You are questioning it right now. Isn't this your answer, the germination of which is in your very inquiry? Why is nature creating creatures that question the "will to live"? — schopenhauer1

If your asking for my opinion or thought on the matter, what I understand about the very will to live is that by most theories it is healthy and good to want to live, and the denial to live from an attitude (for example, "pessimism") is irrational or maladaptive. What are your "meta"-cognitive beliefs about pessimism, and what it may mean to a person?

Thanks for posting.

If your asking for my opinion or thought on the matter, what I understand about the very will to live is that by most theories it is healthy and good to want to live, and the denial to live from an attitude (for example, "pessimism") is irrational or maladaptive. What are your "meta"-cognitive beliefs about pessimism, and what it may mean to a person? — Shawn

I'm not asking your opinion on "the will to live", rather I am pointing that you are questioning it. And even now, we can debate it, giving reasons for enjoining with it. This is telling us something.. my theme of how we are not on balance like the rest of nature...

I'm not asking your opinion on "the will to live", rather I am pointing that you are questioning it. And even now, we can debate it, giving reasons for enjoining with it. — schopenhauer1

I am simply questioning whether it is something that can be justified as a reason to operate on, or whether these reasons are brute facts about existence. The facet of attitudes on one's life or arising due to lived experiences, resulting in, dispositions is what I wanted to consider.

Maybe in another thread I would frame the issue about what do attitudes mean to a person; but with respect to Schopenhauer (generally speaking, monotheistic religions are also associated with this tendency, which Schopenhauer did not like or favor) what is the function of an attitude, such as pessimism, in one's life?

I am simply questioning whether it is something that can be justified as a reason to operate on, or whether these reasons are brute facts about existence. The facet of attitudes on one's life or arising due to lived experiences, resulting in, dispositions is what I wanted to consider.

Maybe in another thread I would frame the issue about what do attitudes mean to a person; but with respect to Schopenhauer (generally speaking, monotheistic religions are also associated with this tendency, which Schopenhauer did not like or favor) what is the function of an attitude, such as pessimism, in one's life? — Shawn

I'm trying to say that there are various "coping mechanisms" that people use to ignore the notion of suffering in life, and thus the need for empathy in the Schopenhaurian fashion is not even considered.

I'm trying to say that there are various "coping mechanisms" that people use to ignore the notion of suffering in life, and thus the need for empathy in the Schopenhaurian fashion is not even considered. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I believe what you are saying is true and more fruitful to the understanding of human nature, which has been a debate framed in the right manner by Schopenhauer. The issue Schopenhauer brings up, in my mind, is the importance of attitudes, and how they form beliefs or, as you call it, "forms of life."

Any comments on this?

Thanks for posting.

Yes, I believe what you are saying is true and more fruitful to the understanding of human nature, which has been a debate framed in the right manner by Schopenhauer. The issue Schopenhauer bring up, in my mind, is the importance of attitudes, and how they form beliefs or, as you call it, "forms of life." — Shawn

First we must define suffering...

Suffering as my profile already states (take a look I'm sure you've seen it) comes in the "inbuilt" and "contingent" varieties.

Contingent varieties are the cheap/easy ones to identify. These are the ones that analytic philosophers are going to hang their hat on because they are more "empirical". They are everything from ill-health, disasters, to any harm you can think of.

Inherent suffering is the kind that is more what Schopenhauer was getting at.. That even if you stripped away all the contingent "slings and arrows" of life, there is still something underneath that is driving this dissatisfaction that doesn't go away. This is akin to the Buddhist notion of Dukkha or dissatisfaction. Humans have a self-awareness that no other animal has in that we can see this dissatisfaction play out in real time, and know its happening as we are living! @Wayfarer can do a deep dive on all the Buddhist/Hindu ways of describing this, I'm sure.

And then I added in a more "meta" sense of suffering pace Ligotti. That is to say, we are a species that evolved like the rest of nature, but yet is not in a "balance of nature". Where other animals have a form of life that is instinctual, ours is by-far more deliberative, which adds another burden uniquely human. This is what I mean by "forms of life".

