We are always going to be annoyed or disappointed at something. — schopenhauer1
A pessimist would say that they are preventing the actuality of future suffering. Life ending might be a consequence, but it is passive and in recognition that there was nothing to be deprived in the first place (just our possible present sadness our projections of no future humans). — schopenhauer1
You know you can't actually do anything — schopenhauer1
but you are not going to let delusions that it can be overcome or the idea that we must keep producing for producing's sake or the idea that we should try to forget what is pretty much an inevitable reality that pervades life from keeping us from recognizing this tragic aesthetic. — schopenhauer1
You don't rebel by Nietzschean embrace. He had it all wrong. He increased the delusion more. He set a template for many other thinkers and followers to posture and fantasize about embracing (read overcoming) suffering. No, you rebel by recognizing that the suffering that is contained or is existence simply sucks, and that it is not good and recognizing it for what it is. No delusions of trying to twist it into rhetorical flourishes of "goodness" or by accepting it, or by embracing it. No, you have every right to dislike it and you should. The sooner we can rid ourselves of the delusions and recognize the existential dilemmas and contingent sufferings, put it on the table and see the pendulum of survival/goals and boredom, contingent painful experiences, annoyances as real- the instrumentality of all things of the world, then I think we can live with more verity. — schopenhauer1
This is the opposite of my idea of Rebellious Pessimism. It is not good to accept suffering. Complaining is fine.. Bitch to your hearts content and be discontent with it because it is always there and unrealistic to think it can be otherwise. — schopenhauer1
And the present can be pretty crappy too. — schopenhauer1
]If you are a philosophical pessimist: why do you not kill yourself right this moment? Are you depressed constantly?
If you do not subscribe to philosophical pessimism (Schopenhauer, Zapffe, Cioran, Benatar), why not?
As a personal side note: I have no idea what the hell I believe. Benatar's logic (antinatalism asymmetry) makes complete sense. Schopenhauer and even some of Zapffe's philosophy seem like fairly accurate descriptions of the human condition. I've fallen into the well of philosophical pessimism and I don't see any way out of the despair of it. I've contemplated suicide a LOT over the past month. If Benatar's asymmetry is correct (which I don't see how it could be wrong), there's absolutely no rational reason to continue to exist. Sure, there's some enjoyment in life, but when you are dead you won't miss that enjoyment. Happiness/pleasure has no effect in the equation, it seems. But when you're dead you'll also miss the suffering accompanying life, which is a pro. And you won't even know you aren't alive anymore. Is the only thing keeping me from killing myself my evolutionary instinct? Why the hell do I continue to get up in the morning, should I just end it all now? I honestly wish I'd never come across these negative positions - they make so much sense and yet have made my life a complete and utter depressive nightmare. — darthbarracuda
Eh. How big of a deal are you making this to be? Why are you annoyed? Why are you disappointed? Because your expectations have come into conflict with reality. — darthbarracuda
Fighting life head-on with the attitude that focuses on the negative leads to negativity. Although everyone feels disappointment and anxiety, not everyone is beat down about it. — darthbarracuda
But it's not something I really get all worked up about, which I sense you are (using my omniscient powers of internet-empathy). Life goes on, as they say. — darthbarracuda
This whole paragraph screams defeatism to me. Because what better way of amplifying suffering than by focusing on it and actively disliking every aspect of it that pervades your life? Nietzsche thought that the strong would be able to enjoy and relish life in a way that the weak could not. Call it delusional but at least they are enjoying it. — darthbarracuda
But why? Do you think bitching about it makes it any better? It's completely defeatist! — darthbarracuda
This just doesn't ring true to how life works though. — schopenhauer1
Interesting. Most people don't have time to ask existential questions to begin with so it seems that's more "how life works" than what we're doing here. :D — Benkei
Sapentia Benkei @180 Proof @darthbarracuda @Thorongil @Agustino — schopenhauer1
I am a pessimist at the time being, just not a metaphysical pessimist. That simply means that I believe that in the end, Nature will destroy any particular part from it; the death of the part is inevitable and necessary for the continuation of the whole. As such, every individual is doomed. But this isn't making any judgement on life itself, which would move into metaphysical pessimism.Agustino said: I have found pyrrhonism, epicureanism and stoicism in particular to be quite strong from a rational point of view. Epicureanism and stoicism, are for example, in practice, not even that far from each other; just different theoretical frameworks. — schopenhauer1
