I will try and backtrack and at least summarize the points we have discussed. I really don't want to insult or offend, but I found this hard to swallow:

Every philosopher fails. But the pieces are picked up and a new arrangement is tried. — plaque flag

I think that the philosophical tradition as a whole does convey a coherent understanding and vision. It's not as if every generation of philosophy has to begin creating the entire discipline de novo.

I think the convergence of Kant and Schopenhauer, on the one side, with Indian philosophy and praxis on the other - the topic of this thread - is, I think, very important but generally neglected or overlooked, as it is almost entirely at odds with current academic standards. There is a coherent and philosophical attitude embodied in all these sources (which is not to overlook the important differences and divergences also.)

There's a scholar called Andrew Brooks, who's written extensively on Kant as being the godfather of cognitive science (some of the Stanford entries on Kant are written by him.) Many of Kant's ideas are still seminal in that discipline.

As for the idea of the mind-created world - I know that you and many others will say that it sounds absurd or preposterous, but it is an idea which comes up again and again in contemporary neuroscience and philosophy (for fun, just google it). The TED talk I linked to provides a good introduction - it is by an author who has written and published an open access book on the subject, who is a physicist with a degree in complexity science. I don't see him as fringe or eccentric.

To try and put it in philosophical terms, my considered view is that there is a subjective pole to even the most apparently objective and detached scientific understanding of reality. This subjective pole is the faculty which integrates knowledge, perception, judgement and cognition - very close in meaning to the ancient Greek idea of 'nous'. But it is not 'out there somewhere', it is not itself amongst the objects of cognition or part of the objective world, so it is something barely considered in 'modern' culture with it's extroverted and objectively-focussed attitude. Due to the exclusive emphasis on objective knowledge, the presence and significance of that faculty has been overlooked - precisely the point of that Schopenhauer passage quoted.

I like to use 'gnostic' as a metaphor for a person with a vision of the fundamental amorality of the world (as if the product of a clumsy or apathetic demiurge). The world is not run by the wisest and kindest, not administered by dutiful guardian angels. But there a rebel/underdog god or principle that one can fall back on. Muted post horn, countercultural esoteric spiritual comforts, etc. Schopenhauer seems to fit into this group. He does not preach world conquest. His 'escapism' (as an earnest communist might call it) is akin to that of certain stoics or skeptics who focus on their own private interpretation of the world and the training of their heart toward serene detachment. — plaque flag

Indeed. Much of life is enduring. Sleep is best. But sleep cannot be forced. So then there is meditation or just learning to sit quietly in an empty room. It's the opposite of the two instincts of the modern man- production and consumption.

In this conception the virtuous man focuses on production. He betters his "skills". He becomes a more able and better X. And X is some sort of ability or knowledge in various fields of knowledge and trade.

But the idea of quietude works against this. It isn't for a goal of being better at X, but to as you say, escape. It is a rejection, a denial. Perhaps this is what makes Schopenhauer's pessimism more thorough than ones that are simply austere. The austere ones generally are to get you to be better at X. Be a better soldier, worker, citizen, etc. No, that is the opposite. That is life affirming. This is rejecting all of it for an eternal nod to non-being as @Wayfarer once said.

Sleep I would see is the ultimate ideal in this philosophy. It is the easiest route to escape.

Sleep I would see is the ultimate ideal in this philosophy. It is the easiest route to escape. — schopenhauer1

Again, nirvāṇa is not non-existence or non-being or a dreamless sleep, or anything of the kind. The difficulty is that it cannot be defined, specified or described, and attempts to do so invariably result in misconceptions and further clinging and craving - in this case, clinging and craving for what is presumed to be a goal, the 'highest state', and so on. Which is why in many of the discourses, Nirvāṇa is spoken of in negative terms - what it is not, rather than what it is. That includes the discourses about emptiness (śūnyatā) which is often described as 'nothingness' (see introductory article here). But even that leads to fallacious interpretations. There are books about how the early Western discoveries of Buddhist literature were interpreted in nihilistic terms - Neitszche's description of it as the 'sigh of an exhausted civilisation' is an example. There is a vital distinction between beyond existence and non-existence but it's an impossible distinction to make in a one-dimensional culture such as this, where there is no conceptual space for anything other than sensory (or what Schopenhauer calls 'empirical') consciouness. From Urs App:

Again, nirvāṇa is not non-existence or non-being or a dreamless sleep, or anything of the kind. — Wayfarer

I wasn't referring to Nirvana per se. I was referring to the idea that Schopenhauer was world-denying rather than stoic or other such similar-looking philosophies. Chill out man. I know more than you think I do on these. Don't assume I don't know these things and also make me out to be a boogie-man.

