I think there is a subtle but significant difference between Pessimism (as a philosophy) and depression (as a mental health issue). One can live a relatively typical Westernized/modernized lifestyle (go to work, have hobbies, have friends, etc etc.) and yet still have a worldview of pessimism in the background of things. In other words, one can still get benefit from things like relationships, learning, pleasure, aesthetics, and achievement but still see life as structurally suffering.

Generally Philosophical Pessimism (similar to Buddhism) views desire as being always something that motivates us and keeps us in a complete condition of burden-to-overcome. Either we are rushing this way towards survival-related-activities or that way towards entertainment (fleeing boredom/angst). If looked upon in a transcendental way, like one moving farther and farther from Earth, it is absurd the repetitious nature of each day, and our desires butting against the cultural structures of our environs. Anyways, long story short, one can still be in the relatively normal range of moods (probably a slight bit more towards acute depression though), and still work within a wordview that keeps in mind the Pessimistic trademarks of relentless desire, the burdens of life, and an understanding of the absurd.

Anyways, long story short, one can still be in the relatively normal range of moods (probably a slight bit more towards acute depression though), and still work within a wordview that keeps in mind the Pessimistic trademarks of relentless desire, the burdens of life, and an understanding of the absurd. — schopenhauer1

Alternatively, the fact that there is a "relatively normal range of moods" fatally undermines structural pessimism as it shows that what is natural is always some organised balance.

Pessimism has to find its force by going to some extreme and claiming "that's how it really is". And yet in nature, the balancing of complementary extremes is what we observe to be the metaphysical norm.

For example, "If looked upon in a transcendental way, like one moving farther and farther from Earth, it is absurd the repetitious nature of each day, and our desires butting against the cultural structures of our environs."

So yes, if we distort our metaphysical point of view to look at our existence in this extreme fashion - the viewpoint from deepest, timeless, space - then our daily routine will seem maximally meaningless. Likewise if we zoom into the molecular scale.

But really, we personally live in terms of time over scales of days to decades to lifetimes, and maybe an active concern for the lives or our kids and grandkids. Or in spatial scale, our homes and gardens, communities, nations, etc.

So our existence ranges over a fair scale in terms of its lived meaningfulness. It spans a few orders of magnitude. But not the 30 or 40 orders of magnitude your pessimistic extremism is forced to assert.

That is not to say that we live in some ideal world at the moment. Our current way of life may be structurally unbalanced - distorted because it has flattened temporality and expanded spatiality. That is, the world system is rushing change and living short-sightedly, while at the same time undermining family, neighourhood and community in favour of disconnected globality.

But again, that make pessimism an impoverished philosophy because it is unable to diagnose what is natural - the eternal balancing act. It takes an extreme view that tries to stand outside of actual lived existence and that is indeed absurd.

Anyways, long story short, one can still be in the relatively normal range of moods (probably a slight bit more towards acute depression though), and still work within a wordview that keeps in mind the Pessimistic trademarks of relentless desire, the burdens of life, and an understanding of the absurd. — schopenhauer1

I don't think philosophic pessimism can be fully separated from a negative mood or state of mind, even if it is just melancholy or moderate depression. There wouldn't be a problem with the things pessimism identifies if there wasn't a negative reaction to them. Lots of other people think there's problems in life that don't constitute life in the way pessimism sees its problems as - as such, these people can simultaneously affirm life while still remembering that there are certain imperfections with it.

At base, I think philosophical pessimism asserts that life is intrinsically not worth living. It doesn't seem coherent to believe this and yet live consistently in a state of mind that one would expect from a person who believes the opposite - that life is meaningful and valuable. There's no issue with being intermittently happy, but I strongly believe that being a pessimist entails some primary negative experience, like dread, ennui, sadness or whatever that comes as a natural response to the problematic things pessimism identifies. Think about how absurd it would be for someone to say "life is suffering" and smile while doing so.

Because of this, positive states of mind are interpreted differently. Instead of seen as reasons for living, they are seen as episodes of relief, oblivion, unnatural spikes, etc. The big rub of pessimism is that there isn't a good reason for living, and whatever we find to be meaningful is simply killing-time or a hodge-podge kludge. This is why I think it's wrong to call someone like Camus a pessimist, since he definitely affirmed life with the existential rebellion. Or, rather, why I prefer affirmative/negative rather than optimist/pessimist. A negative thinker is one that when asked why they haven't killed themselves, replies "I don't know" or "because I'm stuck in life" or "because life isn't bad enough yet" or "because I haven't gotten around to it" or maybe "because I have ethical duties in life." Life becomes simply a postponement of death.

If you're going to live, that is, go through all the motions of life without really considering why you're doing it, you have to "forget" a few things. A pessimist can only really live if they temporarily forget about their pessimism.

is there any 'truth' to be found in feeling depressed about oneself in relation to the world? — Posty McPostface

There might be.

