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. — apokrisis

This isn't this kind of debate apo. I'm saying that the structure of life as we know it has components that nevertheless make the organism suffer. I don't need to postulate that suffering is some grand metaphysical scheme to argue that suffering is a necessary component of organic existence.

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. — apokrisis

Except it's not childish, since the balancing act requires the human organism to artificial limit the contents of their consciousness to avoid panic. It's certainly "possible" to achieve a certain stability (although death is the ultimate achievement of stability), it's just that this is quite difficult to do and doesn't come naturally.

Nice ad hominem, I continue to wonder why those opposed to pessimism get all bent out of shape if pessimism really is as silly as they claim.

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. — apokrisis

And given these studies we can come to realize that animals are much closer to us behaviorally than we might have expected.

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. — apokrisis

I like this and I agree as applied to one's worldview: once faced with the question of existence, one opt to adapt a worldview in the end if one decides to continue living in the face of uncertainty.

But what I'm currently thinking is that it is possible to have achieved equanimity, in the sense of having accepted the human condition for what it is and not too bothered by the trivialities of life, but still have the following outlooks:

(1) an optimistic outlook where one thinks that there is probably some meaning behind the suffering
(2) a pessimistic outlook where one thinks that there is probably no meaning behind the suffering
(3) neither (1) or (2) where the question of meaning behind the suffering may not be binary in nature, much like the non-binary logic behind some Buddhist stands on metaphysical questions but I haven't explored this much yet

In relation to this thread, I'm seeing Buddhism as falling under (1) and Pessimism under (2). I'm not sure though where to place Stoicism because as I infer from this thread, Stoicism doesn't even ask the question of meaning behind the suffering in the first place.

In relation to this thread, I'm seeing Buddhism as falling under (1) and Pessimism under (2). I'm not sure though where to place Stoicism because as I infer from this thread, Stoicism doesn't even ask the question of meaning behind the suffering in the first place. — OglopTo

Wouldn't Buddhism generally be a form of equilbrium thinking in being a practice of ceasing to care in terms of a personal reaction and instead taking on a cosmic indifference. Stoicism would be similar.

So where I would criticise that is we shouldn't want to simply "rise above" the world in some transcendentally dispassionate fashion. Instead we should aim instead to equilbrate our feelings with the world through our actions. So we should stay part of life, and then work to negotiate towards outcomes that feel balanced - in terms of us and our cultures, us and our ecosystems. The final one of us and our cosmos is probably too disconnected to really worry about balancing in practice.

Can we care about that which we can not affect? It would only be if we were making a social decision - such as to whether to seed the universe with our idea of life (the good life!) in some fashion. Like launch a billion nano-bots to the distant stars in panspermic fashion. :)

Nice ad hominem, I continue to wonder why those opposed to pessimism get all bent out of shape if pessimism really is as silly as they claim. — darthbarracuda

Being silly is a silly thing. So that would be the reason for being opposed.

But yes, personally I find the constant harping of the pessimist on these kinds of boards very annoying. Such whining is only possible from a point of material privilege.

It is quite true that the materially privileged are precisely those who will find themselves born in a world of high social expectations. The cultural message is look at everything you have got. You have less reason than anyone to go out and use that advantage to really achieve as an individual.

So to be born advantaged is also to feel caught in a particular kind of trap. And it may be apparent that the social game being played is in fact quite phony (Holden, where are you?). Existence has no intrinsic meaning, yada yada.

But from there, adopting a position of cosmic helplessness is bad analysis. If the game is wrong in your opinion, get involved in changing it. And be prepared that the thing that needs to change most is yourself - because the issues aren't cosmic at all, merely local and social.

And given these studies we can come to realize that animals are much closer to us behaviorally than we might have expected.

That's bollox. In some aspects - which can be defined - we are just scaled-up apes. In others, we are radically altered by the individuating power of language and cultural evolution.

Do you think chimps and dolphins feel pessimism? Is that an abstraction that might rule their waking lives?

Wouldn't Buddhism generally be a form of equilbrium thinking in being a practice of ceasing to care in terms of a personal reaction and instead taking on a cosmic indifference. Stoicism would be similar. — apokrisis

While both Stoicism and Buddhism seems to advocate for some sort of equanimity, there is something more in Buddhism. It tries to explore the nature of suffering (Four Noble Truths) and builds from this to propose a generally positive worldview despite this suffering. In contrast, Stoicism does not touch the question of why there is suffering (why as in cause of and meaning behind suffering), and simply views this as something to be overcome or dealt with. In Stoicism, virtues are to be pursued for the simple reason that it is inherently good in itself; it lacks a narrative of purpose -- why should one ought to pursue virtues?

So where I would criticise that is we shouldn't want to simply "rise above" the world in some transcendentally dispassionate fashion. Instead we should aim instead to equilbrate our feelings with the world through our actions. So we should stay part of life, and then work to negotiate towards outcomes that feel balanced - in terms of us and our cultures, us and our ecosystems. — apokrisis

These are nice to hear but these are all "ought" statements. Promoting equanimity is one thing, advocating for something more is another. While it may be difficult (or even possible) to connect "is" to "ought" statements, people wouldn't be convinced by simply telling them what one ought to do. At the very least, some sort of purpose or value must be provided to justify this undertaking.

---------

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, sure we can devise ways to achieve equanimity despite the suffering. But this does not answer the question: "what is the purpose behind the inevitability of suffering?".

Pessimism says there's probably no meaning behind this suffering.
Buddhism says there's probably something more behind this suffering.
Stoicism doesn't touch on this issue.

If it helps, I'd like to distinguish that suffering in this context is not the 'mental state of suffering' but instead refers to the 'causes of the mental state of suffering' like bodily pain, work-related stress, feelings of meaninglessness, angst, dread, existential boredom, etc. The mental state can be altered but the causes remain regardless of one's philosophy.

I'm getting a feeling that there is a confusion/conflation of the two in the discussions.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, sure we can devise ways to achieve equanimity despite the suffering. But this does not answer the question: "what is the purpose behind the inevitability of suffering?".

Pessimism says there's probably no meaning behind this suffering.
Buddhism says there's probably something more behind this suffering.
Stoicism doesn't touch on this issue.

If it helps, I'd like to distinguish that suffering in this context is not the 'mental state of suffering' but instead refers to the 'causes of the mental state of suffering' like bodily pain, work-related stress, feelings of meaninglessness, angst, dread, existential boredom, etc. The mental state can be altered but the causes remain regardless of one's philosophy. — OglopTo

OK, you are asking good questions. My naturalistic answer - from a biological understanding - is that suffering, like pleasure, is a sign of something for us. It is useful information.

So there is no cosmic meaning in the sense it matters (to any deity, any transcendent principle). But it is a necessary aspect of biological being because if you don't react with feeling to the world, you don't have any reason to do things that might change those feelings. And we evolved those feelings because they lead us to do the right kinds of things in terms of biological success.

But then you say you want to distinguish between the mental state and the worldly causes? I don't really get that.

My argument is that the feelings are evaluations of a worldly state - how we feel about social and environmental situations. So to change the state of feeling we would try to do something in terms of what we understand about their causes.

Therefore your comment - "we can devise ways to achieve equanimity despite the suffering" - seems wrongly focused in trying to ignore what we can't control, rather than instead seeking to adjust in ways our feelings are meant to indicate that change is needed.

Now this is easy with simple hurts. If I step on a sharp rock, I jump quickly off it. But it is then true for humans - having socially constructed powers of understanding - can remember all hurts long after they have physically ceased, and can imagine all hurts long before they ever might happen. So that level of knowledge may indeed be a burden, creating pain or anxiety where there is no immediate cause.

So humans have the capacity to magnify their capacity for suffering by making the contemplation of everything that could be bad or wrong a constant mental habit. That's quite obvious.

But also, isn't the obvious counter to work on that as Buddhism suggests - meditative practices to be in the moment. Or as modern positive psychology suggest, the antidote to pessimistic angst is to realise just how of a habit it really is, and how a different habit of mind might have to be learnt.

What I react to in pessimism as philosophy is that it is usually just a crap intellectual justification for a certain habit of mind. I can understand why such a pattern of thought would arise so strongly in modern culture. But it is also a self-damaging one that shouldn't be encouraged by retrospective rationalisation. Philosophy shouldn't be used to prove the way you are is the way you ought to be because that is the way reality really is. Philosophy should be a tool that might get you out of such a hole rather than a tool to dig it even deeper.

Wouldn't Buddhism generally be a form of equilbrium thinking in being a practice of ceasing to care in terms of a personal reaction and instead taking on a cosmic indifference? — Apokriris

No, it's not that. That is how it was understood by European scholars who discovered the texts in the 19th Century; Nietzsche characterised it as 'the sigh of an exhausted cvilization' (although he nevertheless professed some admiration for it.)

But that doesn't encompass the sense of compassion which is found in Buddhism. Granted, it's a hard thing to tap into, but once it is tapped into, it is real.

The bottom line with any of the higher spiritual teachings, is that what the aspirant finds through them, is better than sex, money, fame, wealth, or any of the other seeming goods that most people spend their lives pursuing. So that is not simply indifference for its own sake, but putting aside something lesser for something greater.

To everyone here: let's face the facts: there's two aspects of human existence: suffering and fun. — darthbarracuda

Such thinking is based totally on hedonism, i.e. 'pleasure=good, pain=bad'.

But then you say you want to distinguish between the mental state and the worldly causes? I don't really get that. — apokrisis

The basic difference is that you can do something about the suffering-as-a-mental-state but you have limited to no control over its causes. For example, we can't have a life that is ever free of diseases, death, stress-inducing events, etc. but we can somehow control how we react to these situations.

I think it's important to make the distinction because we are trying to explore what is the meaning/purpose why humans are subjected to such causes-of-suffering.

My naturalistic answer - from a biological understanding - is that suffering, like pleasure, is a sign of something for us. It is useful information. — apokrisis

Nice, suffering-as-a-signal is a useful framework to work with. But what does it signify? Maybe this is where one of the points where the differences in philosophy lie. We can see it from a short-term and from a long-term perspective:

(1) From a day-to-day perspective, it makes sense to deal with daily suffering if one decides to continue living. If a part of your body aches, it's a signal that maybe something's wrong and you can opt to get some medication. If you're stressed at work, maybe it's a signal that you are overworked and you can opt to get some rest. If you feel empty and feel a sense of meaninglessness, you can opt to subscribe to religion/philosophy/etc.

It does not make sense to dwell on these on a prolonged basis even for philosophical pessimists. I imagine that they too can develop a sense of equanimity and manage to move on with daily life.

(2) On the other hand, from a long-term perspective, in a span of a lifetime or even the span of human existence since antiquity, what does the presence of the causes-of-suffering in human life signify? Taking a suffering-as-a-signal framework at this level, from a pessimist's perspective, maybe this signifies that there's something wrong about the human condition? From a Buddhist perspective, maybe this signifies that there's something transcendental about the human condition?

I think that it is the pessimist's stand that try as we might, we can't change the fabric of human condition, that is, the causes of suffering will never cease to exist. We can't do anything to decouple the causes of suffering from human existence and pessimists claim that this condition is undesirable. While we can't change the nature of existence, pessimism proposes that we can at least ensure that no additional people will have to suffer needlessly in the future (not procreating).

Would you still claim that at this long-term perspective, suffering is a signal for us as a species to try to change something? And what change ought to be done and why?

----

So my point is, maybe the framework that suffering-as-a-signal is a useful framework.

On a daily/practical perspective, it may signal that we might need to do something with the causes of suffering on a daily basis if we decide to continue living. Pessimists do not necessarily relish on these moments of suffering and can also develop a sense of equanimity in dealing with these.

On the larger/metaphysical perspective, maybe the presence of causes-of-suffering and the fact that we are forced to experience them, is also a signal that there's something transcendental/wrong about the very nature of human life itself.

One can say that life is just the way it is and be content with that, but as humans, I personally think that it is a fundamental issue to evaluate the value of one's existence or human existence as a whole.

I think that it is the pessimist's stand that try as we might, we can't change the fabric of human condition, that is, the causes of suffering will never cease to exist. . — OglopTo

That is not a philosophy so much as fatalism. Nietszche foresaw that the 'death of God' and the abandonment of Christian ethics would usher in an age of nihilism, and I think a lot of people are nihilist without knowing it. It isn't necessarily dramatic - it can be simple as a shrug and a 'whatever'.

From a Buddhist perspective, maybe this signifies that there's something transcendental about the human condition? — OglopTo

That is worded strangely. The Buddhist view is that the whole point of their practice is indeed 'the cessation of suffering'. As you have noticed already, this has been rubbished as fantasy by several participants, but obviously Buddhists see it differently.

With respect to 'transcendent' - that might be taken to mean 'beyond ordinary explanation'. For instance, the meaning of a drama transcends the specific performance in which it is depicted. In the context of philosophy and religion, the 'transcenden' is typically taken to mean what is 'beyond worldly understanding.' Of course, it is that meaning of 'transcendent' which has generally been rejected by modern philosophy, save for those philosophers with a religious bent. But I think, as a consequence, that as a culture we've completely forgotten how to even think about the transcendent. That is why very intelligent and literate contributors here can only depict it in terms of 'fantasy' or 'indifference' or whatever. There is nothing in our lexicon in terms of which it can be depicted. That is part of what I see as the crisis of modernity.

In any case, there are many schools of philosophy concerned with the transcendent - even the stoics. But all of them will depict the earthly life as only one aspect of the totality. In Christianity this is depicted in terms of 'heaven', but again I think this is nowadays understood mainly in terms of greeting cards. The question is, whether such symbolism has any basis in reality. If the drama of the human life is set against the enactment of a cosmic drama, or the fulfilment of a greater purpose, then the sufferings individuals go through might have a different meaning. I think the crisis of meaninglessness in the modern world is that we all go through the drama and angst of existence, for no real meaning. That is what 'the pessimists' seem to be saying, anyway.

That is not a philosophy so much as fatalism. — Wayfarer

I may have been too dramatic there. :)

But what I simply mean is that life will always have the causes-of-suffering but this doesn't mean that one's attitudes toward it can't be changed.

That is worded strangely. — Wayfarer

Now that you mention it... Hmm...

The Buddhist view is that the whole point of their practice is indeed 'the cessation of suffering'. — Wayfarer

All this time, I only had the impression of cessation of personal/local suffering in Buddhism, that is suffering in the here and now and within one's 'immediate' vicinity. Is there possibly some aspects of Buddhism about the cessation of suffering in the wider context of space and time and for all humanity?

The question sounds weird though. I'm just thinking out loud since we are already talking about transcendental phenomena...

I think the crisis of meaninglessness in the modern world is that we all go through the drama and angst of existence, for no real meaning. That is what 'the pessimists' seem to be saying, anyway. — Wayfarer

True. It's difficult to have pessimistic inclinations...

Is there possibly some aspects of Buddhism about the cessation of suffering in the wider context of space and time and for all humanity? — "

The stated aim of Mahayana Buddhism is 'the enightenment of all sentient beings'. It differs from the older forms of Buddhism which were concerned with the attainment of enlightenment by the individual practitioner.

But yes, personally I find the constant harping of the pessimist on these kinds of boards very annoying. Such whining is only possible from a point of material privilege. — apokrisis

I see, philosophizing about pragmatic logic of metaphysics and ethics isn't though...That takes true poverty.

You have less reason than anyone to go out and use that advantage to really achieve as an individual. — apokrisis

This is hollow, as "what it means to achieve" is cultural and also determined by the very culture (possibly of privilege) one belongs to. That is a loaded word filled with biased group/individual opinions on what achievement is or should be. I stated earlier that I don't like to be complicit with the inherent suffering by accepting it. But I know that is the one and only way to "achieve" equanimity (take that with sarcasm).. You know, the way of the warrior-Sage who "prevents" suffering with his awesome mind? Yeah that guy.. Free togas, Buddhist robes, and stern/earnest faces come with package too.

Therefore your comment - "we can devise ways to achieve equanimity despite the suffering" - seems wrongly focused in trying to ignore what we can't control, rather than instead seeking to adjust in ways our feelings are meant to indicate that change is needed. — apokrisis

I think darthbarracuda was trying to explain that the FACT that suffering EXISTS to be figured out is a tragedy in itself. One that is deserving of bitching about and not just pragmatic drill sergeanting "pick-yourself-by-the-bootstrap-you-yella-bellied-SOB" reactions.

Philosophy shouldn't be used to prove the way you are is the way you ought to be because that is the way reality really is. Philosophy should be a tool that might get you out of such a hole rather than a tool to dig it even deeper. — apokrisis

I don't see it necessarily as either. Also, who is to say that this cannot be applied to yourself or anyone doing philosophy at a particular moment in time? Rarely are people touting points of views they don't agree with except when asked to entertain the notion for academic reasons, or purely to be devil's advocate. Sometimes they do it to shake out their own philosophy and see if they can find flaws in it, but many ambiguous arguments can be justified in some manner or other, so even this won't necessarily change anyone's mind.


You're just preaching to the choir. NO ONE except me on these forums is going to say it is ok to bitch at suffering. And NO ONE (including me) is going to say that you should not try to get at the root cause of a particular problem if it is continuing to be harmful. As OglopTop was indicating, it is that suffering is there to begin with. This says something about the conditions of life. ALSO, the instrumentality of life is very much a part of this understanding. As I've stated before, I use the word instrumentality because that captures the idea that there is some sort of emptiness/incompleteness at the end of all endeavors. We are doing to do to do to do.

But from there, adopting a position of cosmic helplessness is bad analysis. If the game is wrong in your opinion, get involved in changing it. And be prepared that the thing that needs to change most is yourself - because the issues aren't cosmic at all, merely local and social. — apokrisis

Why are you assuming I'm not active? I'm extremely active. I care about suffering, and I do things to care for those who are suffering as a result. I don't know about the other pessimists here, and that's actually one major point that I diverge from the "classical" pessimists on: if you care about suffering, you won't retreat from it, you'll do something about it.

Once again.......I'm not specifically arguing a "cosmic" metaphysical principle here. The local and social issues of Life are what are problematic. So Schopenhauer and co. are likely incorrect with their metaphysics, as they try to apply a localized phenomenon to the rest of reality, when the rest of reality should be used to explain the localized phenomenon (holism). However, that does not change the fact that they were damn accurate on their analysis of the human condition - the localized phenomenon.

If you want a tentative metaphysical principle, then I'd offer mine to be that the universe evolves surrounding constraints that emerge from Scarcity and the subsequent Fatigue (or Entropy). And, as Zapffe pointed out, as we scale "up" in awareness, so do we scale up in Concerns. So the unconscious rock has no Concerns, the lizard has a few Concerns occupying its day-to-day life, and the human being has a surplus of awareness that allows him to hold a surplus of Concerns, notably that of meaning.

According to Zapffe, the utter lack of meaning, means that we have to find ways to deal with this void of Concern. So we isolate, distract, attach, or sublimate ourselves to avoid panic. Suicide, then, is a natural death from spiritual causes.

Do you think chimps and dolphins feel pessimism? Is that an abstraction that might rule their waking lives? — apokrisis

No, but I think they can suffer, and that's what matters.

Such thinking is based totally on hedonism, i.e. 'pleasure=good, pain=bad'. — Wayfarer

I accept this.

Well, what would a stoic make of that? Isn't the whole point of stoic apathea to rise above that reflexive understanding?

The bottom line with any of the higher spiritual teachings, is that what the aspirant finds through them, is better than sex, money, fame, wealth, or any of the other seeming goods that most people spend their lives pursuing. So that is not simply indifference for its own sake, but putting aside something lesser for something greater. — Wayfarer

I agree that it is about connecting with something "higher", but then the question becomes whether this is your transcendent spirit or my immanent nature...

The basic difference is that you can do something about the suffering-as-a-mental-state but you have limited to no control over its causes. For example, we can't have a life that is ever free of diseases, death, stress-inducing events, etc. but we can somehow control how we react to these situations. — OglopTo

...and so here is where I question the very idea of wanting to control such things. Life without a struggle, without hardship, may not be life at all.

If the higher principle that would give our lives a meaningful context is immanent nature, then that embodies the principle one would aim to ultimately respect.

The egocentric response I'm am criticising in Pessimism or Nihilism is that it treats the (mythical) self as the ground of being. And I agree that is hard to avoid - in a modern culture which is hellbent on producing that very thing of the self-conscious, egocentric, human individual. But then philosophically, it is that egocentrism which is false.

Now again, there are the two ways to escape such egocentricism. Wayfarer speaks for the value of making a connection to a spiritual level of being. I would speak instead for a realism of nature - an ecological level of personal equilibration. It feels right that if society as a whole were founded on sustainable principles, then everyone would live much more happily as a result.

And yes, having any personal influence on society in this fashion feels like an impossible task. It is a Romantic vision as things stand. Which is why my response is to take the analysis a further step and consider how the current consumerist/neoliberal settings of the world are entirely natural as a response to a cosmic desire to burn off an unnaturally large store of buried fossil fuels.

From this perspective, things really are shit for humans. We have a biopsychology (a biology that includes all our general social organisation settings) that was adapted to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, but it is a biopsychology that is quite poorly adapted to the entropic explosion that is the modern industrial era.

So we can point to a source of suffering which is new and imposed upon us as modern humans. But what is then the proper response - throwing up your hands and whining with learned helplessness, or treating it as a really big speedbump in the human story? We need to find a better adaptive balance - or indeed suffer a mass extinction event around 2050.

So I don't deny something is deeply out of kilter right now. But it is not a cosmic wrong. It is just a question whether we have the resources to make an adaptive shift back to some better biopsychological balance as a species. It is a local spot of bother that one way or another can't last too much longer without some form of drastic self-correction.

On the larger/metaphysical perspective, maybe the presence of causes-of-suffering and the fact that we are forced to experience them, is also a signal that there's something transcendental/wrong about the very nature of human life itself. — OglopTo

I'm arguing the wrongness is immanent and natural, not transcendent and spiritual. But of course, in stressing the biopsychology, the two are not so far apart in terms of life practices, life advice, because both would be talking about what it is to be a mind in the world.

I think darthbarracuda was trying to explain that the FACT that suffering EXISTS to be figured out is a tragedy in itself. — schopenhauer1

Yeah. And it is this egocentric one-noteism that I say is so tedious and overwrought.

To talk about a feeling existing in this fashion simply ignores all metaphysical sophistication about the very question of the nature of "existence".

Does suffering "exist" really? I know my suffering is part of my experience. But to then elevate that to the level of a cosmological fact - a fundamental feature of reality that is solipsistically present, and so supposedly could have been absent - is just a wild exaggeration.

It is hard to take seriously for a minute any argument that begins with such a bum ontological basis.

According to Zapffe, the utter lack of meaning, means that we have to find ways to deal with this void of Concern. So we isolate, distract, attach, or sublimate ourselves to avoid panic. Suicide, then, is a natural death from spiritual causes. — DarthBarracuda

The issue is clearly materialism - having declared the universe devoid of meaning, and only identifying with the material, leads to that state of 'panic' and hopelessness.

I agree that it is about connecting with something "higher", but then the question becomes whether this is your transcendent spirit or my immanent nature... — Apokrisis

The non-difference of samsara and Nirvana, the equality of atman and Brahman, and the meaning of the Christian 'incarnation' are all statements of the 'transcendent yet immanent' nature of the ultimate.

If you want a tentative metaphysical principle, then I'd offer mine to be that the universe evolves surrounding constraints that emerge from Scarcity and the subsequent Fatigue (or Entropy). And, as Zapffe pointed out, as we scale "up" in awareness, so do we scale up in Concerns. So the unconscious rock has no Concerns, the lizard has a few Concerns occupying its day-to-day life, and the human being has a surplus of awareness that allows him to hold a surplus of Concerns, notably that of meaning.

According to Zapffe, the utter lack of meaning, means that we have to find ways to deal with this void of Concern. So we isolate, distract, attach, or sublimate ourselves to avoid panic. Suicide, then, is a natural death from spiritual causes. — darthbarracuda

Sure, I agree in a way about your story of an ever-escalating capacity for "concerns". But that is also baking in the very helplessness that you claim to derive as the conclusion of your argument.

So in my view, the concerns expand in concert with the value that is returned. Pragmatism in a nutshell. Properly organised concern - adaptive concern - is not open-ended in its agonising. Instead it is self-limiting because it builds in its own proper level of indifference. We don't seek control over what we can't control.

This is the big difference. We both agree that reality can't be controlled in a cosmic sense. But the pessimist then fetishises that as an open-ended source of agony. The pragmatist says that is the way things are - and it really doesn't matter. The whole point of widening the scope of concern is to take control of what can be controlled. So focusing on what can be done, rather than what cannot be done, is the psychologically healthy and natural approach.

I agree that it is about connecting with something "higher", but then the question becomes whether this is your transcendent spirit or my immanent nature... — apokrisis

If the higher principle that would give our lives a meaningful context is immanent nature, then that embodies the principle one would aim to ultimately respect. — apokrisis

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

What I'm getting is that for you, the inevitability of causes-of-suffering in collective human existence is a signal that there is something higher than the self. The 'meaning' you give to suffering is that it serves as a motivation to connecting with this higher-than-the-self which is some sort of Nature (big N). I'm sensing a parallel with Taoism, in the sense of living in harmony or in connection with the "natural flow or cosmic structural order of the universe" (Wikipidia).

I'm good with this narrative in the sense that, maybe questions of cosmic meaning will inevitably have to lead to some sort of discussions outside the self and outside the realm of what is empirical and knowable. Of course, the apparent nihilistic perspective still remains a possibility. I think it is perfectly understandable to have an 'egocentric' view of the cosmic meaning of suffering. It can really be all what there is to existence; there can also be something more.

No one knows for sure. But despite this uncertainty, in the end, I think one has to settle for some sort of interpretation to justify all the suffering one experiences.

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? — OglopTo

You're defining life as a negative thing "it's suffering", and then asking, "why subject other beings to this terrible thing?"

You're saying life = suffering...

In Stoicism, virtues are to be pursued for the simple reason that it is inherently good in itself; it lacks a narrative of purpose -- why should one ought to pursue virtues? — OglopTo

By the same vein, though, one could ask, why would one wish to avoid suffering? Aren't you claiming that suffering (or even more generally, life?)is bad in itself?

What I hear is some people saying that life is bad (because it's suffering) so, let's live our lives such that there will be less (or no) life in the future. And that will be good, because the absence of suffering (the absence of life) is good in and of itself.

What I hear is some people saying that life is bad (because it's suffering) so, let's live our lives such that there will be less (or no) life in the future. And that will be good, because the absence of suffering (the absence of life) is good in and of itself. — anonymous66

I have noted earlier that accepting something as inherently bad is different from accepting something as inherently good because answering the question of purpose is critical in the latter but not so much in the former.

Pessimism is claiming that suffering is bad/undesirable because it serves no particular purpose other than for it to be overcome. This relates to the question of cosmic meaning of suffering where the pessimist views that there is no cosmic meaning to the inevitability of suffering in human life. Since it serves no particular local and cosmic significance and inflicts unnecessary pain/discomfort, it is undesirable.

Note that not-procreating is not a 'good' in itself. There is a narrative behind this assertion and that is, it derives its 'goodness' from acknowledging the fact that suffering is bad and must be minimized.

This narrative behind 'why something is good' is claimed to have been lacking in traditional stoic philosophies in that there is no explanation why virtues are good in themselves and why one ought to pursue virtues in the cosmic sense of things.

I see this thread as acknowledging that we are all free agents, and that we are free to choose from among a wide variety of ways to look at the world. There are some who are attempting to sway others from Stoicism towards Philosophical Pessimism.

I will admit that the Stoics taught that virtue is good in and of itself, but it goes hand in hand with the idea that Eudaimonia- excelling as a human being, is good in and of itself. The Stoics taught that the Virtues are necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia. <--- that is the defining feature of Stoicism.

And I hear others saying that they believe that life is bad in and of itself. And that is the defining characteristic of Philosophical Pessimism.

I would speak instead for a realism of nature - an ecological level of personal equilibration. It feels right that if society as a whole were founded on sustainable principles, then everyone would live much more happily as a result.

And yes, having any personal influence on society in this fashion feels like an impossible task. It is a Romantic vision as things stand. Which is why my response is to take the analysis a further step and consider how the current consumerist/neoliberal settings of the world are entirely natural as a response to a cosmic desire to burn off an unnaturally large store of buried fossil fuels.

From this perspective, things really are shit for humans. We have a biopsychology (a biology that includes all our general social organisation settings) that was adapted to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, but it is a biopsychology that is quite poorly adapted to the entropic explosion that is the modern industrial era. — apokrisis

Yeah. And it is this egocentric one-noteism that I say is so tedious and overwrought.

To talk about a feeling existing in this fashion simply ignores all metaphysical sophistication about the very question of the nature of "existence".

Does suffering "exist" really? I know my suffering is part of my experience. But to then elevate that to the level of a cosmological fact - a fundamental feature of reality that is solipsistically present, and so supposedly could have been absent - is just a wild exaggeration.

It is hard to take seriously for a minute any argument that begins with such a bum ontological basis. — apokrisis

I'd say suffering is more "immanent" to the human condition than sustainability. This is not to say that sustainability is not important for a society to exist in perpetuity; I am not denying that keeping our society going without severe depletion of resources/critical survival needs would be a priority of our modern industrial community. What I am saying is that even if we figured out sustainability- using perfectly recycled fuels and slowing the general entropy of our local system, we would still suffer. So, is suffering a part of the human condition? I think so. Unwanted pain, and what I call "instrumentality"- the Will-for-nothing (striving-for-nothing) would still remain.

Also, you seem to assume the trope by intellectual-types that humans need to exist for the X-reason of discovery and novel technology. Why we live for a principle such as discovery is not really explained other than sci-fi aesthetics of sorts where the "discovery" moment provides some sort of species-existential epiphany.

I'm reminded of 2001: A Space Odyssey. One can read many things into that movie. The name of the ship was Discovery.. And David Bowman- the intrepid human, does encounter the "alien" Monolith and whatever created its technology. In this encounter, Bowman experiences the dimensions of time, moving through his life and is transformed into the Space Baby. Perhaps a new dawn for humans, or perhaps just a big farce- a big thing signifying nothing. I think it might be the latter. We are simply instrumental beings striving for nothing.

Sure, I agree in a way about your story of an ever-escalating capacity for "concerns". But that is also baking in the very helplessness that you claim to derive as the conclusion of your argument. — apokrisis

This is the big difference. We both agree that reality can't be controlled in a cosmic sense. But the pessimist then fetishises that as an open-ended source of agony. The pragmatist says that is the way things are - and it really doesn't matter. The whole point of widening the scope of concern is to take control of what can be controlled. So focusing on what can be done, rather than what cannot be done, is the psychologically healthy and natural approach. — apokrisis

Concerns and abilities go hand in hand. We have abilities to satisfy concerns. Most of our concerns can be relatively easily met - food, drink, shelter, community, etc. However, these abilities are not perfect either, and we often screw up. If we look objectively at how much control we have in the cosmic sense, we'll be crushed at how little we actually have - and how easily everything can be taken away from us. We're desperately trying to maintain control over our environment, and somehow we keep fucking up.

We also have a concern that no other animal seems to need: meaning. Zapffe picked up on this, so did Becker, Freud, and the other various existentialists.

Unfortunately, our need for meaning cannot be accommodated by our environment, because our environment is meaningless. So we have to make do with a pseudo-solution, such as heroism, culture, pragmatic Stoicism, religion, politics, self help books, you name it.

The point being made here is that the very fact you have to tell yourself that "it really doesn't matter" means that it actually does matter - it's not obvious, and thus it is a problem that must be fixed. You have constrained your psyche and found a suitable means of escaping the panic of meaninglessness, by pretending that it really doesn't matter. It's a second-rate pseudo-poetic solution: a tragedy.

So the life-long process of limiting the contents of human consciousness (for reassurance and comfort to avoid panic overload) is natural and "healthy"...what does that say about our state of affairs?

The pessimist can be viewed as an explorer into the furthest reaches of the human psyche, the deepest, darkest pits of consciousness, the one that brings to light what everyone else has repressed. The pessimists aren't wrong in their statements...it's just that most people don't like what they have to say.

So the life-long process of limiting the contents of human consciousness (for reassurance and comfort to avoid panic overload) is natural and "healthy"...what does that say about our state of affairs? — darthbarracuda

The problem with the Romantic model of human psychology is that it is pathological rather than scientifically valid. The argument starts and stops with the facts.

Also, you seem to assume the trope by intellectual-types that humans need to exist for the X-reason of discovery and novel technology. — schopenhauer1

This is yet another example of how you project on to my arguments things I've never said.

Now again, there are the two ways to escape such egocentricism. Wayfarer speaks for the value of making a connection to a spiritual level of being. I would speak instead for a realism of nature - an ecological level of personal equilibration. It feels right that if society as a whole were founded on sustainable principles, then everyone would live much more happily as a result.

And yes, having any personal influence on society in this fashion feels like an impossible task. It is a Romantic vision as things stand. Which is why my response is to take the analysis a further step and consider how the current consumerist/neoliberal settings of the world are entirely natural as a response to a cosmic desire to burn off an unnaturally large store of buried fossil fuels.
From this perspective, things really are shit for humans. We have a biopsychology (a biology that includes all our general social organisation settings) that was adapted to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, but it is a biopsychology that is quite poorly adapted to the entropic explosion that is the modern industrial era.

So we can point to a source of suffering which is new and imposed upon us as modern humans. But what is then the proper response - throwing up your hands and whining with learned helplessness, or treating it as a really big speedbump in the human story? We need to find a better adaptive balance - or indeed suffer a mass extinction event around 2050.

So I don't deny something is deeply out of kilter right now. But it is not a cosmic wrong. It is just a question whether we have the resources to make an adaptive shift back to some better biopsychological balance as a species. It is a local spot of bother that one way or another can't last too much longer without some form of drastic self-correction. — apokrisis

I guess I took that to mean better technology to correct the problem.

I guess I took that to mean better technology to correct the problem. — schopenhauer1

We have plenty of sustainable technology. We lack the social organisation to make the change.

We have plenty of sustainable technology. We lack the social organisation to make the change. — apokrisis

I guess social technology might count too, eh? But even if we don't stretch that to fit my criticism, the main point of the criticism still stands without technology- mainly that sustainability may be a priority but suffering (the "Western" unwanted pain kind, and the "Schopenhauerian/Eastern" instrumentality kind) still remains.