Hello kirillov, welcome to TPF. If those ideas haven't satisfied you, I guess it is time to move on and search for new ideas that can inspire you. I see you have read both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Didn't you try Kierkegaard? And before him, there is also Hegel.

I understand that Kierkegaard could be complex. I admit that it took a lot to understand him, and not always satisfactorily! Depending on translations and context, I think it would help you his works on anxiety/dread/angst.

The Concept of Anxiety is one of his most known and notable works, yet I liked Fear and Trembling more.

Fear and Trembling speaks of many of Kierkegaard's most well-known concepts, such as the absurd, knight of faith, single individual, teleological suspension of the ethical, three stages, tragic hero, and so on.

On the other hand, if you enjoy reading novels, Dostoevsky is also a good choice.

, I appreciate you for your answer.

I did try. His "leap of faith" is not for me either. I just can't.
Though I didn't read him entirely. Maybe I should.

Dostoevsky is one of my favorites writers, my nickname is borrowed from his "Demons". :)

Welcome to the forum.

, I need somehow to justify this eternal suffering. — kirillov

I don’t want to distract from your subject matter, so I’ll just say this and then begone - Not everyone sees life and the world this way.

ife is eternal suffering. — kirillov

One is just as justified to say life is eternal joy as saying life is eternal suffering. I wouldnt say either is accurate though becuase obviously both exist, and generally one experiences both until death. If you choose to focus only on the suffering (necessitated by the view “life is eternal suffering) then thats on you, not life. If your life is eternal suffering then thats your life, not life in general.
So the only thing you are justified claiming is that your life is full of suffering. Maybe it is I dont know, but it really makes very little sense to make the same claim for all lives or on the behalf of everyone.
Regardless, you will not find the answer in philosophies. Perspective is the issue here, starting with acknowledging that even if your life is eternal suffering that doesnt mean life in general is.

Welcome to the forums!

First, I would see a psychologist if you're having issues dealing with depression or emotional issues. Philosophy can when we're not knee deep in emotional torpor, but a good person can help you work through it when you're in the thick of it.

I view good as existence. The more, the better. Life is one of the most complex and concentrated existences the universe contains. It is a set of chemical reactions that does not merely burn out, but seeks to renew itself for as long as possible. And as such we, life, make the world into something so much more existent than it would be had we all remained inert carbon.

The sadness of course is some life has it harder than others. Could be physical or mental issues. Yet while such a life is not as blessed as another, in comparison to the rocks in the ground it is still a light in the universe. Focus not on the things you can't do, but on the things you can. Write, read, play games, make some art. Do, be, and live in ways that let you forget its pains where you can.

Life is one of the most complex and concentrated existences the universe contains. It is a set of chemical reactions that does not merely burn out, but seeks to renew itself for as long as possible. And as such we, life, make the world into something so much more existent than it would be had we all remained inert carbon. — Philosophim

:up: :up:

How can life be justified in spite of all the suffering it entails? — kirillov

Only some statements "can be justified" (e.g. by how things happen to be) and not facts such as "suffering". As Epicurus points out: one's actions (i.e habits) can either increase or decrease (or both) one's own suffering and/or suffering of others. "The meaning of life"– its value or "justification" (if there is such a thing) – as Nietzsche says, belongs to the world, or nature as a whole, and not to any one of us who suffers. We are beings-in-question (from suffering), so how each being answers individually and communally (for suffering) is what matters first and foremost; thus, courage (contra hope (or despair)) is the 'foundation' of all other virtues (i.e. habits which decrease suffering). Amor fati. :death: :flower:

For Nietzsche, the approbation of life comes through Music. But also, you have a few things I would like to discuss upon. I will edit this post soon with more to say.

In Birth of Tragedy N details more or less early on that the approbation of life comes through creators creating a faith and hanging that faith over a people such that the faith serves their way of life...

Creation is Nietzsche's "politics" away from the State (we can see this in The New Idol) and it is creation that is the most valuable life affirming tool. Creation allows the creator to hold up a transfiguring mirror that affirms the demands of their life.

For Nietzsche in particular, we can see from the Birth of Tragedy and the Gay Science that "life is music" and that all the philosophers from Socrates to Kant had "wax in their ears."

In the attempt at self criticism of Birth of Tragedy, we can see Nietzsche details himself at the time of the writing that the book is made up first and foremost from the thoughts and after thoughts of an artist...

This means Nietzsche considers himself an artist as he wrote it. He realized that the book was badly written and changed his angle a bit, to diacuss the affirmation of life in a more universal sense based out of perspective of the beholder. Hence by the time we get to the prologue to BGE we have that "perspective is the fundamental condition of life."

