Sure. To (some) pessimists, living is the postponement of death - a procrastination of the inevitable, a patient preparation. Death is something to be done right - with courage and dignity.

Will pessimism eventually lead some people to suicide? — niki wonoto

No. Acute depression (due to XYZ) or unbearable, interminable pain or both will lead some to commit suicide. The switch does not flip itself. Pessimism, however, is simply a rationalization (à la hypochondria) for coping with ineluctable frustrations (i.e. facticity). Besides, nothing seems more optimistic - leap of faith (martyrs) / folly (idealists) - than killing oneself in the hope of escaping from 'the devil one knows' to 'the devil no one can know' this side of the grave.

:death: :flower:

Pessimistic people would just accept the things as they are, and do literally nothing.

And constantly reading about pessimism philosophy even reinforces how depressing this existence really is. — niki wonoto

Um, here's a place to start. Please consider junking this pointless hobby.

Here's wishing you well!

my pessimistic outlook were perhaps mostly & originally also caused by what I've considered myself & my life to be a failure. — niki wonoto

Sorry, I know this won't help, and I apologize for that, but, um...

It's literally not possible to be a failure at age 38. You aren't an old man being wheeled in to the nursing home just yet. You may feel old because being young is all you have as a basis for comparison, which is understandable. But from my seat at age 68, you've just barely left the young punk stage of life.

A little story... You've probably heard of Kentucky Fried Chicken. The guy who created that company failed at one business after another after another his entire life. Until he was in his sixties and hit upon the Kentucky Fried Chicken idea. He then lived another twenty five years as a very rich man.

Life isn't over until it's over.

And then, who knows what? Don't assume you know, cause nobody does. Nobody.

I am not quite good at the emotions department, but I as a pessimist can maybe help philosophically,
Pessimism doesn't inevitably lead to suicide, it doesn't actually lead to anything, its left for you to determine it,
now another thing most pessimist tend to forget is determinism, and that you aren't actually committing suicide, life and existence are inherently the ones that killed you using your own hands,
which makes it have zero difference compared to normal death,


now lastly, pessimism doesn't entail sitting down doing nothing all day or ending your life, it only entails one thing, everything is meaningless, worthless, you could still be a very accomplished pessimist who believes in pessimism yet just works because why the hell not?
also the definition of failure is relative, a few thousand years ago you being 38 would have been a great accomplishment, failure doesn't actually exist in some sense, its purely subjective.

you should try to do things for the sake of doing rather then just indulging in pessimism, this is ironic coming from me, but the rule is do as I say not as I do

seeing how everything makes one pessimistic, as there is not any single light/ray of hope anymore; everything is/seems hopeless, futile, meaningless, pointless, & depressing. — niki wonoto

Have you considered that this experience may not be philosophical in nature, but biological?

failure doesn't actually exist in some sense, its purely subjective. — Augustusea

Wise words.

My approach is similar yet different. I am also a philosophical pessimist. I like your picture by the way Augustusea! Anyways, a major difference between common "pessimism" and a "philosophical pessimist" is that "pessimism" often implies a depressed mood or outlook. Philosophical pessimism, on the other hand, is a worldview. Akin to but not the same as a religious aesthetic. It is an overarching way the world is seen to exist metaphysically, epistemologically, and ethically.

The main philosophical pessimistic stance is that the world is either inherently suffering or contains suffering as we experience. Usually it is a combination of both these views. I call inherent suffering "necessary suffering" as it doesn't go away by circumstances. That is to say, it is akin to the "seething, striving force" of Schopenhauer's Will. It is the human's need for need. It is the necessity of an individual being needing and wanting survival, comfort, and entertainments, always becoming, never being, always dissatisfaction, frustration, boredom impelling us forward.

The experiential suffering through causal circumstances of life, I call "contingent suffering". You banged your toe, you fell into a volcano, you had a bad interaction with someone, an accident, a disease befalls you. These are things that are contingently true, but are almost always inevitable at some point to some people.

Combining these, philosophical pessimists see the world in terms of these necessary and contingent forms of suffering and have a stance of rebellion against it. Whereas most existentialists, post-industrial relativists, etc. try to find some sort of radical acceptance of the suffering, pessimists ultimately rebel. They don't accept suffering as a good thing, as necessary to endure, as needed. Thus, many philosophical pessimists are antinatalists. No one needs to be born to suffer or experience suffering.

