You must understand, if you find the Pessimist framework I lay out as "Wrong", it doesn't matter, because you are ALREADY in the (de facto) optimist framework of the situatedness of the society your were PROCREATED into and are now following, and moving about in. The Pessimist is just saying that we should question THIS framework- the one we are de facto buying into, and to STOP the perpetuation of this framework

In absence of spirituality, generalized pessimism is a very valid rational answer. It is now even the norm in the most atheist country on earth, China.

https://asiatimes.com/2023/07/youths-desperate-four-no-attitude-worries-china/

young people in substantial numbers have adopted an attitude that’s termed the “four nos”: no interest in dating, getting married, buying a home or having a child.

The four nos supplement the widespread life strategy of "lying flat":

Tang ping (Chinese: 躺平; lit. 'lying flat') means choosing to "lie down flat and get over the beatings" via a low-desire, more indifferent attitude towards life.

Pessimism keeps growing in China:

Forget about lying flat. A new expression is in vogue among young Chinese netizens: “let it rot” 摆烂.

What you are proposing, is exactly what they are now doing in China.

No, it means you don't need the deep mental anguish in the first place; you're imposing it on yourself for no good reason. — Vera Mont

People at the bottom of society or other vulnerable individuals do not always choose to suffer from deep mental anguish. Their social or financial circumstances could impose this through no fault of their own.

I do not just assume that people in trouble have only themselves to blame. Even good, decent, honest, and upright individuals can become unemployed and homeless without therefore being at fault themselves.

They may need help from others as well as the inner strength to keep striving for improvement in their situation.

In my opinion, synagogues, churches, and mosques are well-positioned to offer material and spiritual assistance. In my opinion, someone in serious trouble needs both.

A society can only survive through history if it can keep its very bottom alive and afloat. Otherwise, the whole thing will just keep eroding, with every new bottom disappearing, until nothing will be left.

I think the opposite is the case. The more id -like, the more suffering ensues ( fear, rage, etc). The more effectively the primitive id is guided by anticipative sense-making, the better we are able to avoid profound emotional pain. — Joshs

I didn't say we stay in the id stage. That's the beginning -- we can't escape it because this is the only thing in humans that is present at birth. So, let's just say that it's a given. Then, if you take Rawls's veil of ignorance in the theory of justice, theoretically, we could form a mind conducive to utopia. I said in my previous post that philosophically, as a thought experiment, it is possible.

People at the bottom of society or other vulnerable individuals do not always choose to suffer from deep mental anguish. — Tarskian

Yes, they do. They're bullied into it. More appropriately, they should be mad as hell. Instead of escaping into 'spiritual' whatnot, they should rise up and fix the bastards that shoved them down to the bottom of a bad society.

They may need help from others as well as the inner strength to keep striving for improvement in their situation. — Tarskian

And that's the point of a good society - or Utopia. Not pie in the sky.

In my opinion, synagogues, churches, and mosques are well-positioned to offer material and spiritual assistance. In my opinion, someone in serious trouble needs both. — Tarskian

Bullshit. The pastor, imam or rabbi may offer some psychological support, family relations guidance, community adjustment advice, but they can't do squat about your economic or legal woes.

A society can only survive through history if it can keep its very bottom alive and afloat. Otherwise, the whole thing will just keep eroding, with every new bottom disappearing, until nothing will be left. — Tarskian

An interesting thought-experiment, tops of societies continuing to exist after the bottoms have eroded. Try this at home, see how far up the pyramid you get.
Then, just for fun, try it upside-down. How many top tiers can erode before the bottom one starts dying?

Why? They should be mad as hell. Instead of escaping into 'spiritual' whatnot, they should rise up and fix the bastards that put into the bottom of a bad society. — Vera Mont

Is this meant to be practical advice?

Bullshit. The pastor, imam or rabbi may offer some psychological support, family relations guidance, community adjustment advice, but they can't do squat about you economic or legal woes. — Vera Mont

They can keep you afloat while you evaluate your options. Sometimes it is indeed preferable to start all over again elsewhere.

As a digital nomad and nomad capitalist, I do not hesitate to engage in extensive jurisdiction shopping. That is why a valid passport is an important tool. Two or more passports are even better. It allows you to go where you are treated best.

