So, it's a "no", then?

Are you serious?

;

Are you serious? Can you cite any instance of life having been totally wiped out by a cataclysm and then having come 'roaring back", or not?

life having been totally wiped out — John

Where are you getting that from?

Life is very hard to eradicate, even after the most destructive global cataclysms it always comes roaring back. — Sivad

For something to "come roaring back" suggests that it has either been destroyed and then arisen again or at least very nearly destroyed, and then very quickly resurged.

Do you have even one example of the latter to at least provide almost no support for your contention that life "always comes roaring back".

For something to "come roaring back" suggests that it has either been destroyed and then arisen again or at least very nearly destroyed, and then very quickly resurged.

Do you have even one example of the latter to at least provide almost no support for your contention that life "always comes roaring back". — John

>:O >:O >:O

Life is a pain in the ass... — schopenhauer1

It may sometimes be a pain in the anoos, but stop complaining about it for God's sake! >:O

Most people would just apologize and move on but you're doubling down, so your issues seem to go beyond a general ignorance of the history of life. Go find someone else to troll, I'm not playing.

Life is a pain in the ass...
But to deny it, people are wont to pass
On they go, children in toe
'Til the pain gets enlarged en masse — schopenhauer1

The pessimistic philosophy is a static one. Life, on the other hand, is dynamic - it moves (so to speak). The present is drastically different from the past - we live longer, less disease, etc. The present is better than the past. I think this trend will continue and the future will be even better. So, as a philosophy, pessimism is backward and unproductive.

The pessimistic philosophy is a static one. Life, on the other hand, is dynamic - it moves (so to speak). The present is drastically different from the past - we live longer, less disease, etc. The present is better than the past. I think this trend will continue and the future will be even better. So, as a philosophy, pessimism is backward and unproductive. — TheMadFool

This is a stupid way to think about things. The present is better than the past IF you don't live in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Pessimism and optimism has to do with attitudes, which are local and not global in nature. "We live longer, etc." is bullshit. The average human may live longer, but that doesn't mean that YOU will live longer. So there's no reason to be jumping up and down with joy at the progress of an abstract construct like "the human race". The average human may have access to better medical care. But YOU may not, because you don't live in a country providing great medical care, or you lack the money necessary, etc.

You seem to disregard the general trend and point to specifics that contradict my view on the matter.

However, note that pessimistic philosophy speaks in generals i.e. they commit, according to you, the same "error" you accuse me of. If it's a matter of individual taste pessimism has no basis.

However, note that pessimistic philosophy speaks in generals i.e. they commit, according to you, the same "error" you accuse me of. — TheMadFool

Yes, they are equally stupid. However, even the pessimistic philosophy is often framed in terms of the individual, not in terms of the direction of mankind.

You seem to disregard the general trend and point to specifics that contradict my view on the matter. — TheMadFool

I don't care about trends. I don't live in trends. I live in a specific and concrete situation. And so does everyone else. Nobody lives in trends.

Yes, they are equally stupid. However, even the pessimistic philosophy is often framed in terms of the individual, not in terms of the direction of mankind. — Agustino

If this is true why preach pessimism, as the OP is quite obviously doing?

I don't care about trends. I don't live in trends. I live in a specific and concrete situation. And so does everyone else. Nobody lives in trends — Agustino

You do ''live in a specific and concrete situation'' but you contribute to the measurement of trends e.g. life expectancy of the country you live in. It's not that ''trends'' are so abstract as to lose all meaning in the real world. These ''trends'' you seem to be demonizing are derived off of you too.

These ''trends'' you seem to be demonizing are derived off of you too. — TheMadFool

So what? I still don't care about the trends. My purpose is to maximise my health - I don't care if the trends are that everyone else is getting sick. To maximise my health - do better than others - means doing what others aren't doing anyways. So trends only give me information on what not to do, where not to be, etc.

Caring about trends is still a sign of pessimism and mediocrity.

