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
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 — Wayfarer
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
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
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 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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
How is it that you feel qualified to speak for "all"? — John
How we ever to make progress in such an environment? — TheWillowOfDarkness
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
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 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.