People tend to be completely unprepared for, and dangerously over-exposed to, an attack from the matrix. That is why a matrix attack is often so damaging. The solution begins by making the inventory of any undue trust in the system and drastically reduce it. If these people did not trust the matrix at all, it would not be able to cause so much damage.

Unfortunately, most people only learn that when it is too late already.

I learned it from my father, who instilled me with a deep distrust for the "trusted" institutions, none of which can be trusted in any shape or fashion.

I have summarized this into my "theory of deception". It is the collective trust itself in the deceptive statement (a=b) that automatically fuels the growth in the total amount of deception (b-a)².

For example, it is exactly because so many people believe that their money is still in the bank that none of it is still there. It is exactly because so many people believe that the television newsreader is telling the truth, that everything he says is a lie. And so on. Most mainstream beliefs are highly deceptive, exactly because they are mainstream.

Spirituality is a non-rational tool — Tarskian

More precisely, "spirituality" is a stance or disposition towards daily experience (like e.g. creativity) and not merely a means-to-ends "tool".

... to stimulate survival instinct ...

Not so. "Survival instinct" is autonomic (like e.g. respiration) and therefore does need to be extrinsically "stimulated".

... by connecting to something that is greater than ourselves and which is divine in nature ....

I.e. metaphysics (i.e. categorical / absolute ideas) that is expressed via rational (inferential, dialectical) and/or non-rational (analogical, mythical) discursive practices.

Philosophy is not meant to do that and therefore cannot replace that.

Really? Tell that to Daoists, Confucists, Vedantists, Pythagoreans, Epicureans, Stoics, Neoplatonists, Aristotleans, Spinozists et al ... Each of these philosophies are manifest "spiritual" ways of life.

Unlike spirituality, philosophy is not meant to assist with mental healthcare.

This may be true of modern academic philosophy (e.g. Anglo-American analytical philosophy, Viennese logical positivism, Parisian post/structuralism, etc) but not true of contemporary variants on and applications of way of life philosophies (some of which I've already mentioned) such as (e.g.) rational emotive hehavioral therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, existential therapy, logotherapy, clinical philosophy, etc.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/when-philosophers-become-therapists

Not so. "Survival instinct" is autonomic like (e.g. respiration) and therefore does need to be extrinsically "stimulated". — 180 Proof

There are quite a few psychiatrists who write in their posts that in their experience spirituality truly assists with mental issues such as depression and anxiety, which I both consider to be a dangerous impairment to the person's will to survive.

I believe that survival instinct can find itself damaged but can also be repaired.

This may be true of modern academic philosophy (e.g. Anglo-American analytical philosophy, Viennese logical positivism, Parisian post/structuralism, etc) but not true of contemporary variants on and applications of way of life philosophies (some of which I've already mentioned) such as (e.g.) rational emotive hehavioral therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, existential therapy, logotherapy, clinical philosophy, etc. — 180 Proof

Okay.

At this point, I haven't run into publications by psychiatrists who have used philosophy as a tool to combat mental issues. They mostly mention spirituality as a possibility.

The simplest solution is probably to reconnect to what the patient already has experience with, most likely, his religion.

We are talking about difficult cases here.

It is about people who are already deep inside the rabbit hole. They are getting professional help but it seems to be a real struggle. Psychiatrists may hesitate to try to medicate the problem away because that may simply medicate the person away.

Is this meant to be practical advice? — Tarskian

Not really. It's a comment on dysfunctional societies.

They can keep you afloat while you evaluate your options. Sometimes it is indeed preferable to start all over again elsewhere. — Tarskian

The poor and afflicted have options? Other countries welcome them? Nor do spiritual advisors 'keep you afloat', unless you mean that some monastic orders run homeless shelters and hospices.

As a digital nomad and nomad capitalist, I do not hesitate to engage in extensive jurisdiction shopping. — Tarskian

How nice for you to be able to do that 'at the bottom of society', buoyed up, no doubt, by your pastor.

The poor and afflicted have options? Other countries welcome them? — Vera Mont

It probably requires some usable skill, i.e. something even modest to make a living from. Totally unskilled is a problem. But then again, in just a few months time, you can for example become a licensed truck driver. That should allow someone of even modest means to move abroad and find gainful employment overseas, but maybe not in SE Asia. In countries with a somewhat more developed economy, it could work. It also depends on the passport that is available to you, because getting a work permit can be an issue in itself, but not necessarily everywhere. There are solutions but people who are pessimistic will not see these solutions but only see everything as one big insurmountable problem.

