Actually, there is a deeper meaning to philosophical pessimism than what I have stated, or that follows from the OP somewhat.

It seems to me that life is unfair to the few who proclaim philosophical pessimism. Or that many would say that philosophical pessimism is justified by such fundamental teachings of Buddhism and Buddha himself.

Is it true that philosophical pessimism originates from unfairness, on our part towards (in example) animals or people born poor? I have rarely seen it portrayed this way, and yet it seems accurate, in my opinion.

In so far as "philosophical pessimism" denotes 'pain is the rule of existence, and boredom the exception' (or vice versa), "human nature" consists in a repertoir of traits adapted to deny 'pain and boredom' whenever possible, which isn't ever often enough and therefore only aggravates the situation and drives the species to keep on inventing ingenious ways to iatrogenically self-medicate (such as language, culture, pyramid-politics-war, hedonic treadmills, commodity fetishes, intoxicants ... re: "the junk equation").

'Philosophical pessimism' arises solely because of exclusive identication with the physical body and its wants, and the sensory domain. Even the notorious 'philosophical pessimist' Schopenhauer provides pointers on how to transcend this condition.

many would say that philosophical pessimism is justified by such fundamental teachings of Buddhism and Buddha himself. — Shawn

And they'd be mistaken.

I never bought into philosophical pessimism. IMO, there's nothing philosophical about being pessimistic.

I think there's something to be said for life, as we know it (which is, by-and-large, a fulfilling thing.)

One could argue that the universe is naturally conducive to fun and celebration. I'd say so. But why? And you can't reduce it, and people generally get annoyed if you try.

It's the way it is, matter loves being matter.

I see. Yet, the way humanity seems to be progressing is that human nature doesn't seem to be as painful or full of boredom as you describe it.

If anything are we getting better at distracting ourselves nowadays from boredom? Pain sucks but, there's always legalized marijuana? :rofl:

many would say that philosophical pessimism is justified by such fundamental teachings of Buddhism and Buddha himself.
— Shawn

And they'd be mistaken. — Wayfarer

Why is that?

Very briefly, the standard formulation of Buddhist doctrine is the 'four noble truths'. Cribbed from Wiki:

dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence in the realm of samsara;
samudaya (origin, arising) of this dukkha, which arises or "comes together" with taṇhā ("craving, desire or attachment");
nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by the renouncement or letting go of this taṇhā;
magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the path leading to renouncement of tanha and cessation of dukkha.

So if Buddhist teaching stopped at the first of these, then it would be pessimistic.

Pain sucks but, there's always legalized marijuana? — Shawn

'One of these surely will drown out the sorrow, but where are you tomorrow?' ~ Steely Dan, 'Big Black Cow'.

human nature doesn't seem to be as painful or full of boredom as you describe it. — Shawn

I didn't "describe" "human nature ... as painful of full of boredom".

True. But, if modern life gets on just fine with pain and boredom, and with it more and more ways to deny it, then in some sense does that mean we're getting better at avoiding philosophical pessimisim as a conclusion?

So if Buddhist teaching stopped at the first of these, then it would be pessimistic. — Wayfarer

True, but do you ever ponder if the four noble truths are actually true in modern day living? Had Buddha been born today would he arrive at the same conclusions?

No. That's like saying modern medicine can dispense with the notion of "morbidity" because it's getting better at treating it.

It's difficult to separate, in fact probably not possible, our biological inclinations with our developed reflective nature. The tendency in nature of living beings, is to continue existing. The vast majority of everything has died, so those that remain must have some kind of "optimism" built-in, if not blind willing.

It doesn't refute anything. One can say that human nature affirms a tendency to go on living, but that's most of life.

Our experiences combined with our particular genetic makeup, is what creates our worldview.

Perhaps pessimism, to some degree, is an ability of considered reflection, as opposed to mere instinct.

Naive optimism is not better than hopeless pessimism. But there are degrees in all views. I think optimism of the will, as Gramsci said, is the best we can strive for. But not optimism of the intellect, world situations considered.

True, but do you ever ponder if the four noble truths are actually true in modern day living? — Shawn

More to the point, what would a Buddhist answer be? 'Obviously yes, or I would not be Buddhist.'

Modern western culture is in many ways materialistic and nihilistic which causes a lot of unhappiness and alienation, even despite the West's technological powers and economic and political liberty. It's an existential problem or plight that is at issue.

Then what is the philosophers answer to philosophical pessimism?

Which pessimist argument? There's different varieties to choose from.

I guess we could say that a general statement could be life is not worth living, if we take this to follow from life is suffering and boredom in the extreme. Which is debatable.

A simple answer is, everybody dies, so this misery will end. And if you want to end sooner, there's a way out. A scary, likely quite painful, manner. It's an option, though not an easy one to make.

So either find something worthwhile now that you are here and life will take care of itself. Or speed the process up, drugs and alcohol and all that.

And if the pessimist feels empathy, which most do, then maybe see if you can help other somehow. What else?

