The most obvious problem that follows is if EVERYTHING in waking life is ‘dissatisfaction’ then the term ‘dissatisfaction’ is fairly meaningless as no antonym for it can rightly exist.
I guess this means ‘satisfaction’ is a non-thing. — I like sushi
What is the difference between ‘striving’ and ‘challenging yourself’? — I like sushi
What do you mean by "eternalize collective suffering"? Resentful people would not like to make collective suffering permanent.. at least as a pessimistic therapy. — schopenhauer1
Nietzsche — Gus Lamarch
Nietzsche was a dick. — schopenhauer1
He was trying to be the anti-Schopenhauer. If Schopenhauer observed how the world was about striving after and we should thus retreat (for Schop asceticism and for Mainlander full on suicide of the self), then Nietzsche was going to come up with the Eternal Return.. That is live life over and over as if you were going to return and do it again.. In other words, try to embrace it enthusiastically (and in my spin on it, manically). Be the most gung-ho worker.. but even better be the gung-ho mountain climber or painter, or whatever.. He wanted you to try to be as much about doing in the world as possible. He wanted you to conquer, the world, and yourself by active participation. Opposite of this is Schopenhauer who wanted to retreat as the source of suffering was the eternal willing nature that must be controlled or perhaps denied altogether. — schopenhauer1
Nietzsche argues that "since life is only suffering, let us at least try not to regret witnessing this same constant suffering for the rest of eternity". — Gus Lamarch
It is far more honorable to face the changeless and the indifferent than to simply surrender to the damnation of existence. — Gus Lamarch
In your last moments of suffering, just before death takes you, at least you can remember your attempts and your struggles with suffering, and then, only then, you can be proud of trying. — Gus Lamarch
Nietzsche does not theorize a victory over existence, for such a fact is incapable of being realized. — Gus Lamarch
You can give up - Mainländer -;
You can cry - Cioran -;
You can isolate yourself from the world - Schopenhauer -;
You can try - Nietzsche -.
While life is subjective, existence is not, so even if we try any of the above options, suffering will still remain being a thing of those who exist. — Gus Lamarch
From what I am getting here you are saying ‘dissatisfaction’ is ‘suffering’. We are never FULLY ‘satisfied’ so all life is ‘suffering’.
Correct summation? — I like sushi
A pretty face, a noble pursuit, a puzzle, an ounce of pleasure.. we all try to submerge in these entertainments to not face the existential boredom straight on. That would be too much to dwell in for too long. We design goals, and virtues and reasons, and entertainments, and standards to meet, and trying to contribute to "something". We cannot fall back on the default of existence- the boredom. — schopenhauer1
You can communally recognize the suffering — schopenhauer1
But going back to the "You can try" of Nietzsche..
If I was to force people into working for X reason (to keep my company going, profits, to keep humanity buzzing along), my greatest idea would be to make the people think that they are struggling for themselves in some magnificent Ubermensch sort of way.. All my workers trying to outdo themselves because they all think they are little ubermenschs :lol: :lol:.
See, his philosophy can be coopted so easy to manipulate and at the end, it is just a conceit of a (seemingly coked-up) 19th century philosopher. — schopenhauer1
And that's Christianity for you people. — Gus Lamarch
The concept of "Ubermensch" is utopian indeed, however, the "path" to it is not, for, with a purpose, suffering can disappear. — Gus Lamarch
When you continually claim we have more efficacy than we actually do, and ignore the rules created by our situatedness in physical and social reality, I’m gonna continually call you out on it.