Which was? This can't happen, so why bother thinking about it?
So why bother responding to it? — Vera Mont

In Schop's conception, the animal being's (human/animal condition if you will) essential nature is to suffer dissatisfaction. Thus, a "utopia" would be the opposite of this, that is to say, a world where there were no needs or dissatisfaction whatsoever- and that would be literally non-being, or at least some kind of permanent Nirvana state.

As far as why bother thinking about it, "utopia" itself means "no place", meaning it was never meant to be a concept that can be attained, so if we are discussing concepts which can't happen anyways, I am just giving you one metaphysical version of this concept of a perfect existence.

We could. It's harder now we've overcomplicated and pissed on everything, but I guess we could try. — Vera Mont

So you didn't directly address this version of utopia either. Remember, it isn't some ideal political state in this conception of imagined (not realistic) existence, but rather one whereby you can EVEN turn the dials down to make things more interesting (more suffering), or turn it back if its too much. You can decide if how boring, easy, or hard, you want it. You still have needs, but you can adjust the intensity. You still get bored, but the intensity of how you achieve your survival and entertainment is completely adjustable. As I said:

...a world whereby we still had needs, but they could be met whenever we wanted. We could turn the dials to make it harder if we get bored, turn it back if we want to go back to easy mode. There is no suffering in the "want" sense of the word. We still "lack" but those desires can be fulfilled easily, without tension. Everyone is harmonious in their actions. There is no struggle.

But then again, in just a few months time, you can for example become a licensed truck driver. — Tarskian

...especially if you have kidney stone, three kids and a wife working two jobs...
Okay, so then France will welcome all 4000 of us?

There are solutions but people who are pessimistic will not see these solutions but only see everything as one big insurmountable problem. — Tarskian

The people at the bottom of society don't have the same solutions available to them as people with three months' computer bootcamp and a prestigious resume. But spiritual advisors can keep them afloat with promises of pie in the sky when they die - only they'd better not hurry death!

It is now even the norm in the most atheist country on earth, China. — Tarskian

Except China is not the most atheist country.

So you didn't directly address this version of utopia either. — schopenhauer1

no, I didn't. Both non-being and dial-a-wish are perfect in their self-containment, so I didn't see anything to address.

no, I didn't. Both non-being and dial-a-wish are perfect in their self-containment, so I didn't see anything to address. — Vera Mont

The broader framework for that discussion was, "Is THIS universe worth continuing if it doesn't meet those type of perfected/utopian standards?". Of course my answer is "No!". And my follow-up if you say, "Yes", is "Why is your answer EVEN an excuse, just because you CAN?". Any answer you provide shows your own vanity (hobby-horse), regarding the issue of positive projects for other people to have to ENDURE (find a good job, relationships, pleasures, projects, travels, hard work, achievements, whatever it is you think other people must endure in this non-utopian world).

"Is THIS universe worth continuing if it doesn't meet those type of perfected/utopian standards?". — schopenhauer1

Not up to you or me whether the universe continues. Chances are, it will proceed regardless of our sense of its worth. If you don't want to stay in it, it's you prerogative to leave. When the effort becomes greater than the rewards, I'll take my own leave. I do not presume to direct other people, either way.

Not up to you or me whether the universe continues. Chances are, it will proceed regardless of our sense of its worth. If you don't want to stay in it, it's you prerogative to leave. When the effort becomes greater than the rewards, I'll take my own leave. I do not presume to direct other people, either way. — Vera Mont

We can prevent it for others though, and follow the Pessimistic framework I laid out. That is to say, the default is that we should all by into the conditions of this universe (philosophies of acceptance.. Taoism, Humanism, Existentialism, Nietzscheanism, our current mode of Economics as Religions.. our everyday mode of living in this economic system). We can collectively view it in its correct context rather than participating in the Yay-saying.

As I said in a previous post:
1) We must see "what is the case" first:
a) This means, seeing the inherent and contingent forms of suffering of life.. The dissatisfied nature of the animal psyche, and the more magnified version of the human psyche with its degrees of freedom, choice, and self-reflection.
b) This means recognizing that the human is metaphorically "exiled" from the Garden of Eden. Unlike other animals, our degrees of freedom mean that we know we have choices, and deliberation, and we know that we know. Technically, we don't have to do anything, including life itself (suicide) or procreation. And this "seemingness" (at the least) of choice, means we don't necessarily move about unthinkingly by instinct, reflex, but by largely deliberative means. An extra burden.

