"Here we have a wide ocean before us, but we must contract our sails." As Cudworth puts the matter.

You give good arguments on a most difficult topic: to account for one-ness in an ocean of multiplicity. I currently have no horse on either side, but I think the logic is a bit hard to beat:

What comes prior to something, must be simpler that the resultant. Likewise, these separate things we see in the universe, must have been more closely united then they are now and our best theory suggests something like this via the Big Bang Model.

The issue is if we can maintain that all is one, or if we are forced to say that there are several simple things, which cannot be further united, for whatever reason.

A most interesting topic, probably beyond our understanding. But you have a point, no doubt.

I see it as fatal to Schop's own endeavor, as interesting as it is.

What comes prior to something, must be simpler that the resultant. Likewise, these separate things we see in the universe, must have been more closely united then they are now and our best theory suggests something like this via the Big Bang Model. — Manuel

This would be contra, Schop though. This would externalize time/space in a way that is contrary to Schop's idea that Will is atemporal. The unity is ever-present and now, and not something in the past. However, I do recognize that ideas like the "block universe" can preserve Schop and the Big Bang perhaps. What is clear though, is that time is not metaphysically real, only epistemically so for Schopenhauer.

Correct. And, incidentally, also Kant's flaw - which they could not have predicted.

I think modern physics shows that space and time exist external to us, while not denying that we have a particular way of interpreting and cognizing these aspects.

So I am not clear that time is not metaphysically real, some physicists see it as fundamental. Others as emergent.

But I do agree that the specific version of the will as expressed by Schopenhauer, while I think valid in some important respects, does break down when it comes to multiplicity. Perhaps Mainlander does a better job here.

Perhaps Mainlander does a better job here. — Manuel

At least he has an explanation! It's pessimistically theological .

Working in the metaphysical framework of Schopenhauer, Mainländer sees the "will" as the innermost core of being, the ontological arche. However, he deviates from Schopenhauer in important respects. With Schopenhauer the will is singular, unified and beyond time and space. Schopenhauer's transcendental idealism leads him to conclude that we only have access to a certain aspect of the thing-in-itself by introspective observation of our own bodies. What we observe as will is all there is to observe, nothing more. There are no hidden aspects. Furthermore, via introspection we can only observe our individual will. This also leads Mainländer to the philosophical position of pluralism.[2]: 202  The goals he set for himself and for his system are reminiscent of ancient Greek philosophy: what is the relation between the undivided existence of the "One" and the everchanging world of becoming that we experience.

Additionally, Mainländer accentuates on the idea of salvation for all of creation. This is yet another respect in which he differentiates his philosophy from that of Schopenhauer. With Schopenhauer, the silencing of the will is a rare event. The artistic genius can achieve this state temporarily, while only a few saints have achieved total cessation throughout history. For Mainländer, the entirety of the cosmos is slowly but surely moving towards the silencing of the will to live and to (as he calls it) "redemption".

Mainländer theorized that an initial singularity dispersed and expanded into the known universe. This dispersion from a singular unity to a multitude of things offered a smooth transition between monism and pluralism. Mainländer thought that with the regression of time, all kinds of pluralism and multiplicity would revert to monism and he believed that, with his philosophy, he had managed to explain this transition from oneness to multiplicity and becoming.[16]

Death of God
Main article: God is dead
Despite his scientific means of explanation, Mainländer was not afraid to philosophize in allegorical terms. Formulating his own "myth of creation", Mainländer equated this initial singularity with God.

