rather it’s AND — Possibility

Not really. Yes, we die, but it's one or the other at the same time. You either comply or you die. You will die eventually, but at that point, you no longer will be or have to be complying.

So, you’re saying that it’s possible to BE ‘complete and whole’, wanting for nothing as an individual human animal? Do you really think that’s true? Lack is a basic quality inherent to EVERY existence. Any feeling in relation to this is based on expectations with regard to ‘individuality’. — Possibility

Read it again in context. I was saying that to what you said here, somehow entailing lack with "individuality is false".. huh?

Lack is just an awareness that ‘individuality’ is false at any level of existence. — Possibility

I’m not looking for a way out, just a more useful description of ‘the way’, because it’s obvious that ‘comply or die’ is NOT it... — Possibility

Bullshit. You live in the situatedness of history, physics, socioeconomic reality. You can deny it, but I can deny gravity and that wouldn't mean jack shit on its truth.

Seems like the forum is replete with users who now want black as their profile color. There were none when I used it. *cough*. Interesting to note. Perhaps the couple of yellow bellies have changed theirs too?

@schopenhauer1

After a while i decided to take a peek and saw this thread. Read the first couple of pages and saw the usual (funny) shenanigans by certain *..*. Things don't change much, do they.

The avoidance, and consequently the attempt to fill the perceived intrinsic emptiness or call it meaninglessness, that is at the base of human existence, is at the base of all human activity. This is a simple observation, unless the person is in denial and lacks the intestinal fortitude to face facts. Indeed, schopeanhoauer has offered some good things to ponder. My question to you is: I understand he has also talked about the aesthetic experience. If you were to explain it according to your own understanding perhaps supported by some verbatim quotes from him, what's your take? Aesthetic appreciation definitely isn't "entertainment", right? What and where is the distinction?

Some kind of ‘transcendentalism’ is usually the answer to this.

Then there is the overt problem of sifting through the plethora of transcendental views to find one that seems ‘correct’.

For me life is neither bleak nor wondrous. Ponderous? Certainly seems that way more than anything.

I don't know if it's been mentioned here before, but the topic reminds me strongly of a passage at the end of Voltaire's book Candide:

"one day the old woman ventured to say to them:

"I want to know which is worse, to be ravished a hundred times by negro pirates, to have a buttock cut off, to run the gauntlet among the Bulgarians, to be whipped and hanged at an auto-da-fé, to be dissected, to row in the galleys—in short, to go through all the miseries we have undergone, or to stay here and have nothing to do?"

"It is a great question," said Candide.

This discourse gave rise to new reflections, and Martin especially concluded that man was born to live either in a state of distracting inquietude or of lethargic disgust. Candide did not quite agree to that, but he affirmed nothing. Pangloss owned that he had always suffered horribly, but as he had once asserted that everything went wonderfully well, he asserted it still, though he no longer believed it."

is usually the answer to this — I like sushi

The question.....was asking about Schopenhauer's views on the aesthetic experience. It was also asking, how does he distinguish between an aesthetic experience and mere entertainment. He seems to have spoken and written on both. This was the question.

The reason for asking @schopenhauer1 : he seems to have studied Schopenhauer.

The motive for asking the question: an interest to hear Schopenhauer's views. Nothing more, nothing less.

Aestheticism is not entertainment.

Schopenhauer (THE Schopenhauer) refers to aestheticism as being that which turns away from our inner nature.

The original question to ( OUR Schopenhauer) also included a request for verbatim quotes. If i feel the need to interpret his words, i can do it myself. Thank you for the response. Let's see what (our Schopenhauer) has to say.

Too many Schopies :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Fuxkinhug

Now run along. Kindergarten is right there--------->

The avoidance, and consequently the attempt to fill the perceived intrinsic emptiness or call it meaninglessness, that is at the base of human existence, is at the base of all human activity. This is a simple observation, unless the person is in denial and lacks the intestinal fortitude to face facts. Indeed, schopeanhoauer has offered some good things to ponder. My question to you is: I understand he has also talked about the aesthetic experience. If you were to explain it according to your own understanding perhaps supported by some verbatim quotes from him, what's your take? Aesthetic appreciation definitely isn't "entertainment", right? What and where is the distinction? — skyblack

So there is a problem that there is too much to quote! All of Book 3 of The World as Will and Representation can be referenced. But as a start, look at this quote from WWR:

If, raised by the power of the mind, a man relinquishes the common way of looking at things, gives up tracing, under the guidance of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason, their relations to each other, the final goal of which is always a relation to his own will; if he thus ceases to consider the where, the when, the why, and the whither of things, and looks simply and solely at the what; if, further, he does not allow abstract thought, the concepts of the reason, to take possession of his consciousness, but, instead of all this, gives the whole power of his mind to perception, sinks himself entirely in this, and lets his whole consciousness be filled with the quiet contemplation of the natural object actually present, whether a landscape, a tree, a mountain, a building, or whatever it may be; inasmuch as he loses himself in this object (to use a pregnant German idiom), i.e., forgets even his individuality, his will, and only continues to exist as the pure subject, the clear mirror of the object, so that it is as if the object alone were there, without any one to perceive it, and he can no longer separate the perceiver from the perception, but both have become one, because the whole consciousness is filled and occupied with one single sensuous picture; if thus the object has to such an extent passed out of all relation to something outside it, and the subject out of all relation to the will, then that which is so known is no longer the particular thing as such; but it is the Idea, the eternal form, the immediate objectivity of the will at this grade; and, therefore, he who is sunk in this perception is no longer individual, for in such perception the individual has lost himself; but he is pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of knowledge. This, which in itself is so remarkable (which I well know confirms the saying that originated with Thomas Paine, Du sublime au ridicule il n'y a qu'un pas), will by degrees become clearer and less surprising from what follows. It was this that was running in Spinoza's mind when he wrote: Meus aeterna est, quatenus res sub aeternitatis specie concipit (Eth. V. pr. 31, Schol.)[4] In such contemplation the particular thing becomes at once the Idea of its species, and the perceiving individual becomes pure subject of knowledge. The individual, as such, knows only particular things; the pure subject of knowledge knows only Ideas.

So let's analyze this...
There is the "common way of looking at things" that is based on "principle of sufficient reason" (cause/effect/time/space),

and then there is

"Whole power of mind to perception/whole consciousness filled with quiet contemplation of the object". Clear mirror of the object.. no longer separation between perceived and perceiver pure perception of eternal form..

In context, Schop was a variant of platonist mixed with Kant. He believed that this realm of the principle of sufficient reason is akin to the bottom of Plato's divided line.. It is the "corrupt" material world of time/space/cause/effect which is the "representation" or "presentation" that one's subjective will is creating for the person. The will's playground is the world as perceived by us in time/space/cause/effect. But it's the devil's playground because the person caught up in the presentation basically suffers dissatisfaction of a ceaseless need, even it is just to get away from boredom itself.. The pendulum swing of goals/base desires on one end and boredom with existence itself on the other..

Works of great art (he describes his idea of great art in detail), as well as natural beauty can in a sense "elicit" the reality above the divided line.. the one of forms. In other words, it captures the essential nature of the object, what it "really is" outside of time/space/cause/effect.. It elicits the sense not of just perceiving the forms but "knowing it" in some pure way.

Now you might ask how it is a) that there are really forms? How does this fit into his Willing system? It seems shoe-horned and b) How is the feeling elicited by art/nature any different than other forms of feeling coming from the world of Will?

These are two legitimate criticisms of Schopenhauer and perhaps fatal to the his project of shoe-horning Plato.. However, to be charitable we can look to Plato himself...

In Plato there are grades of knowing.. Gnosis I believe was akin to "knowing" the forms not just understanding them in a partial way using our discursive/intellectualized usual manner. It is in some sense not just thinking about, but actually feeling/knowing/becoming one with the form.. It is more than mere appearance and playing around with the ideas and abstractions.. It is "feeling it" in some way beyond that. So where all other forms of thought seem to only get at the thing through intellectualization or through ones desires.. this is kind of a backdoor way of actually getting at the thing.. But it is not through the usual way one would expect of intellectualizing or working your way there.. It must come through acts of will-less contemplation of the object that only natural forms or the genius artist can elicit..

That is the gist of it at least.

Thanks. I will be coming back to this

.

Works of great art (he describes his idea of great art in detail), — schopenhauer1

What are his ideas of great art?

There is an old inside joke in Buddhism about Mahayana heaven:

Outside of the heavenly gates, crowds of bodhisattvas bowing to eachother, making a gesture with the hand, saying, "After you!"
— baker

:ok: — Possibility

Why the :ok: ?

The joke is actually a harsh criticism of the idea of postponing one's own enlightenment in favor of others.

The OP is asking what one should do. — I like sushi

Can you copy-paste it? I read the OP again, and don't see that question there.

If you have an answer then that would be a ‘good life’ of a sorts right? Is a ‘sort of good life’ better than a ‘no sort of good life’? If so and your response is it doesn’t matter because we suffer anyway, then you have not made any meaningful distinction between the two.

I think there is a "good life", it's just that I think it's not one directed the usual way, into consumption in the pursuit of sensual pleasures. But, rather, it is one of making an effort to end suffering (not merely reduce it).

What does he mean by "gives up tracing"? He says it in the 2nd line of your quote.

How can you end suffering if all life is effectively framed as ‘suffering’ (albeit a weaker sort of ‘disgruntlement’ and/or ‘dissatisfaction’)?

If my last post to you was uncalled for, hopefully you will attribute it to my uncertainty of our very first interaction, and take into account the history of my interactions with some "......." here. And perhaps posting a video during an exchange didn't help. In any case..that's that.

I have/had no issue. Sometime people speak with gravitas and sometimes with glib humour. It just popped into my head and amused me so I posted it :)

;-)

Yes, we die, but it's one or the other at the same time. You either comply or you die. You will die eventually, but at that point, you no longer will be or have to be complying.
/.../
You live in the situatedness of history, physics, socioeconomic reality. You can deny it, but I can deny gravity and that wouldn't mean jack shit on its truth. — schopenhauer1

I think part of the problem is that you're simultaneously holding onto two theories/philosophies which are mutually exclusive. Namely, one the one hand, Schopenhauerian pessimism and on the other, the Theory of Evolution. The two together make for a supertoxic mix.

From an evolutionary perspective, antinatalism is a dead end; antinatalists are evolutionary detritus, they cull themselves out of the gene pool, while evolution, and life, march on, ever on. Antinatalists who adhere to the ToE have no right to complain (or rebel).

How can you end suffering if all life is effectively framed as ‘suffering’ (albeit a weaker sort of ‘disgruntlement’ and/or ‘dissatisfaction’)? — I like sushi

By seeing that there are two kinds of suffering:
1. suffering that leads to more suffering,
2. suffering that leads to the end of suffering.

According to whom/what?

Early Buddhism.

But not Jainism? What is the difference here? They both say the same thing and Buddhism would not exist without the ascetic Jains.

What are his ideas of great art? — skyblack

Am I doing your homework or something? Haha, look it up on Book 3! But I'll give you some quotes, but there are just too many comments to give a summary.. Basically music is the most potent art in reflecting being a sort of mirror of Will. Painting/sculptures and such should reflect the form of an object, and not have to be contemplated via a set of synthetic knowledge such as mythical allegories etc. it should simply reflect what it is seeing. Poetry however, can use allegory if it gets to the heart of the tragedy of will human nature or things of this nature.. There's just too much commentary to summarize it. Just read Book 3 of WWR.

Inward disposition, the predominance of knowing over willing, can produce this state under any circumstances. This is shown by those admirable Dutch artists who directed this purely objective perception to the most insignificant objects, and established a lasting monument of their objectivity and spiritual peace in their pictures of still life, which the aesthetic beholder does not look on without emotion; for they present to him the peaceful, still, frame of mind of the artist, free from will, which was needed to contemplate such insignificant things so objectively, to observe them so attentively, and to repeat this perception so intelligently; and as the picture enables the onlooker to participate in this state, his emotion is often increased by the contrast between it and the unquiet frame of mind, disturbed by vehement willing, in which he finds himself. In the same spirit, landscape- painters, and particularly Ruisdael, have often painted very insignificant country scenes, which produce the same effect even more agreeably.

Human form and expression are the most important objects of plastic art, and human action the most important object of poetry. Yet each thing has its own peculiar beauty, not only every organism which expresses itself in the unity of an individual being, but also everything unorganised and formless, and even every manufactured article. For all these reveal the Ideas through which the will objectifies itself at it lowest grades, they give, as it were, the deepest resounding bass-notes of nature. Gravity, rigidity, fluidity, light, and so forth, are the Ideas which express themselves in rocks, in buildings, in waters. Landscape-gardening or architecture can do no more than assist them to unfold their qualities distinctly, fully, and variously; they can only give them the opportunity of expressing themselves purely, so that they lend themselves to aesthetic contemplation and make it easier. Inferior buildings or ill-favoured localities, on the contrary, which nature has neglected or art has spoiled, perform this task in a very slight degree or not at all; yet even from them these universal, fundamental Ideas of nature cannot altogether disappear. To the careful observer they present themselves here also, and even bar buildings and the like are capable of being aesthetically considered; the Ideas of the most universal properties of their materials are still recognisable in them, only the artificial form which has been given them does not assist but hinders aesthetic contemplation. Manufactured articles also serve to express Ideas, only it is not the Idea of the manufactured article which speaks in them, but the Idea of the material to which this artificial form has been given. This may be very conveniently expressed in two words, in the language of the schoolmen, thus,—the manufactured article expresses the Idea of its forma substantialis, but not that of its forma accidentalis; the latter leads to no Idea, but only to a human conception of which it is the result. It is needless to say that by manufactured article no work of plastic art is meant. The schoolmen understand, in fact, by forma substantialis that which I call the grade of the objectification of will in a thing. We shall return immediately, when we treat of architecture, to the Idea of the material.

What the two arts we have spoken of accomplish for these lowest grades of the objectivity of will, is performed for the higher grades of vegetable nature by artistic horticulture. The landscape beauty of a scene consists, for the most part, in the multiplicity of natural objects which are present in it, and then in the fact that they are clearly separated, appear distinctly, and yet exhibit a fitting connection and alternation. These two conditions are assisted and promoted by landscape-gardening, but it has by no means such a mastery over its material as architecture, and therefore its effect is limited. The beauty with which it is concerned belongs almost exclusively to nature; it has done little for it; and, on the other hand, it can do little against unfavourable nature, and when nature works, not for it, but against it, its achievements are small.

The vegetable world offers itself everywhere for aesthetic enjoyment without the medium of art; but so far as it is an object of art, it belongs principally to landscape-painting; to the province of which all the rest of unconscious nature also belongs. In paintings of still life, and of mere architecture, ruins, interiors of churches, etc., the subjective side of aesthetic pleasure is predominant, i.e., our satisfaction does not lie principally in the direct comprehension of the represented Ideas, but rather in the subjective correlative of this comprehension, pure, will-less knowing.

If then, in accordance with what has been said, allegory in plastic and pictorial art is a mistaken effort, serving an end which is entirely foreign to art, it becomes quite unbearable when it leads so far astray that the representation of forced and violently introduced subtilties degenerates into absurdity. Such, for example, is a tortoise, to represent feminine seclusion; the downward glance of Nemesis into the drapery of her bosom, signifying that she can see into what is hidden; the explanation of Bellori that Hannibal Caracci represents voluptuousness clothed in a yellow robe, because he wishes to indicate that her lovers soon fade and become yellow as straw. If there is absolutely no connection between the representation and the conception signified by it, founded on subsumption under the concept, or association of Ideas; but the signs and the things signified are combined in a purely conventional manner, by positive, accidentally introduced laws; then I call this degenerate kind of allegory Symbolism. Thus the rose is the symbol of secrecy, the laurel is the symbol of fame, the palm is the symbol of peace, the scallop-shell is the symbol of pilgrimage, the cross is the symbol of the Christian religion. To this class also belongs all significance of mere colour, as yellow is the colour of falseness, and blue is the colour of fidelity. Such symbols may often be of use in life, but their value is foreign to art.

Allegory has an entirely different relation to poetry from that which it has to plastic and pictorial art, and although it is to be rejected in the latter, it is not only permissible, but very serviceable to the former. For in plastic and pictorial art it leads away from what is perceptibly given, the proper object of all art, to abstract thoughts; but in poetry the relation is reversed; for here what is directly given in words is the concept, and the first aim is to lead from this to the object of perception, the representation of which must be undertaken by the imagination of the hearer. If in plastic and pictorial art we are led from what is immediately given to something else, this must always be a conception, because here only the abstract cannot be given directly; but a conception must never be the source, and its communication must never be the end of a work of art. In poetry,

When now, in the particular case, such a relation is actually given, that is to say, when the composer has been able to express in the universal language of music the emotions of will which constitute the heart of an event, then the melody of the song, the music of the opera, is expressive. But the analogy discovered by the composer between the two must have proceeded from the direct knowledge of the nature of the world unknown to his reason, and must not be an imitation produced with conscious intention by means of conceptions, otherwise the music does not express the inner nature of the will itself, but merely gives an inadequate imitation of its phenomenon. All specially imitative music does this; for example, "The Seasons", by Haydn; also many passages of his "Creation", in which phenomena of the external world are directly imitated; also all battle-pieces. Such music is entirely to be rejected. — WWR Book 3 Quotes

The question came up because of what you said. There was no intent to make you work. Thanks.

I think part of the problem is that you're simultaneously holding onto two theories/philosophies which are mutually exclusive. Namely, one the one hand, Schopenhauerian pessimism and on the other, the Theory of Evolution. The two together make for a supertoxic mix.

From an evolutionary perspective, antinatalism is a dead end; antinatalists are evolutionary detritus, they cull themselves out of the gene pool, while evolution, and life, march on, ever on. Antinatalists who adhere to the ToE have no right to complain (or rebel). — baker

I don't view evolution quite so cut-and-dry in humans regarding procreation. Procreation becomes a choice, unlike eating food or going to the bathroom. It's something we can choose to carry on. It is simply cultural reinforcement and personal preferences that perpetuate it.

What does he mean by "gives up tracing"? He says it in the 2nd line of your quote. — skyblack

Look at the quote again..

If, raised by the power of the mind, a man relinquishes the common way of looking at things, gives up tracing, under the guidance of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason, their relations to each other, the final goal of which is always a relation to his own will; if he thus ceases to consider the where, the when, the why, and the whither of things, and looks simply and solely at the what — schopenhauer1

So he is saying the contemplative of art is relinquishing the common way of looking at things, which he qualifies as giving up tracing the relations of the forms of principle of sufficient reason... Explaining this as ceasing to consider the "where, the when, the why, and the whither of things" and looks simply and solely at the what.

Not really. Yes, we die, but it's one or the other at the same time. You either comply or you die. You will die eventually, but at that point, you no longer will be or have to be complying. — schopenhauer1

Yes, really. Every moment you exist as being, you are also dying, and no amount of compliance can change that. Life isn’t one or the other, but BOTH. You can’t prevent death by complying - all you’re doing is rearranging deck chairs.

You’re confusing a description of ‘what life appears to be’ with a description of ‘how to be’. ‘Comply or die’ assumes that one either appears to ‘comply’ (ie. acts) or chooses ‘death’ (by inaction) in any moment, and assumes that it isn’t possible to do both. But every day, people can and do take a deliberate step towards death while still appearing to comply - without actually dying - right up until that moment when one is no longer... well, appearing to comply, of course. But that’s a completely different moment.

Here’s what I’ve noticed: when you say ‘comply’, you’re talking about perceived potential in terms of observable, quantitative effort. Every act appears to be complicit, regardless of direction. But when you say ‘die’, you’re talking about a perceived outcome or directed attention, describing a qualitative goal based on an observable trajectory. Immobility is apparently aiming to ‘die’, regardless of effort over time. These are non-commutative variables - it isn’t possible to be observing both the momentum and trajectory of an event (being) in the same moment - so it appears as if “it’s one or the other at the same time”, at that point.

This is a perceptual illusion. The world appears to be flat, the solar system appears to be moving around the earth, the universe appears to be a created event that begins and ends, and the agenda (potential) of existence appears to be an ideological conscription to reject the idea of non-being - to comply in direct opposition to dying.

Explorers setting out towards the horizon were heading towards what appeared to be inevitable failure, but was simply the threshold of their understanding. When Jesus set out on a path that would hasten his own suffering and death, it appeared to be inevitable failure, too. No procreation, no dominance, no survival - no immobility, either - and yet, more than 2,000 years later, observations of his life (the structure of his apparent compliance) in relation to his death continue to interact with humanity on a perceptual level, regardless of what we believe. So, too, with the life and death of Siddhartha Gautama as an understanding of apparent inaction, or what Taoism refers to as wu-wei.

So the idea that the potential of existence is bound to its apparent being is false - just as the expanse of the world is not bound by the horizon, the structure of the solar system is not bound by the apparent movement of celestial bodies, and the universe is not bound by the appearance of time. Quantum physics also supports this, in its own way, and makes use of it to direct qualitative attention in anticipation of observable events by calculating the quantitative potential of surrounding interactions.

How we can be is not bound by what life appears to be at any point in time, pessimistic or not. This applies to the moment we die as much as any other.

There is an old inside joke in Buddhism about Mahayana heaven:

Outside of the heavenly gates, crowds of bodhisattvas bowing to eachother, making a gesture with the hand, saying, "After you!"
— baker

:ok:
— Possibility

Why the :ok: ?

The joke is actually a harsh criticism of the idea of postponing one's own enlightenment in favor of others. — baker

That depends on your interpretation. The idea of ‘getting through the gates of heaven’ seems to me a misunderstanding of enlightenment in the first place. The joke portrays an incongruity between the Buddhist notion of ‘no-self’ and a self-actualising perception of enlightenment. Given there is no consensus on this in Buddhism, I guess it depends on your perspective, doesn’t it?

Since Op has titled this thread as "pessimism's ultimate insight" ,yet, only focuses on Schop's thoughts about boredom i think maybe a short note on pessimism might contribute to the thread:

Pessimism in its purest form, stated simply, is, the real neither is nor can ever become perfect, and that the ideal is always bound to remain unreal. It thus postulates a complete lack of harmony between the world of facts and the world of ideals.

Sounds like our present mainstream narrative, doesn't it. As an exercise, one can apply the above, to the views they hold (whether they are atheist, theist, materialist, scientist, or whatever labeled box they have boxed themselves in), to find out if they are, or not, a pessimist.