I was editing my earlier response but found the number of edits too much so I just decided to place it here as a separate post:

----

To be specific, I can't connect your response above on philosophy-limited-by-experience with the 'source or ground for serenity' you mentioned before. So I guess you're saying that you have an answer but I won't be able to appreciate/understand in its entirety because we have different experiences/nature? But would you mind sharing it nonetheless?

----

With regards to procreation, I'm getting that celibacy is an option and Stoicism and Buddhism has no one-answer-fits-all solution. But if this is the case, what is the rationale behind allowing other practitioners to procreate knowing full well of the inevitability of suffering?

I have a feeling that it relates to the philosophy-limited-by-experience you mentioned earlier. If the practitioners don't understand the rationale, it basically boils down to a sort of dictatorship. The decision must come from within and not from without.

Am I following your line of thought? Would you mind sharing your current personal stand on procreation?

----

I have also edited one comment above and am highlighting it here for your easy reference:

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/cause of suffering' but more of 'what is the purpose served by suffering in human life'. Does Stoicism or Buddhism provide a narrative to answer these? — OglopTo

I guess you're saying that you have an answer but I won't be able to appreciate/understand in its entirety because we have different experiences/nature? But would you mind sharing it nonetheless? — Oglopto

Consider the paradigmatic relationship between the sage and the aspiring philosopher, in many traditional schools. It is that the sage/teacher sees or knows something that the aspirant doesn't. So a lot of what is narrated in Zen, in particular, are the sudden shifts of perspective which are referred to as kensho or satori - insight into the way things are. I'm sure there are parallels in the Stoic literature although I'm not familiar with it.

So going back to your statement: 'a feeling of acceptance of the suffering in life and a feeling of compassion to others who are also suffering' - I said that this is certainly part of it, but I think there is something more. But what that 'something more' is, might be a very hard thing to grasp: something that the sages know, that us ordinary people do not. Which is why, presumably, we go along and sit outside the porch (stoa) and listen to their discourses!

And that might cause a shift in our understanding, such that our previous assumptions about suffering and its role in life, are quite dramatically transformed.

But that sense of there being a hidden or higher knowledge is alien the current culture - heretical, actually.

what is your current personal stand on procreation? — OglopTo

I have two grown sons. I will acknowledge that I have socially conservative views on marriage and family life (so much so that aforementioned grown sons think I'm a fogey).

But in any case, the answer I gave was in a sense theoretical - the rationale for religious celibacy is the insight into the connection between sexuality, passion, procreation and suffering. So in the ancient religions, celibacy was generally regarded as normative, but then, many of those practitioners were renunciates and the cultural setting was vastly different. Obviously as culture and civilisation changes, attitudes towards such issues have to change also. But I think some appreciation of the original rationale behind the principle helps to understand the traditionalist attitude.

I have two grown sons. I will acknowledge that I have socially conservative views on marriage and family life — Wayfarer

OK. So I guess,, with other considerations aside, you wouldn't mind having another offspring from a philosophical standpoint. Would you mind sharing the rationale behind this inclination?

So going back to your statement: 'a feeling of acceptance of the suffering in life and a feeling of compassion to others who are also suffering' - I said that this is certainly part of it, but I think there is something more. But what that 'something more' is, might be a very hard thing to grasp: something that the sages know, that us ordinary people do not. Which is why, presumably, we go along and sit outside the porch (stoa) and listen to their discourses! — Wayfarer

I see, thanks. Would you claim to have understood this 'something more'? Or at least partly? Share? :)

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/cause of suffering' but more of 'what is the purpose served by suffering in human life'. Does Stoicism or Buddhism provide a narrative to answer these? — OglopTo

Would you mind sharing your thoughts on this?

Not 'something more' in some tantalising way ('hey, what do you have in that box?) Simply 'something more' than the apparent hopelessness of the human situation. Finding out what that is, is the task of philosophy - but it is a task, or an undertaking, and there are no short-cuts or easy answers. However being at least open to the possibility of there being something more, is a pre-requisite, and one which the pessimist is not likely to have.

