Nevertheless your response got me to thinking, that this notion of ' spreading the love' in, say, a universal Greek style ( phila, philautia, ludus, agape, etc.) perhaps, might go a long way in achieving that end goal of interconnectedness and purpose. — 3017amen

If self-love is experienced properly, as motivation for industriousness, enlightenment, responsibility and self-respect, then I can agree. The problem is, self-love can take any turn. The subject is self-love's own affirmator. Overall however, I do agree that without self-focus and self-awareness, striving to harmonize and assist is futile.

Its not asking for improvement plans, its giving the scenario. — schopenhauer1

Then, yes. That is the scenario, you're correct. You have two choices; don't play the game, or change the way you feel about the game (which you could see as taking the first move). I mean what did you expect? For us to change predicate logic? If you've only got two choices you have to take one of them, that's what only having two choices means, is that what you wanted people here to confirm?

If you've only got two choices you have to take one of them, that's what only having two choices means, is that what you wanted people here to confirm? — Isaac

Its the implication for thise living in that binary choice...

This is the solution. Well, half of it: the other half is learning and teaching. Let both goodness and truth flow into you and out of you, through you, and you will become meaningful to the world and it will become meaningful to you. — Pfhorrest

I can subscribe to this. However, most people, including me, also need a sense of potency to pursue an idea. In the face of life's factors, a person may decide that empathy and enlightenment is futile. I can subscribe to love anyway, because it doesn't really require affirmation of successful outcome to be practiced.

Its the implication for thise living in that binary choice... — schopenhauer1

There's no implication beyond the simple fact that one option must be chosen. Being born requires you to chose to continue to live or not. If you prefer life, then continue, if you don't, don't.

Again, I'm not seeing the philosophical question. One chooses the most preferable out of the options available. Isn't that obvious? I know you'd rather have not been put in this position, but that's not one of the choices, so that's not relevant. It's like me saying I'd rather have been a wolf. What's the philosophical investigation attached to 'things we'd rather were the case'?

A lot of people think that by enduring this, that it enriches their life when they make it through. I don't know, for me, it just dulls life that much more that on top of the everyday dealings with other people, BS in general, societal maneuverings of the daily kind, there is the pain and suffering of being struck by enduring illness, injury, and the like. — schopenhauer1

I didn't mean to overcome discomfort through self-improvement, but to suffer through discomfort resiliently (as if stoically, but not really.) In other words, a possible solution is a non-solution.

As far as romantic love, how does this ameliorate anything? Building a loving relationship, and keeping one, are even more difficult these days than back in the day when it was an expectation (though leading to much unhappiness for staying in bad relationships). Besides, even the best of relationships can lead to pain from differences in expectations. — schopenhauer1

I offered love as motivation, not relief. To remedy the sense of purposelessness, not the sense of helplessness. Love will definitely increase the actual hardship many-fold.

But anyways, in this more recent climate of shallowness, self-absorption, and short-sightedness, intimate partners are harder to come by these days. The whole caring about someone who is particularly special to you and you to them is diminishing as the years move forward. Increasingly, you're on your own in sickness and health, except for perhaps your immediate family (if they are still alive and well and in communication). — schopenhauer1

I agree. This probably steers into a politically and culturally focused topic, but indeed, people appear to be living isolated. I suspect that there are far reaching consequences - lack of empathy, no sense of responsibility, etc. But I may be over-dramatizing. It certainly doesn't apply to everybody.

If you are a nice, caring, friendly, person but openly criticize the premises of life, even if you are "contributing" you are deemed as unworthy. It doesn't matter your character, how you treat people. — schopenhauer1

Hey Schop1!

Being a glass half-full (not half-empty) guy myself, and although perhaps a little idealistic, I don't think that's really the case there. Now, unless you have a particular happenstance in mind, I'm not sure I'm understanding your beef.

Just common sense say's that critique of, really anything, both on a micro and macro scale is what helps improve society and the human condition. By living in the free world, it goes without saying we are free to better ourselves (or not better ourselves) not only for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others as a whole.

Now I certainly get how Government and the 'corporate america mentality' tends to perpetuate, what I'll call, the tin-solder routine, where conformity rules the day. But there again, it depends on what you're referring to... , otherwise if I join a team, I have to play by the rules. And if I join a team whose internal philosophy is not compatible with mine, I leave and move on.

Help me understand your concern here... ?

...la peste. — Wallows

Ha! You couldn't have chosen anything more appropriate!

Sure, agreed.. Please keep in mind all the other so-called classifications of Love viz ancient Greek philosophy.. And accordingly, not only love of self ( and basic self esteem) but also love of friendships, colleagues, family, nature,, et al are equally important.

How can one rebel against the premises of life if one still continues to live? By living one is accepting, it is purely a matter of how content one can be in that acceptance.

Not many would be able to say they appreciate all the premises of a human life, but since there is no one to hold accountable, in my view, it is rather futile to attempt a rebellion against brute fact. Perhaps you find it difficult, but it simply isn’t possible to act against the laws of nature (biological and physical).

Philosophically, is it not more amenable to accept what we can not change and thus discuss the areas in which it is possible to make an impact?

First. Try and find something you like.

But a lot more seriously, and said non-jokingly, kill yourself, is the only answer. I presume it gets better quickly.

If you don't see your hell through, you may suffer again. Perhaps, have a deep thought.

So barring cliched suicide responses and an appeal to therapy, is there any philosophical insights for people who simply dont like the premises of life? — schopenhauer1

I have found this attitude generally boils down to wanting things to be different than they are. And when it comes to changing the universe, versus changing yourself, the latter is far easier and more effective.

Just delete

and what are the premises of life?

Why is everyone talking about the "premises of life" as if they were listed on the back of a cereal box? I must have been out that day.

To respond to your original question, I think it's important to ask oneself whether any of these premises are self-imposed. It may or not may not apply to you specifically, but I have noticed a lot of people who struggle with depression, suicidal ideas, etc. are withering away in a prison of their own construction.

The premises of life are what are generally needed to survive, sustain, maintain, be entertained in a human existence. As I've stated earlier:

Dealing with...other people, their differing personalities, expectations, judgements, affects on your well-being
Dealing with...survival through cultural institutions and situatedness (socio-economic means)
Dealing with... illnesses, disorders, disasters, accidents, injuries
Dealing with...finding relationships, love, connection
Dealing with...cause and effect in general, the affects/effects of one's own decisions- poor or otherwise
Dealing with...one's own inability to be satisfied

So what if some people don't want to die, but don't want the dealing with either? Yes, there are coping strategies, but having to do any of it, improvement regimes or otherwise, are not wanted to be entered in. Of course one is shit out of luck. That is the conundrum for someone who doesn't want any of it.

I was looking for some interesting conversation on the conundrum rather than disdain for the idea itself which I'm well aware people on the forum have a biased against. We all know, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and improve yourself is the default advice here. Is there any more than this? Anything of more intriguing ideas about pessimism in general or this viewpoint in a broader perspective? Afterall it is questioning the human enterprise itself, I would think that can provoke more interesting things than "You make your own prison and you must improve yourself." Anything more global than its the pessimists fault?

I have no disdain for your viewpoint.

I am interested in why you consider those things to be premises of life, which I consider to mean either inescapable or so important that the lack of it results in death.

Are those things really inescapable? Do they really result in death when they are lacking? Or is this what our perceptions, mostly influenced by the sort of society we live in, are pressured into believing?

I was looking for some interesting conversation on the conundrum rather than disdain for the idea itself — schopenhauer1

Well, speaking only from personal experience here, I have entertained this question seriously at several points in my life. At those time it was certainly what I would call an existential crisis of the highest degree...that's putting it mildly. So I don't really think it is fair for you to characterize my response as disdainful. Speaking as someone who has lived through it, that is my answer.

My experience further, is that the answers you like least are often the ones you need to think about most.

He means all the things you necessarily “agree” to by being alive. I think he might even include All the things you might experience aa well, if pressed.

So what if some people don't want to die, but don't want the dealing with either?... I was looking for some interesting conversation on the conundrum rather than disdain for the idea itself — schopenhauer1

You haven't explained what you're asking for. That's why you're being met with disdain. There's not even a question there because you've rejected phrasing it as "what does one do if one doesn't like the premises of life...?" because you're not prepared to do anything about it.

So all you're left with is making a statement. "You have to either accept the premises of life or die".

Yes. That's right. That is correct. You have correctly identified the nature of life. Well done. You can write that down in your book of 'things that are the case'. Honestly, what more is there to discuss. It's a brute fact. You're not prepared to entertain any suggestions of anything you can actually do about it, or even think about it, so what else is there other than agree that it is indeed the case?

So what if some people don't want to die, but don't want the dealing with either? Yes, there are coping strategies, but having to do any of it, improvement regimes or otherwise, are not wanted to be entered in. Of course one is shit out of luck. That is the conundrum for someone who doesn't want any of it.

I was looking for some interesting conversation on the conundrum rather than disdain for the idea itself which I'm well aware people on the forum have a biased against. — schopenhauer1

But what more can really be said other than, "you're shit out of luck"? The premises of life are already present, you're already caught up 'playing the game'. If suicide is off the table (why?), then there is no option but to continue coping with and dealing with. The conundrum is essentially, "I don't suffer enough to lethally harm myself, yet enough to where I don't enjoy living". Well yeah, then you're fucked. You could find a distraction. Gaming? Gambling? Sex? Get a girlfriend? Fry your brain with drugs? Rig up some contraption that feeds you and toilets you? But you don't want suggestions on coping methods, so I'm not sure what's left to say. It's a terrible situation.

delete

Yes. That's right. That is correct. You have correctly identified the nature of life. Well done. You can write that down in your book of 'things that are the case'. Honestly, what more is there to discuss. It's a brute fact. You're not prepared to entertain any suggestions of anything you can actually do about it, or even think about it, so what else is there other than agree that it is indeed the case? — Isaac

Yes, it has a lot of implications. Politically it means we are not really "for" ourselves as the only choice we can make is moving up or down a spectrum of (for the pessimist) unwanted realities.

Are those things really inescapable? Do they really result in death when they are lacking? Or is this what our perceptions, mostly influenced by the sort of society we live in, are pressured into believing? — Tzeentch

So how aren't they?

But what more can really be said other than, "you're shit out of luck"? The premises of life are already present, you're already caught up 'playing the game'. If suicide is off the table (why?), then there is no option but to continue coping with and dealing with. The conundrum is essentially, "I don't suffer enough to lethally harm myself, yet enough to where I don't enjoy living". Well yeah, then you're fucked. You could find a distraction. Gaming? Gambling? Sex? Get a girlfriend? Fry your brain with drugs? Rig up some contraption that feeds you and toilets you? But you don't want suggestions on coping methods, so I'm not sure what's left to say. It's a terrible situation. — Inyenzi

No I wouldn't advocate a Wall-E world either where one exists to be fed and defecate. But isn't that interesting, all this economic striving for essentially just that, but we need more in life than basic necessities. Yet, this need is predicated on things that one might not want to deal with in the first place. There is no 'no option" button. Reality is such that fortune, one's own decisions, society, other people, survival (i.e. socio-economic circumstances), and contingency in general all come together and one has to "deal with it" or die.

What is the alternative? Nothingness? That sounds incredibly boring to me. I'll go with living even though it's sometimes regurgitated ass scabs. Still way more interesting than nothingness.

Yes, it has a lot of implications. Politically it means we are not really "for" ourselves as the only choice we can make is moving up or down a spectrum of (for the pessimist) unwanted realities. — schopenhauer1

What would ""for" ourselves" even mean in this context? Being 'for' something is about objectives, but you're not talking about objectives here (you are discontent, so becoming content would be a perfectly accurate objective). What you're talking about here is mean. Your objective is to remove discontent. That in itself isn't a problem. The problem is that you refuse any means by which to do that.

Are those things really inescapable? Do they really result in death when they are lacking? Or is this what our perceptions, mostly influenced by the sort of society we live in, are pressured into believing? — Tzeentch


So how aren't they? — schopenhauer1

A few of the things you listed, like "dealing with other people', "survival through cultural institutions", "finding relationships".

If one doesn't like these premises, what is stopping one from adopting a life that doesn't involve them?

"Dealing with one's own inability to be satisfied", is this truly a premise? Don't you know anybody that is satisfied in life? And if you do, what makes them different from you?

You also name things like "cause & effect" and "randomness". I suppose those are pretty much inescapable. Though, perception plays a large role in how we experience these factors. The Stoics have said a lot about this topic.

I think many of the things seen as "premises" are actually choices.

I'm not sure, but I find that 'nihilstic' conclusions defeat the purpose of philosophy to begin with.

Confucianism is dated, however I've found that some of the principles are reoccurring, such as in more modern treatise on civilization, or even etiquette.

Something akin to Oliver Wendell Holmes might be a better example, at least as far as the philosophy of modern law and civilization is concerned.