Well, I would say that I have quite a lot of things I enjoy, but at the end of the day I still question myself whether it´s all worth it. I love my family, friends, have an interesting job, enough money, love long walks, driving, cooking, coffee….but still there’s something at the back of my head saying - is it enough?

Also I do think that preferring “nothingness” is a stupid concept, because for me there’s nothing after death, no “you” to “enjoy” the preferred nothingness :roll: . For now suicide seems irrational.

So therefore the question why go on or better yet how to go on, what to strive for? — rossii

You mentioned depression, so I'm responding with that frame in mind - I'm speaking from the perspective of one who manages his own depression.

I know what I'd say to myself if I couldn't come up with something more but just felt a kind of malingering malaise that asks if I need or want more -- but I couldn't answer that question for you. And if your question is as general as, what should I strive for? Then even more so, no one could answer that question for you. If anything, I'd say I'm done with striving -- I'm sick and tired of trying. I like not-trying. I like not-doing. It's the best place to be. Striving is hard. not-doing is relaxing. But I don't recommend that as a universal tonic. It's just what I want now.

I'm trying to be careful to be sure I'm only speaking for myself; to not give advice, because *if* your feeling is more than a philosophical wondering about "the point of it all", then none of us are in a good position to offer anything that might really help. All I can do is say I know what causes that feeling in me, and note that you're not alone in feeling it. But the actual resolution of or living with these feelings isn't a well known or even presently knowable process, at least in a general way. We understand diabetes better than we do depression, because at least we know how to manage diabetes if the person is able to habituate themselves to it.

(I mean it still could be just symptoms of depression, but who knows :confused: )

I feel like noting: there's the word "Just" again -- as if to say these feelings are only something. I don't think that's the case at all. After all, here you are talking about it. If they were only something, then you could shrug it off, right? Even if depression is the underlying causal explanation, it's not necessarily satisfying to have a causal explanation for the way we feel. Sometimes we're looking for something a little more meaningful than "the atoms move around and stuff happens, whadya want?" or "you experienced trauma and learned bad habits, so unlearn those and you'll be cured" -- sometimes there isn't a cure. Sometimes it's just nice to talk about what you feel, even if it seems a bit crazy.

But these feelings are never "just" something else. Our feelings are important, good, bad, and ugly.

To be honest with you, ssu, I guess I never be able to find such respect in real life — javi2541997

Your life is the real life, respect it.

And if you are 25, don't think you've seen it all. I had fears about my life when I was your age: I didn't have a girlfriend, I wasn't in the in-crowd, I was shy, I feared I would be all alone without having anything meaningful in my life later when I would be 30, 40 or 50. I couldn't image to be a father or having a family. I thought it was not for me. It was the life for other people.

Remember that sadness is part of life. If you wouldn't feel sadness and heartache, you wouldn't appreciate the good things in life. You have emotions, which is good in life. If something makes you happy that you laugh, even if rarely, that makes life worth wile. At that moment you cannot be sad, hence not all life is pain.

If something makes you happy that you laugh, even if rarely, that makes life worth wile. At that moment you cannot be sad, hence not all life is pain. — ssu

That's a pretty low threshold. As Simon and Garfunkle explain.. Rocks feel no pain.

If I was to cause someone else to exist because I felt joy in my most joyous occasion and was deluded into thinking another being would live life in this brief moment of joy.. That would be a huge conceit that I would be enacting (and on behalf of another nonetheless).. Just give it a few moments and that moment will be but a faded memory and the lackluster of what surrounds it comes into view more clearly.. In other words, never make significant decisions on behalf of others in your most joyous moment. That would be foolhardy.

Athena, I am so much appreciated of all information you have provided to me. But, trust me please. I do not see myself in a marriage because I already lived the experience of being heartbroken and I don't want to go through the same painful process. — javi2541997

I am now relatively irrelevant in the continuation of the species imperative but under the rules, I am still allowed to have lots of fun! — universeness

I have mixed feelings about relationships and having children. Today, I don't think I would want to bring a child into this world. Our present technological society is very different from the society and culture we had when I came of age. Back in the day we wanted to grow up and prove we were capable adults and that meant getting married and having children. It was especially important for a woman to be married and have children because there were not a lot of good options for women when our society was strongly based on the Bible and the ancient Greeks. Pythagoras and Plato were in favor of women having equality but allowing women equality was a radical idea that so broke tradition it could be met with some hostility.
Aristotle thought a man should have a slave, an ox, and a wife. I am not so sure he saw having a wife as different from having an ox and a slave. Our culture didn't seem to think having a wife was different from having an ox and a slave. Economically, women were held dependent on the man.

There was a time when having a family would improve a man's chances of getting a job and getting advancements. A married man was thought to be a responsible and more stable person. In some cases, his wife could advance his career by having the boss over for dinner and making social connections with the right people. She was not "just a housewife" but a very valuable part of the social and economic order we had.

I am not saying there were no problems. I am saying things were different back then and being married and a parent was part of our identification and social status. We also saw the world getting better and better. We believed we could make the world a better place and that was a much happier situation for having children. Today we no longer see the world as getting better and global warming means in a generation of two the world we took for granted may be irrevocably destroyed. I do not see this as a good time to have children.

Remember that sadness is part of life. If you wouldn't feel sadness and heartache, you wouldn't appreciate the good things in life. — ssu

:up: :100:

Today we no longer see the world as getting better and global warming means in a generation of two the world we took for granted may be irrevocably destroyed. I do not see this as a good time to have children. — Athena

I agree, we have reached a phase of a great deal of social, political, economic and ecological upheaval.
Responsible human stewardship of the planet is failing badly and our current sociopolitical systems cannot cope with the current global population so it's not a good time to have children, especially if you are poor, downtrodden and deliberately disadvantaged which at the moment, is the position of the majority of humans alive.
If we had better global politics and the collection and distribution of resources was organised for the size of population we have and not exclusively for the benefit of the few then we probably could cope with the current population. So, at least the problems are crystal clear. If we can 'sort it out,' then perhaps we can start to expand off planet. If we don't then we will continue to give oxygen to the anti-life people until we do.
If the human population reduces over time due to individual human choice not to have kids and we end up with a more manageable population and we then 'sort things out,' then hopefully we all have the choice back, to freely and positively procreate again, in line with the natural imperative.

That's a pretty low threshold. — schopenhauer1

One has to notice that the simple things in life are what actually life so wonderful. Especially if your other option is not to live, to be dead.

One has to notice that the simple things in life are what actually life so wonderful. Especially if your other option is not to live, to be dead. — ssu

Rocks don’t feel pain and don’t need joy. It is us who lost the existential race with our consciousness..feeling things. Yet in our ignorance we perpetuate it more. And to prevent such an ignorant move, do not make the move to perpetuate another whist in the joyous moment. Look at the most mundane, lackluster part of life. THAT is what should be the baseline of decision.

You can put up defense mechanisms and scorn the pessimist..but you miss the message. All we have is our own restless wills coupled with fighting entropic decay.

It’s not that there’s beauty, it’s that we need beauty. It’s not that there’s joy, it’s that we need joy. It’s not that there’s X, it’s that we need X. And yet your political position on how great it is to need X becomes someone else’s problem.

It is us who lost the existential race with our consciousness..feeling things. — schopenhauer1

Have we?

It’s not that there’s beauty, it’s that we need beauty. It’s not that there’s joy, it’s that we need joy. It’s not that there’s X, it’s that we need X. — schopenhauer1

How much is enough depends on us ourselves. Some can be bitter if they feel they haven't gotten something, where others would be totally content what they have gotten.

And yet your political position on how great it is to need X becomes someone else’s problem. — schopenhauer1

My political position?

Not following your line of thought here.

My political position?

Not following your line of thought here. — ssu

Someone had the best day ever.. they have a partner to procreate with.. they decide to have a baby...So that one day of joy has an optimism bias that lasts a lifetime consequence for someone else.

They have decided THEIR joy = other people must do X. That is a political position (on what others should be doing based on one's own attitudes) in my book.

Maybe this is too deep, but when I think why there is something rather than nothing, I can't help but think its because not existing is a vacuum that existing fills. In other words, the state of non-existence must have some element of lack to it in order to initiate existence. This may be related to what some traditions have called the demiurge.

In other words, the state of non-existence must have some element of lack to it in order to initiate existence. This may be related to what some traditions have called the demiurge. — Yohan

Does the i universe need sentient existence? What is a non sentential existence?

Based on the evidence that we have not found any life beyond earth, it can be stated that during the time it took for our star(the sun) to form and then our solar system (including Earth) to the moment that 'life' in its microbial infancy formed two main groups, bacteria and archaea. There was no sentient life.
We have no means to ask bacteria or archaea or even rock formations or the Earth itself how they felt about their existence at that time. So we had an absence of life and then we had life.

Biological entities advance in structure and complexity through combination and mutation.

the state of non-existence must have some element of lack to it in order to initiate existence — Yohan

I agree but I would replace 'non-existence,' and 'existence' with non-life and life as without this you would have to assign some purpose and significance to the existence of something which is lifeless like a rock when no lifeform exists to label it a rock or (in the case of a microbe) at least live on it.

Does the i universe need sentient existence? What is a non sentential existence? — schopenhauer1

My understanding is that the purpose of existence is to relieve boredom. Non-existence I take as a state of absolute boredom.
I don't have any scientific answers, obviously. But I dont think they are necessary.

I agree but I would replace 'non-existence,' and 'existence' with non-life and life as without this you would have to assign some purpose and significance to the existence of something which is lifeless like a rock when no lifeform exists to label it a rock or (in the case of a microbe) at least live on it. — universeness

Far as I'm concerned a rock is a bored proto-life-form.

Far as I'm concerned a rock is a bored proto-life-form. — Yohan

Bored proto-life-form but at least the rock is not concerned about how painful the life could be

Well, I would say that I have quite a lot of things I enjoy, but at the end of the day I still question myself whether it´s all worth it. I love my family, friends, have an interesting job, enough money, love long walks, driving, cooking, coffee….but still there’s something at the back of my head saying - is it enough?

Also I do think that preferring “nothingness” is a stupid concept, because for me there’s nothing after death, no “you” to “enjoy” the preferred nothingness :roll: . For now suicide seems irrational.

So therefore the question why go on or better yet how to go on, what to strive for? (I mean it still could be just symptoms of depression, but who knows :confused: ) — rossii

It's how the recognition feels that depending on impermanent things for one's happiness is precarious.
That is, you recognize that depending on impermanent things for you happiness is a recognition that feels uneasy; for most people, it's depressing.

A secular psyhotherapist will approach this recognition as a pathological symptom, something to be done away with.

Some spiritual/religious people believe it's the beginning of the spiritual path (using here "spiritual" for the lack of a better word). Not a sign of depression, but a mark of seeing worldly things for how they really are: impermanent and ultimately unsatisfactory, and thus not worth striving for.

Ironically, both the antinatalists as well as the natalists are still firmly immersed in the pursuit of sensual pleasures, they differ only in which types of sensual pleasures they pursue.
The pursuit of sensual pleasures necessarily entails suffering.
— baker

Not sure why you think that, but ok. — schopenhauer1

Why I think what? To which sentence are you refering?

If you wouldn't feel sadness and heartache, you wouldn't appreciate the good things in life. — ssu

Hence the recipe for a good marriage is 1 kiss + 1 slap in the face. That really makes one appreciate the kisses!!!!

The idea that it is hardships that make us appreciate the good things is patently absurd, however popular it may be. It's sado-masochistic. It's depressing. The bad stuff doesn't make us appreciate the good stuff, but it can lead us to question whether the good stuff is all that it's popularily made out to be.

But the actual resolution of or living with these feelings isn't a well known or even presently knowable process, at least in a general way. — Moliere

It's not such a secret.

Samvega was what the young Prince Siddhartha felt on his first exposure to aging, illness, and death. It's a hard word to translate because it covers such a complex range — at least three clusters of feelings at once: the oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived; a chastening sense of our own complacency and foolishness in having let ourselves live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle. This is a cluster of feelings we've all experienced at one time or another in the process of growing up, but I don't know of a single English term that adequately covers all three. It would be useful to have such a term, and maybe that's reason enough for simply adopting the word samvega into our language.

But more than providing a useful term, Buddhism also offers an effective strategy for dealing with the feelings behind it — feelings that our own culture finds threatening and handles very poorly. Ours, of course, is not the only culture threatened by feelings of samvega. In the Siddhartha story, the father's reaction to the young prince's discovery stands for the way most cultures try to deal with these feelings: He tried to convince the prince that his standards for happiness were impossibly high, at the same time trying to distract him with relationships and every sensual pleasure imaginable. To put it simply, the strategy was to get the prince to lower his aims and to find satisfaction in a happiness that was less than absolute and not especially pure.

If the young prince were living in America today, the father would have other tools for dealing with the prince's dissatisfaction, but the basic strategy would be essentially the same. We can easily imagine him taking the prince to a religious counselor who would teach him to believe that God's creation is basically good and not to focus on any aspects of life that would cast doubt on that belief. Or he might take him to a psychotherapist who would treat feelings of samvega as an inability to accept reality. If talking therapies didn't get results, the therapist would probably prescribe mood-altering drugs to dull the feeling out of the young man's system so that he could become a productive, well-adjusted member of society.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/affirming.html

They have decided THEIR joy = other people must do X. That is a political position (on what others should be doing based on one's own attitudes) in my book. — schopenhauer1

Is this the antinatalism thread again? Or going there?

Besides, as humans live in a society, so I guess there's a lot of people deciding what others (or we) have to do.

Hence the recipe for a good marriage is 1 kiss + 1 slap in the face. That really makes one appreciate the kisses!!!!

The idea that it is hardships that make us appreciate the good things is patently absurd, however popular it may be. — baker

My point is that you cannot have just positive feelings (love, joy, happiness etc.) You will sure feel sadness and anger too. That simply is part of life, which you cannot disregard or hide away. Empathy is also very important.

But yes, if you haven't ever felt hunger, how can you value a good meal? Sometimes something lousy can make you appreciate good.

Is this the antinatalism thread again? Or going there? — ssu

Goes hand in hand with life sucks. But the broader point is you were speaking of joy and happy moments and I was giving you the danger of OVERemphasizung this. The optimism bias in humans is strong to cherry pick joyous moments and make important decisions from them that can actually negatively affect the course of things, including a whole other humans’ life because you had a moment of unthinking joy.

It’s best to recount the lackluster, and negative states as a balance.

But the broader point is you were speaking of joy and happy moments and I was giving you the danger of OVERemphasizung this. The optimism bias in humans is strong to cherry pick joyous moments and make important decisions from them that can actually negatively affect the course of things, including a whole other humans’ life because you had a moment of unthinking joy.

It’s best to recount the lackluster, and negative states as a balance. — schopenhauer1

OK, now I understand better your point.

On the other hand, optimism, remembering those joy and happy moments might be good in countering OVERemphasizing pain and hardships of life. Which we can often do when we are unhappy about something.

Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes.

Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes. — ssu

Yep, the cool kids never like optimism or happiness - such responses are viewed as gauche, and don't you know life is grave and dreadful?

Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes. — ssu

I mean, you aren't wrong.

They have decided THEIR joy = other people must do X. That is a political position (on what others should be doing based on one's own attitudes) in my book. — schopenhauer1

I totally like that explanation.

Besides, as humans live in a society, so I guess there's a lot of people deciding what others (or we) have to do. — ssu

The Greeks had a concept of what is public and what is private. Liberty depends on respecting what is an individual, private decision, and unfortunately, Evangelicals are determined to impose their notions of how things should be on everyone, just as much as some Muslims believe it is God's will to make everyone live as they believe their holy book defines how people should live.

Rocks don’t feel pain and don’t need joy. — schopenhauer1

We question if animals have self-awareness. For sure rocks do not, any more than the tires on my car want different things. But perhaps a God decides what is best for all things and everyone and we should use our intelligence to understand what God wants and then impose that on everyone. The state is God and it must use any means necessary to make everyone comply with the will of God. Or taking God out of our politics how do we determine democratically what should be?

What if industry used the democratic model instead of the autocratic model? How might that change our reality? How many industries would move to China if the employees were making the decision? Who should have the power to decide our joy? What industry would pollute the environment causing their own families disease?

Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes. — ssu

You mean join a nudist colony? That would give some people joy. :grin:

If we had better global politics and the collection and distribution of resources was organised for the size of population we have and not exclusively for the benefit of the few then we probably could cope with the current population. So, at least the problems are crystal clear. If we can 'sort it out,' then perhaps we can start to expand off planet. If we don't then we will continue to give oxygen to the anti-life people until we do.
If the human population reduces over time due to individual human choice not to have kids and we end up with a more manageable population and we then 'sort things out,' then hopefully we all have the choice back, to freely and positively procreate again, in line with the natural imperative. — universeness

Might that be what democracy is about? It is empowering everyone who is affected by a decision to come to the table and explain what is and what should be. Then arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning. You know, like the Greek gods.

A geologist showed me a cartoon explaining exponential growth. You begin with a couple of frogs in a pond and then increase the number of frogs exponentially. Everything appears fine until the last day when the pond goes from half full to completely full. That is what happened to us. When I was born we still had a sense that there was plenty of everything. In my lifetime we have gone from plenty of everything to crisis. We have a housing shortage where land used to be dirt cheap and there was far more available land than people to fill it. Plenty of water to water wars. We are having a very hard time dealing with reality. I do not think we have a good grasp of it and we are not organized to deal with the facts we need to know.

:rofl: In general everyone is behaving like the kids fighting in the back seat of the car. They are yelling at each other and no one is working with the facts.

Might that be what democracy is about? — Athena

Well, it's what socialism/humanism is about and neither of those labels have any value without democracy.

It is empowering everyone who is affected by a decision to come to the table and explain what is and what should be. Then arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning — Athena

Sounds better than some dictatorship of a privileged few.

You know, like the Greek gods. — Athena

The Greek gods never existed, the atheists, christians and muslims all agree on that one.

When I was born we still had a sense that there was plenty of everything. In my lifetime we have gone from plenty of everything to crisis. We have a housing shortage where land used to be dirt cheap and there was far more available land than people to fill it. Plenty of water to water wars. We are having a very hard time dealing with reality. I do not think we have a good grasp of it and we are not organized to deal with the facts we need — Athena

There is also a great deal of bad organisation. I live in Scotland, our population is quite small (Around 5 million). We could build a few more major cities in Scotland, we also have hundreds of uninhabited islands that could be developed but 'there's not enough profit in it.' Hah! total BS, we need to nurture people not profit.

In general everyone is behaving like the kids fighting in the back seat of the car. They are yelling at each other and no one is working with the facts. — Athena

A fair analysis but don't forget that we have been trying to deal with a very powerful, clever, very well established, global hierarchy of elites, since the free market economy and the money trick became established. Rich, global family dynasties formed out of the dying national aristocracies and monarchies.
These became the basis for establishing global banking systems and global conglomerates.
It's just evolving global dynasties similar in structure, style, and behaviour to global gangsterism. I see little difference between the mafia Don's and Don Elon Musk or Don Donald Trump.
They will fight the masses tooth and nail and they have the established power to do it. They will divide you, terrorise and murder those who raise their heads in protest, especially those who are getting through to the masses and are trying to organise them. They will pay your own kind to betray you and turn against you. They will also convince your own kind in the form of police and soldiers that their loyalty must lie with the established rich and powerful and not the people.
Millions of socialists/humanists have been slaughtered for 10,000 years of tears to fight against the nefarious and they have defeated monarchies and aristocracies and they have created systems all over the world which are far better and fairer for more people compared to any system or civilisation from antiquity. The fight continues. The socialists/humanist are still here and we still number in the many many millions globally. We will defeat the nefarious completely one day and become an interplanetary/interstellar species.