First, most people are properly functional. They feel OK, at least. Maybe they feel really great. Their mental skills are operating at par: memory, concentration, alertness, energy level, etc. They got to work, get along with their fellow workers almost all of the time. They commute, shop, clean, cook, go to the movies, play with their kids, visit the neighbors -- all sorts of perfectly normal activities. Life runs more or less smoothly for them. OF course, things happen every now and then that are very disruptive. But the difficulties are overcome.

Some people [the depressive group] are NOT properly functional. They don't feel great. They experience the world as much more abrasive and irritating than most people do. They quite often aim high and miss, which is bothersome to people who also tend to be perfectionists in small ways. The atmosphere they move in is thicker and resists them more. They are less patient than many people are.

The depressive group is more likely to see and feel the flaws in the world because their 'skin' is thinner and already more irritated than most people. Healthy happy people probably won't identify the overbearing nature of the hierarchy, because they are go-along, get-along personalities. The depressive will feel it much, much more acutely. Depressive people are more likely to see and feel lots of minor injustices that happier people gloss over.

If the world is an unsatisfactory place, the depressive will recognize that truth quicker than a happy person will. The depressive person is primed to feel the dead weight of futility, and if an activity is futile, they will zero in on that fact quicker than a happy person will.

The trouble with the truth-sensing ability of the depressive group is that the healthy, happy group doesn't sense the same thing, and thinks the depressive group are mis-perceiving the world. (Of course, sometimes the depressive group does mis-perceive the world, and so do the happy people.)

Is it the case that depressive personalities take a greater delight in irreverence, satire, travesties upon the dominant class, sarcastic jokes, and so on?

I hope so.

Then perhaps fields such a psychiatry and psychology need some serious rewriting in terms of viewing the depressed as dysfunctional misfits due to maladaptive and illogical beliefs.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy portrays depression as not only a bag of bad beliefs but fundamentally an error in reasoning about the world due to cognitive distortions as if there was a true and correct way to perceive the world.

Please keep in mind that there is a line (rather fuzzy) between clinical depression and with it, suicide that accompanies it, and the sort of depression some people experience while allowing them to function to some degree.

I don't think philosophic pessimism can be fully separated from a negative mood or state of mind, even if it is just melancholy or moderate depression. There wouldn't be a problem with the things pessimism identifies if there wasn't a negative reaction to them. Lots of other people think there's problems in life that don't constitute life in the way pessimism sees its problems as - as such, these people can simultaneously affirm life while still remembering that there are certain imperfections with it. — darthbarracuda

Yeah, that's why I said those with Philosophical Pessimism tend towards acute depression. It is hard to imagine someone not feeling the negative affirmation, rather than simply intellectualizing it. I am sure it is possible for someone to simply read a philosopher like Schopenhauer and feel jazzed about life, but somehow academically understands that it is in reality suffering. However, it is doubtful that this is common, if it occurs at all.

There's no issue with being intermittently happy, but I strongly believe that being a pessimist entails some primary negative experience, like dread, ennui, sadness or whatever that comes as a natural response to the problematic things pessimism identifies. Think about how absurd it would be for someone to say "life is suffering" and smile while doing so. — darthbarracuda

Agreed.

This is why I think it's wrong to call someone like Camus a pessimist, since he definitely affirmed life with the existential rebellion. Or, rather, why I prefer affirmative/negative rather than optimist/pessimist. A negative thinker is one that when asked why they haven't killed themselves, replies "I don't know" or "because I'm stuck in life" or "because life isn't bad enough yet" or "because I haven't gotten around to it" or maybe "because I have ethical duties in life." Life becomes simply a postponement of death. — darthbarracuda

I agree with your assessment of Camus- he should not be thrown in the pessimist camp which I often see in literature about modern pessimism. The affirmative/negative is a good dichotomy (or perhaps spectrum) to use to define Pessimism as opposed to perhaps just Existentialist or other similar (but definitely different) attitudes. Nietzsche is considered a Dionysian Pessimist. It too is affirmative and therefore, perhaps should also not be considered in the Pessimist camp.

The trouble with the truth-sensing ability of the depressive group is that the healthy, happy group doesn't sense the same thing, and thinks the depressive group are mis-perceiving the world. (Of course, sometimes the depressive group does mis-perceive the world, and so do the happy people.) — Bitter Crank

I think it is also how happiness is perceived. Pretty much most pleasures fall under, aesthetics, engrossing mental/physical activities, pleasure, relationships, learning, and achievement. The Pessimist finds this either: 1) too far between/infrequent 2) too short in duration 3) simply an addiction of sorts in the marry-go-round of endless desires and a way to flee boredom 4) are masking a deeper angst that we must fill 5) can be lost and lead to worse pain then never obtaining 6) are unequally distributed 7) comes at a cost of some other pain, etc. etc. One common theme is that there is sort of an emptiness at the end of any of these pursuits that the other "happy group" does not seem to feel. It is that gulf where the distrust lies.