One of my own solutions once already born is Communal Pessimism. That is to say, communities of like-minded people who can discuss their rebellious stance, their worldview, can console each other, etc. There is catharsis in consolation with others.

Will pessimism eventually lead some people to suicide? — niki wonoto

When a sambar deer hears rustling leaves or twigs breaking it thinks "tiger" not "rabbits" and so it lives to see another day. :chin:

Thanks!
I find the view of yours very coherent, and I would agree with,
but for OP I think his problem mainly doesn't stem from pessimism itself, but what he ought to do about it, I think he has not realized there isn't anything to do actually, other then look cold and angry at existence beating its you down, you can't do anything else, even suicide is not actually suicide, its existence always murdering you in this case, so it could be accounted as rebellion to give that angry look, or it could be counted as the only thing you could actually do about it.

always becoming, never being — schopenhauer1

This seems the most concise summary of the situation, refreshingly free of big words too.

This description does however contain a serious error. It's not inevitable that we are AlWAYS becoming and NEVER being. In fact, the experience of being and becoming both happen naturally all the time on their own. And, we have some measure of control over the balance between the two.

So the rational response is not to read a bunch of fancy talk philosophy from grouchy old dead men which tells us how inevitably depressing life is etc etc blah blah blah. The rational response is to learn how to manage the balance between being and becoming.

Becoming and suffering are made of thought. Thought is an electro-chemical information management medium, that is, just another mechanical process of the body.

To the degree one lowers the volume of thought becoming and suffering fade and are replaced by being. It's a mechanical problem which can be addressed by mechanical means.

I think he has not realized there isn't anything to do actually, — Augustusea

No offense, but there's plenty to do, so please try not to peddle bad advice to troubled folks.

Whether the OP wishes to do anything is another matter, his or her choice, none of our business. But it's simply not accurate to state that there aren't any constructive steps one can take.

To the degree one lowers the volume of thought becoming and suffering fade and are replaced by being. It's a mechanical problem which can be addressed by mechanical means. — Hippyhead

But I find it interesting that we are always in a position to "ameliorate" this or that in the first place. Why is it, that we we weren't "being" to begin with, but are always tinkering, dealing with, needing to fix? That is suspect in itself, and is more cause for pessimism :).

how can you fight the deterministic and pessimistic nature of existence? what can you do to stop that or even change it in the slightest when looking at the big picture?
if it wasn't well communicated I was only talking about the situation only philosophically, there is nothing a person can do except be angry at it,
as for how to be angry at it is something for him to decide

But I find it interesting that we are always in a position to "ameliorate" this or that in the first place. Why is it, that we we weren't "being" to begin with, but are always tinkering, dealing with, needing to fix? — schopenhauer1

I agree that's interesting. But it's not rational to focus on that question INSTEAD of taking concrete practical action to relieve suffering. Considering such interesting questions along with practical action can be reasonable, so long as we keep in mind that...

Thought itself is the source of the problem.

We have to think to survive so some degree of suffering is inevitable, can agree with that. I'm not proposing any permanent solution to all problems, only that reason can assist us in improving our management skills.

how can you fight the deterministic and pessimistic nature of existence? — Augustusea

I don't fight it, I just don't accept your premise that this is so. I do accept that some degree of suffering is inevitable and that this is regrettable, and sometimes tragic in some situations. But that is not the "nature of existence" but only one aspect of existence.

what can you do to stop that or even change it in the slightest when looking at the big picture? — Augustusea

Well, each of us has the rational option to stop looking at the big picture, which we know nothing about, and can do nothing about. We have the rational option to instead focus on managing that which we can manage. Which, as it turns out, is actually quite a bit.

minutia-mongering as @schopenhauer1 called it,
as for suffering, tell me, what is this good thing that happened that can be argued to be equivalent to the bad that is the Beirut explosion for example?
also removal of bad thing (such as vaccines) doesn't equal a good thing, it just means that a bad thing has been removed
Nature is inherently full of suffering, as the suffering outweigh any actual good, and I would argue good is only a mask infront of the suffering, since ultimately every good comes at the cost of some sort of suffering.

Claiming that life is bad, life is bad, life is bad etc etc is not rational. Nor is it accurate. Life is a mix of good and bad, and the rational act is to focus on maximizing the good while minimizing the bad.

how come that is the rational thing?
Pain always outweighs happiness, if you could name on instance where this isn't the case then I'd be happy to change my mind

Childbirth.
Hard exercise.
Dieting.
All can involve pain and untold happiness.
Happiness also depends on your attitude and responsibility to create your own.happiness.
Happiness is a verb.