However even more pertinent. The fact you don’t recognize that we are all burdened with the task of subsisting at all and overcoming it, is denied by you. We can try to work together but it would be in this recognition of the tragedy and not through obfuscating misdirection of vague optimistic slogans. — schopenhauer1
I’m not claiming efficacy, only potentiality. The difference is desire. I cannot have the life I want wrapped up in a bow and delivered to me, free of suffering. You say this is a ‘tragedy’, but I say get over yourself - what makes you think that was ever an option, let alone what you deserve? — Possibility
No, the idea is that any kind of existence is burdensome. It's about a dissatisfaction that would persist even if one had all the health, wealth, beauty, fame, family, friends, etc. in the world. — baker
But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!” — Gus Lamarch
And I’m saying that any kind of existence can appear burdensome and dissatisfying in relation to the illusion of ‘individual potentiality’. — Possibility
@PossibilityAgain, no. It's that any kind of seeking happiness outside cannot provide satisfaction. Whether one seeks happiness through obtaining things, relationships, or sophisticated pursuits such as art, it's all still unsatisfactory. — baker
I might want to see a unicorn flying through the sky, throwing rainbows everywhere - that doesn’t mean I deserve to see it. — Possibility
The idea that this potentiality or value I can imagine is all for me as an individual, deserved and mine alone, is a lie we’ve been led to believe against all evidence to the contrary. That’s the tragedy. The potential of human life is unavoidably intertwined with everything and everyone else, and the more we try to pull back from this, to define our selves as ‘individual’, the more we suffer from it. You can say this is a ‘burden’ if you like, but I don’t have to agree with your evaluation. These are not ‘rules’ made up by some creator ‘boss’ with the intention that we suffer. It’s the natural law of existence, and the ‘rules’ you describe are simply an interpretation, based on how we feel in relation to our situation as ‘individuals’. — Possibility
Connection, even without collaboration, is better than isolation. But this approach does categorically exclude those of us who relate to being without misery. So, you and I cannot work together until I agree that ALL life is a tragedy, not just that it appears to be? — Possibility
The way I see it, we can, instead, lean into rather than resist the interconnectedness of potential existence — Possibility
So, you and I cannot work together until I agree that ALL life is a tragedy, not just that it appears to be? — Possibility
The way I see it, we can, instead, lean into rather than resist the interconnectedness of potential existence, and realise our value/significance in relation to BEING an undefined change in suffering, rather than the illusion of an ‘individual self’. — Possibility
Identity (as in quantum non-individuality) can still be a ‘useful idealisation’ to simplify our conceptual framework and predict behaviour, but it isn’t metaphysically real. — Possibility
- it renders pessimism as relative. I don’t see how we can morally judge ALL acts of procreation based on the apparent tragedy of life, when this isn’t necessarily apparent to everyone. I don’t think my position justifies procreation, though. It simply means that I judge morality in terms of perceived intentionality, rather than the act itself. — Possibility
But this immorality is inherent in the ‘individual’ intentionality over another being, NOT in the act itself. — Possibility
Still, the morality of procreation aside, neither of these points negate the non-individual potential, value and significance of being an undefined change in suffering. If we consider our identifying preference for the illusion as a useful idealisation, I think we can philosophically determine how to more accurately develop and structure change - eg. into a reduction of suffering overall. — Possibility
Again, no. It's that any kind of seeking happiness outside cannot provide satisfaction. Whether one seeks happiness through obtaining things, relationships, or sophisticated pursuits such as art, it's all still unsatisfactory. — baker
All HR spin of "You are in this for the community!". But the community doesn't make decisions and feels and thinks and does.. I, the individual does.. So even if I am not "truly" an individual in some art house, new age way (as baker explained a few posts ago), I am the locus of the concretion of all the ways the universe impinges on me.. Working within a community and being the locus of what actually feels, thinks, does, etc. are two different things that your obfuscating language can never combine, no matter how hard you try to equate them. — schopenhauer1
I don't get your question. I am constantly "working together" whether I fuckn like it or not because I am existing in a world interconnected with others. So your collaboration thing is just an odd de facto truth of living as a human.. I work with people I have nothing in common with or don't particularly agree with in almost anything except getting some task done all the time. What does that have to do with the fact that I wouldn't want to do this in the first place, and including the decision for suicide? Guess its too late for that so I got to "lean in" :lol:. You must know this is like a parody of itself right? — schopenhauer1
We can try to work together but it would be in this recognition of the tragedy — schopenhauer1
even if I am atoms, quantum events, or neurons, it is only the subjective "self" that I feel at any conscious moment, so it means nothing to point to the "real" substrate, as that doesn't change the situation.. if I "change" from this notion, it would still be the subjective self changing and feeling it. — schopenhauer1
I don't judge procreation as necessarily immoral, but misguided, though I think it does have moral components of being callous with suffering. — schopenhauer1
Still, the morality of procreation aside, neither of these points negate the non-individual potential, value and significance of being an undefined change in suffering. If we consider our identifying preference for the illusion as a useful idealisation, I think we can philosophically determine how to more accurately develop and structure change - eg. into a reduction of suffering overall.
— Possibility
That's what work and public policy is in modern day.. Work, work work, and left-leaning politicians will cry for mitigation of externalities (environmental, racial, educational, etc.). Right-leaning will cry for business freedoms (less taxes, less government, more private ownership of resources, etc.). So at the end of the day, you are just advocating what we have now.. Comply, comply, comply. But no, you are going to make vague references to change, and potential, etc.. and start the BS all over again as if you are not saying that. — schopenhauer1
But back to what baker was saying, you can deny the dissatisfaction while living out the dissatisfaction. It's okay, that happens. Dissatisfaction is the rule of this world. We are born into it and must deal with it. As for your collaboration scheme.. as I said, it's already what is going on. You are just saying to do more of the same, but "lean into it". — schopenhauer1
Your job has nothing to do with it. You work with other people because want to get paid, and for some reason you thought that work situation was a good deal. That’s on you. — Possibility
It only seems that way. Nothing changes when we stand still. Standing still, doing nothing, recognising the ‘tragedy’ of our situatedness - this just enables us to get a clear sense of where we are, so we can determine the next step in the direction towards where we want to be. Because taking a step is the only way to change anything. And I get that NO step seems to be the right direction, because to step anywhere just looks as if you’re complying, even though all you’ve done is accept the situation as a starting point. Because there potentially exists a relational structure of change between this situatedness and an overall reduction in suffering, which would render a step worth taking, even though it looks like you’re just complying. — Possibility
So if we’re going to live out dissatisfaction and suffer anyway, let’s do so in a way that is directed specifically at reducing the existing and ongoing dissatisfaction or suffering of others, long-term. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and you feed him for life. And no, I don’t mean push the agenda that he needs to fish in order to ‘survive’. I mean actually spend time with the man on his terms and share a way to reduce suffering, that he can share with others to reduce suffering, and so on. — Possibility
But this is more information than the mind can process alone, so it is the extent to which we are also aware of connecting and collaborating that enables us to maximise the effectiveness of being a change in suffering. — Possibility
Leisure time is present for most animals, but the difference with humans seems to be our cosmological view (our ability to understand our physical space as ‘finite’). Maybe our recognition of our limitations is what causes an attitude of ‘striving’ (beyond basic biological functions including mating and reproduction)? — I like sushi
Then there is the relation of ‘mindfulness’ and ‘boredom’. The act of ‘mindfulness’ as a meditative technique is interesting here as it is not about ‘striving’ for a goal, nor is it really ‘boredom’. This technique is more or less like boredom in that it is a place where a new perspective appears from the unconscious. — I like sushi
The main issue I have personally with how you word our position is with the terms ‘existence’ and ‘living’ perhaps? As I said previously, what you seem to frame as ‘boredom’ I call mere ‘existence’ - a disconnection from ‘living a life’. This is one reason I am not a big fan of buddhism as it seems more or less like an easy ‘escape’ from life ironically. — I like sushi
Anyway, it is complex topic so pick through what you can and offer up any of your views if you wish. — I like sushi
I imagine you can this being viewed as wanting something for nothing. Do you view a ‘good life’ as getting something for nothing perpetually without worries of ‘burdens’? — I like sushi
Where do you stand on buddhist ideas and nihilism?
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.