Imho, suffering is built in to the nature of thought, which explains why suffering is a universal property of the human condition, whatever the time and place etc. Does Schopensour have anything to say along those lines? — Jake

If suffering arises from thought itself, then it seems such schemes would be addressing the heart of the issue. Your, um, thoughts? — Jake

Yes, Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation Books 2 and 4 would be very much about the suffering as a structural/universal property of the human condition.

Here are some of his quotes that might help you from various internet sources if you want a really summarized view:

Here is a secondary source with some basic commentary of his essay "On the Sufferings of the World".

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) was a German philosopher known for his atheism and pessimism—in fact he is the most prominent pessimist in the entire western philosophical tradition. Schopenhauer’s most influential work, The World As Will and Representation, examines the role of humanity’s main motivation, which Schopenhauer called will. His analysis led him to the conclusion that emotional, physical, and sexual desires cause suffering and can never be fulfilled; consequently, he favored a lifestyle of negating desires, similar to the teachings of Buddhism and Vedanta. Schopenhauer influenced many thinkers including Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Einstein, and Freud.

In “On the Sufferings of the World” (1851), Schopenhauer boldly claims: “Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim.” In other words, suffering and misfortune are the general rule in life, not the exception. Contradicting what many philosophers had stated previously, Schopenhauer argued that evil is a real thing, with good being the lack of evil. We can see this by considering that happiness or satisfaction always imply some state of pain or unhappiness being brought to an end; and by the fact that pleasure is not generally as pleasant as we expect, while pain much worse than imagined. To those who claim that pleasure outweighs pain or that the two balance out, he asks us “to compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other.”[ii] And he quickly follows with another powerful image: “We are like lambs in the field, disporting themselves under the eye of the butcher, who choose out first one and then another for his prey. So it is that in our good days we are all unconscious of the evil Fate may have in store for us—sickness, poverty, mutilation, loss of sight or reason.”[iii]

Schopenhauer continues by offering multiple ideas and images meant to bring the reality of human suffering to the fore: a) that time marches on and we cannot stop it—it stops only when we are bored; b) that we spend most of life working, worrying, suffering, and yet even if all our wishes were fulfilled, we would then either be bored or desire suicide; c) in youth we have high hopes, but that is because we don’t consider what is really in store for us—life, aging, and death; (Of aging Schopenhauer says: “It is bad today, and it will be worse tomorrow; and so on till the worst of all.”[iv]); d) it would be much better if the earth was lifeless like the moon; life interrupts the “blessed calm” of non-existence; f) if two persons who were friends in youth met in old age, they would feel disappointed in life merely by the sight of each other; they will remember when life promised so much, in youth, and yet delivered so little; g) “If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist?”[v] Schopenhauer argues that we should not impose the burden of existence on children. Of his pessimism he says:

I shall be told … that my philosophy is comfortless—because I speak the truth; and people preferred to be assured that everything the Lord has made is good. Go to the priests, then, and leave the philosophers in peace … do not ask us to accommodate our doctrines to the lessons you have been taught. That is what those rascals of sham philosophers will do for you. Ask them for any doctrine you please, and you will get it.[vi]

Schopenhauer also argues that non-human animals are happier than human beings since happiness is basically freedom from pain. The essence of this argument is that the bottom line for both human and non-human animals is pleasure and pain which has as it basis the desire for food, shelter, sex, and the like. We are more sensitive to both pleasure and pain than non-human animals, but we also have much greater passion and emotion regarding their desires. This passion results from our ability to reflect upon the past and future, leaving us susceptible to both ecstasy and despair. We try to increase our happiness with various forms of luxury as well as desiring honor, other persons praise, and intellectual pleasures. But all of these pleasures are accompanied by the constant increased desire and the threat of boredom, a pain unknown to the brutes. Thought, in particular, creates a vast amount of passion, but in the end, all of our struggles are for the same things that non-human animals try to attain—pleasure and pain. But humans, unlike animals, are haunted by the constant specter of death, a realization which ultimately tips the scale in favor of being a brute. Furthermore, non-human animals are more content with mere existence, with the present moment, than are we who constantly anticipate future joys and sorrows.