Mainländer reinterprets Schopenhauer's metaphysics in two important aspects. Primarily, in Mainländer's system there is no "singular will". The basic unity has broken apart into individual wills and each subject in existence possesses an individual will of his own. Because of this, Mainländer can claim that once an "individual will" is silenced and dies, it achieves absolute nothingness and not the relative nothingness we find in Schopenhauer. By recognizing death as salvation and by giving nothingness an absolute quality, Mainländer's system manages to offer "wider" means for redemption. Secondarily, Mainländer reinterprets the Schopenhauerian will-to-live as an underlying will-to-die, i.e. the will-to-live is the means towards the will-to-die. — Mainlander Wiki

What I find interesting is that this seems to be an even more pessimistic idea than Schop's. Whereby we can go back to the comfort of a womb-like unity with the hope of Nirvana in Schopenhauer, Mainlander's individuation is complete and isolated, leading to complete annihilation. No unity, but intractably individuated. All is individual, all the way down, unitary origins or not.

Yeah, he's quite dark. But I think his account, when read secularly is quite coherent. But the problem of how out of one many arise, remains, no matter who espouses it.

As to what happen in death, I don't think Mainlander's is any more coherent than Schopenhauer. Once one tries to say that death is a long sleep or terrible isolation or whatever, it becomes kind of empty talk, imo. It's just whatever metaphor you prefer to use.

Once one tries to say that death is a long sleep or terrible isolation or whatever, it becomes kind of empty talk, imo. It's just whatever metaphor you prefer to use. — Manuel

I don’t think he says that, but rather the absence of being. The whole project from BigBang onwards is moving towards non-being I think is the idea. Kind of like BigBang to Heat Death.

The conundrum there would be why individual nonbeing matters but if we take it that Will is our inner aspect, the every shard of the exploded god ceasing is I guess achieving that aim?

Interestingly by individualizing the perspectives thoroughly, it probably influenced Nietzsches later perspectivism, not that I much care for Nietzsches will to power crap.

I answered your objection. If reason comes from will than reason can NOT give an account of Will as you try to do. Reason inly knows reason. What is prior to reasoning is beyond reasoning.

It's something like that, I've yet to read the official English translation, which is allegedly coming out this year.

As I understand it's "as if" (and it's very important to keep this in mind) God killed himself, creating the universe and life being as it were, his remains, going on to eventual total extinction. Which is fine for his metaphysics.

But for our concerns about metaphysics here, I don't see a practical difference between non-being and non-being, in that, prior to us arising, we were part of the process that made up "God's corpse" as it were.

We weren't alive and are now alive by accident. And death will be the same, I think. He was more or less correct in describing something like the Big Bang, but what happens after, we do not know. Maybe it's the complete cessation of all activity, maybe we contract back again to another Big Bang, maybe there are more universes. We have no idea.

Funny that you mention Nietzsche, in some other places I go to, he so popular. Never really got his popularity, aside his good prose.

Ff

So Will in Schopenhauer: the point is that Will chooses everything for us and we are Will. If you have a bad life, Will choose that. Will is completely free. Do you realize Will is willing? It doesnt choose what we want or think we need. It's on its own and has no one to take it to account. Reason brings in ends and "my life should be different". The Will for Schop can do no wrong. You might as well call it random, but it is choosing. Will acts. I remember that Descartes thought God was Will

I answered your objection. If reason comes from will than reason can NOT give an account of Will as you try to do. Reason inly knows reason. What is prior to reasoning is beyond reasoning. — Gregory

Hey sorry if I was harsh earlier.. but could you quote some specific things I said so I can reference that? Otherwise, I may think you are addressing something else. Also, it seems like you kind of gloss over what I am saying for a general reply when you don't quote specific text.

Ok, so that is great, but that is not my question. That is to say, to posit that we reason is a given. To posit that there is Will is the thing to be explained. However, my question was more about to why Will has to have a multiplicity.

