I just find the term unhelpful really. What are you trying to say by it? What is the purpose of labeling it as such? In other words, what are you trying to indicate or imply with it? — schopenhauer1

Nihilism - nothing is real, nothing matters, nothing truly exists. That poem you quote is dripping with it.

Nihilism - nothing is real, nothing matters, nothing truly exists. That poem you quote is dripping with it. — Wayfarer

Ok, so if it is, so what? What is the implication? It sounds like you're trying to say something with that label.

Well, we're not talking about the same thing.

Yes, I understood that. The core philosophy of the Upanishads is Vedanta. Although certain ideas within Vedanta (such as the repetition of birth, karma, and the absolute oneness of being) are fairly unique, there are, naturally, theistic interpretations that see God as the all-perfect being, which would not be entirely different from Western ideas. Dvaita Vedānta could be seen as an example of this.

I am also glad that you mentioned that Buddhism and Vedānta are not inherently pessimistic. Both say that suffering can end. Vedānta does not try to end existence for the sake of bringing about a valueless non-existence. And many Buddhists actually see the human birth as a blessing because it provides us with the best opportunity to achieve Nirvana.

:ok:

Yeah that response that you okayed there is exactly an example of my point here:
Yes. The ascetics have it. They veer away from it when they do summersault justifications like, "Humans are needed so they can break samsara, thus making more humans to suffer to escape suffering..." I just see it as a post-facto and circular justification.

Do you think that terms such as mokṣa or Nirvāṇa mean anything? How would you interpret what is meant by them?

I do find it strange that some people accept ideas in a manner that disconnects them from the larger chassis. Such as approach assumes that all those who reached a particular conclusion were right up until a point and then miraculously collectively lost their way just because their conclusions were different. And their final remedy is not trying to circularly justify anything (in a post facto manner) simply because their worldview has a spiritual element. It isn't impossible for some people to do so, but it would be a stretch to claim that this is true for everyone (or most people).

It’s an extremely complicated matter. Schopenhauer is routinely described as atheist, yet he explicitly praises Indic philosophy and religious asceticism and rejects materialism (which is the aspect of his philosophy that I’m most drawn to.)

Vedanta and Buddhism were mutually antagonistic within their own cultural sphere, although from outside it they seem to have much more in common than either side would acknowledge. (I was a mod on Dharmawheel for some time, and noticed that whenever mention of Vedanta was made, many of the most senior contributors expressed a deep, culturally-engrained hostility towards it. So much for the ‘many paths up the mountain’!)

The OP frequently writes on what is known as ‘antinatalism’ which is apparently a philosophy that stresses it would be better not to have been born or not to exist. Like many traditional philosophies, it sees existence as being inherently imperfect and painful. Gnosticism is another example. It sees the world as the creation of an evil demiurge, usually identified with the OT Jehovah, and the only hope being an escape from the created world and return to the Plelroma through gnostic insight.

Yet unlike the ancient world-denying philosophies modern antinatalism seems to have no conception of there being anything corresponding to the ‘release from suffering’. Existence is a mirage, a trap, a painful charade, but there’s nothing higher to aspire to. Only the wan idea that maybe if we don’t procreate, then we’ve made a meaningful gesture towards non-being.

I believe that Schopenhauer's interpretation of Eastern philosophy was valuable but too pessimistic. As you mentioned later in your reply, there is something "higher" that simply cannot be ignored. I wouldn't deny that existence is imperfect, but I do think that there is more than enough good to justify existence (though I also support a right to a graceful exit if their suffering becomes unbearable).

There is definitely a degree of antagonism (which is why I find it amusing whenever Hindus holding extreme views make it seem as if all "Indic" religions are united against the Abrahamic ones, which is an analysis that ignores the complexities of life).

Mahatma Gandhi, who followed the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, did seem to believe that there were many paths up the mountain:

"I believe in the truth of all religions of the world. And since my youth upward, it has been a humble but persistent effort on my to understand the truth of all the religions of the world, and adopt and assimilate in my own thought, word, and deed all that I have found to be best in those religions. The faith that I profess not only permits me to do so but renders it obligatory for me to take the best from whatsoever source it may come."

—Harijan, 16-2-34, p. 7

Do you think that terms such as mokṣa or Nirvāṇa mean anything? How would you interpret what is meant by them? — Wayfarer

What does this have to do with my question? If it does, "enlighten me" (get it!).

Moksha means something like "release". Because Hinduism is so diverse, it can be used in different ways, but usually associated with being released from the rebirth cycle and samsara. It's generally a peaceful state of non-attachment. Nirvana, means something similar but emphasis on release from the causes of suffering. I do know both have an aspect of illusion created by karmic events. But one is questioning the illusion which causes attachments, etc. etc. The ego is not real sort of thing.

So again, how does labeling this nihilism fit into this? Is it because it denies the ideas regarding moksha, release, nirvana, etc? If that is the case, sure, I can agree with that.

I'd like to double down on Schopenhauer's approach of pessimism then. Rather, ideas of nirvana and moksha are not isolated, but are carried out in a broader Hindu framework of Dharma and other notions. They believe in stages of life, and hierarchies of birth (the whole caste system), and things such as this. But if we take that seriously, and not even from a human rights perspective, this means that the very problem (suffering/karmic build-up) is something humans must participate in by having more humans. What would happen if no humans put more people into the whole mix? There is no "problem" to have to solve (by way of moksha or nirvana).

The only answer you can provide is that it is just bound to happen cause the universe "wills" it. But then I refer back to my idea that this is just a self-fulfilling justification (post-facto and circular reasoning). That is to say it is faulty in that it says, "Because the universe is bound to produce suffering, it doesn't matter anyways, so we mine as well produce more people that will suffer" and if taking Hindu/Buddhist ideas seriously, they will suffer so they can realize they don't need to suffer. Again, why initiate the problem (have people) in the first place to then have to overcome the very problem?

So Schopenhauer's pessimistic emphasis is called for if it is seen in juxtoposition to the life-affirming aspects of the other parts of the Hindu/Buddhist philosophies that encourage the traditional having of families, life stages (young, middle-age with family, old study Hindu philosophy and moksha).

Rather I'd present a different view of catharsis. That is, communal catharsis is recognition of the state of affairs. A world is less harsh if we all agree it sucks. It's the persistent idea not only is it good for you but that your notion of the world means other people must also live it, even though they are people with their own notions that are not yours. This then dovetails into Western ethical concerns of deontology and identity.

Deontological problem: Causing other people suffering because you have a notion that you are doing positive things on behalf of them (even though you know it brings suffering too).

Identity problem: When someone is born and has negative experiences and/or has a negative evaluation of life, that person is affected. If in a counterfactual situation, a person is not born (was not actualized even though the potential was there), that person is not affected. They are not regretful, forlorn, or deprived of the positives of life. The affect only goes in one direction, and only matters in one direction.

So yeah, all that.

Hinduism is definitely diverse and so are the views on karma (which range from ignorance to an intentional separation from God). Not having unnecessary attachments and desires is doubtlessly good for existing beings who are capable of experiencing positive experiences (which is why Mokhsa does not mean the elimination of being itself).

It is true that dharma (and most things in life) should not be seen in isolation. Right conduct is only a part of the bigger picture that also includes one's own well-being (kama) and even material resources (artha). Of course, dharma and moksha occupy a higher position.

The "problem" of existence, for a Hindu, does not have a specific beginning. A cyclical perspective is preferred, and each person's path is going to be unique. While the state of perfect existence (not existence) would certainly have been better than our flawed reality, Hindus (and Buddhists) would say that, now that the material world does exist, simply not creating people will not do anything as people will simply be created in another form (even if this takes some time). But having a human birth does give people their best chance to begin the journey towards Moksha in earnest.

Those who have already reached moksha will not suffer again. Instead, new souls will continue to be provided with the opportunity to gain liberation. Everything isn't about problems; some facets of life are also about what lies beyond them. Unlimited pessimism is an incomplete worldview.

The world would be a nicer place if we understood that having unrealistic expectations only makes us more miserable. I agree that it would be unethical to expect that everyone should adopt an optimistic perspective, but it would be equally problematic to suggest that it isn't just one's own existence (or the lives of some people) that may be mostly bad, but this is true for the majority/everyone. The existence of the negatives does not nullify the value of the good elements of life.

Deontological solution: Assuming that procreation can even cause any kind of harm (even though it doesn't go against anybody's existing interests and does not diminish their well-being), it would not be ethical to deliberately not give positives that one cannot demand before they exist. This is, of course, also depends upon other factors, such as one's economic conditions and other moral obligations.

Identity solution: Potential/counterfactual people don't receive any palpable benefits. Nobody is twirling in delight in nothingness. And if these are somehow apposite considerations, then the prevention of the lives of beings who could have experienced love, aesthetic value, and knowledge is nothing other than shockingly bad.

If nobody is deprived, there isn't anyone who is saved either. You give privileges to pessimism that cannot be justified.

There's a veritable mountain of experiences that cannot be hastily forgotten, friend.

who are capable — DA671

But not by default. So a problem to be resolved.

Not if there aren't any negatives that don't have a detrimental impact one's well-being. And the problems can be solved to a degree that allows one to appreciate the potent joys of life.

