Yes.

Yes. — Pfhorrest

If so, is this some warped version of a profound distortion of ethics if it is based on a mood? Doesn't your ontophilia also commit this "distortion"?

Then again, philosophy, is defined as a love towards something. So, am I getting this right or what the hell is going on?

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. It is similar to Buddhism in the way that the world is seen as a sort of striving but for nothing. It is the motivation behind actions and goals to begin with and the consequences of this (a whole system whereby to survive, maintain, and entertain ourselves). The pessimist asks why this should be continued over and over again. It does not entail that we negate that pleasurable moments and moods exist. That would be a mischaracteriztaion of pessimists.

I think of it as an aesthetic understanding of the world. — schopenhauer1

Aesthetics? As in deriving joy in a position that discounts life itself?

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?

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...

My ontophilia and ontophobia are just names for the very moods you’re talking about.

Then how do you differentiate between something apropos as your position against one that is equally based on a mood, such as philosophical pessimism?

I mean compare:

Philo-sophia
And,
Philo-sophical pessimism.

Humdrum, eh?

@Banno

"Ontophobia" is just the name I give to the mood underlying philosophical pessimism.

"Ontophobia" is just the name I give to the mood underlying philosophical pessimism. — Pfhorrest

So, the stipulation is all encompassing? How does that work?

What do you want?

Yes, around here the wisdom is in short supply.

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

But we are on a philosophy forum and that would assume theories about human life, including pessimistic ones are fair game. If we were waiting in line to get coffee (not that we can do that now), then it would indeed seem inappropriate. So this is a non-issue and a non-sequitor even.

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

Why? What makes feeling like that irrational?

So, the stipulation is all encompassing? How does that work? — Shawn

I don’t know what you mean exactly here, but all I’m saying is that yes, pessimism (like optimism) is grounded in a mood, and my “ontophobia” (and “ontophilia”) is just a name I give to such a mood. Neither optimism nor pessimism (nor ontophilia or ontophobia) is objectively “true” or “false”.

But I think they (and the moods behind them) can be more or less useful (and more or less enjoyable) than each other, and that optimism (at least in a narrow sense, opposite the broad sense of pessimism under discussion) is a more useful attitude to approach things from (and the ontophilia behind it a more enjoyable mood to be in).

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 think, the trick lies in not allowing any philosophical tradition to colour one's mind. I may feel that there is much truth in pessimism or absurdity or nihilism or antinatalism but 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? Shouldn't my view of the world come entirely from my understanding of the world and no one else's? Shouldn't every point of philosophical enquiry ideally lead to a revelation and not into a trap? I think, man must not, in trying to make sense of the world, forget that philosophy is a path towards the 'good' (man may choose his own good) and not a free-fall into an abyss. Should I merely find peace in a romantic idea, however optimistic or pessimistic, or should I, through responsibility, sensibility and originality of self try to reason, logic and deep-dive into the crevices of my psyche?

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.

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: .

Rather you're both wrong with this idea of disposition.. Rather philosophical pessimism is a sort of model of human nature, just like many other philosophical traditions which have models about human nature.. Schopenhauer is the clearest example of a phil. pess.. His model that human nature was a pendulum between boredom and goal-seeking. The goal-seeking leads to increasing frustrations and suffering, and so does boredom. He also thought boredom was a proof of the inherent disquiet we have with just "being" since we always need something else to think about.. I further elaborate on this model with my idea of splitting human motivation into survival, maintenance, and entertainment. The repetitive nature of this can be absurd if one reflects on it long enough.. Why keep repeating these basic categories? Is it worth starting for someone? Now this is all based on human internal striving.. a form of suffering that may be harder to explain than mere utilitarian and recognizable (what I call) "contingent" harm- what I like to think as things that are not necessary aspects of life, but happen nonetheless to many individuals (disease, accidents, bad relationships, loneliness, dread, anxiety, shameful experiences, embarrassing experiences, annoyances, loss, poverty, natural disasters, etc. etc.). Anyways, there are many ways pessimists can explain the world and use various models, but it makes it no different than other traditions trying to understand questions of value, ethics, and the like.

Honestly, I think you know that, Shawn.. It sounds like you are trolling me.. Trying to argue for arguing's sake rather than have much to say about it. You called me out, you wanted me to argue with you.. Here I am.. But why did you single me out on this one? Seems like trollish behavior, not in good faith, but to simply antagonize for antagonizing's sake.. but that's just a hunch at this point.. I'd like to see posts that show otherwise, but I'm afraid it's going to be tit-for-tat one-upsmanship and not a productive conversation.. But please prove me wrong.

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

The 'good' certainly is subjective which is why it was within quotes. A man chooses his own 'good'. Also, I didn't speak for nor against pessimism. I have read few of your other threads and you have certainly made your point quite ardently. What I felt was that this was a thread which discussed not about pessimism per se but about whether or not one's psychological state can distort reality for someone.

Do forgive me if it seemed like it was an attack on your point of view. That was never the intention. In fact, I feel, that would what constitute an unfruitful discussion, pursued in ill-faith.

Let me defend myself by saying that there aren't rational or irrational topics. Such labeling only implies one is not willing to look beyond one's niche.

That said, I'll still hold it up that a person's mood and thought process at a particular point of time can lead him to conclusions which at a later time may seem unreasonable. This has what been my experience and I may be totally wrong. But I want to find out.

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

You're putting the cart befor the horse. Moods are caused and as far as pessimism is concerned, certain, to put it mildly, "unsavory" facts of our world engender both the pessimism and the despondency.

It is more accurate to say that any system of philosophy is based on experience first and foremost, with reason coming thereafter to justify one's reactionary conclusions. The reason why you use 'mood' to explain the existence philosophical pessimism is somewhat ambiguous to me.

Yes, I do think that pessimism, or at least antinatalism, is fundamentally a matter of temperament, as something beyond or prior to the rational. The times when I've lost my optimism, in an ethical or political context, have been under the weight of powerful, eloquent pessimism; not because I agreed with any of the arguments of my pessimistic interlocutors, but because they began to emotionally force upon me their outlook. In the end, there is nothing to say to a temperament that has it that the suffering is not worth it.

Antinatalism is not really a philosophy, a free questioning towards truth or towards better ways of thinking or living(!), but more like an aplogetics of a temperamental pessimism. It begins in the temperamental and depends on it completely, which is why the antinatalists can only win if they succeed in spreading their temperamental pessimism. So long as people have the will to live and build and breed, the antinatalists can't get anywhere (I'm not saying that will always be the case). Pessimists realize this and lament it, but...what of it?

It's like the Chartists against the ruling class: it's a battle with good arguments on each side that make no difference except as propaganda: not a matter of objective fact. In the case of pessimism, it's a battle that the pessimists seem so far always to lose, because the a-rational will to live and create is stronger than the urge to give up and let it all fade away. That's a folksy way of putting it, I suppose, but here I feel philosophy doesn't really help, certainly if what is desired is some definitive answer.

EDIT: In @Pfhorrest's terms, most of us, philosophical or not, are ontophiles, and that's not amenable to argument.

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.

I presume that antinatalists stay alive merely to convince others. And, not to be too flippant, it's a hard thing on your loved ones to commit suicide.

There was a member here called The Great Whatever. He had a powerful intellect and a persuasive character, an unremitting pessimist, and said the only reason he was still alive was to save his loved ones from the pain.

Antinatalism is not really a philosophy, a free questioning towards truth or towards better ways of thinking or living(!) — jamalrob

Yep, yep, yep.

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

So, as a "blank slate", then, how do you determine your FIRST TRUTH on which to base your second...and third...and...

Is there such a thing as an uncolored mind?