So Will in Schopenhauer: the point is that Will chooses everything for us and we are Will. If you have a bad life, Will choose that. Will is completely free. Do you realize Will is willing? It doesnt choose what we want or think we need. It's on its own and has no one to take it to account. Reason brings in ends and "my life should be different". The Will for Schop can do no wrong. You might as well call it random, but it is choosing. Will acts. I remember that Descartes thought God was Will — Gregory

Will wills, yes. However, why is it that entailed in willing is this superstructure of the PSR, objects, space/time/causality as this aspect of Representation?

as poetic as this looks, as I indicated in that quote, it loses any explanation outside of theistic speculation. — schopenhauer1

I think 'theisitic' is the wrong term. Certainly, many a Christian critic of Schopenhauer would agree with his own self-professed atheism. If, as both Schopenhauer and the other sources say, insight into the One is only attained through a kind of ecstatic intuition, then that is something other than 'theistic speculation' (and indeed later chapters in Schopenhauer's Compass explore the inherent tension between his kind of pantheist mysticism and religious orthodoxy). The question of how and why 'the One' has become 'the Many' is indeed the central issue of all ancient and classical metaphysics, but I can't see how the various interpretations of those ideas culminate in 'mere assertion', even while acknowledging that I myself only have a very hazy understanding of the matter (although I am still continuing to educate myself in it.)

Would I be correct in surmising that your original interest in Schopenhauer was motivated by your oft-stated antinatalism, on the grounds that his pessimistic philosophy provides support for such views? And that digging deeper into what he said, finding ideas that seem to have religious implications undermines that interpretation?

You can superficially say that physics reveals a sort of "oneness" — schopenhauer1

There's a current title, The One: How an Ancient Idea holds the Future of Physics, Heinrich Pas. I dipped into it, but my reading list is already unmanageable. But suffice to say, the basic idea lives on.

I think 'theisitic' is the wrong term. Certainly, many a Christian critic of Schopenhauer would agree with his own self-professed atheism. If, as both Schopenhauer and the other sources say, insight into the One is only attained through a kind of ecstatic intuition, then that is something other than 'theistic speculation' (and indeed later chapters in Schopenhauer's Compass explore the inherent tension between his kind of pantheist mysticism and religious orthodoxy). The question of how and why 'the One' has become 'the Many' is indeed the central issue of all ancient and classical metaphysics, but I can't see how the various interpretations of those ideas culminate in 'mere assertion', even while acknowledging that I myself only have a very hazy understanding of the matter (although I am still continuing to educate myself in it.) — Quixodian

By 'theistic' I mean some sort of logos/reason/desire for it. What I was getting at is Schop seems to have painted himself in a corner. It is "blind Will" but "blind Will", dagnabit, just so happens produce the exact Representation that creates individuation. It just "does", right? Well, look at that, Will "just so happened" to create this complicated system out of its blind willing nature. Do you see what I'm getting at.. It almost certainly leads to a quasi-theological understanding. Will then is blind, but it's blind and needs its playground (representation). All of a sudden you have a reason, a story, a myth, what have you. However, that's a reason. He then is stuck on these ideas of Platonic Forms by way of the influences that book nicely lays out (Schelling, Bohme, Neoplatonics, and the rest). That is to say, he has a ready-made metaphysics that is in need of a new home.

Would I be correct in surmising that your original interest in Schopenhauer was motivated by your oft-stated antinatalism, on the grounds that his pessimistic philosophy provides support for such views? And that digging deeper into what he said, finding ideas that seem to have religious implications undermines that interpretation? — Quixodian

I think this is a distraction to the debate at hand. I thought his notions of suffering, and striving were very accurate. That is say, his Eastern notion of suffering of being always dissatisfied. This seems to characterize the human animal. One doesn't need the architectonics for this conclusion to be true though. One doesn't need to believe in the Platonic Forms, or in a metaphysical Will, or even the transcendental nature of time/space/causality. However, even so, I do entertain his ideas with the principle of charity as I think he had a great understanding of the nature of being (a human and animal), and think he had inventive ways of answering questions.

He then is stuck on these ideas of Platonic Forms by way of the influences that book nicely lays out (Schelling, Bohme, Neoplatonics, and the rest). That is to say, he has a ready-made metaphysics that is in need of a new home. — schopenhauer1

I see your point, and yes it does do that. Maybe the brush that Schopenhauer paints himself into the corner with might actually be his atheism?