Pain always outweighs happiness — Augustusea

This is WAY too sweeping a statement. There are a trillion times a trillion different human situations, and it's not possible to summarize the whole thing with any simple little formula. It's entertaining to try, but not all that rational given the impossibility of ever getting to The Answer.

What's rational is to focus on that which we can improve.

Here's my specific prescription. :-)

1) Throw away the Schopenhauer books. Here's the evidence to support that advice.



Check out his face. Is that the experience you wish to have during your short time on this Earth?

2) Suffering is made of thought. Thought is just a part of your body. Learn how to better manage this part of your body.

@niki wonoto
I would say try not to read to much pessimistic philosophy
and try to do things you enjoy.
Thoughts like these arise from a traumatic childhood and this can get worse when your tired.
A lot of times thoughts of failure is just societies bullshit telling you what you should achieve.
It takes bravery to write a public post like this.
Medication exercise fresh air hobbies recalling happy times all help.
Its always been my experience things are never as bad as they seem.
Best of luck. Take it easy.

the answer is not impossible quite the contrary,
you have an evil of millions of lives being taken, torture, mental and physical pain, all combined through all of history, what is comparable or even close to this amount of pain? but in happiness? having children? only for them to go through the same pains? or getting promoted? supporting a system of untold economic slavery and possibly contributing to war through the taxes you pay, what is there of happiness that is not actually just pain hidden under layers?
you're saying its impossible and instead we should focus on improvement? isn't this an argumentum ad ignoratiam?

1) Schopenhauer, is someone who I admire his works but do not fully agree with, in my very short time on this earth, I've seen the worst it has to offer, so my face would be worse then his if I were to reach that age

2)Suffering is indeed made out of the conscious of living creatures, as it is dependent on their existence,
but if I think happy lovey dovy stuff all day, that doesn't mean some women is not getting raped, or some child is not dying, it means that I just have chose to close my eyes to reality in favor of the mask of happiness which would be ultimately irrelevant.

Pessimism, however, is simply a rationalization (à la hypochondria) for coping with ineluctable frustrations (i.e. facticity). Besides — 180 Proof

:up: :100:

Suffering is made of thought. Thought is just a part of your body. Learn how to better manage this part of your body. — Hippyhead

:clap: :point:

You don't have to literally devalue everything and anything in life to be a pessimist. Tangentially (i like that word), becoming disenchanted with (the joys of?) life and/or living in near-constant acknowledgement that terrible things can, do, and will happen doesn't make one a pessimist.

Also worth mentioning, just being rude is a separate thing altogether.

Pessimism seems to be an internal way of thinking aka a philosophy that a mentally sound person who does not have a mental complex can choose (or is otherwise forced to) embrace. I imagine the two get confused often.

And anyway, being too happy can lead to suicide too lol. Albeit at much lower rates but- yeah. The afterlife ie. "why am I wasting time in this dump?", etc.I gather you define suicide as a sudden and willful action to stop one's heart but there's plenty of other ways. A life of drugs and drinking, etc.

The world as it is, is a myriad of variation. Here, exists both pleasure for the human and pain. Our culture though creates the idea in the human mind that only pleasure is possible. This idea could destroy the stability of human comfortability if the human is constantly faced with the actuality of reality. Pessimism may not lead to suicide because it depends on what the pessimist is pessimistic about, and how that effects the body. I think it is necessary to accept reality as what it is truly, and learn how to manipulate what is in existence to acquire the necessary product, which here may be happiness.

Hi again Augustusea, I'm enjoying our exchanges.

Again, I'm not denying the existence of suffering, which in some cases can be quite profound. I'm just not willing to make the leap from "suffering exists" to "life is suffering" in the sweeping global sense which some wish to take it to. Life includes suffering, is not equal to, life is suffering.

Suffering is indeed made out of the conscious of living creatures — Augustusea

Yes, that is a useful fact which can be acted on. Suffering is made of thought. You made this case earlier yourself when you said that failure is subjective.

My argument is that it would be most rational to come down off the big grand sweeping dreary philosophical cloud that people like Arthur Schopenhauer inhabit, and instead focus as clearly as we can on the problem of suffering, and what we can do about it. I'm not arguing a perfect solution is available, only that any partial solution is more rational than wringing our hands, embracing defeatism, and whining about the human condition etc.