Schopenhauer thought that indeed people had "fixed" characters that were basically more attuned to suffering. These characters had the ability to "deny their wills" in saintly empathy (agape love one can say). Other people might not have as much ability to penetrate this understanding. I added in ideas that they were too fixated in their coping mechanisms (distraction, ignoring, etc.).

Humans can form narratives to suit any rataionale they want to get to... So if life is supposed to be X, Y, Z, they will develop a story to provide it that rationale. These are all justifications for why we (must) pursue X, Y, and Z. But the fact is that our very ability to form counterfactuals and diverse narratives tells us that we don't have to have this rationale. That it is indeed only a rationale...That we are the species that needs a rationale.. We don't just "do", we know we do and we have provide reasons for why we do.

And then I added in a more "meta" sense of suffering pace Ligotti. That is to say, we are a species that evolved like the rest of nature, but yet is not in a "balance of nature". Where other animals have a form of life that is instinctual, ours is by-far more deliberative, which adds another burden uniquely human. This is what I mean by "forms of life". — schopenhauer1

The Dionysian instincts that the ancient Greeks alluded to are tame in the mind of a human being nowadays. We have aspired towards an Apollonian way of life. By doing so, we have reduced the brute aspect of existence that we once endured, per our evolutionary history. It would be strange to say that the fundamental reason we are unhappy or suffer from boredom is something to be overly concerned about. Existence is becoming more endurable than it once was seems like a common theme amongst academics.

Humans can form narratives to suit any rataionale they want to get to... So if life is supposed to be X, Y, Z, they will develop a story to provide it that rationale. These are all justifications for why we (must) pursue X, Y, and Z. But the fact is that our very ability to form counterfactuals and diverse narratives tells us that we don't have to have this rationale. That it is indeed only a rationale...That we are the species that needs a rationale.. We don't just "do", we know we do and we have provide reasons for why we do. — schopenhauer1

I think you reference an important insight of human nature here. What can be said about this is that science has transformed the way we perceive cause and effect. The Principle of Sufficient Reason or PoSR for short has allowed us to create such a Apollonian world in which we inhabit. Science is another tool or method of understanding how the world works. With a better understanding of cause and effect, we can better situate ourselves in the complexity of the world. What I'm trying to say, that there are things a person can be certain of regardless of whatever rationale we assume. Some rationales may be more truthful than others.

So, with the assumption that some rationales are more true than others, what do you think is true about the lack of concern with ethics, in our world? Is it really ignorance of the good or unrestrained wants and desires that make us suffer?

Humans have a self-awareness that no other animal has in that we can see this dissatisfaction play out in real time, and know its happening as we are living! — schopenhauer1

What I would point out is that the description of humans as 'animals' is very much part of the naturalist worldview (naturally!) It is taken to be an inevitable entailment of evolutionary biology, which displaced the supernatural accounts of creation. But then, there was a great deal attached to that supernatural account, including much of what was thought worth preserving from the Greek philosophical tradition. So, yes, we did evolve like other natural forms, but at a certain point a threshold was crossed which separates us from nature (and which I think is very likely the origin of the myth of the fall.) And I don’t know if naturalism has the depth to deal with it, not least because of the rigid and often unspoken barrier cordoning off anything it considers supernatural.

We are the only species that bears a responsibility that no other animal must endure, that of justifying why we must do/endure anything. We are self-aware creatures, that know that we can do something counterfactual. — schopenhauer1

"Responsibility" to whom?

"Justifying" other than that "we must"?

Is being "self aware" also sub-personal (i.e. pre-self regulatory processes constitutive of "self") or just a superficial confabulation (i.e. token-reflexive, user-illusion)?

It is a form of "ignoring" of the problem. — schopenhauer1

No, Camus (like Zapffe et al) recognizes 'existence' is a pseudo-problem only for idealists (or antirealists, subjectivists ... supernaturalists), that is, for those who adopt an egocentric stance of 'ontological transcendence' (pace Spinoza) that is inexorably frustrated by the ineluctable and immanent resistance-to-ego of existence (i.e. anicca, anatta ... dao ... swirling-swerving atoms recombing in void, etc). There is no "problem" that's "ignored", especially by lucid absurdists, who neither absurdly 'idealize non-ideal' existence (re: hope) nor absurdly 'nihilate non-negative' existence (re: despair), insofar as we strive – suffer – to create manifold spaces by and within which to thrive aesthetically and ethically between absurd extremes. :death: :flower:

... we are the species that needs the delusions ...