Usually, it is the opposite of the pessimist position. Most doctrines of "hope" are built on ignoring or apologising for human suffering. They build there fictional realms where suffering either doesn't matter or is resolved-- Stoicism says ignore it, Christians say Jesus resolves it, Buddhists say it doesn't matter, etc.,etc. All approach the question as if there is a resolution to human suffering.

The pessimists know better. They understand sin cannot be paid for, that pain aways hurts, that suffering, if it occurs, cannot be magic'd away. Some pessimists are open to the possibility of something more, in the sense that life is not always suffering, but it's a moment of being other than suffering rather than undoing anything people suffer.

In the respect, the pessimist (rightly, in terms of accurate description of the world) calls out other philosophies for taking the easy way out. "Something more," in the sense of ignoring or (supposedly) undo suffering, is to take a short cut--in the face of the horrors of the world, we turn away and pretend they aren't there. We fail to come to terms with suffering and are unable to posit joy and wonder despite (and with) all those horrors.

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. — Wayfarer

Indeed. For Schopenhauer treats suffering as the constant state of life. Willing (supposedly) always burdens us, to a point where we can never do anything and be content. We are (supposedly) under the constant pressure of life and cannot have contentment at any time.

The absence of suffering, that moment we are content in ourselves (whether that be sitting in a monastery or playing with our kids), is considered impossible by Schopenhauer-- sometimes a philosophical pessimist's concern for suffering obscures how other things happen in the world.

Not 'something more' in some tantalising way ('hey, what do you have in that box?) Simply 'something more' than the apparent hopelessness of the human situation. Finding out what that is, is the task of philosophy - but it is a task, or an undertaking, and there are no short-cuts or easy answers. — Wayfarer

But that sense of there being a hidden or higher knowledge is alien [in] the current culture - heretical, actually. — Wayfarer

I see. So in the end, I think that we're left to our own devices to make sense out of human life -- sounds really difficult.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts as always. :)

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... No matter what, instrumentality is the law, unwanted pain exists, and we all deal with our culturo-survival demands. — schopenhauer1

I also have this feeling that maybe stories of sages and buddhahood, while they may contain some truth, may also be overly romanticized. Over time, some sort of supra-human ideal 'teacher' has been projected to a person who is probably not too unlike many of us; who time and time again experience pain, stress, and boredom. The difference is that, they have a positive outlook even after realizing this. Maybe history and politics played a role, the unsavory aspects of their being are filtered out and their internal struggles a mystery -- what is palatable gets retained and the remainder gets forgotten.

It's an interesting realization how having a negative outlook doesn't get the same attention as having a positive one. There are no Buddhas or Stoic sages who profess a negative outlook in life who gets the same degree of admiration. Majority of us don't have a clue what this all means and yet pessimism is, most of the time, automatically met with apprehension and pre-judged to be an incorrect way of seeing things. Makes you wonder what kinds of works do pessimists of Buddha's and Jesus' time were then available but is now forever lost in history.

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. — schopenhauer1

I don't agree with how the question is framed here. Stoicism, in philosophical terms, might ignore suffering (act as if it is not serious), but that's not the whole position. It's also a position for preventing suffering-- the Stoic sets aside so much anxiety and suffering about the world which doesn't meet their expectations.

It's really an attempt to prevent-- a call to not suffer in many circumstances-- suffering rather than just a claim of ameliorating suffering. In this respect, it's not different than any other philosophy or hobby we might partake in to have some satisfaction (or even contentment) in our lives.

You disagree with me? Never. I can agree that they attempt attempts to avoid pain. I just don't think it happens to the extent of creating Sages or Buddhahood. In other words they may attempt avoidance but all they get is coping.

I also have this feeling that maybe stories of sages and buddhahood, while they may contain some truth, may also be overly romanticized. Over time, some sort of supra-human ideal 'teacher' has been projected to a person who is probably not too unlike many of us; who time and time again experience pain, stress, and boredom. The difference is that, they have a positive outlook even after realizing this. Maybe history and politics played a role, the unsavory aspects of their being are filtered out and their internal struggles a mystery -- what is palatable gets retained and the remainder gets forgotten. — OglopTo

That is a good analysis of how the "supra-human" ideal teacher remains as the reality is forgotten.

