So one can have, or acquire, reasons to choose or not to choose to be a philosophical pessimist (i.e. rationally committed to the idea that it is rationally worse ‐ more than merely not preferable – to exist than to not exist)? I've read a great deal on this topic (including all the "pessimists" cited by T. Ligotti & JF Dienstag) and the arguments either way seem ad hoc (or rationalizations) because the premises are often merely anecdotal.Philosophical Pessimism is debatable... — schopenhauer1
I've read a great deal on this topic (including all the "pessimists" cited by T. Ligotti & JF Dienstag) and the arguments either way seem ad hoc (or rationalizations) because the premises are often merely anecdotal. — 180 Proof
A pupil is a good thing. It isn't "running away from the truth of how much light is in the room," to have your pupil constrict, just like the release of endorphins isn't some sort of "illusion-making to hide the real levels of pain in the body." The "real level of pain," is determined, in part, by the endorphins.
They are all part of the same whole. There is no "true level" of human misery and suffering that we can discover by "cutting through illusion." — Count Timothy von Icarus
I would agree that life has no intrinsic positive value, but I also think it is nonsensical to claim that it has negative intrinsic value. — Janus
Some argue that if life has no overarching purpose that it follows that it has a negative intrinsic value, but I think it is arguable that having no overarching purpose is a positive thing, in that it allows us to be free to create our own purposes, rather than submitting to an imposed purpose or else suffer punishment, karmic consequences and so on. — Janus
Of course, even so-called overarching purposes are culturally imposed, since they are matters of faith, not something which could be obvious to any unbiased or free minded individual. — Janus
The value is squarely on the being-in-the-world. It is rather about not the universe devoid of being, but the universe with a being that can feel, comprehend, and in the case of the human, self-reflect. — schopenhauer1
I don't view "no purpose" as positive or negative either on its face. Rather, it is suffering that is paramount to the pessimist. Suffering can show itself in peculiar ways to the human animal. When doing something tedious, or in prolonged bouts of melancholy, one might see an immense worthlessness to it all. — schopenhauer1
Indeed, what better way to be motivated than some external, culturally derived and tested way? — schopenhauer1
The value or meaning or purpose life has for living beings is diverse just as are the living beings. Trying to dismiss (your version of) what I said as "surface-y" seems a rather desperate tactic. — Janus
Sure, some minority of people, not animals I would think, may feel something like this. It may be driven by brain chemistry, or it may be on account of trauma, or something else; but whatever its origin might be, it is a subjective emotional state, not a universal truth. Life involves suffering, but it also involves joy, and the proportions of each will vary from living being to living being: seeking to absolutize the characterization of life as suffering is a fool's errand. — Janus
How so? You said there is no intrinsic value. That is missing the point, that it is only beings that perceive value, and human beings that are self-aware they are perceiving value. And that is what matters, not what the universe is devoid of beings who have value. If that was the case, we wouldn't need to talk about anything. We just wouldn't "be". — schopenhauer1
We have discussed this before, and I believe I have answered you before regarding this. — schopenhauer1
I have said that value, meaning, purpose is only to be found in the volitions, cognitions and judgements of beings. The value of life as assessed by human beings, and arguably not other animals, may be either positive or negative, depending on the human being doing the assessing, so it seems obvious that there is no intrinsic, universally negative or positive value to life. — Janus
If you have something to say in response to the passage you quoted, then say it. Vague references to some previous answer you purport to have given are next to useless. If you want to bring in past discussions, then at least bother to cite particular statements. — Janus
Whether or not one agrees that there is a
“brotherhood of suffering between everything alive,” we can all agree
that human beings are the only organisms that can have such a
conception of existence, or any conception period. That we can conceive
of the phenomenon of suffering, our own as well as that of other
organisms, is a property unique to us as a dangerously conscious species.
We know there is suffering, and we do take action against it, which
includes downplaying it by “artificially limiting the content of
consciousness.” Between taking action against and downplaying
suffering, mainly the latter, most of us do not worry that it has overly
sullied our existence.
As a fact, we cannot give suffering precedence in either our individual
or collective lives. We have to get on with things, and those who give
precedence to suffering will be left behind. [ pace @Ciceronianus et al comments :) )
28
They fetter us with their sniveling. We have someplace to go and must
believe we can get there, wherever that may be. And to conceive that
there is a “brotherhood of suffering between everything alive” would
disable us from getting anywhere. We are preoccupied with the good
life, and step by step are working toward a better life. What we do, as a
conscious species, is set markers for ourselves. Once we reach one
marker, we advance to the next—as if we were playing a board game we
think will never end, despite the fact that it will, like it or not. And if you
are too conscious of not liking it, then you may conceive of yourself as a
biological paradox that cannot live with its consciousness and cannot
live without it. And in so living and not living, you take your place with
the undead and the human puppet.
Yeah, that is not what I or Ligotti was claiming in the sense of "meaninglessness". So that is a moot argument. — schopenhauer1
can anyone else see the validity in this idea of "excess" in existence, especially for the human experience? — schopenhauer1
5. Human Mind, and thus, all human experience, is a structure of excess Signifiers stored in memory, "acting" autonomously to trigger the Body to respond with feelings and actions. The feelings etc in turn trigger more Signiers which, in turn trigger more feelings and actions, all of which are "experienced" in that form, and the Real aware-ing is inevitably displaced thereby. No longer are we motivated to feel and to act by natural drives; now it is tge desire of/for these Signifiers motivating us.
