Active, purpose-driven pessimism eschews aesthetic comfort and decadence for a prescription to end the problem once and for all. This entails participating in and supporting public institutions focused on maximizing welfare and making the world a better place, and actively advocating pessimistic philosophies, within the constraints of self-preservation. — darthbarracuda
What is the Pessimist's incentive? — schopenhauer1
Is it to impress his fellow man as to what a great person he/she is; in other words pride in how selfless he/she is? — schopenhauer1
Perhaps this is a cop-out- some people have the right stuff, and others do not and thus did not give enough credence to free-will to justify why some people are more compassionate than others rather than everyone, especially the Pessimist, doing his/her part. — schopenhauer1
Rather, if we were to only think of others' alleviation of suffering, life would be even more absurdly tormenting than it was originally, as not even its enjoyment, that which is the goal of alleviating others' suffering, would be enjoyed by anyone. — schopenhauer1
2.) As others commented above, Pessimists inherently think that suffering cannot be eradicated. — schopenhauer1
Without such a context, a cathartic metaphysical "something to show for it", it is essentially putting a band-aid over a mortal wound and then saying- you must be a good Pessimist, like they used to say you must be a good Christian. — schopenhauer1
I think I've explained to you before how I hate guilting people, but all anyone has to do is imagine the suffering a wild animal feels while being devoured by its predator, or sympathize with the unknown nobody in Ethiopia who hasn't had anything to eat for two weeks. — darthbarracuda
Not precisely, and I would personally feel bad about intentionally bragging about my adventures in altruism. Although I will admit that at times I feel a sense of superiority that I can only see as justified. — darthbarracuda
I would say that there this sort of enjoyment is not as important than minimizing the suffering these people feel. This goes back to distributive inequality issues. I believe that the angst and ennui that characterized pessimistic philosophies in the past is largely irrelevant when compared to the feelings experienced by those worse-off.
Indeed it seems wrong to feel ennui because one knows someone else is being tormented, because this means one is viewing them as some kind of tarnish in a world they would rather see as good. — darthbarracuda
This actually takes political and community action to help solve, and even then the problems don't just disappear but are cyclical. Anyways, this is just one social ill that is way beyond one person's charity or volunteering or even a lifetime of a Mother Teresa lifestyle. — schopenhauer1
Now, the Mother Teresa types are often religiously inspired- so they much of their actions are trying to model a religious ideal or mandate and even using it to proselytize. They are trying to get a metaphysical change from the action and save souls while they are doing it. The good deeds are bringing about the Kingdom of God or bring about a spiritual change. Some people might genuinely be doing these actions out of some sort of innate capacity for extreme altruism, but this is rare, as Schopenhauer pointed out. — schopenhauer1
Thus the best one can do is make do with long-term goods, help out as much as possible without it becoming simply a negative slavish force for oneself and strip all long-term goods from one's life (thus making one's goals to help others more meaningful as they too can pursue long-term goods), and finally, to not procreate, and thus end the harm and addiction to the next generation. — schopenhauer1
Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Cioran — darthbarracuda
which there is an absent adequate prescription for its residents. In particular, an ethical prescription. — darthbarracuda
He went out partying and auctioning and traveling. Not exactly the life of an ascetic. — darthbarracuda
But we have to make sure we separate the actions of the man with the theoretical prescriptions he provided. — darthbarracuda
This quotation shows his deep aversion towards the world in general — darthbarracuda
a sense of entitlement and superiority. — darthbarracuda
he simultaneously seemed to care very little for it — darthbarracuda
He contemplated getting a wife later in his years. After he died, he left all his money to charity - a noble gesture, yet neither did Schopenhauer have any close friends or family in which this would go to. — darthbarracuda
one in which he no doubt thought himself as residing in the upper echelons — darthbarracuda
Schopenhauer was able to enjoy himself in a surrounding world of suffering. — darthbarracuda
Considering Schopenhauer saw married couples as the ultimate conspirators to the continuation of human suffering, I believe I am justified in criticizing Schopenhauer himself as an inactive bystander (passive accomplice) to a world he otherwise saw as horrible. — darthbarracuda
Schopenhauers’ ethics would seem to largely consist in “not my fucking problem”. — darthbarracuda
romanticization of something that really is not romantic at all, but dirty, painful, narrowing, and bad. — darthbarracuda
True altruists. — darthbarracuda
Excessive individuality and self-centeredness, manifesting as isolation and a sense of entitlement/superiority — darthbarracuda
Acknowledgement of others’ suffering, but a general indifference to it — darthbarracuda
Schopenhauer’s plush pillows and poodle — darthbarracuda
Thus I believe that the “comfortable pessimist” betrays their own descriptive foundations by failing to follow-through and pursue their pessimism to a prescriptive end. — darthbarracuda
