Eudaimonia is not compatible with suffering. — anonymous66

But before one achieves eudaimonia, one experienced suffering. The question is, does Stoicism provide a solution to prevent the experiencing of suffering in the first place?

See my previous post

while Stoicism does promise a path to Eudaimonia, many of you are doubtful that Stoicism will actually lead to Eudaimonia. — anonymous66

Is this the one you are referring to?

No, this is not the object of inquiry. I am not doubting whether the Stoic way can lead to Eudaimonia or not.

The object of inquiry goes something like this:

Before you achieve eudaimonia, you suffered in one way or another. Does Stoicism provide a solution to prevent the experiencing of suffering in the first place?

You want to know if Stoicism prevents suffering... Hmm. Good question. Are you proposing that there is some way to prevent suffering, but Stoicism isn't it?

It's kind of a loaded question, isn't it? I mean... does anyone think that suffering can be totally gotten rid of?

Perhaps the "right" answer is that the Stoic sage would not suffer. Edit: If everyone were to become a Stoic sage, then there would be no suffering. Stoicism does suggest that we all attempt to become sages.

I get the strong sense that you don't quite get that all ancient philosophies promise Eudaimonia and that Eudaimonia is not compatible with suffering. Are you being deliberately obtuse? (I think it's a fair question, all things considered).

I'd like to have a decent conversation with you, but you're going to have to give me something. What are you proposing is the nature of suffering? Are you proposing an alternate solution, or are you just content with letting everyone know that there are those who don't think that Stoicism actually is the solution to the problem of suffering, hence the point of this thread?

Perhaps the "right" answer is that the Stoic sage would not suffer. — anonymous66

May be true, but before being a sage, I find it hard to imagine a life devoid of suffering. The question is, is there a Stoic proposal at all to prevent this suffering from occurring in the first place?

What are you proposing is the nature of suffering? — anonymous66

Hmm. I mean it in the general sense of the word. There is the physical suffering brought about by bodily pain. There is mental suffering in terms of stress and anxiety. And there is also the more burdensome suffering brought about by angst, dread, and existential boredom.

You can argue that suffering is only a mental construct and hence can be eliminated by a strong mental will. You can also interpret it this way but I don't think the other items I enumerated above cannot be eliminated by sheer mental will -- will/meditate all one might but he cannot will away bodily pains, stress, and boredom.

Are you proposing an alternate solution — anonymous66

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:

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

Okay. I hear you saying that you believe that Stoicism doesn't answer the problem of suffering, so you're proposing that Philosophical Pessimism is a competing philosophy, while admitting it doesn't solve the problem of suffering.

Is that a valid summation?

so you're proposing that Philosophical Pessimism is a competing philosophy, while admitting it doesn't solve the problem of suffering. — anonymous66

Sort of, if you want to view this as a competition. ;)

Unfortunately, suffering can only be managed or minimized for the living. If one is alive, one is sure to experience pains, stress, and boredom. And I guess both stoicism and pessimism offer solutions to manage/minimize these.

However, the critique is that Stoicism doesn't concern itself with the prevention of suffering of the next generation of (currently non-existent) people. On the other hand, as I infer from this thread, pessimism takes the anti-natalist stand to prevent additional human beings to be born and experience suffering in the first place.

This thread is a proposing, "let's compare Pessimism and Stoicism", and suggesting that Pessimism is the better choice

It's suggested that Stoicism can't stop suffering.

It's also admitted that Pessimism can't stop suffering. But, the premise is that Pessimism is better because less humans will be around to suffer.

I do see a valid question. Can Stoicism make things better for future generations? That's worth debating. I personally think it's important to consider the well-being of future generations, but I don't agree with the premise that less humans=a better world.

Edit;
If you accept that a Stoic sage would not suffer, and that Stoicism is suggesting that we all make as our goal, to become a sage. Then, if at some point in the future, all become Stoic sages, then there would be no suffering.

Assuming we agree that the Stoic sage doesn't suffer and that the point of Stoicism is to make all humans into Stoic sages.

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).

I can also conceive of a future in which everyone eventually becomes a Stoic sage, just because everyone is attracted to the Stoic way of living one's life.

But that's just me.

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

I guess any group can believe this, right? Christianity, Epicureanism, Buddhism, etc. If everyone just becomes the exemplary of whatever belief-system we would all be in harmony and on the path to X-blissful/exalted stated. The problem is that a) some things cannot be solved with these philosophies and b) there is still suffering in the meantime until everyone becomes the wise Sage. c) Some people are naturally more resistant to being "Sages" than others due to a variety of factors. d) The FACT that there is suffering to overcome is not addressed. The Pessimist is similar to the Stoic, in many ways except that, in my opinion, the Pessimist does not evaluate the suffering as simply something to overcome (which it may or may not be depending on what kind of suffering, the personality dealing with suffering, and many other non-linear factors), but they are rebellious against the situation in the first place. No life is not a paradise, there is no excuse for it otherwise. Accepting this is de facto anyone who does not commit suicide. Trying to live your life so that it does not affect you, in fact makes it affect you quite greatly in your efforts to ameliorate it in the first place. You can never escape it. 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.

Are you also promoting the idea that less humans = a better world because it would mean less suffering?

What I hear people saying in this thread is that there is a problem. The problem is that there is a lot of suffering in the world. And it's suggested that Stoicism does or can do nothing about future suffering. The solution? Promote a lifestyle such that it will result in less humans in the future. Less humans = less suffering.. Or so the proposal goes.

It's like you're not even trying to sell a good solution. Just one that is supposedly less bad than you believe Stoicism to be.

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 therapeutic solution to suffering.

I believe I did cover it very well. All of philosophy exists as a solution to suffering. — anonymous66

That was not meant for you but for Stoicism :).

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 don't see how this addresses the point of the FACT of human suffering.

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 addressed the fact of human suffering? or just that Stoicism hasn't addressed the fact of human suffering?

Or are you claiming that only Philosophical Pessimism addresses the fact of human suffering?

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

This thread was started to be originally an open forum regarding the major questions on the OP. It came about through people providing the stock answer of "Stoicism" anytime suffering was debated. It then turned into a pretty intense argument over Stoicism and Pessimism. Anyways, what I am saying currently in reply to your idea that it is a solution to human suffering is that Stoicism may be one way to try to ameliorate suffering. It is an interesting coping mechanism that might be effective for some. However, it is a coping mechanism- always after the fact. It does not address the fact that suffering exists in the first place (to be overcome with so-and-so coping mechanism). I am positing that this sort of coping is complicit in the suffering BECAUSE it accepts it as something to be coped with rather than something to rebel against. As I put it earlier

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

I think I see some claims here.
1. There is a proper way to deal with suffering;
2. The pessimist knows the proper way to deal with suffering
3. The proper way to deal with suffering is to face it head on without suppressing it, accepting it and not avoiding it. It's also proper to resent it, bitch at it and commiserate about it.
4. Seeking to work with it is bad (complicit).

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)?

And of course your assertion is that "not being complicit" = making sure there are less humans in the future (anti-natalism).

always after the fact. — schopenhauer1

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?

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)?

I think this thread can be reduced to the idea that less humans (anti-natalism) = less suffering... Therefore Pessimism is the best philosophy because it acknowledges and reduces suffering, in a way that is "not after the fact".

Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth or claims that one should not reproduce.

Does the above look like a valid summation to you?

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

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.

And of course your assertion is that "not being complicit" = making sure there are less humans in the future (anti-natalism).

Preventing it is not coping, it is stopping it from ever happening (antinatalism).

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

Right, suffering exists period. That is the problem. What we try to do about it is one thing. But Pessimists keep in mind that it exists and that the need to overcome it itself is a burden that we make do with if we want to keep living in a world with suffering.

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

Since suffering will always exist in some way. It's best to bitch about it and see everyone else as in the same boat (as fellow-sufferers). Alleviate other's suffering as much as possible and ones own through whatever coping mechanism (Stoicism is fine if you like that), but just recognize that we ARE suffering in the first place.

Preventing it is not coping, it is stopping it from ever happening (antinatalism) for a potential future person. 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.

Does the above look like a valid summation to you? — anonymous66

Yes for the potential future suffering. Of course it does not address the suffering of now (i.e. the instrumentality of existence, unwanted pain, goals that are never satisfied, flux and never stasis).

