You're trying to do a gotcha instead of understanding...

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

Dissatisfaction is akin to something that is lacking now.. even if it is lacking something "more" than the satisfaction you are currently feeling.. Clearly you aren't satisfied "enough" to simply be "satisfied" at that moment if you feel that you can improve upon the situation and then continually doing so, over, and over..

Thus..

What is the difference between ‘striving’ and ‘challenging yourself’? — I like sushi

Challenging yourself is simply one variety of the many forms of "lack". We lack in food or the pleasure of taste, so we eat. We lack in some stimulating activity so we pursue a game, or "challenging ourselves" with X. That's what I mean by all part of the same thing.

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

People who carry resentment end up being the most unsuccessful both individually and interpersonally in existence.

Indirectly - or, in worse cases, directly - people with this trait - resentment - end only developing more resentful people.

Nietzsche said about Christians:

“The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”

and I'm saying this of resentful people:

“The resentful's resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”

Nietzsche — Gus Lamarch

Nietzsche was a dick. 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.

Nietzsche was a dick. — schopenhauer1

This is no argument.

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

Even though both authors are in complete disagreement, I do not believe that Schopenhauer's ascetic philosophy is also an answer to the suffering of existence.

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".

It is far more honorable to face the changeless and the indifferent than to simply surrender to the damnation of existence.

And the value that Nietzsche preaches in his argumentation of the conflict between the individual and the eternal - existence - is one that is made of pride for the individual itself.

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.

There it is: - Of trying...

Nietzsche does not theorize a victory over existence, for such a fact is incapable of being realized.

Existence IS; We were, are and will be - the human being is fleeting.

Until now we have talked through four scenarios:

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.

I was not looking for a ‘gotcha’. I was simply asking you to answer my questions as best you can.

That is all. Thanks for trying … eventually.

Although you still haven’t noted the difference between ‘striving’ and ‘challenging yourself’ as far as I can see.

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

But this is foolish as it leads to more births, more people, more suffering. So even on the face of it, it is wrong.

It is far more honorable to face the changeless and the indifferent than to simply surrender to the damnation of existence. — Gus Lamarch

It depends on what "facing the changeless and indifferent" really means.

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

Sounds like a load of bullshit.. I'll explain why in a sec..

Nietzsche does not theorize a victory over existence, for such a fact is incapable of being realized. — Gus Lamarch

Yep, and this recognition makes it suspect to try..

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

Don't forget this one:
You can communally recognize the suffering - schopenhauer 1.

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.

From what I am getting here you are saying ‘dissatisfaction’ is ‘suffering’. We are never FULLY ‘satisfied’ so all life is ‘suffering’.

Correct summation?

Note: There is no premeditated ‘gotcha’ awaiting.

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

As I said earlier:

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

I would simply add Schop's insight:
If life itself were to satisfy us, we would want for nothing.. We wouldn't need to improve the situation.. we would already be there. But we are constantly struggling to do things that are related to survival, discomfort, or some other dissatisfaction. If not survival and comfort, mere existence isn't enough, thus boredom. Asceticism was Schop's goal then.. deny the will. I'm not necessarily saying that, but giving you some context.

You can communally recognize the suffering — schopenhauer1

And that's Christianity for you people.

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

Nietzsche's perception and his manuscripts reflect his reality in a 19th century Europe.

Opportunists, no matter what era they find themselves in, have always distorted people, their deeds, ideas and sayings. However, the intrinsic purpose of "trying" still replaces suffering indefinitely.

The concept of "Ubermensch" is utopian indeed, however, the "path" to it is not, for, with a purpose, suffering can disappear.

And that's Christianity for you people. — Gus Lamarch

Well, there how about atheistic gnosticism? As Schopenhauer himself advocates, take away the mythological components. What I am talking about though is simply a collective understanding of the situation. The problem is I don't think much changes from this.