As you've detailed suffering is quite an integral part of N' philosophy, and I have a great quote from N himself as to why suffering is integral, and it's more or less that it itself is transfiguring...

It will be surmised that I should not like to take leave ungratefully of that period of severe sickness, the advantage of which is not even yet exhausted in me: for I am sufficiently conscious of what I have in advance of the spiritually robust generally, in my changeful state of health. A philosopher who has made the tour of many states of health, and always makes it anew, has also gone through just as many philosophies: he really cannot do otherwise than transform his condition on every occasion into the most ingenious posture and position,—this art of transfiguration is just philosophy....It is great pain only, the long slow pain which takes time, by which we are burned as it were with green wood, that compels us philosophers to descend into our ultimate depths, and divest ourselves of all trust, all good-nature, veiling, gentleness, and averageness, wherein we have perhaps formerly installed our humanity. I doubt whether such pain "improves" us; but I know that it deepens us. — Nietzsche, § 3 of the Preface to the second edition of GS.

We can see that suffering doesn't necessarily improve us. And Nietzsche details this further in Genealogy... as slave morality often arises out of those who suffer, and fail to disgest the internalization of that suffering. Where as the noble moralities always spring from the triumphant affirmation of ones own demands... (GoM 10).

So, what's your solution to this? — kirillov

Life is suffering because consciousness depends on a story arc in which pain and suffering is overcome. The end of the story is the resolution. Satisfaction is death. This is Schopenhauer's point.

Realizing that the world doesn't need to be saved, that it's exactly what it's supposed to be isn't armchair philosophy.

This is Schopenhauer's point. — frank

Yes, but @kirillov doesn't see Schopenhauer's point as really satisfactory. I think the solution might be to recommend other readings or philosophers, as I did with Kierkegaard. Furthermore, I honestly believe that K is more relevant than Schopenhauer regarding the understanding of angst, dread, or suffering. But I guess that he is often not mentioned because some think he was actually a theologian.

In Birth of Tragedy N details more or less early on that the approbation of life comes through creators creating a faith and hanging that faith over a people such that the faith serves their way of life... — DifferentiatingEgg

Absolutely, for early Nietzsche. Affirmation of life through creation of illusions (Der Wahn). But he rejected this idea because it veils life, not affirms it.

We can see that suffering doesn't necessarily improve us. And Nietzsche details this further in Genealogy... as slave morality often arises out of those who suffer, and fail to disgest the internalization of that suffering. Where as the noble moralities always spring from the triumphant affirmation of ones own demands... (GoM 10). — DifferentiatingEgg

Indeed. Impact of suffering depends on one's own "health". More than that, "healthy" men move towards suffering because of The Will to Power (will to overcome). But, is it the only way to affirm life? That's the question. Or Nietzsche gave us all possible options?

Thank you for your answer.

Yup, for me Schopenhauer is right (to some degree) about metaphysics and life itself, but not in his way of dealing with it.

I really gonna take a closer look at Kierkegaard. Thank you.

I inherited some of Schopenhauer's views. In short, life is eternal suffering. — kirillov

That's not all he said. Nobody seems to pay much attention, but Schop. also believed in some form of redemption. As is well known, he read a translation of the Upaniṣads throughout his life, and often referred to Hindu and Buddhist philosophy.

In a manner reminiscent of traditional Buddhism, he recognizes that life is filled with unavoidable frustration and acknowledges that the suffering caused by this frustration can itself be reduced by minimizing one’s desires. Moral consciousness and virtue thus give way to the voluntary poverty and chastity of the ascetic. St. Francis of Assisi (WWR, Section 68) and Jesus (WWR, Section 70) subsequently emerge as Schopenhauer’s prototypes for the most enlightened lifestyle, in conjunction with the ascetics from every religious tradition.

This emphasis upon the ascetic consciousness and its associated detachment and tranquillity introduces some paradox into Schopenhauer’s outlook... — SEP, Schopenhauer

More than some! But regardless, it's important to understand that there was, at least in theory, an end to suffering, comprising the ability to detach from the 'blind striving' of Will (which has been compared to the 'trsna' or 'thirst' which is the cause of suffering in Buddhism. Also Schopenhauer and Buddhism, Peter Abelson.)

You're right, but that's why I wrote "some of his views".

