My takeaway from that is that it's best to keep open the possibility of things getting better, than to give up and accept the mediocrity of non-existence as the best there could ever be. — Pfhorrest

So "classic pessimism" (as I'll call it) views life as constantly in deprivation of something. The deprivation naturally indicates unfulfillment or incompleteness. Thus the top of the chart would be something like full completeness. Ironically, being complete may be something akin to non-existence. Buddhism might call this state nirvana, for example.

That sounds like it's only considering the edge of the chart between "worst" and "nonexistence". Highlighting the other dimension besides that is the point of this diagram; there is better than just non-suffering.

But again, "classic pessimism" is oriented towards seeing the world's unfulfilled needs causing dissatisfaction.

I don't really understand the chart. What does "worst and nonexistence" or "best and nonexistence"?

The axis from lower left to upper right is enjoyment. The axis from upper left to lower right is suffering. On the far left is none of either, like from nonexistence, or total numbness. The top is maximum enjoyment, no suffering. The bottom is maximum suffering, no enjoyment. Obviously, no suffering, no enjoyment is better than maximum suffering, no enjoyment. But there is better than that still: no suffering, and some enjoyment. And a whole multidimensional spectrum of combinations of suffering and enjoyment. Just focusing on the quantity of suffering reduces that entire spectrum to the lower left edge of it, and so depicts nonexistence as the best thing possible, when in the wider picture it's not.

But what's with the nonexistence and roller coaster?

The problem is that these aren't necessarily symmetrical. There could be anything in these quadrants.

Nonexistence is a case of zero suffering and zero enjoyment.

"Rollercoaster" is a life of severe ups and downs: lots of enjoyment but also lots of suffering.

It's a simple graph. I don't see how you don't understand it, or think there "could be anything" in those quadrants.

It's a simple graph. I don't see how you don't understand it, or think there "could be anything" in those quadrants. — Pfhorrest

Um no, just looking at that, there needs to be explanation. The opposite of non-existence isn't necessarily a roller coaster. So maybe something like inactivity/activity, or something like that. I don't know. I could easily have non-existence/constant struggle. It is not obvious what should be opposite other than non-existence/existence. That one makes more sense as an obvious symmetry. Calm/chaotic might work better.

If what you are saying is, that it is better to have peak experiences (e.g. flow states) than be non-existent, that is of course, the whole discourse. Pessimists would say that just focusing on peak experiences as a possibility negates the nature of living itself, which is characterized by unfulfiillment and thus misses the point of the bigger picture to focus on this narrow possibility of experience. And, though it is often touted as something to aspire to (to increase peak experiences), why is it that it's only rare occasions that there is a life that is primarily peak experiences? And of course the answer is always that "you're not doing it right" (e.g. Do the Dew!), and of course, if it's not easy to "do it right", that in itself is an indication that something is wrong.

And thus further...
There is the popular notion that we need the suffering to experience a feeling of overcoming the suffering.

The pessimist would retort that in a better world (which is indeed possible to imagine, though not be in), there would be no need to suffer to feel the enjoyment of not suffering anymore. No pain, no gain, has no traction in pessimism. It may just be a defense mechanism to justify that indeed much of life is discomfort, pain, one damn thing after another, bespeckled by peak experiences every so often. That ever sought-after peak experience possibility drives the non-pessimist in exclusion of seeing the bigger picture. But then the non-pessimist thinks they are clever by co-opting pain into their view "no pain, no gain.. so I guess we need that pain!"

And thus, pessimists see happiness as often the cessation of what is mostly a life characterized by necessary suffering (i.e. wants/needs) and contingent suffering (anything circumstantial that causes pain).

Um no, just looking at that, there needs to be explanation. The opposite of non-existence isn't necessarily a roller coaster. So maybe something like inactivity/activity, or something like that. I don't know. I could easily have non-existence/constant struggle. It is not obvious what should be opposite other than non-existence/existence. That one makes more sense as an obvious symmetry. Calm/chaotic might work better. — schopenhauer1

The chart is of suffering and enjoyment. You seem to be ignoring those axes entirely and focusing entirely on the labels inside the chart. The horizontal row you’re focusing on is the row of equal mixes of enjoyment and suffering, from none of either to lots of either. That’s the underlying structure there; the labels you’re fixating on are states of being that are at those respective places on the chart of enjoyment vs suffering, they’re not labels defining the structure of the chart.

