von Hartmann had some interesting insights in this regard- the illusion is that happiness can be had in the present, the hereafter, or a future utopian state. So where does that leave us if indeed he is correct? — schopenhauer1

The only way I could imagine him being correct is if nobody can ever be happy, even for a moment. Since that would require that everybody that has ever said they are happy was lying, I find that too implausible to consider. It seems more likely that the Earth is made of cheese.

The only way I could imagine him being correct is if nobody can ever be happy, even for a moment. Since that would require that everybody that has ever said they are happy was lying, I find that too implausible to consider. It seems more likely that the Earth is made of cheese. — andrewk

I guess maybe we have to distinguish what he meant by happiness though, huh?

I guess it's more the idea that the faster we develop various avenues, the faster we get weary of it.. I may be interpreting him wrong, but I think his idea is of the Hegelian lines that history is moving towards a teleology, but instead of some ideal political/social state, it is one of discontinuance. So, let us pursue of all avenues and tucker our curiosity, hope, and illusions out, and then we will just decide that the best course of action is the quietude of non-being. It will just take a very long time to work itself out. I just think that's an interesting thought. What is your reaction to it besides that it is majorly depressing sounding?
@csalisbury I'm interested in your opinion too.

I don't believe in utopian visions. We are not heading towards heaven on Earth. But I do think that things have been getting generally better in the West since medieval times. The progress is very slow and sometimes we go back for a while. The current rise of national chauvinism in many countries, and attempts to justify racism and sexism, are examples.

I am not so sanguine about some other cultures. It is especially disheartening that many countries with islamic majorities have been becoming more theocratic and repressive. In some cases, like Turkey and Indonesia, the theocratic element is new. In others like Pakistan, it was always there but whereas it was waning up to about 1980, it has been on the rise since.

Russia is another setback. After a decade or so of optimism following the fall of the Soviet Union, we now seem to well on the way back to repression that is not very different from what was there pre-1989.

In any case, no matter how kind a civilisation becomes, it's still vulnerable to external shocks, be they global warming or an asteroid impact, which could send them back to a post-apocalyptic, everyone for themselves, situation, from which they need to gradually extricate themselves over the centuries. Asimov's 'Nightfall' depicts a world in which that collapse happens with monotonous regularity over millennia.

I don't expect a consensus for voluntary extinction to ever be reached. It is only ever tiny minorities that have such views. For that to change, the genetic makeup of humans would need to change, and it's hard to see how that could happen in a way that makes that a goal, Hegel notwithstanding.

We are thrown into this existence, and have to make the best of it. Some individuals may choose on ethical grounds not to procreate - to throw others into existence - but I think it will be rare enough that it makes no difference to the big picture of human history.

Well, that is a very Schopenhaurean suggestion, but probably not a life I could live in a dedicated way to. I'm more interested in the "great outdoors" of society and understanding its ends. Micro-decisions like procreation have such profound implications. What is the point of bringing another person into the world? What are we here for in the first place? I wish this was more of a focus rather than, the darned TPS reports.. .This economic system keeping things going, but we don't know what it's going for. Look at modern life. We can have illusions it can be different, but von Hartmann had some interesting insights in this regard- the illusion is that happiness can be had in the present, the hereafter, or a future utopian state. So where does that leave us if indeed he is correct? Pretend, for a minute that he is correct. Where does that leave us? — schopenhauer1

It leaves us where we've always been doesn't it?

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. — Ecclesiastes

Appetite can take all forms, and the appetite for 'wisdom' of this sort is itself as vain as anything else. Appetite becomes addiction when the addict returns to the same thing, again and again, trying to derive the same kick. When you say you wouldn't pursue meditation, because you're more 'interested' in the understanding society and it's ends - who or what really is speaking here? In what way are you interested in understanding society and its ends? Please understand I mean no offense when I say it seems you arrived at a final understanding a long time ago.

How would you characterize a drive that keeps you chasing after something, and always arriving at the same place, tho in slightly varied guise?

Appetite can take all forms, and the appetite for 'wisdom' of this sort is itself as vain as anything else. Appetite becomes addiction when the addict returns to the same thing, again and again, trying to derive the same kick. When you say you wouldn't pursue meditation, because you're more 'interested' in the understanding society and it's ends - is that not the 'will' speaking? Sublimated into intellectual rather than carnal urges? In what way are you interested in understanding society and its ends? Please understand I mean no offense when I say it seems you arrived at an understanding a long time ago.

How would you characterize a drive that keeps you chasing after something, and always arriving at the same place? — csalisbury

Ok, then would you say there is a difference between this "understanding" I have that is constantly arriving at the same place, and the usual economic cycle, or the daily worklife, or the hunting and gathering?

Edit: In other words- why is mine sublimated intellectualism and the "others" not sublimated dailylifeness?

Ok, then would you say there is a difference between this "understanding" I have that is constantly arriving at the same place, and the usual economic cycle, or the daily worklife, or the hunting and gathering? — schopenhauer1

Well, yes, but it's a broad question. Many differences, many similarities. Isn't the essential characteristic of will that it is in-itself one, but presents itself as multiple?

Well, yes, but it's a broad question. Isn't the essential characteristic of will that it is in-itself one, but presents itself as multiple? — csalisbury

Ok, I see, this is looking through the Schopenhauer lens. Yes, if looking through the Schopenhauer lens, we are just manifestations of will and thus any attempt at anything really is will- even philosophicalesque ponderings and musings. Calming the will is the salvation here. But going back to my point about von Hartmann and the Great Outdoors. Von Hartmann was indicating that it isn't individual quietude but social quietude. Schopenhauer doesn't take into account as much the social phenomena of existence. Procreation begets others- it is a social union between two. Lonliness is part of the restless will- manifested in humans for example. We form communities- even of a philosophical and religious nature, and even if to teach about negating the need for other people, other things, other thoughts, etc. It's a bit circular, but the social cannot be ignored. We are here due to many social circumstances- a culture, an economy a history with development. So I am not trying to constrain my thoughts only through the lens of Schopenhauer, though there are immense insights that can be applied from him to the evaluation of our psyche and restlessness, and suffering in general.

Alright, but I'm having trouble seeing anything essentially new in what you've introduced via Von Hartmann. It seems like it's just a cipher for: there is a tradition that sees history as moving toward some happy end point, but that won't happen. Why? .... Basically the same schopenhauerian analysis, no?

Alright, but I'm having trouble seeing anything essentially new in what you've introduced via Von Hartmann. It seems like it's just a cipher for: there is a tradition that sees history as moving toward some happy end point, but that won't happen. Why? .... Basically the same schopenhauerian analysis, no? — csalisbury

Sort of. But it's not just that it won't happen, but we will become weary to the point of disquietude. The software engineer who takes kids out to see a movie, reads a novel on the weekend, watches some YouTube clips, plays some video games while the kids are away and he has a chance for himself, mows the lawn, trims the hedges, putters in the garden, plants a few more trees by the edge of the yard, meets up with a friend at the bar, plans a vacation to Asia, makes some tweaks to the retirement plan, picks up the groceries for the week, sends some cards and gifts out for birthdays and holidays, gets mad at the neighbors for making too much noise, walking the dog and making some veterinarian appointments, getting the dog food, making sure the utilities, rent/mortgage, car payments are met at the beginning of the month, watches some TV or Netflix, reads a few news articles, and looks endlessly on social media apps....What is this?

What is this? — schopenhauer1

It's Trainspotting, or a Houellebecq novel - both of which are filled to the gills with sex, or obsession with it.

It's also ecclesiastes.

That's what I'm saying. People aren't going to stop procreating because all is vanity. It has been for a long time and the human race is still going strong.

It's Trainspotting, or a Houllebecq novel - both of which are filled to the gills with sex, or preoccupation with it. — csalisbury

How is it you are equating that with the vanities I was discussing :D? I'm more interested in how someone perseveres through a workday where they do minutia all day and then go home and do other minutia all day.

It's also ecclesiastes. — csalisbury

Yes that makes sense.

That's what I'm saying. People aren't going to stop procreating because all is vanity. It has been for a long time and the human race is still going strong. — csalisbury

But as we get more "advanced" in our introspection, our technology, our understanding, perhaps it won't? Perhaps truly all will be vanity?

How is it you are equating that with the vanities I was discussing :D? I'm more interested in how someone perseveres through a workday where they do minutia all day and then go home and do other minutia all day. — schopenhauer1

Monologue from Trainspotting:

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. — trainspotting

It's in the same genre as your post. It's also, in a modified form (the gormless bachelor, rather than the complacent suburbanite) the type of thing Houellebecq fixates on, especially in his early novels.

But as we get more "advanced" in our introspection, our technology, our understanding, perhaps it won't? Perhaps truly all will be vanity? — schopenhauer1

I see no reason for thinking that since, again, we already reached that introspection in Ecclesiastes which was 900 thousand years ago (give or take.)

It's in the same genre as your post. It's also, in a modified form (the gormless bachelor, rather than the complacent suburbanite) the type of thing Houellebecq fixates on, especially in his early novels. — csalisbury

Ah. Very good.

I see no reason for thinking that since, again, we already reached that introspection in Ecclesiastes which was 900 thousand years ago (give or take.) — csalisbury

Well, that is one person or one author.. and there are thousands of others. But for it to become ubiquitous, for it to be a motivator (or demotivator rather). For it to actually affect people in their daily lives- not just some interesting topic of literature and the arts in general.

Well, that is one person or one author.. and there are thousands of others. But for it to become ubiquitous, for it to be a motivator (or demotivator rather). For it to actually affect people in their daily lives- not just some interesting topic of literature and the arts in general. — schopenhauer1

Alright, but give me the Von Hartmann argument for why that's likely to happen in the future, even tho it hasn't in the past.

I guess it's more the idea that the faster we develop various avenues, the faster we get weary of it.. — schopenhauer1

Otherwise known as "speaking for everyone."

Your prickish tendancies yet again steer you astray..missing the forest for the trees in your critiques.. Is it just some sort of condition of ahole tourettes? You can't help but spew it out right? Knee-jerk jerkishness, if you will.

The point being that it's a dubious empirical claim, Probably due to psychological projection from the author.

The point being that it's a dubious empirical claim, Probably due to psychological projection from the author. — Terrapin Station

Yeah I know what you were saying, but you probably don't really understand why I was criticizing your critique.

Oh, I understand, but I want to get us to do some philosophy rather than focusing just on your personality quirks.

Life is already suffering enough to deal with people like you. Either figure out how not to be an aggravating, irksome, disagreeable poster, or don't try to engage with me. Thank you.

Life is already suffering enough to deal with people like you — schopenhauer1

I don't believe that I'm the problem here. Maybe you should make some adjustments?

I don't believe that I'm the problem here. Maybe you should make some adjustments? — Terrapin Station

Hey, usually people with these problems rarely or never recognize it in themselves. Can't do much with it. Therapy I can recommend to exorcise the demons..other than that.. Disengaging with crazy-making people is the best solution for others.

Hey, usually people with these problems rarely or never recognize it in themselves. Can't do much with it. Therapy I can recommend to exorcise the demons..other than that.. Disengaging with crazy-making people is the best solution for others. — schopenhauer1

Aren't you the one complaining about suffering?

I feel deeply unhappy (and ethically perturbed) with the fact that I am (and others are) having horrible experiences and that any experiences including these I did not consent to initially.

I feel life is immoral for two main reasons. The first reason is because of all the clear problems in the world and the second is the lack of consent when bringing new beings here.

I don't feel there aren't any decent grounds for encouraging me to be stoical about the situation either. I don't think being alive or being dead are in my interest. I think the ethical issues are much wider than my own discontent. I feel more like protesting and rebelling. — Andrew4Handel

[the above quote was inserted by mod in order to enable merging of threads]
Try being strong instead of whiny and weak.
“Life is too hard, dying is too hard boo hoo.”
Grow up, and stop burdening everyone with yet another iteration of “I didnt ask to be born waaaa waaa”. I mean for fucksake, you know that thats a punchline to a joke right? That anybody could be such a whiny, weak person that they drop that line of reasoning is a JOKE people tell to make fun of the angsty, childish attitude you are meant to grow out of.
The fact that you or anyone else can intellectualise about it doesnt give you a pass on the weakness and self indulgent petulance that motivates it.
You wanna wallow in your diaper then you are free to do so but I invite you to shut up about it because nobody cares.
You should be ashamed of couching this in terms of philosophy rather than the actual source of you continuously bringing it up which is, to review one last time, that you a whiny and weak person. You can do better, diaper off, big boy pants on. Good luck, you sem like you’ll need it.
Also, for the mods who might want to delete that response on ad hom grounds or somesuch, I offer that it is an equally valid retort as the premiss of the thread, and there is actual merit to the criticisms I stated in the context of this thread.

Lots of thing wrong here. You might start by thinking harder than you have been about happiness, what it is, what it means.

Then, what if any significance yours or anyone's consent has, or means.

Third - if we're counting - the existence of problems in life does not make life itself immoral.

I recommend you keep before you these questions. Ask and try to answer them them often.
1) What, exactly, am I doing (thinking, feeling) right now?
2) What, exactly, does what i am doing (thinking, feeling) right now do for me? What is the benefit/payoff?
3) Is what I am doing (thinking, feeling) right now ultimately reasonable?

You're a person. Being a person implies duties to self and duties to others. Most of us do not do as well as we should do with these duties; all of us could do better.

Believe it or don't, the way to happiness (properly understood) is by doing right according to duty.

Not especially touchy-feely, but this isn't a touchy-feely forum. And touchy-feely is process, not substance. The sub-text here is, Grow up! It sounds harsh and unkind, but isn't. And the right kid of growing up, that you can also call becoming as in being and becoming, can be itself endless joy. Many folks, of course, don't get to realize this until they're too old to really enjoy it. Or another way, building a good life takes work. Get to work!

I don't feel there aren't any decent grounds for encouraging me to be stoical about the situation either. — Andrew4Handel

Try being strong instead of whiny and weak. — DingoJones

I don't consider myself weak for pointing out the wrongness of the situation. I consider conformists, the apathetic and people who abandon arguments weak.

I think stoicism in that face of blatant illogical and injustice is weak minded

The only questions that need asking are to parents/reproducers who keep perpetuating this. You don't ask an abuse victim how they managed to get abused.

I am still alive. A lot of people have died through victimization (War/famine/genocide etc). I am therefore not voiceless. It appears like you and others want silent victims who don't infringe on your comforts with protest over their experiences and opinions on life.

I think if someone is going to be forced into existence without consent the world would need to be a much better place with a much brighter history.

I think one of the top three philosophical questions is "Why did you have children". All the other philosophical questions exist only when you make someone start to exist.

Life is a tyranny of the majority and majority are not the most exceptional, intelligent people.

Try being strong instead of whiny and weak. — DingoJones

That's a brilliant first line of a first reply. In fact, the rest of your reply is pretty brilliant, too. :lol: :up:

I wish more people here would unabashedly tell it like it is without fear of reprisals.