I think Artur was a great philosopher and had many good points. But, at least, he was wrong about "redemption". I believe one cannot detach from the 'blind striving' of Will, there's only the Will to Life (in Schopenhauer's terms) and nothing else.
That's why I appeal to Nietzsche, he accepts that life is suffering & one cannot escape it (even more, he radicalized this idea into "eternal recurrence"). And tries to find the solution.

Thank you.

I too think Schopenhauer was wrong on some things, but not on that.

If there is no transcendence of and/or redemption from transitoriness, suffering and death, however, I don't see how and why we should 'affirm' life at the level that Nietzsche would like. We can certainly cherish life but it is also true that without any form of transcendence death has the 'last word' so to speak both for the individual and for our species. Life is a completely tragic phenomenon and the tragedy is amplified the more we affirm it. If we affirm it like 'tragic heroes', it doesn't change the fact that, however, 'death wins'.

Furthermore, the problem with Nietzsche's philosophy is that it is inconsistent here IMO. If the 'highest form of life' is a life where we impose our values and there is no critierion in which we distinguish, in a non-arbitrary manner what is the best way to 'affirm life' then a 'life affirming' stance is no 'better' than a 'life denying' one, as both are said to be manifestations of the 'will to power'. Why should a manifestion of the will to power be better than another if there aren't criteria to tell which is better? In other words, I do not see in Nietzsche's philosophy enough convincing arguments for avoiding a compeletely arbitrary stance of life where absolutely any stance is no better or worse than any other.

0. Suffering is not the problem to solve, but the meaninglessness of it.
1. Aesthetic justification: “It is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified.”
2. The Will to Power. Suffering acquires its meaning through overcoming it. — kirillov

Just to clarify, for Nietzsche suffering is necessary because life is eternal , creative becoming, and suffering is that phase of becoming in which something must be negated in order to move onto a fresh, transformed meaningful perspective on the world. This cycle is endless, and suffering plays a substantive and positive role in the heightening growth of experience.

That the world's "Value lies in our interpretation (- that somewhere else other interpretations than merely human ones may be possible -); that previous interpretations have been perspectival appraisals by means of which we preserve ourselves in life, that is, in the will to power and
to the growth of power; that every heightening of man brings with it an overcoming of narrower interpretations; that every increase in strength and expansion of power opens up new perspectives and demands a belief
in new horizons - this runs though my writings. The world which matters to us is false, i.e., is not a fact but a fictional elaboration and filling out of a meagre store of observations; it is 'in flux', as something becoming, as a
constantly shifting falsity that never gets any nearer to truth, for - there is no 'truth'.

The 'meaninglessness of what happens': belief in this results from an insight into the falseness of previous interpretations, a generalisation of weakness and despondency - it's not a necessary belief.

Looking for objective answers from N is like trying to find non whites at a KKK rally. I think one ought to keep a few aphorisms from BGE in mind when discussing the will to power... namely the term "will" for Nietzsche isnt how tou use it... thats merely the "Sanctas Simplicitas" of the multiplicity of undercurrent and forces that the word represents. First and foremost the will to power are sensations and the will is not a cause... as you portray here.

A summary of one of the four great errors of reason Nietzsche talks about with cause and effect in Twilight of Idols:

For centuries people thought the "will" and the "ego" were genuine causes, facts about consciousness that explained action and responsibility. This is merely a projection of outdated psychology. Modern insight reveals that what we call "the will" doesn't cause action, motives are mere suruface ripples, and the Ego is a fiction of IT ( the body). Humans mistook these illusions for real quantums of force, and we built our metaphysics based upon them and projected it upon the world, turning the Ego into ideal models of "being." Resulting in a massive inherited error: believing in the spirit and the mind as if they were causes via the conception of a "thing in itself..."

Every subterranean force is its own power that commands the body... how they all work together... well, it's a lot to consider, but just because they place demands on the body doesn't mean these actions are even attempted.

The more opposing forces within oneself the greater their will to power is.

Consider Nietzsche saying Life is Music and Life is Will to Power. Certainly doesn't mean music is will to power for everyone. Even though music does affirm the lives of everyone indifferently.

The Birth of Tragedy... out of what? The Spirit of Music...

And Tragedy was the ultimate form of life affirmation to the Greek antiquity.

Every culture has its own music.