What would the point of not being indifferent be? The situations are out of your control, whether you care about them or not, that doesn't change the fact that they are out of your control.They do think that life has suffering at the least, and their answer, if I was to boil it down to a slogan is "be indifferent to situations one cannot control". — schopenhauer1
Stoicism tries to mitigate the fact that life presents itself as a problem (problems) to overcome, and pessimists are quick to point out that life has problems to overcome in the first place and this is not a good thing. Why should people have to cope with the problem? Why be given the problem? — schopenhauer1
Well, cows seem to be quite satisfied merely existing on a green pasture. It's only humans that seem to have a problem. So we can't generalise for all life. There are clearly different ways of experiencing the world, and not all of them experience mere existence as a form of suffering.mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing — Schopenhauer
No. I pretty much agree with Hegel that Stoicism ultimately is empty posturing. It gives itself a kind of ideal to reflect on that makes one think these things are answered, but when the rubber hits the road, it's ultimately impotent. — The Great Whatever
In all seriousness, Stoicism works for me, at least, because its ideal state (that of the sage) is more or less impossible, which is good for me, because then I have something to strive for at all times. Additionally, I like Stoicism because it's anti-hedonistic. This is possibly because I'm rather anhedonic most of the time, but also because hedonistic philosophies just look like a recipe for slavishness and misery to me. I also like Buddhism a lot, if that tells you anything. — Pneumenon
It's just a core tenet of Stoicism. Pleasure and pain may be choice-worthy or avoidance-worthy in some respect, but they're not 'good' and 'bad.' Only living in accordance with a certain ideal is. So a person who's tortured, if he sticks to his Stoic guns, might endure extreme pains, but his life would be no worse on that score. Bad things cannot happen to good people. — The Great Whatever
a) It seems inaccessible in practice because there are some who have preconditions that might make it much harder to follow than others. People with mental disorders come to mind. These people might have an extreme uphill climb compared with someone who might not have these conditions in terms of accessing a state of equanimity in terms of emotional detachment or emotional purging. Taking this into consideration, luck and fortune has more to do with becoming a Sage than the Stoic-advocate might like to admit. — schopenhauer1
It seems wrong to purge emotional response as emotions are the first responders to what is wrong with the world. — schopenhauer1
Easier to conform your will to the world than the world to your will. — WhiskeyWhiskers
I think Buddhism diagnosis and prescription usually works, and leads not only to non-suffering but flourishing. And Stoicism is simply how you deal with the remaining suffering, which, incidentally, is what I am now beginning to see as the only type of suffering that makes childbirth harmful. Ebola, for example, is reason enough for a woman to not have a child in Africa. The potential for nuclear war is reason enough to abstain from having children. But abstaining from having children because they might feel bored or feel unsatisfied with something seems very decadent. — darthbarracuda
I'll call this Rebellious Pessimism. You know you can't actually do anything, and you are pretty much stuck, but you are not going to let delusions that it can be overcome or the idea that we must keep producing for producing's sake or the idea that we should try to forget what is pretty much an inevitable reality that pervades life from keeping us from recognizing this tragic aesthetic. You don't rebel by Nietzschean embrace. He had it all wrong. He increased the delusion more. He set a template for many other thinkers and followers to posture and fantasize about embracing (read overcoming) suffering. No, you rebel by recognizing that the suffering that is contained or is existence simply sucks, and that it is not good and recognizing it for what it is. No delusions of trying to twist it into rhetorical flourishes of "goodness" or by accepting it, or by embracing it. No, you have every right to dislike it and you should. The sooner we can rid ourselves of the delusions and recognize the existential dilemmas and contingent sufferings, put it on the table and see the pendulum of survival/goals and boredom, contingent painful experiences, annoyances as real- the instrumentality of all things of the world, then I think we can live with more verity. — schopenhauer1
Fighting life head-on with the attitude that focuses on the negative leads to negativity. Although everyone feels disappointment and anxiety, not everyone is beat down about it. — darthbarracuda