Don't assume I don't know these things and also make me out to be a boogie-man. — schopenhauer1

Not trying to. Sorry if I did. Amended post accordingly.

@plaque flag, where did you go?

Schopenhauer mentions how certain painters capture the expression of dispassionate knowledge. I've seen that in paintings and have always responded to it. One sees it in real people too, occasionally. Unlike most, who often seemed absorbed in their doings at the moment, a few seem wide eyed and calm, taking in the spectacle of life, detached from their current task, really noticing strangers. There's no tension in the face ('like a baby at a parade before it can smile.')

Funny you posted that right as I was responding. I was claimed by the real world all day.

I'd say that sleep (including the sleep of death ) is fine, but this serene detachment is also a worthy goal. In my view, it's preferable to sleep/death --- while death is preferable to hopeless torment.

I was claimed by the real world all day. — plaque flag

Damn world of appearance!

I'd say that sleep (including the sleep of death ) is fine, but this serene detachment is also a worthy goal. In my view, it's preferable to sleep/death --- while death is preferable to hopeless torment. — plaque flag

Indeed. What is serene detachment?

Schopenhauer described it as thus (at the very end of Book IV):

Before us there is certainly only nothingness. But that which resists this passing into nothing, our nature, is indeed just the will to live, which we ourselves are as it is our world. That we abhor annihilation so greatly, is simply another expression of the fact that we so strenuously will life, and are nothing but this will, and know nothing besides it. But if we turn our glance from our own needy and embarrassed condition to those who have overcome the world, in whom the will, having attained to perfect self-knowledge, found itself again in all, and then freely denied itself, and who then merely wait to see the last trace of it vanish with the body which it animates; then, instead of the restless striving and effort, instead of the constant transition from wish to fruition, and from joy to sorrow, instead of the never-satisfied and never-dying hope which constitutes the life of the man who wills, we shall see that peace which is above all reason, that perfect calm of the spirit, that deep rest, that inviolable confidence and serenity, the mere reflection of which in the countenance, as Raphael and Correggio have represented it, is an entire and certain gospel; only knowledge remains, the will has vanished. We look with deep and painful longing upon this state, beside which the misery and wretchedness of our own is brought out clearly by the contrast. Yet this is the only consideration which can afford us lasting consolation, when, on the one hand, we have recognised incurable suffering and endless misery as essential to the manifestation of will, the world; and, on the other hand, see the world pass away with the abolition of will, and retain before us only empty nothingness. Thus, in this way, by contemplation of the life and conduct of saints, whom it is certainly rarely granted us to meet with in our own experience, but who are brought before our eyes by their written history, and, with the stamp of inner truth, by art, we must banish the dark impression of that nothingness which we discern behind all virtue and holiness as their final goal, and which we fear as children fear the dark;we must not even evade it like the Indians, through myths and meaningless words, such as reabsorption in Brahma or the Nirvana of the Buddhists. Rather do we freely acknowledge that what remains after the entire abolition of will is for all those who are still full of will certainly nothing; but, conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and has denied itself, this our world, which is so real, with all its suns and milky-ways—is nothing.

Excellent quote. It touches on a related issue. I looked into all is vanity recently, and 'vanity' is a translation of the word 'hevel.' This word, which literally means something like 'vapor' or 'mist' is itself already a rich metaphor in the original text. Different scholars lean toward different dominant meanings as the best interpretation. To me it's beautiful that the metaphor is elusive, because I think hevel also suggests the ambiguity (blurryness, slipperiness) of human life.

Vapor, mist, fog. Life is a journey through fog. It's not just the unpredictability of many events and the limit of our sense organs (I can't see around the mountain.) In my opinion, humans don't and even can't have that strong of a grip on the meaning of the words they use. We are trained into stringing together the usual hieroglyphics (a metaphor for metaphoricity.) The hollowness or emptiness of our practical chatter is usually politely ignored. We worship machines that work. Science shines by reflected light. Give us this day our cellphone porn and opiates. It doesn't matter that we parrot the creeds of the day with minimal comprehension. Wave the blue flag or the red. Show up to work. Get the results. [ This isn't always unpleasant, just to be clear. ]

But calling it vapor and fog and emptiness creates a distance, transforms the passionate anguished submersion into a spectacle, a game, a view also above and not just from stage. Schopenhauer discusses the genius (surely a self-portrait) as hardly really there in the world, living mostly in a symbolic realm, finding Platonic structure (and therefore beauty!) is the otherwise empty spectacle --in the ambiguous vapor, blurry form without substance. No matter. (No matter as solid substance surviving the fire of time -- unless the fire of time itself be that 'substance' -- or we count the patterns that are destroyed and created again and again (a Finnegans Wake theme.) )