This seems to characterize the human animal. — schopenhauer1

I would prefer 'the human condition'. ;-)

That is to say, to posit that we reason is a given. To posit that there is Will is the thing to be explained. However, my question was more about to why Will has to have a multiplicity. — schopenhauer1

What multiplicity? Schop says multiplicity is one because Will is one and Representation is Will. Will is not "a being" so to speak. Will is unity indivisible, without separation. For concepts alone, it is not-Will. Concepts stop in order to let in Will, "the Beloved" as mystics call it

However, why is it that entailed in willing is this superstructure of the PSR, objects, space/time/causality as this aspect of Representation? — schopenhauer1

There is no reason for the world. It just happened says Schopenhauer. How did it happen? But what happen? There is no multiplicity because Will is all and Will is one. So nothing has happened. What you see is Maya

I mean, a good deal of epistemological questions do not affect our day to day life, we pursue them because we find some of them interesting. What makes a tree seperate from the ground a *fact* about the world? Or a chair different from a table? Is that a fact about the world or something that pertains to the way we conceive the world?

It seems to me that hard problems remain, no matter what we postualte, individuality being a hard topic, as is identity and grounding relations… — Manuel

We see animals treating tress differently than the ground; for example, we see birds perching in trees, goannas climbing trees to escape from us, and countless other examples showing that animals perceive the world divided up roughly the same as we do, and of course animals appear to be percipients just as we are, so we imagine they must see the world as divided up in ways that have nothing to do with them.

For me the idea that the world is divided the way it is into the countless organisms, processes and relations which reliably reveal themselves to our observations merely on account of human consciousness stretches credulity. To me, the mystery is as to what that diverse world is in itself; I don't even consider what to me seems the most implausible possibility that it is all a human production.

Individuality and identity have their issues, to be sure. I tend to think of individuation as something real that forces itself onto our attention, and identity as just a kind of placeholder that signifies that individuals can be identified on account of their differences. No two things in the world are exactly the same. Individual things are perhaps never the same from one moment to the next, some more obviously different through time than others, of course. The hill near my house, covered with tall eucalypts looks the same from day to day, but if I cast my thoughts back a few years I remember the trees were much shorter (Flooded gums grow 3-4 meters a year).

I would prefer 'the human condition'. — Quixodian

That's because your thinking is mired in human exceptionalism. This kind of thinking brought us to the dire situation regarding the environment we find ourselves in today.

Individuality and identity have their issues, to be sure. I tend to think of individuation as something real that forces itself onto our attention, and identity as just a kind of placeholder that signifies that individuals can be identified on account of their differences. No two things in the world are exactly the same. Individual things are perhaps never the same from one moment to the next, some more obviously different through time than others, of course. The hill near my house, covered with tall eucalypts looks the same from day to day, but if I cast my thoughts back a few years I remember the trees were much shorter (Flooded gums grow 3-4 meters a year). — Janus

That's because your thinking is mired in human exceptionalism. This kind of thinking brought us to the dire situation regarding the environment we find ourselves in today. — Janus

I wouldn't be so quick to condemn this thinking. Humans do have obvious differences that make a difference. We seem to be a largely cultural animal which internalize the cultural ideas with various degrees of freedom, using our individual personality-propensities and decisions to "get stuff done".

There must be a difference a kind of mind that has conceptual-linguistic-based thoughts versus ones that do not. That must count for something.

It cannot be denied that we are unique in possessing symbolic language, but other animals are each unique in other ways. The fact that we have written symbolic langauge and the more comprehesnive recursive self-awareness that symbolic langauge enables means that we can adapt to all kinds of conditions and live virtually anywhere on the globe. We are undoubtedly the most adaptive animal.