Your mind is always, already, and forever coloured.

SO what you gonna do? Just keep buggering on, to quote Churchill.

How do you negate a mood if it is imbued as an ethical pathos? — Shawn

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.

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

As far as "mass euthanasia", philosophical pessimism does not entail forced pro-mortalism. If anything, these utilitarian-only arguments are against many brands of antinatalism, which puts people's decision-making power at the forefront. For example, you can't make an argument that it's wrong to create new people with no choice, and then say "but it's okay to take away choice in other matters of existential decision-making."

Also, you must make the distinction between a life worth starting, and a life worth continuing. The threshold for starting a life vs. continuing one is much different. See Benatar's distinction here, for example: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born.

Also the pain and fear of death may be so great as to not matter that it would be a fast "end" to the suffering. If Schopenhauer was right about his Will theory, suicide would be the Will (the very thing causing suffering) turning in on itself. Rather, he would think that diminishing the will-to-live through ascetic denial of the will, would be the only way to effectively end Will's hold on the individual.

Your mind is always, already, and forever coloured. — Banno

My point exactly.

In the end, there is nothing to say to a temperament that has it that the suffering is not worth it. — jamalrob

At the end of the day, ethics has no efficacy without human emotional response. If one cannot be convinced that ending suffering is the basis of ethics, then one cannot be convinced of that. If one cannot be convinced that human nature entails some sort of necessary (it is inevitable in our nature) or contingent forms (there will always be external sources of it) of suffering, and that this can be prevented by preventing birth, then one isn't convinced. However, there is a rationale there. There is a logic. But let's not pretend that other forms of philosophy do not have value statements. The value here is on suffering, and what to do about it. The pessimist is actually calling for compassion in the knowledge of this suffering. First, the compassion of sparing a future person from suffering needlessly, and secondly by communally understanding this aspect of existence. If it is well known all the ways we are suffering, using each other, being used, etc. then perhaps we can do something about it in the meantime.

What can we do? Probably something along the lines of more compassion. Rather, we are driven by competition, social pressures to conform, etc. How are these played out? Through the enculturated aspects of society solidifying the political-economic framework. The assumption is that this framework should be maintained. But pessimists realize that no matter how much calls for "compassion" or any other remedy, are not going to do much. Rather, it is beyond the individual's control, and part of human nature. We are constantly needing more, and we cannot just be content being. Our survival needs, our comfort-seeking needs, our entertainment-seeking needs, will always make us increase our demands on ourselves, our environment, and other people.

At the end of this, I am saying that like any other philosophical system philosophical pessimism has a logic to it. It has premises, often to do with how suffering is entailed in the human experience. Pessimism never denies there are goods in life, but these goods being not wholly and completely part of life, but always something in lieu of some suffering cost, are not considered to be what is the primary concern of ethics.

Pessimists also ask what the human project is about? To say something like knowledge-seeking, or technology, or advancing civilization, or creativity, or whatever you want, is to pretend that the cost of individual suffering to supposedly obtain these ideals, don't count for much. That somehow, the march of the human project must continue at all costs, despite suffering. At the least, pessimists want you to put this in perspective, and ask yourselves why is putting more people into the fray worth it? Why is simply not having any people so bad in light of suffering? What does it matter if no new person experiences the goods of life, that we pretend we value so much? Also, a pessimist might ask, at what point are we just keeping a system going to simply keep it going? It brings up ideas of absurdity of repetition without thought.

Try thinking of ANY other system or model.. I don't care what it is.. there is an assumed value to it. To propose that pessimism is the only one that does that, is to not look at one's own predilections and preferences. One sees something that grabs their attention, and THAT becomes rational.. But how suspicious it is when a point of view that challenges the normal thinking is so reviled, by people who supposedly have an open-mind. No, rather it is those with vested interests in THEIR pursuits, ensuring that it remains THE legitimate forms of modeling and propositions.