But calling it vapor and fog and emptiness creates a distance, transforms the passionate anguished submersion into a spectacle, a game, a view also above and not just from stage. Schopenhauer discusses the genius (surely a self-portrait) as hardly really there in the world, living mostly in a symbolic realm, finding Platonic structure (and therefore beauty!) is the otherwise empty spectacle --in the ambiguous vapor, blurry form without substance. No matter. (No matter as solid substance surviving the fire of time -- unless the fire of time itself be that 'substance' -- or we count the patterns that are destroyed and created again and again (a Finnegans Wake theme.) ) — plaque flag

Indeed, the ascetic goes even beyond the artistic genius who it is claimed, sees the eternal Forms. It is a full-blown denial of will. Everything indeed becomes vapor. However, in a literal sense, what does this character of serene detachment do? I do know that Mahayana Buddhism has an idea of a Bodhisattva. This is anathema to the goals of Nirvana in Theravada schools. Buddha was "enlightened" but he did not simply cease to exist. He was free of all attachments, so some sort of "ego death". But what is that really? Is that really what Schopenhauer is referring to? Schop's seems to be much more thoroughgoing. I see the detached person as not just "enlightened". Supposedly Buddha gets hungry, but Buddha doesn't care if he can't eat. I see this as the stoic phase. Rather, what does complete denial of will look like, or is it really that pedestrian?

Buddha was "enlightened" but he did not simply cease to exist. He was free of all attachments, so some sort of "ego death". But what is that really? — schopenhauer1

Judging by What The Buddha Taught (Rahula),his life became about helping people free themselves from the greed and confusion that tends to capture human beings. I expect it was the joy an ideal parent takes in watching their child's personality develop.

In my opinion, ego death is also featured in Hegel and Feuerbach. To become a cultural being is to transcend the usual petty identifications and learn to take the impersonal personally. As I see it, Qoheleth and the Buddha both have therapeutic intentions. To me there's something like a sugared consumerist mystified version of the wise man and something even anti-Romantically earthy.

Jung wrote an essay on Joyce's Ulysses that starts out negative and critical but more and more gets to the realistically mystical essence of the book, bringing us basically to what Shakespeare symbolizes -- a god who watches without judgment, without identifying with the good guys or the bad guys but shining like a sun on all. The ferryman in Hesse's Siddhartha also represents this. As a biased person, I suggest that the usual sentimental version of the holy man is a consumer product, because it methodically excludes (for profit and popularity) the integration of the shadow (an awareness that the world is fucked up because it mirrors my own ambivalent depths.) This integration, dangerous and unpleasant, has been presented as a path that can lead to a harmonization of internal contradictions. In short, I don't see the Buddha as someone who hid from the evil in himself. He knew it so intimately that he could be bored with it. Everything is burning, him first.

I should add for completeness that one could very much focus on an explicitly suicidal sage. We could create one as a character in a cosmic novel. His minimal belief is that nonexistence is always better. His ethics is spreading the word of the cure of suicide. He prints his manifesto like a friendly virus and swallows hemlock.

Who was the pessimist who hung himself by stepping off a stack of copies of his just-published suicidal opus ? There's a dark beauty in that.

When I was younger, I was occasionally gripped by intense depression -- to the point of almost continual suicidal ideation. I would go to bed at night and wake up in the morning thinking about offing myself (wrestling with it, trying to justify the harm I'd cause others, dwelling on the details of method, worrying about leaving a mess.) Part of the hell was I could not talk about it, because it was as if I was afflicted by the truth as a lethal virus. I had been bitten by a zombie and should jump into the nearest active volcano, that sort of thing. I'd look at the world through suicidal eyes for the few weeks this depression usually lasted. The whole world becomes a disgusting spectacle on a TV that one is seriously considering 'repairing' with a sledgehammer.

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

But even in suicidal despair, there's a part of the self (I claim) that enjoys the glory of transcendence. To call the world an idiot's babble is to speak from a place above it -- and above everybody in it. To eat a shotgun is to repeat the gesture of a god who once used water to the do the same thing. (We are limited to destroying our own nervous system, our own window in a world that stubbornly exceeds us.)

Who was the pessimist who hung himself by stepping off a stack of copies of his just-published suicidal opus ? There's a dark beauty in that. — plaque flag

That would be Philipp Mainlander

When I was younger, I was occasionally gripped by intense depression -- to the point of almost continual suicidal ideation. — plaque flag

I bring up sleep, perchance to dream, because it is so discounted as a transcendent state. Often elusive, we all want it, most of us can't get enough of it, and often desire it more than most other things. It is torturous when it cannot be obtained easily.

