitful discussion, pursued in ill-faith.

Let me defend myself by saying that there aren't rational or irrational topics. Such labeling only implies one is not willing to look beyond one's niche.

That said, I'll still hold it up that a person's mood and thought process at a particular point of time can lead him to conclusions which at a later time may seem unreasonable. This has what been my experience and I may be totally wrong. But I want to find out.

Now, if an entire philosophical tradition is based on some will to believe/power/or any other affective qualifier, then it downright must be pointed out that this is plain and simple, irrational. — Shawn

I think, the trick lies in not allowing any philosophical tradition to colour one's mind. I may feel that there is much truth in pessimism or absurdity or nihilism or antinatalism but why should I let that colour my thoughts? Why should I let that produce in me a bias? Am I not then a slave to tradition? Shouldn't my view of the world come entirely from my understanding of the world and no one else's? Shouldn't every point of philosophical enquiry ideally lead to a revelation and not into a trap? I think, man must not, in trying to make sense of the world, forget that philosophy is a path towards the 'good' (man may choose his own good) and not a free-fall into an abyss. Should I merely find peace in a romantic idea, however optimistic or pessimistic, or should I, through responsibility, sensibility and originality of self try to reason, logic and deep-dive into the crevices of my psyche?

I mean, as I understand life and based on my position towards it, I don't desire to promote my existence. I'll probably die from smoking so many cigarettes, but isn't it doubly wrong to tell other people that they shouldn't promote their existence? — Shawn

I am a hundred percent with this one. Often, quite unknowingly and due to no fault of his own, but merely coming from an emotional state, a person may tend to 'promote' a certain philosophy. Now, one's description of that philosophy is coloured by one's moods and it may very well colour someone else's. I think, first and foremost, it requires a lightness of being to even start discussing a philosophical concept. If my 'mood' is in the way, I will most definitely fail to reason adequately.

They may recognize the absurdity of the repetition of even the goods of life (relationships, pleasure, beauty, humor, etc.). — schopenhauer1

I think repetition can be looked at differently. Can not a man live in a way that his memory does not come in way of his experiencing? Why should I be thinking about my sexual experiences with my ex-girlfriend when I am making love to my girlfriend. Those two experiences are by no way same. This point can be discussed more elaborately.

Secondly, as I was stating, philosophy has to be purpose oriented. If I say, so and so philosophers were pessimists and I like their views and feel a connection with their views and so I am also a pessimist, that implies I am second hand.

I don't think we can say one way or another about happiness ingrained in biology. — schopenhauer1

I may have been misunderstood. I said man would always choose pleasantness as opposed to unpleasantness. I think it can very well be pinpointed to a biological process because we want our dopamine reserves replete at all points of time. The brain demands to be happy NOW. Now the means exercised to obtain that happiness may differ depending on how a man is conditioned.

A pessimist would not necessarily try to discourage trying to maximize your preferences. What they might do is say that there is a pattern in our own psychology whereby we cannot simply "be" but only becoming, where we must find some goal in the distance that we think needs to overcome to give us something to cling to. They may recognize the absurdity of the repetition of even the goods of life (relationships, pleasure, beauty, humor, etc.). They may recognize that we are all in this together. So if there were a lot of pessimists, a communal pessimism, there may be a feeling of brotherhood in our rebellion against that which puts us in this position. In a way, there is a positivity in this shared recognition. — schopenhauer1

I think, pessimism (or any other -ism for that matter) is merely the brain's tendency to cling to an ideal. A man says, "I am a pessimist". What he's really implying is that he has been, through his social milieu, exposed to certain ideologies and he has been taught to choose one of the ideologies. A brain wants an ideal (pessimism in your case) because without it it's empty, hollow. Without it he feels he's worth nothing. His ideal feeds his ego. His ideal makes him reject other ideals. I think, a man needs freedom from his conditioning to truly understand what it is all about. But, man refuses to do that because man is scared to lose that which feeds his ego, that which makes his image. Man does not understand that it's merely a projection he's taking on from the OUTSIDE.

Man, in the truest sense, is nothing. And so he takes refuge in a 'collective' because there he feels safe. He feels secure. But is he really? I think, a man is truly secure if and only if he takes on no projection from outside and attaches himself to no group or ideology.