And yet animals suffer. What is the point of all their suffering? You cannot claim that it builds their souls or results from their free will. The only justified conclusion is “that the will to live, which underlies the whole world of phenomena, must, in their case satisfy its cravings by feeding upon itself.”[vii] Schopenhauer argues that this state of affairs—pointless evil—is consistent with the Hindu notion that Brahma created the world by a mistake, or with the Buddhist idea that the world resulted from a disturbance of the calm of nirvana, or even with the Greek notion of the world and gods resulting from fate. But the Christian idea that a god was happy with the creation of all this misery is unacceptable. Two things make it impossible for any rational person to believe the world was created by an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being: 1) the pervasiveness of evil; and 2) imperfection of human beings. Evil is an indictment of such a creator, but since there is no creator it is really an indictment of reality and of ourselves.

Schopenhauer continues: “If you want a safe compass to guide you through life, and to banish all doubt as to the right way of looking at it, you cannot do better than accustom yourself to regard this world as a penitentiary, a sort of penal colony.”[viii] He claims this is the view of Origen, Empedocles, Pythagoras, Cicero, as well as Brahmanism and Buddhism. Human life is so full of misery that if there are invisible spirits they must have become human to atone for their crimes.

If you accustom yourself to this view of life you will regulate your expectations accordingly, and cease to look upon all its disagreeable incidents … as anything unusual or irregular; nay, you will find everything is as it should be, in a world where each of us pays the penalty of existence in [their] own particular way.[ix]

Ironically there is a benefit to this view of life; we no longer need to look upon the foibles of our fellow men with surprise or indignation. Instead, we ought to realize that these are our faults too, the faults of all humanity and reality. This should lead to pity for our fellow sufferers in life. Thinking of the world as a place of suffering where we all suffer together reminds us of “the tolerance, patience, regard, and love of neighbor, of which everyone stands in need, and which, therefore, every [person] owes to [their] fellows.”[x]

Summary – Schopenhauer thinks life, both individually and as a whole, is meaningless, primarily because of the fact of suffering. It would be better if there was nothing. Given this situation, the best we can do is to extend mercy to our fellow sufferers. — https://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/11/17/arthur-schopenhauer-on-the-sufferings-of-the-world/

Here is a direct Schop quote I always refer to as the essence of his idea of the human condition:

Then again, how insatiable a creature is man! Every satisfaction he attains lays the seeds of some new desire, so that there is no end to the wishes of each individual will. And why is this? The real reason is simply that, taken in itself, Will is the lord of all worlds: everything belongs to it, and therefore no one single thing can ever give it satisfaction, but only the whole, which is endless. For all that, it must rouse our sympathy to think how very little the Will, this lord of the world, really gets when it takes the form of an individual; usually only just enough to keep the body together. This is why man is so very miserable.

Life presents itself chiefly as a task — the task, I mean, of subsisting at all, gagner sa vie. If this is accomplished, life is a burden, and then there comes the second task of doing something with that which has been won — of warding off boredom, which, like a bird of prey, hovers over us, ready to fall wherever it sees a life secure from need. The first task is to win something; the second, to banish the feeling that it has been won; otherwise it is a burden.

Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life — the craving for which is the very essence of our being — were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us — an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest — when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon — an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature — shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious. — https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimism/chapter2.html

And finally, one of the better commentaries of the meaning of Schop's philosophy for the layman:

When Schopenhauer says that all life is suffering he means that all life, that is, everything that lives and strives, is filled with suffering. Life wants, and because its wants are mostly unfulfilled, it exists largely in a state of unfulfilled striving and deprivation. Schopenhauer says it thus:

All willing springs from lack, from deficiency, and thus from suffering. Fulfillment brings this to an end; yet for one wish that is fulfilled there remain at least ten that are denied. Further, desiring lasts a long time, demands and requests go on to infinity, fulfillment is short and meted out sparingly. But even the final satisfaction itself is only apparent; the wish fulfilled at once makes way for a new one; the former is a known delusion, the latter a delusion not as yet known. No attained object of willing can give a satisfaction that lasts and no longer declines; but it is always like the alms thrown to a beggar, which reprieves him today so that his misery may be prolonged till tomorrow. Therefore, so long as our consciousness is filled by our will [which is as long as we are will-filled living beings], so long as we are given up to the throng of desires with its constant hopes and fears, so long as we are the subject of willing, we never obtain lasting happiness or peace. Essentially, it is all the same whether we pursue or flee, fear harm or aspire to enjoyment; care for the constantly demanding will, no matter in what form, continually fills and moves consciousness; but without peace and calm, true well-being is absolutely impossible. (Die Welt, vol I, p 196)

We have seen this theme in The Book of Ecclesiastes and we could have seen it as well in Leo Tolstoy's A Confession, as well as in Blaise Pascal's Pensées, so it should not really be new to us.

