Sorry, I meant in previous threads. I seem to recall you arguing that you view all desires and needs as though they are bad. When I think there needs to be a distinction between the satisfaction of a concern and the mood that is associated with it. — darthbarracuda

Remind me never to go in battle with you.. I guess this is a segue for dueling antinatalism? Interesting place to put it after I was defending a more general argument we both agree on.

Anyways, I don't deny that there are happy moments, simply that it is usually short-lived and the need for more quantity, novelty, etc. usually persists. If you can sustain happy time periods for long periods, or forever, then I'm all for it. Usually, rather we look at it the other way- that it is foolish to expect or chase this, but rather that we need to quell our inner churning so that it doesn't want and need so much and, similar to the negative utilitarian approach, thwart off that which is bothersome, as joy cannot be as joyful when there is a lot of bad going on alongside it. The priority is to get rid of that which annoys, and then to pursue that which gives utility.

What I emphasize is that life brings us to a state of instrumentality where we are doing to do to do. The absurdity of repetitive acts can sort of be an analogy to this, but just generalize it to the absurdity of any act. But instead of free form absurdity ala Camus, it is more like very predictable absurdity due to the constraints brought upon by the condition we are in (throwness perhaps?) which are the outer boundaries of human motivations and mainly include survival (in cultural/linguistic contexts) and boredom (also in cultural/linguistic contexts) as the two poles.

Remind me never to go in battle with you.. I guess this is a segue for dueling antinatalism? Interesting place to put it after I was defending a more general argument we both agree on. — schopenhauer1

Well I mean this thread went exactly as I hoped it wouldn't (veered off topic) so like, what the hell, why not talk about something totally off topic? :s

f you can sustain happy time periods for long periods, or forever, then I'm all for it. — schopenhauer1

Okay, then I misunderstood your position. I was under the impression that you believed that needs and desires were always bad regardless of what impact they have on the individual. The aesthetic of insufficiency.

I checked out your blog and found a link to some guy whose theory was that irony was maximized in the creation of the world. I like that. There's a humor in Dostoevsky that surpasses just about everything mortal. I call it the laughter of the gods. It haunts all human earnestness. Hesse explores it in Steppenwolf. — Hoo

This aesthetic component, though, is only really helpful when you aren't suffering.

The idea of a Stoic sage sounds sublime and amazing - but we would actually rather just not feel bad in the first place. What doesn't kill you will sometimes make you wish it had.

Is the alternative of filtering and selection supposed to be truth rather than chaos? Much thinking is unconscious. I believe that. But how is this mass of unconscious thinking the truth rather than the background? Repression is used in a sly, pejorative way, as if there were something to recommend the alternative. — Hoo

I can see how it may come across this way. As if Zapffe thinks he is superior by acknowledging the repression. I see two interpretations, neither are mutually exclusive: Zapffe wishes to live existentially authentic (and thus would have a bit of pride for doing so, possibly one of the only things keeping him going), or Zapffe is merely pointing out a facet of life, just as he would be if he said that humans breathe oxygen.

Easy to agree here. And I find it easy to see Zappfe as the salesman of one more anchoring (pessimism), one that I began to resent and finally took pleasure in burying. — Hoo

I'll be honest with you because I think you are being honest, and I think this is a very important point. Pessimists argue their point because of two (conscious) reasons: they want someone to prove them wrong, or they're extremely discontent with the system and want things to change.

Again these are not mutually exclusive. I'm not content with the system. I think it is a useless, ironic and senseless machination. And yet, pace Nietzsche's dialogue on Schopenhauer, I have an acute desire to affirm existence once again. Just as Nietzsche praised Schopenhauer while simultaneously having a heart that cried out for something more, I tend to be a reluctant pessimist. I don't like being a pessimist. I don't think anyone worthy of being called a pessimist should like being one (i.e. like the fact that the world is shitty): that would go against the entire idea of pessimism. And yet I feel compelled to consider myself a pessimist because all the other positions fall short.

The previous examples show how pessimism can be seen as right and contradict one's own expectations, desires, hopes, dreams, etc. But there's another facet of pessimism that has been growing steadily inside me recently, that of not just discontent but legitimate concern and outrage at the state of the world. I'm becoming more and more angry at the instrumentality of the world. I'm not only saddened by the suffering of others but am also indignant. You could say that I'm becoming a bit more radical in my views, especially in terms of ethics. Things need to change, and they need to change now.

The third step in this pessimistic process, if there is one, seems to be the final disillusionment with the world by means of a complete de-attachment with the previous mournfully comfortable illusions. Perhaps my current state of indignation is merely another illusion. Maybe altruism and humanitarianism is also another illusion, but I kind of doubt it. Certainly it seems that many of the classic pessimistic writers "gave up" on the world. They wanted no part in it, they had no play in politics, altruism or anything like that. The final step is the final smashing of our illusions which can either result in suicide or isolation, assuming there is another step after the second. The gradual, Nietzschean descent into madness.