Not if there aren't any negatives that don't have a detrimental impact one's well-being. And the roblems can be solved to a degree that allows one to appreciate the potent joys of life. — DA671

You can't predict that. Also, who are you to determine what other people view as what is impactful or not? Also, things change all the time. One well-being may be a tragedy later. I know your idea. I get it you think that people need to be born so they can experience positives. Got it. I just think I have answered you in every way that this is wrong.

And you can't predict that the future would be filled with overwhelming harms. It isn't for you to determine that the powerful positive experiences that monks, people who recognise the strength of love, and and many others have is entirely insignificant. One tragedy, like being taken away from one's loved ones, can still be a cause of a great good, such as being able to possess a genuine sense of gratitude for what one has and the willingness to bring joy to the lives of others. My view is that there is no absolute need to create people (or to never do so). Non-existent beings don't benefit or lose anything she they do not exist. At the same time, if the absence of suffering is good, then the claim that the absence of happiness isn't bad is, I think, untenable.

Procreation must not be done impetuously. I believe that I and many others have pointed out the fundamental flaws with your unrestricted pessimism and universal anti-natalism multiple times. The valuable aspects of life will always matter immensely, which is why any view that seeks to end life in the name of compassion/ethical behaviour will always be, most probably, wrong. Still, I continue to admire your intentions and your desire to help make the world a better place. The true beauty of its fulfilment will lie in a world that could actually witness the wondrous existence of this good. I hope that you will have a beautiful weekend.

This sounds like depression. Intellectualized, articulate depression, but still depression.

I wouldn't say that all those who hold this view are depressed. Additionally, even if this was true, it would not mean that their ideas are without merit.

I wouldn't say that my life has been particularly pleasant. A chunk of it was spent in a room as a consequence of a myriad of health-related issues. I have had an isolated life (I don't blame anyone for it), and I am not overly optimistic about my future. Nonetheless, I don't think that I would ever be able to rationally affirm the idea that there are incredibly delightful features of life that will always matter (whether or not I experience them).

I wouldn't say that all those who hold this view are depressed. Additionally, even if this was true, it would not mean that their ideas are without merit. — DA671

Should have added some context, was referring to the Cioran quote schop posted, for instance:

The same feeling of not belonging, of futility, wherever I go: I pretend interest in what matters nothing to me, I bestir myself mechanically or out of charity, without ever being caught up, without ever being somewhere. What attracts me is elsewhere, and I don't know where that elsewhere is. — E.M. Cioran, The Trouble With Being Born

Does it matter to our discussions if Cioran had depression? If Thomas Ligotti has anhedonia? I don't think it settles any of the issues, but might serve as particularly salient reminder that eloquence is not a reliable indicator of truth.

And while I'm loath to say that every philosophy is really just autobiography, it might only be the "just" that I object to, for surely it is also that. And so it is for our responses. We read the work, and ask ourselves, is this true? Cioran's account may strike a chord if you have experienced depression, but if not?

I don't know if this is just an issue of methodology or of substance. I suspect James was onto something when he spoke of philosophical temperaments.

It does strike me as silly to ignore the issue entirely, and discuss dispassionately, intellectually what is obviously a record of suffering.

Oh, I understand. I apologise for causing any unnecessary confusion.

I agree that we cannot entirely divorce our passions from our philosophical positions. What we learn is inescapably going to traverse the multifarious territory of the experiences of sentient beings. It is unlikely that all biases will evaporate, but we can perhaps attain a reasonably good understanding by not letting extremes (optimistic, pessimistic, or of any other kind) guide us to possible oblivion.

It's a tricky issue. In a sense all of Nietzsche's genealogical analysis works this way, and we live in an age where the ad hominem argument has gained a certain authority. I'm not itching to go down either of those roads.

But here we are. Cioran's words are pretty nearly textbook indicators of depression. If he'd had a good therapist and maybe some meds, he might have sung a different tune. What are we to make of that?

It doesn't make what he wrote untrue, quite the contrary, but it does add some context. For the anti-natalist, all that matters is that he suffered, and therefore his parents should not have brought him into the world.

We could say, what if we made sure everyone with depression got excellent treatment? Well of course we all want that, but do we all want a future where everyone is permanently happy and just the same? That's horrifying. But for the anti-natalist only the promise of such a dystopia could justify procreation.

Not sure I want to go wandering through this particular fun house again, fascinating as it is. I just found it peculiar no one had remarked on the obvious, and it does raise difficult issues of what we think we're doing when we do philosophy.

You do raise a very relevant point about the role of one's psychological state in influencing their views on fundamental topics, such as the value of life.

Conceivably, one could not discover a treasure trove in their life and still think that, overall, the positives do outweigh the negatives. The opposite could be true as well, bur I acknowledge that these scenarios forming the greater percentage of people is a doubtful proposition.

My view may be unorthodox, but I do not believe that unfading bliss would be inherently bad as long as it did not cause more harm than good in the long term. I do, however, recognise that life is permeated with various dimensions.

