What I want is often in conflict with what I think I should do. — Wayfarer

True enough, and the bane of humanity in general. That notwithstanding, if you ever come to know what you shall do, or what you shall not do, then you must have understood your own will.
———-

….just mentioned Kant's "Thing-in-Itself" to criticise him…. — Corvus

“…. For as the world is in one aspect entirely idea, so in another it is entirely will. A reality which is neither of these two, but an object in itself (into which the thing in itself has unfortunately dwindled in the hands of Kant), is the phantom of a dream, and its acceptance is an ignus fatuus in philosophy.…”

So, yeah, one might call that a criticism.

“…. For as the world is in one aspect entirely idea, so in another it is entirely will. A reality which is neither of these two, but an object in itself (into which the thing in itself has unfortunately dwindled in the hands of Kant), is the phantom of a dream, and its acceptance is an ignus fatuus in philosophy.…”

So, yeah, one might call that a criticism. — Mww

:100:

Do some more reading on him. That’s all I could recommend. — Wayfarer

Thanks for your recommendation. I was going to try philsophising from my own reason and reason alone for a while, but I think I better pull out all my old philosophy books from the cupboard again. :) I am sure I have a few Schopenhauer books including his main text books in 2 volumns.

Why call it a view if there is no view? It's no view from anywhere; so obviously we cannot imagine what it is, because that would be to turn it into a view from somewhere. — Janus

I mean this argument parallels the OP of this discussion no? How can you refer to something that is inherently ineffable? I need to designate the concept, and one of the ways to do that is to say that something exists, but there is no epistemological viewer of said events (view from nowhere).

So, as i see it both you and Wayfarer view life through a lens that sees only suffering; without salvation or at least the possibility of salvation, of something more than just this life, this life would be unbearable. Wayfarer still hopes to find something somewhere through reading, whereas you think the only answer is to cease breeding. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that is because he believes in a life hereafter, that there is an overarching spiritual purpose, whereas you don't. — Janus

I can't speak for @Wayfarer, but he seems to believe in the Buddhist idea of karmic cycle and that to escape from the cycle one has to reach Nirvana so that they are not reborn. In a less religious-sounding way, I think he thinks that identity of self is a delusion compounded by our ego's desires. When we reach enlightenment, we cease to identify as this or that person who is attached to this or that worldly desires. He thinks this sublime state is possible, and I am skeptical. If it is anything at all, it is some sort of ego-death but nothing on some karmic spiritual level. And hence, in a way, he agrees more with Schopenhauer's notion of "denying the will" through reaching a supreme state of total will-lessness, I guess.

Contra that notion, I don't see any spiritual significance in the ascetic practice more than habits of mind, more akin to cleaning your house to feel less cluttered. In other words, it's a coping mechanism like many others, and also alike with many others. I also point out that event if we take this mystical idea seriously that some sublime Nirvana state is obtainable, it doesn't get rid of the karmic cycle itself, just the individual's cycle. Now, Mahayana technically has a solution in the Bodhisattva, but that only helps a few more people and still doesn't fix the cycle itself.

Contra all of that notion, there is something we can do to help people not suffer in the first place, and that is simply not procreate. That simple "negative act" (not doing something), will prevent a new person's experience of suffering. Now you can say that the criticism I had of Buddhism can be leveled here. That is to say, you can say that preventing your own children's birth isn't going to prevent all birth, and animals continue, etc. However, my point with that criticism is that Buddhism and Schopenhauer had an idea that something like suicide or perhaps even not procreating, doesn't "solve" the problem of suffering because Suffering itself still continues. My point was that Buddhism and Schopenhauer's notion of Nirvana has the same issue. Except, whereas empirically, we cannot prove that this state of Nirvana is true, we can 100% empirically know that we did not procreate someone who would then suffer.

However, antinatalism is not the same as Pessimism per se. It is one ethical argument that may come out of it. There is also what to do once we are already here. To this I think we can have some sort of communal catharsis. That is, it actually does mean people have to have the right understanding in order to have a sense of the situation. Antinatalism is not just the action of not breeding but is a marker for the "lament of life". And thus, it is this attitude that I am saying is the right view of things. To get to the level of ennui. As Hartmann described here:

The essential feature of the morality built upon the basis of Von Hartmann's philosophy is the realization that all is one and that, while every attempt to gain happiness is illusory, yet before deliverance is possible, all forms of the illusion must appear and be tried to the utmost. Even he who recognizes the vanity of life best serves the highest aims by giving himself up to the illusion, and living as eagerly as if he thought life good. It is only through the constant attempt to gain happiness that people can learn the desirability of nothingness; and when this knowledge has become universal, or at least general, deliverance will come and the world will cease. No better proof of the rational nature of the universe is needed than that afforded by the different ways in which men have hoped to find happiness and so have been led unconsciously to work for the final goal. The first of these is the hope of good in the present, the confidence in the pleasures of this world, such as was felt by the Greeks. This is followed by the Christian transference of happiness to another and better life, to which in turn succeeds the illusion that looks for happiness in progress, and dreams of a future made worth while by the achievements of science. All alike are empty promises, and known as such in the final stage, which sees all human desires as equally vain and the only good in the peace of Nirvana. — Hartmann Wiki

That is to say some sort of communal recognition of the situation. That is we must exhaust the idea of progress, scientific enthusiasm, pleasures, and happiness in this life to understand the situation and come to a sort of resignation. Unlike Hartmann though, I don't think it necessarily has to be Nirvana, but maybe a sort of quietude and recognition that it's "all vanity".

Right understanding through a communal catharsis will then take away the barriers of optimism. It would be a recognition that suffering is real and inherent in the human condition. That we resolve not to start it for others. That we empathize with the suffering of others and let others grieve that suffering, helping find solutions. In this sense, Schopenhauer's "compassion" and "empathy" is the correct foundation for a "positive ethics" (actions to perform instead of prevent). But this kind of foundation is only done out of seeing others as "fellow-sufferers". I can't emphasize that enough. In our hedonistic culture we are inculcated and bombarded with optimistic slogans. But these simply become an impediment to the true understanding of the inevitability and pervasiveness, in fact inherent quality that suffering has in the human condition. That is why Buddhism and Schopenhauer's understanding of suffering isn't "just" hedonic calculus but is a deeper sense of dissatisfaction that is even had when we are supposedly hedonically not harmed. And thus, since it is inherent, we must recognize it which means taking the empathetic pessimistic stance of compassion.

I am sure I have a few Schopenhauer books including his main text books in 2 volumns. — Corvus

I confess never to having gotten through the entire volume. I find most of what resonates with me in the very first sections, but I'm pressing ahead. (Currently reading the section on the Ideas.)

Here are some other resources: Project Gutenberg Online Version - both the HTML and .pdf versions are good.

Analytic idealist Bernardo Kastrup has a good current title Decoding Schopenhauer's Metaphysics, you can find his intro page to it here. (Notice that Kastrup is very critical of another frequently-mentioned book by Christopher Janaway. I pay heed to Kastrup in this matter, as he like Schopenhauer is a philosophical idealist.)

I've also mentioned another title I've discovered, a 2014 book by the name of Schopenhauer's Compass by Urs App. Can't sing its praises too highly, it's written entirely from primary sources including Schopenhauer's margin notes and correspondence, and situates him in his intellectual milieu.

I can't speak for Wayfarer, but he seems to believe in the Buddhist idea of karmic cycle and that to escape from the cycle one has to reach Nirvana so that they are not reborn. In a less religious-sounding way, I think he thinks that identity of self is a delusion compounded by our ego's desires. When we reach enlightenment, we cease to identify as this or that person who is attached to this or that worldly desires. He thinks this sublime state is possible, and I am skeptical. — schopenhauer1

I was drawn to Buddhism through my youthful conviction that there really was such a state as enlightenment. This was in the late 60's and there was a lot of that in the air. The Beatles and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Alan Watts had an actual television show. Over many later years I formed the view that Buddhism had the most credible offering ('Hinduism stripped for export' was Watts' description). Of course with the wisdom of hindsight I now recognise the immaturity of my quest, and the naive belief in 'instant enlightenment' which seemed to be the message of popular Zen (and also learned a lot more about Alan Watts' life and times :roll: .) But I did have a genuine conversion experience (or several) in those days (although of course, this never turns out to be the 'ending of suffering' by a very long shot.) Nevertheless some of these realisations were both cathartic and impactful. So, while far from any 'sublime state', it really had the concrete impact of making me less self-centered. It's perhaps not coincidental that around this time (early 80's) I married and had children. Recently I read the free intro to Evan Thompson's Why I'm Not a Buddhist , and I agree with him that designating oneself 'Buddhist' is often a kind of conceit for us middle-class moderns. And I'm currently not part of an active sangha, although that might change. But I definitely part with the various philosophers (Mainlander, von Hartmann) cited in this thread, as I believe the original premise of the Buddha that there is an ending of suffering that is not mere non-existence.

I mean this argument parallels the OP of this discussion no? How can you refer to something that is inherently ineffable? I need to designate the concept, and one of the ways to do that is to say that something exists, but there is no epistemological viewer of said events (view from nowhere). — schopenhauer1

Apparently, you understand this quite differently than I do. The way I see it the indeterminate can be referred to even though it cannot be described. Designating the concept as I see it consists in saying that the indeterminate exists, but cannot be known or described, and that there is no imaginable possible (embodied) viewer. It still makes the most sense to me to say that if there were an infinite view (as opposed to our finite views) of anything it would be a view from everywhere, that is from all possible distances and directions all at once. That it could be said that this view is a view from nowhere in particular seems reasonable to me, but the idea of a view from nowhere, a view which is not a view at all, doesn't. But I acknowledge that's just me: I don't imagine that we must all see things the same way; individuals are unique, so why would their ways of seeing and understanding not also be unique?

In a less religious-sounding way, I think he thinks that identity of self is a delusion compounded by our ego's desires. — schopenhauer1

I think identity is merely formal, and becomes a delusion only when reified as a notion of a fixed transcendent being (substance); otherwise, it is simply useful, indeed indispensable, for finding our way in the world.

He thinks this sublime state is possible, and I am skeptical. — schopenhauer1

I see it as likely being a possibility, as an altered state in this life, but I am not convinced it can be achieved permanently or that my consciousness will survive the death of the body. That said I am not confident enough to deny an afterlife, but for me, since it can only be a distant possibility it cannot be a worthy life pursuit. There are too many other fascinating things to do and discover while alive, while I have this all to brief opportunity, and if there is anything that comes after this life, I'll worry about that if and when it arises, or if not, I obviously won't worry at all.

The quoted passage about Hartmann is interesting and I think somewhat along those lines. One of the most common pursuits of happiness is having children and becoming part of a family. As I've said I was never drawn to that, but I don't believe that anyone who longs for that will ever be convinced by anti-natalist arguments, so, even if I agreed with antinatalism as a universal ideal I would still see the mission of convincing people not to breed as a futile waste of time and energy.

If everyone stopped having children today society, civilization as we know it, would soon catastrophically collapse, and I don't think that could be dressed up to look like a desirable outcome for virtually anyone, other than perhaps a few who would like to return to hunter/ gatherer life. If I was twenty years old right now that might attract me, but I am almost seventy, and the idea has little appeal to me.

In any case, I say with utmost confidence that people will continue to have children, so unless catastrophic collapse is forced on us, people will continue to breed as usual. Even if society collapsed quite a few would probably survive and return to hunter/ gatherer or rudimentary agricultural life, and they would certainly breed, if only because they would have no further access to contraceptives.

I confess never to having gotten through the entire volume. I find most of what resonates with me in the very first sections, but I'm pressing ahead. (Currently reading the section on the Ideas.)

Here are some other resources: Project Gutenberg Online Version - both the HTML and .pdf versions are good. — Wayfarer

Great resource links. Thanks !!
I have managed to find my old Schopenhauer books along with the other philosophy books, Greek philosophy, Kant, Hegel, Hume, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Wittgenstein ....

1. The World as Will and Representation Vol. 1 & 2 - translated by E.F.J. Payne 1969 Dover Publications NYC

2. Schopenhauer - On the Character of the World: The Metaphysics of Will by John Atwell.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Schopenhauer-Character-World-Metaphysics-Will/dp/0520087704

3. Schopenhauer by Julian Young, Routledge, 2005 Oxford UK

4. The Philosophy of Schopenhauer by Bryan Magee 1983 Clarendon Press Oxford UK

I am glad that I still have above books. I lost interest on readings lately, but seems I could go back to the readings again.

I think the secret is, with philosophy, to find a golden thread through the labyrinth - some over-arching theme which you can follow through all the various authors and periods. There has to be something which really grabs you in all the sea of books and authors. Oh, and I think Magee is really good on Schopenhauer, there are some passages I frequently quote from that book. Magee, who was an esteemed commentator and presenter, held Schopenhauer in the highest esteem.