... such as "the delusion" that our "species needs delusions", etc?

What are your "meta"-cognitive beliefs about pessimism, and what it may mean to a person? — Shawn

As schopenhauer1 suggests, the existential stance of "pessimism" is also a "delusion" for coping with, imo, a (mostly) maladaptive habit of neurotic overthinking – anxiously fearing for (pace Epicurus/Epictetus ... Spinoza) – our species-specific defects-dysfunctions aka "suffering". :fire:

"Responsibility" to whom?

"Justifying" other than that "we must"? — 180 Proof

To lay out in its clearest terms:

"We primarily don't operate by instinct like other animals and this makes us an animal apart from the others, even though derived from the same evolutionary nature in that we are constantly under the pressure of making stories and reasons.. that is not to say only after-the-fact stories of 'why' but also the the fact that we have goals we attempt to seek. In short, a self-awareness of our own very willing nature". This adds a burden, a layer of responsibility (suffering) that no other animal must deal with.

especially by lucid absurdists, who neither absurdly 'idealize non-ideal' existence (re: hope) nor absurdly 'nihilate non-negative' existence (re: despair), insofar as we strive – suffer – to create manifold spaces by and within which to thrive aesthetically and ethically between absurd extremes. :death: :flower: — 180 Proof

This will ever be my debate with Nietzscheans on this forum. I'm sorry but Schopenhauer cannot be surpassed by Nietzsche's contrarian view. Schopenhauer is what all must deal with, and though attempts were made, they failed to address it. Suffering is real. The fact we must contend with it at all, absurdist stance, or any delusional stories (religious, hedonistic, tribal, familiar, or otherwise), shows this.

As schopenhauer1 suggests, the existential stance of "pessimism" is also a "delusion" for coping with, imo, a (mostly) maladaptive habit of neurotic overthinking – anxiously fearing for (pace Epicurus/Epictetus ... Spinoza) – our species-specific defects-dysfunctions aka "suffering". :fire: — 180 Proof

I agree and disagree with you. In the fact that you are answering @Shawn, I agree. He does seem to be a case of overthinking, living in a basement, wallowing in it (didn't he have a theme of this with his piggy stuff?).. making a sort of cliche out of Schopenhauer only being for the depressed and inert.

I disagree with you that "pessimism" is neurotic overthinking. This is a contrarian cliche. The problems, at least, as I present them, are apparent and paramount at almost each and every moment you deliberate and decide. The reasons you chose, whatever they are, cannot in good (academic) conscience be called "instinct" unless you reduce it that "all animal behavior is instinct" which it is not. Rather, we have that extra layer of "Why must we?".. And it is exactly the "denial" of this into tawdry and easy existential "modes" of coping such as "Denying, distraction, anchoring" make exactly the point I am making. So, I find it ironic you mention Zapffe to contradict me when he is very much in line.

The Dionysian instincts that the ancient Greeks alluded to are tame in the mind of a human being nowadays. We have aspired towards an Apollonian way of life. By doing so, we have reduced the brute aspect of existence that we once endured, per our evolutionary history. It would be strange to say that the fundamental reason we are unhappy or suffer from boredom is something to be overly concerned about. Existence is becoming more endurable than it once was seems like a common theme amongst academics. — Shawn

It's not something we are "overly concerned about". It just "is" the case. I don't have to "add" anything to it. It's like the difference between "demonstrates" and "explains". Sure, I can remain silent and let life "demonstrate it" (show the gadget work), or I can explain the mechanisms underlying it (explaning).

As Zapffe explains better:

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.

In "The Last Messiah", Zapffe described four principal defense mechanisms that humankind uses to avoid facing this paradox:

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.

What I'm trying to say, that there are things a person can be certain of regardless of whatever rationale we assume. Some rationales may be more truthful than others.