You're still desperately trying to paint him as "uncaring," but that impression simply does not stand up to the facts. — Thorongil
But he didn't marry and never desired to have children, so he is not an "accomplice" to human suffering at all, given that, as you admit, its origin is found in procreation. — Thorongil
Excessive in comparison to what? — Thorongil
False. — Thorongil
Yes, for we all know that whoever advocates asceticism but does not sleep on a cement block next to a charnel ground in the howling wind is the vilest of hypocrites. And, obviously, to hell with animal companionship. — Thorongil
Would that all men behaved like saints and lived up to the highest ethical ideals! But they do not, and it is precisely this realization that makes one a pessimist, generally speaking. Your criticism is therefore entirely impotent because it fails to understand all of what pessimism logically entails. — Thorongil
I'm not "desperate" to prove these people as devils. — darthbarracuda
Not having children isn't too impressive. — darthbarracuda
in the same way standing by while a child drowns in water is criminal neglect — darthbarracuda
Once you know what life entails, sitting on your plush pillows is neglect. — darthbarracuda
In comparison to what he could have done. — darthbarracuda
True. — darthbarracuda
Funny how you seem to focus only on Schopenhauer when I mentioned other pessimists, like Leopardi, who intentionally isolated themselves from everyone else. — darthbarracuda
And so what does it "fully entail"? Please enlighten me. — darthbarracuda
But I'm disappointed that they didn't even seem to try given what they obviously understood about life. — darthbarracuda
The claim isn't about its impressiveness. — Thorongil
I don't recall any incidents in his life that are in any way comparable to this. — Thorongil
The pillow one sleeps on makes not one iota of difference, positive or negative, to the sufferings going on in the world. If a rock were his pillow, is he suddenly absolved? If he went down to the Main river, found a nice stone, and replaced his "plush" pillow with it, is the world suddenly a better place? What pillow do you sleep on? Judge not lest ye be judged. — Thorongil
Which would have been what? The kind of free will you seem to be attributing to Schopenhauer he would reject — Thorongil
The figures you mentioned were not, in any sense, "indifferent" to suffering. One would be hard pressed to find a more false claim one could make about them. — Thorongil
So why dwell on what cannot be changed? Focus on living morally in your own life, which is the only one you have any control over. — Thorongil
What difference does it make if the person is next door or down the street? What about a few miles away? — darthbarracuda
as he could have used that money for better use — darthbarracuda
The point is that Schopenhauer and co. all seemed to focus on their own comfort more than anyone else's. — darthbarracuda
So not only was Schopenhauer a determinist, you're saying he was a fatalist as well? — darthbarracuda
One wonders how much they actually accomplished to reduce suffering in comparison to all those comparatively-optimistic social workers who didn't know two things about metaphysics but were more effective in reducing suffering as a whole than any one of these great thinkers. — darthbarracuda
I'll quote Adorno: "To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric." — darthbarracuda
Pursuing things like philosophy or art that have no real contribution to the rest of the world as a whole, exclusively, means to prioritize oneself over another. — darthbarracuda
There is nothing wrong with my statement that these men could have done more. — darthbarracuda
Because I find this to be important — darthbarracuda
if I remember correctly, you are at university, no? — darthbarracuda
Do you have any thoughts on why pessimistic thinkers typically don't get taught as much as other thinkers? — darthbarracuda
The magnitude of suffering is so great that there is extremely little one can concretely do to alleviate it in any meaningful sense. — Thorongil
So you're a utilitarian. Great, but he wasn't. Nor am I. — Thorongil
Even if this were true, again, so what? That shouldn't matter for a utilitarian. Also, what pillow do you sleep on? — Thorongil
Adorno is an idiot. To not write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric. — Thorongil
Poppycock. If you really believed this, you would cease posting on a forum like this. Or perhaps you will admit to your own hypocrisy, in which case your criticisms of Schopenhauer et al lose all their force. — Thorongil
Because most college professors are optimistic, left leaning progressives. I will say that there is a certain kind of pessimism which some of them exude, owing to the influence of certain postmodernist hacks, which I absolutely abhor. It's not "classical pessimism," as you put it, but a pessimism about the merits and achievements of science, Western civilization, truth, reason, the enlightenment, democracy, and so on. — Thorongil
Right, this is why more "sophisticated" consequentialists typically advocate change through institutions and organizations. A mass effort. For the consequentialist, the state of affairs is what matters. What is moral is not always what makes you feel good. Of course, people are needed to actually go out and interact with those in need. But it's similar to a military campaign. For every soldier, there are ten support units behind him. The support units are necessary and important but don't get the "glory" so to speak. They are the units "behind the scenes".
I have an acquaintance who decided to switch majors to social work because he wanted to "help people". True, social work will help people, but he was more concerned about human interaction and all that. The "good feelings" of helping people. But let's not forget that impersonal donations of money or labor can do just as much, if not more, good. Giving $20 to a homeless person might make you feel good. Donating this $20 to a food charity will help far more people, though, and it will guarantee this money will go to good use. But it doesn't "feel" as good... — darthbarracuda
This is where you are incorrect. There are lots of effective altruism groups and other similar organizations that operate on donations from people like you and me. — darthbarracuda
I'm a welfare consequentialist, yes. — darthbarracuda
I sleep on a pillow imported from the far east, with downy feathers and a silk cover. Some say the prince of Persia once rested his head upon its soft embrace. — darthbarracuda
I was using it to convey a point that you're missing here. — darthbarracuda
since I already said you can pursue these things, so long as you're not doing it exclusively — darthbarracuda
I'm saying there were things that these pessimists could have done that would not have affected their lives in any unreasonable manner, and they did not do so. — darthbarracuda
What about scholars of thinkers like Nietzsche or Freud? Don't they have to read Schopenhauer, for example? — darthbarracuda
But think of the ridiculousness of your suggestion. The existence of charities at all begs the question of what underlying features of society, human nature, and the world are broken and corrupt enough that they necessitate their existence. If humans were capable of alleviating suffering through charity, then they would be capable of solving the problems that necessitate charity. But they are not and so you are chasing a fool's dream. — Thorongil
'But my nose is running!' What do you have hands for, idiot, if not to wipe it? 'But how is it right that there be running noses in the first place?' Instead of thinking up protests, wouldn't it be easier just to wipe your nose?
What would have become of Hercules, do you think, if there had been no lion, hydra, stag or boar - and no savage criminals to rid the world of? What would he have done in the absence of such challenges? Obviously he would have just rolled over in bed and gone back to sleep. So by snoring his life away in luxury and comfort he never would have developed into the mighty Hercules
[...]
Now that you know all this, come and appreciate the resources you have, and when that is done, say, 'Bring on whatever difficulties you like Zeus; I have resources and a constitution that you gave me by means of which I can do myself credit whatever happens!' — Epictetus
This is correct.Some of them do, but if you look for scholars who do work on Nietzsche, then more often than not, they ignore Schopenhauer. — Thorongil
It seems we have a millionaire in our midsts! :DI sleep on a pillow imported from the far east, with downy feathers and a silk cover. Some say the prince of Persia once rested his head upon its soft embrace. — darthbarracuda
There is no dealing with it at a social level, I agree with that. No perfect society. But the pessimist takes a further step than saying just this. He complains about it - as if such a society should be possible but isn't.The pessimist's response is that there is no "dealing with it," in the sense of solving it. Stop immanentizing the eschaton. There will not be, and more importantly, cannot be a utopia on this planet. — Thorongil
There will not be, and more importantly, cannot be a utopia on this planet. — Thorongil
There is no dealing with it at a social level, I agree with that. No perfect society — Agustino
I think we're talking about something different - I'm talking about the fact that no society can be eternal - societies grow and die, and necessarily so. — Agustino
Now you (the individual) can be a sage all your life. But the whole lot of mankind can never be sages - there's always a tendency towards what is low. — Agustino
There is no dealing with it at a social level, I agree with that. No perfect society. But the pessimist takes a further step than saying just this. He complains about it - as if such a society should be possible but isn't. — Agustino
Wait a minute, if your solution to the world's suffering is charity, then Schopenhauer's giving his money to charity upon his death is more effective than anything either of us could or likely will do. I have substantial student loan debt, a microscopic bank account, very few possessions to my name, and no desire to be extremely wealthy, so I'm not the sort of person for whom these organizations operate. — Thorongil
But this means your criticism has been meaningless from the start, since you have been assuming an ethic contrary to those about whom you criticize. In order for your criticism to stick, you would first have to show how their ethical systems are false. — Thorongil
So you're a hypocrite. — Thorongil
And why should anyone listen to what you think other people should do? More importantly, what makes you think they will? — Thorongil
Like what? Selling their pillows for crappier ones? Come on, man. — Thorongil
The simple fact is that, in academic philosophy at present, Schopenhauer is estranged from both the analytic and continental camps. He doesn't belong to, nor founded, any "school," and for this reason is ignored. — Thorongil
It seems we have a millionaire in our midsts! :D — Agustino
(whether effective or with as much revenue is another question). — schopenhauer1
Rather, it entails civic involvement by all concerned parties. In short, your ideas are really political more than anything. It is a more an appeal to "Get out the vote" and be more involved in the community. — schopenhauer1