Pascal tells us in his Pensées, for example, that we all do actually realize life to be so full of suffering, emptiness, and unsatisfaction that the only way we can tolerate it is by filling our lives with a whole variety of diversions and entertainments.

Misery.--The only thing which consoles us for our miseries is diversion, and yet this is the greatest of our miseries. For it is this which principally hinders us from reflecting upon ourselves and which makes us insensibly ruin ourselves. Without this [diversions] we should be in a state of weariness, and this weariness would spur us to seek a more solid means of escaping from it. But diversion amuses us, and leads us unconsciously to death. (Pensées # 171)

Diversion.--As men are not able to fight against death, misery, ignorance, they have taken it into their heads, in order to be happy, not to think of them at all. (Pensées # 168)

And Pascal reminds us also about Ecclesiastes and Job.

Misery.--Solomon and Job have best known and best spoken of the misery of man; the former the most fortunate, and the latter most unfortunate of men; the former knowing the vanity of pleasures from experience, the latter the reality of evils. (Pensées # 174)

What Schopenhauer adds to this awareness of universal suffering is, as we saw above, that the root of all life's suffering lies in wanting, desiring and fearing, i.e., in willing

You will see much of Schopenhauer's thinking on this theme in pp 311-26 of Die Welt, so you might want to pay particular attention to those pages.

For example, on p 315 he tells us

The ceaseless efforts to banish suffering achieve nothing more than a change in its form. This is essentially want, lack, care for the maintenance of life. If, which is very difficult, we have succeeded in removing pain in this form, it at once appears on the scene in a thousand others, varying according to age and circumstances, such as sexual impulse, passionate love, jealousy, envy, hatred, anxiety, ambition, avarice, sickness, and so on. Finally, if it cannot find entry in any other shape, it comes in the sad, grey garment of weariness, satiety, and boredom, against which many different attempts are made. Even if we ultimately succeed in driving these away, it will hardly be done without letting pain in again in one of the previous forms, and thus starting the dance once more at the beginning; for every human life is tossed backwards and forwards between pain and boredom.

And even what we call "happiness," he says, is really only a temporary cessation of some particular suffering. Schopenhauer tells us that

All satisfaction, or what is commonly called happiness, is really and essentially always negative only, and never positive. It is not a gratification which comes to us originally and of itself, but it must always be the satisfaction of a wish. For desire, that is to say, want [or will], is the precedent condition of every pleasure; but with the satisfaction, the desire and therefore the pleasure cease; and so the satisfaction or gratification can never be more than deliverance from a pain, from a want. (p 319)

Furthermore, all this suffering is without any purpose or meaning (pp 161-65). It is all pointless and in vain. — http://philosophycourse.info/lecsite/lec-schop-suff.html

Thank you for the Schopensour summary.

I'm wondering if it's possible to sidestep all this wordy complexity. It seems more useful to me to do something along these lines...

1) Suffering arises from thought itself.

2) Thought is an electro-chemical information medium, a mechanical process of the body like circulating blood, digestion, sex drive etc.

3) Suffering is most efficiently managed by focusing on the mechanical process which is it's source. Suffering is a story, an unpleasant story generated by this mechanical process called thought. To the degree we lower the volume of thought, that which the story is made of, the story and suffering goes away.

As example, say there is an annoying advertisement on the TV. We could yell at the TV, bemoan our fate, analyze the social forces which lead to ads etc etc a process which can continue without end and so on. Or, we could just hit the mute button on the TV, thus sidestepping that whole process.

There seems to be assumption that suffering is a necessary condition of suicide.

Looking through the mechanical lens....

We have to eat and drink regularly to survive. We typically don't turn this never ending life long requirement in to a big complex problem. We calmly accept the fact that a price tag for living is eating and drinking, and we do the regular maintenance which is required. Simple.

When we're tired we don't turn this in to a big complex problem, we just get some sleep. Simple.

When we need to go to the bathroom we don't turn this in to a big complex problem, we just go. Simple.