So, with the assumption that some rationales are more true than others, what do you think is true about the lack of concern with ethics, in our world? Is it really ignorance of the good or unrestrained wants and desires that make us suffer? — Shawn

In the Schopenhauerian view, our constant willing nature, and dissatisfaction make us suffer, yes. In the more "empirical" world of a utilitarian or hedonist, it might be the accumulation of the preferences frustrated, or pains felt, or harms encountered, with the world, along with the emotional distress this causes our psyche.

With Schopenhauer, compassion is all-apart of the same manifesting premise. That is to say, if the world is Will, individuated into an illusory version of itself (the manifold beings of the world), then a saintly person is driven from the feeling of "fellow-suffering" of all the manifold beings. That is to say, they can feel this agapic love and then act upon it. The acting upon this feeling is saintly compassion for Schop, and this has the effect of making one less individuated.

In a purely contemplative way (rather than the saint that simply feels and acts upon), the way forward is to recognize what is the case. That to Schopenhauer would be to understand the mechanism of how we suffer. That we suffer is taken for granted. If we don't know that we suffer, we still suffer. His dwelling on it, is only because that is the very thing he is explaining and studying. Suffering is the label he has for what is happening. If we talk about thermodynamics in physics, but we don't "think" thermodynamics in everyday life, well, duh, that's the difference between simply "stuff that's happening", and an "explanation of the stuff that's happening".

What I would point out is that the description of humans as 'animals' is very much part of the naturalist worldview (naturally!) It is taken to be an inevitable entailment of evolutionary biology, which displaced the supernatural accounts of creation. But then, there was a great deal attached to that supernatural account, including much of what was thought worth preserving from the Greek philosophical tradition. So, yes, we did evolve like other natural forms, but at a certain point a threshold was crossed which separates us from nature (and which I think is very likely the origin of the myth of the fall.) And I don’t know if naturalism has the depth to deal with it, not least because of the rigid and often unspoken barrier cordoning off anything it considers supernatural. — Wayfarer

As has been the case, I enjoy your posts more than most people who disagree with me. They seem the most informed, even if we disagree, allowing for more in-depth conversation. It isn't just being knee-jerk contrarian and "gotcha"... This elevates conversation at least.

I agree with the "myth of the fall" being a metaphor for our "separation" from the rest of nature. It's an apt metaphor, that Garden.

Yes, that is where we will indeed part ways, as far as the supernatural goes. I would replace your soteriology with catharsis. If we recognize the situation, it might impel us to act in certain ways different than the current. One of the greatest stories we "anchor" ourselves in is our economic way-of-life. Work hard, play hard. One must feel "useful", and so on. These are powerful. The motivations for it are easy enough to answer, but one must recognize the Schopenharian nature of what is going on to answer it. It is manifest in the boredom and despair we feel when we don't "feel useful", or if aren't anchoring ourselves in something (work hard/play hard, travel, climb the mountain, experience life, drugs, family life, etc. etc.).

To lay out in its clearest terms: — schopenhauer1

Ad hoc assumptions which raise more questions than they answer – not clear at all.

This will ever be my debate with Nietzscheans on this forum. I'm sorry but Schopenhauer cannot be surpassed by Nietzsche's contrarian view.

Whatever. I'm not a "Nietzschean" (though I share affinities with his anti-idealist naturalism) and in my previous post I raise objections to (your) "pessimism" referring instead to Camus, Zapffe, Epicurus, Epictetus & Spinoza without invoking "Nietzsche". Try addressing my actual argument, schop1, instead of copping-out by shadowboxing with a strawman. :wink:

... almost each and every moment you deliberate and decide. The reasons you chose, whatever they are ...

... are mostly not conscious decisions / choices according to (e.g.) Buddha ... Socrates, Pyrrho ... Spinoza, Hume, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Peirce, Wittgenstein ... and corroborated by (e.g.) cognitive neuroscience, behavioral economics, embodied cognitivism & CBT. :roll:

In the fact that you are answering Shawn, I agree. He does seem to be a case of overthinking, living in a basement, wallowing in it (didn't he have a theme of this with his piggy stuff?).. making a sort of cliche out of Schopenhauer only being for the depressed and inert. — schopenhauer1

Yes, well I don't know where you got the idea that Schopenhauer is only for the depressed. Philosophical pessimism does not make one depressed. Correlation does not imply causation.

With Schopenhauer, compassion is all-apart of the same manifesting premise. That is to say, if the world is Will, individuated into an illusory version of itself (the manifold beings of the world), then a saintly person is driven from the feeling of "fellow-suffering" of all the manifold beings. That is to say, they can feel this agapic love and then act upon it. The acting upon this feeling is saintly compassion for Schop, and this has the effect of making one less individuated. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I believe Wittgenstein called it the "metaphysical subject." It seems that the act of willing in Schopenhauer's philosophy is mired with a sense of unease about one's state of mind in a world with a Will greater than any other individuated will.

Yes, that is where we will indeed part ways, as far as the supernatural goes. I would replace your soteriology with catharsis. — schopenhauer1

Thank you for the compliment, I try not to violently disagree, even where I differ.

You know that the term ‘catharsis’ (and also ‘therapy’) both have religious roots, right? The Cathars were a powerful gnostic sect of the Langue’doc region (now southern France) in medievaldom. They were subject of a notorious act of mass slaughter by the Pope’s armies in the notorious Sack of Bezier in 1209 (wherein an entire town with all its inhabitants was set aflame, with the presiding general saying famously ‘Kill them all, God will know his own.)

The word goes further back than that. It invokes different ideas of purification important to the Greeks, in their great variance of opinion.

Sure. But that was a notable instance.

I did not mean to contradict your reference to the Cathars. In looking at more ancient sources, the desire for purification finds expression in the personal, the civic, and the religious register that does not resolve simply into the categories I just used to speak about it.

Tyranny coalesces resistance along significant points of divergence. But a coalition of divergence is not a convergence of opinions regarding the good. That is why the value of the secular extends beyond what is held (or not) in common but involves the way purposes can be shared by very different ideas of the "pure."

Otherwise, it is just your theology up against mine.

Mankind can only hope that there is enough empathy and compassion within itself to recognize our shared struggles. Without such an attitude, what more is existence; but, a show of vanity and pride. — Shawn

This is a common attitude in the discussion of morality among the forum members. And I think this is erroneous because it misses the main foundation of ethics and morality.
Philosophers such as Kant, JS Mill, J. Rawls, and most likely Nietzsche laid down the foundation of their conception of morality. It is duty and obligation, not compassion, that is the basis of the philosophical argument for morality and ethics.

Ask yourself -- do you have compassion towards your enemies, say a cruel regime? No? So, do you consider them in your deliberation of ethics? Or do you only consider those for whom you feel compassion? This is really the question you should be asking.

I think the above aphorismic sentiment is a common theme in Schopenhauer's work. The older I become the more perplexed I am with regards to how ethical questions or even the lack of concern with ethics stems from a wrong disposition towards life. — Shawn

I think the bigger problem is the misunderstanding of what ethics and morality is.

What is the central theme of ethics for the discussion of ethics to begin or start to take place? — Shawn

Duty, obligation, and justice.

Philosophers such as Kant, JS Mill, J. Rawls, and most likely Nietzsche laid down the foundation of their conception of morality. — L'éléphant

Not to sound snide; but, what about the ethics of care, by philosophers such as Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings? The very centerpiece of ethics has been the role of the mother or teacher in one's life, without which a very crude form of ethics would develop.

Not to sound snide; but, what about the ethics of care, by philosophers such as Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings? The very centerpiece of ethics has been the role of the mother or teacher in one's life, without which a very crude form of ethics would develop. — Shawn

Why would you preface your post with "Not to sound snide/.."? This is a discussion forum, so, I totally understand if you disagree.

Actually, if you read up on of ethics of care, the same theme runs though their arguments. Because, again, ask yourself, do you need to feel empathy before you decide on the ethical course of action? Benevolence is an act that does not wait on the emotion of compassion. Same with respect -- you might have angered me and insulted me, and spoke of lies about me, but I will still exercise my sense of duty and obligation to act in such a way that I do not violate your essence as a human being.

No, this does not make sense for a woman to do the things she does for her child out of a sense of duty. I've heard this argument before and feminist ethicists really would not agree.

The ethics of care stem from a deeper urge than a ratiocination of a derived Kantian categorical imperative towards duty.

The ethics of care stem from a deeper urge than a ratiocination of a derived Kantian categorical imperative towards duty. — Shawn

If that's how you see it, then I will not try to convince you.

of copping-out by shadowboxing with a strawman. :wink: — 180 Proof

Right.. then you try dealing with my arguments first ;).

... are mostly not conscious decisions / choices according to (e.g.) Buddha ... Socrates, Pyrrho ... Spinoza, Hume Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Peirce, Wittgenstein ... and corroborated by (e.g.) cognitive neuroscience, behavioral economics, embodied cognitivism & CBT. :roll: — 180 Proof

This is just a bad steelman/strawman. I am not talking about the debate about determinism, or brain chemistry, or destiny,.. Nor am I discussing the addicted person, or a mental disorder, or whatever crappy rebuttal you are trying to concoct contra the human animal's ability for deliberation and goals. For example, you decided to sit down and write a post. Sure, maybe your personality and brain chemistry uniquely made you do this and say that, but my point is that you are AWARE of counterfactuals and you CHOSE this one (whatever else might be the case surrounding this decision). You can try to put as many dumb strawman responses to the contrary but humans have a higher degree of freedom and awareness of counterfactuals at a level and kind much different than other animals. The deliberation may be "weighted" one way or the other due to various factors, but to us we are making decisions and following goals that we construct. That's how the phenomenology seems. You decided to go to the market, go for a jog, post on a philosophy forum, read up on the newest existentialist author, or any number of things. To YOU, YOU could have done OTHER. It's not a debate on what causes your decisions, it's the difference of phenomenology between humans and other animals.

Yes, well I don't know where you got the idea that Schopenhauer is only for the depressed. Philosophical pessimism does not make one depressed. Correlation does not imply causation. — Shawn

Where the hell did you see me say that notion? If you read my profile I think quite the opposite of that. I suppose you have seen my profile. And if you haven't, read it, you might get my viewpoints on the whole pessimism thing as I lay them out there. If you have read it, you are just trying to get a rise out of me by accusing me of literally the opposite of what I think on that matter.

You know that the term ‘catharsis’ (and also ‘therapy’) both have religious roots, right? The Cathars were a powerful gnostic sect of the Langue’doc region (now southern France) in medievaldom. They were subject of a notorious act of mass slaughter by the Pope’s armies in the notorious Sack of Bezier in 1209 (wherein an entire town with all its inhabitants was set aflame, with the presiding general saying famously ‘Kill them all, God will know his own.) — Wayfarer

Yes I am aware of all that. But what is the "super-natural" other than the longing for something different?

Rather, all I am asking for is consolation.. therapy in seeing what I see. Get what I am saying?

what is the "super-natural" other than the longing for something different? — schopenhauer1

Gee that's a leading question! Supernatural and metaphysical are really the Latin and Greek synonyms for 'beyond nature'. Catharsis was interpreted, in metaphysical traditions such as neoplatonism, as the means of spiritual purification, so as to awaken the relationship with the 'beyond nature', which was taken to be an awakening to a higher identity.

That is at odds with naturalism. I suppose you could see catharsis in a naturalistic sense as a purgation of traumatic memories. In some of the awareness-training workshops I did back in the 90's I witnessed a lot of that - people bringing things to the surface that they have been carrying around for decades. Involves a lot of crying but also a great sense of release - your archetypical 'cathartic experience'.

That is at odds with naturalism. I suppose you could see catharsis in a naturalistic sense as a purgation of traumatic memories. In some of the awareness-training workshops I did back in the 90's I witnessed a lot of that - people bringing things to the surface that they have been carrying around for decades. Involves a lot of crying but also a great sense of release - your archetypical 'cathartic experience'. — Wayfarer

Yes it is in this vein that I mean catharsis. If "Pessimism" is the reality, then catharsis is when everyone sees what you see (reality). So the scales over the eyes has been lifted. We are no longer seeing what is not. We both understand not only each other's suffering, but Suffering. We are all in the same situation. We are all part of the same scheme.

But then, if the scales are lifted, whether what is seen is beneficial surely depends on what's there. I mean, if a character in a Lovecraft novel saw what is 'really there' he or she might want to put them right back on again. :yikes: