Yes, while I understand that. Complaining breeds complaining, hence the issue with the internet in general, I suppose. Instead, the logical progression, in my mind and in accord with reason, would be the utilization of constructive criticism to actually perform some change in the matter or complaint against some state of affairs. — Posty McPostface

The complaining comes first- the active change comes next. The second part is definitely the hardest. It's like someone who always thinks they have a great idea but can never quite manifest it in an actual business.

The complaining comes first- the active change comes next. The second part is definitely the hardest. It's like someone who always thinks they have a great idea but can never quite manifest it in an actual business. — schopenhauer1

Complaints are typically negative in nature. There's discord or unease that arises from their performative action. So, since I like bashing philosophical pessimism, relativism, and nihilism-let me ask. Does philosophical pessimism fall on itself in never being able to escape the neverending complaining about the world or some state of affairs? In other words, what good has philosophical pessimism produced?

This can be answered in two ways:

The intraworldly approach might say it leads to antinatalism- don’t reproduce more suffering and that it leads to some basic metaphysical understanding which, if you are one to be inclined to like having that understanding, might be said to be “good” to have.

The holistic approach would find it an invalid question. The problem with question is that it implicitly asserts good to a) exist as an output and b) put production as some measuring stick. A problem in the first place is that we must produce. The idea of producing something itself is part of the problem, so why would philosophical pessimism be worried about it? It’s structurally suffering, so an intraworldly solution like X output doesn’t even make sense.

I was playing a simple game, and I had this realization that life may be devoid of meaning; but, still be enjoyable.

.
Of course. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, when such matters are discussed at these forums.
.

Firstly, one can say many things about life, that it sucks, is full of suffering, that they wouldn't want to bring children into such a world, and so on... But, despite all this, life is a mystery nonetheless. We came about by a stroke of chance, depending on whether you're religious or not.

.
No, that’s a theory, an unsupported assumption, and one that I don’t agree with. But we can agree that our being in a life is remarkable and astonishing, even though it has an explanation.
.

As things are, scientists explore nature and in their own way feel the mystery of life through reason.

.
A valid study, but without bearing on metaphysics. (…except that some specialist experts on QM say that it lays to rest the notion of an objective physical world.)
.
But sure, the physical world is mysterious, even as a physics study.
.

Religious types might feel similarly; but, instead of 'reason', it's faith.

.
It isn’t a matter of “instead”. Religious faith in no way contradicts science’s reason. …nor vice-versa.
.

I will most likely never be too religious a person, although I'm sure many scientists might have become religious over the sheer complexity of nature or elegant simplicity. I'm too firm a believer in reason to be persuaded by storytelling.

.
That’s the story that True-Believers in Materialism and Science-Worship tell themselves. As I said, contrary to popular belief, reason doesn’t contradict religion. And the Atheists’ notion of religion as “storytelling” is simplistic. Do some religions tell stories? Sure. Does that define and characterize religion? No.
.
By all means, enjoy science! But have the humility and modesty to not expound, unsupported, on other matters.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I think that "complaining" in a broad sense means something different to each one of us. Obviously, we all do it repeatedly and consistently. The place where it becomes personal is that place where the content of the complaints exists. I have a friend who complains almost daily about the personality of one of her supervisors. Then another stays up most nights obsessing about politics. Then another is convinced that the prices at the grocery store are slowly and strategically going up every day. Quite honestly, I couldn't care less about any of those issues. Are these valid issues to spend so much time and energy worrying about? Not to me. But there are other issues that I will complain about from time to time. I had a professor once who said that complaining played a significant role in giving our lives meaning. We do it so often because it reminds us, on an unconscious level that our lives are not perfect and neither are we-but it's okay. In other words-we feel comforted by our lack of perfection, when we persist in our complaining about everyone and everything else around us.

I bring up a lot of the negative aspects of the human experience

.
We get that from the news too.
.

, and the structural suffering of life

.
Exactly—It’s largely or mostly in the societal structure.
.
But no, you won’t change that.
.

I guess this can be construed as complaining.

.
No sh*t.
.

But then, I am bringing up disapproval of a negative state of affairs. In this case, it is the negative state of affairs of life itself.

.
You say it, but you don’t support it.
.
Yes we all know that, to varying degrees, there’s misfortune and suffering in life. …not justifying your sweeping generalization.
.
Philosophical discussion should consist of more than assertions.
.

It is perhaps to catalyze people to look at it for what is going on to us as a whole.