The concept of "Ubermensch" is utopian indeed, however, the "path" to it is not, for, with a purpose, suffering can disappear. — Gus Lamarch

How?

I think I know what you mean now.

‘Existing’ rather than ‘living’ is how I differentiate. Others say ‘to live an empty existence’.

The main difference is you see ‘truth’ in ‘existence’ but not in ‘living’. Why is that?

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? I might want to see a unicorn flying through the sky, throwing rainbows everywhere - that doesn’t mean I deserve to see it.

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’.

We can, of course, wallow in the apparent tragedy of our ‘individual’ situation, clinging to the illusion like a lost love. And we can even band together in a first wives club of individualistic misery, finding temporary solidarity in a pessimistic relation to being. It’s an option, sure. 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?

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’. This is a paradigm shift, granted, but is neither inherently optimistic nor pessimistic, except for this FEELING that we’d ideally prefer (if it were possible) to realise this ‘individual self’ - even though we know it’s an illusion. 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. Potential existence has cardinality without ordinality, so to speak.

I’m honestly not trying to obfuscate, I’m just moving on from this shallow realism towards a more constructive empiricist view of how the world could be (not should be). But perhaps the reason you won’t explore existence at this level is because:

- 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.

- it opens the door to parents justifying an act of procreation as a reduction in their own individual suffering. I agree that this is a common misinterpretation of potential existence, and its intentionality is sufficient reason to consider it immoral. But this immorality is inherent in the ‘individual’ intentionality over another being, NOT in the act itself.

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.

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.

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

I’m aware of that. And I’m saying that any kind of existence can appear burdensome and dissatisfying in relation to the illusion of ‘individual potentiality’.

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

Deer good gods... Where did it go wrong with this sad figure. Couldn't he get any relief in his miserable pathetic life? Was it Munch on dope? Munch after dope? Damned, where did humanity took the wrong turn... It's depressing! Redemptioooon!

And I’m saying that any kind of existence can appear burdensome and dissatisfying in relation to the illusion of ‘individual potentiality’. — 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.

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

@Possibility

What he said.

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’?

Where do you stand on buddhist ideas and nihilism?

I might want to see a unicorn flying through the sky, throwing rainbows everywhere - that doesn’t mean I deserve to see it. — Possibility

But that is the game.. comply or die. So you are just reiterating it.. Just because you have some options in the game, doesn't mean it was right to make people play it.

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

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.

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

Oh right, Linda from HR says the boss wants more collaboration.. That's why I am so unhappy.. I am not committing myself to the "cause" enough :roll:. More comply or die.. you deem this as moral somehow because HR has some collaboration videos to cram down your throat for why you should work harder with the other team members.

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

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?

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

You're kidding right? You are literally now using the terminology of corporate buzzwords.."Lean into it"..

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

Say that to someone who is suffering in a huge way.. But even more so, 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.

- 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

I don't judge procreation as necessarily immoral, but misguided, though I think it does have moral components of being callous with suffering.

But this immorality is inherent in the ‘individual’ intentionality over another being, NOT in the act itself. — Possibility

Okie dokie.

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.

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

It is hard for me to guess where you lie between buddhist views and Schopenhauer’s views on things so just say what you can in your words if possible please.

I do not think there is a simple solution or way to express such things but I will outline something that I find puzzling regarding these views in general.

“Compassion” is a primary focus it seems for both buddihism and Schopenhauer in terms of morality. Compassion is framed as experiencing the suffering of others in some capacity. Also, the aim to end all suffering is part of the doctrine of both it seems?

This obviously poses a problem that looks more or less like ‘the better of two evils’ in the sense that one cannot show ‘compassion’ and not ‘suffer’. So what they both seem to hope for is to ‘reduce suffering’ yet (for buddhists at least) this is embedded in the ‘belief’ that it can be nullified completely.

As for the ‘default position’ in terms of ‘boredom’. I view ‘boredom’ as a kind of stress due to lack of arousal. Basic hand to mouth living certainly has not been the norm for human living as far as we can tell - even back into prehistory. 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)?