My argument is that useful solutions lie in the direction of the insight you've already had. Failure is subjective. Or to put it another way, suffering is made of thought.

By "thought" I don't mean this or that thought, opinion, attitude etc. I don't mean the content of thought. I mean the medium of thought. This medium is just another biological process of the body. It is mechanical, and thus can be managed by mechanical means. As example, people attempt this all the time through mechanical means such as alcohol and drugs etc.

There are other healthier means of thought management such as meditation. Some people go fishing, or walk in the woods, the possibilities are nearly endless.

The point here is that it's not rational to get all wound up in how sad life is etc until such means of addressing the suffering are fully explored. Arthur Schopenhauer is not rational, he's just a sad grumpy old man who is attempting to elevate his personal situation to a global sweeping statement.

Hi again Augustusea, I'm enjoying our exchanges. — Hippyhead

Moi aussi mon amie.

Again, I'm not denying the existence of suffering, which in some cases can be quite profound. I'm just not willing to make the leap from "suffering exists" to "life is suffering" in the sweeping global sense which some wish to take it to. Life includes suffering, is not equal to, life is suffering. — Hippyhead

Life is suffering is like an extra simplified version of what we mean which is, that the sum of all live beings consciousness equals into suffering, or in other words, if the experiences of every mind of every being are all combined, suffering would outweigh happiness by a lot, which is not a leap and is quite reasonable, so this would mean, to live is to mainly suffer, anything else is just a side,
as for happiness, it always comes from suffering of one person, therefore can be argued to actually not exist in the large scheme of things for humans.

My argument is that it would be most rational to come down off the big grand sweeping dreary philosophical cloud that people like Arthur Schopenhauer inhabit, and instead focus as clearly as we can on the problem of suffering, and what we can do about it. I'm not arguing a perfect solution is available, only that any partial solution is more rational than wringing our hands, embracing defeatism, and whining about the human condition etc. — Hippyhead

suffering is not something we can do anything about, you can stop a certain amount of suffering, but you would never be able to achieve a perfect, perfection is impossible,
anywho point is,
truly, you can never actually remove suffering without creating new suffering, basically its either negative or zero, never positive, which can be proven, more then happiness which gets cancelled out

My argument is that useful solutions lie in the direction of the insight you've already had. Failure is subjective. Or to put it another way, suffering is made of thought. — Hippyhead

that is correct, and it is impossible to stop pain, suffering or failure, as long as they are so,
one mans "happiness" is anothers suffering.

There are other healthier means of thought management such as meditation. Some people go fishing, or walk in the woods, the possibilities are nearly endless. — Hippyhead

why would managing it matter? when a child is starving half the way across the globe

The point here is that it's not rational to get all wound up in how sad life is etc until such means of addressing the suffering are fully explored. Arthur Schopenhauer is not rational, he's just a sad grumpy old man who is attempting to elevate his personal situation to a global sweeping statement. — Hippyhead

I do not see how that is not rational or illogical, to view all the good and bad in the world and weight them,
well he wasnt as grumpy, Mrs. Schopenhauer kept him some company as his neighbors called it

Life is suffering is like an extra simplified version of what we mean which is, that the sum of all live beings consciousness equals into suffering, or in other words, if the experiences of every mind of every being are all combined, suffering would outweigh happiness by a lot, which is not a leap and is quite reasonable, so this would mean, to live is to mainly suffer, anything else is just a side,as for happiness, it always comes from suffering of one person, therefore can be argued to actually not exist in the large scheme of things for humans. — Augustusea

And my argument is, whether this is true or not, it's not rational to keep saying it over and over because that doesn't accomplish anything. What's rational is to try to do something about it.

suffering is not something we can do anything about — Augustusea

Sorry, blatantly false statement. Once it's seen that suffering is made of thought, the door is open to do something about it. You already saw this when you said failure is subjective.

perfection is impossible — Augustusea

I have already stated my agreement with this.

why would managing it matter? when a child is starving half the way across the globe — Augustusea

The child is most likely starving because most people have not bothered to try to manage their suffering, or have no idea how, and thus seek to fill the empty void in their souls with various forms of greed.

I do not see how that is not rational or illogical, to view all the good and bad in the world and weight them, — Augustusea

I don't object to such a weighing process, so long as it is subservient to a serious attempt to maximize the good and minimize the bad. I do object to such a process if it is a replacement for constructive action.