The object was the goal. Then a new object becomes the goal. So we can posit a goal archetype. But sometimes the goal is the sandwich we can make downstairs. We can also make living on this gradient a goal, aware that permanent satisfaction in a given object is not to be expected. No goal is central (all is vanity) but a life with many goals and attainments is good --or can be good. — Hoo

This is not as elegant as not having problems to begin with. Do we really have to have problems just so they can be solved?

When aren't we posing as heroes in a drama? — Hoo

Practically never. We are all our own white knights in shining armor.

This guy is the anti-Nietzsche, isn't he? — Hoo

Yes, Zapffe is heavily indebted to Nietzsche.

It's (to me) nakedly a grandiose religious conception. It's the sort of thing Nietzsche suspected was hiding in the "great sages," but here it is proclaimed boldly, the religion of anti-life, anti-earth, and not in the name of some better place or better principle. In the name of nothingness, right? And yet it takes a pleasure in speaking itself, a pleasure in the existence of midwives to offend. It needs the very 'problem' it wants to diagnose and cure. Zappfe climbed his mountains. Schop. played his flute. They wore their dark views like a smart new jacket from the local H & M. I won't hypocritically curse them for this. That's just the way it is. It's fun to play dress-up. Life as endless play, however edgy and grim... — Hoo

I think you're right when you say it's a religious conception. I mean it is called The Last Messiah after all. But religion speaks more clear to our emotions than other alternatives. His Last Messiah is a mythic prophecy, a way of imaging how humanity might end (by its own hand, thus fulfilling the naturalistic prophecy of survival-of-the-fittest).

Does this game have an outside? — Hoo

I think that's the legacy of psychoanalytic theory and existentialism. There is no outside that we can reach. But we can glimpse parts and pieces of it, and build an idea of what it's actually like. I suspect that the dread we experience when considering the human condition (in the aesthetic sense) has more to do with confronting the unknown, the void, the infinite limitless possibilities, than any legitimately metaphysically-horrific idea. The only horrific idea is the idea that there are horrific ideas, in the metaphysical sense. Thus aesthetic-led pessimism leads to apathetic nihilism, since dread is only maintained by the presence of illusions that are threatened by whatever is the source of dread. But there's more reasons than just aesthetics to call oneself a pessimist. Indeed the aesthetics of a metaphysical principle seem to completely independent of the nature of the principle itself - thus imo the only defensible pessimism is the one that puts human welfare at front-and-center, because horrifying ideas are inherently self-centered (as they are perceived as a threat to the self), whereas ideas about other people are distinctly less-metaphysically-dependent and more based on basic empathy and duty.

This aesthetic component, though, is only really helpful when you aren't suffering. — darthbarracuda

I think I've been about a low as one can go. I would not have been lifted up by my own words. I already "knew" all that. Last time I was hit was about 5 years ago, after watching The Killing, getting sick, and living near the disgusting, throbbing noise of some bars nearby. It was like the return of an old "friend" that I thought I had left behind in my 20s. I had great things in my life, but I couldn't love anything or anyone but the idea of death. So life was just horror and noise and futility. I call it the "black dragon." It was eating me alive in my depths. I met some new people about this time and probably came across as Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon, drinking etc., with a recklessness that is nothing like me. I escaped somehow and fell back in love with life. But not long ago, one of the most beloved and talented people in my peer group committed suicide in a very dramatic and brutal way. I've known junkies quite who've overdosed. That we could see coming. But this other guy...his suicide was something you might see in a movie. He had talent, a good job, local fame, a beautiful wife. I think I know what got him. Anyway, I'm just stressing that it's not (imv) primarily an intellectual problem, because I have the same beliefs that I did in the dark. The heart fails. Maybe it's internalized violence. One tries to live virtuously and represses the predator, who appears on the inside.

The idea of a Stoic sage sounds sublime and amazing - but we would actually rather just not feel bad in the first place. What doesn't kill you will sometimes make you wish it had. — darthbarracuda

I do love the Stoics, but for me there's a more radical image. The Stoics are still quite solemn and defensive. I do think we have to "stop the bleeding" and buy ourselves time to think or some minimum space for dignity. Frankly, I relate to a subversive reading of Christ (via Blake). I use reason, but "transrational" metaphors/myths are (to me) more important. I don't believe I can "prove" that life is worth living. It is a leap of faith. But, yeah, it exposes one to disaster. There's always the temptation to get disaster over with once and for all.

Zapffe wishes to live existentially authentic (and thus would have a bit of pride for doing so, possibly one of the only things keeping him going), or Zapffe is merely pointing out a facet of life, just as he would be if he said that humans breathe oxygen. — darthbarracuda

I relate to the quest for authenticity. But for me this involves acknowledging the "evil" in the soul. We do have empathy that's genuine, but our desire to be superior is every bit as genuine. And 'sacred' altruism would be the superiority-quest masked as empathy. Just to be clear, I'm a "nice guy." I'd be ashamed to steal, lie, humiliate, etc. My devil is the light-bringer.

I'll be honest with you because I think you are being honest, and I think this is a very important point. — darthbarracuda

Thanks. I am. And I respect your sincerity and directness. And I respect that you bother to address my criticisms or objections or questions. "Opposition is true friendship." (Blake)

Pessimists argue their point because of two (conscious) reasons: they want someone to prove them wrong, or they're extremely discontent with the system and want things to change.