If we look at the mind as just another mechanical process of the body then the same kind of simple direct maintenance solutions present themselves. If we're suffering from doing too much thinking, take a break from thinking, rest, let the thought engine cool off.

Of course this is a temporary solution, and the need for ongoing maintenance remains. So what? How is this any different than all the other routine maintenance which we calmly accept as being necessary?

Well ok, if one wishes to turn this fundamentally simple situation in to a huge complex issue for entertainment purposes there's no law against that. But shouldn't the clear minded honest philosopher disclose that this is what they're doing?

Looking through the mechanical lens....

We have to eat and drink regularly to survive. We typically don't turn this never ending life long requirement in to a big complex problem. We calmly accept the fact that a price tag for living is eating and drinking, and we do the regular maintenance which is required. Simple. — Jake

Not really. You downplay greatly, the complexity of the human mind, which Schopenhauer explicated so well. Eat and drink? How do we obtain such things? On one end we created civilization- and passed the industrial revolution, a highly complex technological one. This is an immense network of thought, anxiety, time management, and effort to maintain. Food is not just the consumption. It is everything that goes into obtaining it. Even on the individual level- it's not just "ready at hand" when you need it.

Well ok, if one wishes to turn this fundamentally simple situation in to a huge complex issue for entertainment purposes there's no law against that. But shouldn't the clear minded honest philosopher disclose that this is what they're doing? — Jake

If only our minds went into sleep modes. Sitting isn't just sitting. It is a mind thinking a myriad of things. Even sleep can be a torture for the insomniac and uncomfortable. Then there is the effort to achieve this seemingly simple phenomenon. The human mind is immensely complex. To describe it as just cooling off, is to downplay the thoughts upon thoughts it creates for itself to entertain itself. Boredom is a serious limit to the human animal. We must amuse ourselves- even if that means putting in effort to meditate or other type mental exercise- which is itself an act of will.

Let me explain a little more on will. According to Schopenhauer- Will (capital W because of its metaphysical importance) is the lord of all worlds. He was an idealist in the sense that all physical phenomena were simply a manifestation of this unified principle of Will. Now, do I believe there is some underlying noumenal force of will- not really. But his conclusion was sound nonetheless. Each act of movement is in a way will-personified. A mind needs to focus its attention. It needs an aboutness. It needs a to do. It is deprived of "something". The needs of hunger and taste, the wants of a goal to work towards- a project. It cannot be still. And here is probably the most important takeaway- if existence was satisfying IN AND OF ITSELF there would be no need for need. There would be no boredom at the end, there would be no need to move towards ANYTHING. Mere existence would be its own satisfaction. But it is not.

The pessimist does not appreciate the magnitude of the rarely actualized state(s) of maximal satisfaction (heaven) that occurs in our creative pursuits. This heavenly state is merely defined away as "goal achievement". Infinite variations of potentiality offer even better yet moments of joy and bliss. And the better yet beauty of this moment is that is can be shared with others. This is why Jesus said spread the Kingdom of Heaven that is within you.

And here is probably the most important takeaway- if existence was satisfying IN AND OF ITSELF there would be no need for need. — schopenhauer1

Existence can be satisfying in and of itself. Very useful information, but the price tag will be it might spoil your Schopenshour hobby. Your call of course.

Existence can be satisfying in and of itself. Very useful information, but the price tag will be it might spoil your Schopenshour hobby. Your call of course. — Jake

If we are basing satisfaction on Schop's definition- satisfaction stands in for a temporary reprieve from the usual game of goal-getting and dissatisfaction with a current state (think of any "need" or "want" here), then that can't be right. You can disagree with the premise, but based on that definition you will need more than an assertion and a joke.

I agree with Schop and you that we do a lot of running from from the void that can appear when we aren't distracting ourselves with becoming agendas, and that we are often busy creating meaning stories to avoid that void etc. So I agree that we often don't experience existence as being satisfying in and of itself.

That's different than a suggestion that dissatisfaction is somehow a property of existence, and there's nothing that can be done about that etc, as your quote seems to imply.

And here is probably the most important takeaway- if existence was satisfying IN AND OF ITSELF there would be no need for need. — schopenhauer1

So perhaps this is just a semantic quibble, and hopefully we agree that we're talking about our experience of existence. My argument is that this experience can be managed, and that existence can be experienced as satisfying in and of itself at least part of the time. Thus, cynicism is not really justified, given that there are things we can do to adjust the situation Schop seems to be describing.

I wasn't joking, such an investigation has the potential to undermine your interest in Schopenhaur, and I get the impression that perhaps you'd rather that not happen, as you seem rather attached to the fellow. This is just a friendly warning, not advice on how you should proceed.

So I agree that we often don't experience existence as being satisfying in and of itself.

That's different than a suggestion that dissatisfaction is somehow a property of existence, and there's nothing that can be done about that etc, as your quote seems to imply. — Jake

But I too disagree with the notion that dissatisfaction is somehow a property of existence. However, as human animals, it is in our nature to be dissatisfied, IF it is defined as Schop is defining it, which I think you are missing. If you want to call the human animal nature "Experience" of existence rather than the nature of the human animal- so be it. Then we are just playing word-games but agreeing on the fact of the matter. However, if you think we are not dissatisfied at almost all times, then as Schop explains, why do we need goals in the first place? Why do we need to do anything at all? The problem is not that his philosophy is too narrow, but that it is so expansive, that you are missing his point.

However, as human animals, it is in our nature to be dissatisfied, IF it is defined as Schop is defining it, which I think you are missing. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps you could clarify Schop's definition for us in simpler clearer words, if you feel that we are somehow obligated to limit discussion to his definitions.

However, as human animals, it is in our nature to be dissatisfied — schopenhauer1

Let's use a hopefully helpful comparison.

It is in our nature to be physically hungry. The physical hunger arises again and again, over and over, day after day, all throughout our lives, until we die. Observe how we don't turn this reality in to fuel for cynicism, despair and grand philosophy. Instead, we make peace with the necessity of managing this chronic need, and address the need in a practical manner.

It is also in our nature to suffer from chronic psychic hunger, that's true, agreed. But again there is no need cynicism, despair and grand philosophy. Just as with physical hunger we have the option to address psychic hunger in a straightforward practical manner. And just as is true with physical hunger, there is no permanent solution. Just as is true with physical hunger it's a case of ongoing management.

What unites physical hunger and psychic hunger is that they are both inevitable by products of mechanical processes, digestion and thinking

However, if you think we are not dissatisfied at almost all times, then as Schop explains, why do we need goals in the first place? — schopenhauer1

I agree with much of what Schop is saying in the sense that we typically fear the void which emerges when we aren't covering it up with lots of becoming schemes. I agree that this is covering up process involving creating meaning stories out of thin air is a chronic part of the human experience.

I disagree with any notion that this state of affairs is a fixed property of the human condition which can't be avoided, thus we should be cynical and despairing etc.

The dissatisfaction is a product of thought. Thought can be managed to some degree. It is possible to experience reality as being sufficient in and of itself. I'm guessing that Schop knew nothing about any of this given the time and place where he lived. Just a guess, could be wrong, not a Schop expert here obviously.

Perhaps you could clarify Schop's definition for us in simpler clearer words, if you feel that we are somehow obligated to limit discussion to his definitions. — Jake

"Us" "We"? Royal we? :razz:. So his definition was essentially laid out in the quote I used above when I provided the three Schop internet sources. That is to say desire comes from a lack of something- an already-at-hand deficiency that is in the equation and does not/cannot be extricated as animals who need to survive and find mind-engaging stimulation from the environment. Put more elegantly here
:

When Schopenhauer says that all life is suffering he means that all life, that is, everything that lives and strives, is filled with suffering. Life wants, and because its wants are mostly unfulfilled, it exists largely in a state of unfulfilled striving and deprivation. Schopenhauer says it thus:

All willing springs from lack, from deficiency, and thus from suffering. Fulfillment brings this to an end; yet for one wish that is fulfilled there remain at least ten that are denied. Further, desiring lasts a long time, demands and requests go on to infinity, fulfillment is short and meted out sparingly. But even the final satisfaction itself is only apparent; the wish fulfilled at once makes way for a new one; the former is a known delusion, the latter a delusion not as yet known. No attained object of willing can give a satisfaction that lasts and no longer declines; but it is always like the alms thrown to a beggar, which reprieves him today so that his misery may be prolonged till tomorrow. Therefore, so long as our consciousness is filled by our will [which is as long as we are will-filled living beings], so long as we are given up to the throng of desires with its constant hopes and fears, so long as we are the subject of willing, we never obtain lasting happiness or peace. Essentially, it is all the same whether we pursue or flee, fear harm or aspire to enjoyment; care for the constantly demanding will, no matter in what form, continually fills and moves consciousness; but without peace and calm, true well-being is absolutely impossible. (Die Welt, vol I, p 196)

It is in our nature to be physically hungry. The physical hunger arises again and again, over and over, day after day, all throughout our lives, until we die. Observe how we don't turn this reality in to fuel for cynicism, despair and grand philosophy. Instead, we make peace with the necessity of managing this chronic need, and address the need in a practical manner. — Jake

We make due yes. What choice other than physical suicide do we have? Life is about living this out.

It is also in our nature to suffer from chronic psychic hunger, that's true, agreed. But again there is no need cynicism, despair and grand philosophy. Just as with physical hunger we have the option to address psychic hunger in a straightforward practical manner. And just as is true with physical hunger, there is no permanent solution. Just as is true with physical hunger it's a case of ongoing management. — Jake

Well yes, ongoing management, correct.

What unites physical hunger and psychic hunger is that they are both inevitable by products of mechanical processes, digestion and thinking — Jake

The dissatisfaction is a product of thought. Thought can be managed to some degree. It is possible to experience reality as being sufficient in and of itself. I'm guessing that Schop knew nothing about any of this given the time and place where he lived. Just a guess, could be wrong, not a Schop expert here obviously. — Jake

No nothing human is straightforward. You know that toilet you shit on? That was created out of immense complexities of distribution and manufacturing. Schopenhauer had a passage about how there are these seemingly basic needs like hunger, and that out of these basic drives, the human mind needs to make a kaleidoscope of needs and wants that are ceaseless and myriad in their complexity. Sure, you can throw words like straightforward and practical to make a rhetorical point. This doesn't change the facts on the ground- which is that the human mind is not straightforward and very complex. Even tribal societies have millennia of trial and error in cultural practices to maintain their small hunting-gathering or pastoralist economies and lifestyles, which again are anything but straightforward.

Anyways, the point is that the dissatisfaction is in the equation. What Schop means by reality not being sufficient in itself is that we would not ever get bored, we would not ever be restless, we would have no need for anything if mere existence was itself satisfying. Need and want are the ruler of our lives. Cause and effect in a physical sense, but dissatisfaction in terms of the human psyche/mind. The root of the animal experience, and MORE so for the human animal is the needs of survival (and in the case of the human animal) distraction and entertainments to fill the void. So yes, the animal does suffer IF suffering is defined as Schop (and to an extent Buddhism) is defining suffering. So your idea about straightforward, practical, and just the mere assertion that we are experiencing reality being sufficient does not, to me, counter that argument.

What choice other than physical suicide do we have? — schopenhauer1

Learn how to better manage the device which is generating the suffering.

What Schop means by reality not being sufficient in itself is that we would not ever get bored, we would not ever be restless, we would have no need for anything if mere existence was itself satisfying — schopenhauer1

Except that reality IS satisfying in and of itself. Our experience of reality is often not satisfying because we don't bother to better manage the device which is generating the suffering.

The reason that we typically don't experience reality as being satisfying in and of itself is that we are rarely paying attention to reality, but are instead focusing on the symbolic realm between our ears, a phenomena often referred to as being "lost in thought".

It's true that being lost in thought is a very common human habit, and that it generates many of the issues which Schop is describing. I don't deny that there is a problem and that Schop is articulately focused on it.

My point is that there is no reason for cynicism, despair and relentless gloominess because there are things we can do to address the problem.

My point is that there is no reason for cynicism, despair and relentless gloominess because there are things we can do to address the problem. — Jake

There's no problem. All Schopenhauer did was lower the bar for what entails suffering to such an extent that everyday life is suddenly filled with it. In other words, Schopenhauer was a pussy.

There's no problem. All Schopenhauer did was lower the bar for what entails suffering to such an extent that everyday life is suddenly filled with it. In other words, Schopenhauer was a pussy. — Benkei

Or conversely.. we are suffering but accept it as a rite of passage of the human experience?

You're, of course, free to adopt Schopenhauer's definition of suffering and equate a lot of things with suffering that have nothing to do with any common sense idea of what suffering means (e.g. pain, distress or hardship). Boredom doesn't come close. Striving for better things, reaching goals aren't suffering. The possible resulting search for something new after great achievements isn't hardship. Only an emotional pessimist will lower the bar for suffering to a level where taking a crap is an existential problem.

All willing springs from imagination.

You're, of course, free to adopt Schopenhauer's definition of suffering and equate a lot of things with suffering that have nothing to do with any common sense idea of what suffering means (e.g. pain, distress or hardship). Boredom doesn't come close. Striving for better things, reaching goals aren't suffering. The possible resulting search for something new after great achievements isn't hardship. Only an emotional pessimist will lower the bar for suffering to a level where taking a crap is an existential problem.

All willing springs from imagination. — Benkei

It still stands that this definition is a characterization of what is the case. We will because we cannot help it. It is in our nature as restless animals. The counterpoint to this would be that existence would be satisfying in and of itself without any needs- but that is not our world.

To the degree I understand him, Schopensour the philosopher (and the poster) does seem to be writing about topics that are worth discussing. I do think we cram our lives with busyness primarily to avoid facing an inner emptiness, that we create meaning out of nothing to have a story to fill the silence with. Hopefully that is a generally accurate summary.

Where I have a problem with Schopensour and his followers is that they seem to be worshiping suffering. There's this enthusiasm for endlessly restating the sad state of the human condition etc, and little interest in doing anything constructive about improving the situation.

To me, it's rational to shine a light on problems if the goal is to then try to address them. It's not that rational to limit the inquiry to endlessly describing the problem.

It still stands that this definition is a characterization of what is the case. We will because we cannot help it. It is in our nature as restless animals. The counterpoint to this would be that existence would be satisfying in and of itself without any needs- but that is not our world. — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure how to relate the first three sentences to what I said. What do you mean? As to the counterpoint: what's the use of comparing this world to a world that isn't and isn't possible?

To the degree I understand him, Schopensour the philosopher (and the poster) does seem to be writing about topics that are worth discussing. I do think we cram our lives with busyness primarily to avoid facing an inner emptiness, that we create meaning out of nothing to have a story to fill the silence with. Hopefully that is a generally accurate summary. — Jake

I think that's unnecessarily judgmental. What's wrong with creating meaning in an inherently meaningless world? It's lovely, in my view, as it is inherently an act of creation. Human knowledge and progress is a gigantic edifice of meaning imposed by us on reality, cultivated, shared from generation to generation. What other creature is capable of this?

The counterpoint to this would be that existence would be satisfying in and of itself without any needs- but that is not our world. — schopenhauer1

I don't see how one could find something satisfying other than from the position of having been unsatisfied? They seem to go together. We are restless, or we are resting, lively or lifeless, hungry or sated; comfortable or discomforted, etc. Call it all suffering, why?

All Schopenhauer did was lower the bar for what entails suffering to such an extent that everyday life is suddenly filled with it. In other words, Schopenhauer was a pussy. — Benkei

Perhaps for some people it is so; some people take their own lives, and seem to have been suffering invisibly. I don't think it is a mistake to find life burdensome, any more than it is to find it a fascinating and joyful privilege, well worth a few slings and arrows. But it is perhaps a mistake to make one's own condition a universal philosophy.

I don't see how one could find something satisfying other than from the position of having been unsatisfied? They seem to go together. We are restless, or we are resting, lively or lifeless, hungry or sated; comfortable or discomforted, etc. Call it all suffering, why? — unenlightened

The world is not what you make it.,both in terms of basic drives and in social-survival realities. To accept is to keep living. To deny is to suicide. Very interesting choice we are given.

I think that's unnecessarily judgmental. — Benkei

I didn't mean it to be judgmental, was just trying to summarize my highly imperfect understanding of Schop quickly.

What's wrong with creating meaning in an inherently meaningless world? — Benkei

Right. We are human. We write stories, about everything. This is who we are and what we do. However...

1) If/when we are creating meaning stories as a way to hide from something deep inside that we are afraid of, then the stories can become problematic. If I NEED my story and you disrespect that story, I may have to kill you, wipe out your tribe, remove any threat to my story etc.

2) We don't actually know it's a meaningless world. That's just another story some people like to tell.