The Gay Science...
Literally Nietzsche's works on the knowledge of life affirming gaiety...

the problem with Nietzsche's philosophy is that it is inconsistent here IMO. If the 'highest form of life' is a life where we impose our values and there is no critierion in which we distinguish, in a non-arbitrary manner what is the best way to 'affirm life' then a 'life affirming' stance is no 'better' than a 'life denying' one, as both are said to be manifestations of the 'will to power'. Why should a manifestion of the will to power be better than another if there aren't criteria to tell which is better? In other words, I do not see in Nietzsche's philosophy enough convincing arguments for avoiding a compeletely arbitrary stance of life where absolutely any stance is no better or worse than any other. — boundless

We always have criteria for the best way to affirm life, but those criteria come from within the contingently produced perspectives we create. Within a value system we inhabit for a period of time, perhaps our whole lives, that stance is clearly better than the alternatives. When we transition from one perspectival valuative system to an another, our criteria change along with it.

To assume that one could impose a criterion for the goodness of a value system, the ‘best way’ to affirm life, from outside of all contingent perspectives, a god’s- eye view, view from nowhere or sideways on, is to impose a formula which is meaningless. In Nietzsche’s sense such aesthetic ideals are the definition of nihilism. And given the fact that most of the suffering in this world comes at the hands of those who act on behalf of supposedly perspective-free principles and criteria of truth and righteousness, it may be time to think differently.

Folks keep posting thoughts and comments about Nietzsche or Schopenhauer when the OP clearly stated that their philosophy no longer satisfies him. So, there is no solution for the moment. He just asked us what to read now, not what you guys think about these German boys. :grin:

Nietzsche says bad readers haven't read him, and his detail of the worst readers fits here (with the OP)... and dude's post is about a solution to his wrong idea on N's philosophy. So maybe stop being a worst reader yourself? I literally spelled it out for him, the solution is affirm the demands of your own life... which is a personal thing, done for centuries before N. N's just the first one to discuss it at least in such a direct manner.

Nietzsche says bad readers haven't read him, — DifferentiatingEgg

OK.

byebye *waves*

Those who cannot find their own life affirming path are as Nietzsche details the reason why mankind has become sick...

Let us look each other in the face. We are Hyperboreans—we know well enough how remote our place is. “Neither by land nor by water will you find the road to the Hyperboreans”: even Pindar,[1] in his day, knew that much about us. Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond death—our life, our happiness.... We have discovered that happiness; we know the way; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of years in the labyrinth. Who else has found it?—The man of today?—“I don’t know either the way out or the way in; I am whatever doesn’t know either the way out or the way in”—so sighs the man of today.... This is the sort of modernity that made us ill

So more or less you came here out of a compulsion to feel superior when you're mostly a worm who doesn't even understand wtf this guy is asking.

Tsk tsk, twas fun though.

Feel better. xoxo

and dude's post is about a solution to his wrong idea on N's philosophy. — DifferentiatingEgg

My post is about a solution to my problem. I don't care about correct understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy (it's silly), I interpreted him in the way that can be helpful to work on issue I presented here.
All I did was:
1. Posed the problem.
2. Gave the options that I considered. (I don't say that I interpreted Nietzsche right, that's not my goal)
3. Asked for yours.

I don't expect to have a "ready-made solution" served to me. I just wanted to look at other's people perspective.
Maybe, you should read more carefully. Maybe, I should write less ambiguously.

Peace.

yup, that's what fascinates me... People just want to fight with each other on who better understands and reads N.

Thank you all.

A life of suffering suggests the absent of its opposites, such as pleasure, joy, or flourishing. But the countless reports of the experiences of these feelings or states suggests their existence. If life can entail the opposite of suffering, life is not suffering.

like I said, the solution is you finding your own fucking way... you're just a poor reader...

Otherwise go find a religion to tell you how to think... duh...

And furtherstill...

I interpreted him in the way that can be helpful to work on issue I presented here. — kirillov

No you didn't... you literally said "I don't like N's solution..." so you interpreted his philosophy in a way that wasnt helpful to you at all.

So when you go back to my first post... "Affirm the demands of your life." Obviously went right over your head.

N paved the way for modern understanding of psychology... no psychologist today considers the will a cause...

Maybe pick up psychology and you'll find your solution?

Art?

Music?

Science?

You find it...

Not us for you. That's the cowardly compromise...

Unless of course that's what you want deep down? Some else to lord over you. That's fine, even N says those who thrive in such ways ought to live that way...

Who here knows you enough after 4 posts to even give you a solution to your own problems?

cough up his solution...

Let's see what you got... a whole lot of nothing, hence you never offered one. Can't use the one I gave (finding his own way).

You didn't even know N's solution... you made one up... N never prescribes a solution. N's solution for himself was music.