It doesn't matter how many "novel" things you do to stay ahead of the curb, it's all repetitive actions to fulfill our primal motivations of survival, comfort-seeking, entertainment. But this is just repetitive actions that fill time and provide the absurdity I talk about. It's all been done to the umpteenth time by billions and billions of people over and over. There is no need to keep repeating the repetition again and again and again... — schopenhauer1

Where should all this analysis lead us? Certainly, the case for antinatalism is strong. But, do take this point:

A group of people (who are already born and hence can derive no benefit out of antinatalism) arguing about whether or not parents should consider the opinions of the potential child before bringing it into existence, is as good as the proverbial crying over spilt milk. Say we make a good case for antinatalism and establish after some deliberation that an unborn child is way well off. It saves the unborn child some trouble. What trouble it saves me? So, does antinatalist philosophy lead man (who is already existing) to truth and clarity which will help him lead his life (now that he's born) better? No. It won't. On the contrary, a good case made for antinatalism will deprive life of all meanings. Now, is that what man wishes? No. A man (who is born) wants to be happy. That's ingrained in the tenets of biology making it a fact. Of course it's a point worth considering. But, it just that. A point worth considering. If a man deliberately wants to sad, he may brood over this topic, but the only kind of men who would want that are:
1. Men who seek only intellectual stimulation.
2. Men who want to find an excuse for their circumstances (circumstances which could very well be improved if a man dwells in a different view-point)

So, is it not worth it to find a philosophy which will make THIS life better?

I would like to discuss Notes from the Underground. A curious "novel". — David Mo

Great! How do we go about it?

Chapter-by-chapter basis, say 2 to 3 chapters a day and discuss quote-worthy lines? In that way others who haven't read can join in, if they want. Then in the end, we can discuss themes, study characters, central philosophies and perhaps can compare with other Dostoyevsky works.

If so then you, me, everyone is pure consciousness which is to be understood here as the thing that has the ability to think. — TheMadFool

I wonder if we can break this down and discuss first principles. What is consciousness? A popular notion and a well-accepted notion goes like this: Consciousness is the sum-total of my thoughts. It is also the sum-total of your thoughts. Why? Because your thoughts, my thoughts or any third person's thoughts are fundamentally same. I feel pain, you feel pain, my anger, your anger, my desires, your desires, etc. Superficially we may be different. I may be a Christian, you a Buddhist. I may be European, you an American. But these are surface differences. In our core, you and I think the same kind of thoughts and the entire content of our thoughts is our consciousness. So, we are on the same page when we say, our consciousness is indistinguishable.

Now, question is, is self-discovery in the field of thought or consciousness? We are using, after having established, thought and consciousness synonymously. My arguement is, NO. Because, thought is very limited. Thought is, as mentioned earlier, downloaded data. Also, thought is memory and future projections. 'I had a bad experience last summer' is a thought. 'I might fail the test tomorrow' is a thought. So, thought is data, memories and projections.

Now, do we see this? Not intellectually. But, through perception. Do we really see what thought does to ourselves? If we do, perhaps we'll see how thought savotages the present moment. I have experimented with this. Now, this very perception, this insight into the nature of thought will bring about clarity and still the mind. Then there will be infinite reception to everything.

An example: I am standing on the banks of a beautiful river. I see the river. But, I don't think RIVER. I don't compare this river with the river I saw last week. I don't think about how long or how deep the river is. The formation R-I-V-E-R doesn't happen in my mind. I just SEE the river. I am present completely. The river is so beautiful. I am lost in the moment. I am living in the moment. In that moment I am truly alive. I am in cummunion with the mighty river. A moment of bliss. And this bliss rocks the depth of my soul. I'm fulfilled. At that moment I am whole, I feel complete.

So, can we live like this every moment?

Don't know if I could communicate the idea effectively.

It's fair to say that any man of reason will suspend judgement as long as he finds out if something is or isn't true. That's established. Also, "I don't know" also is established. We can also carefully ignore believers, non-believers and people with faith at least in the attempt of proving/ disproving God's existance because, believing something because it is useful and not because it is true poses a threat to our intellectual integrity.

Now, taking the tree example, yes the tree grows from a seed to a fully grown tree, aided by certain external elements. That's all we know. Now, modern science can prove with evidence how and why it occurs. So, do we really need to establish a creator when we can break down the whole process with microscopic precision?

Quite right. So, if not thought, what have we? If examination is not thinking about it, what other faculty can we use? So then, Krishnamurti argues, the silent mind and the attentive mind can come upon the eternal, the timeless. And from this silence emanates truth. This silence is like the Greek "daemon", guiding man at every step of the way. But, this is merely literature. Don't know if anyone has a lived experience.

You could also go to a soothsayer, or to a psychic advisor, or to horroscope charter, or to Thailand and have sex day in and day out. All boils down to self-learning, via others.
9m — god must be atheist

Yeah, sounds about right. Nice little twist. This certainly doesn't call for further clarifications.