.
You mean, “…in part”. When you speak of what’s going on for us as a whole, you’re speaking without support.
.
Barbara Ehrenreich said something to the effect that death doesn’t interrupt life, but rather life interrupts sleep.
.
Her statement is about which is the natural, rightful, usual, normal state of affairs, and which is the temporary interruption.
.
Of course you realize that this life is an interesting phenomenon, and that it’s temporary, a temporary interruption of the usual state of affairs.
.
What more is there to be said about it? The meaning and point of your complaining about it isn’t clear.
.
(Strictly-speaking, it would be more accurate to say that life, overall, doesn’t really interrupt anything, because there was no “You” to initially experience not being in a life, because the person “You” consists of a complementary part of that life-experience-possibility-story.
.
If there’s reincarnation (and there probably is), then of course now life and sleep interrupt eachother for a while. …until the temporary interruption of sleep by life ends, after a very many lives, at the distant end-of-lives.)
.
One reason why your complaining about being in a life doesn’t make sense is that (as many have already pointed out) there was no “You” before you were in a life. …because, as I said above, you consist of a complementary part of your life-experience-possibility-story.
.
In other words, there was no “You” for life to happen to. Consider that before you complain about being in a life. Nothing happened to you, because there wasn’t any you other than the one in this life. There was no other way you could have been, other than in this life.
.
Or do you believe in disembodied spirits that were there before they somehow later ended up in a life?
.
If you’re right, and there’s no reincarnation, then life will be over for you at the end of this life. Yes, in the meantime, some hardship (more for some than others) is part of the nature of life. It’s temporary.
.
Regardless of whether you agree with any explanation for why you’re in a life, it, as I said above, is an interesting temporary phenomenon.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Philosophical discussion should consist of more than assertions. — Michael Ossipoff

Ironic

No sh*t. — Michael Ossipoff

Your way of provoking through dismissive pragmatism is not very philosophical. Look in thine own mirror.

I support what I say. You don't support your sweeping generalization about life being overall bad.

Michael Ossipoff

The basis to start the conversation would be charity. You don't have that, no use even engaging. Take lessons from Bitter Crank.. Get better at disagreeing without being disagreeable.

In the ongoing context of your long failure to support your comments, or to answer or listen to others' comments, eventual blunt language is inevitable.

But, in this thread, I didn't say anything about existential-angst as fashion. I didn't criticize you. It's you who are making it personal, ad-hominem, by changing the subject to my allegedly bad manners.

I wasn't rude to you in this thread.

Michael Ossipoff

In the ongoing context of your long failure to support your comments — Michael Ossipoff

Again incredibly obnoxious...Why would engage someone that just provokes..even to make a point? Are you trying to troll me into having a drawn out name throwing fight with someone who has no respect..even on internet forum terms?

or to answer or listen to others' comments, eventual blunt language is inevitable. — Michael Ossipoff

I answer and listen to comments to respectful debators who debate in good faith without trolling or abusing from the get go.

But, in this thread, I didn't say anything about existential-angst as fashion. I didn't criticize you. It's you who are making it personal, ad-hominem, by changing the subject to my allegedly bad manners. — Michael Ossipoff

I'm confronting you on the tone and tenor of your comments.. The etiquette and protocol you use in debating me in particular. It automatically makes me not want to engage in conversation.

I wasn't rude to you in this thread. — Michael Ossipoff

Dismissive pragmatism, dismissive, scornful attitude in general.. why would I want to deal with that? It wouldn't be a meaningful conversation. Look, you may bring up some interesting points of debate, but until the scornful trolling stops, I don't want to engage with it.

Engage? Meaningful conversation? I guess that's what you call your oblivious interminable repetition of your same old assertions.

It's more of a never-ending monologue than a meaningful conversation

Michael Ossipoff

Engage? Meaningful conversation? I guess that's what you call your oblivious interminable repetition of your same old assertions.

It's more of a never-ending monologue than a meaningful conversation — Michael Ossipoff

Again, scornful characterizations of my arguments are not going to get you anywhere in this debate. Do you think of it as some sort of call to arms.. that I must defend my honor? What's your objective? Is this just you venting about my posts?

The intraworldly approach might say it leads to antinatalism- don’t reproduce more suffering and that it leads to some basic metaphysical understanding which, if you are one to be inclined to like having that understanding, might be said to be “good” to have.