It's an interesting realization how having a negative outlook doesn't get the same attention as having a positive one. There are no Buddhas or Stoic sages who profess a negative outlook in life who gets the same degree of admiration. Majority of us don't have a clue what this all means and yet pessimism is, most of the time, automatically met with apprehension and pre-judged to be an incorrect way of seeing things. Makes you wonder what kinds of works do pessimists of Buddha's and Jesus' time were then available but is now forever lost in history. — OglopTo

I completely agree. Negative outlooks are dismissed. It might be a problem of life in analog and digital. In analog, it is lived out in all its grittiness. However, when asked to formulate a cogent philosophy, Pollyanna outlooks ensue and the past, future, and "meaning" of things gets either a rosy gloss or an escape-hatch regimen (i.e. the warrior-Sage, etc.). I get the ideal of being calm and indifferent in the face of flux and pain. It is just not achievable. The fact that suffering exists in the first place should give us pause.

At this point, I might even question some of the philosophies themselves. The Tao.. the Way.. the flow of the universe.. do not resist.. The Logos.. the natural reason of the universe.. the Buddhist ideas of letting go.. Perhaps even that is being complicit. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. It is romanticizing a mystical stillness behind the suffering that one can tap into. Again, one can cause certain mental states for limited period of time, that is it.

I'm failing to see anything 'philosophical' about your pessimism. I think it's just plain old garden-variety pessimism.

Buddhism sees suffering as distinct from pain. We cannot, as long as we are embodied, avoid pain, but we may choose, by releasing our attachment, not to suffer it. The Stoics too, were onto this idea.

It's not about being sages though; that's the illusion of "coping" with suffering talking-- Sagehood and Buddahood are a falsehood. Supposedly, people are meant to achieve this state where they are impervious to suffering. Never happens. There is no such thing as "coping" with suffering.

Prevention, however, is different. In moments where suffering doesn't exist in the first place, there is no problem. I am arguing Stoicism creates these moments. Not false "coping" with suffering, where we try to tell ourselves our suffering isn't a lie, but an absence of these moments, where some of our worst anxieties over not getting what we want are eliminated.

If someone becomes a Stoic and changes from a person who flies off the handle at every disappointment, to someone who's disappoint passes or never becomes life consuming, states of suffering have been prevented. There's no illusion to on longer feeling constantly upset of anxious about what they world did not give you-- it's a real absence of a suffering.

Your pessimism is still caught under the illusion of "coping." It treats suffering like is something which could be resolved, as if it were a matter of "coping." As a result, you read instances where suffering is prevented as "coping." The Stoic's victory (prevention) over suffering (prevention of anxiety and disappointment) is misread as their philosophical falsehood (that one can "cope" with suffering). Unless, we undo suffering we are supposedly "just coping." That's not how it works. Suffering is never undo. Life hurts a lot of the time. Victory (i.e. prevention) over suffering doesn't change this, it merely gives us some wonderful moments where we are not burned with a suffering.

Your position is not pessimistic enough, for it still treats suffering as something to resolve, and ignorant of prevention, as it treats undoing suffering as the standard for preventing suffering.

Buddhism sees suffering as distinct from pain. We cannot, as long as we are embodied, avoid pain, but we may choose, by releasing our attachment, not to suffer it. The Stoics too, were onto this idea. — John

Yeah, I'm well aware. I just do not think it's really sustainable. Shoot me.

It's neat how folks can talk about how Buddha-hood 'never happens' whilst evincing no knowledge, argument, or insight, beyond kvetching about what a pile of shit existence is. So I guess the moral is, if you get taken in by trolls, then you deserve your fate.

Sustainable by whom? You? Or others?

Prevention, however, is different. In moments where suffering doesn't exist in the first place, there is no problem. I am arguing Stoicism creates these moments. Not false "coping" with suffering, where we try to tell ourselves our suffering isn't a lie, but an absence of these moments, where some of our worst anxieties over not getting what we want are eliminated. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yeeah I don't believe it, unless a serious mental/physical handicap/disability befalls us.

If someone becomes a Stoic and changes from a person who flies off the handle at every disappointment, to someone who's disappoint passes or never becomes life consuming, states of suffering have been prevented. There's no illusion to on longer feeling constantly upset of anxious about what they world did not give you-- it's a real absence of a suffering. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree this can happen some of the time. I don't disagree some cognitive-behavior self-modifications can work. I just don't think suffering ends and not all situations apply. So I guess I am disputing its efficacy and totality of such self-modifications, not that it can never be employed in the first place.

Your pessimism is still caught under the illusion of "coping." It treats suffering like is something which could be resolved, as if it were a matter of "coping." As a result, you read instances where suffering is prevented as "coping." The Stoic's victory (prevention) over suffering (prevention of anxiety and disappointment) is misread as their philosophical falsehood (that one can "cope" with suffering). Unless, we undo suffering we are supposedly "just coping." That's not how it works. Suffering is never undo. Life hurts a lot of the time. Victory (i.e. prevention) of suffering doesn't change this, it merely gives us some wonderful moments where we are not burned with a suffering.

Your position is not pessimistic enough, for it still treats suffering as something to resolve, and ignorant of prevention, as it treats undoing suffering as the standard for preventing suffering. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not really, because I do not think we can prevent suffering once alive. Again, I am challenging the efficacy but not that it cannot work in any circumstance or for some people. We are not a Jedis andwe cannot see through the matrix.. We are just poor schlubs caught in life's instrumental moving forward.

Sustainable by whom? You? Or others? — John

All, baby!

I'm talking in the sense of existing without suffering. In the sense of eliminating certain instances of suffering, it can work perfectly well. "Sagehood" as read by Schopenhauer misreads the nature of suffering and its prevention. Supposedly, all suffering must be eliminated to reach Nirvāṇa. Although not in the spirit of Buddhism (in practice, it really suggests: "Suffering is not something you should endure extra suffering for. That's just dumb. Eliminate it), the reading is consistent a literal reading of some of the texts.

In this respect, Buddhism presents a fiction of "hope" as a stepping stone to eliminating particular instances of suffering. We might not ever become above all our suffering, but the idea (however brief) is sometimes someone breaking out of a nihilistic funk.

The philosophical pessimist isn't intersted in such fictions. They want to look at the horrors of the world, describe them and take us forward in that knowledge-- to recognise suffering an act appropriately towards it.

No-one said it was or had to be total. That was your supposition. You're the one who says any prevention of suffering must be total to be effective. How we ever to make progress in such an environment? If you are saying all prevention of suffering is actually worthless because its not total, then how is there a distinction between preventing suffering and causing it?

Neither is better than another becasue neither reaches the goal of eliminating all suffering. Even anti-natalism becomes no better than having children because it can't eliminate all suffering-- it remains true that all those people suffered be for their death.

Supposedly, we can't, in your words, prevent suffering once alive. If total absence of suffering is the standard, this inability extends to the death of all life too.

You are saying prevention of suffering cannot work-- you outright said it: "because I do not think we can prevent suffering once alive." Every instance of prevention, under your argument, is a failure because it doesn't totally eliminate suffering.

How is it that you feel qualified to speak for "all"?

To everyone here: let's face the facts: there's two aspects of human existence: suffering and fun. If you're having a lot of fun, you usually don't care too much about suffering. And if you're suffering, you usually don't care too much for fun.

The point about pessimism is that suffering comes naturally. We don't control our bodies, we don't control our environment, we don't control our desires as much as we wish we did. The prevention of pain by the satisfaction of concerns is the primary purpose of human existence. Whereas fun requires effort and does not come naturally. Suffering is a structural aspect of life, fun is an accidental aspect of life.

How is it that you feel qualified to speak for "all"? — John

Being completely detached from suffering? Yep.

How we ever to make progress in such an environment? — TheWillowOfDarkness

There is no making progress. As I said earlier:

At this point, I might even question some of the philosophies themselves. The Tao.. the Way.. the flow of the universe.. do not resist.. The Logos.. the natural reason of the universe.. the Buddhist ideas of letting go.. Perhaps even that is being complicit. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. It is romanticizing a mystical stillness behind the suffering that one can tap into. Again, one can cause certain mental states for limited period of time, that is it. — schopenhauer1

To everyone here: let's face the facts: there's two aspects of human existence: suffering and fun. If you're having a lot of fun, you usually don't care too much about suffering. And if you're suffering, you usually don't care too much for fun. — darthbarracuda

There is of course the third option of whatever lies inbetween. So it is quite wrong to construct a philosophy around a forced binary view when the reality is that most of existence is meant to be lived as a balance between two bounding extremes.

Your approach is flawed at its root.

The point about pessimism is that suffering comes naturally. We don't control our bodies, we don't control our environment, we don't control our desires as much as we wish we did. The prevention of pain by the satisfaction of concerns is the primary purpose of human existence. Whereas fun requires effort and does not come naturally. Suffering is a structural aspect of life, fun is an accidental aspect of life. — darthbarracuda

There is some truth in this, but look at how you keep needing to mention the "we" who fail to be in control. You take it for granted there is the "self" who is at the helpless centre of things, when psychology tells us such individuated being is a social construct. Animals just don't have the same ideas about life and so don't bewail the limits and efforts of being "a self" in the way you claim is so natural.

So what would be natural - in the biological sense - would be a condition of equanimity and flow. The uncertain world would be well-predicted enough for life to run smoothly on an even keel. That would be the target animals by their neurological design would be shooting for. A homeostatic balance.

But humans construct their own psychological world. And in modern life, we paradoxically have both far more, and far less, control over that construction. Modern life has a way of sorting us more sharply into winners and losers. It creates the ladders to status, success, reward, etc. But in sharpening the definition of the way to live in this fashion, by promising the greatest intensity of fun awaits at the end of the climb, it also sharpens its opposite, the consequences of failing on the climb, or even attempting to avoid being part of the social race to society's chosen destinations.

So the point of that is that we are social creatures, but are we now creatures still targeting a natural state of equanimity? And if not, why not?

Pessimism is thus just a symptom - the flipside of optimism. And both are essentially equally meaningless in a naturalistic context. Or at least, they should rightfully be passing psychological states if the long-term state of adaptedness ought to be one zeroed on smooth stoic equanimity.

If pessimism or optimism becomes a fixed state of mind, that tells of a mind that is no longer really thinking (and finding the path that points back to an even state of balance).

Firstly, it is being competely detached from pain which is at issue here.

Drugs such as opiates and nitrous oxide show this to be possible.

In any case, I doubt you would be prepared to claim that it is not possible to be more or less detached from pain.

Pain, emotional or physical, is greatly amplified by certain kinds of 'attached' thinking into, at worst, a feeling of being hopelessly ,and, what is perhaps even worse, pointlessly, trapped. This is true suffering, no doubt, but it is really nothing more than a state of mind, that would be quickly dispelled by a shot of heroin or a dose of MDMA, and may be just as effectively and far more permanently sidestepped by discipline.

discipline — John

I see. The warrior again.

There is of course the third option of whatever lies inbetween. So it is quite wrong to construct a philosophy around a forced binary view when the reality is that most of existence is meant to be lived as a balance between two bounding extremes.

Your approach is flawed at its root. — apokrisis

If it's flawed, then what is this third option (other than unconsciousness, whether that be by sleep, or by unintentional/intentional death?)

Pessimism is thus just a symptom - the flipside of optimism. And both are essentially equally meaningless in a naturalistic context. Or at least, they should rightfully be passing psychological states if the long-term state of adaptedness ought to be one zeroed on smooth stoic equanimity.

If pessimism or optimism becomes a fixed state of mind, that tells of a mind that is no longer really thinking (and finding the path that points back to an even state of balance). — apokrisis

Again, there's a difference between psychological and philosophical pessimism.

Stoic equanimity works well in the classroom and the textbook. Out in the real world, not so much. The fact that we have to limit (balance) ourselves means there is a problem that must be resolved. The fact that we even have to have a debate over this means that there is something wrong - and if it's the psychology of the pessimists, then we merely have to realize that the pessimist is merely a manifestation of the world. We would come to realize that the universe is capable to inflicting harmful delusions upon its manifestations - if the pessimist, in all his horrifying existential theories, is actually wrong, then why is the pessimist even able to have these horrifying existential theories to begin with? Essentially, pessimism is an argument for pessimism.

Equanimity is artificial, contrived. It's forced into existence and held into existence by the sheer will of the psyche - I will be virtuous, I will not descend into panic, I will kick all my miseries under the rug and pretend everything is fine and ignore everyone else's tragedy, etc.

There is some truth in this, but look at how you keep needing to mention the "we" who fail to be in control. You take it for granted there is the "self" who is at the helpless centre of things, when psychology tells us such individuated being is a social construct. Animals just don't have the same ideas about life and so don't bewail the limits and efforts of being "a self" in the way you claim is so natural. — apokrisis

How do you know what ideas animals have? From a harm-based perspective, we ought to assume that behaviorally-similar organisms possess similar psychological facilities.

Furthermore, the "self" being a social construct doesn't change the fact that it's keenly present in our everyday experiences.

Yep, the path of the addict or the path of the warrior. Scintillating discussion, Schop!

This entire discussion reminds of the hydrostatic equilibrium of a star - expanding and contracting over and over again until running out of fuel or exploding in a supernova.

Stoic equanimity works well in the classroom and the textbook. Out in the real world, not so much. The fact that we have to limit (balance) ourselves means there is a problem that must be resolved. — darthbarracuda

Again, this simply repeats your metaphysical presumptions - the very thing I question.

Your foundational view of reality is that existence must be based on some solid ground of some kind - something that is the opposite of the dynamism or contingency we see in the world itself.

But I take the other view where the foundation of existence is instead dynamical freedom - Hericlitean flux. All is chaos until it is stabilised. And so balance - a state of dynamical equilibrium - is how the stability of things arises.

These are diametrically opposed ontologies. So where you would expect something to be the monistic solid foundation for existence - like pain or suffering - I would instead expect a dynamical balance to be that "solid foundation" for what persists. I take chaotic flux to be the unbounded "ground", and stable balance to be the emergent basis of "a world".

So given that dynamical ontology, it is not a problem that we would seek balance. The only problem is that in the "real world" - that is life as rich westerners live it in the 2010s - might be a radically out-of-equilbrium biological lifestyle.

So the point of philosophy is to be able to put a finger on what is actually wrong (if it is indeed wrong) in terms of a common culture. And not to conflate some bad social design with a metaphysical verity about the foundational condition of existence.

Equanimity is artificial, contrived. It's forced into existence and held into existence by the sheer will of the psyche - I will be virtuous, I will not descend into panic, I will kick all my miseries under the rug and pretend everything is fine and ignore everyone else's tragedy, etc.

That's just rubbish. I've already said that panglossian optimism is just as fake as your universalised pessimism.

Equanimity is a natural goal because the balancing of dynamics is the only real way for existence to achieve stability and solidity of any kind.

So your response here - to protest against being expected to contribute to your own balancing by claiming cosmic helplessness - is childish. Except even children don't believe they are actually helpless.

How do you know what ideas animals have? From a harm-based perspective, we ought to assume that behaviorally-similar organisms possess similar psychological facilities. — darthbarracuda

As usual, one doesn't claim to "know things" in some sceptic-proof absolute way. One simply has made the pragmatic effort to minimise one's uncertainty about a claim. So yes, comparative psychology, and even the neuropsychology of pain responses, is something that has been closely studied.