2) We must proceed in the world with the recognition of "what is the case".
a) That means seeing other humans as fellow-sufferers. Imagine the power dynamics of survival. How would this look played out in various institutions of business management for example? In government? In homelife? For friends? For strangers? Follow it through...
b) Communities of catharsis. It would be easier to vent, complain, as a community. Instead of pretending that the next mountain hike, or the puttering in the garden, or House of God Worship session, or Netflix show is the answer, we understand what is going on here with each dissatisfied response and inherent lack.
c) Antinatalism.. The ultimate recognition that no one else should go through this, that it is not just/right to unnecessarily harm others, put them through the existence of suffering/harm/what is the case. That you enjoying a mountain hike or Netflix or gardening, or academic journal reading, or going over a paper on symbolic logic, thermodynamics, theoretical physics (this is for the PF crowd of course :)) or going to work and doing that project means someone else is forced into life. Follow the logic of the illogic of procreation and projecting one's own positive projects, whilst creating negative consequences for ANOTHER.

EDIT: You must understand, if you find the Pessimist framework I lay out as "Wrong", it doesn't matter, because you are ALREADY in the (de facto) optimist framework of the situatedness of the society your were PROCREATED into and are now following, and moving about in. The Pessimist is just saying that we should question THIS framework- the one we are de facto buying into, and to STOP the perpetuation of this framework. So if you are AGAINST the Pessimist framework, you are then for "anti-anti-current framework", which means YOU are advocating FOR something yourself (this framework, and its goodness/rightness/perpetuation, even unto others). So YOU have a position too, even if anti-anti-framework position... Game YES or Game NO, you still have a position, no matter what, about the game.

We can prevent it for others though, and follow the Pessimistic framework I laid out. — schopenhauer1

By all means, go ahead and do what you think best.
I don't believe there is a "we" for me to prevent or understand or influence.

To live in a society where we were incapable of experiencing such things as unhappiness, sadness, pain would be the same as being colour blind to the complete palette of human emotion of what truly makes us human.

For this reason I don’t think Utopia is possible as life is about opposites ying and yang otherwise it would just be all yang and without ying. All black or all white. But what do you think ? — kindred

It seems to me, the same thing applies to the Christian conception of heaven.

I don't believe there is a "we" for me to prevent or understand or influence. — Vera Mont

Interesting. I believe this all takes place in a certain setting we call society, no? Seems people (by default) have influence over you by default.

But the ‘I’ , and with it the world it makes sense of, changes its meaning completely , but subtly, every moment. You are not the same you from moment to moment , so blaming whoever came before ‘you’ makes about as much sense as blaming the you of yesterday for your current woes. You have a chance to start over again with each tick of the clock, because it s a subtly different you and a subtly different world
— Joshs

And yet people feel they can't start again because they are on a loop. Habits seem to become compulsion. How do we work with this? — Tom Storm

Habits aren’t automatisms. They continually adjust themselves to changing circumstances. It isn’t habits that keep us from transforming ourselves but the lack of intelligibility of potential alternative ways of living. Even though it is the case that self and world are changing in subtle ways from moment to moment, we can’t move forward coherently without some resonance between the new and the old. There is such a thing as continuing to be the same differently. In fact, it only occurs to us to begin labeling our alway of life in negative terms as a habit , as boring, as being stuck in place, when it has already being to change. ways that are unrecognizable to us. We use words like stagnant and boring to refer to this incipient alienness that keeps us from moving forward.

I am assuming this holds if you believe that we are on some kind of eternal cycle. And/or that death is not the end. But if there is a loop we pick up again, doesn't this suggest being is ongoing and consistent in some way? A ceaseless cycle of boredom and suffering. Are you hinting at a Nietzschean solution to recurrence — Tom Storm

The cycling is between modes of creativity, between phases of life where we know how to go on creatively and phases where we are stuck in place as a result of not knowing how to make sense of our circumstances.