Indeed!This whole paragraph screams defeatism to me. Because what better way of amplifying suffering than by focusing on it and actively disliking every aspect of it that pervades your life? Nietzsche thought that the strong would be able to enjoy and relish life in a way that the weak could not. Call it delusional but at least they are enjoying it. — darthbarracuda
It is nihilistic to not recognize the instrumentality of things and deem it as bad. If everything is radical contingency (I don't necessarily believe that), then why not just focus on the hyper-micro feelings of working on a project (and let's forget the instrumentality right?). The project is life as it goes smoothly- the person absorbed in his music/art/work/game/trance. Don't fall into the cracks though, and see the instrumentality that is there in the background, when your mind is not occupied. — schopenhauer1
Whether or not bad things happen to you is determined first by how you define bad, — WhiskeyWhiskers
@The Great WhateverMaybe. Are you familiar with Hegel's comments on Stoicism? — The Great Whatever
Not to use @The Great Whatever's response all the time, but he had a good one. It's possible for bad things to happen regardless of your response. It just isn't good enough.. Some things are just bad to individuals. Some things are unavoidable in being indifferent to them; they simply defy our inner sensibilities. No one is impervious. Also, the struggle to get to such a height of indiiference where one cannot be touched by pain is itself a painful program of self-denial. One can say self-denial is a form of pain, albeit to get to a "higher" one of the equanimity of a stoic sage.What would the point of not being indifferent be? The situations are out of your control, whether you care about them or not, that doesn't change the fact that they are out of your control. — Agustino
It's hard to think about this when literarily all our experiences are framed in life. I'm not sure that a life without problems would be good in any sense of the term. Are you?
mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing
— Schopenhauer
Well, cows seem to be quite satisfied merely existing on a green pasture. It's only humans that seem to have a problem. So we can't generalise for all life. There are clearly different ways of experiencing the world, and not all of them experience mere existence as a form of suffering.
Just because climbing the mountain is harder for some than for others, doesn't mean luck is responsible for those who get to the top. People who have it easy, generally don't grow, because they have no incentive. It is those who suffer a lot who have a real potential for growth. Therefore it is most likely those more disadvantaged by nature who end up close to the sage ideal - they need the big guns.
Why dwell on what can't be changed? I prefer focusing my energy on doing at least the things that I can do.
Do you think that life is bad or not? Because it's not clear to me from your reply. In fact, I don't find your reply very clear at all. What is the purpose of this project that you mention? To ignore the instrumentality of things? Meaning, I take it, that things are means to ends? Is that bad or problematic in some way? — Sapientia
Why does it matter whether or not everything is radical contingency? And what even is radical contingency?
Whether or not bad things happen to you is determined first by how you define bad, and second by how immersed you are in thinking in those terms. Stoics limited good and bad strictly to moral character, or virtue. To say something is still bad regardless of what your response is, is to assume the conclusion that stoicism is working with incorrect definitions. — WhiskeyWhiskers
That can work with things like boredom or minor annoyances. It's a little bit different when tragedy strikes. A storm that kills thousands of people is not good, period. Responding stoically to such an event is absurd. — Marchesk
I was being sarcastic and it didn't convey well. What I was saying was that you can ignore the big picture by hyper-focusing your attention on a detailed project. This does not mean that the problem does not exist. Rather, we are trying to ignore what is clearly there by distracting ourselves. Pain is still there, and existential suffering is still there. — schopenhauer1
What I was getting at is the notion many want to convey which is that we should just have projects to focus our attention on and not look at the existential emptiness. If there is no necessary truth at the end of things (so the radical contingency theorist might say), then all you can do is focus your attention on discrete projects. I disagree with this and think that if one widens their self-reflecting lens long enough, they will see the instrumentality of things. — schopenhauer1
Sure, the problem exists, but we have some degree of control over how much of a problem we make it. Stoicism advocates a method of reducing this problem. A method which is beneficial for many. What's wrong with that?
I get the sense that your position is defeatist. Antinatalism is definitely defeatist in the sense that it gives up on finding a good enough reason to believe that life is and would be worth living in numerous cases. — Sapientia
Why do you disagree with that? What's wrong with doing so? Are you suggesting that we instead ought to focus more on the "existential emptiness", even if it makes us miserable? And again, what is so special about the "instrumentality of things"? If I see the instrumentality of things, then... what? — Sapientia
The problem is that we have to "deal" with the problems in the first place. The fact that we need Stoicism in the first place tells us something. — schopenhauer1
The problem is that at the end of the day, if everything is instrumental, no thought-process or practice (like Stoicism) will win you anything. — schopenhauer1
To repeat what I said earlier: We are not content, nor can we ever be, when life demands that we desire and want- sources of suffering. There is no way to escape it, even in principle. Thus, no practice of indifference will truly get rid of the Will/flux/becoming. — schopenhauer1
Also, the struggle to get to such a height of indifference in which one cannot be touched by pain is itself a painful program of self-denial. One can say self-denial is a form of pain, albeit to get to a "higher" one of the equanimity of a stoic sage. — schopenhauer1
Very well, but what does this have to do with how one ought to respond when bad things happen? Spinoza who schopenhauer1 mentioned along with the stoics would agree that bad things can happen even to a sage sub specie durationis. But this doesn't change the fact that when bad things happen it is better to have a stoic response than any other as it limits the suffering experienced; furthermore, a stoic response is necessarily couched in a view sub specie aeternitatis: we can only bring ourselves to respond stoically because we understand and feel that we are eternalI think it's possible for bad things to happen to you regardless of what your response is to that happening.
I get that you have probably changed your position, — schopenhauer1
I don't know if it is expectations and reality. Rather, it is just a feeling, the pain can range from as physical as a cut, or the less tangible but still real emotional pain. — schopenhauer1
Someone who has his head in the sand will feel the disappointments more when the fissures break. — schopenhauer1
Wrong, he is saying they are enjoying it. It is literary sophistry. My mind imagines his ideas attributed to a caricature of someone who did a lot of cocaine and thinking they are the king of the world. — schopenhauer1
It cannot be defeated. Accepting it is no good either, because no one actually accepts it except in platitudes to make others feel better about it in places like philosophy forums. The less you try to deny it, the less you will feel the unrealistic expectation that you will mitigate it. Accepting it doesn't mean you won't feel it as much, contrary to what some Stoic-minded people will tell you they supposedly do. Rather, accept the fact that it happens, it might be part of being alive and human, and it is ok not to like. The compassion comes in the commiseration. "That sucks, man" is better than "I looketh in the direction of naught..and I feeleth no pain" (with face emotionless and head cocked slightly upwards towards the sky like some mimic of a statue of a Greek philosopher- arrogant and smug). — schopenhauer1
The compassion comes in the commiseration. "That sucks, man" is better than "I looketh in the direction of naught..and I feeleth no pain" (with face emotionless and head cocked slightly upwards towards the sky like some mimic of a statue of a Greek philosopher- arrogant and smug). — schopenhauer1
Animals feel pain, animals have needs that can go unsatisfied. They don't know it though. It is not a concept. It may be a vague feeling, and I don't know what it is like to have cow pain, but certainly by empirical evidence they have some version of it. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.