It is troubling for you right now because you haven't gotten it right, yet. Others have and they have been trying to show you the light at the other end of the tunnel. I don't mean to make this too personal but once one 'get's it right' then it is right. Everything is right. All is right. Things are alright. Success shines forth and justifies life. When you are consumed in your passion, it is enough.

There is simply enduring and coping. — schopenhauer1

Nobody wants to endure or cope with a situation, hence the above.

If much of life is about "getting it right", then there is something inherently wrong with it. The minute someone has complaints about life not being fulfilling, the immediate response is to suggest a new hobby, club, group, sport, etc. as if just getting into a routine of non-work activities is the answer to the lack at the heart of things. The assumption here is that to live modern life properly and in balance, one has to "get it right". The fact that we are born to hone in on "getting it right" is troubling. It is also not recognizing that there may not be a "getting it right". There is simply enduring and coping. Again, troubling. — schopenhauer1

You're just restarting your favorite "woe is me, the world is terrible" discussion. Which is fine, but you always just say the same thing over and over and don't listen when other people say their experience of life is not the same as yours.

You're just restarting your favorite "woe is me, the world is terrible" discussion. — T Clark

Not really. The point is that if one has to endure or cope with a situation, then that's not a personal problem.

I don't see anything new here that you haven't covered before. What's new?

once one 'get's it right' then it is right. Everything is right. All is right. Things are alright. Success shines forth and justifies life. When you are consumed in your passion, it is enough. — matt

Yes. Then everything changes, as it often does. A new day dawns. One may or not remember previous thoughts or feel former passions. And it starts over again, building on foundation of many yesterdays, trying to find the thread.

Either you don't get it right, or you have to keep it right. The good never comes on its own, and the bad always does.

That is how, phenomenologically, it is. First, there is deprivation of the good, presence of the bad. Then come our management efforts, the shifting-of-the-burden. The question is whether or not any future positive experiences gives sense to this negative structure. Does it make sense to give a burden to someone who does not have it, for future great pleasures they do not have the desire to experience?

It seems to me that we are always-already immersed in suffering, and positive experiences typically are always "just up ahead". The grass is always greener on the other side. Of course, there is also the possibility that what we call "good" are shadows, or caricatures, of Goodness. It may be that I simply have not been given the opportunity to behold this ultimate good. Unfortunately, I see very little reason to believe this good is an actuality. It would have to be divine and I don't see why we should believe the divine exists. The way we approach existence, as creatures of a greater power, is by putting our trust in God and waiting for the final revelation that will make it all "make sense". It is a call for mercy - why do you do this to me, God? Why have you created me?

Existence is furthermore absurd given the vast majority of people who never exist and to whom we do not shed a tear for. Existence is not "better than" not-existing, we do not pity the non-existent. This is because pity would be inappropriate: pity makes sense in the intra-worldly setting, where people already exist and have aims and are always-already suffering. Life is a drama, and it may be worth playing your part and trying to make a good production. But is it worth starting the drama?

Now something I have thought about before is whether it is a contradiction to say it is never better to exist but once you exist it is now better to continue to exist. The desire to exist is a desire which cannot be frustrated. If you exist, it is satisfied. If you cease to exist, you cease to have the desire to exist and thus it cannot be frustrated. All reasons-for-existing come from existence within. Therefore there cannot be reasons to have reasons to exist. A reason to exist comes from existence, but it is existence that we are asking about so these reasons for existing must also be put into question.

the immediate response is to suggest a new hobby, club, group, sport, etc. as if just getting into a routine of non-work activities is the answer to the lack at the heart of things. — schopenhauer1

Suggesting someone take up a hobby is not about getting life "right." It's gentle way of suggesting that you're wasting your precious time on this planet by worrying about how unfulfilled you are.

My suggestion would actually be to join some volunteer program so you can go out and do something for others/think about others for a change and quit all this unproductive navel-gazing.

My suggestion would actually be to join some volunteer program so you can go out and do something for others/think about others for a change and quit all this unproductive navel-gazing. — NKBJ

Thought experiment- what if everyone existed in order to help everyone else with no focus on the self? That would literally make the point of helping other people absurd. The actual "fulfilled" part of life must be more than the mechanism to become adjusted enough to life to be fulfilled in the first place. In other words, you are helping the other person so they in turn can be fulfilled.
But if this kept going so you just help people so they can help people, etc. it doesn't make sense. You have to look beyond mere cliches for what we are talking here. For the record, I'm not against helping others, I'm just saying that taking this to an absurd level, it makes no sense as a basis in and of itself.