If you want to REFUTE their ideals, that is one thing, but I do not think they are being hypocritical to their own ideals. So again, to entail utilitarianism with Pessimism is to unfairly tie two concepts together that are not necessarily entailed. Pessimism actually has very little in the way of ethics- it is mostly an aesthetic comprehension of the world. What one does about it is more open for interpretation. What it does have (i.e. Schopenhauer's compassionate ideal), is not necessarily utilitarian anyways. — schopenhauer1
We MUST get up, we MUST survive, we MUST entertain. On top of this kernel of uncalmness, is the complexities of contingent harms that we must face. Is this the real metaphysical "truth" of the world, or is this just the product of a certain temperament? I brought that up in a previous thread, but indeed, there is a Pessimist aesthetic and a certain byline that runs through it. — schopenhauer1
Though I know you disagree with the execution of Benatar's consequentialism/utilitarianism in regards to his asymmetry logic, you may want to see what he has to say about ethics outside of antinatalism, as you can see where another antinatalist/pessimist that is consequentialist/utilitarian balances consequences and personal responsibility. I honestly don't know much else about what his ethics entails based on his premises. He is obviously most famous for applying his assumptions to antinatalism in particular. How he handles altruism in general would be interesting to explore. — schopenhauer1
You can pat yourself on the back, have a secular "Kingdom of God" complex by working to end this or that problem, but the problems of existence do not go away. Existence itself does not provide a smooth existence simply because one's basic needs are met. — schopenhauer1
Bringing another person into existence is bringing another person into the burdens of life. It is literally giving another person burdens to deal with, so they can what? every once in a while feel the goods that life can offer? — schopenhauer1
Most importantly, if you do not indulge in those goods yourself, your very logic of helping people makes no sense- it becomes an absurd circular logic. We must help people so they can help people, so they can help people. — schopenhauer1
So pessimism fails because it expects reality to be unnatural. Or supernatural. Perfections and utopias are defined in ways that are brittle and mechanical, not fluid and organic. — apokrisis
On the contrary, pessimism succeeds as it recognizes sentience to be "unnatural" and ill-equipped to deal with the oppressive forces of nature. Instead, sentients have to pretend reality is different than it actually is. To be sentient, then, requires one to live in a fantasy. Everyone has their crutch. — darthbarracuda
The point I'm making is that understanding such lifecycles does not help prevent them at all. Human nature (or human folly) if you want is such that the said society, will at one point, not act according to such an understanding. It's already starting not to in fact. You think technology can overstep man's morality. But it can't. Technology is of no use in such matters because it cannot alter the CHARACTER of human beings. Too much good and people lose motivation. The Roman Empire didn't disappear because of natural disaster and pandemic - it disappeared due to internal reasons. Internally it became unstable. Why? Because of depravation and loss of moral values - loss of the virtues.There is the long-run issue to. But a "perfect" society - that understood itself in these organismic terms - would understand such lifecycle issues and thus know how to guard against it. — apokrisis
Except that pandemics and the like aren't the biggest danger. The biggest danger is within man's own heart.I'm not saying it wouldn't be difficult. But in fact modern society does a pretty good job at planning for pandemics and climate resilience. It is exactly this kind of organic lifecycle thinking which is starting to be applied (if perhaps not nearly quick enough to actually save our particular neoliberal/globalised/fossil fuel based "utopia"). :) — apokrisis
I think people are actually more dumb than ever before on average. Sure, they have more knowledge than ever before, but certainly not more intelligence - too much comfort dulls down their intelligence, and all that is left is mere knowledge.So who could argue with a modern society that is producing ever smarter, fitter, better-looking and civilised folk - on average? — apokrisis
Hmm then what about all the talk of "it would be better if there was no suffering"? The pessimist is still engaged in thinking how things could have been better, how they could have been different - instead of being engaged with the world as it is.No, the pessimist merely acknowledges this, because he also knows that complaining about what cannot be changed is a foolish waste of time. — Thorongil
far from being just about their general hypocrisy, I'm trying to show how they didn't go far enough. They weren't radical enough to see their already-radical philosophical views actualize. — darthbarracuda
as I have argued that welfare consequentialism is the inevitable next-step after pessimism is accepted. Problem-solving instead of simply problem-acknowledging. — darthbarracuda
I sleep on a pillow I got from Target. — darthbarracuda
Well presumably because I think I have offered reasons why I am to be believed. — darthbarracuda
but at least he did donate the charity at the end of his life. — darthbarracuda
Thought it was good enough to just talk about the suffering of the world. — darthbarracuda
Part of my argument, then, is that Schopenhauer (and co.) felt Truth was still "important" for some reason in a world as harsh and violent as the one their perceived. Truth or bust. — darthbarracuda
philosophy is a sort of reassuring comfort of perfect rational structure that isolates someone from the rest of the dirty, wild world. — darthbarracuda
I have argued that understanding the world this way should lead one to see absolute Truth as something secondary in importance. — darthbarracuda
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.