The holistic approach would find it an invalid question. The problem with question is that it implicitly asserts good to a) exist as an output and b) put production as some measuring stick. A problem in the first place is that we must produce. The idea of producing something itself is part of the problem, so why would philosophical pessimism be worried about it? It’s structurally suffering, so an intraworldly solution like X output doesn’t even make sense. — schopenhauer1

But, both these approaches are the product of a complaint. Or to put it another way, two negatives don't necessarily produce a positive in this case. The whole ideology is marred with negativity.

To borrow from CBT, there's also a gross overgeneralization being performed in that the world is completely devoid of anything good that someone can experience. Not to mention painting with a large brush, or black and white thinking.

But, let's grant that you are indeed right in your assertion that life is meaningless and futile, hence no reason to produce more suffering in the world would be a net positive. Again, doesn't this assertion condemn the whole world to a simple, even childish, complaint that there is no good to be derived from the world? Philosophical pessimism falls on itself, seemingly in producing more negativity than good by its very own nature.

Again, scornful characterizations of my arguments are not going to get you anywhere in this debate. — schopenhauer1

Oh I don't know...The whole point is to answer what someone said, not necessarily to convince them. Did you think that anyone would consider that even a remote possibility?

One sometimes just answers for the benefit of visitors to the forum, for example.

Do you think of it as some sort of call to arms.. that I must defend my honor?

I throw down the gauntlet ! :D

I have no idea what you're talking about. You're too sensitive. You see attack-manners and rudeness where there is none. I merely answered things that you said. By the usual standards of this forum, I've been unusually polite. You're the one with all the individual criticism. You're the one who posts messages about a person instead of about the topic.

Why didn't you get this upset when someone said something like, "it isn't the world that's broken--It's you." ?

I don't think I'm sounding more critical than Posty McPostface.is.

You'd benefit by listening to what he says. ...but of course you never listen.

What's your objective?

You mean why bother? As I said, it isn't to convince you, but only to post answers, for the benefit of anyone who is interested in answers to your pessimism. (Is it rude to call it pessimism?)

I guess I answer just in case someone else has felt perceptions similar (but genuine) to what you're saying.

But, I have to admit that, more and more, I doubt your sincerity about what you're saying. That's why I used the word "Schtick".

Michael Ossipoff

Yeah; but, what good has complaining ever resulted in? — Posty McPostface

The squeaking wheel gets the grease. (That's a folk saying. Squeaking wheels are similar to complaining individuals. People who complain get fried in hot rancid fat. NO, sorry, that's not what it means. It means that complaints tend to get addressed because those with some wherewithal get tired of hearing people whining, wingeing, bitching, and carping all the time.

The squeaking wheel gets the grease. — Bitter Crank

That saying is on my second place for favourite sayings. The first is: It is what it is.

See the conflict there?

I do, and I object. Where is your complaint department located?

I do, and I object. — Bitter Crank

What do you object to?

Where is your complaint department located? — Bitter Crank

You're in the right place. It's right here.

There's more than one reason people complain. There's also more than one reason people do not.

To borrow from CBT, there's also a gross overgeneralization being performed in that the world is completely devoid of anything good that someone can experience. Not to mention painting with a large brush, or black and white thinking. — Posty McPostface

No one denies there is good someone can experience. That is not the point of pessimism. The point is the suffering of the lack that is always in the equation. Good is not seen as the carrot and the stick. Rather, the process itself, is considered either absurd or based on a basis of a foundational lack. CBT is not a philosophy. The goal of psychology is to ensure the person is well-integrated to function well in modern life. They are techniques for a patient who has mental functions that are not processing at a level deemed efficient by that same patient. It doesn't provide a metaphysical understanding of life. Also, being that CBT, and psychology in general is to help integrate into society, of course acceptance of the structural suffering, or psychological techniques will be employed to cope, overcome, and deal with life are going to be part of the strategy. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive though.

That is not the point of pessimism. The point is the suffering of the lack that is always in the equation — schopenhauer1

Lack of what?

Good is not seen as the carrot and the stick. Rather, the process itself, is considered either absurd or based on a basis of a foundational lack. — schopenhauer1

Lack of what?

CBT is not a philosophy. — schopenhauer1

That's true; but, I believe that CBT has something to teach us apart from its psychoanalytic settings. I believe that it's something of the sort of being more rational rather than emotional or maybe both. Perhaps, this is the lack you're speaking of? Of being more rational?

They are techniques for a patient who has mental functions that are not processing at a level deemed efficient by that same patient. It doesn't provide a grand vision of life. — schopenhauer1

Well, it's one and the same, don't you think?

By the usual standards of this forum, I've been unusually polite. — Michael Ossipoff

Allow me to complain about this mischaracterization. You haven't broken the rules, but the idea you've been unusually polite by the standards of this forum isn't remotely true. So, you have the right to ignore @schopenhauer1's complaints about you, but please don't bring the rest of us into it.

Great. This has become a complaint thread.

This is perfect.

Lack of what? — Posty McPostface

So one main theme in pessimism is that at root, in either human nature, animal nature, or the nature of existence itself, we are in a constant state of a deprivation/lack of something/ desire, etc. Satisfaction is always only temporary. Boredom, in the human animal, is an almost "proof" of the dissatisfaction of mere being. Thus, we can adjust certain expectations, goals, and thought-processes to try to achieve an equanimity in a mental health issue, or anxiety about an aspect of life, but this does not necessarily get rid of the underlying, metaphysical lack that is baked into the human experience (or existence itself pace Schopenhauer).

I believe that it's something of the sort of being more rational rather than emotional or maybe both. Perhaps, this is the lack you're speaking of? Of being more rational? — Posty McPostface

That is fine. Rational is kind of bandied about in too many ways to be fully useful a word, but in this case you seem to mean a sort of psychological state where a person's decisions do not get overcome by anxious thoughts, depressing thoughts, etc. That is fine. If someone has what they consider a dysfunction and believes certain strategies to work in order to "break" a cycle of emotionally distressing thoughts, then that is what therapists try to do (if they do it well). However, no matter how "well-adjusted" someone is, they can still hold a metaphysical view that the world or that human nature has a state of dissatisfaction, that something is always lacking (whether that be in surviving, entertaining, or maintenance related goals).

Well, it's one and the same, don't you think? — Posty McPostface

I don't think so. A metaphysical view and psychological techniques to cope with various perceived (or real) mental distress can be considered two different and mutually exclusive realms. One can make psychological techniques perhaps into some metaphysical view, but that is not a necessity.

So one main theme in pessimism is that at root, in either human nature, animal nature, or the nature of existence itself, we are in a constant state of a deprivation/lack of something/ desire, etc. Satisfaction is always only temporary. — schopenhauer1

Not, necessarily so. Satisfaction can be derived from life itself, creating a virtuous circle. But, that really isn't the gist of the issue I want to bring up. Namely, that what virtue (of such supreme importance) can be found in philosophical pessimism? The negation of life itself? Normatively we know that isn't true.

Thus, we can adjust certain expectations, goals, and thought-processes to try to achieve an equanimity in a mental health issue, or anxiety about an aspect of life, but this does not necessarily get rid of the underlying, metaphysical lack that is baked into the human experience (or existence itself pace Schopenhauer). — schopenhauer1

I understand. But, I don't see where this leads to.

That is fine. Rational is kind of bandied about in too many ways to be fully useful a word, but in this case you seem to mean a sort of psychological state where a person's decisions do not get overcome by anxious thoughts, depressing thoughts, etc. — schopenhauer1

Yes.

If someone has what they consider a dysfunction and believes certain strategies to work in order to "break" a cycle of emotionally distressing thoughts, then that is what therapists try to do (if they do it well). However, no matter how "well-adjusted" someone is, they can still hold a metaphysical view that the world or that human nature has a state of dissatisfaction, that something is always lacking (whether that be in surviving, entertaining, or maintenance related goals). — schopenhauer1

But, that's inconsistent with one's identity as a being.

I don't think so. A metaphysical view and psychological techniques to cope with various perceived (or real) mental distress can be considered two different and mutually exclusive realms. One can make psychological techniques perhaps into some metaphysical view, but that is not a necessity. — schopenhauer1

Echoing Wittgenstein, Plato, and (particularly) Aristotle, and the Stoics (even Cynics), according to my understanding... I think, that both are the same.

Namely, that what virtue (of such supreme importance) can be found in philosophical pessimism? The negation of life itself? Normatively we know that isn't true. — Posty McPostface

Again, you make the error of looking for some sort of results. This is the very intraworldly affairs that a PP would most likely not consider to be in the same category as that of the aesthetic view of life itself. This is equivalent to asking a painter to quantify his artistic values with a bottom line of profits.

Again, you make the error of looking for some sort of results. This is the very intraworldly affairs that a PP would most likely not consider to be in the same category as that of the aesthetic view of life itself. — schopenhauer1

So, a PP does derive joy or pleasure or happiness from the aesthetic view of humankind. Is that what a true PP would say?

This is equivalent to asking a painter to quantify his artistic values with a bottom line of profits. — schopenhauer1

Not so. I equate psychological wellbeing or eudaimonia with "results" here.