To me life is not fulfilling. It is bleak and pointless. People who make suggestions to try and cheer you up usually mean well. They are not doing a bad thing. They may feel life is as bleak and pointless as you do. I don't despise good intentions that miss the mark. And I find mutual kindness gives pleasure both to giver and receiver. I do feel an encounter with the Other at the heart of things, which is probably why I get on with Levinas. There is no avoiding the Other. Why be prickly with them when they're being transparently kind?

But if this kept going so you just help people so they can help people, etc. it doesn't make sense. You have to look beyond mere cliches for what we are talking here. For the record, I'm not against helping others, I'm just saying that taking this to an absurd level, it makes no sense as a basis in and of itself. — schopenhauer1

You're missing my main point: you're too self-obsessed and that's what's bringing you down. You're clearly stuck in a rut of overthinking the futility of your own existence. The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Blah Blah.

If it is a cliche, it is one of those cliches that exist for a reason. We're a social species. Helping others makes us feel good and makes those we're helping feel good. Win-win. Who cares if there isn't some objective purpose to it for the universe which is by default indifferent to our individual joys and woes? It matters to us. Here. Now.

Maybe that's what you need to learn. Stop looking to tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. Learn to take some satisfaction in the moment. A nice glass of merlot. A good book. A dinner with a friend. Tomorrow you could get hit by a bus or fall down the stairs and be paralyzed for life, or dead, or be one of those conscious coma people.

All is right. Things are alright. Success shines forth and justifies life. When you are consumed in your passion, it is enough. — matt

Until it doesn't.

Not really. The point is that if one has to endure or cope with a situation, then that's not a personal problem. — Posty McPostface

Yes! The honing process itself, the not already having but always striving is insightful in itself as to perhaps a lightpost into the nature of things. Sure, we live in an anthropic world where everything seems to be attuned or become-to-be from our consciousness, but perhaps it is just we are scrounging here for a balance from a depth of restless, weary, absurdly repetitious, lacking. By "absurdly repetitious" we don't mean that we are "literally" doing the same thing over and over- it is one step removed from the actual acts themselves. It is as if we know we must conjure the moves to occupy us before we make them. But this conjuring is old hat..

That is how, phenomenologically, it is. First, there is deprivation of the good, presence of the bad. Then come our management efforts, the shifting-of-the-burden. The question is whether or not any future positive experiences gives sense to this negative structure. Does it make sense to give a burden to someone who does not have it, for future great pleasures they do not have the desire to experience? — darthbarracuda

Yes, you hit the mark yet again. This is the heart of what I'm trying to say right here. The deprivation that is above and before the good- the structural aspect.

It seems to me that we are always-already immersed in suffering, and positive experiences typically are always "just up ahead". The grass is always greener on the other side. Of course, there is also the possibility that what we call "good" are shadows, or caricatures, of Goodness. It may be that I simply have not been given the opportunity to behold this ultimate good. Unfortunately, I see very little reason to believe this good is an actuality. It would have to be divine and I don't see why we should believe the divine exists. The way we approach existence, as creatures of a greater power, is by putting our trust in God and waiting for the final revelation that will make it all "make sense". It is a call for mercy - why do you do this to me, God? Why have you created me? — darthbarracuda

Yep, a non-spiritual term would simply be Hope. The always somewhere-next-beyond..

Existence is furthermore absurd given the vast majority of people who never exist and to whom we do not shed a tear for. Existence is not "better than" not-existing, we do not pity the non-existent. This is because pity would be inappropriate: pity makes sense in the intra-worldly setting, where people already exist and have aims and are always-already suffering. Life is a drama, and it may be worth playing your part and trying to make a good production. But is it worth starting the drama? — darthbarracuda

Yes.

Now something I have thought about before is whether it is a contradiction to say it is never better to exist but once you exist it is now better to continue to exist. The desire to exist is a desire which cannot be frustrated. If you exist, it is satisfied. If you cease to exist, you cease to have the desire to exist and thus it cannot be frustrated. All reasons-for-existing come from existence within. Therefore there cannot be reasons to have reasons to exist. A reason to exist comes from existence, but it is existence that we are asking about so these reasons for existing must also be put into question. — darthbarracuda

Good point. Existence only matters to the existing.