Here's some good Cioran quotes on sleep:

Three in the morning. I realize this second, then this one, then the next: I draw up the balance sheet for each minute. And why all this? Because I was born. It is a special type of sleeplessness that produces the indictment of birth.

If we could sleep twenty-four hours a day, we would soon return to the primordial slime, the beatitude of that perfect torpor before Genesis-the dream of every consciousness sick of itself.

In the hours without sleep, each moment is so full and so vacant that it suggests itself as a rival of Time.

Impossible to spend sleepless nights and accomplish anything: if, in my youth, my parents had not financed my insomnias, I should surely have killed myself. — E.M. Cioran

But look at modern man. All the trappings to have a "good night's sleep". How can something so supposedly "natural" be something so wrought with anxiety? Can we just sleep on the bare dirt with maybe some leaves and straw like our ancestors?

All the production and consumption to maintain this edifice. It is the awake part that is questionable. Sleep can never be its own absolute realm because it must be the slave to that which keeps the person at homeostasis for the next round of it. We can never literally "sleep our life away". We must embrace the layers upon layers of work, of keeping entropy at bay with more enthalpy. Of putting one's own will, and engagement, and effort, with the physical and social interactions. And all at the end of the day for escape to do it again. We are forced up and out and engaged in this or that. All of this fuss. Look at Cioran's quote again:

If we could sleep twenty-four hours a day, we would soon return to the primordial slime, the beatitude of that perfect torpor before Genesis-the dream of every consciousness sick of itself. — E.M. Cioran

.
When I think of Schop's idea of "life affirming" philosophies, I don't just think of pure optimism or stoicism, but less associated philosophies like Taoism. Taoism, seems to want one to sort of glide through the surface of the struggle rather than fight it. There is a Way and it flows like a river. But you see, that is tolerance of the struggle, not escape. Sleep is escape par excellence. The Way is tolerance (meditate whilst doing the dishes, sweep the floor in a fluid motion, etc.). Sleep is escape.

Taoism, seems to want one to sort of glide through the surface of the struggle rather than fight it. There is a Way and it flows like a river. But you see, that is tolerance of the struggle, not escape. Sleep is escape par excellence. The Way is tolerance (meditate whilst doing the dishes, sweep the floor in a fluid motion, etc.). Sleep is escape. — schopenhauer1

Yes, Taoism also uses the metaphor of the sweet old grandmother. So one glides through life with a tenderness for others. I work around women who clearly get much of their joy from nurturing (health field, boyfriends, children, pets.) That sweet unselfish love is indeed a nice way to slide through time.

I love sleep, personally. I haven't worked as hard as I could have in the world (haven't piled up coins) because I like to sleep in, daydream. But sleep is a popular metaphor for death, and sleeping through life is like a nonviolent substitute for death that maximizes Taoism's glide.

We are forced up and out and engaged in this or that. All of this fuss. — schopenhauer1

We are forced to wake from the mud, but life is to some degree a choice. I've known suicides and half-suicides (junkies who overdosed.) I don't judge them. I don't think I'm better than them in some absolute sense. Our mortality threatens all such calculations. Does it matter that this boy got himself killed by messing around with the wrong girl or driving drunk ? Another plotline features him dying of ass cancer in Florida. It matters to a few other mortals while they last. Meaning is a function of the perishable flesh.

We are forced to wake from the mud, but life is to some degree a choice. I've known suicides and half-suicides (junkies who overdosed.) I don't judge them. I don't think I'm better than them in some absolute sense. Our mortality threatens all such calculations. Does it matter that this boy got himself killed by messing around with the wrong girl or driving drunk ? Another plotline features him dying of ass cancer in Florida. It matters to a few other mortals while they last. Meaning is a function of the perishable flesh. — plaque flag

Other people are hell- Sartre wasn't wrong.

Most people are narcissistic- they think their estimation of life, and their loneliness means more children should be born.

Most people are robotic- they produce and consume, buying into the modern trope. The ennui hasn't sunk in. In fact, they try to out pace it with goals and reasons.

Most people are inconsiderate- they don't care about their surroundings. They are noisy and disturbing (the gods were rightly pissed at all the noise in The Epic of Gilgamesh!)

Much of life is a zero sum game. No good deed goes unpunished.

The sooner we are all at the level of world-weariness, the sooner we can get past the illusions of an enthalpic creature staving entropy, burdened and burdening others.