With all this talk about suffering, there ought to be some recognition of the 'cessation of suffering'. That expression is found in Buddhism but the idea behind it is found in other traditions as well. But in any case, when Buddhism talks of the end of suffering, that's what is meant: no more suffering, suffering is 'blown out'. In Stoicism, there are terms such as ataraxia, meaning 'tranquility', and the more familiar apathea; apathy tends to be thought of nowadays as a kind of dumb indifference but I think the original meaning of the term was much nearer to the Buddhist understanding of 'serene detachment'.

In any case, both teach a sense of detachment from the vicissitudes of worldly life. I think the problem we have nowadays is that the instinctive naturalism of the 'cultural west' has flattened our perspective, so that the 'realm of sense' is the only one (that, after all, is the meaning of empiricism). Consequently there is no 'refuge' (to utlise a Buddhist term) from natural existence; we are marooned in the world of the senses.

If there is no source or ground for serenity, detachment can only be a kind of emotional indifference, which is almost like a form of callousness, or the patient resignation of Sisyphus. Consider the example of Schopenhauer, who is often referred to as the typical pessimist philosopher:

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

The point is, I don't believe that Schopenhauer, despite having recognized this important truth, ever realised the stage of actual cessation - for him it was a remote ideal, personified by the stereotype of saints and sages. In other words, Schopenhauer realised the 'first noble truth' of Buddhism, that of dukkha, but had no experience of the cessation of suffering. That's why he was pessimistic, because he couldn't see any way out, save in terms of a stereotype of saintly asceticism which presumably was quite unrealistic in practical terms. We can't really blame Schopenhauer, as obviously his access to the actual teachings of Buddhism was almost non-existent - it's amazing that he got as far as he did. But I don't think he grasped the reality of the 'end of suffering'. (For a good essay on Schopenhauer and Buddhism, see this PDF.)

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

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

Thanks Wayfarer.

But as I understand, what is ceased is the "suffering as a mental attitude" or how one feel's about the causes of suffering. The causes of suffering such as bodily pains, work/stress, and boredom still occur to the buddha every now and then, but his attitude towards these does not bother him much (equanimity). He understands that these causes of suffering is a fact of life to all people and is very much compassionate especially to those who have not yet realized buddhahood. For the living, suffering is inevitable and can only be overcome.

[EDIT] I have the following questions if you wouldn't mind answering:

1. If I'm reading Schopenhauer1's responses right, pessimism asks the question: "What is the value to this suffering?" or "Why do we need to be subjected to suffering in the first place?". The context of the "why" here is not that of 'what is the origin of suffering' but more of 'what is the purpose served by suffering in human life'. Does Stoicism or Buddhism provide a narrative to these?

2. For the yet-to-live, do you know the traditional Buddhist or Stoic stand on anti-natalism in terms of the prevention of future suffering? 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?

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

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.

If there is no source or ground for serenity, detachment can only be a kind of emotional indifference, — Wayfarer

I have yet to read the pdf in the link but would you mind elaborating on this "source or ground for serenity"?

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.

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

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?

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

I think a Buddhist, or a Stoic, might answer that whatever we currently imagine, is only a partial truth; we are, said one teacher, 'always the philosophers of our level of adaption'.

As regards your first question, I think the philosophical answer to that, is that you are speaking from a perspective where your sense of normality, what you consider to be normal or real, is the standard. But I think any real philosophy aims to cause one to question that sense of normality. That is why, to be honest, to really embark on the path of philosophical self-enquiry requires something like an existential crisis, which must necessarily up-end what we take for granted or think is real. (In Zen that is called 'the great doubt'.)

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

What do you think might be the rationale behind religious celibacy? That might have something to do with it!

That is our lives. — Schopenhauer1"

Saith Sisyphus.

Thanks for the responses. I was expecting a straighforward answer but I think you want me to do my homework. ;)

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

Nope. I don't believe Buddha achieved some ego-death/Nirvana. I don't believe any Sage achieved some eternal equanimity. Pain sucks for everyone. The pressures of cultro-survival sucks for everyone. The instrumentality of our restless nature goes on for everyone. I do think that some psychological techniques (cognitive-behavioral therapy for example) might work for some people for limited applications. That's making do. Everyone thinks themselves a warrior- of mysticism, of physicality, etc. The warrior-monk will go in there and tear some stuff up with their asceticism. The warrior-athlete will tear stuff up with their physical prowess. No matter what, instrumentality is the law, unwanted pain exists, and we all deal with our culturo-survival demands.