I don't see anything new here that you haven't covered before. What's new? — Baden

Perhaps similar theme, but hitting it at different acute angles.

Going to come at it by rewriting the OP:


If much of [art] is about "getting it right", then there is something inherently wrong with [art]. The minute someone has complaints about [creating art]not being fulfilling, the immediate response is to suggest a new [style, approach, theme, subject] as if just getting into a [new approach] is the answer to the [absence of aesthetic pleasure]. The assumption here is that to [do art] properly and in balance, one has to [actually broach the stuff that's hard to broach]. The fact that we are born to hone in on [real art] is troubling. It is also not recognizing that there may not be [real art]. There is simply enduring and coping [with the fact our art isn't meaningful]. Again, troubling.

You can also do the same thing with mastery and a craft. You live, and are cared for (or not),but there's a moment (adolescence) where you're called upon to do more. There's a higher pleasure, which is something more than pleasure, in heeding this call.

There's a sublime pleasure in talking, mutually, to people who have met this challenge. It wouldn't exist without that challenge. That's how it is.

We're not owed anything. And if that is metaphysically troubling, consider what metaphysics you have that makes that troubling.

Nice! :cool:

Just want to chime in with something lightly off topic that might as well (properly) go ignored.

My first thought when I casually glanced at the title of this thread was that it was going to discuss mainstream moral philosophy. In most (analytic) moral phil journal articles, the term "getting it right" is used constantly as though that casual phrasing is itself unobjectionable; I guess the underlying idea being something like: despite our theoretical differences, obviously we all agree that moral agents aim to "get it right"!

So to those who question the purpose of the thread, I mean, it's out of context, but it's definitely given me a new perspective to chew on. Just as rewords the OP in terms of aesthetics, I guess I purposefully misread it in terms of ethics. And I wonder if it points to some sort of interesting meta-ethical complaint I might bring up next time I'm set to review a relevant article.

Words like "endurance" and "coping mechanism" are limiting and reductionist. There is this sly tactic to reduce the power of a phenomenon by naming them, I have seen. Whence before fell into that trap as well as bought into schopenhauer1's pessimism which is indeed a cold, dark place.

You can also do the same thing with mastery and a craft. You live, and are cared for (or not),but there's a moment (adolescence) where you're called upon to do more. There's a higher pleasure, which is something more than pleasure, in heeding this call. — csalisbury

Besides being a bit romantic-y for my taste, this seems just a wee bit condescending (any time adolescent is thrown around we are really trying to cast aspersions of regressive infantile behavior on the interlocutor- which to those in agreement with the stone-thrower is quite appropriate "humph humph post haste banish the thumb-sucker from a place in the big people's table!", puffs the smoke from the adult pipe and wax on about the higher callings of the true adult/sage etc. etc.).

Now let's do the same trick to your texts:

There's a sublime pleasure in talking [about the absurdity at the bottom of human endeavors], mutually, to people who have met this challenge [of looking straight on at what is going on regarding the deprivations and structural suffering]. It [knowing the structural suffering] wouldn't exist without that challenge [of staring at the void and not flinching]. That's [just] how it is. — csalisbury

So can we talk without the hidden condescension?

I wasn't accusing you of being adolescent though. I did use the word, but not in that way.

If you feel that same hard-won camaraderie with other pessimists, then good. Not a problem with that. Only you seem to want to convince others too? Or maybe I'm misreading the OP.

but now that I think of it

trying to cast aspersions of regressive infantile behavior

guilty as charged. And I stand by it

I don't think so. The sentiments schopenhauer1 and darthbarracuda have been professing are contrary to the modern day mentality, but not immature or infantile. I hope we can learn to respect their opinions instead of resorting to claiming they are just adolescent bickering or angst.

Thank you, I will keep that in mind. I don't think the meat of my responses denigrate their responses along those lines. I've responded with what I consider a full-throated counter-response. the counter-counter-response has focused on the teen/kid thing, and so my counterx3 response has focused on that. I urge you to reread my posts.

I'm not putting you in the hot seat. Just that schopenhauer1 felt like your post was condescending, which it might actually not be due to the implicit reference to treating the whole issue as a matter of taste (of art). Is that correct?

@darthbarracuda

To be fair, I brought up the teen/kid thing as a way we can both take that option off the table and move forward. At first you were conveying that that wasn't the thrust of your argument, then you doubled down that it was, and now you are back to saying that it wasn't the thrust of your argument. For the sake of charity I'm going to take your original and third response that indeed you were trying to say something more than "schopenhauer1's philosophy is simply teen angst" etc. and that you were trying to convey, as you put it, "a full-throated counter-response".

So what of the fact that we are always at a deprivation- that we are always having to hone in? I said on another thread a counter to your counter (most important parts in bold): It seems that at heart, humans are a bit sado-masochistic. We justify struggle because it gives some sort of meaning. To quote Nietzsche on this sentiment:

To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities — I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not — that one endures.

Thus, when justifying why we continue the "Human Project" despite obviously experiencing struggles and the sub-par tediousness of repetitive acts in daily routines/work, we often cite that it is the initial deficit in our attitude/habits/skills that is necessary for us to learn to grow new attitudes/habits/skills. Thus it is rightful for humans to be born to experience deficits so that they can learn and grow. The goal is perhaps to either:

a) settle into life's repetitive routines punctuated by moments of "true" delight and then retroactively call this settling "happiness" (because, happiness is supposed to be a sense of fulfillment or some such). This is in some way a compensation or transactional outlook.

b) attain some maximum level of achievement from all the growth learned through the deficit-overcoming (no pain, no gain). This is in some way a "life is a process" outlook.


This "common sense" wisdom of deficits being good due to its leading to growth (or at least compensated by happy moments later on), like many things justifying life's inherent "goodness" for the human animal, is simply circular reasoning in the light of the counterfactual of never being born. Why put someone in a deficit (or to put a positive spin on it, "learning opportunities") to overcome in the first place? This question proves it is a retroactive coping mechanism to justify the inherent negative nature of the human experience.It can never be justified why putting someone in a position that they need to experience deficits or struggles is necessary for that person in the first place (i.e. prior to birth), ergo giving someone the "privilege" and "opportunity" to overcome deficits makes no sense.

The bigger underlying philosophical claim here is that suffering and harm cannot be subsumed in retroactive "carpet-sweeping". Struggle is negative, being at a deficit is negative. Growth may be positive, but at the behest of an underlying negative. Mushrooms may be edible and tasty, but they still come from shit. Actually, even this seems off. In the light of the counterfactual of never being born, the achievement of anything and experiencing "growth" has no underlying benefit in and of itself, but merely as a necessary means to get by once born.

But, truly, all I have to say, here, I already said in my first response. It wasn't meant to be condescending. I understand what you're saying, but all I would want to say, I already did in that post. I mean you've already said this ^ before.

There's another way to put this: What if everyone here agreed with you?

There's another way to put this: What if everyone here agreed with you? — csalisbury

Good question. It's not necessarily the outcome of of antinatalism. There is no way that all human suffering will be prevented by mass voluntary non-procreation. However, I don't look at it from a big pie perspective, but simply see it that even one less person is born, it's one whole life that didn't have to go through the unnecessary, harmful, gauntlet. Antinatalism (considering the value of being born) more than suicide even, is a platform to evaluate the nature of what it means to exist as the human animal.

However, the bigger issue that antinatalism connects with philosophical pessimism is through the aesthetic understanding of (for a lack of a better term) "the nature of things" as humans in the world. It is a sort of therapy, a consoling. We see each other as fellow-sufferers. To quote Dylan (Bob):

My eyes collide head-on with stuffed graveyards
False gods, I scuff
At pettiness which plays so rough
Walk upside-down inside handcuffs
Kick my legs to crash it off
Say okay, I have had enough
What else can you show me

Most importantly, if we agree on what is the case, we can talk within the same context about what to do. However, if you are still talking in terms of "Humans need to be born to do X" as if it is necessary. If you are still talking as if there is no structural suffering, then we cannot even have a dialogue. In a way I am trying to get to some points of agreement, taking any angle I can to get us there. The knee-jerk reaction of many in the community is to fight that view and thus instead of moving forward, perhaps developing ideas further, it is just a constant defense, which though I participate in for the sake of presenting the view clearly, I do not always want to be in this mode of defensive dialectic.

I think the tragic view of life is right. Sincerely. What I meant with my question had less to do with humanity agreeeing to stop procreating and more to do with like: what if all the posters here agreed - so there was nothing left to say. what *would* be left to say? I think we agree on what is the case. I really do. I ingested schop, cioran, beckett for most of my twenties. and i love them. but