I'd say that if we examine our lives with that higher awareness of the nature of our being as a starting point, everything changes. — Iamthatiam

Absolutely. I see your point. Can we go into this? This higher awareness, don't you think, have catastrophic implications? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, either I'm a Adi Shankara or I'm a self-absorbed, egotistic, opportunistic person. There's no in-between. I may say I am a philanthropist, I donate to charity, I am concerned about social well-being, but, I have the self-serving seed planted in me and as long as that is the case, do I really understand higher awareness? Higher awareness implies, does it not, rightful action in every sphere of life. But, in today's day and age, is that possible?

Last one I promise, — Antidote

Yes, this is it. But, too many people have lost reception. I have seen this in myself. I will be so self-absorbed at times that Ave Maria will fail to move me. So, is that the problem? That we are losing reception? That we are so far from beauty and love that we have to ask questions like, who am I? Are we so lost? And that is true even for suffering. We are scared to feel loved, we are scared to suffer. We just want to numb ourselves with booze or sex. I don't know, but, love is dead. Beauty is a textbook terminology. We don't feel anymore. We refuse to feel. Feelings are bad for capitalism. Economics teaches us to be a-holes, literally. And we conform and then we suffer and then we complain.

self-examination is basically you being yourself and also the mirror you look at yourself with. The mirror is only as good as you are: your prejudices will determine what you see in yourself — TheMadFool

Does that imply finally coming to terms with the way you are? I'm sorry, but could you elaborate on this? I am prejudiced implies, for example, I hold one ideal superior to another or one virtue superior to another. It implies, does it not, that I have a rigid mind? That there are distinct blacks and distinct whites. Now, I wonder if such a mind is capable of self examination, because, my prejudices, my biases, my neurotic ideosyncracies are the products of the age and place I dwell in. It's, simply put, downloaded data. Most importantly, it's just data, raw facts. And, can facts help me know who I truly am? On the other hand, if one sees that he is prejudiced and says, well, I don't recognize with my prejudices, I don't know what I am, but I am certainly not my prejudices, isn't that a good place to start? I say, I don't know what I am, but I want to find out.

We see disillusionment in the world but some wise guy once advised me to see the disillusionment in oneself. That changed everything. I guess that made me more tolerant. Ideologies, systems are a way of enslaving mankind, I feel. We are fed through our schools and universities and media an assortment of ideologies, authorities, faiths and we unthinkingly fall into the trap of making a choice. Then we fight all other ideologies. We find our peace in our chosen ideology and declare destruction (however implicitly) of anything that stands against us. This has been the norm since generations. Every once in a while, a great thinker will be born who will question the status quo and will try a hand at self-discovery without getting influenced by existing systems. And hence, from him a new ideology, a new idea will be born and that will amass popularity (or not). So, in the end, what does man truly want? And, is that even an important question?

Very beautifully articulated.

I will help others. If someone falls and I see it, I will help them up because if I fall I'd like someone to help me up. If people are hurt, I'll comfort them. — Antidote

This struck home. I do wonder sometimes if all answers lie in compassion. Sometimes, everything does seem extraordinarily clear and simple. I guess deep down, we all know that to be true but, we are not very observant. I see this in myself. I see that I am neurotic when I perpetuate my selfish needs unthinkingly. And I see this neurosis in everybody. I guess it takes an extremely serious person to go beyond the mind's evil patterns, to cut through generations of conditioning and be a child again and question first principles.

If you want something really bad, give it to someone else. — Antidote

This resonates. Much of examination lies in action, I feel. Right action trumps everything and brings about peace and I am trying to be more aware of actions which light something up in my core of being, a flame of sorts, a divine energy (if there's such a thing).

I would like to do it myself. But, how do I go about it? I see my thoughts are conditioned and contradictory so, any kind of self-analysis I feel will yield unfruitful results. I am tempted to say, that I can examine myself in regards to my relationship to others, as Viktor Frankl proposes. But, I am not quite convinced.

Yes, while one would agree that 'truly' and 'absolute' are dangerous terms to use, what concerns me is the obvious limitation of thought. J. Krishnamurti has penned it quite well. He says, thought in itself is contradictory. And there's quite a substance to that, I feel, because if my mind is conflicted then I can't possibly resolve that conflict by thinking about it or by analysing it because my thinking in itself is contradictory and conflicted. I can not resolve conflict with conflict. So, if one is willing to accept that (can be debated), then how can we examine our lives? Surely not by self-analysis because that, as may be seen, is one contradictory fragment of thought dissecting another equally contradicting fragment giving rise to more fragments. So, what do I do?

The Indian philisopher J. Krishnamurti says we are all second-hand human beings. Don't know how much truth that contains but non-conformity is certainly not everyone's privilege, statistically speaking. But, is non-conformity really the answer? I think at the very core of it man should aim at individuation, the Jungian wholeness philosophy. Because, then the man is original. A complete human being doesn't bother about conforming or not conforming. He does what's right and he's pretty confident about that.