I was thinking recently about discussions I see here frequently about antinatalism — Pfhorrest

I wasn't familiar with the term "antinatalism", meaning "it would be better to never be born, than to live in an immoral & evil world". Apparently, the original reason for such despair was the existence of natural & ethical Evil, that makes living difficult. But a more modern motivation for depression may be the perceived meaninglessness of living in a dis-enchanted dis-spirited atheistic world, as revealed by Enlightenment Science.

In the current Philosophy Now magazine, Frank Martela "relates how science destroyed the meaning of life, but helps us find meaning in life". He quotes Thomas Carlyle, from Sartor Resartus, "Our life is compassed round with Necessity; yet is the meaning of life itself no other than freedom, than Voluntary Force". In other words, I find the meaning of my life, not in a vain search for something permanent (immortal, such as the Soul), but in the exercise of my personal Free Will. But, if Science also dis-proves that notion, what's left to live for?

The article, discussing Tolstoy's ruminations about suicide, notes that "in a world governed by the mechanistic laws of nature, there is no longer room for purpose". In my personal worldview, I have concluded that there might be some teleological universal Purpose to the universe. But I don't know what that ultimate aim is. Hence, I find myself standing on a stage with others, playing a role that was written by some unknown author, and whose script does not reveal the finale. I don't know for sure where this thing called "Life" is going. So, my only choice is to either exit the stage (e.g suicide), or to play my minor role to the best of my ability.

Your diamond diagram could represent the stage of Life. Is the play a Drama, a Comedy, or a Tragedy? The actors' interpretation of their roles makes all the difference. Regardless of the author's intentions, we have the freedom to invent our character, within the constraints of the script, which -- like your diamond -- contains all of those elements of reality : enjoyment & suffering; joy & tragedy; laughing & crying; positive & negative emotions. The Self may not be immortal, like a Soul, but it has the freedom & flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances -- it doesn't have to just stand there and take whatever Fate decrees.

The article concludes that we make our own meaning in at least two ways : contribution and self-expression. First : "meaning in life is about making yourself meaningful to other people". But, your own meaning stems from the ability to, "follow one's own values, pursue one's own interests, express who one truly is". Without Free Will, as a prisoner in a world of walls, Antinatalism would be a rational choice : to opt out of the play written by someone else. So, If you believe your world is absolutely Deterministic & Mechanistic, what's the point? But, if you feel that you have freedom of self-expression -- to move around within the diamond -- then your purpose may be to explore your "True Self", even as you play by the rules of your "Social Self". The real world, like the abstract diamond, has room for role-play. Enjoy! :cool:

PS__Tolstoy didn't commit suicide. Instead he re-devoted himself to his family (social self), and to his writing (true self).
https://nccppr.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/one_mans_journey_out_of_depression.pdf

FWIW I just updated the image to hopefully make things a little more obvious for the likes of schop.

I was thinking specifically of the common way of talking about goods cancelling out bads, and how they add up that way, and I thought it might be more useful to think of goods and bads, pleasures and pains, enjoyment and suffering, on two orthogonal axes, rather than as unidimensional quantities that can straightforwardly negate each other. — Pfhorrest

Your diagram illustrates that, in the messy real world, the Good vs Evil conflict is not as simplistic as some would think. This multidimensional concept is borne-out in the history of philosophical and religious revolutions. Each religious founder counter-attacked the evils of his day in locally & temporally specific ways. For example, Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to return Abraham's strays back to the straight & narrow way of Moses' flock. But the Buddha's advice to his disciples was to turn their backs on the corrupt world, "trapped in cycles of Dukkha", and to seek personal salvation within.

The current issue of Philosophy Now magazine also has an article on the topic of Anti-Natalism, which the author calls "Philosophical Misanthropy". He describes four "stances" on the problem of human evil & suffering. Extreme Antinatalists are labeled Enemies, who are not content with suicide, but propose anthro-cide or species-cide, by ending human reproduction. They feel that the world would be better-off without those uppity animals who know the difference between Good & Evil, but still choose to do evil. But the Fugitives, like the Buddha, prefer to abandon civilization, and it's discontents, by becoming hermits or monks, and by retreating into their inner world, which each person can control, to some degree. Then, there are the Activists, like Jesus, who believe that humanity can be saved from its evil ways, and proceed with hope & ambition to convert those who have lost their way. However, some are Quietists, who are characterized by a "spirit of resignation", giving-up hope for the betterment of mankind.

Perhaps, you can locate these "stances" within your diamond diagram. And you might even find a position for optimistic atheists, like Stephen Pinker, in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, who believe that Homo Sapiens is still in it's infancy, and has potential for moral growth. :smile: