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
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
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
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
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
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
And given these studies we can come to realize that animals are much closer to us behaviorally than we might have expected.
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
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
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
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
To everyone here: let's face the facts: there's two aspects of human existence: suffering and fun. — darthbarracuda
But then you say you want to distinguish between the mental state and the worldly causes? I don't really get that. — apokrisis
My naturalistic answer - from a biological understanding - is that suffering, like pleasure, is a sign of something for us. It is useful information. — apokrisis
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
From a Buddhist perspective, maybe this signifies that there's something transcendental about the human condition? — OglopTo
That is not a philosophy so much as fatalism. — Wayfarer
That is worded strangely. — Wayfarer
The Buddhist view is that the whole point of their practice is indeed 'the cessation of suffering'. — Wayfarer
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
Is there possibly some aspects of Buddhism about the cessation of suffering in the wider context of space and time and for all humanity? — "
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
You have less reason than anyone to go out and use that advantage to really achieve as an individual. — apokrisis
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
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
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
Do you think chimps and dolphins feel pessimism? Is that an abstraction that might rule their waking lives? — apokrisis
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
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
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 think darthbarracuda was trying to explain that the FACT that suffering EXISTS to be figured out is a tragedy in itself. — schopenhauer1
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
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 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
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
You're defining life as a negative thing "it's suffering", and then asking, "why subject other beings to this terrible thing?"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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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. — schopenhauer1
We have plenty of sustainable technology. We lack the social organisation to make the change. — apokrisis
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.