I am grateful for your contribution. It would be remiss of us to turn a blind eye to the emotions underlying our arguments. It's just that discussions revolving around ideas like AN entail a substantial amount of accusations concerning one's psychological state, so it gradually becomes a habit to avoid touching upon anything except the arguments. Nevertheless, they are an indispensable part of our reality. Thank you for the reminder. I hope that your day will go well.

He’s talking to a hypothetical depressed suicidal for sure, if they are going to kill themselves. Your observation doesn’t matter to the point he’s making though as explained in the OP about the problem already existing and death not being its opposite, so can’t “fix” it. No relief is had once started.

it would not be ethical to deliberately not give positives that one cannot demand before they exist. — DA671

Why?

Potential/counterfactual people don't receive any palpable benefits. — DA671

No they don’t. If you knew a child was going to suffer immensely right after birth, would you not consider preventing that? Of course you would. It’s the same reasoning spread out over a lifetime, or just “existence” for short. Being born will affect someone. The argument is not affected by the rebuttal that no one exists to experience the joy of no harm. That’s not the argument. No one exists means no one is affected, period. Someone’s being born now affects someone.

Only the wan idea that maybe if we don’t procreate, then we’ve made a meaningful gesture towards non-being. — Wayfarer

But what about it? Any response that doesn’t step into the predicted rebuttals of self fulfilling idea that suffering exists, therefore we are justified to create more people that suffer? Any replies to my reply before this one?

the problem already existing — schopenhauer1

Not exactly.

The original quote could be read as a sort of paradox: if you wait until you have a reason to kill yourself, you'll have an experience bad enough that you want to kill yourself, therefore the smart move is to kill yourself for no reason, before things get bad. Quit while you're ahead.

This "argument" does not claim that you have a reason to kill yourself from the moment you're born. It doesn't even say that you are bound to have one someday. It only says that if you have one, you've already missed your chance not to, and of course that's true.

I'm not sure it bears analysing. Strikes me more as gallows humor, suggesting that life is itself kind of a sick joke.

Not exactly. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, Socrates.

The original quote could be read as a sort of paradox: if you wait until you have a reason to kill yourself, you'll have an experience bad enough that you want to kill yourself, therefore the smart move is to kill yourself for no reason, before things get bad. Quit while you're ahead. — Srap Tasmaner

Whilst I think that is a perfectly valid and correct interpretation, I don't think it can be the only one read from this.

This "argument" does not claim that you have a reason to kill yourself from the moment you're born. It doesn't even say that you are bound to have one someday. It only says that if you have one, you've already missed your chance not to, and of course that's true. — Srap Tasmaner

I think the quote implies futility because life will always inevitably have problems. If you look at the other quotes about consciousness and such it fits within a broader theme.

I'm not sure it bears analysing. Strikes me more as gallows humor, suggesting that life is itself kind of a sick joke. — Srap Tasmaner

I mean yes it's dark humor, but he wasn't just making a joke. It's from a book of aphorisms around the theme of, "The Trouble with Being Born". You can almost start any of those quotes off with.. "The trouble with being born is... In this case, "The trouble with being born is... that you can't even kill yourself on time".

it fits within a broader theme — schopenhauer1

Sure, and one way to describe that theme is, "I have pretty severe depression and am not receiving treatment."

I wouldn't actually presume to diagnose Cioran from his writings. I won't pretend literature is the same as confession. And I'm not saying that if it were a known fact that Cioran had depression we ought to dismiss him.

But I also don't like pretending there isn't an elephant in the room. Philosophical pessimism reasons its way to a worldview that comes naturally, without the need of argument, to those unfortunate souls who suffer from depression.

I also don't claim pessimism is unique in aligning with affective disposition in this way. I just don't think we have a good way to talk about these connections and the need is most obvious in a case like Cioran's.

But I also don't like pretending there isn't an elephant in the room. Philosophical pessimism reasons its way to a worldview that comes naturally, without the need of argument, to those unfortunate souls who suffer from depression.

I also don't claim pessimism is unique in aligning with affective disposition in this way. I just don't think we have a good way to talk about these connections and the need is most obvious in a case like Cioran's. — Srap Tasmaner

Philosophical pessimism is simply recognizing suffering exists and proposes what to (refrain from) do(ing) about it. It's pretty simple.

Writing can be a sublimation for negativity. So can art. So can ascetic living or meditating. I call for community catharsis. That is to say, don't gaslight with distraction, ignoring, anchoring, etc. First we must recognize the situation. Politics starts here. Is existence worth it is as much a political question as is what government is best. Why? Because all the assumptions about what others should do start at this viewpoint. If someone is born, there is already an assumption that they ought to be born for some reason.