Again these are not mutually exclusive. I'm not content with the system. I think it is a useless, ironic and senseless machination. And yet, pace Nietzsche's dialogue on Schopenhauer, I have an acute desire to affirm existence once again. Just as Nietzsche praised Schopenhauer while simultaneously having a heart that cried out for something more, I tend to be a reluctant pessimist. I don't like being a pessimist. I don't think anyone worthy of being called a pessimist should like being one (i.e. like the fact that the world is shitty): that would go against the entire idea of pessimism. And yet I feel compelled to consider myself a pessimist because all the other positions fall short. — darthbarracuda

Life's a bitch, really. I've been through the Bukowski phase in a now-golden relationship (terrible, terrible fights and tender reconciliations.) Life is a woman. That's a good metaphor. I've pined for a woman I couldn't have before and asked myself if I wanted to just switch off the "love" I felt. I had to answer "no." Because the death of that love would be the death of her beauty (for me). The beauty of the world itself was concentrated there. I think life is irrationality affirmed. It's like Nietzsche's critique of Socrates. Reason steps in with the instincts fall out of harmony. Do you read much literature? Tropic of Cancer, Ham On Rye, Catch 22 IMV, there's something trans-propositional to be had from books. There's a piety toward reason in philosophy that traps it. Pessimism is a strong position. I loved Rust in True Detective Season 1. There's also Wolcott in Deadwood, whose more Dostoevskian. I guess I got this image of Shakespeare as a symbol from Harold Bloom. I'm glad that I contain the grimly beautiful pessimist.

But there's another facet of pessimism that has been growing steadily inside me recently, that of not just discontent but legitimate concern and outrage at the state of the world. I'm becoming more and more angry at the instrumentality of the world. I'm not only saddened by the suffering of others but am also indignant. You could say that I'm becoming a bit more radical in my views, especially in terms of ethics. Things need to change, and they need to change now. — darthbarracuda

I've been there. There's no simple answer. The world is a meat grinder. History is a slaughter-bench. I won't being to deny it. Yet I affirm it. Maybe I'm more selfish or complacent than others, or maybe my sense of responsibility fell away in the critique of what I call 'sacred' altruism. I didn't make this world. I contribute my part to its suffering, of course, but it's bigger than me. My self-destruction would possibly add as much misery as it might remove. So I just look to what is in my power. I also reason that someone should manage to enjoy this place. Eventually man will be probably be wiped out. I used to fear Hellfire as a child. At least we're pretty sure that all suffering is temporary. And, finally, there's the question of how much repressed cruelty may play a part in this. I believe that part of us all wants to kill, destroy, humiliate. We just have to harmonize the entire self so that our behavior is decent.

Perhaps my current state of indignation is merely another illusion. Maybe altruism and humanitarianism is also another illusion, but I kind of doubt it. — darthbarracuda

My honest opinion (judging from my own experience) is that its a mixture of genuine empathy and 'sacred' altruism = repressed elitism. But I can only guess from my own strange life experience (which has not been all that ordinary, though I've learned to project that

This is not as elegant as not having problems to begin with. Do we really have to have problems just so they can be solved? — darthbarracuda

I hear you, but we can rephrase this in terms of "do we really have erections only so that we can have sex?" I wrestle with math proofs. It is such a joy to get that key insight. We are wired for this, I'd say. Even your sense of elegance is founded on solving all of the problems of life in one fell swoop. I really do see the beauty in that. Suicide is a diamond. If I get a terrible disease, I may indeed euthanize myself with a proud smile.

We are all our own white knights in shining armor. — darthbarracuda

This is it, man. This is the authenticity in an 'enlightened' egoism. The master wants to recognize and and be recognized by another master. Kings saluting kings. Let them be kind kings, because it feels good to be kind. Let them selfishly be kind. Aristotle's magnanimous man. If this "white knight" structure is truly ineluctable, then there's nothing wrong with it. It's just how things are. So criticisms of narcissism can only really make sense as criticism of a sh*tty particular vision of the white knight. For me philosophy as wisdom is largely about comparing and contrasting constructions of the heroic image, completely self-consciously. In fact, my white knight is a hero of self-consciousness and authenticity. The game recognizes itself for what it has always been. So runs the narrative of progress --which is of course recognized as such. This is why I really feel at something like an end of (personal) ideological history. I've been here for years now, working on details, the core untouched, untroubled.

Indeed the aesthetics of a metaphysical principle seem to completely independent of the nature of the principle itself - thus imo the only defensible pessimism is the one that puts human welfare at front-and-center. — darthbarracuda

Still, it hard to sincerely love others without loving one's self. "Sacred" love or mere duty is alienation and self-mutilation. And material comforts aren't enough to guarantee welfare anyway, so maybe there's a place at the center for the man who knows how to love life. Blake saw the artist as someone who had an ecstasy to communicate, a gift to spread around. I think it has to start at the very center of a person, with self-love, and friend love, and outward....