Caring about trends is still a sign of pessimism and mediocrity — Agustino

No it isn't. It's giving due weightage to what many define as ''progress'' - to reinstate (so to speak) the element of time to its rightful place in our reality and this is exactly what pessimists fail to do (to their peril).

No it isn't. It's giving due weightage to what many define as ''progress'' - to reinstate (so to speak) the element of time to its rightful place in our reality and this is exactly what pessimists fail to do (to their peril). — TheMadFool

Trends represent average (the status quo). Optimists want to be better than average. Therefore optimists are always ahead of trends (or seek to be). They are the ones who push the world forward.

You're mistaken if you think I was trolling. You made a statement, and I asked you to support it. I called you out for indulging in hyperbole. If all you wanted to say is that living organisms have shown themselves to be adaptable to a relatively wide range of conditions, then I would not have objected. Why not just admit that you were speaking hyperbolically instead of rigorously, instead of asking me for gratuitous apologies? :-}

The pessimistic philosophy is a static one. Life, on the other hand, is dynamic - it moves (so to speak). The present is drastically different from the past - we live longer, less disease, etc. The present is better than the past. I think this trend will continue and the future will be even better. So, as a philosophy, pessimism is backward and unproductive. — TheMadFool

To be fair, the poem started out as a little clever ditty. However, to answer your point, Pessimism is not about material progress; it's about the burden of being in the first place. Think of it more in the metaphysical sense of being itself. There are moments of repose (calm/repose/flow/intense concentration). Much of it is not though- even in the most materially abundant settings. What is this burden of being in the first place? Why is it necessary? Is progress itself some sort of assumption that is thrown in the equation? Progress is a product of what we do, but is that the justification for being, or is it circular reasoning to conclude that we must exist to increase progress? Unless we understand why existence is good in and of itself over not being in the first place, there will be no "progress" in this debate. Why put more people into the world in the first place? No one needed anything to begin with. No one needed progress to begin with.

To answer my own questions, perhaps we are an inevitable determined factor in the universe. There is a case that we are already wrapped up in existence. There is no escape. However, the temptation to exist must be answered. What is it about existence that it needs to be borne (born) out in the first place?

What is it about existence that it needs to be borne (born) out in the first place? — schopenhauer1

From a religious point of view, life is a "gift". It's supposed to be lived out in service of the divine - not just in some abstract manner but through loving service to our fellow man.

My own perspective on the matter is based on the infinite potential of what we call the future. Think of life as a relay race. Granted that as of now we don't have a good answer to the question you pose but our job is to pass on the baton to future generations - give them a chance to find the answer. It seems rather arrogant, malicious and foolish(?) to devalue life like that.

Think of life as a relay race. — TheMadFool

Why?

our job is to pass on the baton to future generations - give them a chance to find the answer. — TheMadFool

Why? Sounds like you're watching too much TV optimism. If there was a movie to reference though, it's 2001.. Relay into the abyss of the alien monolith.. In the end it's just the space baby..

It seems rather arrogant, malicious and foolish(?) to devalue life like that. — TheMadFool

Why? Would the infinite of "people not born" really care?

Also, it may be arrogant, malicious, and foolish to procreate. Though, it may be seen as an appropriate/right/good/justified stance by some. Same is this one.

Why? — schopenhauer1

I don't know how far this is relevant but, if I recall correctly, there's a psychological notion called ''loss aversion''. People prefer not losing to winning. It's based on a biased evaluation of the same value e.g. one prefers not to lose $5 than win $5. The connection I see here is the over-valuation of suffering vis-a-vis happiness, which is the bedrock of pessimistic philosophy. What some may say is that such a biased outlook (suffering greater than happiness) is fallacious.

Good save.

woman in all her glory is trying to teach a man that her submission is a path to love – holiness - for them both.

Oh my goodness. That's so touching. It just totally normalized the inferior position of women for me.

And...it's holy. Sacred.

It makes me want to submit. "Muslim" means those who submit.

Really?