Yea, I grew up with the belief that “depression is nature’s way of telling you there’s something wrong”. Figure out what that is, resolve it (can be as simple as choice between flight or fight), and one not only overcomes one’s depression but gains some new wisdom out of it. To me, it fit in nicely with Nietzsche’s “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. (in depth discussions of Nietzsche here overlooked)

[Yes, sometimes there are too many unresolved long-held problems that can crash in on a person—be it subconsciously or consciously. At such juncture, trying to figure it all out so as to resolve all these problems at once can be close to impossible. Medication can in these circumstances be of significant help—but, imo, the crutch shouldn’t be mistaken for a final cure. To each their own.]

Tying this into BC latest posts, to be a happy-go-lucky person when surrounded by turmoil (don’t know, stuff like wars that never end, too many orphaned children on the streets, etc.) is not the same as having a healthily thick skin. It's more like the ostrich that finds happiness from the charging lion by placing its head in the sand. Else, a lack of ethos/pathos?

Apropos:

Is it the case that depressive personalities take a greater delight in irreverence, satire, travesties upon the dominant class, sarcastic jokes, and so on?

I hope so. — Bitter Crank

(Y) They damn well better if they're going to get over their depression.

Please keep in mind that there is a line (rather fuzzy) between clinical depression and with it, suicide that accompanies it, and the sort of depression some people experience while allowing them to function to some degree. — Posty McPostface

Yes, this is a familiar line. Many depressed people function quite well.

A depressive realist is hypothesized to have a better grasp of reality than the normal — darthbarracuda

I think the hypothesis is clearly false. A depressive realist does not have a better grasp of reality because they typically ignore the role they themselves play in reality.

It is true that life can at times be terrible. But there can also be times of expanding horizons when things are always going in a direction which surprises you (joyfully). Sometimes life can also change exceedingly fast. Meaning that you can go from being a no one to extremely famous, or from millionaire to poor man, from sick to healthy etc.

But, as Heraclitus said: "If you do not expect the unexpected you will not find it, for it is not to be reached by search or trail"

At several points in my life things hung by a thread but what saved me was precisely that I kept expecting the unexpected which allowed me to capitalize on the opportunity when it arose. You never know - even in the worst of circumstances - how things may swing in your favor. Even when you are in a concentration camp. Things look hopeless many times but you must always remember in the back of your mind that things could change rather quickly. That a lucky break could be just around the corner, and that may be all that you need if you're ready to take it. Patience is key to victory.

It's great things worked out in your favor but that is not the case for a very large amount of people. It's certainly not the case for most organisms living in their natural environment, who usually die in horrible ways (if they even survive gestation - see R-selection). There's a confirmation bias going on here. You don't hear about the failures too often because the failures are all dead.

Affirming life by means of portraying it as a challenge or something like that is paradoxical. It cannot be a real challenge if success is not guaranteed - but if success is not guaranteed, then it cannot be the case that life can be success for everyone. Whatever doesn't kill you may make you stronger, or it might make you wish it had killed you.

The circumstances you find yourself in are largely due to what we usually call luck. This includes your mental states - you are lucky not only that you are in favorable circumstances but also that you have mental states that help you survive. Your type-character is not under your control.

It's great things worked out in your favor but that is not the case for a very large amount of people. — darthbarracuda

Well, it is the case for most people in Western societies, where life expectancy is quite high.

It's certainly not the case for most organisms living in their natural environment, who usually die in horrible ways (if they even survive gestation - see R-selection). — darthbarracuda

Yes, this may be true for some non-human organisms, but that's a different consideration now.

It cannot be a real challenge if success is not guaranteed — darthbarracuda

Is success guaranteed in any challenge though? No challenge has a guaranteed outcome, if the outcome were guaranteed, it wouldn't be a challenge anymore.

but if success is not guaranteed, then it cannot be the case that life can be success for everyone. — darthbarracuda

Sure, I never said everyone can achieve happiness on earth.

The circumstances you find yourself in are largely due to what we usually call luck. — darthbarracuda

To a large extent sure. But this is nothing new, it has been known for a long time. Almost all cultures in the history of man have attribute fortune to the gods, or to fate. Indeed, the very word fortune means luck.

This includes your mental states - you are lucky not only that you are in favorable circumstances but also that you have mental states that help you survive. — darthbarracuda

This is highly disputable now. You may want to say that I am blessed to have certain mental capacities (such as intelligence) and avoid having others (such as depressive rumination). But that's not exactly true. For example, I've battled with anxiety, depression, etc. in the past, and it is largely due to my own efforts that I've overcome them. You don't control the cards you're dealt, but you do control how you play them - and that also plays an important role in the outcome.