Folks keep posting thoughts and comments about Nietzsche or Schopenhauer when the OP clearly stated that their philosophy no longer satisfies him. So, there is no solution for the moment. He just asked us what to read now, not what you guys think about these German boys. :grin: — javi2541997

Yeah, I see that I also went on to comment excessively on Nietzsche's philosophy. Anyway, in the first paragraph of my response I pointed out that, in my opinion, @kirillov sought to find a way to affirm life in the same degree as Nietzsche did if there is no possibility of transcendence and/or ultimate redemption. If that is what they were asking, I believe that a more rational way to approach life would be something like the Epicurean model. That is cherishing and delighting in life in moderation, i.e. we should remind ourselves that life is finite and try to avoid to attach to it too much importance.

I do believe that, if there aren't any kind of trascendence and/or redemption, ultimately, life is quite a tragic endeavour where death has the 'last word'.

To assume that one could impose a criterion for the goodness of a value system, the ‘best way’ to affirm life, from outside of all contingent perspectives, a god’s- eye view, view from nowhere or sideways on, is to impose a formula which is meaningless. In Nietzsche’s sense such aesthetic ideals are the definition of nihilism. And given the fact that most of the suffering in this world comes at the hands of those who act on behalf of supposedly perspective-free principles and criteria of truth and righteousness, it may be time to think differently. — Joshs

While I would say that there are some things that are always morally good or bad, I also think that in some cases it is context dependent. Anyway, my point is different.

If, according to Nietzsche, all manifestations of life are manifestations of the 'will to power', and there is no ultimate 'right' or 'wrong' way to manifest it (someone in the classical tradition would perhaps say that the 'right' way is what fulfills the nature of the will, but Nietzsche rejects that), it is somewhat inconsistent to write books glorifying some way of living and criticizing others. You would expect that Nietzsche would say something like: "ultimately, there are different forms of the will to power. There is no good or bad ways to express such a willing/power. So, do what you want to do without any 'moral' concern!". Instead, he wrote many books to show how inadequate were religions, especially Christainity.

Mind you, I think that Nietzsche had pretty interesting things to say (e.g. about how resentment works and can condition our thoughts, about creativity and so on). But his extreme 'voluntarism', expressed in his mature 'amoralism' and 'will to power' etc is IMO more consistent with an empty philosophy rather than a philosophy that can teach a 'way of life'. To put it differently, the 'pars destruens' was so pervasive than no 'pars construens' seems consistent with it, not his.

No you didn't... you literally said "I don't like N's solution..." so you interpreted his philosophy in a way that wasnt helpful to you at all. — DifferentiatingEgg

I said that I'm not satisfied, I didn't say that I don't like his solution. And what makes you think that his solution wasn't helpful? I think that the only poor reader here is you.

You didn't even know N's solution... you made one up... N never prescribes a solution. N's solution for himself was music. — DifferentiatingEgg

Where did I say that he prescribes a solution?
As I said, I don't ask you to solve my problem, what I did was ask you how you would solve/solved this problem for yourself.
But you just want to yell nonsense. And Nietzsche's solution for himself wasn't music.

Yeah, I see that I also went on to comment excessively on Nietzsche's philosophy. Anyway, in the first paragraph of my response I pointed out that, in my opinion, kirillov sought to find a way to affirm life in the same degree as Nietzsche did if there is no possibility of transcendence and/or ultimate redemption. If that is what they were asking, I believe that a more rational way to approach life would be something like the Epicurean model. That is cherishing and delighting in life in moderation, i.e. we should remind ourselves that life is finite and try to avoid to attach to it too much importance. — boundless

Also, if death means the definitive separation between people that are dear to us, the rational way to process the separation is with grief. Because by grieving we recognize the intrinsic value of these persons and we recognize that value is now irrimediably lost. So, it would seem that without any hope of transcendence and/or redemption it is impossible to avoid to suffer and attain any kind of solid happiness.

, appreciate you for your response.

I believe that a more rational way to approach life would be something like the Epicurean model. That is cherishing and delighting in life in moderation, i.e. we should remind ourselves that life is finite and try to avoid to attach to it too much importance. — boundless

For me, life (in general) isn't finite. In Buddhist word's, Samsara will make another turn.
And there's situations where you can't avoid/moderate pain & suffering (that's what I'm dealing with) , so Epicurus is not for me.

What about Nietzsche... I don't want to discuss him at this thread, because that's not the point of it.
And my interpretation of him radically differs from mainstream.

So, it would seem that without any hope of transcendence and/or redemption it is impossible to avoid to suffer and attain any kind of solid happiness. — boundless

I know that suffering is unavoidable. As I said: "life is eternal suffering".
My goal is to affirm it, accept it. To love this life despite all the suffering it entails.