So yes, there is excess in the human experience relative to all other species; even those whose intelligence etc. resembles ours. We alone are motivated by the excess chatter taking place autonomously inside our bodies and believed by us to be real, essential, spiritual even, when all along it is autonomously moving Fiction. — ENOAH
1. that there is a Real consciousness shared by many if not all "sophisticated" organisms, including humans. It is the natural aware-ing of our Bodies in the natural environment, motivated by natural drives, including survival, bonding, reproduction.
2. one of the characteristics of this aware-ing for many species including "pre-historic" humans was a system of "shortcuts" to trigger expedient responses akin to classical conditioning, "designed" to fast-track our drives. Images are stored in memory and are autonomously called up to trigger efficiency in response. Eg. hear a tiger roar, run. See a red berry, don't eat. The roar and the color red is a Signifier in memory called up for survival.
3. For humans only (as far as we know) this system of shortcuts/signifiers grew to an astronomical surplus level (your: "excess"). By some point pre-history becomes History and the word "tiger" Signifies in the same way the sound of a roar once did.
4. This excess of Signifiers evolved into a System with grammar/logic/reason/fantasy etc etc. And Human Consciousness emerged displacing Real consciousness, I.e., natural aware-ing with the system of Signifiers (for simplicity, "Language")
5. Human Mind, and thus, all human experience, is a structure of excess Signifiers stored in memory, "acting" autonomously to trigger the Body to respond with feelings and actions. The feelings etc in turn trigger more Signiers which, in turn trigger more feelings and actions, all of which are "experienced" in that form, and the Real aware-ing is inevitably displaced thereby. No longer are we motivated to feel and to act by natural drives; now it is tge desire of/for these Signifiers motivating us. — ENOAH
we become in a way "exiled" from how other animals are "Real aware-ing" — schopenhauer1
And with only the possible exception of timeless "moments" in Zazen, I feat, there is no way of returning from exile. Our Real Being is far too displaced by the inescapable chatter. — ENOAH
These and other examples seem to be this longing for "Our Real Being", but in a way, they are vain attempts because once "crossing the divide" of the kind of consciousness of Signifiers et al, it is only like looking at a far distant shore that may or may not really be there. They are artificial/secondary ways of getting there, in other words. — schopenhauer1
From your description, it sounds like the implicit "excess" for humans is Self-Consciousness --- over & above basic consciousness. Without that talent for self-knowing, humans would be mere furless & fangless & clawless carnivores. Our behavior would be mostly innate & automatic & reasonless. Self-awareness allows humans to intentionally modify their behavior (biological drives) to suit their self-interest (goals ; narratives : aspirations), which may or may-not be in the interest of the community --- leading to law-breaking & treason, or to new standards of excellence. When fully immersed in the tribe, we could never feel "loneliness, ennui, or meaninglessness". So, from a pessimistic perspective, I suppose you could say that Selfishness is bad for humanity, but good for a person. But, what if that introspective person can rationally balance selfishness with selflessness?So I guess a question I can pose here, with all this in mind, is can anyone else see the validity in this idea of"excess" in existence, especially for the human experience? There is something that we are deluding ourselves in, with our goals, narratives, and ignoring of the situation, so that we don't have to "feel" or "sense" the excess. The excess might be akin to a certain sense of angst, existential dread, isolation, loneliness, ennui, and meaninglessness. Ligotti, used a term which is quite "horror" sounding with all caps- MALIGNANTLY USELESS. That might get at the feeling better. — schopenhauer1
Human beings are unique in their ability to engage in thinking and reflection, which allows them to shape their own identities and find meaning in their lives." — Gnomon
I'm guessing that 's response to Hannah Arendt's quote is just prior to my post above : "The way to transcend our mundane and fictional selves, the troubled self, the self of Consciousness, is to be the Real and organic self, the aware-ing Body simply in its Organic Living".ENOAH was pretty right on with his summary here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/882856
. Do you have a response ENOAH? — schopenhauer1
But besides the eloquent ways in which Arendt, Et. Al. construct their meaning, their is nothing noble in it. It's actually what we do with the Fiction (Signifiers structuring Mind) all the time: construct meaning. Simple eg. body organically is presently paining; Mind constructs "I stubbed my toe," out of the autonomously moving Signifiers available; the pronouns so assimilated into the Narrative which Body is fed, that its mechanics as signifier of (usually, but not always) Body is ordained with belief, and we "think" there is this poor I who stubbed its very own toe.
My point with respect to Gnomon's obviously great point, is that what Arendt and (I'm thinking most post Kantian) other Western thinkers are addressing is the ever present intuition that Mind is a Fiction. And that surfaces as a double edged sword. On the one hand, oh shit, Mind is Fiction. On the other hand, that means there are astronomical possibilities. — ENOAH
A ton more can be said, but for now, just one more thing. It's not like we have any way out. Although Nature did not construct Mind, and it is Fictional, it is precisely that which has seemingly permanently alienated us from Truth: organic, natural reality. Even as I write this the intuition arises in each of us, the mechanism of belief built into the structure. I hear that voice whispering, "you mean Truth is those meaningless organic drives? "F" that then, give me the Fiction." See? We construct meaning, Arendt. We don't discover anything. — ENOAH
Yes, accept that, I don't think Sartre's authenticity was Real in the ultimate sense. I think he knew he was providing instructions, not on how to "attain" authenticity as in Reality, or Truth. But how to make the Narrative authentic within the inescapable Truth of its ultimate inauthenticity.
What do you think? — ENOAH
there is almost no reason we "must" do anything. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.