peak experiences. — Jack Cummins

Yes, but his ideal for this was generally as a socially-conscious person..But I get what you're saying.. Either way, one represents actively embracing the world, one is denying it. No mountain climbing adventures for Schopenhauer. Sit, deny the will, don't eat much.. escape.

Also, it would be easy to compare the whole idea of desires with needs, because both could be seen as arising from the essence of human nature, even though the actual idealised goal of the two thinkers is vastly different. — Jack Cummins

Sure. In that context, needs, can be synonymous with the [Schop's] metaphysical will. The will to be.

The definition of a human being is an interesting conflation between a verb and a noun. In that sense being is to live an ordinary life of doing, or striving. Perhaps the trick is to desire what one already has. For instance, one might go to the gym and exercise because they desire to keep their body fit. It's like scrubbing one's teeth, it's a habit for life. The habit is based on the desire to maintain what one already has... .

I completely agree with your perspective on boredom. It seems far more preferable to suffering. I don't get bored very often but from talking to some people who do, it does seem that it can be an absence of meaning which can border on to nihilism.

Hey Schop1!

I got to run to an appointment, let me get back to you cause those are some intriguing thoughts....

Hey Schop1!

I got to run to an appointment, let me get back to you cause those are some intriguing thoughts.... — 3017amen

Hello! Cool.

Dissatisfaction drives Humanity. — New2K2

That's why I don't drive!

Maslow seems to be the antithesis of Schopenhauer here.. Maslow is buying into the scheme of becoming, in Hegelian fashion (someone Schopenhauer despised, though one of many). Schopenhauer's ideal is Platonic rest or being. — schopenhauer1

Schop1 !

In our humanist framework, is this correct:

Being and Existentialism:

Existentialism (earliest form in the west/Ecclesiastes): let be/a time for all seasons
Taoism: let be
Existential psychology: transient states of absolute Being
Platonism/Platonic rest: unchanging, absolute... ?

Is there an unresolved dichotomy between being and becoming?

I'm not sure about unresolved, but it seems like the ideal state for Plato/Buddha/Schopenhauer seems to be one of changeless stasis of sorts. In Plato's conception, the world is corrupted by time and space in a way. It is corrupted by the materiality of the world somehow. It's hard to see in Plato qua Plato how he resolves the world of being with the world of becoming. The world of becoming "participates" with being and the Forms, but how that is, is a bit vague. Schopenhauer does a much better of job of fleshing out this idea in terms of some form of salvation through asceticism.. there is some nirvana one can perceive according to Schop by denying one's will which would be akin to negating Will as one's own will is what is one and the same with the illusion of time/space/causality and thus there is a way to get beyond it for the rare saint-like person that he describes in Book 4 I believe of WWR.

Ok, using some sense of logic, not that logic can explain certain/all phenomena of Being, perhaps we can analogize to, say, the mysteries associated with relativity and the speed of light.

In your scenario, if the speed of light (at full speed), time stops (eternity), then in theory we have a sense of some sort of Platonic realm of being, somewhere in the universe. Existential psychology has taught us that human's can experience these so-called transient states of absolute Being where there is a feeling of ultimate purpose, peace, and/or completeness (time-stopping euphoric feelings), in their everydayness of doing, striving, and so forth. Too, I happen to agree with many theoretical physicists in thinking that an anthropic universe (PAP) contains conscious information which provides for such transient states of Being. To that end, it's seems as though it's all there for the taking to enjoy. It's kind of like knowing what questions to ask; answers are received based upon how we think. Kind of like the law attraction. The cosmic computer.

That may lead to many other questions of course, one of which is the pragmatism or practice of arriving at these transient states of Being.... . Transient states of oneness, wholeness, and so forth, to where we realize that which we were born to do.

The common takeaway there is that Being is synonymous with doing, an action verb. We were meant to be here and accomplish things through ourselves and other's. And if life is truly about relationship's, it seems that it is incumbent on us to pursue same. And in a humanistic way, through that process, perhaps we can experience your Platonic realm of Being (albeit they are fleeting...).

Take music for example, or even the discovery of some novel invention or idea (all from our own consciousness/existence). It seems we have the volition capable of such perceptions, such feelings... .

The common takeaway there is that Being is synonymous with doing, an action verb. We were meant to be here and accomplish things through ourselves and other's. And if life is truly about relationship's, it seems that it is incumbent on us to pursue same. And in a humanistic way, through that process, perhaps we can experience your Platonic realm of Being (albeit they are fleeting...).