To accept is to keep living. To deny is to suicide. Very interesting choice we are given. — schopenhauer1

It is, to me, and probably to @Benkei, a curious, unfamiliar choice. As if I were to say to myself picking up a hammer, 'shall I hammer the nail into the wood, or my foot?' Conceptually, both are possibilities, but I never actually wonder about it or consider the choice. Or going to the restaurant, dancing naked on the table is a choice, but it is not 'on the menu', neither the restaurant's nor my own internal menu of possibilities. I genuinely do not know, from my own experience, what it is to face suicide as a real choice, though I accept it is one for some people. I choose to call myself lucky, rather than delusional, when pressed to consider it.

Un, I think you are modest to believe, that your not holding the suicide card in your hand, has anything to do with luck.
Unless you mean that you have never been in a dark enough place to have thought about suicide as an out. Is that what you meant?

Unless you mean that you have never been in a dark enough place — ArguingWAristotleTiff

There is certainly that; circumstantially, I haven't lived through a war, had addict or fighting parents, serious illness, or childhood trauma, but perhaps it is more so dispositional, or genetic. I really mean it is not a personal virtue that I have achieved by my own effort, or by adopting a better philosophy. There is nothing 'reasonable' about my attitude to life, and 'unreasonable' about Schop's. Hemlock is just never on the breakfast menu for me, and it seems to be always there for him - our philosophies explain different lives, and so we have no real disagreement.

Hemlock is just never on the breakfast menu for me, and it seems to be always there for him - — unenlightened

Well, as Rudyard Kipling said to Charles Foster Kane:

"If you can keep your sled when all about you are losing theirs..."

Oh screw it. I’ll delete this post.

The thing with suicide is that you can't be wrong about it, and that's a scary prospect.

I don't think it is a mistake to find life burdensome, any more than it is to find it a fascinating and joyful privilege, well worth a few slings and arrows. But it is perhaps a mistake to make one's own condition a universal philosophy. — unenlightened

I think this is a really important point. When you cannot feel joy or any genuine positive sensation, it becomes rational to conclude that all action merely involves being afflicted by some suffering, need or want, and then toiling to cease that sensation, and nothing else. I agree that fundamentally we are motivated to act only by some sense of dissatisfaction, suffering or lack - without which we would be action-less. But for most people there is a positive sense of satisfaction felt when the whatever is causing the dissatisfaction is dealt with, there is a payoff. If you presently lack the ability to feel the satisfaction that comes when needs are dealt with and goals are reached - the world truly can seem a bleak, dark place. Suicide becomes a real, legitimate option to consider.

All satisfaction, or what is commonly called happiness, is really and essentially always negative only, and never positive. It is not a gratification which comes to us originally and of itself, but it must always be the satisfaction of a wish. For desire, that is to say, want [or will], is the precedent condition of every pleasure; but with the satisfaction, the desire and therefore the pleasure cease; and so the satisfaction or gratification can never be more than deliverance from a pain, from a want. — Schopenhauer

What's going awry with this kind of thinking is not that it's wrong, but rather that the lack of experienced payoff is being universalized. For some people, life really is this way. There is no experience of joy or pleasure in their lives. You eat to deal with hunger pains, and it seems for no other reason than that you may continue to experience hunger tomorrow. The issue is projecting this lack of payoff in your personal life onto everybody elses - universalizing it. I used to do the very same thing. At times I have been quite deeply depressed and suicidal, eating was nothing but a chore for me, food was unenjoyable. It seemed the world was just a blind process of suffering perpetuating itself, using human embodiment and all the misery that entails to further it's own existence. Suicide became a very serious consideration. But since I have become better, hunger doesn't seem like such a monumentally raw deal to experience the pleasures of eating, and the novelty of trying new foods. Neither view is wrong per se, the issue is when you project the very personal character of your own experience (are you experiencing a payoff? aren't you?) out onto the rest of the world. It's as if because you personally are not feeling joy from eating, and therefore all eating, for everybody in the world, is nothing but a chore to quell the pangs. There's two issues here. The fundamental unchangeable character of the world - the dissatisfaction that pervades everything, and the varied amounts of payoff each human gets from dealing with their needs and wants - the degree to which you can feel genuine pleasure and joy. The latter is what can be managed. You can't change the fundamental character of the world, but you can get alter and work on how much payoff you can get from dealing with it. At least in my own experience you can start experiencing the payoff again, and life isn't so bleak.