Yes. — Pfhorrest
Does this sentiment resonate with anyone else? How do you negate a mood if it is imbued as an ethical pathos? — Shawn
I think of it as an aesthetic understanding of the world. — schopenhauer1
Philosophical pessimism derived from a feeling seems like it should be treated as a very private and personal sentiment, and ought not be shared as it were talking about the weather or something trite or mundane... — Shawn
So, the stipulation is all encompassing? How does that work? — Shawn
Now, if an entire philosophical tradition is based on some will to believe/power/or any other affective qualifier, then it downright must be pointed out that this is plain and simple, irrational. — Shawn
I mean, as I understand life and based on my position towards it, I don't desire to promote my existence. I'll probably die from smoking so many cigarettes, but isn't it doubly wrong to tell other people that they shouldn't promote their existence? — Shawn
I am a hundred percent with this one. Often, quite unknowingly and due to no fault of his own, but merely coming from an emotional state, a person may tend to 'promote' a certain philosophy. Now, one's description of that philosophy is coloured by one's moods and it may very well colour someone else's. I think, first and foremost, it requires a lightness of being to even start discussing a philosophical concept. If my 'mood' is in the way, I will most definitely fail to reason adequately. — Zeus
I'm sorry, both you and Shawn I believe wrong on this one. There are a bunch of weasle words in here "reason adequately" and "derived from feeling" and "path towards the 'good'". This is all subjective evaluations on what people "should" pursue or not pursue.. So what you are accusing pessimists of is exactly what you yourselves are doing.. promoting a sort of view and hoping other follow it (i.e. pessimists shut their traps, and people promote whatever YOU deem as rational topics). Give me a frean break :roll: — schopenhauer1
I've been following some of our esteemed philosophical pessimist, schopenhauer1, and I keep on arriving at the same conclusion.
Namely, that philosophical pessimism is based on a mood.
Now, if an entire philosophical tradition is based on some will to believe/power/or any other affective qualifier, then it downright must be pointed out that this is plain and simple, irrational.
On the flip-side, I have been lately very pessimistic myself, and think that the philosophical tradition, starting with Plato is a tad bit over-simplistic, to say that ethics or morality should be based on rational inquiry, or some notion of an examined life, whatever that means.
Does this sentiment resonate with anyone else? How do you negate a mood if it is imbued as an ethical pathos? — Shawn
Antinatalism is not really a philosophy, a free questioning towards truth or towards better ways of thinking or living(!) — jamalrob
I think, the trick lies in not allowing any philosophical tradition to colour one's mind...why should I let that colour my thoughts? Why should I let that produce in me a bias? Am I not then a slave to tradition? — Zeus
You have to point out that it lacks justification beyond mood, or enough beyond mood. You may be right, but then if you are, it will show up in the weaknesses of the arguments. You do the work. You finish the OP with this question, which could be a call for other people to come with rational arguments that demonstrate that the pessimist you mentioned has a weak philosophical position. But there's the work, whether they do it or you do. Once you've done that THEN you can label their position as mere mood. It doesn't really matter, however, if a particular mood leads to a philosophical position if the argument in favor of that position is a strong one. We're all motivated by emotions and moods, no computers here.How do you negate a mood if it is imbued as an ethical pathos? — Shawn
One thing I don’t get about antinatalism is how the same arguments for it aren’t also arguments for suicide, or even arguments for mass euthanasia. If life is suffering and nothing can fundamentally be done to improve that, and nothing else is worth putting up with it, then best to end all life as quickly and painlessly as possible, no? If not that conclusion, then something in the arguments leading to it must be wrong. — Pfhorrest
In the end, there is nothing to say to a temperament that has it that the suffering is not worth it. — jamalrob
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.