Take music for example, or even the discovery of some novel invention or idea (all from our own consciousness/existence). It seems we have the volition capable of such perceptions, such feelings... . — 3017amen

I'm not much for this kind of speculation, but have ever read about Philipp Mainlander's philosophy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Mainl%C3%A4nder

Thank you. I read thru that, and found this:

Schopenhauer contrasted Kant's transcendental critical philosophy with Leibniz's dogmatic philosophy.


With Kant the critical philosophy appeared as the opponent of this entire method [of dogmatic philosophy]. It makes its problem just those eternal truths (principle of contradiction, principle of sufficient reason) that serve as the foundation of every such dogmatic structure, investigates their origin, and then finds this to be in man's head. Here they spring from the forms properly belonging to it, which it carries in itself for the purpose of perceiving and apprehending the objective world. Thus here in the brain is the quarry furnishing the material for that proud, dogmatic structure. Now because the critical philosophy, in order to reach this result, had to go beyond the eternal truths, on which all the previous dogmatism was based, so as to make these truths themselves the subject of investigation, it became transcendental philosophy. From this it follows also that the objective world as we know it does not belong to the true being of things-in-themselves, but is its mere phenomenon, conditioned by those very forms that lie a priori in the human intellect (i.e., the brain); hence the world cannot contain anything but phenomena.

In your interpretation, does this tie to some sort of eternal phenomena? Is the eternal phenomena consciousness itself? Is the metaphysical Will similar? What does Schop say about this?

In your interpretation, does this tie to some sort of eternal phenomena? Is the eternal phenomena consciousness itself? Is the metaphysical Will similar? What does Schop say about this? — 3017amen

Not sure if you know Schop's conception, but to him, existence is two-sided. There is the world as Will and as Representation. Will is considered the "thing-in-itself" unmediated by time/space/causality. It is undifferentiated, and the only thing that can be said of it, is that it is akin to a principle of "striving". The phenomenal world of Representation is the Will (but in some sort of "illusory" state) mediated by time/space/causality and the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason. This is the subjective animal that we find ourselves in, moving about on the "stage" of the "world" perceived "out there" due to our constructs of the Representation. We are still at heart "will" and thus strive in this mediated fashion, and thus are dissatisfied and never "whole". Rather we are lacking, are impinged upon by harms, and only find "holes" (including other people who are frustrating and are different kind of 'holes :D). Anyways, how does one "escape" from the tyranny of Will, being that it is the source of being? Well, he has an idea that the ascetic character-type can somehow deny the Will so much as to achieve a state of some sort of equanimity. That is to say, the person can gain "salvation" through a Will-less state. I don't really know what this looks like, other than that the subjective/objective distinction has been annihilated but the person somehow is alive.

Just to note, this is not my philosophy per se, but Schop's.

Okay, but question:

Do people really know what they want?

I mean... I feel the need to separate out two things here.

One: the quote the topic is based around. Well... this is obviously a hypothetical, right? Because who is granting these wishes? I don’t even know where to begin...
(Aside, but shouldn’t we be starting with the fact that the quote doesn’t seem to care about what “Jill” wants? I... feel like I’m just too different from people here if no one else is cringing at that as much as I am...)
So okay. Blatant human rights issues aside, let’s say we are just talking about physical objects, and that there is some god granting wishes (are atheists allowed here? Because... hi...)
So, I say, “Hmmm... I want the Mona Lisa.”

Poof. God sends me the Mona Lisa.

But... at any given moment, out of the billions of people on Earth, a lot of them are probably also wishing for the Mona Lisa.

So... if they all get it, what does that mean?

Did God just duplicate the Mona Lisa so there are now hundreds of them?
Did God go back in time and make Leonardo paint 100? (is it considered “back” when it’s God doing the time-travelling? Is it even travel, or is God every-when at once?)
If so, then every copy is different. (And what does the sitter think of having 100 of her portrait painted because God said that people 500 years later will want them?)
Do people get to choose what copy they get?
Do art historians get to analyze all of the copies? What if they *desire* to do so?
Do people remember the world-line where there was only one Mona Lisa? (Actually, there really are several similar paintings created by Leonardo et al., but for the sake of example) Or if the painting was duplicated without time-travel, how is that explained to the historical record?

What if a lot of people *desire* it to go back to being just one Mona Lisa in the Louvre?

What if some of the wishers *desired* to be the *only* owner of *the* Mona Lisa?

Is this a majority-rules thing? Is it one-person-one-vote, or does the person who wishes hardest get their wish? Does your status on God’s naughty-nice list come into play?

What happens to the monetary value of it? What about people who don’t care about art history at all, and just wanted the Mona Lisa as an arbitrary famous thing of high value?

(If everyone could just wish for more money... the inflation that would cause. Could they then wish away the inflation?)

I think that beneath everything someone would *say* they desire, there’s some underlying need that can be met some other, less obvious but more meaningful way.

Like, if someone wants to harm another person, what they really want is to heal the pain in themselves that they blame the other person for causing. Hurting the other person isn’t going to heal you.

So maybe the god/genie in this scenario should just sit down with the person and help them figure out what they actually want. Like an angelic therapist. One who would actually listen and not just quote self-help books at you. Now *that* would actually be worth wishing for.

I mean... I feel like maybe the angle of “but there are so many different people in the world all wishing conflicting things” wasn’t the point here... but I feel like it needed to be said.

But I think my point is, “what will bring you true happiness” does not equal “every whim and fancy” or “the thing you’ve written down as your #1 goal for 10 years” or anything else that you would necessarily know to ask for at face value.

Someone mentioned the idea that a person who spends their whole life in Plato’s cave watching shadow puppets and never realizing they’re missing anything *would call themself happy*. But is that true happiness? I don’t think it is. Or, if it is, then there are things, like wisdom, that are more important than happiness. As for the counter-example of the urban person who craves status symbols, see previous paragraph.

Aside from all that, I do agree that the process of getting to/creating the place where you want to be is an important part of the equation.

Do people really know what they want? — Lavender

Everyone wants to feel happy right? (Except perhaps some suicidal people). We often disagree as to the means to achieve that end, but not as regards the end.

Well... this is obviously a hypothetical, right? — Lavender

Yes, obviously

What if a lot of people *desire* it to go back to being just one Mona Lisa in the Louvre?

What if some of the wishers *desired* to be the *only* owner of *the* Mona Lisa? — Lavender

That's correct, some wishes may contradict other wishes, as other users pointed out. To this I gave the reply, however, that we don't wish those things for their own sake, but rather for the good sensation that springs from obtaining them. So, to those who wish the Mona Lisa it can be granted, by some hypotetical God, the good sensation they would feel when they, and only they, obtained the Mona Lisa, without actually giving the Mona Lisa to them, and thus grant the wish in that way.

In that case though, the thing they would actually desire would be to feel the best way they possibly can: the greatest sensation possible, and would then have no need for any other desires.

Like, if someone wants to harm another person, what they really want is to heal the pain in themselves that they blame the other person for causing. Hurting the other person isn’t going to heal you. — Lavender

Or they just feel good when hurting others or taking revenge. It's an unpleasant possibility, but it's a possibility nonetheless.

Someone mentioned the idea that a person who spends their whole life in Plato’s cave watching shadow puppets and never realizing they’re missing anything *would call themself happy*. But is that true happiness? I don’t think it is. — Lavender

The question is: Who feels better/ who is happier? The one who is living in a happy ignorance or the one who tries to achieve happiness through wisdom? The answer to this question seems to me to be far from obvious.

That seems off topic at any rate, though it deserves a whole thread of its own in my opinion.

Or, if it is, then there are things, like wisdom, that are more important than happiness. As for the counter-example of the urban person who craves status symbols, see previous paragraph. — Lavender

What would be the point of being wise if that made you feel miserable or not as happy as being ignorant? None, in my opinion, so it's inconceivable to me why some people value wisdom more than happiness.

That is not to say that wisdom and happiness are
necessarily opposite poles, that is another question, but I don't see the point of becoming wiser if that made one suffer or feel sad.

... that we don't wish those things for their own sake, but rather for the good sensation that springs from obtaining them.

Drugs, then?

I don’t think that’s the answer, because...

The question is: Who feels better/ who is happier? The one who is living in a happy ignorance or the one who tries to achieve happiness through wisdom? The answer to this question seems to me to be far from obvious.

....

What would be the point of being wise if that made you feel miserable or not as happy as being ignorant? None, in my opinion, so it's inconceivable to me why some people value wisdom more than happiness.

I think it’s comparable to having a good, nutritious meal with varied, complex flavors, vs. a cheaply made, simple, artificially-flavored candy full of empty calories and sugar.

Also, think about sitting on the couch all day watching some shallow, guilty-pleasure TV — involves light pleasure and no pain — vs going out for a run, breathing fresh air, feeling a sense of accomplishment that you’re doing better every time you go out, and then finally getting to get home and sit on that couch — more pleasurable as a contrast — and watching some really deep and compelling film — something still pleasurable, just on a deeper level. I’m not talking about an “eat your vegetables” sort of thing (bad metaphor, since I really like vegetables, but...)

Also, if happiness were the only thing that mattered, what would you say to a world where everyone just floats in tanks and gets fed drugs that give them pleasurable dreams, but they never actually go and do anything? Would you find that satisfying?

And there’s also the question of, that person on that island building sand castles doesn’t know the outside world, but what if the outside world needs their help?

I’m not even just talking about a person who leaves a rich country to go out and help the starving children somewhere in a war zone, without any material comforts or clean water, seeing atrocities every day, and being horrified, but feeling like their life is more meaningful than it would have been if they’d stayed where they were.

I mean... there are so many problems in the world, big and small, personal, local, global, that... even if it were possible to completely ignore all of them, would that really be more satisfying than trying to solve them?

Drugs, then?

I don’t think that’s the answer, because... — Lavender

Since I have never tried any drugs before, I can't say much with regards to whether the sensation they give is really that great (I hugely doubt it), but some people may feel better doing other things, rather than doing drugs. That is a subjective matter.

Not to mention some drugs have harmful effects, and so one may avoid them if one values also the absence of pain as another ingredient of happiness.

I think it’s comparable to having a good, nutritious meal with varied, complex flavors, vs. a cheaply made, simple, artificially-flavored candy full of empty calories and sugar. — Lavender

I don't quite see how it's comparable.

But anyway, some of those people who feel better eating junk food rather than vegetables, also take into account the fact that if they ate just that, they would probably get sick and suffer more often, and probably die younger as well, and if they die they can't enjoy more junk food anymore.

So it could be said that happiness, or a good sensation, involves also taking future consequences into account, so as to also avoid suffering.

The ideal would be to obtain the greatest balance between good and bad sensations, as Bentham pointed out.

Also, think about sitting on the couch all day watching some shallow, guilty-pleasure TV — involves light pleasure and no pain — vs going out for a run, breathing fresh air, feeling a sense of accomplishment that you’re doing better every time you go out, and then finally getting to get home and sit on that couch — more pleasurable as a contrast — and watching some really deep and compelling film — something still pleasurable, just on a deeper level. I’m not talking about an “eat your vegetables” sort of thing (bad metaphor, since I really like vegetables, but...) — Lavender

That's why one should also take into account future pleasures and pains before making a decision. Some people value sitting in the couch more than others, that's once again a subjective matter of how much one values the total balance of sensations in each scenario.

And of course, most people don't bother to do that rational calculation, but merely act by custom and habit.

Also, if happiness were the only thing that mattered, what would you say to a world where everyone just floats in tanks and gets fed drugs that give them pleasurable dreams, but they never actually go and do anything? Would you find that satisfying? — Lavender

If that drug they are taking gives them the greatest possible sensation, and I wasn't taking those drugs, then it may not be satisfaying for me to watch them do it. But all I need to do is to take that magical drug for that dissatisfaction to vanish entirely. At that point, it wouldn't matter to me in the least whether or not an outside observer felt unsatisfied by contemplating that, he can just join for his discomfort to dissappear anyway.

If that drug didn't give the greatest possible sensation, then I would have to test it temporarily and compare it to things like the sensation I get from artistic contemplation and creation, eating good food, sex, love, etc.

If that drug were superior to all that, then it would be absurd, in my opinion, not to take it.

And there’s also the question of, that person on that island building sand castles doesn’t know the outside world, but what if the outside world needs their help? — Lavender

Good point (though we seem to be moving away from the thread somewhat), in my case I'd say contemplating the unhappiness of others makes me feel bad too, and contemplating the scenario where I help them to avoid suffering and feel better makes me feel great, and so I would help them in order to feel better myself.

I mean... there are so many problems in the world, big and small, personal, local, global, that... even if it were possible to completely ignore all of them, would that really be more satisfying than trying to solve them? — Lavender

What would be the point of solving those problems if it didn't make you as happy as you would have been if you'd instead ignored them, and devoted yourself to something else (like art for example)? Again, it seems to me that there would be no point.

The value placed in solving all those problems, some problems or none whatsoever is a subjective matter.

Maybe some would feel better if we tried to solve them, while others would not. Maybe all of us would ultimately feel better if we tried to solve them, maybe not.