Yes, Schop by most accounts, was more content with the fame he was receiving towards the end of his life, almost a vindication after being cast aside. He seemed to be mainly characterized as an odd Kantian sidetrack from Hegel, which of course he bristled at. Not that one can really psychologize, but he may have had a kind of OCPD
https://www.healthline.com/health/obsessive-compulsive-personality-disorder

Despite his peculiarities, his insights into the striving-after nature of existence were sublime, succinct (in terms of communication style compared to his contemporaries and others before and after), and got to the heart of the big issue(s).

Phase 3 The crowd's answer — schopenhauer1

Why do you care what the crowd thinks? Their misery is not your problem. Let them do whatever they want and you can try to focus on the well-being of yourself and the people you care about. Is it therapeutic for you to express these thoughts?

Why do you care what the crowd thinks? Their misery is not your problem. Let them do whatever they want and you can try to focus on the well-being of yourself and the people you care about. Is it therapeutic for you to express these thoughts? — darthbarracuda

Yes, this can be a form of self-torture. But in a way, I am practicing what I preach. Consolation regarding our lot/condition, catharsis through dialogue.

:up:

Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.
— baker

You think there's a reason behind that or that it's just brute fact? — Wayfarer

If God exists, then nothing happens without God's will. Ergo, God must approve that some are born to sweet delight, while others to endless night.
If God does not exist, then it's just a brute fact that some are born to sweet delight, while others to endless night, and this is simply how the Universe works.

Everything else is just people seeking power over other people, such as through "spiritual guidance".

catharsis through dialogue. — schopenhauer1

Too bad the effects of this purge bring only short-lived satisfaction!

If something is proposed as a solution to a problem, but you have to apply or enact that solution over and over again (with no end in sight), then it's not a solution to the problem at all. It's merely a distraction from the problem and a postponing of a solution.

Humans have it especially bad because they have the capacity to philosophize. The key to happiness is to lead an unexamined life.

The key to happiness is to lead an unexamined life. — emancipate

Mwhaha!

The description/analysis of your topic is too long for me, I am sorry about this, but please let me comment on the first paragraph.

Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Philosophical_work

At first reading I found that an interesting view, holding some truth in it. But only for a few seconds. Because I then thought, "Indeed humans tend to suffer much more than animals, on both the biological and emotional level (although we can't say exactly how much animals suffer). Yet, how can one bring up this "overdeveloped skill" --in fact, skills-- as a factor of lack of fitting in the nature? It's an incredibly narrow view! It disregards how these skills make him not only survive and fit better than animals but also extending their control of their environment to an extent that is not even comparable to that of the animals.

It is true that man often abuses his abilities and skills and can create more harm than good. And it also true that he often tries to explain the unexplainable and exceed himself, becomes vain and so on, mainly because of these "overdeveloped" (actually superior) skills and abilities. But these things certainly cannot be used as arguments to support this guy's (Zapfie) theory.

The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Philosophical_work

Another total exaggeration: "all their time" ??

The human being, therefore, is a paradox. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Philosophical_work

From false premises/assumptions/hypothesis he draws a false conclusion: a paradox. Well, I can't see any paradox in all that. (Except maybe this one: how these "overdeveloped" skills can make somemone have such narrow views and draw such false conclusions! :) )

If something is proposed as a solution to a problem, but you have to apply or enact that solution over and over again (with no end in sight), then it's not a solution to the problem at all. It's merely a distraction from the problem and a postponing of a solution. — baker

The solution is to not start the suffering.

At first reading I found that an interesting view, holding some truth in it. But only for a few seconds. Because I then thought, "Indeed humans tend to suffer much more than animals, on both the biological and emotional level (although we can't say exactly how much animals suffer). Yet, how can one bring up this "overdeveloped skill" --in fact, skills-- as a factor of lack of fitting in the nature? It's an incredibly narrow view! It disregards how these skills make him not only survive and fit better than animals but also extending their control of their environment to an extent that is not even comparable to that of the animals.

It is true that man often abuses his abilities and skills and can create more harm than good. And it also true that he often tries to explain the unexplainable and exceed himself, becomes vain and so on, mainly because of these "overdeveloped" (actually superior) skills and abilities. But these things certainly cannot be used as arguments to support this guy's (Zapfie) theory. — Alkis Piskas

From false premises/assumptions/hypothesis he draws a false conclusion: a paradox. Well, I can't see any paradox in all that. (Except maybe this one: how these "overdeveloped" skills can make somemone have such narrow views and draw such false conclusions! :) ) — Alkis Piskas

Zapffe's point was a little bit different than mine, but related. You have to read him in the full context. His was more about our general awareness of our own existence in general and our own understanding of our own suffering. Thus he thinks we use psychological mechanisms to prevent us from constantly hitting these "dead ends" in a way by sublimation (get involved in an engrossing activity), distraction, anchoring (like using ideas of "hard work", "society man", "good parent", "good citizen"), and isolation (narrowly focus on a particular thing).

However, tying it to my OP, what I'm saying is that we are (one of if not the) only animal that really understands our own suffering as we are living through it. It doesn't just passively happen to us, but we know what is going on.. We must do X, even though we don't like X, and all the while, knowing we are doing X and not liking it as we are doing it... We at almost all waking times can do something else, but have justifications with ourselves (often leaving it to one of the psychological mechanisms like anchoring in a value or other justification). We have an extra burden that other animals don't who have inbuilt mechanisms like instinctual behaviors that we don't have. I am not saying that our way of life doesn't bring about survival conditions, because obviously it does lead to that.

If God exists, then nothing happens without God's will. Ergo, God must approve that some are born to sweet delight, while others to endless night.
If God does not exist, then it's just a brute fact that some are born to sweet delight, while others to endless night, and this is simply how the Universe works.

Everything else is just people seeking power over other people, such as through "spiritual guidance". — baker

More or less, yeah (Jimbo/Blake). :up:

Zapffe's point was a little bit different than mine, but related. You have to read him in the full context. His was more about our general awareness of our own existence in general and our own understanding of our own suffering. Thus he thinks we use psychological mechanisms to prevent us from constantly hitting these "dead ends" in a way by sublimation (get involved in an engrossing activity), distraction, anchoring (like using ideas of "hard work", "society man", "good parent", "good citizen"), and isolation (narrowly focus on a particular thing). — schopenhauer1

I don't know exactly how "long" is this "full context", but if I had to sit down and read entire pages on what one philosopher or another say, that would consume more than 24hr a day, w/o considering breaks, sleep and eating! :) But even if I did, I could not discuss a whole book or work of a philosopher in this communication medium. So, I can only respond to statements that have been selected by the poster of the topic, who knows best about the philosopher, statements that are supposed to be characteristic and/or representative of his theory and views. And in this case, I have responded not to just one statement but to a whole paragraph. Isn't that fair?

Now, the details you are presenting may or may not change the message sent by the first paragraph. So, if that whole paragraph is not representative of this guy's theory or views or it is insufficient, then you should select one that is. Fair enough, too?

Animals can be cold, hungry, in pain, jealous, etc. Perhaps it is not so much that animals do not suffer as that they suffer in silence. I agree that animals are much more in the present moment than humans but perhaps we would do much better to emulate that in so far as possible. Some humans seem much better at that than others, intellectuals seem particularly poor at it.

Now, the details you are presenting may or may not change the message sent by the first paragraph. So, if that whole paragraph is not representative of this guy's theory or views or it is insufficient, then you should select one that is. Fair enough, too? — Alkis Piskas

No it was to the extent I explained it. That is to say, we evolved capacities that make us suffer more than other animals. Those capacities that helped us survived also gave us that greater awareness of suffering.

That is to say, we evolved capacities that make us suffer more than other animals. Those capacities that helped us survived also gave us that greater awareness of suffering. — schopenhauer1

I think I have already mentioned that humans seem to suffer more (i.e. are more aware of suffering than animals, although we can't know how much). But, godssake, this does not make humans less fit! Suffering is only a part of both the human and the animal life. Again, this is "too narrow a view".
So, after all this, I admit that I was unable to pass this message to you.

The solution is to not start the suffering. — schopenhauer1

But how does it help you with _your_ suffering?

You were born, the damage is already done.

Your suffering on account of having been born cannot be diminished vicariously by taking solace in other people not being born.

Antinatalism isn't the solution to the problem of _your_ suffering.

It also isn't the solution to the problem of mankind's suffering either, because if there's nobody there, there's also no suffering, and thus, no problem to solve.

If your suffering on account of having been born could be diminished vicariously by taking solace in other people not being born, then don't you think this would have happened already by you (and some other people) not having children?
Yet here you are, suffering.