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.

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.

Anyway, it is complex topic so pick through what you can and offer up any of your views if you wish.

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

So why is seeking ‘happiness’ or ‘satisfaction’ the most important thing?

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

...and its this ‘locus of concretion’ that’s most important, right? Your identity: cardinality or ordinality?

What I’m saying has nothing to do with forming a ‘community’. That’s your interpretation (for some reason you need something ‘concrete’, although it seems straw is sufficient), but I’ve not said anything about forming anything in particular.

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

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.

You said:

We can try to work together but it would be in this recognition of the tragedy — schopenhauer1

The truth is that I’ve been collaborating with your perspective over a couple of years now. When I first read your arguments for antinatalism, I was firmly in the ‘but life can be wonderful, everyone should try it’ camp. But I’ve never considered my position to be set in stone, and whenever I encounter a view so diametrically opposed to my own, then I tend to work on the possibility that we’re arguing from two points in a broader picture. So I’ve been working to construct that possibility, and in turn my perspective has changed somewhat - and so I appreciate your participation in that. I do recognise the apparent ‘tragedy’ of your perspective, but from what I can see, it’s nothing that can’t be changed. Except that it gives you a sense of purpose to BE the victim, so it seems that you’re not really interested in changing the situation much at all.

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

And how I feel at any conscious moment is always the most important thing, right? This idea that I should be happy and satisfied? That’s what my life should be? The meaning of life, as defined by...?

I don't judge procreation as necessarily immoral, but misguided, though I think it does have moral components of being callous with suffering. — schopenhauer1

See? We do agree on some points. My argument has been that procreation is ‘misguided but not necessarily immoral’ throughout this thread.

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

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.

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

I said lean into the interconnectedness, not the overall agenda - big difference in my book. What is going on is mostly exclusive, isolated incidents of task-oriented ‘collaboration on...’ with limited connection, or even without awareness. Examples include pleasure, entertainment, productivity, etc. But there’s also a whole lot of activity that involves deliberate exclusion, isolation and ignorance, all of which actively contributes to dissatisfaction and suffering in the name of survival, dominance, individuality, etc.

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.

Nor do I mean that if I know how to fish I should be out there looking for starving people who don’t know how to fish so I can teach them something. I’m not talking about self-actualisation, it’s just a recognition that BEING changes the experience of suffering in every relation, one way or the other, and whether I like it or not. The more I am aware of this in terms of how I plan and structure being as ongoing attention and effort over time, the less damage I’m likely to do. 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.

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

And this is your communication problem. WHAT are you trying to say?? Say it plainly or explain neologistic terms meticulously before using them. Your moral/value recommendation is to "collaborate, connect, and be aware". Besides the obvious that we do this already to get by every day....

What are you trying to say with it? Work in charities more? Build houses for the homeless? Is that it? Is it just common notions of giving to the poor wrapped up in unnecessarily unclear language? If you say no.. then okay......WHAT??

Is it to build a humanity towards a newer realm of knowledge on science and technology? I mean that sort of already happens if you join universities, technology companies, and the like in the capacity of engineer, scientist or some other capacity like this. But you say no.... then okay... WHAT??

So you don't give examples and say that I am taking it the wrong way. Yeah, I guess that would naturally happen if you don't really explain much except self-referential terminology. And then say you can never be more than vague about it.. Then don't expect me to get what you are getting at.

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

Again with the vagueness. .What does it even mean to go in the "right" direction without using non-helpful terminology like "connection/collaboration/awareness". Give me more or you aren't saying anything communicatively useful.

Collaborating to "change anything" is not robotic or given. The "change" would have to be a value of some sort. WHAT is the value that you want to see it changed to? WHAT is "right direction"?

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

What does this mean? Just more volunteer at charities and government and non-profit interventions? Oh wait.. that is already the case.. so basically basic stuff that we already do and just more involvement in these things we already do. It's just the progressive/humanist cause reiterated in vague terminology.

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

Again, doesn't make any sense what you are saying to me. You'd have to communicate it differently. I've already guessed you just mean volunteer in organizations.. pretty standard stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-class_values

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

Humans can self-reflect.. We know we are bored. Animals seem to have a more "be in the present" that we can almost never have due to the nature of our self-reflection and ability to at will look to the past, plan for the future, and knowingly do this.

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

Again, isn't it interesting we are in a position where we feel we have to do things like "mindfulness"? There must be an existential problem if we have to do something like mindfulness to fix it. Again, going back to the Schopenhauerian idea of not able to "be", at least in this case, naturally without a bunch of techniques we must try (or try without trying.. don't get caught up Eastern semantics please :roll:).

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

No, existential boredom in this case means the motivation for why we need to do anything and can't just exist qua existing. We can't just be, but must adjust. Survival, comfort, entertainment.

Anyway, it is complex topic so pick through what you can and offer up any of your views if you wish. — I like sushi

Okie dokie. Hopefully some of those answers help.

Well, we are wired to take note of novelty so being ‘content’ (as I would put it) is not really going to last indefinitely.

I still feel like you are using ‘exist’ in a way I cannot quite get to grips with.

I understand that some people just view human life as ‘eat, fuck and die’ too. I think that is a little shallow though. On the most basic level we map the world onto our and our understanding onto the world.

Familiarity is just that. Someone living forever in some mud hut may not find it at all fascinating or fun, yet if someone else visited they may be in wonder and awe at such a ‘rustic’ existence and point out some things to the person who occupies the mud hut that they had forgotten about.

An ever adjusting perspective is ‘living’ whilst going through the motions is just ‘existing’. To merely ‘be’ is not a ‘mere’ thing at all. Contentment will eventually lead to existential boredom because with nothing new there is no life. Some people are more open than others though. I am sure many are ‘content’ with what they have because they have a way of viewing their life in a certain way.

I certainly don’t buy into the idea of ‘seeking happiness’ as I find that term rather drab and meaningless. As for ‘meaning’ that is something we wrestle with and it is that that brings on existential questions.

That ‘meaning’ is something we construct is probably closer to what you are concerned with here maybe?

In direct response to the question posed there is an obvious thing to do …

Do not except Schopenhauer’s view as the only valid view. He met his conclusion and came up with an answer to it (kind of) because it was his thoughts he knew best.

Schopenhauer makes good points but I certainly do not agree with everything he says - nor do I with any philosopher/person dead or alive.

To gain a feeling of ‘unity’ perhaps trying some psychedelic drug would help out there. I have personally been lucky to experience something I would describe as ‘more real than real’ (even though that makes no sense!) and there is no reason I can see that every individual is not capable of the same BUT I cannot give them the experience.

Ironically it was a state where all such human existential troubles seemed ridiculously childish … but I admit now that the effects of the experience have dulled with time. I relate all this to what Jung describes as the process of individuation. That may be a place to begin a journey to an answer for you. REALLY though, it is not an important problem … but you will not believe me and nor should you.

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

No.

Where do you stand on buddhist ideas and nihilism?

Since Early Buddhism considers being born as a human to be precious (because it is in the human form that one can most easily attain enlightenment), clearly, Early Buddhism is not nihilistic.

I was not talking to you.

Here's what feels like a good rejoinder to people who think antinatalists are hypocrites because they don't suicide:

It's not that life is enjoyable, it's that death is painful.

The antinatalist is in quite a bind! S/he knows that nonexistence is better but then the agony of death! :grimace: I don't wanna live but I don't wanna die too! Reminds me Chris (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) who rejects every logically possible choice that's given him by his dad. The perfect setting for a Zen moment, oui? Rationality is out of the question! Tis time for madness!

Then why did you address your reply to me?