Eudaimonia is not compatible with suffering. — anonymous66
while Stoicism does promise a path to Eudaimonia, many of you are doubtful that Stoicism will actually lead to Eudaimonia. — anonymous66
Perhaps the "right" answer is that the Stoic sage would not suffer. — anonymous66
What are you proposing is the nature of suffering? — anonymous66
Are you proposing an alternate solution — anonymous66
1. Stoicism fails to provide a solution to the prevention of future suffering.
Sure, stoicism works for some but only in the context of suffering-management and not suffering-prevention. It can work in the context of overcoming ongoing suffering but provides limited to no answer to prevent future suffering from occurring in the first place. "Future" in this context means (a) suffering of existing people and (b) suffering of the next generation of (currently non-existent) people.
Both Stoicism and Pessimism recognize the inevitability of suffering of existing beings. Stoicism's answer to (a) is to endure/overcome suffering when it comes. Pessimism's answer is similar but attempts to also minimize suffering via asceticism or repression of one's desires.
Stoicism doesn't answer (b), at least that's what I get from this thread. Pessimism's proposed answer to (b) is the anti-natalist stand. — OglopTo
Yes, I get from this thread that pessimism does propose a solution to prevent suffering from happening in the first place. I'm copying Critique #1 again for the proposed Pessimist solutions I got from this thread: — OglopTo
so you're proposing that Philosophical Pessimism is a competing philosophy, while admitting it doesn't solve the problem of suffering. — anonymous66
The problem is, I don't see Stoics going and and trying to convert anyone. Perhaps the next best world would be one in which there are many Stoic sages, and they would be living in harmony with everyone else, who have found their own path to Eudaimonia. This seems like a possibility, because there is no agreement on how to reach Eudaimonia (or even if that is a good goal). — anonymous66
d) The FACT that there is suffering to overcome is not addressed. — schopenhauer1
I believe I did cover it very well. All of philosophy exists as a solution to suffering. — anonymous66
I think it could be argued that Stoicism, like all the ancient philosophies, was developed as a response to an obvious issue. Life can be difficult. Philosophies are therapeutic. Stoicism is one proposed solution to the reality of human suffering (it does promise to be a path to Eudaimonia).
If not difficulties, then not philosophy (as a solution.) — anonymous66
I think it could be argued that Stoicism, like all the ancient philosophies, was developed as a response to an obvious issue. Life can be difficult. Philosophies are therapeutic. Stoicism is one proposed solution to the reality of human suffering (it does promise to be a path to Eudaimonia).
If not difficulties, then not philosophy (as a solution.) — anonymous66
I want to understand the point of the thread.
It's comparing Stoicism to Philosophical Pessimism and making the claim that Philosophical Pessimism is better because if Pessimism hand in hand with anti-natalism, then less humans to suffer in the future.
And you're saying that no philosophy ever has dealt with human suffering? or just that Stoicism hasn't dealt with human suffering?
Or are you claiming that only Philosophical Pessimism addresses the fact of human suffering? — anonymous66
The Pessimist knows and deals with this fact face on without resorting to suppressing it. Rather accepting it means that one cannot avoid it. It is ok to resent it, bitch at it, commiserate about it. That is part of the rebellion. Seeking to work with it is being complicit. — schopenhauer1
The Pessimist knows and deals with this fact face on without resorting to suppressing it. Rather accepting it means that one cannot avoid it. It is ok to resent it, bitch at it, commiserate about it. That is part of the rebellion. Seeking to work with it is being complicit. — schopenhauer1
always after the fact. — schopenhauer1
Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth or claims that one should not reproduce.
Preventing it is not coping, it is stopping it from ever happening (antinatalism). As for bitching at it and resenting it, this is not seeking to work with it but the opposite. It sees suffering for what it is.So, does suppressing = wanting to rid the world of it?
Does admitting it exists and trying to prevent it in the future mean that one is "working with it"?, and if so, isn't that bad (because you're then being complicit)? — anonymous66
And of course your assertion is that "not being complicit" = making sure there are less humans in the future (anti-natalism).
I'm not sure what you mean here. Isn't it obvious that suffering does exist? Anything we do in regards to suffering is "after the fact", isn't it? — anonymous66
How does Pessimism propose we deal with suffering in a way that is "not after the fact." ? Does "not dealing with suffering in a way that is after the fact" also = making sure less humans exist in the future (anti-natalism)? — anonymous66
Does the above look like a valid summation to you? — anonymous66
Schopenhauer believes that a person who experiences the truth of human nature from a moral perspective — who appreciates how spatial and temporal forms of knowledge generate a constant passing away, continual suffering, vain striving and inner tension — will be so repulsed by the human condition, and by the pointlessly striving Will of which it is a manifestation, that he or she will lose the desire to affirm the objectified human situation in any of its manifestations. The result is an attitude of the denial towards our will-to-live, which Schopenhauer identifies with an ascetic attitude of renunciation, resignation, and willessness, but also with composure and tranquillity. 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) emerge, accordingly, as Schopenhauer's prototypes for the most enlightened lifestyle, as do the ascetics from every religious tradition. — SEP
But in any case, when Buddhism talks of the end of suffering, that's what is meant: no more suffering, suffering is 'blown out'. — Wayfarer
So I wanted to draw that point out, because I think that the point of 'philosophical pessimism' has to include some sense of there being a solution to it, or a way of transcending it.
Othewise it can only ever be — Wayfarer
If there is no source or ground for serenity, detachment can only be a kind of emotional indifference, — Wayfarer
I'm not much for pipe dreams. Sisyphus is like the instrumentality of existence. We do to do to do. Our restless nature- keeping ourselves going. The outside motivating us through our culturo-survival needs and through presenting our being with unwanted pain. The inside motivating us through our restless nature turning restless dissatisfaction to pleasure and goal-seeking. That is our lives. — schopenhauer1
As I currently imagine it, this ground is a feeling of acceptance of the suffering in life and a feeling of compassion to others who are also suffering. — OglopTo
If it is OK to procreate, what is the reason behind procreating, knowing pretty well that this new soon-to-be-human has to undergo yet another cycle of suffering? — OglopTo
That is our lives. — Schopenhauer1"
I think realizing this is a feat in itself and it sure is unpleasant to have to have this view for the rest of one's life. But is there really no way out? — OglopTo
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.