Does human nature refute philosophical pessimism? — Shawn

Does human nature exist and if it did could it refute anything?

And if the pessimist feels empathy, which most do, then maybe see if you can help other somehow. What else? — Manuel

The solution to most wallowing.

Many of the pessimists I have met have been comfortable, middle class folk who seem to get something out of pessimism. Those doing it tough (poverty, sickness, trauma) I've found are often optimists.

:clap:

And if the pessimist feels empathy, which most do, then maybe see if you can help other somehow. What else? — Manuel

It's a pernicious issue. If life indeed is full of suffering and strife against it, then what's there better to do? Isn't the conclusion based off philosophical pessimism that suicide is justified a non sequitur given that the vast majority of people seem to find something in life - be it helping other people or trying to find something worth doing in life - worth pursuing?

If it is true that empathy is the source of pain for a philosophical pessimist, then what's wrong with 'care'? Why does it have to seem so selfish to end ones life in a hurry rather than care for something such as ones life or another person?

Does human nature exist and if it did could it refute anything? — Tom Storm

I'm not sure if I adequately expressed myself before. But, my usual argument to philosophical pessimism is that it's some form of overgeneralization on the part of the individual towards the scope of existence of the whole of humanity. I don't buy into that assumption that humanity is indeed faced with brute suffering that can't be remedied.

It doesn't seem natural to assume so, and that's all perhaps my point amounts to.

Then what is the philosophers answer to philosophical pessimism? — Shawn

Schopenhauer's therapy, IIRC, includes practicing compassion and cultivating musical jubilation.

It doesn't seem natural to assume so, and that's all perhaps my point amounts to. — Shawn

Philosophical pessimism expresses – probably in some sliver of the species is caused by – an aspect, or aspects, of human nature: suspicion, dread, courage, alienation ...

That resonates with me too.

Of course there are places and situations on earth right now where pessimism may seem more apt.

Musical jubilation - sounds good. I've noticed you often advocate/celebrate some fine music yourself as, perhaps, a kind of remedy for the Sisyphian reality. Is this what you/Schop mean?

I'm more Nietzschean (i.e. 'Dionysian' in approbation of the daily Sisyphusean grind) whereas Schopenhauer relies on music in a decidedly 'Apollonian' sense (i.e. to momentarily quell the (his) raging Will).

generalization — Shawn

That's the problem right there!

Whenever we try to generalize, we end up in hot water. Unfortunately or not, we can't help it - we need rules god damn it! Without some patterns how the hell are we to make sense of the world? Attending to the particulars of every thing/situation - treating them as unique - is going to overload our minds and cause a system crash.

What? Me, generalizing? Nonsense!

True, but do you ever ponder if the four noble truths are actually true in modern day living? — Shawn

They are timeless, they are not bound to any particular time and place. They are about the nature of existence, not about a particular person or society.

Had Buddha been born today would he arrive at the same conclusions?

Of course, provided his father wouldn't lock him up in a mental health institution.

I don't buy into that assumption that humanity is indeed faced with brute suffering that can't be remedied.[/quote]

As long as there is eating, consumption of any kind, this long there is going to be suffering.

Throwing more people into the world is just enacting a political agenda. Someone just "MUST" experience this world. Why should they? Any answer to this is your ego transubstantiated to be manifested as someone else's life and inevitably, suffering.

To be or not to be. Not to be. Not to be in the first place. It's too late for us.

vast majority of people seem to find something in life — Shawn

They do. One common rebuttal is that they are deluded or fooling themselves. I say if they are, good for them. Likewise if a poor person goes all in on religion, if it makes life better great.

If it is true that empathy is the source of pain for a philosophical pessimist, then what's wrong with 'care'? Why does it have to seem so selfish to end ones life in a hurry rather than care for something such as ones life or another person? — Shawn

It looks as if the person has to measure how bad life is vs. how good it feels (or actually does) helping another person out.

In some rather clear instances, say, a super painful diseases or maybe even the most severe type of depression, in which you just can't stand life at all, no matter what you do, then I think suicide is an option and valid in these cases.

Well, I think it's an option for everybody, if we don't have control over our lives, what do we have control over? But that's besides the point.

One would have to consider the extent of the pessimism. A moderate amount of it can be helpful as in sobering. Too much is destructive.

Throwing more people into the world is just enacting a political agenda. — schopenhauer1

What kind of political agenda?

Someone just "MUST" experience this world. — schopenhauer1

This is simply how things are. I understand the frustration; but, it seems to me that some people find life enjoying. I don't have an answer for each and every specified case of philosophical pessimism arising in a person's head; but, it appears as if this is not a common feature to have a disposition towards life. Would you agree?

Why should they? Any answer to this is your ego transubstantiated to be manifested as someone else's life and inevitably, suffering. — schopenhauer1

I don't think we are so limited in options, at least under the careful guidance of a caring parent. At least, money isn't a troublesome issue until your on your own. To make money is another issue; but, again I feel as if this were about fairness, fundamentally. Is that true?