I believe this all takes place in a certain setting we call society, no? Seems people (by default) have influence over you by default. — schopenhauer1

They do, like it or not. And vice versa. But the influence of each on each is so diluted by numbers that it makes no discernible ripple in our personal decision-making.

Except China is not the most atheist country. — Lionino

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population)[as of?] with China alone accounting for 200 million of that demographic.

In absolute numbers, China has the largest number of atheists in the world. There are countries with a larger percentage of atheists but the actual number of individuals is always a lot smaller.

Okay, so then France will welcome all 4000 of us? — Vera Mont

France may not be the right place to go to. France is itself deeply mired in a cost-of-living crisis, just like most of the West.

At https://nomadlist.com you can find an apples-to-apples comparison of how much it costs to live somewhere. Examples:

- Chiang Mai, Thailand, $1020/month
- Barcelona, Spain, $5217/month
- New York City, $6989/month

The same income that puts you at the bottom in one place, can put you at the very top in another place.

Another issue that makes the problem even worse, is that in the location where you live, the local ruling oligarchy may take away 50-70% of your income, often even before it reaches you.

There are solutions for that problem too. For example:

https://taxhackers.io

Become tax-free as Digital Nomad in 4 weeks

Did you know that most digital nomads traveling the world do not have to pay taxes, but still do it? Free yourself, join us.

Jurisdiction shopping as a digital nomad can improve your finances by a factor ten or more. It can move you from the bottom to the top of the local income ladder.

Both the cost-of-living crisis and the crushing tax burden are problems caused by the local ruling mafia.

So, choose another ruling mafia, and go where you are treated best.

- Chiang Mai, Thailand, $1020/month — Tarskian

That much!?

In absolute numbers, China has the largest number of atheists in the world. There are countries with a larger percentage of atheists but the actual number of individuals is always a lot smaller. — Tarskian

Then your claim was misleading. 14.3% of China is Atheist according to those numbers you gave.
The top five countries for atheist begin their ranges at 65%(Japan) upward to 85% (Sweden).

I'm not trying to jump down your throat - but you need to be careful when you make claims like that. China cannot be even vaguely thought of as an atheist country.

That much!? — I like sushi

There's marginally cheaper, still:

- Pokhara, Nepal, $789/month
- Makassar, Indonesia, $875/month

So, yes, in theory, you can go bargain hunting for the last dollar to save on living expenses.

I can't be bothered, really.

Places that are rated below $2000/month are very noticeably cheaper already. You start getting a lot of bang for your bucks.

China cannot be even vaguely thought of as an atheist country. — AmadeusD

There's also the official policy on religion in China as well as the persecutions ("anti-religious campaigns") in recent history and even till this very day:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China

Since 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), officially state atheist, has been in power in the country, and prohibits CCP members from religious practice while in office.[7] A series of anti-religious campaigns, which had begun during the late 19th century, culminated in the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) against the Four Olds: old habits, old ideas, old customs, and old culture. The Cultural Revolution destroyed or forced many observances and religious organisations underground.[8][9]: 138  Following the death of Mao, subsequent leaders have allowed Chinese religious organisations to have more autonomy.

I consider atheism in countries like Sweden -- which in theory is higher -- to be way less of a problem because it is not enforced by means of an official state policy.

I don't really know what you're getting at here. China is not a very atheist country, at all.

I would have thought Chiang Mai would be more like $800 a month. I guess people on that site are from US and want large space to live in or something?

I would have thought Chiang Mai would be more like $800 a month. I guess people on that site are from US and want large space to live in or something? — I like sushi

The site actually admits to being somewhat subjective:

https://nomadlist.com/faq

What is the source of your data?

It started out as a crowdsourced spreadsheet.

That spreadsheet held about 25 cities. That was a great start, but crowdsourced data has by nature challenges with consistency. For example, some people have a more expensive taste than others and will tell you the rent in a city is higher than the actual average.

In fact, their cost-of-living index may barely be any better than the notorious Big Mac index.

Price inflation measures (CPI) are also somewhat subjective. They are based on a basket of goods and services that may be significantly different from your own, if only, because there are compelling political incentives to manipulate that basket.

The site does not elaborate on the nationality of the people they crowd source their data from. Therefore , I guess that the nomad list data reflects some kind of nondescript "average".

I roughly benchmark their findings against my own recent personal experience. Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia do indeed have a substantially lower cost of living.