... or a some sort of Rx therapist. :up:

Read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page on philosophical pessimism. All in all, to ascribe a negative value to life; in vernacular, the game ain't worth the candle.

Reasons for philosophical pessimism

1. Suffering (greatly) exceeds happiness

2. The universe on the whole and even our dear ol' planet earth is on the whole anti-life; imagine having to navigate a boobytrapped übercomplex maze.

3. Life is meaningless

As the OP correctly identifies, these hard facts mirror the Buddha's distillation of what life is in the 4 Noble Truths (dukkha). It's quite odd that the pessimism that prevailed in 500 bC ancient India rang true in 17^th century Europe and that it still makes sense to be pessimistic in the 21^st century. Not much has changed then, oui?

This, however, may be a mistake, one that is all too easy to make. There's been a sea change in our circumstances - science and technology have drastically reduced suffering and that's not all, the duo has promised even greater prizes such as ... :zip: not a word, ya hear! ... resurrection, immortality, mind uploading, etc.

To get right to the point then, there are problems, but a few of them if not all at some point seem remediable. Pessimism then is a defeatist attitude - it fails to take into account the subtleties and nuances of the problem of suffering and also the solutions.

To get right to the point then, there are problems, but a few of them if not all at some point seem remediable. Pessimism then is a defeatist attitude - it fails to take into account the subtleties and nuances of the problem of suffering and also the solutions. — Agent Smith

The problem of burdens in the first place. Forced situations that one would otherwise not have wanted to deal with. We are always put in a deprivation to get out of. That doesn't go away due to economic circumstances. Also, if this is considered "ideal" state of being, then maybe we should reassess how we are measuring the situation at hand.
.
@Shawn why do you bring this topic of philosophical pessimism up every so often in this forum? I am the only one who identifies as one here so it is oddly pointed, even if broadcast to "everyone".

@Baden if you want to be consistent, you should probably throw this in the Antinatalist thread bin where you merged the "Life Sucks" thread. If you are going to be thorough about the more recent policies against philosophical pessimism and antinatalism threads, do it consistently.

Gracias, I was finding it difficult to explain pessimism in the modern world after what I wrote in my last post. Suffering is no longer a viable reason, it has lost its force as a convincing justification, for pessimism as the OP suggests and I concur (statistics clearly show an upward trend in overall well-being).

This, to me, weakens your forced-to-play-the-game argument. The game is (going to be a whole lot of) fun! Who wouldn't want to play; nevertheless, choice is a basic sentient right. Even if I were to be taken to paradise, I would prefer to be asked "paradise, yes/no? A quick question though: Would you rather be offered a cake even when you don't want it or would you prefer not to be asked at all, whether you would like some cake?

Who wouldn't want to play — Agent Smith

How is this either empirically or ethically justified?

Even if I were to be taken to paradise, I would prefer to be asked "paradise, yes/no? — Agent Smith

Having X amount of technology doesn’t a paradise make.

A quick question though: Would you rather be offered a cake even when you don't want it or would you prefer not to be asked at all, whether you would like some cake? — Agent Smith

I’d rather the option to decline the cake, and if the cake came with limiting choices to just cake and then causing a plethora of harms…not even ethical to give that cake.

@Baden @Jamal@Hanover, just put this in the Life Sucks thread please. Remember, we don’t tolerate speech about philosophical pessimism. Or is that only for arguments defending it?

These don’t deserve independent threads remember?

I agree this - what we have here at the moment - is for sure not paradise. You forgot to mention progress with regard to the problem of suffering - life expectancy for example went up from, what?, 40s to now 70s (global average) and how long you live is a pretty good measure of well-being if you ask me. You shouldn't ignore this proven fact if you base your argument on dukkha, oui?

Like I admitted, it's hard to disagree with your forced-to-play-the-game argument. It is, how shall I put it?, the little fly in the ointment, the David that brings Goliath down. However, it just dawned on me, pessimists/antinatlists, for the exact same reason, can't advocate for abstaining from having children. They, in this case, are being forced-not-to-play-the-game, oui monsieur? It seems we're at an impasse. The card you've always been playing is not exactly to your advantage.

a pretty good measure of well-being if you ask me. — Agent Smith

Not really. It’s a measure of something but not what is the case with human suffering.

They, in this case, are being forced-not-to-play-the-game, oui monsieur? It seems we're at an impasse. The card you've always been playing is not exactly to your advantage. — Agent Smith

There is no “they” prior to existence being forced into anything. The parent is deciding to impose something and that is what is relevant.

There is no “they” prior to existence being forced into anything. The parent is deciding to impose something and that is what is relevant. — schopenhauer1

There was also no one there to ask for consent to life. Just as there is no one there for consent to non-life.

Not really. It’s a measure of something but not what is the case with human suffering. — schopenhauer1

What would be a good measure of human suffering then?

The new age positivists label was directed at entrepreneurship and huge stores of money in Silicon Valley to alleviate said lack and suffering, through technology. — Shawn

The innovative & pioneering & super-rich entrepreneurs (go-getters), including Elon Musk, do indeed seem to be optimistic about their technological innovations improving life conditions for all of mankind. But their risk-taking positive attitude may be based on a "trickle down" economic theory, in which the rich get richer and the poor get less-poor. But, in practice the 1 or 2% at the top get richer faster than the 98%, upon whose shoulders they are standing . That's why political progressives are impatient with the long wait for signs of progress at the bottom of the pyramid.

Regarding the question of "better for whom", abstract statistics seem to tell a different story from emotional politics. Gradual natural evolution took 13 billion years to get us to the point of primitive human culture. Since then, various technologies have been incrementally chipping away at the inequities of the economic pyramid. However, because human societies seem to be inherently hierarchical*1, instead of egalitarian, we may never reach the ideal of total eradication of poverty & suffering. But, we should be grateful for any changes that put more power in the hands of people-in-general to control their own conditions of life.

The site linked below*2 provides statistics on progress using various measures : economic status, literacy, health, mortality, etc. Unfortunately, the charts are typically based on raw population numbers, instead of percentages of the global community. Also, Steven Pinker's Skeptical Inquirer article, Progressophobia*3, provides lots of reasons for informed optimism, instead of news headline pessimism regarding social progress.

Admittedly, it's mostly those near the peak of the socio-economic pyramid who feel optimistic about their own future, and for the trickle-down improvement for all of mankind : "better living through technology"*4. Those near the bottom typically require some kind of supernatural promises, or a turtle-shell shield like meditation. So, it may be up to us philosophically-inclined thinkers to focus on the long-term evolution of human culture, and for short-term Stoicism, to keep us keeping-on toward the goal of improvement in living conditions for our fellow men. :smile:


*1. Human Hierarchy :
The presence of a drive for dominance is clearly present in humans and has been documented through various psychological constructs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/dominance-hierarchy

*2. STATISTICAL EVIDENCE FOR PROGRESS ON POVERTY

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/23/14062168/history-global-conditions-charts-life-span-poverty

*3. Progressophobia :
Why Things Are Better Than You Think They Are
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/progressophobia-why-things-are-better-than-you-think-they-are/

*4. Better living through technology :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Living_Through_Chemistry

What would be a good measure of human suffering then? — Agent Smith

Are you familiar with any of Schopenhauer’s philosophy?

dukkha — Shawn

A Sanskrit word meaning 'axel hole'.

The word has been explained in recent times as a derivation from Aryan terminology for an axle hole, referring to an axle hole which is not in the center and leads to a bumpy, uncomfortable ride. According to Winthrop Sargeant,
The ancient Aryans who brought the Sanskrit language to India were a nomadic, horse- and cattle-breeding people who travelled in horse- or ox-drawn vehicles. Su and dus are prefixes indicating good or bad. The word kha, in later Sanskrit meaning "sky," "ether," or "space," was originally the word for "hole," particularly an axle hole of one of the Aryan's vehicles. Thus sukha ... meant, originally, "having a good axle hole," while duhkha meant "having a poor axle hole," leading to discomfort.[5]

The philosophical up-shot of dukkha is that off-center axel holes can be fixed.

Philosophical pessimists, riding (not trudging along with the peasants and cattle) would rather complain about the annoying thud which accompanies every turn of the wheel then get the fuck off the wagon and fix the damned axel hole.

Pragmatists have a positive, practical view that bad axel holes can be fixed.

all the magic of the invisible hand — Shawn

WTF?

technogurus in Silicon Valley, Stanford, and Caltech who seem to be the positivists of our day and are creating new gadgets and devices that sustain and improve our daily lives. — Shawn

Hey, I like a Mac, iPhone, or iPad as much as the next consumer, but let's not get carried away with paeans to Silicon Valley. [paean = song of praise] Technogurus are hired hotshots who think of things to sell, NOT sustain and improve our lives.

I like the Economist; it's a good source of information, but it isn't the Oracle of Delphi. Of course it takes an upbeat tone when talking about Silicon Valley. It's pro-capitalism. Surprise, surprise.

And yet, what occured to me as rather peculiar about humanity is that we do not submit to this pessimism about life or not all of us at least. — Shawn

Unlike the funny characters in a Monte Python sketch, digging in the mud who pause to discuss political philosophy. we are more or less programmed to keep on keeping on. It's the needs of the organism that drive us onward, not philosophy--that comes after we have made it to a safe harbor and can pause to philosophize.

Thanks for the report. I'll look into it. Next time you can send a PM though.

Shawn why do you bring this topic of philosophical pessimism up every so often in this forum? I am the only one who identifies as one here so it is oddly pointed, even if broadcast to "everyone". — schopenhauer1

As you say, the topic was directed at everyone and didn't have anything to do with antinatalism, go figure.

We put his "series on pessimism" in here, so you are the sacrificial lamb of consistency.

I honestly do not think life is getting worse. Progress, is a difficult measure to calculate and there doesn't seem to be a lack of it. I also doubt that trickle-down economics works by any measure. Elon Musk is addressing some hard problems nowadays, with neuroimplats that will possibly enable a person to walk again or solve depression for the depressed

Regarding progressives, I live in a highly progressive state that is handing out money to build shelter for homeless people, and direct funding for the bottom of the economic spectrum. So, I have no doubt that things are getting better for those who are most in need in my corner of the world.

I might start a thread inspired by your post regarding, How do we define progress? I hope you can join.

Sorry to hear about that. He must be angry.

I might start a thread inspired by your post regarding, How do we define progress? I hope you can join. — Shawn

My personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, is not exactly Pollyanna optimism, but it does have a positive outlook, based on the evidence for upward-trending cosmic complexification, due to the self-organizing ability of Nature. Moreover, one offspring of Nature : human Culture, in modern times, is accelerating the progression of life-sustaining organization -- even as it creates more ways to dominate each other.

From that pragmatic perspective, things are looking-up. But, for me personally, my economic status varies with the general economy of the US, and in step with worldwide recessions and booms. So, my Stoic attitude gets me by whenever I'm scraping the bottom of the economic middle class. Compared to the "huddled masses", though, I have no reason to complain. :smile:


PS__I just noticed the new heading for this thread. So, I see that some on this forum don't share my Stoic optimism that, if we learn to control our unruly emotions, Reason will forge a path to a better life. But, some of us seem to be so depressed by life's imperfections that species suicide is an attractive option.

Are you familiar with any of Schopenhauer’s philosophy? — schopenhauer1

Doe it not include suffering & (premature) death in reasons why life sucks?

Focus on things that you enjoy in life. Good food, good movies/TV shows, good books, et cetera. Try deriving as much joy from these things as possible.

Also, go on anti-depressants if necessary because a lot of times people unfortunately can't will themselves to stop being depressed due to it apparently involving biological factors in their brain or something like that.

Frankly, anti-natalism for high-IQ people has struck me as being rather stupid since this would only contribute to dysgenics for future generations. If future generations will, on average, become duller, than this would be worse for humanity as a whole. Even the people who want to curb their fertility for the sake of the planet are being stupid IMHO because this would simply mean that there would be fewer people in future generations who will intensely care about this topic because such people will simply be weeding themselves and their own political views out of the future gene pool.

Even if one doesn't want to personally raise children, one can still have them and then give them up for adoption in the form of an open adoption. But of course this is easier to do for women than for men. A man would need to hire a surrogate and use an egg donor for this (in order to be the child's sole legal parent so that he could subsequently unilaterally give the resulting child(ren) up for adoption), and even Mexican surrogates cost a lot of money for Americans. One would be expected to spend tens of thousands of one's own money in order to improve the future human gene pool, and that's too altruistic to expect from most anti-natalist/childfree people. I myself might not mind doing this if I actually had the money for this, though. I'm a huge fan of *voluntary* eugenics.

If future generations will, on average, become duller, than this would be worse for humanity as a whole. — Xanatos

Idiocracy

Yep. :(

Frankly, anti-natalism for high-IQ people has struck me as being rather stupid since this would only contribute to dysgenics for future generations. If future generations will, on average, become duller, than this would be worse for humanity as a whole. Even the people who want to curb their fertility for the sake of the planet are being stupid IMHO because this would simply mean that there would be fewer people in future generations who will intensely care about this topic because such people will simply be weeding themselves and their own political views out of the future gene pool. — Xanatos

Totally missing the point of most antinatalists' stance against creating suffering for future generations. Also, a lot of ANs aren't even consequentialists. There is something about being aggressively paternalistic and creating suffering and choices on behalf of others for X cause that violates deontological principles.

There's suffering but there's also a lot of joy. A lot of people consider the suffering to be worth it due to the joy.

And are a lot of anti-natalists from financially well-off backgrounds? If so, then that means that their kids are likely to suffer less than normal children. Unless I suppose the anti-natalists just beat them up to a bloody pulp or something, but that would be against anti-natalists' ethical code since anti-natalists want to *prevent* suffering.

There's suffering but there's also a lot of joy. A lot of people consider the suffering to be worth it due to the joy. — Xanatos

From at least two perspectives, this is not a good moral justification. One reason it’s not is that not being born means no person experienced the collateral damage of “no joy”. No one is sitting in nothingness regretting no joy. However, collateral damage is created the other way. When someone is born there is always at least some regrettable harms that will befall people- sometimes (and not infrequently) quite burdensome for that person.

It is also simply a violation and an insensitivity to the dignity and worth of the person you are procreating to assume on behalf of another person, that they need to live the X number of years of limited choices that this game of life offers and that they need to experience known and unknown harms. It assumes this game (the limited survival game of this life) is what another person must experience and play. This stance is “aggressively paternalistic” in that it assumes one can and should create unnecessary harms and assumes choices for other people. Rather, prior to the potential child’s birth, is one time when one can perfectly follow the non-harm principle, and not have to mitigate greater violations of harm for lesser ones. One can perfectly follow the duty to not unnecessarily cause harm to others.

One would be using the other person and violating their dignity by indeed causing unnecessary harm, and for x cause (even to see the possibility of a happy child). The overlooking of the harm caused, for X result is indeed violation of someone’s dignity in this situation where no one needed to be caused harm in the first place and where no one needed to assume for another what set of choices is appropriately “good” for others to have. With this last point I might elaborate that perhaps this life’s set of choices is not one they would have chosen. Perhaps this games limited ways of surviving of being in the world would have been less optimal than their preference. The assumption that other self-reflective beings would agree that the parameters of this world are what they would have chosen is aggressively paternalistic. Indeed even if someone experiences joy (whether frequently/deeply or not) might still regret many aspects of this particular setup. They may have preferred a world where survival through work/labor (or otherwise destitution, free-riding, hacking it in wilderness, and death) are not the de facto parameters.

This argument strikes me as at best indentured servitude to a hypothetical or slavery to a hypothetical at worst. Am I off the mark?

"You must exist and suffer because some hypothetical beings might have it better as a result."

Slave owners had it better than their slaves.

Yes this is pretty strange.

What progress do you speak of? A lot of the progress I see is in the ability to support more and more sentient beings. But I'm not sure if that's justifiably progress for the individual. We're still largely the same animal. Not to mention the horrors of prolonged life. Which if considered to be fun to impose on a person by another person would mean that imposer is a psychopath.

Hi. Welcome to the forum. Agent Smith is no longer on the forum, so you won't get a response from him.