But we are like other animals in that we mostly care about only our own kind and a few other species that are useful to us (and we often treat those animals appallingly), Our recursive thinking should have enabled us to see past that limited focus, and in fact arguably did in hunter/gatherer times. Throughout most of post-agricultural history we have been too busy rationalizing our desires to take what we want without regard for the consequences. That is changing today in some quarters, but it may well be too little too late.

But you are hitting on a most interesting point, often overlooked. What you say about animals is indeed correct. It raises the same issue, the animal is doing the individuating (in so far are we are able to discern what they do), meaning, it's an internal mechanism of the creature. And I think this generalizes to all creatures, that have a minimum level of experience (above a slug, for instance).

To me, the mystery is as to what that diverse world is in itself; I don't even consider what to me seems the most implausible possibility that it is all a human production. — Janus

I just don't see an alternative, with the only exception, is to give cognition to the world, a kind of panpsychism.

No two things in the world are exactly the same. Individual things are perhaps never the same from one moment to the next, some more obviously different through time than others, of course. The hill near my house, covered with tall eucalypts looks the same from day to day, but if I cast my thoughts back a few years I remember the trees were much shorter (Flooded gums grow 3-4 meters a year). — Janus

This is another mystery to me, the lack of identical aspects to object in the world. This changes in the micro-physical world, but that's virtually alien to lived experience.

Interesting, we seem to have different starting conditions, but agree on similar conclusion.

So I am at a loss of how you want to go ahead communicating, as you seem to start from the end of the conversation. So let's start over. Let's start from this post here and you can let me know
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/831351

There is no multiplicity because Will is all and Will is one. So nothing has happened. What you see is Maya — Gregory

Don't quote this, but quote the comment above. However, to add to what you said here, my comment above is about whence Maya? If all is Will, why the Representation? That is why I said it was asserted (hint: read comment above and reply to specific text in that).

I would prefer 'the human condition'. — Quixodian

Yes, I would say that Zapffe captures this paradox of self-awareness the best:

Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox. — Zapffe Wiki

And directly here:

The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by over-evolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment. In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground. — Peter Wessel Zapffe, The Last Messiah

That is to say, we done fuckd it up. It's too late for us. Secondary consciousness forbids the return to Eden. All these religious attempts at ecstasy, or calm, or peace, or serenity in vain. All seeking what is genetically not in our cards.

But you are hitting on a most interesting point, often overlooked. What you say about animals is indeed correct. It raises the same issue, the animal is doing the individuating (in so far are we are able to discern what they do), meaning, it's an internal mechanism of the creature. And I think this generalizes to all creatures, that have a minimum level of experience (above a slug, for instance). — Manuel

For me this raises the question as to whether the embodiment of an animal is not already the beginning of individuation. There seems to be the natural boundary determined by bodily sensation, between me and not me.

As to the things in the environment they affect the body differently pre-cognitively it would seem such as, for example, one appears as a tree and another a waterfall. One I can move around, remove branches and leaves from, maybe use its bark, even cut it down and burn it, the other I can go under and be washed, or watch the sunlight sparkling on the water and feel the fine mist of water vapour on my skin and so on. So, it seems to me that thgere is no arbitrariness in the ways we come to differentiate the things in the environment, they all have real pre-cognitive affactes on the body, on the skin, on the nerves, it seems.

This is another mystery to me, the lack of identical aspects to object in the world. This changes in the micro-physical world, but that's virtually alien to lived experience.

Interesting, we seem to have different starting conditions, but agree on similar conclusion. — Manuel

Our understanding of the microphysical seems to show us that things are not merely as they appear. But then the micro-physical itself is another, sensorially augmented, appearance. It's truly a mystery.

We do seem to agree, even if we took different paths to get there.

That is to say, we done fuckd it up. It's too late for us — schopenhauer1

The difference between them and Schopenhauer is that his philosophy is actually soteriological - there is a possible escape from the futility of existence. Still reckon that's the aspect of his thinking you can't accept.

For me this raises the question as to whether the embodiment of an animal is not already the beginning of individuation. There seems to be the natural boundary determined by bodily sensation, between me and not me. — Janus

Totally with you on that. The appearance of the first organisms is the appearance of intentionality and the first glimmer of consciousness. The difference for h. sapiens is that we are aware of our existence in a way that animals are not, and it's a difference that makes a huge difference.

The difference for h. sapiens is that we are aware of our existence in a way that animals are not, and it's a difference that makes a huge difference. — Quixodian

For sure a huge difference, but not only, or even predominately, in a good way. You can say we are higher than the other animals because we can do things which they cannot even imagine, but we are also lower than the other animals because we cannot, taken as a collective, live harmoniously with them or even with each other.

We can think in the abstract, and that has produced great intellectual achievements, and works in the arts, but it has also produced horrors, nightmares. We cannot accept our mortality and that has produced vain dreams of eternal life and paradise, while we cannot even be sensible enough to be happy on Earth during our brief existence between two nothingnesses.

We can think in the abstract, and that has produced great intellectual achievements, and works in the arts, but it has also produced horrors, nightmares. We cannot accept our mortality and that has produced vain dreams of eternal life and paradise, while we cannot even be sensible enough to be happy on Earth during our brief existence between two nothingnesses. — Janus

Nice characterization there.. Using your abstracting skills. I would simply add that there is no reason to create the stuff between the two nothingnesses. Anytime we force someone else's hand, it's a political move. What is the motive behind throwing more people into the world? We want someone else to go through the disturbing episode. After just extolling our abstraction abilities, you cannot hide behind "instinct" for why. We clearly can do the opposite of our initial desires. We do it all the time. If you say it is so that they can experience the joy that you sometimes feel, that is ignoring the logical other side of life. That is becoming the judge and executioner for someone else, making it their burden. And so the disturbing episodes continue.

All we have left is snide remarks about how depressives aren't wanted here and to go away. But then Ligotti had the delightful observation of optimistic responses here in possibly the most pessimistic thing ever written (notice I said pessimistic, not necessarily gruesome:

Should you conclude that life is objectionable or that nothing mat­ters—do not waste our time with your nonsense. We are on our way to the future, and the philosophically disheartening or the emotionally impaired are not going to hinder our progress. If you cannot say something positive, or at least equivocal, keep it to yourself. Pessimists and depressives need not apply for a position in the enterprise of life. You have two choices: Start thinking the way God and your society want you to think or be forsaken by all. The decision is yours, since you are a free agent who can choose to rejoin our fabricated world or stubbornly insist on . . . what? That we should mollycoddle non-positive thinkers like you or rethink how the whole world transacts its business? That we should start over from scratch? Or that we should go extinct? Try to be realistic. We did the best we could with the tools we had. After all, we are only human, as we like to say. Our world may not be in accord with nature's way, but it did develop organically according to our consciousness, which delivered us to a lofty prominence over the Creation. The whole thing just took on a life of its own, and nothing is going to stop it anytime soon. There can be no starting over and no going back. No major readjustments are up for a vote. And no melancholic head-case is going to bad-mouth our catastro­phe. The universe was created by the Creator, damn it. We live in a country we love and that loves us back. We have families and friends and jobs that make it all worthwhile. We are some­ bodies, not a bunch of nobodies without names or numbers or retirement plans. None of this is going to be overhauled by a thought criminal who contends that the world is not double­plusgood and never will be. Our lives may not be unflawed­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­—that would deny us a better future to work toward—but if this charade is good enough for us, then it should be good enough for you. So if you cannot get your mind right, try walking away. You will find no place to go and no one who will have you. You will find only the same old trap the world over. Lighten up or leave us alone. You will never get us to give up our hopes. You will never get us to wake up from our dreams. We are not contradictory beings whose continuance only worsens our plight as mutants who embody the contorted logic of a para­dox. Such opinions will not be accredited by institutions of au­thority or by the middling run of humanity. To lay it on the line, whatever thoughts may enter your chemically imbalanced brain are invalid, inauthentic, or whatever dismissive term we care to hang on you, who are only "one of those people." So start pretending that you feel good enough for long enough, stop your complaining, and get back in line. If you are not as strong as Samson—that no-good suicide and slaughterer of Phil­istines—then get loaded to the gills and return to the trap. Keep your medicine cabinet and your liquor cabinet well stocked, just like the rest of us. Come on and join the party. No pessi­mists or depressives invited. Do you think we are morons? We know all about those complaints of yours. The only difference is that we have sense enough and feel good enough for long enough not to speak of them. Keep your powder dry and your brains blocked. Our shibboleth: "Up the Conspiracy and down with Consciousness." — Thomas Ligotti- CATHR

Best quote on this is succinct though:

“We can regard our life as a uselessly disturbing episode in the blissful repose of nothingness.” — Schopenhauer

So yeah, any gaslight-y snide answer to the Pessimist has been noted and lampooned, so you can stop before you start :wink:.

If you weren't going to give a pat optimistic snide remark towards the pessimistic stance, carry on and ignore.

The difference between them and Schopenhauer is that his philosophy is actually soteriological - there is a possible escape from the futility of existence. Still reckon that's the aspect of his thinking you can't accept. — Quixodian

Indeed, ironically, I think Schopenhauer too optimistic. There is no blissful escape. But more interestingly, the fact that there are schools of thought regarding "escaping from life's suffering/Suffering (western/Eastern sense of the word), is telling about life in the first place and should be a warning about putting more people into it in the first place. In other words, the only logical outcome are the monks and ascetic practice of no procreation. That's it. Everything else is dealing with the already existing fallout. Don't drop the bomb rather than having to figure out how to live with the radiation.

If I have a soteriological inclination, I think it would be more in line with Hartmann's:

The essential feature of the morality built upon the basis of Von Hartmann's philosophy is the realization that all is one and that, while every attempt to gain happiness is illusory, yet before deliverance is possible, all forms of the illusion must appear and be tried to the utmost. Even he who recognizes the vanity of life best serves the highest aims by giving himself up to the illusion, and living as eagerly as if he thought life good. It is only through the constant attempt to gain happiness that people can learn the desirability of nothingness; and when this knowledge has become universal, or at least general, deliverance will come and the world will cease. No better proof of the rational nature of the universe is needed than that afforded by the different ways in which men have hoped to find happiness and so have been led unconsciously to work for the final goal. The first of these is the hope of good in the present, the confidence in the pleasures of this world, such as was felt by the Greeks. This is followed by the Christian transference of happiness to another and better life, to which in turn succeeds the illusion that looks for happiness in progress, and dreams of a future made worth while by the achievements of science. All alike are empty promises, and known as such in the final stage, which sees all human desires as equally vain and the only good in the peace of Nirvana. — Eduard von Hartmann Wiki

That is to say, only the right understanding is possible. I can only go back to Zapffe again, for what we tend to do when we get too close to this understanding:

Isolation is "a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling".[5]

Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness".[5] The anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal to consistently focus their attention on. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society and stated that "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future"[5] are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.

Distraction is when "one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions".[5] Distraction focuses all of one's energy on a task or idea to prevent the mind from turning in on itself.

Sublimation is the refocusing of energy away from negative outlets, toward positive ones. The individuals distance themselves and look at their existence from an aesthetic point of view (e.g., writers, poets, painters). Zapffe himself pointed out that his produced works were the product of sublimation. — Zapffe Wiki

That is to say, if we are not defending our projects with anchoring mechanisms like "Tradition, Pursuit of Happiness/Pleasure, Science, Progress, Family, Country", we are distracting with the little things "hobbies, gardening, travel". And if we are not lucky enough to have gotten at these stages of "Maslow's Hierarchy", safety, security, and mere physiological survival.

As to the things in the environment they affect the body differently pre-cognitively it would seem such as, for example, one appears as a tree and another a waterfall. One I can move around, remove branches and leaves from, maybe use its bark, even cut it down and burn it, the other I can go under and be washed, or watch the sunlight sparkling on the water and feel the fine mist of water vapour on my skin and so on. So, it seems to me that thgere is no arbitrariness in the ways we come to differentiate the things in the environment, they all have real pre-cognitive affactes on the body, on the skin, on the nerves, it seems. — Janus

If someone adds a chemical solution to what we call a river, it hardens and if I paint yellow lines on it, it becomes a road - and can be used as such. The change is chemically trivial, yet our conception radically alters, notice that in this case, we wouldn't perceive this hardened thing to be discontinuous from the surrounding terrain.

And if you put a concrete wall in front of the waterfall, it becomes a dam of sorts.

These small changes raise questions about how we individuate. Where I cannot find a fault in this, is in mathematics, it seems necessary.

It's not arbitrary, you are correct, it's subtle and delicate. Small changes drastically change how we conceptualize items as being one or many (is a tree one thing, or many?, etc.)

Our understanding of the microphysical seems to show us that things are not merely as they appear. But then the micro-physical itself is another, sensorially augmented, appearance. It's truly a mystery. — Janus

100% agree. It makes no sense as to how these microphysical things could lead to anything really...

What is the motive behind throwing more people into the world? We want someone else to go through the disturbing episode. After just extolling our abstraction abilities, you cannot hide behind "instinct" for why. We clearly can do the opposite of our initial desires. We do it all the time. If you say it is so that they can experience the joy that you sometimes feel, that is ignoring the logical other side of life. That is becoming the judge and executioner for someone else, making it their burden. And so the disturbing episodes continue. — schopenhauer1

If you weren't going to give a pat optimistic snide remark towards the pessimistic stance, carry on and ignore. — schopenhauer1

When I said this:

We cannot accept our mortality and that has produced vain dreams of eternal life and paradise, while we cannot even be sensible enough to be happy on Earth during our brief existence between two nothingnesses. — Janus

I was not aiming for a pessimistic characterization of human life in toto, but rather in general. I think some individuals can accept their mortality and find peace and be sensible enough to be overall happy with their life onon Earth; I know I am.

Others are able to have unshakeable faith in eternal life, or in the possibility of progress towards enlightenment. I don't claim those things can be logically or empirically justified, but that doesn't seem to matter to some. Others, perhaps a majority, don't seem to be interested in thinking about such things at all. I don't draw any conclusions or make any judgements about such matters: I am agnostic.

I've told you before that I have never had a desire to reproduce, but I don't sit in judgement on those who do. I think the world is over-populated, but I don't see that as being anyone's fault. Many people mindlessly reproduce, and the world would arguably be a better place if all people reproduced mindfully, or even better satisfied their desire for children by adopting from poorer nations (if only the governments would make this much easier than it currently seems to be from what I've heard and read). Like everything in human life, it's a complex issue, involving many competing interests.

It's not arbitrary, you are correct, it's subtle and delicate. Small changes drastically change how we conceptualize items as being one or many (is a tree one thing, or many?, etc.) — Manuel

I think the predominate view is that a tree is a single organism with many parts, and those parts have further parts and so on, but the tree is nonetheless a self-organizing whole; and that seems to make most sense to me.

The boundaries of what we call "inanimate entities", such as oceans, mountains, deserts and rivers are much less clearly defined, but from that it doesn't follow that those categories are purely arbitrary or even purely constructed in terms of human interest, in my view.

100% agree. It makes no sense as to how these microphysical things could lead to anything really... — Manuel

:up: